Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004-10-18 City Council (4)
City of Palo C ty Manager’s Report .TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: . OCTOBER18, 2004 CMR: 446:04 SUBJECT: 2300 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD: APPLICATION BY HOOVER ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF RICHARD PEERY FOR SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW OF A NEW 73,932 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING WITHAT GRADE PARI~ING AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED ON A 5~66-ACRE SITE WITHIN THE LM (D)(3) LIMITED INDUSTRIAL SITE COMBINING ZONE DISTRICT. DRAFT INITIAL STUDY RECOMMENDING THE PREPARATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FILE NUMBERS: 03-D-04, 03- EIA-17. RECOMMENDATION Although the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommends denial, staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend the City Council: (1) approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment L)for the 2300 East Bayshore project, with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impadts; and (2) approve the Site and Design Review application to allow’ the construction of a new office building in the LM(D)(3) Limited Industrial Combining District based on the findings in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). BACKGROUND The project is described in Attachment C to this report, submitted by the applicant, and in plans provided to Council. The current project application includes the demolition of five commercial buildings totaling 41,654 square feet of floor area. The 7,440 square foot restaurant, formerly Scott’s Seafood, has been vacant since March 1, 2002. The four office buildings, totaling 32,840 square feet, have been vacant since October 1, 2000. The requested 73,932 square foot building is a scaled down version of the CMR: 446:04 Page 1 of 8 previous Planned Community (PC) application denied by Council in December 2002: Significantplan changes include a reduced building size and the deletic~n of underground parking. On March 31,2003, the Council adopted an MND in conjunction with approving the applicant’s request to rezone the restaurant parcel from a PC to LM(D)(3) and assign a Research!Office Park land use designation. The rezoning allowed the applicant to submit an office building project meeting the development standards of the LM(D)(3) district. The MND for the rezoning application noted that any future project meeting the LM(D)(3) standards would be subject to a .separate environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project and potential impacts are summarized in the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) provided as Attachment L. The MND is preceded by written comments (Attachments I and J) submitted during the Janua.ry 2004 public review period, and comments submitted after the public review period (Attachment K). Staff’s responses to comments are provided as Attachment M, Transportation Division staff have accepted the applicant’s 2002 TIA as complete and adequate. Copies of this TIA are provided only to Council, but the original document is in the Planning Division project file for public review. Copies of the TIA have been provided to members of the public who requested them. The current project meets the zoning standards of the LM(D)(3) zoning district and parking regulations,-set forth in the attached table (Attachment D to this report.) Staff and the Commission found the project to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies as set forth in Attachment E to this report. The draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) contains findings for approval of the Site and Design Review application, as reviewed by the Commission, and draft Architectural Review findings for Council consideration. Subsequent to the ARB’s recommendation, the Council approved the conversion of the ARB standards for review into Architectural Review Findings set forth in Chapter 18.76, which became effective July 7, 2004. Council may direct staff to delete these findings from the RLUA or revise these findings. DISCUSSION Architecture and Sustainable Design During the ARB study session and preliminary review requested by the applicant in 2001, the ARB was aware of the fact that the project had to include an inherent public benefit to warrant the rezoning. As a result, the ARB requested .more. architectural inventiveness, a higher level Of sustainable design, elimination of excess vehicle spaces, and responsiveness to the site’s location at the gateway to CMR:’ 446:04 Page 2 of 8 the Baylands. The project no longer needs to be an extraordinary project in order to meet the expectation associated with a Planned Community project. The project is still subject to meeting ARB Findings for Approval and Site and Design Findings, and to meeting with the Council’s standards. Staff has provided for Council draft ARB findings in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). The ARB stated in it’s recommendation for denial that the project did not include sufficient sustainability measures to meet ARB Finding #15. However, staff is of the opinion that the project would meet architectural review finding #15 as follows: 15A- Some of the sustainability measures incorporated into the design of the building would include dual-paned Low E vision glazing, "Energy Star" high reflective roofing, an energy-saving HVAC system, bioswales, drought tolerant landscaping, and water efficient irrigation and plumbing fixtures. The roof structure will be engineered to support the weight of possible future photo voltaic cells. 15B - Not applicable at this time, the project is a shell building, a future tenant would install lighting and climatic controls. The ARB could add a condition of approval to require tenant improvements to meet that finding. 15C - The project would include 16,365 square feet of landscaping, an increase of 4.35% over the minimum of 10% required by the City. The additional landscaping could reduce the "heat island" effect caused by asphalt parking lots. The siting of the building would add an incremental energy cost of $700 per year in comparison to a building rotated 90 degrees clockwise from the proposed location. The amount of permeable lot coverage has been increased by 22%, from the existing 65,811 square feet to 84,108 squarefeet. Circulation and Parking The proposed L-shaped building would be surrounded by vehicular circulation and 300 surface parking spaces where a minimum of 244 parking spaces are required for the proposed floor area. The applicant is proposing a parking ratio of one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area instead of the minimum which is one space per 300 square feet. Access driveways are proposed from both Watson Court and East Bayshore Road. The existing driveway on East Bayshore Road closest to Watson Court would be removed and the two driveways on Watson Court would be realigned. The Commission recommended the extra 56 parking spaces be held in a landscape reserve and that the remaining driveway on East Bayshore Road be eliminated. Staff supports the applicant’s proposal for extra parking spaces, due to the unknown future use of the building and limited off site parking in the area. For CMR: 446:04 Page 3 of 8 instance, conditionally permitted used such as a fitness facility or college rely on additional parking for peak use, and parking calculations are based upon total capacity of persons and not gross floor area. Additional justification for supporting the extra spaces are that the project exceeds the City’s landscape requirements by approximately 5,000 square feet and the site plan as proposed increases permeable area on site by 22%. Environmental Concerns Attachment M to this report was prepared by staff to address environmental concerns raised by members of the public. Those concerns included aesthetic impacts, air quality impacts, biological impacts, noise, hydrology, geology, jobs/housing balance, and traffic. Traffic is discussed below briefly below and further in Attachment M. The Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared in March 2002, when the proposed IKEA project located in East Palo Alto was uncertain. The report analyzed conditions for an 110,000 square foot multi-tenant office project on the site with and without the IKEA project. The TIA studied the proposed project effects on freeway segments of U.S. Highway 101 south of San Antonio Road, and north and south of Embarcadero Road. The TIA found that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the freeway segments. However, it would have a significant adverse impact at the San Antonio Road!Northbound U.S. 101 off-ramp intersections both with and without the IKEA scenarios. This unsignalized intersection currently operates at unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) "F" conditions during morning and evening peak hour conditions and the addition of any vehicle traffic would exacerbate the poor operating conditions. Heavy traffic volumes on northbound/southbound San Antonio Road does result in long delays and queues for vehicles existing northbound U.S. 101 and waiting for acceptable gaps in traffic. Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Caltrans are constructing a traffic signal for the San Antonio/Northbound U.S. 101 off ramp intersection, with an estimated project completion date of October 14, 2004. This project has a total current cost estimated at $850,000. To mitigate the potential traffic impacts, a condition of project approval would require that the project developer pay a "fair share" portion of the cost based on the actual square footage of the approved project. The TIA analyzed a project of 110,000 square feet that results in a proportionate share of 2.2% of the total cost of the signal. The actual proportionate percentage would be based on the approved project square footage, approximately 74,000 square feet as proposed, and would be assessed at the time of application for a building permit. The revised proportionate percentage based on the project size is 1% of the total cost, $8,500. The installation of the signal would improve the operation of the CMR: 446:04 Page 4 of 8 intersection to acceptable LOS B conditions during both AM and PM peak hour conditions. The City Attomey has prepared a memo (Attachment R) for Council. The memo discusses the baseline issue as it relates to the evaluation of the traffic generated by the proposed project. The Attorney presents three options and staff supports Option One, which is consistent with City’s long-standing methodology for considering trips assigned to existing buildings on site. That is, since the buildings on-site represent approved projects with .associated mitigations already implemented at the study intersections, 100% of the trips assigned to the existing buildings provide the base for calculating net new. trips represented by the site redevelopment. This methodology is consistent with the Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) Congestion Management Program guidelines used elsewhere in Santa Clara County. The TIA used this methodology. Copies of the applicant’s TIA are provided to Council and attached to this report as Attachment N. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Planning and Transportation Commission The Commission reviewed the current application at its regularly scheduled meeting on December 17, 2003. The Commission recommended the Council approve the application, adding conditions to supplement staff recommended conditions. The action of the Commission is included in the RLUA. Meeting minutes reflecting the Commission discussion are found in Attachment H, the Commission staff report is included as Attachment P. The Commission discussed the proposed project’s effects on trip generation, proposed mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, and commented on the potential loss of hillside views as viewed from East Bayshore Road. The Commission discussed the lack of Baylands influence in the proposed building design but refrained, from providin, g specific direction, instead referring comments on the suitability of the design to the Architectural Review Board. Two members of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period. Their concerns included a request that the project have a connection to the existing bike and pedestrian path near the southern comer of the site and that the Environmental Impact Assessment did not adequately address the projects traffic impacts. Written comments provided to the Commission are attached to this report (Attachment M). Architectural Review Board After two public hearings on the project, the ARB found the project did not meet its review standards. Minutes of the ARB meetings are provided as Attachments F and G to this report. The ARB staff report is included as Attachment O. On January 15, 2004, the ARB provided comments to the applicant and continued the CMR: 446:04 Page 5 of 8 project review to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to respond to its comments. On April 1, 2004, the ARB reviewed additional materials provided by the applicant and recommended denial of the application. The ARB’s comments prior to the motion for denial can be Summarized as follows: (1) the documents are incomplete and vague, lacking detail and information such as how the different materials interface with each other, (2) the applicant’s response to previous ARB direction is inadequate, (3) the proposal does not acheive a desired goal of serving as a gateway building, in that the design is too urban and does not include a contextual response to the Baylands, and (4) the sustainability measures are inadequate. ALTERNATIVES The Council has the option to make findings to deny the project without prejudice or continue the item to obtain more information from the ARB. POLICY IMPLICATIONS As stated in Attachment E, the project is in conformance with policies of the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, including "Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore areas as diverse business and light industrial districts" (Policy L-46). However, the Comprehensive Plan also states that new and redeveloped buildings and landscaping should reflect the area’s location near the Baylands. There is no "unified design character" in the Baylands. Staff is preparing draft guidelines entitled "Site Assessment and Design Guidelines - Palo Alt0 Baylands Nature Preserve," the purpose of which is to establish the "character" of the Baylands. RESOURCE IMPACT The proposed office building at 2300 East Bayshore is unlikely to generate significant revenue to the City. First, office and research facilities generally contribute marginally to City resources and to its ability to provide services to these facilities. Second, it is uncertain whether the owners of 2300 East Bayshore will be able to lease all of the newly developed space. In August of 2004 there were an estimated 267,000 square feet of vacant office space in the Palo Alto-East Embarcadero neighborhood- a 33.3% vacancy rate. The following outlines the likely impact of the proposed building on specific revenue sources. Sales Tax Of the tax records reviewed, most recent businesses in the area have had very low or no sales tax generated. If the new office building contained a sales operation, CMR: 446:04 Page 6 0f8 the revenues would depend upon the nature of the business and sales volume. For example, a few furniture/equipment companies located in this area have reported significant sales taxes in positive economic cycles. If the complex housed a small retail operation such as a sandwich shop, it could generate approximately $5,000 annually. In addition, assuming that the facility employs approximately 300 office workers, purchases by those workers would generate in the range of $3,600 in sales taxes per year. Property Tax For each $1 million in additional assessed and moveable equipment value, the City will receive approximately $950 annually. Should a new office building worth $5.0 million more than the current building be constructed containing $1.5 million in new moveable equipment, the City would receive approximately $6,200 annually. The property is not being sold or transferred, so there is no documentary transfer tax. Utility Users Tax The new building would generate approximately$4,000 in UUT revenues per year. : One-time Revenue A 73, 932 square-foot building on the combined parcels would yield, on a one- time basis, $648,564 in housing fees and $163,598 in community facilities fees. DEPARTMENT HEAD: 5(teve Emsiqe - Director of Planning and Cohamuni~onment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ,..__~ ~L~/(.~ ~ EM(~HT~R~IS’0N AssiStant City Manager CMR: 446:04 Page 7 of 8 ATTAC~NTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: ¯ Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I:* Attachment J: Attachment K:* Attachment L: Attachment M: Attachment N: Attachment O: Attachment P: Attachment Q: Attachment R: Attachment S: Attachment T: Draft Record of Land Use Action Location map Applicant submittal Zoning table (prepared by staff) Comprehensive Plan table (prepared by staff) Minutes of ARB meeting on April 1, 2004 Minutes of ARB meeting on January 15, 2004 Minutes of Commission meeting on December 17, 2003 CEQA review period correspondence, (A. Volterra 1/29/04) (Complete Text - Council Members Only) CEQA review period correspondence (T. Stein 1/21/04) Correspondence submitted by A. Volterra (10/13/04, 7/704, 3/25/04, and 12/17/03) (Complete Text- Council Members Only) Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Staff response to comments on MND Fehr and Peers TIA (Council Members Only) ARB staff reports dated January 15 and April 1, 2004 (without attachments) Planning and Transportation Commission staff report dated December 17, 2004 (without attachments) Letter from Architectural Review Board member Judith Wasserman Memo to City Council regarding the Baseline Analysis from Gary Baum, City Attorney Letter from Toni Stein, dated October 13, 2004 Project Plans (Council Members Only) Because of their’length, only the first page of each document is attached. The complete documents may be viewed in the City Clerks Office, City Hall, 7th Floor. COURTESY COPIES: Richard Peery Lee Ashby, Hoover Associates, Architects Angelica Volterra Toni Stein CMR: 446:04 Page 8 of 8 Attachment A ACTION NO. 2003-12 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 2300 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW 03-D-04 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 03-EIA-17 (HOOVER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT) On INSERT DATE the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Site and Design Review application for a new office building in the Limited Industrial/ Research Park Site Combining zone district, making the following findings, determination and declarations:. SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") .finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Hoover Associates, on behalf~Richard Peery, property owner, have requested the City’s approval for the construction of a new two story office building on approximately 5.66 acres within the Limited Industrial/Research Park Site Combining zone district.. The 73,932 square foot project includes new landscaping, surface parking and related site improvements (~The Project"). B. The site is comprisedof two parcels that would be merged into a single parcel. The site is designated on the Comprehensive ~Plan land use map as Research/Office Park and is located within the Limited Industrial/ Research Park Site Combining zoning district. The existing buildings (41,654 square feet of floor area) would be demolished and replaced with a single, 73,932 square,foot two-story office building. The first floor would be 35,579 square feet, and the second floor area would be 38,353 square feet. The proposed increase in floor area is 32,278 square feet. The design is an L-shaped building surrounded by vehicular circulation and parking spaces, with two plaza areas, one at each end of the building lobby. The proposed building is two stories, to reach 33’-9" in height, plus roof screening, for a total ~height of 43’-9" The proposed materials include pre-cast concrete and spandrel and vision glass. Metal panels would be used to cover the Concrete and would be used along the base of the building and to screen roof mounted equipment. Surface parking~would be provided for 300 vehicles. Access driveways are proposed from both Watson Court and East Bayshore Road.. The ezisting driveway on East Bayshore Road closest to Watson Court 1 would be eliminated and the two driveways on Watson Court would be realigned. The preliminary landscape plan indicates 146 new trees are proposed including three species of 24" box Oak and 24~ box London Plane and Crape Myrtle trees. Fifteen-gallon size trees include Ash, Plum, Pear, and Coast Redwood. The existing, mature Eucalyptus and Casuarina trees along Embarcadero Road, the common property line of the adjacent commercial site the and Cal Trans property to the southwest would be retained. An extensive variety of shrubs, ground covers, vines, and perennials, including a selection of native species, would be planted on site. Lawn area for emp!oyee recreation purposes would be located at both ends of the building. C. A traffic impact ~alysis (TIA) was prepared for the project by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants in March 2002. At the time of the report, the proposed IKEA pro3ect was uncertain. The report analyzed conditions for a ii0,000 square foot multi~ tenant office project (the proposed project would have less impact with 74,000 square feet) with and without the IKEA project. The traffic impacts of the development were evaluated following the guidelines of the City of Palo Alto and the VTA, which is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. The project is estimated to generate only 16 additional daily trips when~compared to the existing office and restaurant land uses. But, because of the multi-tenant office land use, the project is estimated to generate 98 new trips in the morning and 37 new evening peak-houri trips. The TIA studied the proposed project effects on the following three freeway segments of U.S. Highway i01. I.U.S. Highway i01, South of San Antonio Road 2. U.S. Highway i01, South of Embarcadero Road 3. U.S. Highway i01, North of Embarcadero Road The TIA found that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the freeway segments. However, it could have a significant adverse impact at the San Antonio Road / Northbound U.S. i01 Off-Ramp intersections intersection under both without ¯ IKEA and with IKEA scenarios: This un-signalized intersection currently operates at unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) F conditions during both morning and evening peak hour conditions, and the addition of~any vehicle traffic would exacerbate the poor operating conditions. Heavy traffic volumes on northbound/southbound San Antonio Road results in long delays and queues for vehicles exiting northbound U.S. i01 and waiting for acceptable gaps in traffic. It should be noted that the San Antonio Road / Northbound U.S. i01 Off-Ramp intersections already meets the requirements for a traffic signal as descried in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. The installation of a signal at this intersection would improve the operations of this intersection too acceptable LOS B conditions during both AM and PM peak hour conditions. A signal is being constructed for the San Antonio / Northbound U.S. I01 Off-Ramp intersection, jointly by Palo Alto, Mountain View and Caltrans. This project has a total cost currently estimated at $850,000. To reduce the environmental impact to a less than significant level, the project includes mitigation, which would require that the project developer pay a fair share portion of the cost based on the actual square footage of the approved project. The TIA analyzed a project of Ii0,000 square feet that result in a proportionate share of 2.2% of the total cost. The actual proportionate percentage would be based on the approved project square footage, approximately 74,000 square feet as proposed, and would be assessed at the time of application for a building permit. The revised proportionate percentage based on the ~smaller project size is i%’ of the total cost, or $8,500.00. D. Following Staff review the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) first reviewed and recommended approval of the~Project on December 17, 2003 with the added staff recommended cond:ition to place 56 of the proposed parking spaces into a landscaped parking reserve. The Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR: 446:04 and the attachments to it. E. Following Commission review, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project at their meetings of January 15 and April 1,2004. The ARB recommended denial of the project. SECTION 2.Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration. An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it was determined that, with the implementation of traffic mitigation measures, theproject would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review beginning Insert Date through Insert Date. The Environmental Impact Assessment and Negative Declaration are contained in CMR: 446:04. SECTION 3.Site and Design Review Findings I. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The project, as conditioned, will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The ~ project proposal will be compatible with existing nearby office uses and the proposed design of the building as well as the extensive amount of landscaping will not detract from the natural character of a site. The siting of the proposed improvements would result in no negative impact(s) to neighboring properties. 2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The project will maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas, the proposed design and related improvements are:!{generally consistent with the existing structures on East Bayshore Road, and the construction of all improvements will be governed by the regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a high quality of development. 3. Sound principles of environmental ecol~ogical balance are observed in the project. design and The proposed building would be raised above the flood zone elevation. The new building would be conditioned to incorporate sustainable building objectives and materials to reduce energy needs and increase the recycled content of the building. The project would not create significant environmental impacts on the environment as indicated by the Negative Declaration prepared for this project. 4. The use .will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The project proposal as conditioned complies~with the policies of the Land Use and Community Design Elements of theComprehensive Plan 4 SECTION 4. ARCHTIECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS i.The use~will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The design, is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The project would I) maintain the scale and character of the City and avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale 2) maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse business and light industria! districts 3) promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public .spaces 4) strengthen the identity of important community gateways and 5) encourage new businesses that meet the City’s business and economic goals to locate in Palo Alto. More detailed Comprehensive Plan findings are contained in Attachment D of this report. 2.The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. The proposed office building would be similar in height to other two story buildings in the adjacent area. The proposed landscaping contains species of plants likely to ~be found in the Baylands. The openness provided by the subsltantial setback of the building from the, street and the proposed use of pre-cast concrete representing the shoreline and both green and clear glass and muted colors reminiscent of the water and the plants found in the Baylands natural environment. The ~Baylands Interpretive Areas" proposed for both street intersections would include waving, grasses and native plants to attract wildlife. 3. The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the project will be used as an office building. 5.The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. The project is to be used as an office building and the uses of the adjacent buildings are predominantly office buildings. The project would be located on an approximately 5.6 acre lot with generous setbacks from the public right .of way. Shorter two story buildings are located on neighboring lots however; it is appropriate to have increased building height at road intersections. The proposed projects setbacks and landscaping would promote a harmonious transition relative to scale and mitigate the height differences of neighboring buildings. 6.The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. The proposed building would be reviewed by the Department of Public Works for compatibility with all existing improvements prior to issuance of a building permit. 5 7.The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. The entrance to the building would be clearly defined, and the outdoor lawn areas, patio, the two Baylands interpretive areas near the street intersections and the other site landscaping would be a desirable amenity for both visitors and occupants of the building. 8.The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures. The site is approximately 5.6 acres. The proposed building lot coverage of 16% is below the maximum of 30% resulting in 83% of the site used for parking and landscaping. i0. Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Access to the site would be readily accessible by both East Bayhore and Embarcadero Roads. A bike/pedestrian trail is located adjacent to the southern portion of the site. This trail passes over the Bayshore Freeway and connects to East Bayshore Road providing site access for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. ii " Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. A condition of project approval is that prior to issuance of a building permit, a tree survey is to be ~.~submitted by a certified arborist. The scope of this report is :to include the trees on site and those on adjacent parcels, including the Caltrans off ramp landscape area. The report is to recommend those trees, which are suitable for preservation and/or relocation. 12. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, and existing landscape elements and functions. 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 and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. Approximately 14% of the site is landscaped and two Bayland interpretive areas containing features found in the baylands are to be !ocated at both street intersections. 6 14. Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The project landscape designer consulted with the City’s Planning Arborist in the selection of native shrubs and grasses and plant and tree species most appropriate for the site given its proximity to the Baylands. 15. The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to: (A) Exterior energy design elements. Some of the sustainability measures incorporated into the~design of the building would include dual paned Low E vision glazing, "Energy Star" high reflective roofing, an energy saving HVAC system, bioswales, drought tolerant landscaping, and water efficient irrigation and plumbing fixtures. The roof structure will be engineered to support the weight of possible future voltaic cells. (B)Internal lighting service and climatic control systems. Not applicable at this time, the project is a shell building; a future tenant would install lighting and climatic controls. (C>iBuilding siting and landscape elements. The project would include 16,3.65 square feet of landscaping, and increase of 4.35% over the minimum ..of 10% required by the City. The additional landscaping Could reduce the "heat island" effect caused by asphalt parking lots. The siting of the building would add an incremental energy cost of $700 per year in comparison to a building rotated 90 degrees clockwise from the proposed location. The~ project has a 18,297 square feet net increase (22%) of permeable area over than the existing site condition. 16. The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection (a), which is to: (I) Promote orderly and harmonious development in the City; (2) Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city; (3) Encourage the attainment of the most ~des!rable use of land and improvements; (4) :Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and (5) Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. Finding #4 is not applicable to this project as there in no~ "unified design character" in the Baylands. Finding #9 is not applicable as the project is being constructed as a "shell building" and future tenants would construct ancillary functions. SECTION 5.SITE AND~ DESIGN APPROVAL GRANTED. Site and Design Approva! is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.070 for application 02-D-05, subjec’t to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of the. Record. SECTION 6.ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL GP~ANTED. Architectural Review Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020(c) for application 02-D- 05, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of the Record. SECTION 7.Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in.substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Hoower Associates titled "2300 East Bayshore Road", consisting of 12 pages, received December 6, 2003, except as modi~fied to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section Six. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment. The conditions of approval in Section 6 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. SECTION 8.Conditions of Approval. Planni.ng Division o The applicant shall revise the plans tO identify the mak~ and model of the proposed bike racks and lockers. The applicant shall incorporate sustainable materials and construction techniques into the project and submit a written description of how these measures were incorporated into the project. The ARB will review materials, energy use, solar orientation and other~ elements of sustainable design for consistency with the ARB’s sustainability standards. The applicant shall submit a salvage and recycling plan for the buildings and paving to be removed from the site. This plan 8 shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to building permit issuance. 4.A Tree Survey prepared by a certified arborist including the trees on site and those on adjacent parcels, including the Caltrans off ramp landscape area. The tree survey shall be consistent with the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.20-6.25, and recommend those trees, which are suitable for preservation and/or relocat±on. The project applicant shall coordinate with the Planning Arborist to minimize the number of existing trees to be removed as part of the project. Specifically, there are several London Plane Trees, which are good candidates for relocation. 5.A Tree Protection Report per City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual 6.30 and 2.00 shall be submitted for trees to be retained and protected. 6.The landscape plan shall be revised to include plants and trees from the Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan List and the Baylands Master Plan that are appropriate to the Baylands habitat. All proposed plants and trees shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Arborist prior to issuance of a ~uilding.permit. BEFORE SUBM~TTAL~FOR BUILDING PERMIT 7.~arking ~area landscape islands with trees shall consider the ~nderground utility easement, and be located to enable ~consistent shade coverage but planted on each side of~ the easement. 8.The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans received December 8, 2003, except as modified to in.corporate these conditions. 9.Development Impact Fees totaling $615,601.28 shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. i0.The project shall be redesigned to incorporate 56 of the proposed 300 at grade parking spaces into a parking reserve. This area shall be indicated on the project plans as "Parking Reserve" and shall be landscaped subject to review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. Conversion of the parking reserve to usable parking spaces shall be subject to review and approval by the Transportation Division. ii.A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan shall be submitted to the Transportation Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a buiiding permit. The TDM shall contain, but not limited to, promotion on the use of bicycles, transit passes, a one time financial contribution to market the Palo Alto Shuttle Service to employees and visitors of the project, funding for the Palo Alto Shuttle Service, a carpool matching program, van pool sponsorship, telecommuting opportunities, etc. 12.The project shall not include driveway access onto East Bayshore Road. 13.The landscape plan shall include the existing City path adjacent to the southern property line. The proposed improvements to the parking lot landscaping adjacent to the path shall be reviewed by the Transportation Division to ensure that adequate clearance is maintained for bicycle and pedestrian use and that safety is not compromised. 14.** The project applicant shall pay a fair share portion of the cost of a traffic signal planned for the San Antonio / Northbound U~S. i01 Off-Ramp intersection, jointly by Palo Alto, Mountain View and Caltrans. The revised proportionate ~percentage based on the smaller project size is 1% of.~the total i!.cost, or $8,500.00. ~. ~ 15.~If during grading and construction activities,!~ any archeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to ~address the find. The Santa Clara County Medica£ Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide ~proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall ~cease immediately until a Native American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is .able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. 16. The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related construction impacts: ¯All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. , All truckshauling soil, sand, and loose materials shal! be covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard. ¯ All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept and watered daily. ® Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. i0 17. Temporary impacts would occur as a result of construction activities. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation and grading and noise of constructing the building. Such noise will be short in duration. Once completed, long-term noise associated with the new building would be within acceptable noise limits and no impacts are anticipated. Proper implementation of and compliance with Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of the PAMC (limiting construction between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. Monday - Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m. on Saturday, and prohibited Sunday and Holidays) would reduce construction- related noise impacts to less than significant levels. 18. All provisions and recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by United Soil Engineering and dated July 2000 shall be incorporated into the project. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a letter must be submitted by the project geologist stating satisfaction that the project is in substantial conformance with the recommended geotechnical measures contained in the report. 19.Prior to the application for a demolition permit, the applicant shall test for ACM’s and, if~ necessary, provide for .~ standard safety protocols and best management practices in doing removal of any hazardous materials. Required protocols are~set forth in the California Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) regulations and the California Health and Safety Code. ACM’s and lead paint containing materials shall~ be handled only by trained construction workers and .disposed of in a manner prescribed by State Law. 20. The removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the Apri! 1 through June 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys shall be required. If it’ is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, or buildings, or grading or other construction activity. Survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey; therefore, if vegetation or building removal is not started within 21 days of the survey, another survey shall be required. Thearea surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall be postponed for ii at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. 21. The applicant shall conduct a Phase I hazardous substances survey for the site prior to application for a demolition permit to determine the historic use of the site. If the results of the Phase I survey indicate the potential presence of hazardous substances, the developer shall conduct a Phase II survey to test soil samples at the site and shall comply with City standards for subsequent cleanup and removal of hazardous substances, as necessary. Building Division BEFORE SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT 22. The plans submitted for the~building permit shall include the full scope of the construction including all site development, utility installations, architectural, structural, electrical, plumbing and mechanica! work associated with the ~ proposed project .... ~ 23. The location of the building’s electrical supply shall ~ require prior approval by the Inspection Services Division and shall be located at an exterior location or in a room Or ~. enclosure accessible directly from the exterior. 24. Design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be deferred shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. 25. A separate grading permit shall be required for the importing and elevation of the building site as shown on the plans. 26. The plans submitted with the permit application for the shell building shall include the complete design for disabled access and existing for the entire site, building entrances and the basement-parking garage. Disable access features and exiting within the improved office spaces may be deferred to future tenant improvement permits. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS 27. The two lots comprising the site shall be merged. The 12 parcel map or certificate of compliance shall be recorded prior to permit issuance. 28. A demolition permit shall be required for the removal of the existing buildings on the site. Removal of the existing buildings and final of the demolition permits is to be completed prior to issuance of the permit for the new building. Fire Department PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS 29. A fire sprinkler system .shall be provided which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard NO. 13, 1996 Edition. Fire sprinkler installations require separate submittal to the. Fire Prevention Bureau. Building permit plans will not be approved unless complete sprinkler coverage is indicated. 30. An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupant shall be provided in the interior of the building in an approved locatien. Fire Alarm system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 31. Underground fire supply system installations or modifications requireseparate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department and the Utilities Department. Fire Department approval will .be withheld until Utilities Department and Public Works Department requirements have been met. 32. 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 1998 California Fire Code. 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. 33. Provide Fire Department access road 20 feet in width with 13’6" vertical clearance. Road to weight access (65,.000 pounds) and turning radius (36 feet inside) requirements of fire truck. Road shall be all-weather, and shall extend to within 150 feet of hose reach of any point on the first floor exterior of all buildings on site. 34. 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. Public Works Enqineering 35. Parcel Map - Public Works Engineering (PWE) requires that this entire site be developed as a single parcel. Currently, the project encompasses two distinct parcels, which will need to be converted into one for the proposed development to proceed. The applicant should proceed with the Parce! map process and prepare a parcel map application for submission to the Planning Division. The parcel map shall also provide dedication of a new.utility easement. PRIOR TO FINAL ARB SUBMITTAL: 36. utility Lines and Easement - The City of Palo Alto owns the overhead utility lines that cross this parcel. The City block books carry a note that "Easements for facilities acquired from PG&E on February 27, 1979 were assigned to the City of Pal0 Alto (E347 O.R. 466-471). For information concerning same see City Clerks contracts file No. 3919." The applicant shall contact the City electric u£ility to obtain requirements for this project. Dedication of new utility easements to accommodate any relocation of utility lines shall be included within the parcel map required for this project. 37. ~!Grading, Drainage and Storm.~Water Quality The applicant is required to meet with Public.Works Engineering (PWE) prior to final ARB submittal to verifythe~basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water filtration. The applicant will be required to submit a conceptual grading and drainage plan for PWE approval. In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan. shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution. Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project, The SWPPP shall include both temporary BMP’s to be implemented during construction and permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality. The PWE approved conceptual grading and drainage plan with SWPPP measures shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. 38. Elevation Datum - Applicant shall adhere to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal~survey controls and NGVD 1927 for vertical Controls survey throughout the design process. This requirement applies t0 both the site improvements and to the building structure improvements. At the conclusion of the project applicant Shall provide digital As-Built. Record Drawings of all improvements constructed in the public right-of-way or easements in which the City owns an interest. A digital copy of any project parcel map, 14 subdivision map 6r certificate-of-compliance shall also be’ provided. All files should be delivered in Auto Cad .dwg format. For each CD delivery, a simple digital text file will need to accompany the files. This is called a Metadata file and will include the date of the file, the coordinates used, the source of the data, the company name and contact information, along with the technician who prepared them. 39. Flood Zone Standards - Theproject is located in Flood Zone category AE8. The applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior to final ARB submittal to verify the basic FEMA Flood Zone construction standards that will affect this project. Several handouts describing flood zone regulations are available from PWE. The FEMA flood zone construction standards are described in the Flood Insurance Administration Technical Bulletins # TBI-93, TB2 ~93, TB4-93, TB6-93, TB7-93, TB8-96, TB6-93 and TBI0-01. Copies of these bulletins may be obtained from PWE or they may be viewed on- line at_http://www.fema.gov/fima/techbul.shtm. The design engineer and/or architect working with this information shall modify the proposed building improvements to meet FEMA flood zone construction standards. 40. ~CalTrans - The project occurs next to the State Highway i01 exit ramp. The ramp serves northbound traffic heading east on Embarcadero Road. ~The leveloper shall provide notice to CalTrans of the project scope and schedule, and shall obtain any required encroachment~permits. The CalTrans mailing address and phone number are as follows: State of California~ Dept. of Transportation Permit Office P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Permit Office Rep. Ph: 510-286-4419 PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF BUILDING PERMIT: 41. Final Grading Plan - The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. The final grading plan shall incorporate all required features of the PWE approved conceptual grading and drainage plan. 42. Soils Report - This site is in an area that typically has a high ground water table. A detailed site-specific soil report 15 must be submitted. The report should identify the current ground water level at various locations on the site. The soils report should provide a statement identifying those improvements and/or excavations that are likely to encounter ground water during construction. The report shall provide recommendations for construction dewatering, collection, filtration, testing and disposal of collected groundwater. 43. Dewatering Plan - A site-specific dewatering plan shall be prepared as part of the building permit application. An informational booklet titled ~Dewatering from Construction sites and In-Ground Utilities Maintenance Projects" is available at the City Development Center and maybe of assistance in development of the dewatering plan. 44. Impervious Area - 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 will take place in the month~following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. 45. Storm Water Detention - The existing municipal storm drainage system in the area is~iunable 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 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. 46. The property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease, from Public Works Engineering for a structure, awning, 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 47. Grading and Excavation Permit - 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 will only authorize grading and storm drain improvements. Other site utilities may be shown on the grading plan for reference only, and should be so notedl No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprint. Installation of these 16 other utilities will be approved as part of a subsequent Building Permit application. 48. Schedule - The applicant shall submit a master work schedule showing the proposed grading schedule, the proposed condition of the site on each July 15, August 15, September 15, October i, and October 15 during which the permit is in effect. The master schedule shail also show the schedule for installation of all interim and permanent erosion and sediment control measures, and other project improvements. Sec. 16.28.160. 49. Street Work Permit - The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. Sec 12.08.010. 50. Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) - This proposed development disturbs 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 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. If work is to occur in the wet season (typically from October 1 to April 15 of the following year) then the SWPPP shall also include a winterization plan sufficient to demonstrate that erosion and sedimentation can be controlled. Sec. 16.28.280 DURING CONSTRUCTION: 51. For purposes of determining compliance with flood plain construction standards per Condition 23 an inspection shall be ~scheduled during construction. This inspection of the lowest floor not used solely for parking or storage shall be certified on a FEMA Elevation Certificate and delivered to Public Works Engineering for review and acceptance. This certification shall occur when the floor framing is first established at a stage of construction when the floor is still 17 correctable with minimum effort. Further building inspections will not be provided by the Building Inspection Division until Public Works Engineering has received and approved the certificate. 52. To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operation along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. 53. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. 54. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 55. The developer shall require it’s contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in Conformance with the Santa Clara valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control ~ Program. The Inspection services Division shall monitor BMP~s withr~espect to the developer’s construction activities.~on private property; and the Public Works Department shall.. monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction ~ activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, ~paint, chemicals, etc) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act) 56. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of thePublic Works and Utility Departments. PRIOR TO FINALIZATION: 57. The "as built’’ elevation of the lowest floor not used solely for parking or storage must be certified on the FEMA Elevation Certificate and accepted as meeting the Special Flood Hazard Area requirements prior to final City approval of the structure. A FEMA elevation certificate or copy thereof must be submitted for City files. The FEMA Elevation Certificate must be completed and signed by a registered land surveyor or professional engineer who is authorized by state law to certify elevation information. PAMC Section 16.52 18 58. All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. 59. The unused driveway located East Bayshore Frontage Road shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. Sec. 12.08.090. 60. A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at all driveway entrances to the property and at the street crosswalk entrances on the southwesterly corner of Embarcadero Road and Bayshore Frontage Road. 61. The Public Works Inspector shall sign-0ff on the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. Construction improvements that must be completed prior to this sign-off include: I) all off-site improvements, 2) all on-site grading and storm drain improvements 3) the FEMA Elevation Certification and 4) all post-construction storm water pollution control measures. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF FINAL MAP 62. ~. Subdivision Agreement - A subdivision agreement is required to i~:secure compliance with condition of approval and-security of improvements onsite and offsite. No grading or building permits will be issued until Final or Parcel Map~ is recorded ~wi.th County Recorder. ¯ ¯ 63. The applicant shall arrange a meeting witch Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a parcel or final map. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF PARCEL/FINAL MAP 64. This property is in a special flood hazard area and notation of this shall appear on the recorded map. 65. The applicant shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parce! or subdivision map to guarantee the completion of the "on" and ~off" site condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning, utilities and Public Works Departments. 19 Public Works Water Quality Control Plant 66. Drawing details for the condensate from the rooftop HVAC equipment must be included on the plans.. Palo~Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 16.09.032(b) (8) states: "condensate lines shal! not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system". The plans must be revised to indicate that condensate will be drained to the sanitary sewer system. 67. PAMC Section 16.09.106(e) requires that new dumpster areas shall be covered. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-off on to the area and run-off from the area. 68. If a hydraulic elevator is installed, any hard-plumbed water discharge to the sanitary sewer from the elevator sump pit must pass by gravity flow through an oil/water separator. If a sump pump is to be utilized, the pumped discharge must be contained in a tank, or the sump pump must be equipped with any oil sensor system to prevent hydraulic oil spills from being pumped to the sanitary sewer. 69. 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 plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for ~wastewater plumbing. Utilities Engineering - Electrical 70. Developer/Customer shall grant public Utility easements as required by the City for installing padmounted equipment and associated substructure. The City will provide cost estimate and detailed comments when plans are submitted to the building department for review and approval. Utilities Marketing 71. Prior to issuance of either a Building Permit or Grading Permit, all common area landscaping shall be approved by the Utilities Marketing Services division of the Utilities Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. A water budget shall be assigned to the project and a dedicated irrigation water meter shall be required. Call the Landscape Plan Review Specialist at 650.329.2549 for additional information. 2O Utilities Water, Gas & Wastewater 72. The applicant shall not plant trees over the existing utility easements and utility mains. 73. 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.). 74. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 75. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains-and/or services. 76. 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 o~her facilities will be performed at the cost of the person requesting the relocation. 77. Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water service, gas meter and sewer lateral connection. 78.. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. The applicant’s contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the utility improvement plan has been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. 79. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 80.. The applicant’s engineer shall submit water flow calculations which will show that the on-site and off-site water distribution system will provide the domestic, irrigation, and fire flow water demands needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak -flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined 21 current flows and water pressures on existing main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. 81. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department’s requirements. 82~. A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. 83. 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. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 84. An approved double detector cheek valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements~o°f California administrative code, t±tle 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. 85. 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 ofthe water service. 86. For contractor installed water mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture’s literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant’s contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. 22 87. 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. 88. The applicant’s engineer shall submit a complete Sewer system capacity study to determine that the on-site and off- site sewer mains have the capacity to accommodate the sewer flows from the proposed development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. 89. The applicant may be required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 90. For contractor installed wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of wastewater utilities of£~site~ improvement plans in accordance with the Utilities Department~ design criteria. All utility work within the public right~of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, .signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture’s literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant’s contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. 91. 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. SECTION 9.Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval.In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.080. 23 PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: i. Those plans prepared by Hoover Associated titled~!2300 East Bayshore Road", consisting of 18 pages, received on October 13, 2004. 24 Attachment C 2300 East Bayshore Proj ect Description The project includes a 2-stolT office building of approximately 74,000 sf located on a 5.66 acre site at the intersection of Hwy 101 mad Embarcadero Road. l\6ain access is fi’omthe Watson Courtcul-de-sac off East Bayshore Road and lead.s to perimeter sm’face parking for 300 cars. The site is bo~.md on the western edge bythe northbound freeway ramp and dense Eucalyptus trees on Caltrans property. The building is positioned in a splayed eoitfiguration with a Central entry element that achieves the following site I:esponses: 0 Cm’ved western elevation is animated mad responds to freeway off-ramp Focal entry captured from Watson Court Northena apex gestures toward main intersection and Visualty leads toward entrance Landscaped lawn areas at building ends grolmd the composition Spiayed geometry reduces .......~ ....~-- ~- gail--a e~posm-ea~ec~ ~v~m~sm ~ea~ The building relates to the compositional and juxtaposed textm’es present in the coastal environment by incorporating rough precast base elements with smooth metal and spandrel glass components that either interwoven within the precast or extend beyond mad above. The building incorporates solid rusticated wall forms with both punched windovcs and curtain wall thoughtfully placed. Along the freeway ramp the surfaces pro~ess.from precast ~dth punched windows past a raised central rotunda and culminates into a lofty curved metal apex raised on round columns that extends from an timer Iayer toward the intersection. The two materials are incorporated by the strong geometry of the curve and the integration ofprecast reveals and the relief of metal - mullions. The colors are grafted from the Baylands and include warm tan tones combined with natural grays .and subtle green glass. The structure witlxin includes steel frame and concrete floors that support the precast and curtain wall The existing site has a vacant restaurant and three dilapidated concrete office buildings that will be removed. One building to replace this otherwise "spotty" and disorganized condition will make a sta’onger statement and transition from the freeway. June 25, 2004 DESIGN NARRATIVE-2300 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto 1. ARCHITECTURE The colors, textures and forms and variation thereof in this architectural composition are compatible with those found in the Baylands while at the same time appropriate for its use as an office building. The building palette of materials is varied and includes pre-cast concrete, green-colored vision glass, 2 shades of green-colored spandrel glass, cement plaster soffits and anodized aluminum mullions. The use of various curved shapes (round columns, the geometry of the west and south building facades, the two-story entry drum where the two wings of the buildings connect) adds animation to the building. The building facades also achieve variety through their two-dimensional and three- dimensional characteristics, change of heights and floor plate geometry: PHOTO VIEW #1-The facade of the wing at the southwest shows the building’s concrete frame expressed on both sides of one of the buildings two main entries. The windows in the concrete frames are set back deeply and provide interest through their shade and shadows. A spandrel glass roof screen is set back from the exterior wall in this area providing a variation of building height. Sandwiched between the two expressed concrete frames is the building entry area, a hub connecting the two wings of the building. The entry area is characterized by a tall drum-shaped glass curtain-wall element, a portion of which is supported by four expressed concrete columns. The building is entered through this colonnade. PHOTO VIEW #2-The facade of the wing at the south is curved and the ground floor window wall is set back 5’ from the second floor window wall. An exposed concrete colonnade extends from the ground floor to the second floor. ’ PHOTO VIEW #3-The facade of the wing at the north/northwest has a gentle curve and the ground floor window wall is set back 10’ from the second floor window wall. An exposed .concrete colonnade extends from the ground floor to the second floor. The gentle curve culminates in a knife-edged point at the north end of the building. PHOTO VIEW #4-The building’s east facade shows the building’s concrete frame expressed on both sides of the building’s Watson Court entry. The exposed concrete frames differ from those at the west and southwest in that they are straight and not curved and they have more vertical and fewer horizontal elements. The windows in the concrete frames are set back deeply and provide interest through their shade and shadows. A spandrel glass roof screen is set back from the exterior wall in this area providing a variation of building height. Sandwiched between the two expressed concrete frames is the building entry area, a hub connecting the two wings of the building. The entry area is characterized -by a tall drum-shaped glass curtain-wall element, a portion of which is supported by four expressed concrete columns. The building is entered through this colonnade. 2. BUILDING ORIENTATION & ENERGY-USE The site is an irregularly shaped 5-acre parcel with its long or principal axis oriented in the north/south direction. Height limitations by the City’s zoning ordinance limit the building’s height to 35’ (two stories) and thus increase the amount of ground level building footprint that must be accommodated to achieve maximum building area. Site easements, adjacent to Embarcadero Road, and required setbacks, adjacent to Watson Court limit the build able portions of the site. Owner program parameters require a specific number of parking spaces and that they be in close proximity to the building. Given these limitations and parameters, the remaining build able portion of the site is a narrow strip of land oriented in a north/south direction. It follows that locating a sizable building footprint upon a narrow north/south-oriented parcel will yield a generally north/south oriented building in which its long sides will predominantly face east and west. Our energy consultant evaluated the proposed building envelope using Title 24 performance approach and determined that it exceeds the requirements of the requirements of the State of California standards for energy efficiency. He also compared the proposed north/south-oriented building to the same building rotated 90 degrees in a clockwise direction. This is clearly hypothetical, since the site cannot accommodate this move, but it is still of interest. The Title 24 compliance margin is about the same for the rotated building as it is for the proposed building. The comparative energy usage was also evaluated and was less than $700.00 for one year of operation. The energy studies using Title 24 methodology on the proposed building are worst case because they ignore any shading from landscaping. Solar heat gain to the proposed building will have significant shading from both new and existing trees (see landscape plan). This is particularly pertinent on the west and southwest exposures. Existing eucalyptus trees on the state’s property are tall and provide late afternoon shading to the west/southwest building facades as well as the parking lots. New trees are designed to be planted immediately adjacent to the west/southwest facades and will provide significant shading for these exposures. The building envelope has been designed with low-e insulated glass. Exterior walls (pre- cast concrete and spandrel glass) have been designed with R-13 insulation and the roof has been designed with R-19 insulation. The windows in the pre-cast concrete are recessed by 1’-10". The lower floor is set back from the upper floor in several locations. 3. SUSTAINABILITY The following is a list of materials/methods that have been found to be within the owner’s budget and have been incorporated into the design of the project: Glazing High performance and Low E vision glazing will be used throughout and is specified as Green Tint glass. Glazing will be dual glazing to further reduce heat gain and provide optimum noise control. Glazing at entries and the long curved portion of the building facing the off-ramp are set back a minimum of 8’ to provide shading and reduce heat- gain. Alternative Transportation Showers/Lockers provided for bicyclists Reduced Site Disturbance-Site Coverage The proposed building coverage is 35,579 square feet or 6,049square feet less than the existing building coverage (41,628 square feet). Reduced Site Disturbance-Building Area Proposed building area is 73,932 square feet and is within the .3:1 FAR permitted by the City. The FAR for this parcel is the lowest density there is with the exception of parkland. Site Demolition Demolition of existing buildings will be performed using the anticipated city’s deconstruction standards. Storm water Management Bio-Swale is provided along the off-ramp to allow natural drainage fossil filters provided at the on-grade parking. Landscape and Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands Tree shading is provided for most impervious paved surfaces. Light colors are provided for building materials. The amount of site landscaping has been increased (14.35% of parking facility vs. 10% of parking facility required). Roof ~Energy Star’ high reflective cap-sheet is provided at the roof. Alternative forms of energy Roof structure will be engineered to support addition of possible future photo voltaic cells. Owner will work with tenant to consider possible alternate forms of energy including photo voltaic cells. Light Pollution Reduction Lighting will not exceed Illuminating Engineering Society of America requirements (1 foot candle/square feet). Directional reflectors will be provided at perimeter standards away from public roads. Water Efficiency Drought tolerant planting has been specified. Drip irrigation, moisture sensors, and weather-based controllers are being utilized in part. Water closets will have 1.6-gallon flush valves and urinals will have 1 gallon-flush valves. Sloan valves will be used on all fixtures. Showerheads will be water efficient and provide less than 2.5 gallons per minute. Energy and Atmgsphere Landscaping strategically planted adjacent to sun exposed vision glass areas. HVAC system will have economizer cycle capability using outside cool air. The building will utilize digital main HVAC controls for its energy management system. Non-ozone depleting R-22 (versus R-12) refrigerant for HVAC will be used. Fluorescent interior lighting vs. incandescent lighting will be used. Materials and Resources Low VOC adhesives and sealants will be used. Low VOC for Paints (green seal) will be used. Low BOC carpets will be utilized. Entry grates/mats will be used at entries to capture particulates. Dumpster area includes recycling and is covered. Local/regional materials such as pre-cast concrete walls and glass are specified to use local suppliers (e.g. Waiters and Wolf-Fremont) to reduce transportation pollution. Fly ash will be used in concrete foundations and slabs. 4. OFF-STREET PARKING The minimum requirement by the City for off-street parking is one parking space per 300 square feet of building area. The minimum requirement by the City for landscaping is 10% of the parking facility. The number of spaces provided by the proposed project exceeds the City’s minimum requirement by 56 spaces. The landscaping exceeds the City’s minimum requirement by 43.5%. One parking space per 250 square feet of building area is the owner’s requirement to ensure the lease ability of the proposed office building and to avoid spillover on-street parking. The four per thousand parking ratio is used by many in the industry. 1990 N. LT.alifomia Blvd. Suite 839 Walnut Cre.ek CA 94596 925.926.0425 www.farber-en~rgy.eom June 17, 2004 Mr. Richard Peery Peery-Arrillaga 2560 Mission College Blvd. #101 Santa Clara, CA 95054 Project: Office Building, 2300 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA Subject: Preliminary Energy Title 24 Compliance, Implications of Rotating Building Dear Mr. Peery, Lee Ashby of Hoover Associates requested that I write to you about the energy modeling work my firm performed for your 2300 East Bayshore project. The proposed building was modeled for envelope energy compliance. The envelope design meets Title 24 compliance under the Performance approach, when modeled per the architect’s preliminary design. I have, for purposes of the operating cost model, taken the envelope model and divided the building into mechanical zones. We assumed two package VAV systems (one per floor), with hydronic reheat at the first floor perimeter and the entire second floor. Based on the resulting loads, the building was modeled with a 60 ton PVAV unit for the first floor and a 90 ton PVAV unit for the second floor. The building was thus modeled with the proposed envelope design, PVAV systems noted above, and Title 24 "default" lighting power. The building was modeled at both the. proposed orientation as well as rotated 90 degrees clockwise to assess the Title 24 and operating cost implications. The Title 24 compliance margin is about the same in either orientation. Utility energy costs were calculated to be only about $700 less per year when the building is rotated 90 degrees. Sincerely, FARBER ENERGY DESIGN Gary Farber Attachment D Attachment E Comprehensive Plan Table The project would conform to the following Comprehensive Plan Policies Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptab!e due to their size and scale. The proposed 182-foot setback from East Bayshore Road and 197feet from Embarcadero Road far exceed the minimum setback requirements of twenty feet. These generous setbacks as well as the proposed landscaping would provide a visual buffer from public right of ways and would help to reduce the perceived sense of size and scale of the proposed building. This screening of the proposed project is illustrated in Attachment C of the Staff Report, which includes a series of photomontage of the existing site condition, and propos’ed site condition as viewed from the corner of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road. The project would not exceed the maximum allowable floor.area ratio of 30% or the allowable lot coverage of 30% (16.2% is proposed). Policy L-46: Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts. The site is zoned LM (D)(3) Limited Industrial Site Combining Zone District. The most recent land uses on the site were a restaurant (Scotts Seafood) and offices of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). The project is being constructed as a "shell building" and future tenants have not been identified. The LM(D)(3) district uses that could occupy the building could include manufacturing, medical, professional, and general business offices. Other uses could include private schools, Research and Development, Warehousing/Distribution, and financial services Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. The projeet would be located on an approximately 5. 6 acre lot with generous setbacks from the public right of way. The proposedproject would be approximately 34feet tall and would be taller than other two story buildings in the vicinity however; it is appropriate to have increased building height at road 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04) intersections. The proposed projects setbacks and landscaping would promote a. harmonious transition relative to scale and mitigate the height differences of neighboring buildings. Policy L-71: Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101, E1 Camino Real and Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries to commercial districts; and Embarcadero Road at E1 Camino Real. The intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore has been identified as a gateway to the Baylands. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-46 includes the statement that the new buildings and landscaping should reflect the area’s location near the Baylands. The openness provided by the substantial setback of the building from the street and the proposed use of pre-cast concrete representing the shoreline and both green and clear glass could be considered to be reminiscent of the water and the plants found in the Baylands natural environment. The "Baylands Interpretive Areas" proposed for both street intersections would include waving grasses and native plants to attract wildlife. The proposed colors would be muted and the exterior building materials would weather well Policy B-9 Encourage new businesses that meet the City’s business and economic goals to locate in Palo Alto The project site includes older buildings with existing tenant improvements and an architectural style that might not be attractive as leasing opportunities for new businesses. The proposed 73,932 sq.ft building would be built as a shell building and its excellent location adjacent to the Bayshore Freeway could be attractive features to attract new businesses to Palo Alto. 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04) Attachment F 1 2 .3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Draft Verbatim Minutes April 1, 2004 2300 East Bayshore Road [03-D-04, 03-EIA-17]: Request for Site and Design Review of a new 73,932 square-foot office building with at-grade parking and related site improvements located on a5.66 acre site..Applicant: Clifford Chang on.behalf of Richard Peery. Zone District: LM (D)(3) Limited Industrial Site Combining District. Environmental Assessment: Draft Initial Study recommending the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Board Member Drew Maran: 2300 East Bayshore Road, 03-D-04, 03-EIA-17, Application by Clifford Chang on behalf of Richard Peery for site and design review of a new 73,932 square-foot office and related site improvements located on a 5.66 acre site at 2300 East Bayshore. 16 Do we have a presentation by staff on this? 17 18 19 ¯ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 Mr. Chris Riordan, Planner: Good morning. The ARB most recently reviewed this project at their meeting of January 15, 2004. At that meeting the ARB moved to continue with the project to a date uncertain, provided specific comments and directions to the applicant that included the following: 1.The project should reflect its location as a gateway to the Baylands. 2.Greater exterior details should be provided 3.Solar orientation of the building should be evaluated 4.The landscape plan should include a greater number of plantspecies likely to be found in the Baylands. 5. The south end of’the building could be more three-dimensional, The applicant has revised the plan with changes to include some of the following: 1.The colors and materials of the building to be more compatible with the Baylands. 2.Walls of the south elevation have been offset and additional columns have been added. Two Baylands interpretive landscape areas have been added to the landscape plan. The oak trees have been reduced to one species, and the redwood trees have been decreased in number and moved away from the building. City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 A review of the ARB’s directions, greater detail on the plan divisions, and a letter 2 describing the applicant’s responses to these directions are included in your staff report. 3 Also included to the report are the comments received during the public comment 4 period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Staff recommends approval of the project based on the findings and conditions contained in.the Recordof Land Use Action which is attached to Exhibit L of your staff report, with revisions made as necessary to described the revised project, which would include the elimination of the driveway that is closest to the Embarcadero/East Bayshore intersection and the reduction in the number of parking spaces recommended by the Commission into a landscape reserve. Those are the number of places that are in excess of the required number of spaces for the project. Since this is a major ARB application, the applicant is provided ten minutes to present the project. Thank you. Board Member Maran: Thanks, Chris. We’ll have the presentation from the applicant. 15 Mr. Lee Ashby, Hoover Associates: I’m Lee Ashby from Hoover Associates. What we’d 16 like to do is basically tell you what’s different, what we’ve done since the last meeting to 17 revise in response to comments that have been made. The first part of this, what I’d like 18 to do is have our landscape architect, Jim Lauderbaugh, go through the landscape part 19 of it, and that’s why he’s got everything up close to you here. So Jim, why don’t you go 20 through that and then subsequent to that, I’ll go through the architectural parts and then 21 answer any questions that you may have. 22 23 24 Mr. Jim Lauderbauqh, Landscape Architect: Good morning. My name’s Jim Lauderbaugh, I’m the landscape architect for the project. I wanted to bring these close so you can see both the drawings and photographs that we took at the Baylands. 25 We reviewed all the comments from the last presentation. Since the last presentation 26 we met with David Doctor and we met with Chris Riordan to discuss some of the 27 comments and concerns and how we might resolve some of these issues. We also 28 included a tour of the Baylands with David and we asked some of the Hoover architects 29 to take a look at the Baylands with respect to what elements we might be able to 30 reproduce on this site, at least to interpret and provide areas where we could include an 31 interpretive garden. The consensus was that if we took these two corner areas of the 32 site and developed a Baylands interpretive garden on these sites, these are probably 33 the most focal points on the site. You’re looking at this from East Bayshore, but these 34 two areas are here and here on the original site plan. 35 And while we were out there, we took these photographs just to illustrate some of.the 36 elements of the Baylands. We have the tidal channels that meander through the grassy 37 salt marshes. We have the perennials that contrast the grasses against the flatness of 38 the slough itself. We have meandering crushed oyster shell pathways that go through 39 grassy hillocks that were designed originally for wildlife. We have the environmental 40 pole sculptures that are part of the Bixby Park in the upper grassy meadow areas. You City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 2 3 see David and Lee are sitting on some of the benches in Bixby Park that give you a view of the Mayfield slough. And. onthe right there are these wildlife observation decks that are part and integral to the Baylands area. 4 We tried to integrate these elements into the design of these two interpretive gardens, 5 interpretive in the sense that we’re interpreting what we see at the Baylands, to provide 6 a setting that is something that you might see there. So in these two areas, both corner 7 areas, both.focal point-areas, we have. the plans here ,~and~l’ve drawn a section through 8 immediately below each one - where we have a meandering tidal channel here that 9 would probably be some type of gravel rather than anything else, and then ornamental 10 grasses that would meander across this area, so we simulate the flat areas of the 11 Baylands marsh. A tidal tributary which goes through, we have a meandering - either 12 decomposed granite or oyster shell - pathway that connects to the existing sidewalk and 13 also connects to the proposed development, so the people in the development can all 14 use this garden. 15 We have rolling mounds and native plants. We saw out at the Baylands, we have some 16 of the seacoast elements. When we discussed this project with Dave we thought 17 maybe the Baylands is not the only context. The seacoast is also a context that is part 18 of this whole concept. Since we can’t really create a salt marsh here, we’re trying to 19 create a feeling as a setting that we might see out there. So we’ve got these holes that 20 you see out at the Baylands, and we have ropes between them - we may even have 21 ropes wrapped around a cluster of these poles - to simulate that feeling of the seacoast 22 and the Baylands. Here we have a wooden bridge that crosses over this meandering 23 tributary and a bench seat here. And incorporated in the back side of this would be a 24 vegetative bio-swale along, here, and we use this finger of the tributary as a point where 25 the water dumps into a catch basin dght there. So it would have a function rather than 26 just being a Baylands interpretive garden. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 And the right garden here, again we have a pathway that connects between the project and the street. Here we’ve tried to illustrate the wildlife hillocks that are along here, and also the enwronmental pole sculptures on a much smaller scale than what you see in the photograph. But here they descend across the site here and also as perches for wildlife and birds that we feel probably will come to this site. In addition to the plant material we’re going to - what we witnessed out at the Baylands, along the perimeter - we’re also going to put in plant material that would attract birds and wildlife. We also have the eucalyptus grove along the perimeter of this entire site, which is already a place where birds make nests and tend to frequent. So I think in reality, we would get some bird life here. 37 We have a viewing deck shown here for viewing these areas. And the thought was that 38 we would have an interpretive sign at each of these locations. It may just be a 39 reproduction of this plan with all the elements called out and then rather than have tags 40 on plant material, we could call out the plants on the sign and call out all the individual 41 elements of the garden at that particular garden so that people can see that and then 42 walk through the garden and see what they have. We’d also be open to suggestions ¯ 43 as to what you might think we might show on that sign. City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Other than the interpretive gardens, which have gotten a great deal of.support from David and from Chris Riordan, we made several other changes to the site. The redwoods that were once along the curved fagade of the building we took out. We’ve illuminated the plant materials to kind of simplify the planting. We’ve got one type of oak that comes through now in areas through here on this portion of the site. We have the existing London Plane trees here, and they would carry onto the site here. The only evergreens, in this case redwoods, we would have back here by the southeastern end of the site, and to create a bufferfor.the existing pedestrian and bike ramp that we have there. 10 To kind of carry this feeling of the Baylands gardens through the site, we also have an 11 area of ornamental grasses that carries through along this edge of the building, along 12 the edge of the patio, and then also right here on this band. They kind of translate 13 these gardens to some degree to the project entries. 14 The perimeter of the site would all be a vegetative bio-swale depending on if the grading 15 will work out. That’s what we’re proposing, as well as all of this. This would all be 16 native planting, probably predominantly on drip irrigation. These native gardens will be 17 under drip irrigation as well. 18 71hose are for the most part the changes that we made. We feel we’ve been pretty 19 ;successful in trying to translate an element of the Baylands or a feeling of the Baylands 20 to the project. I’ll be glad to answer any questions you have. 21 Board Member Maran: Thank you. Lee, did you want to summarize any changes as 22 you said you might do. There’s very little time, but we’d like to get a brief summary, 23 Lee Ashby: First of all, you can see the building didn’t change in its orientation, so we 24 didn’t move the building. We know that was talked about, but one of the things that we 25 did do, though, is we went back and looked at the orientation on the site again, and we 26 actually did the Pacific Energy heliodon, went through that, and I have copies for you of 27 that. One of the things about this site is that we do have a building that faces east and 28 west on its long side. We realize that this is not ideal in terms of if we had a different 29 site configuration or whatever. But the basic thing is that we have a pretty large 30 building, and basically we have a site - if you include all the easements in it - that faces 31 north/south. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 And then the other thing that we looked at is how we distribute our parking. And you’ll see in the site plan alternatives, there are several alternatives. Most of those alternatives put all the parking in one place, one big sea of parking. We don’t like to do that, it doesn’t work really well with our program, and so we like to distribute that on the site. I might just mention, on the side of this building, on this fagade - particularly I’m speaking more of the southwest, we’do have deep set windows, we have punched windows there that are actually set back, they’re in your package, set back about a foot City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 and a half from the outer [incoherent]. So we do have effectively both some horizontal and vertical shading as a result of that- I’m referring to these windows right along here. 3 A couple of other things that were different - we did submit a list of sustainability items 4 that we would be including in the project, and those are listed there for you. I don’t need 5 to go through those. We are also submitting a sample board that can go around. That’s 6 our current sample board. 7 8 .9 One of the things that we have done a little bit is to lighten some"of the colors to be a little bit more with the Baylands. We’ve muted some of the colors a little bit, but they’re basically reflected on here, the same colors. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Some other items that we’ve done is thatrthe samples and details, we’ve coordinated; one of the changes that we did on the south side of the building is that there was a comment that that wall was basically too boring - two-dimensional I think was what came out. One of the things that we did is that we staggered the floor plate and brought the upper floor plate out and the lower floor plate in and added four additional columns there that continue the theme of the other columns coming around, particularly the columns that are over in this area. 17 One other note I might make is that we changed the material on these columns, we 18 changed that to precast concrete to give a little bit more contrast and change in 19 materials as that moves around. 20 I think those are basically the items. 21 ,Board Member Maran: I’m sure we’ll have questions. Before we move to questions I’ve 22 been.:asked to allow a member of the public to speak, because she has to leave very 23 soon. So we’re going to go slightly out of order here, and I’ll ask Toni Stein to come 24 speak on this issue. 25 Ms. Toni Stein: Thankyou very much. I’m Toni Stein, I live at 800 Magnolia in Menlo 26 Park. Obviously that’s not Palo Alto, but as we all can understand, the Baylands are a 27 regional resource to us all and something enjoyed by the entire Bay Area. I’ve taken an 28 interest in this project from an environmental standpoint and here to speak on those 29 issues. I’m off to the San Joaquin Valley. I’m going to Fresno this afternoon, so I have 30 3-1/2 hours to drive, so I appreciate you allowing me to speak now since I’m sure 3t there’ll be more discussion by others. 32 The thing I want to bring up first of all is that I oppose the piecemeal effort of trying to 33 review just the architectural aspects of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which will be 34 your recommendation with this today. I feel that approving it on that level or disproving 35 it, it’s not in a total, looking at the cumulative facts of what CEQA, the California 36 Environmental Quality Act, requires to evaluate all aspects of the environmental impact, 37 not just the architectural and to piecemeal that off and say we approve that and then go 38 over here and say we approve this other aspect, It needs to all be,. because there’ll be 39 changes made along the way that could change the features of the building and then 40 affect other impacts in other areas. So that I want to start out by saying. City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 The second thing is that the solar report that will be presented today, I assume is in your packet, was not available when the Mitigated Negative Declaration for public comment was closed, so there was no opportunity for me as a person in the public to review those aspects, and that’s important. 5 The other thing is that there were other aspects that are included in today’s project 6 description that’s in your attachment H that were not available, which I read this 7 morning, and.make large impacts on the environmental which.I .havehad no opportunity 8 to include in the packet, or it’s been closed. In particular, I want to make note that 9 there’s been first a sustainability condition added to add fly ash to the concrete, and I 10 want to give you some information. I’m an environmental engineer with a PhD in 11 specializing in. air quality, and for my dissertation I looked at aspects of power plants 12 which produce the fly ash, and I’m not sure that anyone here probably even knows what 13 fly ash is. There’s no specifications in here as to where this fly ash is coming from. But 14 I want to inform you that fly ash is the most toxic material that you can - I’m going to 15 close off- but I hope you’ll remove that. That is an absolute "must" to remove that. 16 That is not environmentally sustainable, especially when you know, the reports show 17 ,_that why you removed putting the parking underground, the water table is very low 18 there, and you don’t want to mix toxic components with anything that’ll bring those into 19 our water sources in the area. 20 Finally, I hope that you’ll oppose agreeing to move this on with a recommendation until 21 all of the other aspects are reviewed and then have the opportunity for you to more fully 22 approve this properly. Please don’t approve it today. I’ve given you in your packet in 23 much more detail and written all of my comments up. But please do not agree to and 24 approve this today. Thank you very much for your time. 25 Board Member Maran: Thank you Toni. Now we’ll move back to questions from the 26 Board. We’ll start with Judith. 27 Board Member Judith Wasserman: I have a couple questions for the staff, please. 28 Could you please clarify for us what we’re supposed to decide with Mitigated Negative 29 Declarations. ~ 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Ms. Amy French, Project Planner: In this case the decision-maker is not the director of planning, the decision-maker is the City Council. So this environmental document will receive, be reviewed and scrutinized by the City Council who will be making a determination. We have prepared for you some analysis of the aesthetics related to the comprehensive plan for your consideration, as we believe the ARB is best qualified to consider the aesthetics. Other issues that have been raised by folks out there relating to traffic, were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting last year, and there are other things that have been raised that will be addressed in attachments to a Council report, so for the Council’s consideration. So your responsibility is notto recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, it’s to review the scope of the architectural review and consider how the project meets comprehensive plan policies and zoning code. City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Board Member Wasserman: So the part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration that says that there are no aesthetic environmental impacts is based on that fact that we are reviewing the project. So it assumes that if we approve it, then it means there are no aesthetic impacts. But if we think there are aesthetic impacts, then we would deny the project, and then the Mitigated Negative Declaration would say, you’ve got problems. here in your aesthetic impacts. 7 Amy French: That iscorrect. We have the ability to also modify the Mitigated Negative 8 Declaration. If we modify it to such an extent that it needs recirculation, we can do that 9 prior to the City Council meeting to more fully describe or clarify. If it’s minor changes 10 and corrections, it’s not necessary to recirculate the document. 11 Board Member Wasserman: I have another question. Somewhere - they were verbatim 12 minutes that took hours to plow through - somewhere it said that the staff would provide 13 us with information regarding the height of the nearby buildings. Do we have any 14 information about that? The buildings across the street are two-story buildings, there’s 15 the Regis McKenna building and some other things. Anybody know how big they are? Amy French: Staff did not do that work. But they are one and two story, they’re not higher than the proposed building. 18 Board Member Wasserman: Attachment I is a description of the project’s, conformance 19 ~to aesthetic policies in Palo Alto’s planning documents. Whowrote that? 20 AmyFrench: This was a combination; Tricia Schimpp prepared, and then I rearranged it 21 to simply present the policies that it complied with and then have an Ongoing text 22 .discussion after the policies themselves were spelled out. 23 ’Board Member Wasserman: So the staff did this. The applicant did not do this. When 24 you write these things - this is essentially the findings, one version, one set of findings 25 so to speak - do you ever list the policies that the application does not comply with? 26 I’ve never seen a list of findings where it said, "Well it complies with policy X, but it 27.doesn’t comply with policy Y." Anybody ever look at that? 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Amy French: I ihink we have on other projects when there was a balancing to do, we saw that this was not working and this was working, but we had to weigh the two. We didn’t find policies that this didn’t meet. Board Member Wasserman: My last question for the staff is the Attachment L that we talked about which was that strange thing that we never got before - what is the status of that document? That needs to be passed by the City Council. So right now it’s a draft essentially. Amy French: That’s correct, it’s a draft that actually needs to be revised prior to going to the City Council to address the changes that have been taking place of late. One of the things we need to add to that is recommend a condition of approval that would delete the one driveway and put into landscape preserve the 47 parking spaces as recommended by the Planning Commission. That’s a recommendation coming from the City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Planning Commission. At the last meeting you had some discussion on that and staff would ask that in your deliberation about the project, to consider where that landscape preserve area might be. I think staff was envisioning it to be along side the Embarcadero, the outlying parking spaces on that side. But the applicant does not want to do that and so has not provided plans showing where that landscape preserve would be. Nevertheless, that remains the staff and Planning Commission’s recommendation. It would help if you would give us input on that. Board Member Wasserman: This was written by the staff, essentially as Chris said, as the findings. So where you say that "sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance observed in the project,, and then one of the things that you say does that, is that the building would be raised above the flood zone and conditioned to incorporate sustainable building objectives. Did you intend that the sustainable . objectives would be greater than required by Title 24 and city municipal code? Does this imply that the building needs to do better than code requirements, or does any building that complies automatically fulfill the sound principles? 16 Amy’ French: We don’t have criteria spelled out, thresholds or anything, that say it needs 17 to be greater than what’s required. But it is the purview of this Board to weigh in on how 18 the project is meeting those things and if you so desire, request additional measures to 19 have the building become more sustainable. 20 21 22 Board Member Wasserman: Okay, I think I’il let you off the hook and now badger the applicant. I have not very many questions. One has to do with the connection to the ¯ bike bridge. Did you make any effort to connect your project to the bike bridge? 23 JimLauderbauqh: When were out. atthe job site with David and Lee, we looked at that, 24 and there’s really not a logical place to do it. At this corner right here the bike ramp is 25 already above grade and it goes up like. this, and there’s really no place within the site 26 that we can do it. And then as soon as it starts going up, then it’s all fenced off, so 27 there’s just a very small portion of that site that is on grade right here at that walkway. 28 So the consensus was among the three of us that it really is not a good place to do it, 29 but we did talk about it.. 30 Board Member Wasserman: And while you’re up here, I might as well ask you about the .31 relationship of the London plane trees to those interpretive gardens, which I think are 32 actually quite lovely, but I didn’t understand how the trees related to those thingsl There 33 aren’t any trees [incoherent]. 34 Jim Lauderbau.qh: They really don’t, but they’re street trees that we can’t take out. And 35 the fact is that theylre fairly mature. I know David wasn’t happy in keeping them either, 36 but they are mature trees that we’ve been obligated since the very beginning of this 37 project to keep. In fact, we’re addi.ng several to fill in voids that.are presently there. 38 Here we’re only adding one, and here we have the eucalyptus, which are a species that 39 you find out at the Baylands, The idea here is to just get as much visual ability to see 40 these gardens as possible and then get some interaction between the tenants and the 41 building and people who pass by here. I think the thought is if you look at the garden City of Palo Alto Page 8 .1 2 3 4 5 6 itself, these are mature [incoherent] I don’t think are going to have any impact on this garden. We’re talking about the flat plane of the Baylands garden and slightly rolling mounds that also occur out there. These are the London plane trees. Board Member Wasserman: Right, and it makes it look like a woodland garden with Baylands underneath it. Jim Lauderbau.qh: I know. 7 Board Member Wasserman: I have a question about the building, actually it’s about the 8 height of the building. Did anybody do a site section that shows the height of the 9 building in relationship to the existing grade? I never saw a drawing like that. And in 10 the absence, if you don’t have a site section, could you tell me where the 50 feet is 11 measured from. 12 Lee Ashby: We do have a site section. It’s in your package on sheet A. Probably the 13 best place that references it is on A-3 on the south elevation. It shows the upper or 14 highest mechanical screen, and that is 43’9", and that’s taken above the finished floor, 15 which is very proximate to the existing grade. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Board Member Wasserman:.So the finished floor is where in relationship to the flood plane? This flood plane is 8 feet, right? This finished floor is a foot above that? Lee Ashby:Yes. These are usually one foot above that, that’s correct. Board Member Wasserman: And where is the sidewalk? Lee Ashby: The sidewalk grade... Board Member Wasserman: So you don’t have a section that shows the relative heights of the parking lot versus the sidewalk versus the bio-swale and the building? Lee Ashby: No, but I can tell you generally that with~ respect to the bio-swale, it goes around the curb part on .the west side, that the whole parking lot slopes downward to the bio-swale, which is right at the perimeter and follows the ramp configuration of the freeway around. Board Member Wasserman: Maybe we.have a grading plan. Lee Ashby: There’s no sidewalk at that point. There’s no sidewalk where the ramp is. There’s a sidewalk on Bayshore. Board Member Wasserman: Right. There’s a sidewalk on both sides, on Bayshore and... Lee Ashby: Yes, City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 Board Member Wasserman: And the height of the sidewalk with respect to the finished floor of the building setting? Lee Ashby: Let me see have that. Let me check my other plan. I think it’s on our civil plan. I think it’s on that grade. 5 Board Member Wasserman: There’s a topo, but I can’t read it because the numbers are 6 too small. 7 Lee Ashby: The top of curb at the sidewalk in that area along Watson is right about 3.3, 8 varies a little bit between 4-and as you go down Watson it goes maybe down toward 9 .about 3. 10 Board Member Wasserman: So the curb’s at 3 and the floor plate’s at 9, is that correct? 11 Lee Ashby: Yes. 12 Board Member Wasserman: So by the time you get to the floor plate you’re six feet 13 above the curb. 14 Lee Ashby: That’s correct. 15 Board Member Wasserman: And then the building is an additional 43 feet. 16 Lee Ashby: 43’9" from that point to the highest point. 17 Board Member Wasserman: I think that.answers my question. Thank you very much. 18 Board Member Maran: Susan. 19 2O 21 Board Member Susan Eschweiler: Regarding landscape architecture, you have the interpretive gardens and then just to either side of that you have a green-green grassy something shown. The grayish-green ground cover, what is that material? 22 Jim Lauderbauqh: Those are intended to be sort of transitional gardens to try to lead 23 into the Baylands settings that we have. I haven’t decided exactly what those are going 24 to be, but they’re not going to be Baylands or native gardens, but they’re going to be 25 plant material, African iris or fortnight lilies or something like that that has that leafy 26 quality to it so we get some kind of transition to the Baylands garden without becoming 27 a Baylands garden in themselves. 28 Board Member Eschweiler: Did you consider extending the Baylands garden along that 29 face of East Bayshore? 30 Jim Lauderbau.qh: No, because it was our consensus, people discussed this, that these 31 were two focal point areas and that that would be sufficient, because once you start 32 connecting these areas, where do you stop. The thought was this is all going to be 33 native planting on here which leads into the garden. This is going to be sort of a City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 seacoast-type transitional garden that we talked about that leads into this garden. This 2 was reviewed with the owner and was approved decided between David and Chris, Lee 3 and myself.that this was probably the best place to put these gardens in the two focal 4 point corners on the project. 5 6 7 Board Member Eschweiler: I was just asking about the gray-green part. Jim Lauderbau,qh: That’s what I’m saying..They’re not Baylands gardens. Board Member Eschweiler: But we don’t actually know what it is yet. 8 Jim Lauderbau.qh: If you look at these plans, it does call out specific plant material in 9 here, but it’s going to be a type of ground cover and it’s going to be a series of shrubs 10 and perennials that lend themselves to leading into these gardens without being 11 Baylands or about being natural grasses or ornamental grasses. We still have to submit 12 final [incoherent] when they develop more specific plant palette, other than what you 13 see on the Baylands garden. 14 Board Member Eschweiler: Next question. Are you using colored concrete? 15 Jim Lauderbau,qh: Yes. I think the last ARB estimated a sandstone color. 16 Board Member Eschweiler: Does that go with the new palette that’s been submitted? 17 Do iwe still have those samples? I do remember you gave us free - not attached to a 18 board. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Jim Lauderbau.qh: It’s a very innocuous color, it’s just basically to simulate a natural tone:ito the pavement without making some kind of dramatic statement. Board Member Eschweiler: Could you print out onthe plan where that would occur? Jim Lauderbau.qh: It would be these plazas here, entries, and also in perimeter walks around the site. So they would all be integral colored. Board Member Eschweiler: So all of the concrete on site would have the integral color? Jim Lauderbau.qh: Right. Board Member Eschweiler: And are there any specialty pavers? Jim Lauderbau.qh: Right now, no. The thought was that these would be scored concrete and possibly it’s [incoherent] with a contrasting color. If the sandstone color is going to be the majority of the perimeter walkways, then this might be a flagstone [incoherent] another Davis color, and it would be scored in 3x3 grid pattern to kind of accent those. areas at Lazarre and [incoherent], Board Member Eschweiler: Then I think I’m done with landscape. Lee, if you could address some questions on the building. You passed out to us a new sample board City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 here that we have that has two spandrel glass-colors, but the samples aren’t actually spandrel, they’re paint I believe. Are they intended to be metal panels painted, or are they intended to be glass? Lee Ashby: The spandrel panels, that is the color of the coating on the glass behind the glass, that’s what that is. The ones that are labeled spandrel glass. Board Member.Eschweiler: But you haven’t actually gotten the sample yet, because I know it takes a lot of tuning because the glass have a green tint to it unless you use lead crystal glass that affects the actual color. Lee Ashby: We don’t have any actual samples made up of that yet. 10 Board Member Eschweiler: On your elevations, I’m having trouble correlating the colors 11 that are on your boards to what what’s on the elevations. Could you walk us through 12 that. 13 Lee Ashby: The precast concrete, you know where that is. That’s the yellow one of 14 course. So in the punched windows that are set back, these are the ones that are set 15 back approximately 1’6" to 1’10" set back. What’s shown as blue on here is the vision 16 glass which is a green glass that’s shown there. The panel in here is the spandrel 17 panel, that’s the glass spandrel panel that’s set into the punched windows. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Board Member Eschweiler: You have spandrel glass #1 and you have spandrel glass #2. Lee Ashby: The lighter one is occurring - for example right here, it goes down here, it [incoherent] on the bottom, comes up on the top. And then inset, you have this other spandrel glass #1 which appears green on here, but that is the exact color which is occurring inside here, here, here, here, here. Board Member Eschweiler: And are those spandrels in the same plane? Lee Ashby: Yes they are. Board Member Eschweiler: So the vision glass spandrel #1 and spandrel #2 in those openings are all in the same plane? Lee Ashby: That’s correct. Board Member Eschweiler: And how is it glazed in the mullion system? Lee Ashby: This is the mullion color which actually... Board Member Eschweiler: the mullion color is the same as the spandrel color? Lee Ashby: The mullion color is the same as the spandrel color, that’s correct. You asked a question if they’re set back, what’s the depth, is that your question, Susan? City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 Board Member Eschweiler: No, I think we established they’re all in the same plane, correct, the vision glass, spandrel #1 and spandrel #2, are all in the same plane. Lee Ashby: That’s correct. Board Member Eschweiler: So my question was what kind of a mullion system are you using. Is it glazed to the front, is it glazed to the back, is it center glazed, are there offsets? 7 Lee Ashby: All the punched windows are glazed to the back, to the inside which means 8 that we’ll have approximately 3-4" of mullion that shows in those. And everything on the 9 face, on these that are not in the punched windows, they will be front glazed. 10 Board Member Eschweiler: And the mullions in thedocuments call out for silver Kinar 11 finish, but you just pointed to spandrel glass? 12 Lee Ashby: Yes, that’s not exactly correct, what’s on the drawing. That was a holdover 13 from our previous. 14 Board Member Eschweiler: Are all the. mullions on the b’uilding spandrel glass #2 color? 15 Lee Ashby: Yes, that’s correct. What we have done also on the upper parts that are 16 shown in gray - I’m not talking about punched windows - but at the center drum and so 17 on, this is the metal panel that we would propose using along with mullions that would 18 match that. 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 Board Member Eschweiler: On the documents, that gray area is pointed out to be spandrel #1. Lee Ashby: I know it is. Sorry about that. We made an adjustment fairly late in the. game, and we felt that it was better. We actually changed it from spandrel to metal panel which you had on your earlier drawing. Then we changed it to spandrel glass and then in preparation of our final materials thing we thought it would be good in these areas to change this back to metal panel-as an option. Board Member Eschweiler: Could you clarify then where the metal panel occurs. Lee Ashby: It’s these lighter gray ones that are not in the punched windows, so that would mean all of the curtain wall in here, curtain wall here, curtain wall that goes around, there’s the mechanical screen, curtain wall that goes around this mechanical screen here. So those are the areas of gray. Everything that’s not in the punched window, all the punched windows are what’s shown here. Is that clear or not clear? Board Member Eschweiler: So on these elevations you’re showing -view from off-ramp for instance has a dark green vision glass and then it looks like there’s a lighter gray stripe and then...the middle one for instance. Could you describe that element? City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 .22 23 24 25 26 Lee Ashby: That would be the same as this right here, what you’re looking at. This is the parapet which is here. Board Member Eschweiler: That’s metal? Lee Ashby: This is metal. And then this would have a spandrel glass-in here, the green spandrel glass, which is the darker one. Board Member Eschweiler: Spandrel glass #1. ~ Lee Ashby: Yes. And then the’ vision glass would be the same as this and the lower panels the same as this, same material. Board Member Eschweiler: How are those metal panels - are they glazed into mullions? Lee Ashby: They’re actually glazed into mullions, so it has a rib on it that comes out a couple of inches from the surface of the metal panel. Board Member Eschweiler: The mullion is exposed and proud of the panel itself then? Lee Ashby: Right; that’s correct. Board Member Eschweiler: And what is the cap at the top then, as you have all of these verticals. Lee Ashby: It would just be a mullion at the top as well that continues over, that matches the whole mullion system. On these mullion systems we could have either substituted spandrel glass or metal panels. We went back and forth a little bit on that and felt that it might be better to change that material in these areas, go with metal panel, and keep the spandrel glass located at these punched window locations for variation. Board Member Eschweiler: There are numerous curves on this building. Are the panels curved, or are they straight and create segments? Lee Ashby: They would be segmented, but they’re big curves, they’re big, so it’s pretty easy ~to curve them. So that would be the whole glass plane, and the metal. 27 Board Member Eschweiler: And secondly, you mentioned the round columns I think at 28 the entryway are now precast, they’re not aluminum? 29 30 31 32 33 Lee Ashby: That’s correct. What we’ve done is change all of these columns that track around, this ~s on the knife-edge elevation, and also at the entry in the south elevation that we talked about. What we want to do is just have those as precast concrete rather than again, just to change the material. And they’re going to vary this in here in terms of materials. City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 Board Member Eschweiler: At the last presentation Cliff Chang spoke about bringing in 2 imagery of the water from the Baylands and some of the natural materials and colors. 3 Could you address that with the new design. 4 Lee Ashby: Hence, one of the things that we’ve done here is to mute the colors a little in 5 response to the Baylands and going mainly to a little lighter, a little more muted colors. 6 One of the things that we’ve done with the columns is by making them precast, they 7 stand outa little bit~.more, it’.s aform thatis ther_e in.the Baylands, it.has .some feeling of ¯ 8 piers and elements that you would see in the Baylands. In fact, a couple of those things 9 that Jim mentioned on the landscape he’s carried into those interpretive areas as well. 10 So by going to precast on these columns I think highlights that a little bit more. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 The other thing that I .think is nice here is as we have materials, and it’s interesting - being in the Baylands, and I know this is somewhat subjective - one of.the things with respect to the materials is that you have the sloughs that flow through the grasses, and I think one of the things that happens in terms of the reflective portions of this, do kind of reflect sky and they have sheen to them. I think there’s some legitimacy to that in terms of the way - I won’t say legitimacy, maybe that’s the wrong word - but that’s our feeling is that it does have a tie there. 18 One of the other things along this line - and I know this is not completely related to your 19 question of materials - but in looking at the forms and spending some time in the 20 Baylands, our office is located out there, but one of the things that you see a lot of in 21 terms of the water and the waters’ edges, is you do see curve forms a fair amount of 22 times~ You kind of watch the curvature of these sloughs going through the grasses and 23 there is a lot of curvature out there. Somebody could say, well it reminds me of a boat, I 24 don’t:know. But there’s a fair amount of that curve form out there. It was interesting, 25 .when we were over at Bixby with Dave Doctor also, one of the things, there’s even a 26 certain motif that goes on Out in the Baylands in the benches and those areas where 27 they’re curved; they’re actually very similar to this long curvature and you see this 28 recurring out there. And the things that have been added to it - I don’t know, maybe it’s 29 just someone else’s interpretation - it was something we saw there. I hope that helps: 30 31 Board MemberEschweiler: That’s all my questions for now. Thank you. Board Member Maran: Thanks Susan. David. 32 Board Member Solnick: Since we’re talking about curves, I see the connection you’re 33 making with using curves, not only for the Baylands, but also for the freeway off-ramp 34 which is curved and actually is an important part of this site. On the other hand, 35 describe to me a number of these materials without saying anything about how they 36 also relate to the Baylands or to other aspects of the building, how do you draw the 37 connection between your choices of glass and spandrel glass and precast concrete and 38 metal with the Baylands? 39 40 Lee Ashby: You’re talking about choices of materials or actual colors. Board Member Solnick: Both I think; they’re inseparable. City of Palo Alto Page 15 1 Lee Ashby: Let me talk just briefly on the choice of materials first. We’ve looked at and 2 considered telephone poles and shingles and things, I guess because they’re woodsy 3 and because they’re weathered and so on and maybe that can mean Baylands to some 4 people. I think a lot of the materials that are there that are brought here, many of them 5 are brought because of the program. It’s an office building and the owner did not want 6 to build it out of wood and shingles and go to that in terms of material that they’re used 7 to building out of fairly typical materials of office buildings. I can’t say that the choice of 8 materials itself is a. reflection of what we saw at the Baylands and thought - Well gee, 9 we’ll put that in there - but on the other hand, I think in terms of the colors, in terms of 10 the form, I think that’s where it is a little more sympathetic and it’s an opportunity to take 11 materials that would not necessarily be found naturally at the Baylands, but to bring 12 .them in and through the color, to do that. And I might give an illustration. The color one 13 would be just on the selection of the precast concrete itself with its exposed aggregate 14 in it. It’s a color that as you look at some of the grasses, you can see areas that are 15 very similar in color. There’s a lot of variation out there, but we can see some of these 16 lighter, muted colors out there, at least what we have seen. While this not meant to be 17 a Baylands mural, but it’s somewhat suggestive of the palette I think that we would see 18 in the Baylands. I hope that helps answer. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Board Member Solnick: And the metal? Lee Ashby: Well the metal again - one of the things we looked at is using shiny metal out there, and we felt that it was more controlled through using a Kinar metal and again, using colors that would be colors that we might see out there that would blend with those palettes. Board Member Solnick: Your renderings I think are showing two different colors of precast, but we’ve only got one chunk of concrete here. Lee Ashby: Let me say something about these renderings. This project hasn’t been in front of the ARB for a long time, but it has been out there for a long time and even predecessors of the ARB in different forms and so on, so we have not updated the renderings to the current minutes, so you’re probably going to see some color changes and so on, so I brought most of this for form and looking at it. You’re looking at two different precast colors. This is the precast in here, this is it here, precast over here, precast over here. Board Member Solnick: But your columns appear to be natural and the other part appears to be... we don’t have either one of those colors. Lee Ashby: Good question. One of the things that I mentioned a little earlier isthat we actually changed the columns, and we changed it to the precast concrete. So originally these columns and they’re depicted in this rendering, they were originally a metal, and that’s why they’re looking different here. City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 Board Member Solnick: You don’t necessarily have to go through how it got here, but do 2 we know what colors they are for the precast? So it’s just the one, that’s what you’re 3 saying; it’s only one color. 4 Lee Ashby: It’s only one color, only color for precast. This is the precast right.here, 5 that’s what it is; that’sthe color. 6 Board Member Solnick: That’s going to look a lot different from these renderings. 7 Lee Ashby: Not all that much. This is gray, the windows are going to be green. You 8 mean the color itself of the precast. This is maybe a little oranger. I guess, is what 9 you’re referring to. So it is going to be a little bit different. We lightened the color on the 10 precast concrete from what we had originally. It was a yellowercolor. 11 12 13 14 Board Member Solnick: Does anybody have the prior scheme? Do you have it here? Lee Ashby: The very first scheme? Board Member Solnick: No, just the previous one. Lee Ashby: I don’t have the previous one. 15 Board Member Solnick: Would give us a better idea of just what the changes were. 16 Amy French: David, Staff will go and try to find it - I tried to find it before - the project 17 planner knows where it is, he’s going to go grab the sample board. 18 Board Member Solnick: I prefer the elevations. What is the soffit material? What’s 19 underneath these entries and windows? 20 Lee Ashby: If you have your section there, just refer you to A-4 - there’s a section 21 there, and it shows the precast concrete that wraps around in the soffit, and that’s what 22 happens. 23 Board Member Solnick: What about at the glass? That’s a section through the punched 24 windows there. 25 Lee Ashby: Right here, and maybe right here. We would just carry a plaster soffit 26 underneath those two areas where we have a deep recess. 27 Board Member Solnick: Have you got any details of those connections? 28 Lee Ashby: We haven’t done any detail of the turn there. 29 Board Member Solnick: Any lighting? 30 Lee Ashby: In the soffits? 31 Board Member Solnick: Yes. City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 6 7 8 Lee Ashby: We do in the soffit at the entry. That would be it, nothing in this area, only at the entry, that would be-it. Board Member Solnick: What is the lighting? Lee Ashby: Just down-lights at the entry. We have no architectural lighting on this per se, it’s illumination at the entry, that’s it. Board Member Solnick: The height limit on this - this might be a question to staff- there’s a 50-foot height limit? Is that measured from - where? This is kind of related to... 9 Amy French: Height is measured from grade. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Board Member Solnick: Grade before it’s built up nine feet, or after it’s built up? Lee Ashby: From final.grade, from finished grade. I can check the code just to make sure. We’ll check on that; give me some time. I’m sorry; it’s not 50 feet, I need to correct you, it’s 35 feet height limit plus the additional HVAC screening which is allowed to protrude beyond the 35 feet. Board Member Solnick: I see. In this case that’s a pretty big difference, that’s an important clarification. 17 Lee Ashby: It’s a deep site, so you have about six feet. It’s not very abrupt. But we’re 18 trying to get out of the flood plain, too. 19 Board Member Solnick: The renderings on the elevations all tend to indicate that there’s 20 just~a horizontal line. You start with your elevations, you draw a horizontal line, and it’s 21 as if it’s a flat site..There’s very little sense in either of them that this building is raised 22 up so substantially. It really doesn’t look like it’s raised up in these renderings. I’m not 23 sure they’re accurate in that regard or not. 24 25 26 27 28 -29 30 31 32 33 34 Lee Ashby: Actually for example - let me interrupt you for a second - from East Bayshore road, the distance there from east Bayshore road to the corner of the building, to give you an idea of how gradual this is, is actually about 180 feet, so six feet of that is very small in terms of grade. Board Member Solnick: But it’s not just the slope that matters. The total height difference is... On that regard, on your grading plan, C-2, it looks to me like the driveway right at the entry that passes by to the building, if you look at the slope on either side of that driveway, there’s a grade of 4.8 feet on one side and 6.5 feet on the other. That produces a cross slope of about 7%. Lee Ashby: That one’s over in lot .... Board Member Solnick: It’s just virtually a handicap ramp. City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Lee Ashby: Yes. Board Member Solnick: That’s not a mistake? Lee Ashby: You’re talking about right at the end of Watson Court? Board Member Solnick: Yes. Right in front of the entry. Lee Ashby: What we ihave is two thingsthere that occur; One is the stair itself that you see, and t.hen you’ll also see a path that comes up. That’s a 1 in 20 grade that comes up from the handicap parking and into the building. Board Member Solnick: But I’m talking about the cross slope of the driveway itself which is right in front of the entry. Lee Ashby: That should be fairly level right at the base of the stair I think is what you’re talking about. Board Member Solnick: Right. Lee Ashby: That should be fairly level going out and then it goes a little more abrupt because of the stairs that go up. And then the walk comes around from the handicap spaces as a ramp - its not really a ramp, but it’s a 1 in 20 so then it meets the upper level, of the entry. Board Member Solnick: It should be very level, but it isn’t. And of course, it’s not like you could just wipe it away because you’ve still got to get up eight feet, So it’s not clear howyou’ve dealt with the slope changes. And without a site section it makes it very difficult to bring that out. Amy French: I can give you the definition of grade, and height is measured to grade. It’s different than the R-1 district and it says in the definition of grade. "Grade in all districts other than R-1 means the lowest point of the adjacent ground elevation of a finished surface of the ground, paving, or sidewalk, excluding areas where the grade has been raised by means of a berm, planter box, or similar landscape feature unless required for drainage within the. area between the building and the property line." It continues on basically to make the point, if it’s a flood plain then it’s required for drainage to have the finished floor higher and the ground around it is required to be raised for drainage purposes as far as I can see with this project. Board Member Wasserman" So technically this building is 33 feet high. Amy French: Because you’re 33’9" to the parapet with an additional roof screen height up to 43’9" from finish grade. Board Member Solnick: Where’s the difference [between the former and present drawings] City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lee Ashby: Let me point out the differences again. In terms of the actual configuration of the building, that means where things are... Board Member Solnick: You don’t need to explain again. These drawings are identical. Lee Ashby: They are identical with the exception of on the south side - and this is not a south elevation - but on the south side we shifted the floor to add the column and add more interest in that dimensional .quality to the end of the. building. And otherwise they’re just the same with the exception of this issue over what is metal panel and what is spandrel glass. Board Member Solnick: It looks like here on the east elevation there’s a recess - okay, I see the one difference. You’ve added columns and a recess there. I think that’s all my questions. Thank you. 12 Board Member Maran: Thanks David. I was wondering if Dave Doctor would like to say 13 anything or make any comments on this or any other piece of information that you feel 14 would be useful us in evaluating this. 15 Mr. David Doctor: Yes, just in my opinion there has been substantial changes to the 16 landscape which is very evident. I think they’ve achieved some of the ARB’s direction 17 that.you gave them to be inventive, bring elements of the Baylands into the site. One 18 comment that I would make on the perimeter. CalTrans-owned trees, the eucalyptus 19 trees.appear to be very healthy. I think that they should be considered as a long term 20 element there. I don’t believe CalTrans would have any plans on removing them. 21 They’re not dying the way many, many other eucalyptus trees are in the Bay Area along 22 the freeways. These trees happen to be of the species that are more hardy and 23 resistant to an insect that’s infesting the other eucalyptus trees. So the landscape 24 elements of the project I’m supportive of personally. If you have any other questions, 25 I’m available. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Board Member Maran: Jim, on the parking lot design, in the past parking lots were designed with great big expanses of asphalt and we sheet drained them into something other than bio-swales. I see there are bio-swales on this project, and yet the nose-to- nose parking in the center doesn’t have those bio-swales. Is there a reason for that/ Lee Ashby: I looked at that actually. Actually, I didn’t design the parking lot, but I can comment on that. You’re talking about this island area here. I think this site has such a fairly significant slope from this curb to that curb that the feeling was it was probably better to pick up the drainage at the very perimeter of the site, and this also occurs within an easement here where we can’t plant any trees, so the only thing we could put in there would be some low ground covers or some shrubs - I guess it could be an intermediate stop, but it didn’t make sense. If we could put some trees in that area and create more of a shade canopy or create a more landscaped element, it would seem to make sense. City of Palo Alto Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Board Member Maran: You can’t put trees there because it’s a public utility easement. On the bio-swales - I don’t know if Dave Doctor can help me with this - parking lot bio- swales, are they necessarily trees or are they also shrubs and brush or just anything. Lee Ashby: The reality is that they can be virtually anything. They’re always depicted as grassy swales, but the period of inundation that these areas receive, even when it’s heavy rains, it’s not long enough to really kill anything that’s put in there. We put shrubs, ground cover, lawn, perennials, virtually anything -even natives. Board Member Maran: Is there a bio-swale on the entire perimeter? In other words, is the entire drainage based on flowing into a bio-swale? Lee Ashby: ! can’t answer that completely, but what we’re proposing is it should be bio- swale all the way along here, depending on how much room we have to work with. Between the CalTrans right-of-way I think we only have a five-foot landscape buffer along there, If it can accommodate it. The water now drains into the CalTrans easement there and then also along here would be a bio-swale. So it’s fairly continuous except for the front of the project. That’s the intent. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Board Member Maran: Dave, you want to comment on that? Dave Doctor: The rear of the project along the off-ramp and along 101, CalTrans has a large ditch basically out there and the intent here I think was to have all of sheet flow going towards the freeway and it would enter into the CalTrans ditch basically. That’s where the water would go on the backside. The nose-to-nose parking certainly could accommodate a small bio-swale between the car bumpers with wheel stops. Any vegetation - buffalo grass, anything - could be planted in there. It does not have to be treesto make a bio-swale work. The~area along Highway 101 and the off-ramp, we’ve recommended that there be no curb there so that water could shoot off into the landscaped area there. Board Member Maran: I guess the essence of the question really is the effectiveness of the bio-swalesis what I’m really concerned about. In other words, we’re trying to reduce oil and other chemical introduction to the bay essentially. Is this method as described here as effective as if they had intermediary bio-swales, that’s the question. 30 Dave Doctor: I think the detail remains pretty much the same. Usually a bio-swale has 31 a specific type of soil placed in it which allows the water to percolate through it and trap 32 the solids that would get into the bay. And then there’s generally a perforated pipe at 33 the bottom of that swale which picks up after it gets through the soil. And then there’s 34 also points along the way where the water would drain into a semofoso [phon.] filter as 35 well. 36 37 38 Board Member Maran: Help me with a bit of an obscure question, The poles out in the Baylands. Those are sculptural? I know it’s a park. I just never understood those were sculptural poles. City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O Lee Ashby: It’s kind of subjective, but when Dave and I were out there we were talking about this. When you’re out there, because they are cut at different levels and they descend into the landscape the thought was that maybe when the tide comes in you get that feeling that.the height varies. Board Member Wasserman: My understanding is that it’s a bit of a response to the airport, to the descending airplanes. There’s also a set of chevrons that actually follow the flight path. Lee Ashby: I guess that’s right, ’ " Board Member Wasserman: That park won an award from the American Society of Landscape Architects when it was installed. Lee Ashby: That’s a beautifully serene area. In fact, the benches and the observation platforms that were mentioned before are cut at a diagonal as if a portion of them were covered with the sands of time as things shift out there, as if sand dunes. Board Member Maran: Thanks. I think that’s.all I have for you, Jim. By the way, I need to disclose that I met with the applicant. Anybody else want to do.disclosure? Nobody else met. LEED - Let’s go to the sustainability study. I want to understood better what took place on that and then talk about the results. Can you help me understand the solar study that was done at the Pacific Energy Center that we have copies? In other words, the question is, what changed or didn’t change as a result of this solar study? 21 Lee Ashby: I think as I pointed out at the beginning, we didn’t reorient the building or 22 change the building, and it kind of confirmed somewhat what we already knew in the 23 fact that we’re oriented north/south and not east/west, so we are going to be getting the 24 late afternoon that’s going to be biggest solar gain on the project, coming from the west. 25 The mitigating factors to that which we have not changed but I’ve alreadybeen in that 26 project - one is that our windows are set back fairly substantially where they’re punched 27 windows, on the precast concrete, not so much in terms of the knife edge curtain wall 28 that curves around. Those are the extreme areas. Now what we have done is we have 29 planted in those areas additionally, and then we also, if you look at the study and you 30 look at what,s happening there, those eucalyptus trees, we don’t usually consider them 31 as shading elements because they’re on another site and they’re different, it’s still good 32 to acknowledge that they’re there because they do work. They’ve been there for a long 33 time and as Mr. Doctor said, they’re likely to be there for some time. So if you look at 34 the 3:00 o’clock, this study and this model is done completely devoid of any 35 landscaping, so the landscaping is a plus to all of this and of course, it would need that. 36 But you could probably see that in probably the 4:00 o’clock range in that area, that you 37 probably would see some pretty good benefits from those eucalyptus trees as well as of 38 course any of the new plantings. 39 Board Member Maran: Are the eucalyptus deciduous? City of Palo Alto Page 22 1 Lee Ashby: I don’t think so, I think they’re evergreens. 2 Board Member Maran: In the winter they will not provide shade. They’re evergreen. 3 Dave Doctor: They’re evergreen. They will provide shade year round. Board Member Maran: Thank you. One of the items from our last meeting included "preparea cow,t/benefit analysis for solar power optic~ns and other considerations from the LEED checklist that may be ruled out for cost reasons, was that done? 7 Lee Ashby: What we did do Drew, we’ve contacted the Palo Alto energy group, and we 8 have not actually met with them and found all of their recommendations, but we’ve at 9 least started that process to bring in front of the owner who I should acknowledge is 10 here today. This is Dick Peery. What we will be doing is bringing those to him to look at 11 what things might be helpful and what might be of interest and so on. So we’ve at least 12 started that process Drew. 13 Board Member Maran: Going to the materials and resources part of the environmental ¯ 14 solutions which is attachment G, there are low VOC adhesives sealants and low VOC 15 for paints and then green seal. Are these all mandated~ or by choice of this project? 16 Lee Ashby: No, I think they would be by choice of this project. 17 Board Member Maran: Are there any other features in the environmental solutions that 18 are not mandated, in other words, that are chosen to improve upon the minimum 19 requirements, esp~ecially Title 24? 20 Lee Ashby: These are the ones that we’ve come up with, Drew. It’s certainly possible 21 that there’s some things that we could consider in this, and we’d like to do that, The 22 owner likes to look at those also. They have to have some cost efficiencies. But if it’s 23 close, there’s no reason why they wouldn’t entertain some of those. 24 Board Member Maran: Despite Miss Stein’s position on fly ash, I still ask the question, 25 was there a minimum amount of fly ash as a percentage expected to be used on this? 26 Lee Ashby: I don’t recall what the ratio is. Did you share that same comment? I don’t 27 knew, I hadn’t heard that. [incoherent] was a little different than I was aware of. 28 Board Member Maran: I missed your question. 29 Lee Ashby: When Toni Stein commented on the fly ash, I’wasn’t aware that we were 30 adding something to the project that would be a problem. We thought it was an 31 advantage. That’s something that we’ll certainly look at and figure out. We thought we 32 were trying to help on that one. It’s come up a fair amount, the use of fly ash has come 33 up quite a bit recently, and we found some areas that we can do it in. On the precast 34 concrete and the facings and things like that, we can’t do that. But on the structural 35 concrete, I think we can. City of Palo Alto Page 23 1 2 Board Member Maran: That’s all the questions I have. Anybody else have any questions before we open it up to the public? 3 Board Member Eschweiler: I’ve got one question to staff about the traffic study. Just 4.trying to followalong on the history of the project, it was originally done for the larger 5 proposed PC project 110,000 square feet. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Cr: They ’did.revise a portion of the original traffic report to take into account the project- specific changes for this project. Board Member Eschweiler: This 74,000 square feet has been looked at separately? Cr: That’s correct. Board Member Solnick: Just one more question about materials. It looks like you’re specifying a low-E, a very high performance, somewhat reflective Iow-E glass. Is that what we’ve got here as the vision glass? 13 Lee Ashby: That’s correct, that’s the look of it. That’s obviously not dual pane as these 14 .others would be. 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Board Member Solnick: Is this the normal counterpart, or is this actually the... Lee Ashby: This is the color of what will be there, it’s basically an evergreen. Board Member-Solnick: It doesn’t reflect the reflectivity of what will be there. Lee Ashby: I’m not quite sure I understood that. Board Member Solnick: The Iow-E has a different reflective quality, especially from the outside. Lee Ashby: Oh, I see what you’re saying. Board Member Solnick: Is this piece sitting right here the Iow-E piece that you’ll use? Lee Ashby: It’s not. 24 Board Member Solnick: In fact, none of these materials, except for this chunk of 25 concrete, we don’t actually have any of the materials that are going on the building. We 26 don’t have the glass. I know we have the backing of the glass. We don’t have the 27 metal, we have a paint chip that’s supposed to look like metal, and we don’t have the 28 vision glass either. 29 30 31 Lee Ashby: That is correct. Board Member Solnick: Have there been any Title 24, have you done any energy calculations of this? City of Palo Alto Page 24 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 Lee Ashby: Yes. We’ve been through it with out consultant and he’s looked at this and gone over it and so on and it works just fine in terms of Title 24. For example, all the metal panels which open to the interior, all of the spandrel glass which opens the material, those are all insulted in the back, so it’s really just vision glass. And again, this will meet the Title 24 just fine. He’s advised us of that. Board Member Maran: Any other questions before we open it up to the public? We have one card ~for~a member of the public to speak, and ~that is Angelica Volterra. If anybody else would like to speak, please submit a card. You have three minutes. Ms. An,qelica Volterra: Thank you. My name is Angelica Volterra. The proposed office building project would have significant, unacceptable environmental impacts that are not disclosed and analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. I believe the City of Palo Alto has failed to comply with the requirements of CEQA in its environmental review of this project. I have spent hundreds of hours reviewing this project from the perspective of its environmental impacts, especially and very specifically the traffic impacts. One, the City is incorrectly interpreting the law regarding the project baseline resulting in a failure to disclose significant environmental impacts. One egregious example is related to. traffic. The five buildings that currently occupy the two lots are vacant and have been for some years. They currently generate no traffic at this location. This proposed 74,000 square-foot building would therefore in fact add anywhere from an estimated 110 to 340 PM peak hour trips, depending on the assumptions that one makes at a location that is adjacent to an already very heavily congested and dangerous intersection. Yet, the Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to disclose this impact. Instead, it pretends that the .buildings are fully occupied and that therefore there would be no impact because there would be no net new traffic. This is a gross inaccuracy. 26 Two, this project provides no housing. It will further worsen the city’s already terrible ’ 27 jobs/housing imbalance. The creation of new jobs without addressing housing needs is 28 not consistent with the comprehensive plan. This.project will be generating significant 29 unmitigated housing impact costs, the project builds only offices that are unlikely to 30 generate ongoing sales tax revenues for the City. 31 Three, the project will harm the Baylands. Replacing the existing buildings with a 32 massive office building violates key elements of the Baylands master plan and the 33 comprehensive plan. The ARB is being asked to forward the project based on the 34 findings in the record of land use, Attachment L. These findings include that sound 35 principles of environmental design and ecological balance are observed and that the 36 land use is in accordance with the comprehensive plan. You cannot properly make 37 these claims in the face of an inadequate environmental document and in the absence 38 of a proper response to public comments and the public’s responses to staff’s 39 comments. Also, the findings in this attachment relating to traffic under Section 1 of this 40 record are incorrect, City of Palo Alto page 25 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 1 Furthermore, as I stated in my letter to you, I believe that approval of this project by the 2 ARB would violate important provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, including 3 Section 1882.010, specific purposes of site and design review combining district 4 regulations; section 1649.010 entitled "Declaration of Goals and Purposes of 5 Architectural Review," and section 1648.120, "Standards for Review." The ARB’s 6 review of this project is not merely to comment on aesthetic elements of the proposed 7 building. Your purview is far more comprehensive. I believe that your approval of this 8 project at.thistimein the. absence of adequate environmental reviewwould be a 9 violation of the responsibilities and the goals and purposes of ARB review. Also, as Dr. Stein indicated, it would not be proper to piecemeal the environmental elements bf this project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, I want to point if I can just take another minute of your time to point out three important facts: There was a reference to the Planning Commission’s consideration of this project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration had not been circulated, it was not signed and circulated on December 17, which is the date that the Planning Commission reviewed this project. They only had the benefit of a draft document. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was actually circulated on January 5, so the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity to review the public’s comments nor staff’s responses to comments. Dr. Stein and I submitted our comments within 25 days; by the deadline of January 30. It has been more than two months and we’ve not received staff’s responses to all of our comments. The second point I want to make is the copy of the staff report I received did not include the final six pages of my comments in response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. I submitted a 44-page document together with about eight attachments. I did submit to you all a letter in which I included the entire document, and it also included a table of contents to help facilitate your review of my document and then corrected list of attachments, they had been in the improper order when I had originally submitted them on January 30. I also wanted to say, it’s. never been made clear to me what the easements are. The application calls for abandonment of the easements, and I would like to understand better what those easements are and what the implications of the abandonment of those easements would be ...... Thank you so much for your time. Board Member Maran: Thank you, Angelica. Are there any other members of the public who wish to address this? Board Member Solnick: I have a question for Angelica. Do you have a professional background of some kind in this area? Angelica Volterra: I’m actually a physician, but I’ve spent quite a bit of time over the last two years reviewing some of the traffic documents, and I think I’ve made quite accurate City of Palo Alto Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 statements about traffic, some of the traffic studies, in connection with other applications. Board Member Solnick: Just a friendly suggestion which is - I presume your document will be going to the City Council, too. I would suggest that you focus on what you consider the most egregious problems and make your document quite a bit shorter. I think it’ll be much more powerful. 7 An.qelica Volterra: Thank you very much, I appreciate that. 8 Board Member Solnick: It’s 55 pages. I would suggest more like 10. 9 Board Member Maran: Are there any other members of the public who wish to address 10 this issue? 11 Mr. Dick Peery, Owner: I,m Dick Peery, I’m one of the owners of the property. I just 12 thought I’d give you some background because we’ve been there a long time trying to 13 get this thing, almost three years. I don’t know about the traffic study we reviewed with 14 the City when we had the bigger project, 140,000 feet. We did extensive projects when 15 we had the very maximum traffic out there with all the stuff going on. We’ve done it 16 three times now, we tried to do everything we could think of. We’ve got a smaller 17 project, I think we’re only covering 15% of the site right now. We haven’t tried to cut any 18 corners here. This last part of trying the Baylands, I think we’re the only ones on the 19 entire frontage road making these statements and doing this. We,ve tried to be 20 sensitive to that. Both John and I have been in the community a long time, we live here. 21 I raised my family here. I’ve been here 65 years, I’m not just some carpetbagger that 22 came here. I,m concerned with these delays when the buildings are empty and they 23 talk about traffic. I emptied the buildings out because I thought we Could get this 24 approved a couple of years ago. But the process has taken a little bit longer. If I fill the 25 buildings back up you can’t take them down, so it’s a real spot that we’re in in that 26 respect. But our idea is to be cooperative with the City, we’ve been working a long time 27 to get this through, we’ve tried to be sensitive to the architecture. We came before even 28 coming to the Council or the Planning Commission before, we came to the architecture 29 committee as it then exi’sted ahead of time to try to get some ideas or some feedback. I 30 like the design that we had the first time, but we’ve tried to redesign that. To tell you the 31 truth, when we get all these trees and you get the trees in along the freeway, the 32 architecture is going to be muffled quite a bit - it’s a good architecture, but you’re not 33 going to notice. Like on Ging Road, we built that building down with Regis McKenna, 34 they were worried about that. It’s blended in really nicely next to the golf course. And 35 this will be the same thing. This is a real quality project. Usually the City would 36 approach us, please take down all that junk and build something good in here. They 37 usually come to us like a redevelopment situation to get something like this. So we 38 appreciate your time and your effort. It’s a big job to get everybody on board to do 39 something like this. We’ve taken a lot of time, made a lot of effort to do the job right, 40 and we’d sure appreciate anything you could do to help us move it along. Thank you. 41 Board Member Maran: Thank you Mr. Peery. Can you fill out a speaker card? City of Palo Alto Page 27 1 Mr. Tony Carasc0: Members of the Architectural Review Board, my name is Tony 2 Carasco. What I’m speaking to you about is the support of this building. I think it’s a 3 handsome building, I’ve looked at the drawings. It’s articulated well. The attention to 4 the energy issues are carefully thought out. I know that the developers have been 5 looking at this project for about five or six years. They’ve gone through meticulous, 6 looking and speaking with neighborhoods and people involved in this project. It’ll be a 7 handsome building, it’ll bring revenue to our city, it will increase the number of people 8 going to restaurants..in that area, and 1. urge you to support.it ..... 9 Board Member Maran: Thanks, Tony. Any other members of the public who wish to 10 speak to this? Seeing none,-we’ll return it to the Board for comments and a motion. 11 We’ll start with Judith. 12 Board Member Wasserman: I’ve got some problems with the project, I’ll say that right 13 up front. Not the least of them is that the documents are incomplete and vague about a 14 lot of things. We’ve had people standing up and saying - Well, it’s not exactly what 15 we’ve shown you, it’s a little bit more like this," or "No, we didn’t actually change 16 anything in response to your comments, but it’s pretty good anyway." So I find that to 17 be an inadequate response. More to the point about the results is that there have been 18 several series of comments on this project, ~both from the Architectural Review Board 19 and the Planning Commission and the public. Aside from the traffic which is not our 20 purview, they seem to fall into three main areas. One is inventive architecture and the 21 response to the gateway. One is the converse of that which is the response to the 22 Baylands and some kind of contextual architecture. And the third thing is the 23 sustainable building aspect which we have been asked on several occasions to 24 address, both in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, in the Baylands master plan, in the 25 comments from the Planning Commission. Of these three things, I think that there 26 really have not been adequate responses. So either you do the Baylands contextual 27 building, or you do an inventive statement of the gateway, and this building seems to do 28 neither. As far as the sustainability of the project, well more than half of the listed items 29 are required items. It’s disingenuous to say that you’ve put in showers which are not 30 required when in fact showers are required in an LM district. It seems to be that the 31 building was designed and put on the site, and the Baylands was thought about 32 afterwards. I agree that it’s a fine building, but I think it would be much finer in the 33 Stanford Industrial Park or somewhere else. I think it is too urban for the Baylands and 34 not in compliance with the master plan. The footprint is smaller, yes, than the little 35 buildings that you have. But the little buildings are small scale quasi-rural. I don’t even 36 know how to describe it, but in the Baylands that’s what you got - a bunch of little 37 things. And as a gateway,, this doesn’t do it. So I am unfortunately not in support of this 38 project. 39 40 41 42 Board Member Maran: Thank you Judith. Susan. Board Member Eschweiler: Well Judith, I think that was well put. I think as an architectural group we’re struggling with the design of the project which with the exception of the one end where there were columns added, hasn’t changed since the Ci& of Palo Alto Page 28 1 last time we saw it. The landscape I think has made huge strides, and I appreciate that 2 staff... 3 Board Member Wasserman: I forgot to say that, I’m sorry. Yes, .the landscape, I agree 4 with you. 5 Board Member Eschweiler: The idea of including some interpretive gardens in the 6 project is a Iovelyidea. ~ It really does start to tie it to the Bay!ands.~..The building, 7 however, hasn’t addressed comments that we made previously. It has made some 8 revisions in the colors which are softer and more Baylands -like, But we’re still 9 confused about how this building is going together, what the actual effect of it will be, 10 even if we just accept it in its current massing and how the curtain walls and the skin are 11 articulated and what the details of the materials, how they intersect. The renderings 12 don’t show us what the building is going to be looking like, so I don’t see how we, from 13 an aesthetic standpoint, can approve the project if we don’t know what it’s going to look 14 like. So I would say that there has to be some additional work done in order for it to be 15 approved. 16 Board Member Maran: Thanks, Susan. David. 17 Board Member Solnick: I don’t have too much to say. I havre to add, definitely I think the 18 landscape architect has gotten it very nicely. I think the architect has not. I think our 19 comments last time were actually pretty extensive and pretty cohesive among the 20 members of the Board, and I don’t agree with you that you’ve done everything. Putting 21 it back on us as causing delays, I think in fact what’s causing the delay is that you 22 haven’t responded to our comments, comments that were fairly clear and coherent, i 23 think that also applies to some of the comments that the Planning Commission has. 24 Andi.i second the fact that I think the application is extremely incomplete on the 25 architectural side. I also can’t support the project. 26 Board Member Maran: I’m in agreement with my three colleagues. I do support the 27 changes in the landscape; however, I don’t support the lack of changes in the other 28 areas. I think that in terms of us trying to expedite the review process, a clear 29 assistance to that is complete applications and applications that give us just enough 30 sense of detail or enough information on the details that we can bypass a really 31 extensive time-consuming, excruciating review of the project, In this review it seems 32 that we spent a lot of time just trying to uncover enough of the details that would allow 33 us to then accept it or not accept it or to comment on it. But my sense of this application 34 is that there’s less information here than we had on applications that were many, many 35 times smaller than this. I don’t believe it’s our place to design or judge very fine details 36 of a project. My sense is that we’re still missing or still lacking a whole lot of really 37 important information on this project such as windows, mullions, interfaces between 38 materials, items like that. On the green issues, I don’t think we’re asking for this project 39 to become a model of sustainability. I think that what we’re asking for, or certainly what 40 I’ve expressed in the past and what the Board has expressed in other reviews, is please 41 tell us what you expect to achieve and give us come conditions. For example, other 42 projects have come forward with - We’ll reduce energy use by 20% beyond the City of Palo Alto Page 29 1 demands of Title 24 - or even 20% beyond a similar building that we’ve built elsewhere. 2 Since this is a building that’s very similar to others that have been put up by this 3 developer elsewhere, that would certainly be an achievable model. We could say this 4 . building is outperforming another building somewhere else. That would certainlY be an 5 acceptable goal, and I’m using 20% as an example, it’s n(~t specific. Other projects 6 have said for example, they would use certified lumber as long as it doesn’t increase the 7 cost of lumber for the project by more than 10%. Those are examples of how a project 8 can come forward before~-they’.ve aotually developed and extended the.entire program 9 for the project but give us something that we can sink our teeth into, and there doesn’t 10 seem to be very much of that, Again, what we’re trying to do here is speed up the 11 reviews. I think it’s important to remember that we are not the Planning Commission, 12 we are not reviewing traffic, we are not here to review land use other than as it applies 13 to architecture. And in trying to keep our focus very specific, I think it’s really important 14 that the applicant bring us the information that allows us to do so. Otherwise, the 15 tendency is for this thing to wander all over the place, and I think we’ve all done a very 16 good job of keeping this thing fairly restrained because of the lack of information that’s 17 been provided. So I’m also not in favor of this project. Would anybody like to make a 18 ’motion? 19 20 21 22 23 24 Board Member Wasserman: I move to deny the project on the grounds that it doesn’t meet the conditions. Board Member Maran: Is there a second to that? Board Member Solnick: I’ll second that. Board Member Maran: Would anybody like to comment on that before we put it to a vote? 25 Board Member Wasserman: I would just like to say that it’s not just a matter of an 26 incomplete application. Yes, it’s true. But even if we knew how the mullions met the 27 glass I’m basically opposedto the glass. It’s one thing to say - Oh, there’s shiny water 28 out there in the Baylands, but the water is horizontal and this is a vertical plane. I just 29 don’t think the building itself makes any sense. You can’t have a sustainable building 30 that’s oriented in the direction it’s oriented in, then come out and say- Well I took it to 31 the heliodon. It tells me what I already knew. And what you knew already was that it 32 didn’t work. 33 Board Member Maran: Any other comments before we put it to a vote? 34 Board Member Eschweiler: I think from the City of Palo Alto’s standpoint, in earlier 35 meetings before it even got to ARB, this was called out as a gateway to Palo Alto, a 36 potential for a gateway project, and I think that’s one of the things that we as a board 37 would probably like to see, that it really is deserving of a gateway design and that there 38 is something that is unique and contributing to Palo Alto that’s not found elsewhere and 39 that it’s striving to do something new and different and contributing to the City more than 40 being an ordinary office building. So I would encourage any redesign in that direction. City of Palo Alto Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Board Member Maran: Thanks. Anybody else? Okay, we have a motion on the floor, it’s been seconded. Chris, would you like to read back the motion? Cr: Yes. We have a motion by Board Member Wasserman, seconded by Board Member Solnick to deny the project. Board Member Maran: That’s pretty simple. All those in favor of the motion, say "aye." [all say aye] All those Opposed [no nays]. That motion passes 4-0-0 and one absent. Thank you. 9 10 11 12 13 City of Pa!o Alto Page 31 Attachment G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Draft Verbatim Minutes January 15, 2004 [Tape #2 at 996] 2300 East Bayshore Road [03-D-04, 03-EIA-17]: Request for Site and Design Review of a new 73,932 square-foot office building with at-grade parking and related site improvements located on a 5.66 acre site. Applicant: Clifford Chang on behalf of Richard Peery. Board Member Drew Maran: And we’ll ask Chris Riordan to introduce the project. 12 Mr. Chris Riordan, Planner: Thank you Chair Maran and fellow Board members. As you 13 just mentioned, the project for your review this morning is a request for site design 14 review of a new 73,932 square-foot office building with a 300-space at-grade parking lot 15 and related site improvements located at 2300 East Bayshore Road. The zone district 16 is limited industrial site combining. An initial study Negative Declaration has been 17 prepared for the project. 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Prior to this hearing, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed this project at the meeting of December 17, 2003 and recommended approval of the project to the City Council. Prior to recommending approval the Commission commented on the height of the proposed building with respect to lost hillside views, the lack of Bayland influence in the proposed building design, and discussed the project’s trip generation and mitigation to reduce potential traffic impacts. As part of the approval, the Commission modified one condition and added five new conditions of approval as listed under the background section of your staff report on page 2. Briefly, these conditions included 1. the submittal of a site and salvage plan; 2. a more thorough tree survey that would include the CalTrans right-of-way; 3. more Baylands influence in the plant palette of a landscape plan; 4. the inclusion of 56 of the proposed parking spaces into a parking reserve; and 5. the creation of a TDM plan. It should also be noted that the ARB reviewed a preliminary proposal for a similar but larger project on this site in conjunction with a PC rezone during a study session on December 13, 2001. The ARB’s comments to the applicant for that particular proposal are included in the staff report. Staff of the Planning Commission recommends the ARB recommend to the City Council the approval of the Mitigated NegDec with a finding that the project would not result in a significant environmental impact and approve the subject application based upon the findings and subject to the conditions in. the record of land use action attached to the staff report. City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Also, due to the complexity of some of the documents referenced in the environmental assessment and the recent holiday season occurring during the 20-day comment period and to respond to requests of the public in reference to some of the constraints just mentioned, staff is extending the 20-day public comment period for the environmental assessment by an additional ten days for a total public comment period of 30 days. The deadline for public comments on the environmental documents is now January 30, or the last Friday of this month. This concludes staff’s report. Because this is a major project, the applicant will have ten minutes to present the project. Thank you. Board Member Maran: Thank you, Chris. Now we’ll hear from the applicant and as he said, a ten-minute presentation. Mr. Cliff Chan,q, Hoover Associates (architect): I’m Cliff Chang, Hoover Associates, 1900 Embarcadero Road, the architect. I’m here also with the landscape architect. As Chris mentioned, this did go before the ARB about two years ago and there were some comments made. And I thought it’d be worthwhile to describe, for those who are not familiar with the previous design, to briefly go over it. 17 Scott Seafood is located here. Here is the off-ramp from 101. After looking at several 18 different site plan and configurations, this L-shaped configuration seemed to make the 19 most sense with the entry coming off Watson Court so that there was an entry 20 ’ statement, a strong form which addressed also the freeway off-ramp and then 21 something that also addressed the corner. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 A couple of the major comments that ARB had was that "1.The orientation of the building did not relate well with the solar gain since alot of the surfaces were directly facing south. So they suggested we splay the building. 2.Secondly, their comment was that the building was not animated, especially towards the freeway off-ramp, and perhaps something could be configured that suggested a stronger relationship. 3. Architecturally - again, this is the original design- the pre-cast and just punched windows were just too heavy of a massing and there were too many repetitive bays. Everything looked the same. It wasn’t very soft to reflect the Baylands appearance and there wasn’t a nice integration of materials. So what we did is we took those comments at hand and we did a few things here. We splayed the building, which improved the solar orientation. Actually, we made this a very soft edge, again to start to animate that relative to thisfrontage and also to soften it up from the Baylands point of view. We also created a drop’off in front, which we did not have previously, which walks up gracefully to a pass-through lobby and then out to the other end. City of Palo Alto 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 We created two large lawn areas at both ends here and then we did a lot of architectural items, which I’m going to show you in a minute. But before I go there, I want to state for the record-that there was a request from the City, from the Commission, that approximately 56 spaces be placed in reserve. That is an issue with this type of project. This developer has a long history of office-type projects in the Bay Area. Four per thousand is really what the necessary requirement is to make this a valid leasable project. I think the last thing that everybody wants is a new building out there sitting empty. So we really do need the four per thousand versus 3.3 per thousand. The other issue is Embarcadero Road has historically had a lot of on-street parking problems: There’s not enough parking for these developments and there’s issues of people parking on the road. So it has been a problem,.which we think that this does address. Architecturally the interpretation of the Baylands - you could go one extreme and say that the Baylands is wood construction. But the way that we’ve chosen to interpret this appropriately is that the Baylands is a combination of hard elements like rock contrasting against more glassy, smooth elements like the water and the sky, So this building really is kind of an interpretation of that, where it’s a combination of heavy pre- cast, rusticated, which is either punched out windows or it’s larger punched out windows - and then that inserted with an inner skin which is this curtain wall which is the metal panel that will be this warm color that you see here. Thewhole thing is going to be in very much earth tones pre-cast. The glass is going to be tinted green. As you can see, this central element here is going tobe this all curtain wall,system. We’re going to have recesses where the main entries are, This is the view from Watson Court, And then these wings coming out will capture that space. Then along the corner, what we’re trying to do is animate the skin so that this is pre- cast and then growing out of that is kind of a ship’s prow, again relating to,the nautical appearance. That becomes this very light element that is suspended over the first floor by these round column casings which would also be metal.. And as you can see, within the punched glass system in the pre-cast, that actually feeds through. And we put together a computer drawing here. This is showing a close-up of the two systems where they really integrate, where one grows out of the other. So this is the pre-cast system with the reveals. This is the punch-out window, and this metal panel system, we’re not envisioning a flat system at all: We want to give some texture just like the surrounding area, give a lot of texture to it. This mullion here is about 5-6,’ out, carries the column. The horizontals are the next in line. Let’s say those are 4" out. And then these intermediate verticals would be 2" out. So there’s a lot of interplay in the textures. And again, at the heads of each of these windows that metal system pierces through. We’re proposing some reveals in the pre-cast as well. The other thing is that we’ve actually returned the pre’cast columns two feet to really give this a very heavy masonry look, give a lot of shadow and depth and actually improve the solar gain on the building as well. It’s not a cheap thing to do. City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O I also put together an end drawing. This is looking at the project from this end of the building and it really shows how as this thing comes curving around, this apse really terminates that view, and then that metal panel system which is a roof screen from up above drops down to the floor. I just want to pass this on to the landscape architect so he can say a few things. Thank you. Mr. Jim Lauderbau.qh (landscape architect): Good morning. My name is Jim Lauderbaugh. I’m the landscape architect for the project. As Cliff mentioned this is designated as sort of a gateway project to the Palo Alto Baylands and as such we’ve tried to use some of the plant material in the Master Plan for the Baylands where it’s appropriate and where we can use it. We don’t want to create a salt marsh on this project, but at the same time there are many plants that we can incorporate onto this .site. In keeping with this, what we’ve done is included a meandering stream element at the corner here to lead you into the property and then pick it up across the park and it follows the curvature of the building there. And this would be a meandering river stone bed with native grasses and ornamental grasses framing each side of it and then have Palo Alto cobbles and Palo Alto Bayland natives within that stream bed. This would also serve as a vegetative bio-swale in that area to pick up drainage from these lawn areas here. Also, to complement that theme, the thought was to pick up native and indigenous oaks to carry that through, to create that line that carries that thought through the project. And also along East Bayshore we’ve got a series of existing London Plane trees. We’re going to add trees to that and then also carry that onto the property, so we’re bringing some of the peripheral vegetation onto the property to lead you into the project. As was mentioned I think in the arborist, report, we do have a series of existing eucalyptus trees that both frame this portion of the project and provide a visual buffer along Embarcadero and the off-ramp. There are actually 50+ eucalyptus here. It wasn’t mentioned that they wanted a more accurate arborist report, but there is probably one in between each one you see here. This is just a conceptual view of that portion. At either end of the building we have a lawn area as a recreation area that’s adjacent to the employee patios, the two patios on this side and then a lawn area that ties that into the building end and as well as one at this end. At the entries we have ornamental trees, either flowering crepe myrtles or pears or plums. It really hasn’t been decided exactly, What I’m probably illustrating here is crepe Myrtles here as a very decorative tree to kind of punch up the entries. On the perimeter we’re going to have native shrubs that provide a visual buffer along the edge here. There are existing pines and Casuarina trees that frame this portion of City of Palo Alto Page 4 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 the property and we’re going to add redwoods in this area to provide some screening here and also screen that bicycle ramp that takes up at this portion of the site. And we also use redwoods as a visual accent to follow the curvature of the building here and to punch up the corner here. In addition to that we have deciduous fall color trees along the southern curved portion of the site to provide a solar buffer in the summer and provide an open area canopy in the winter when you need the sun. The paving is to be a scored integrally colored concrete with probably either a sandblast or a salt finish. And I brought a sample, it’s an earth tone, it wouldbe a Davis Color sandstone brown. It would be compatible with this beige-gold texture of the building. Board Member Maran: Thank you. I’m sure we’ll have some questions for you. David, would you like to start. Board Member David Solnick: Do we have a material board? Board Member Maran: Before we start, let me ask a couple questions of staff that have come up that might be important. Is this considered to be a project that we’ve reviewed before? Ms. French: You reviewed an earlier application of a larger building that was associated with a proposal for PC. That PC was denied at the Council level. They came back for a rezoning of the site to the LMD-3 which gave them a maximum size which they’ve come back, just slightly under that size. But the previous study session or prelim review that occurred was for a different application. So this is a new application, albeit at the same site with similar use, but a new application entirely. Board Member Maran: Thanks. David. Board Member Solnick: One question - is there any indication of where on the site plan, where the parking reserve would be, how that would be incorporated into that site plan? Mr. Chanq: I’m not sure that there was a specific area in the request. I think it inferred along here. So if I were to guess, it would probably be in this area. That’s really the only place we have two aisles of parking. Board Member Solnick: I have a question about the materials. You said something about the colors and the shape. The shape I understand, the way it reflects the off- ramp and the colors - earth tones - although it seems to me you could make the earth tone argument almost anywhere, so I don’t know that that’s really site-specific. But the question is specifically about the choice of masonry and glass as a Baylands context. How do you see those two dovetailing? Mr. Chanq: Well, there are a lot of comparisons that you can make. But let’s take the Baylands specifically. There are all sorts of textures out there that are directly contrasted together. You have the water and then when you get up to the shore you City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 have varied rustic rift-raft textures there, and you have the grass. It’s a direct contrast of shiny, reflective flat materials with something that’s more rough and rusticated. So we could have done a building that was for instance, more or less all pre-cast with just a little bit of shiny materials together. But what we chose to do was really animate this so that as you go along this wall here, something actually grows out of it and that starts to take on a more nautical theme. In plan, it’s very much a ship’s prow but it’s very clear that it’s this inner layer. Just like when you find a rock in the Baylands or something and you chopped it open by chance, it had its hard surface but it might have a gem or something on the inside. A lot of things in nature have this layered effect. So that’s why we chose to actually deepen this wall, so that’s like the rock surface and then there’s something clearly sliding out of that. We even took the effort of setting this back three feet and then carrying this panel as a roof screen over it. To me that Was a clear relationship to the Baylands. Board Member Solnick: So it’s both a ship and a gem, is.that a summary of... Mr. Chanq: No, 1 wasn’t saying that. Board Member Solnick: It only seems -it’s referring to a ship as a ship’s prow, but it’s also referring to the inside of a stone that’s rough on the outside and gemlike on the inside. Mr. Chan.q: Like anything that has a strong concept, there’s different layers of analogies. So when I refer to gem I’m not talking about the building as a gem, but a lot of things are rough on the outside and then they have inner layers that are different, and it’s that contrast that makes places like the Baylands attractive. Board Member Solnick: Do you associate the Baylands with ships? I don’t mean San Francisco bay, but I mean specifically the Baylands. Mr. Chan.q: Sure. Because the Baylands are next to a water feature and there tend to be boats. Anything that has to do with water says nautical to me. If you walk along the Baylands, right behind our office there are boats just propped up there. Board Member Solnick: A question about the landscaping - bringing in oaks, sycamores and redwoods - what would you consider to be native trees, not to Palo Alto in general, but to the Baylands area in particular? Mr. Lauderbauqh: Well there are a lot of natives out there that I wouldn’t put on a commercial site. There’s a lot of eucalyptus out there and we certainly have enough on this site already. What I’m saying is we’re bringing in the London Plane trees for example that already ring the roadway. I want to introduce them into the site to visually bring you into the site. Other natives that will do well here are a variety of oaks. There’s the coast live oak, holly oak, southern live oak. That’s what I’m thinking about bringing in. The majority of the natives I want to use are not so much the trees but the shrubs and the ground covers, those areas. I want trees that are going to be viable on this site and not necessarily something that might thrive only in a salt marsh condition. City of Palo Alto "Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 t5 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Board Member Solnick: But are there any trees - just a question of you as a landscape architect - that you might expect to grow there, whether they are native or native-like? Is it a place that environmentally would normally support trees, or would have supported trees? Mr. Lauderbau,qh: In the context of the Baylands and what the Baylands is, the Baylands is not necessarily an environment that I would want.to see on a commercial property that we’re trying to sell or rent. It is an environment, it’s a wonderful place to go to. But if you look out there and really look closely at the plant material, a lot of it barely thrives, a lot of it is salt-blown, wind-blown. There’s a lot of plant material that has to be on a salt marsh to survive, so what I’m suggesting is that we pick plant material that would normally survive outside the Baylands that is compatible or similar to what we’re using - ornamental grasses, other native grasses, and trees that we associate with a native palette. Board Member Solnick: You talked about the solar orientation of the building. How do you see this as being better than the one before? It seems to me that it’s now’ largely a western orientation, and my understanding of passive solar ideas it’s actually worse than a southern orientation. Mr. Chan.q" What we had discussed last time was that this long leg here was accepting too much direct south orientation. So that’s why they suggested splaying the building out. Board Member Solnick: Where’s the north on that drawing? Mr. Chanq: Right here. Board Member Solnick: Oh, that one you just pointed to is facing southeast. Mr. Chan.q: So the low southern exposure, this was gaining a lot of heat and so they suggested splaying this thing out which I like actually for a lot of other reasons, too. But it was what. prompted the configuration change. Board Member Solnick: A southeastern exposure is usuallyconsidered the best of all. So you were trying to avoid the southeastern exposure? Mr: Chan.q: We were trying to limit the amount of heat gain to the building. Board Member Solnick: But how is it that adding western exposure reduces heat gain relative to a southeastern exposure? Mr. Chan.q: We were only trying to minimize the southern exposure. Board Member Solnick: There’s no Title 24 that would actually analyze this as far as heat gain at this point, or is there any Title 24 calculations? City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 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 Mr. Chang: No, not at this time. We did take this project up to a solar table and looked at the shadows, and that’s when it was evident that we were getting a lot of shadows along the face here, which meant that we were getting a lot of sun this way. And you can see it would minimize it with that configuration. Board Member Solnick: No other questions. Thank you. Board Member Maran: Thanks David. Susan. Board .Member Susan Eschweiler: For the record I’d like to state that I met with the applicant in my office to get up to speed on the project. Board Member Solnick: Can I put that on the record, too, that I met with you, too. Board Member Eschweiler: Looking at this, what is the purpose of the driveway on East Bayshore? You’ve got the prominent entry coming in on Watson Court. Mr. Chan.q: This here? Board Member Eschweiler: Yes. Mr. Chan.q: This is a driveway that currently exists, that people use all the time for going into Scott’s. So we’re proposing to keep that drive there. What it really does - yes, people will almost always enter through the project here because it’s the main entrance. But we want this as a second valve oLit, and it is a right in, right out only. No one would be allowed to make a left turn out of here and it would help people exiting. It would reduce the load off the main entrance down here. You always like to have two valves out. Board Member Eschweiler: You consider not having that driveway? It seems that that would obstruct - it’s so close to the intersection, it seems like it wasn’t.a good place to put a driveway in the first place. Mr. Chan.q: Well it’d be a terrible driveway if you were allowed to turn left, everyone would agree with that, because traffic does tend to back up here at the end of the day, when they head to the Dumbarton bridge. But this would be a right in and right out only so that people could actually go down to the San Antonio exit. Board Member Eschweiler: So East Bayshore does go through. It’s not dead end like some of those roads out there. Mr. Chan.q: No, it goes down to the next intersection, so the more people that actually use that intersection down there, the more it’s going to reduce the load on this intersection. Mr. Riordan: Actually, the Planning Commission recommended that that drive would be eliminated onto East Bayshore, so there’ll be no access from the parking lot. Only access would be from Watson Court. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Eschweiler: Okay. And clarification on procedure - is this going back to the Planning Commission after this? 3 Mr. Riordan: The decision of course of this body and the recommendation from the 4 Planning Commission will be forwarded to the City Council to make the final decision on 5 the layout of the parking lot. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Board Member Eschweiler: Is that the only decision they’re making, or are they making approval of the whole project? Mr. Riordan: Well, it’ll be the approval of the whole project. This was just one of the conditions that was suggested by the Planning Commission. Board Member Eschweiler: Okay, so then I have a question about the materials. On this little board that you have, you’ve got the pre-cast material, the vision glass, the spandrel glass that looks just like the vision glass, and then a tan color that I think says "metal panels and mullions." However, your rendering.distinctly shows gray for metal and column covers andstore front. Could you please clarify. Mr. Chan.q: We.just produced this for clarity over the last day and so this is meant to be that color. It’s not meant to be this kind of cold appearance. It’s meant to be that color which is the same as this, kind of a warmer tone. 18 Board Member Eschweiler: So the overall effect then, this mullion color, the tan color 19 being very close to the pre-cast color, is that the building is mostly going to be all the 20 same color, not the contrast that you’re showing in all the renderings. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Mr. Chang: Now that I see it from where you’re holding it, you’re right. I think the intent is to have more contrast between the two and perhaps we chose a color that was not different enough. So that’s the intent, is for it to be a different texture, a smoother texture and also be a different color- a compatible color but a different color. So we would definitely relook at that color of that metal panel. Board Member Eschweiler: Thinking about some of the comments you made about making the allusion to water and sky and having a smooth part in contrast to the rough texture of the pre-cast panel, could you explain the rationale for having all of these expressed mullions that would make it a texture instead of smooth? 30 Mr. Chanq: If let’s say this thing were purely smooth in contrast with this - which does 31 have some punctuation to it - it’s got some detail to it although it’s meant to look more 32 massive, it does have a lot of windows and a lot of piers. So what I’m trying to do is 33 relate this; instead of just a purely.smooth finish, go one step closer to this and have 34 something that actually has some shadow lines to it, some cadence to it. There’s also 35 the issue of metal panels. Sometimes when you don’t break it up into these smaller 36 panels, it.dimples and things like that. City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Board Member Eschweiler: Clarify for me - are those segmented panels, are they straight and assembled to make a curve, or are there any curved or panels of curved glass. Mr. Chanq: Everything’s segmented. That’s the other reason - the mullions help conceal that joint. I have a picture if it helps of another building that has a similar system that has a combination with metal.panel that happen to be green in this case and the mullions, the spandrel, and then the glass. Board Member Eschweiler: Cliff, in this picture of the Alza Plaza, is the glass and the spandrel the same as what you’re proposing here? Mr. Chanq: This is lighter. On that building it was a very dark forest green. In the end, I don’t think there was enough contrast, because when you look at the glass of course it darkens up. And then it matched too much of this. So I think in reality what this would do is by using a lighter color, this would have more contrast. That’s metal panel. I know it looks like that spandrel, but that’s actually metal panel. And that’s on the same plane as .the glass. Board Member Eschweiler: And then you have a new sketch for the end wall elevation. Could you describe how that’s changed, if it has changed. Mr. Chanq: Well, it hasn’t changed. Based on some earlier comments we put this together just to inform you what it looks like at this point. And actually, what I like about the view is that as this pre-cast is curving around and then it notches, this has more of a termination effect I guess where this thing’s wrapping around and then it just returns. Board Member Eschweiler: So you have the glass curve and then as it returns back towards the pre~cast, is that pre-cast or glass? Can’t really see from here. Mr. Chan.q: So this glass and metal panel system returns for a couple feet and then it goes into the pre-cast, but then up above it goes all the way to the drum. 26 Board Member Eschweiler: And could you describe what forms you’re expressing there, 27 what it is that you like about that? 28 29 30 Mr. Chang: It’s really just recalling that central drum right here, and this is repeating it again. But what I like about it is it just terminates that, like a handrail, to a curved stair or something like that. 31 Board Member Eschweiler: And then I wanted to know - actually this is a question 32 perhaps for the landscape architect- about looking at vegetative swales within the 33 parking lot. You have that wide expanse of two double-loaded rows and there’s no 34 landscaping in between nose-to-nose parking. Any thought about adding vegetative 35 swales or other... 36 Mr. Lauderbauqh: Talking about this section right in here? City of Palo Alto Page 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Board Member Eschweiler: Correct. Mr. Lauderbauqh: I think there was some recommendation as I recall to put maybe a. five-foot.wide planter strip in there. And certainly that would be an ideal place to do a vegetative bio-swale. I think there is one proposed right now for this area here. And my thought in incorporating this stream element, I think that would be a.great place to use that as a bio-swale as well. We can put perforated drain line in the center of this and access it into the storm drain system. Board Member Eschweiler:. And why does the dry creek come up so close to the building, what you just pointed to. ¯ 10 Mr. Lauderbau.qh: Well what it does, I was trying to get a flow. At one point we actually 11 had it coming across the parking in the shape of concrete banding that followed that 12 same curvilinear pattern. But when looking back, in reality, we thought well when the 13 parking lot is packed it’s kind of a moot point. It just disappears and it’s just a 14 maintenance nightmare when it comes to resurfacing the parking lot. So we took that 15 out. So the thought was to bring it in as close to the corner as we are permitted and 16 then bring it across the parking and then wrap it around the patio here, so this becomes 17 an element adjacent to the patio and then have stepping stones through the lawn area 18 so the employees could go access the lawn area as well as use the patio, too - and just 19 add an angle where we could still get planting in between the edge of the creek bed and 20 the face. of the building so it brought you to the front of the building. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Board Member Eschweiler: And then with regards to the redwood trees that were mentioned, you mentioned redwood trees screening the edge of the property towards the bicycle bridge path and then on that north side there? Mr. Lauderbaugh: Right, right along .this curved face of the building as an accent and as a strong definition.of a tree to put along that edge. Board Member Eschweiler: So if we’re using redwood trees for screening the bicycle path, wouldn’t it also screen the building very heavily in that approach? 28 Mr. Lauderbauqh: Well it would provide some screening in this area. This is a 29 conceptual plan and they can be planted at lesser density. But the thought was that we 30 wanted to strongly accent that portion of the building and yet open it up in some other 31 aspects. 32 Board Member Eschweiler: Okay, I guess my point is we talked about the south side 33 and how you had deciduous trees there that change with the seasons and sometimes 34 were open and sometimes were shading the building. So my question would be won’t 35 the redwood trees be such a dense; dark screen that there will never be light that gets 36 to that portion of the building? 37 38 Mr. Lauderbauqh: Well maybe eventually. Board Member Eschweiler: They’re fast growingj trees. City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 Mr. Lauderbauqh: You remember, the.scale of this drawing is 1" about 30’. So ifthey 2 were to be closed it would probably be 20 feet apart. If that does appear too close and 3 that is a problem when we do construction documents, we can space them farther. One 4 of the important things here is the owner has real affinity for. redwood trees and has 5 always, on all of his projects. So that is kind of a given in one segment of the project or 6 another. 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 Board Member Eschweiler: Could you also please describe the entry to the building, how that works from a landscape standpoint. Mr. Lauderbauqh: There’s more or less a matched entry on either side. What we have is a permanent walkway that goes around virtually the entire site so that anywhere in the parking lot you can hook up with a walkway that takes you right to the entries. At the front here we have a handicap ramp that takes you up to the entry. At the area between the driveway and the walkway we have a ilanding and we have steps up and then a raised planter at either side and then the plaza that I described of scored concrete. And then that same element occurs on the other side except here we don’t have quite the distance to have a longer run for the handicap access, so we have more of a typical curb and handrail handicap access coming up the side of the entry plaza. Board Member Eschweiler: Are there details of that shown in the package? Mr. Lauderbauqh: No, this is... Board Member Eschweiler: ...conceptual. So next question would be with regards~to this building, because of theflood plane, is raised up is my understanding. You just described how you’ve handled that grade transition at the entries. How is it handled around the longer sides of the building, like where the redwood trees are. for example. Is that building up on a plint? Mr. Lauderbauqh: It just slopes away as far as I know. I’m not familiar with the curb grades all the way around it yet. I just know that we’re 3-4 feet below the finished floor as far as the parking areas around the building. So in most areas, we have a slope of the building and then a.slope out to the curb and once I get to know all these elevations and I could work out the grades. But that’s basically we have is a slope from the finished floor and the finished grade is generally six inches below the finished floor and then we slope.out to the curb.. 32 Board Member Eschweiler: I guess I’m asking that because it affects the planting 33 material that you would choose for that relative to - if you’re having a grassy slope, 34 that’s one thing, and if you say - well it’s steep enough now, it has to have ground cover 35 on it. You can’t mow it... 36 Mr. Lauderbauqh: It really doesn’t affect the plant material if you’re talking about the 37 lawn areas because the lawn areas are far enough away that we can easily access 38 grading-wise and get to the grades that we require in those lawn areas. The grades 39 that can occur between the building wall and when we approach that area of the lawn. City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 These are the areas that are going to be relatively flat other than the drainage that we need. Board Member Eschweile.r: The planting then where the redwood trees are, there’s a tan color that’s shown up against the building. That is under the recess where the columns are so that there’s actually no planting up against the glass wall? Mr. Lauderbau.qh" There’s a walkway, understand that. That is required so the walkway can access these patio areas. , Board Member Eschweiler: Is that underneath the overhang of the building, or is it out beyond? Mr. Lauderbau~lh: These are the columns right here. Board Member Eschweiler: Thank you for clarifyingl Board Member Maran: Thank you.. My first questions will be for Cliff. Were there any other significantly different designs considered for the building? Mr. Chanq: Yes, in the beginning. Board Member Maran: Could you briefly describe what some of the significantly different designs were? Mr. Chanq: We looked at one version that was just a straight bar building. That’s where we started, with a straight bar building here and a straight bar building here that had a lot of pieces to it. But the owner didn’t want to proceed, nor did we feel that that was appropriate. He wanted more of a corporate look to it. And we looked at the buildi’ng here in the corner. That was more or less this shape but oriented to the corner. But that parking distance access is way too far for it to be usable. Board Member Maran: When you’re talking about shape, are you also talking about finished materials and appearance on an architectural level? Mr. Chanq: Yes. When I mention that we originally started looking at pieces, we looked at one that was a combination of pre-cast and steel in front. And for various reasons - maintenance and just too much fussiness - it just wasn’t bold looking from our standpoint. 29 Board Member Maran: The last version that we looked at which we are not considering 30 now I understand, didthat have less glass. Correct me if I’m wrong, what’s missing 31 from that as opposed to the current version is the metal panels? 32 Mr: Chan.q: Yes, that’s the major difference and just how things are interwoven together. City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 Board Member Maran: How do you merge the specific features that the owner really prefers with this blending as you talked about earlier with the nautical or bay scape approach? How have those two things been merged here? 4 Mr. Chang: Different clients are different, and sometimes you start at very opposite ends 5 and sometimes you have to meet in the middle somewhere. But either way you have to 6 end up with an appropriate solution and. everybody has to be somewhat happy. And in 7 this particular case the owner had a very strong preference for something that looked 8 just like this - very strong. And after some discussions and some meetings with the 9 ARB and a lot of thoughtfulness, that’s when we diverted to something that actually had 10 a very strong architectural concept. I’m not going to say we didn’t go to the mat over it 11 with the owner because we did, and that’s the reality of it and that’s what happens in 12 this business. Fortunately they were willing to work with the City and work with us and 13 come up with something that we all feel is very appropriate for the site. 14 15 16 Board Member Maran: Not to put you on the spot for something you wouldn’t want to support later on, but were there any significant items that you didn’t get when you went to the mat? 17 Mr. Chang: I got to say, when we went over there they were just very minor issues 18 regarding landscaping, and they actually came up with the idea of doing this at theend; 19 they got into the spirit of everything. They have designed very many buildings in the 20 past, so it was a very good collaboration and that’s the way projects are. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 Board Member Maran: Do you have any buildings that were previously designed that resemble the finished product or the proposed finished product for this building, and where would we see them if you don’t have them? Mr. Chanq: In terms of configuration, not really. There’s little things about it that remind one of that project, that I showed you a picture of, just in terms of the two systems. i don’t know if it shows up. Board Member Maran: This is the Alza Corporation building in Mountain View? Mr. Chanq: Right. It’s right off of Shoreline, but in terms of having the glazing system offset against a more masonry element. But I think this is far more successful because we’ve made the windows much deeper, there’s a lot more punctuation, there’s a lot more contrast between the two systems. 32 Board Member Maran: Is this a Peery-Arrillaga project also? 33 Mr. Chang: Yes -Well I should correct myself. It is a combination between the 34 tenant/owner and them. It’s not black and white. 35 36 37 Board Member Maran: I see. Do you have a tenant for this, or does Peery have a tenant for this new project? Mr. Chanq: I don’t know. City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Board Member Maran: It’s not part of the discussion? Mr. Chanqi Yes. Board Member Maran: Was there any consideration given to - I know it came from a PC and it’s not one any more - to any other kind of multiple use or mixed use, especially given how far away anykind of services are? It’s minus one restaurant now, we know that.. Mr. Chanq: Never really as a true mixed use. The owner feels that that just wouldn’t work here although I think they did look at one proposal with an office that had a large dining facility in it which in reality would probably happen if one single user - if those times ever come back- if that occurred. But nothing really as a mixed use. Board Member Maran: Is there currently planned a large kitchen for the building? What cooking facilities are there within the building? Mr. Chang: There are no cooking facilities but we would stub all the mechanical systems aroundthe court to anticipate a tenant that would want to have a kitchen. 15 Board Member Maran: Here’s a question for staff. Has the Mitigated Negative 16 Declaration been reviewed? I’m reading from the Planning Commission. It says that 17 the Mitigated Negative Declaration as proposed has not yet been circulated for public 18 review. Page 20 on the Attachment G, which is the Planning Commission from 19 December 17, 2003. 20 21 22 23 24 Ms. Amy French, Manager of Current Planning: The draft was available for the Planning Commission back on December 17. Board Member Maran: What’s the next step on that? Ms. French: Well, this would go to the City Council if the ARB were to complete their review. 25 .Board Member Maran: I see; thanks. Let’s talk about the height for a moment. I 26 understand that was a point of discussion also with the Planning Commission. Could 27 this building be taller if you chose it to be? 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Mr. Chang: From an area point of view or an architectural point of view? Board Member Maran: Well two points - architectural and also zoning. Mr. Chang: There is a height limit that we couldn’t exceed. So from an area zoning standpoint, no. Architecturally, yes; I think one more story max more could have been achieved, although the rest of the office buildings around there are two stories. Board Member Maran: Is it a concern to you of blocking views? That subject’s been raised. City Of Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Mr. Chan.q: You know, I’m not sure where that comment came from because I’m not sure which view they’re talking about. I think the comment was from here over here, but in fact, if you look at a photograph - I’ll show it to you - that’s pretty much the view. Your view is blocked anyways by the trees on CalTrans property. Board Member Maran: These are the eucalyptus trees? And where was this photo, taken from? Mr. Chanq: This one’s taken from right here. Board Member Maran: So would this be looking more towards the bay? Mr. Chang: Yes. Board Member Maran: Generally a view towards the west from the east, in other words, the opposite of this from the Ming’s Restaurant side of the property? ’ Mr. Chanq: And you can’t see anything because of the trees. As you’re looking this way these trees block your view. Board Member Maran: You won’t be building abovethat tree line, right? So this is the view I was asking for, mostly from East Bayshore.towards the project with the freeway behind the project. Mr. Chanq: Yes. Board Member Maran: So there’s no concern about blocking the view of the hills. Mr. Chanq: Right. Board Member Maran: I may have missed this. Did you say because you’re in the flood plane you have to raise the first floor plate or bottom plate height? Mr. Chang:. Yesl Board Member Maran: What is that? Mr. Chanq:. Well the flood plane’s at eight, and so you have to go one foot above that to an elevation of nine. So for instance, when you enter here you’re coming up about 2-2- 1/2 feet up to here so it’s a nice crown. And then it comes back down. Then you step up the additional 2-1/2 feet more and get to the finished floor. So it actually I think is a very nice approach. Board Member Maran: So if it weren’t for that flood plane issue, would the building have dropped roughly 2-1/2feet, 30 inches. If it were not for that iSsue, would you have a lower building anyway? Mr. Chanq:.Well yes; it would be lower. Would it be dead flat? Probably not, because we still have to drain the thing. So it might have been a foot higher instead of four, City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 Board Member Maran: A question on this parking issue. Why so much parking? Why 2 are you providing more parking than is required? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mr. Chang: A couple reasons - primarily because functionally, for this office building to work as a leasable office building you need to have enough parking. During the boom times there, were places that had under four per thousand parking that were creating havoc on city streets. Now is this boom time now? No, but two years from now, three years from now, after this thing gets built we’re going to be back in somewhat of that same situation. The other reason is that we have exceeded - and I can’t remember what page it is on the report - but we’ve far exceeded the landscape minimum requirement. I think the landscape coverage is 39%. We exceed the landscape requirement by at least 5,000 square feet. So we have plenty of landscape we. feel in the entire site area to accommodate the four per thousand parking. 13 Board Member Maran: Are you referring to the Planning Commission’s Condition #9 14 that says "The project shall be redesigned...to give you a parking reserve," is that the 15.item? 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28. 29 30 Mr. Chang: Yes. Board Member Maran: That is one of the conditions of approval, isn’t it? Mr. Chanq: It is listed as a condition here, but we are saying for the record that the owner objects to that for the reasons that I have stated. Board Member Maran: Just a question for staff and a clarification. On these Planning Commission review and recommendation conditions, are those conditions of approval? If the project is to move forward they must meet these conditions of approval, is that right? Mr. Riordan: That is correct. They’ve been attached as a condition of approval that now are part of the project. So any conditions that this board may have will also be added to that list of conditions. And then the City Council can approve those conditions or subtract those conditions before their approval. Board Member Maran: I see. SoCliff, when you say you on the record object to that condition, is that to say you will present that to the City Council as an objection and try to get the City Council to get rid of that condition? 31 Mr. Chanq: I believe so. 32 Mr. Riordan: That is correct. He will argue before the Council that he objects to that 33 condition and the Council will have to strike.that from the approval - or not. If they agi’ee 34 about the condition, it shall stand. 35 36. Board Member Maran: I see. Those redwood trees - are you not concerned that the roots are going to push up parts of the foundation? City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 Mr. Lauderbauqh: No, there’s plenty of space there. That wouldn’t happen. Redwoods 2 usually aren’t a problem. There’s ash trees and a number of other species where we. 3 have problems with roots destroying curbs and building foundations, but not redwoods. 4 Board Member Maran: And back to Cliff on that same question, on the redwood trees. 5 Mr. Jason Peery: I’m Jason Peery with Peery-Arrillaga. In all of our parks we do 6 redwood trees. So we have significant experience putting redwood trees in all our parks 7 in San Jose, Milipitas, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and so forth. So it’s not a concern for us. 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 Board Member Maran: You can hang onto the mike for a second. You call this a park.. Mr. Peery: The parks are individual buildings. Any projects that we do, in almost all cases, we plant redwoods. Board Member Maran: And have you studied the effect of those redwoods on the buildings in terms of energy performance? Mr. Peery: We’ve not studied the effect of redwoods on energy performance. Board Member Maran: But you’re saying they haven’t created problems. Mr. Peery: As far as structurally, which is what I thought you asked, we’venever had any problems. And once in awhile you have some brick walkway start to buckle. We shave the roots and re-brick, so it’s not a big deal. Board Member Maran: You’re right. I was going to the next question, which was more for Cliff about the effect or the impact of the redwood trees onthis building. How long is this building going to last by the way? Mr. Chang: Longer than me. I think that the building should last a long time. I think it’s going to have multiple uses in it, but I would think that it should last at least 80 years, something like that. Board Member Maran:’ So a redwood tree -let me understand this - a redwood tree that starts at ten feet now, will get to would you say 80 feet in 80 years? That’s about ten feet a decade. Mr. Lauderbauqh: It’ll be significantly larger. Board Member Maran: So what I’m trying to understand is from my previous experience, I’ve seen a lot of fast-growing trees that really have a huge impact on neighboring buildings because of the sun that they block or the sun that they don’t block. Maybe I’ll go to the next field of questions, which is about energy performance in particular and Green Building in general. First of all, what happened to the study that City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 you did - I assume you meant the Heliodon at the Pacific Energy Center when you studied the model? Do you have the results of that study at the Heliodon? Mr. Chan.q: We only have the old results. I didn’t bring them with me. Board Member Maran: So the study that was done was on the old model? Mr. Chang: Right. Board Member Maran: You’ve got a new model, right? Mr. Chanq: Yes. Board Member Maran: Are you considering bringing that to the Pacific Energy Center for another study? Mr. Chanq: Yes, we could do that. 11 Board Member Maran: In the previous study, I’m sure there were landscaping 12 considerations like redwood trees and stuff like that. I assume the next study would 13 have the same considerations, which is the current as in "newly installed," but I’m also 14 curious how they’re going to account for fast-gr0wing landscape redwood trees next to a 15 building. You remember how they dealt with that last time? 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Mr. Chanq: Well, we didn’t have the landscaping actually integrated into that analysis. Your issue is that it’s an evergreen tree that’s going to have quite a bit of mass and bulk to it and that is going to block the sun in the winter when you really need it. Perhaps we could look at doing something deciduous there. Board Member Maran: Yes, that is definitely my concern. I also have the opposite concern, which is perhaps you could gain a whole lot from a set of redwood .trees that would actually over time block heat gaining southern sun. That might be a positive. All those are possibilities. , The offsetting value of an evergreen could be that it prevents more heat gain in a situation where heat gain is the bigger concern. Mr. Peery: Well the thought was we might make more sparsely plants in that area. But if you look at the site, there aren’t a lot of areas where we canput in an evergreen tree. Most of this, due to the proximity to the building and the tree proximity to the building itself and because of the nature of the space~ we wanted to accent it, but it’s going to be small flowering trees which 99% are deciduous. We wanted deciduous trees here, we got deciduous trees here. We have some native oaks that would be evergreen coming through here. There are others that are deciduous. London Plane trees are deciduous. So we wanted some accent, some areas where we could have evergreen trees other than the eucalyptus that ring the site, which are far taller than these redwoods are ever going to get,. at least in our lifetime. So like I say, we have some pines and some Casuarina trees around the perimeter here. We wanted to not pick .up that tree, because they’re kind of weedy trees. But I did want to take them out. We can supplement them with redwood. So I do want some pockets of evergreen that give you City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 a focal point node. If we have to decrease the amount of redwoods in here to still get an evergreen impact on the site and something that emphasizes the fagade of the building and creates a keymark area, then I’d like to do that where we can. Board Member Maran: I understand that. That makes a lot of sense to me. Cliff, I’m having difficulty understanding - on Attachment A which is the Environment Solutions page - and I think David asked about this earlier and I didn’t understand the answer - it says, "A large portion of glazing facing directly north, based on ARB comments the building has been splayed to minimize this direct solar gain." Can you educateme on this one?. Mr. Chanq: Just so you know I’m not making that up, if you look back at the notes with the previous ARB members- or maybe you remember - the comment was to splay the building and actually not have as much glass here, which was more directly south exposed. So by placing the building here, if south is .here, that’s really the least amount of direct south midday sun that you’re going to get on this building. Board Member Maran: Maybe that’s a typo. It seems like it’s saying "The previous designs reviewed by ARB included an L-shaped configuration with a large portion of glazing facing directly north." Mr. Chanq: Oh, that’s a typo. Sorry. Board Member Maran: Anybody else reading this? I tried turning the page upside down to see if it worked better. Ms. French: In that L-shaped configuration, it was pretty much a rectangular floor plate. You had a part that was predominantly facing south. I guess it was of concern to previous members, and then there was also an equivalent part facing a nominal north elevation on the other side of that floor plate. I wasn’t there. Board Member Maran: Going through this Environmental Solutions page, the question that just keeps popping up for me is in what ways have the specifications that you’ve laid out exceeded the minimum specifications for either Title 24 or in some cases, Uniform Plumbing Code such as 1.6 gallon flush valves, stuff like that. Mr. Chanq: Well for instance, we didn’t have to choose to have showers in the building. In fact, it’s not a typical thing for them to do, and so we’ve included showers, which increases the potential for bicycle riding, since it’s such a big bicycle town. In terms of the glazing, we would not normally be required to have - at least not yet - to have dual glazing around the dominant portion of the building which is this side which also helps with sound. You can still do that with Low-E glass, single glazel .Now five years from now will you be able to do it? Probably not, but they have chosen to bear the cost on that. The roof is going to be.a white cap sheet rather than just a regular 4-ply. And actually the palette of all the Colors is trying to more or less be on the lighter side, so that’s going to help energy efficiency a lot. City of Palo Alto Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The valves on all of the bathrooms are going to be SIoan automatic valves, sensored. The irrigation system is all going to be on water-sensored systems. The planting is drought tolerant. I don’t know if Jim described the bio-swales, but we do have bio- swales along here, we’d have it along here, and I don’t know if he mentioned the potential of actually having it around in this area, too. Board Member Maran: Is that somethi.ng that you don’t have to do? I’m just trying to find the differences... 8 Mr. Chanq: I’m trying to mention just the things that I believe are not required to do. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Board Member Maran: Anything else? Mr. Chanq: .Probably the last thing is the owners made the commitment to use a pre- caster that’s as close as you can get to the site, reducing the back and forth. He could use somebody out of Sacramento or like Clark Pacific or somebody way down south, but he’s chosen to use Waiters and Woo. Board Member Maran: Has Hoover had any experience with LEED projects, or has Peery-Arrillaga had that experience? Mr. Chan.q: We did a project up in Hacienda, I believe it’s LEED certified, about a year and a half ago. Board Member Maran: Has using a LEED checklist or doing a LEED-certified building in this case been discussed with the owners? 20 Mr. Chan.q: Oh, yes. In fact, when I put this list together it was based on the LEEDs 21 items you might have noticed. And yes, it has been discussed with the owner. In fact, 22 we had many conversations with HVAC, Therma, being a design-build contractor, trying 23 to see if for instance, we could use solar panels in any way for this buildingl And any 24 way he looked at it, it just didn’t pencil out. You could try to use it for the reheat, for the 25 HVAC, exchange it for the heat for the water, but it didn’t pencil out. The input costs 26 were so high that they didn’t want to do it. But I didn’t want to let you think that we didn’t 27 consider it, because we did and the owner did. 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 Board Member Maran: Have you initiated any dialogue with the City of Palo Alto’s utilities department on for example, the solar program or any other part of the energy program for the project? Mr, Chan.q: I think when Therma looked at it, they were considering either rebates and things like that. But even that didn’t make it even close to penciling out. Board Member Maran: Does anybody else have any other questions? Board Member Eschweiler: Cliff, just one further question, as we’ve been sitting here reviewing what happened in the study session before, one of the ARB comments was "The project provides an opportunity to be inventive and include sustainable design." City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 You’ve just talked about the sustainable design aspects. Could you describe your 2 approach to inventiveness. 3 Mr. Chanq: It’s how you define "inventiveness." Is it in terms of doing something that’s 4 new, that no one’s ever done before? I can’t say that it’s.inventive in terms of that. Are 5 there things that we could still consider and perhaps we had an earlier discussion 6 regarding pavers. Maybe inventive means taking the crushed aggregate from the 7 existing building and somehow using that into pavers. We’re still looking at that and 8 analyzing that, but it’s something that’s, at least for us and the owner, is so far inventive 9 that they need to look at the cost analysis of that. But I can tell you, that’s still under 10 consideration. We’d probably like to do pavers up here to increase the drainage. 11 12 Board Member Eschweiier: I wasn’t at the study session, but I believe it meant about the overall design of the project, the architectural design. 13 Mr. Chanq: From a sustainability, or just from appearance? 14 Board Member Eschweiler: Not necessarily sustainability. 15 Mr. Chang: Oh, okay; I’m sorry, I got confused. 16 Board Member Eschweiler: I’ll just read the statement. The statement is, "The project 17 provides opportunity to be inventive and include sustainable design." 18 Mr. Chanq: Okay. Well, in terms of the architecture of it, I believe that the last proposal, 19 the original proposal, probably wasn’t that inventive, but I think .that it’s been very 20 inventive a concept and a very appropriate concept in terms of the curvature and the 21 way it relates to the road and the way that the materials integrate together and the way 22 certain materials are exposed a lot more. This whole system of either punched 23 openings, larger openings in the pre-cast, or sheer curtain wall. And throughout the 24 building there’s so many different ways that I think are inventive. As you can see, every 25 side of the elevation is somewhat different because it has to address very different 26 situations, but the whole thing ties together. So I think in terms of the forms are 27 inventive, the way the forms relate - pure curtain wall to punch-out pre-cast or curtain 28 wall within a pre-cast opening, a small pre-cast opening versus a larger pre-cast 29 opening. To me, that’s really invention but it’s appropriate invention and it’s all within a 30 coherent architectural system. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Board Member Eschweiler: Did you ever look at other materials other than pre-cast? That seems to be a recurring theme in the discussion. Mr. Chan.q: This was essentially the system, as pre-cast. It started as just pre-cast in glass and that’s it. We like it in terms of the durability and the texture that you can get from it versus JFRC or something like that, durability in terms of a metal panel building or something like that. We want this building to be here for awhile. Board Member Eschweiler: Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Board Member Maran: Thanks Susan. Any other questions? We’ll open it up to public comment. I have one card for Angelica Volterra. Ms. Angelica Volterra: Good morning. My name is Angelica Volterra. I’m concerned about a number of matters regarding this project. First, I believe it would be premature for the ARB to recommend approval of the mitigated Negative Declaration before the comment period has ended and before submitted comments have been adequately addressed by the City. The ARB should have the opportunity to review all the relevant documents before reaching a decision on whether to recommend approval. I requested this in a letter to staff that has.been kindly copied by Chris Riordan for you, and I’m happy to provide that for you. I believe that the environmental review of this project is inadequate with respect to traffic. A new traffic study should be prepared. Staff has relied on a traffic analysis that was prepared in March of 2002,. almost two years ago, that analyzed a different project at this site, plus a more recent memorandum. This analysis should be discarded and replaced by a study that accurately reviews the current project and reflects the existing traffic conditions and complies with CEQA. The traffic analysis uses inflated baselines to calculate the trip generation statistics it reports. The result of this flawed methodology is a low number of predicted trips and inadequate disclosure of the traffic that will be generated and its impacts. I can provide details today if you would like, but I won’t have time in the allotted three minutes. Also, the applicant is facilitating more automobile trips to the site by proposing 23% more parking spaces, 300 rather than the 244 apparently required by the City for a building of this size. There are a significant number of buildings now renting in the area with 3 to 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. 25 This site is located far from easily accessible and/or usable public transit. This will 26 make it more vehicle intensive. The East Bayshore/Embarcadero intersection as 27 configured is currently problematic and dangerous. Yet, the present traffic analysis fails 28 to adequately study the impact of the project’s addition of the significant amounts of 29 traffic, especially at peak hours, to the existing traffic load and capacity of the roadway. 30 This intersection serves regional commuters as well as local traffic accessing office 31 buildings" IKEA, retail establishments, main post office, school, and the Dumbarton 32 bridge. 33 34 35 36 37 38 There were concerns also expressed at other public hearings about the City’s rezoning of this site away from uses that would allow retail revenue such as car dealership. Also, questions were raised at the December Planning Commission meeting about the proposed building’s compatibility with the Baylands Master Plan and the City’s objectives for this area and the building’s compatibility with surrounding buildings. These issues must be carefully analyzed and addressed. 39 And finally, the project does not comply with important elements of the comprehensive 40 plan. One policy discussed by Commissioner Burt is Policy N-6 that states that 41 "Thorough implementation of the site and design process, minimize impacts of any new City of Palo Alto Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character and the natural ecology of the hillsides." I believe that this actually should be more carefully analyzed and addressed as well. Due to this site’s location at the Baylands, a very sensitive environment and a very, very precious Palo Alto resource, extreme care should be taken with respect to any potential negative impacts in this area. And one question I would like to understand better, because I don’t really.have an understanding of it, is what specifically is the height from the ground level, or the street levelof the buildings to the highest point, including the amount that the buildings will need to be raised for flooding issues. And where specifically do you measure that? I would like that to be broken down - how high for flooding, how high the building is, and where on the street that would be measured just so I could have that information. 13 And again, if you have an extra minute I can review the traffic issues that I have in terms 14 of trip generation. Thank you very much. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Board Member Maran: Thank you. Is there anybody else who wou d like to speak to this from the public? Seeing none, we’ll start with comments. Back to the Board. Dave. Board Member Solnick: My comments, I think I’ll confine them to general comments because I have enough general concerns that I don’t quite feel like I’m ready to go to the details. I find the conceptual framework for this building to be a bit muddy. What I feel is that these materials were really brought in as pretty standard corporate tenant materials, namely the masonry and the glass. And there was an attempt to adapt it to this site to the extent that it would pass. The reference to the ship’s prow, that site plan - that shape could be a banana slug in fact if we were in Santa Cruz. It fits perfectly. The building is not in anyway referring to a ship besides that coincidence with the site plan. And furthermore as I mentioned, the Baylands are not particularly navigable. 27 I feel like the building is betwixt and between, that it’s not making a statement of its own 28 that’s independent of its context, nor is it really working with the Baylands. It’s kind of 29 lost in the neverland between. It seems to me that the Baylands, I certainly don~t think 30 wood is an appropriate material for an office building like this. But I think the concept of 31 something light, of treading lightly on the land because the land is partly watery, is 32 where the pier and wood thing comes from. It works for smaller buildings. But to 33 incorporate that kind of concept into a larger building, I don’t see it here. I think in fact 34 the masonry is a very heavy material. And whether it’s actual masonry or virtual 35 masonry doesn’t matter I don’t think. I think the idea of using masonry here is quite 36 counter to the idea of a sort of shifting or unstable landscape. I know it’s not actually 37 ¯ unstable, but that’s where the concept of Baylands context comes from I think. 38 39 4O Glass might be something that’s lighter and you do have the round columns. You didn’t mention them in this regard, but they might be referring to something more pier-like, but it just doesn’t have any clarity in that regard and I have the feeling that the client has City of Palo Alto Page 24 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 42 these systems that they’ve used before. They have these redwood trees that they’ve used before, and that’s what we’re going to use here. I could be wrong about that, but’ that’s my sense. On the redwood trees, for example, the client was here and mentioned something about that. Redwood trees are quite appropriate to the hills here, and they are even appropriate as you come down into the flatlands..I think they’re completely out of context in the Baylands. I think oaks and sycamores and London Planes you could argue are contextual to a degree, but redwoods, not at all. But they’ve used redwoods -in all their projects before, so they want to use redwoods here. I think you can make an argument either way. You could do a building that doesn’t speak specifically to the Baylands context. But I think there has to be clarity to that. Ifit is going to be contextual that has to be honest as well. Either approach can be done, but they both need to be honest and consistent. On the orientation of the building, I do appreciate how it’s flowing. The site plan does flow with the off-ramp, and certainly the freeway and the off-ramp has a sense of motion to it which you’ve reflected in the site plan of the building and the horizontal lines. And I think that actually makes sense to me. I don’t think the freeway should be the only context that’s referred to, but it’s certainly one of them, and it’s not one to try to shove in the corner. It’s real, it’s right there. I don’t know what’s happened on.the solar orientation because in my energy conservation I-A, the orientation of a linear building is east-west. You maximize the southern exposure and you minimize the western and eastern exposures. And the reason for that is that in the winter the sun is low and you want the solar gain to help heat the building, and in the summer the sun is high and it won’t come in deeply into the building, or it’s very easy to control with overhangs. Of course there’s much greater complexity to this issue, but my understanding is that’s just the most basic level at which one talks about solar gain. And from an environmental point of view and conservation point of view and green materials point of view, I think energy use is really first and foremost. And you have a long, relatively narrow building . that runs precisely in the wrong direction from a solar gain point of view. It runs more or less north-south rather than east-west. Of course, this could be documented with energy calculations as Opposed to talk, but I think if you show this to someone who is an expert in that I think they would point that out. So those are all my comments for now. Thank you. Board Member Maran: Thanks David. Susan. Board Member Eschweiler: This is definitely a challenging project because it’s had quite a history and some of us are newly stepping into what feels like the middle of something and perhaps with some different views from our predecessors, and I think I would generally agree with David’s comments. ~To me, this feels like a fairly traditional corporate client building. It doesn’t feel particularly inventive. I think that there have been improvements to the previous design as you’ve alluded to, to create some allusion to the Baylands. But it seems somewhat ordinary to me, not addressing the comment of inventiveness that was asked by previous Board members. City of Palo Alto Page 25 1 And I think also this is a tough project because members of previous commissions and 2 council I guess have said - Gee, this is a gateway to Palo Alto - I don’t know that it 3 really is a gateway to Palo Alto, it is an off-ramp to Palo Alto and it happens to be 4 covered by, you said 50 eucalyptus trees. There’s obviously a dense cover of 5 eucalyptus trees, so people coming off the freeway, currently with those trees in place, 6 can’t really see the building. We don’t know if those trees will stay. CalTrans has done 7 some odd things before and they might just say no more eucalyptus trees and cut them 8 down, and then boom - now you have full exposure to the building. So we have to 9 design it so that we would be pleasantly surprised if the trees came down and say - isn’t 10 that great, we’re looking at this new gateway building. 11 An example of an off-ramp gateway building that I quite like - somewhat of a gateway 12 building - is at Shoreline and 101 with the building that is now the computer.history 13 museum, and it’s quite an attractive architectural piece. Granted, ithas a lot more 14 design to it. It is a museum now and there’s a lot more detail, it was a lot more 15 thoughtful and frankly very inventive relative to traditional corporate business park 16 architecture. If we were to follow the predecessors’ direction, I would think you’d be 17 moving insome kind of direction like that where there’s a number of combinations of 18 materials, some new introductions of some different forms and shapes. And where it’s 19 intriguing you want to go find out more about it. And it also has masonry on that 20 building, it has brick and that’s the allusion field - Silicon Graphics campus - but also 21 introducing some different store front and different shapes of bringing you into the 22 project. So I think that this building could go beyond what it is today in getting some 23 more diversity in the architectural design. 24 25 26 27 28 29 Certainly we need to have you work more on the finishes in getting the renderings for metal panels and that sort.of thing coordinated to what the full intent is. So I think we’ll need to continue this project and that would be my motion, to do that. Board Member Maran: You’re making a motion to continue the project? Board Member Eschweiler: Yes. Board Member Solnick: I’ll second that. 30 Board Member Maran: Okay. That motion has been seconded. Before we vote on that, 31 I’m going to make some comments and also, are there any specific conditions to the 32 continuance, or do we need conditions for a continuance? We don’t. Okay. 33 Ms. French: No conditions are needed, although specific direction to the applicant is 34 always appreciated. 35 36 37 38 Board Member Maran: I’ll make my comments and then we can sum them up with some specific directions. I agree with the motion to continue. First of all, thank you to the team. This is a huge project and it’s a project that’s taking a lot of years to get off the boards and into the ground, and I know how difficult that is. City of Palo Alto Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I agree with Susan’s comments. I think overall as a design it’s on its way and it could be much more inventive or interesting. Some recent projects that we saw have done that over a process of some reviews, but I think the ARB serves as an inspiration at some point. Some people would describe it otherwise. But there have been projects - for example, at the corner of Page Mill and Foothill Expressway - a project that evolved. over several discussions, into a much more inventive project with some review. I see the building as being, as I said, on its way. But it also seems very close to a number of other Peery-Arrillaga Buildings in different locations and not all that exciting in that sense, in some varied colors or some varied materials, something that continues to break up the monotone approach I think would be helpful. I’m not of the mind that there is a particular Baylands architecture or that this building itself needs to speak to the bay or Baylands or the marsh or anything else that has natureat its core. What I believe is that it needs interesting, more refined architecture. I’m not of the mind that views are an issue here. Though the eucalyptus trees may come down at some point, I also don’t believe that a two-story building - or I believe it’s 38 feet to the maximum height - is inappropriate, especially next to a freeway. I think it’s a good place for a building of that height, if not taller. 18 I think what’s most disturbing about this project for me - the reason I would least like to 19 approve it - is that its Green Program or sustainability program doesn’t seem to be really 20 reaching very far. I don’t know the history of Peery-Arrillaga with LEED certification. It’s 21 encouraging to know that Hoover has some background in it and can perhaps provide 22 some more guidance. There are a lot of resources out there these days, both in terms 23 of the City and its utilities department - Pacific Energy Center is a minor one - but there 24 are Consultants who do nothing but advise and consult to projects like this in the fields 25 of Green Building, and it doesn’t seem like this project has reached out at all to that 26 level. And I’m talking $5,000-$10,000 worth of consultants on a 73,000 square-foot 27 building whose budget I won’t speculate on, but I would imagine the $5,000-$10,000 28 would not be significant. The impact of that $5,000-$10,000 consultancy might be 29 something like half a million dollars in savings in one area. In all likelihood it would be 30 offset by a greater expense in another area in terms of Green Building - higher cost on 31 perhaps equipment for energy, mechanical equipment, perhaps offset by lower costs on 32.materials or actually generating power through solar panels or something like that. So 33 there are lots of offsets. I’m sure that cost is a major driving force on this building. I just 34 think that in general, it’s time for large developments like this to move a little bit outside 35 of the old style of thinking, which is develop a whole bunch of offices, plop it down on a 36 site, and then watch as the tenants pay the utility bills. And the concern, the investment 37 of the developer or the owner of the building is zero relative to those utility bills, .and that 38 becomes a real concern for us, because those are not endless resources that we’re 39 using up there. We do have a finite amount. 40 ’So what I would like to see on the Green Building side is a summation of the studies 41 that have been done City of Palo Alto Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 1. on the Heliodon, when the model is taken to the Pacific Energy Center, for us to be able to view the shading studies that are done on the Heliodon; 2. the real matrix or cost/benefit analysis for any kind of alternative energy system such as solar or anything else that’s considered; 3. materials to be considered, such as fly ash in the concrete. There’s a tremendous amount of concrete here. And by the way, I definitely support the buying of materials locally. I think that’s a great step forward. I’m sure there are some other items that I’ve skipped over. But those are all studies that I would like to see as part of the presentation. This is a huge project, and I know it was bigger at one point. However, I also know that it’s going to be one of the biggest ones built in Palo Alto for some time. I’d also like to add that by continuing it, in no way do I want to send a message to the developer that we’re somehow interested in slowing down the development in general in Palo Alto, and in particular at this site. I think there’s a difference between being development unfriendly and the comments that have come from this Board. I think the comments that have come are going to both improve its marketability as well as its operational costs, and long term improve the health of the community just in terms of its architecture. So I hope those comments are taken back. I know that the young Mr. Peery is not here anymore, but we’d certainly like to make sure that the message is clear. I’m in favor, and I believe my colleagues are also, of partnering with projects like this to really improve them in all the different ways that we’ve been talking. And if there are ways that we can expedite the approvals, though it’s being continued, through offline meetings, many of us are happy to do that. I just want to make sure it’s clear, since the Planning Commission has now decided that they will not meet with applicants offline or outside of meetings, the ARB has not made that decision and we often do meet with applicants outside of meetings. I just want to make sure that continues to be on the record. We will do whatever we can to make sure it gets approved as quickly as possible, and we appreciate the efforts that go into this, Any other comments before we take a vote on the motion? Board Member Eschweiler: Well perhaps we want to make some kind of a points list for addressing? Board Member Maran: We definitely should. Chris, can you attempt to read back any of the key points? Mr. Chris Riordan, Planner: Currently it’s pretty convoluted from what we’ve all said, so.I think the suggestion that we go down the list would really help the applicant and at this point, I think staff, to where this Board would like to go on this project. Board Member Eschweiler: Okay. So we’re going to make a motion to continue it and items that we would like to have studied and brought back for consideration. City of Palo Alto Page 28 1 Board Member Solnick: I think mine might be the least specific perhaps. And by the 2 way, what Drew said about not being anti-development is quite true. I think it’s definitely 3 working with the developer, not against them hopefully. 4 5 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 I think the two biggest concerns that I have have to do with the solar orientation; and have to do with clarifying the concept of the building, specifically with regard to skin materials - the form to some extent, but particularly the skin materials. I think the example that Susan gave about now the computer museum is a fabulous example of something that’s not particularly contextual but it!s fantastic. So that’s one way to go and perhaps the best way to go. And another way to go would be to try and do something contextual to the Baylands. It’s not clear to me how to do that on a building of this size, but it certainly may be possible. So I think it’s picking a strategy of context or not and going with that in some clear fashion and using those skin materials especially to represent that, and the solar orientation, those two. Board Member Eschweiler: Okay, I’d like to try to do this in bullet points. 1. Coming up with the concept for why this is a gateway building, why it’s different from other buildings and how that probably has some element of inventiveness that makes it a gateway building. 2. In particular, how the skin is detailed, the different components of the materials and the details of the mullions and getting all of the sample materials together. 3. We talked about the Heliodon, the site studies for south-northeast exposure, how those are being handled. 4. I would also like to understand better- there’s been illusion to the Baylands Master Plan. I don’t know how this building relates to Baylands Master Plan, I’ve never seen one. So I think that may be more for staff to help us along with that ’ to see how this ,building would integrate with that master plan. 5. The landscape plan - I think we need to take a more detailed look at how the use of trees and materials are distributed on the site. I’m not in favor of the redwood trees close to the building. I think they’re okay for screening material. They are not indigenous to the Baylands as you say, and I think that should be minimized. 6.Back to the building for a moment, I’d like to take a look at the south end - form- wise, how the north end of the building relates to the south end. To me it’s very different. One is more asymmetrical, the other one is more formal and symmetrical. The applicant and I talked about at the south end, maybe there could be a more sculptural element to that south end, maybe a balcony or some three-dimensional aspect rather than just the sheer wall of glass. 7. Back to landscaping again, talking about doing some kind of additional landscaping - if we have all of the parking, which is not clear to us yet whether we would have all of that parking or not - but if we do have parking it needs to City of Palo Alto Page 29 1 2 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 be broken up with landscape elements, possibly with bio-filtration swales where the nose-to-nose parking occurs. That’s all for right now. Board Member Maran: And I would just simply add 1. the LEED checklist used, or some more formal checklist, preferably LEED since we’re familiar with it, and 2. a cost/benefit analysis for the solar power and any other considerations from the LEED checklist that are ruled out of significance for cost reasons, what the cost/benefit analysis looks like on that. Anything else? Board Member Eschweiler: Yes. Angelica Volterra spoke as a member of the public and raised a number of issues that I believe staff will need to address before the next meeting as well. There are a r~umber of issues there that we aren’t prepared to address from our packet. Ms French: Depending on when the meeting is, we have a comment period and we will wait for all of the comments, to come in before that period. And our responsibility isto address any comments before the Council. The ARB is not the decision-maker in this case, so it is not necessary for the ARB to have all of the information necessary for the environmental document. I think where it relates to design is the most important area that the ARB is contributing to that process. So although we recommend ARB input into the environmental document, I don’t think there has to be a recommendation per se. But we can address that in the report. Board Member Eschweiler: Yes, if you could distinguish, here are the things that ARB does not address and here are the things that will be for the City Council to address, that would be helpful. There were a number of things mentioned, like traffic study and Negative Declaration and things obviously we didn’t focus on for today’s meeting. And if we don’t need to focus on it, great. There were issues about parking spaces, so we want to understand how that should be handled because the Planning Commission had one set of conditions, a.nd whether we concur- we didn’t actually state in today’s meeting whether we concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to reduce parking or not, and the driveway that they talked about deleting. So I don’t know if you need us to address that. Ms French: If you want to go there and talk about that, I think the general comments you made and further clarified, I think are significant enough that the applicant has something {o work on. But if you do have comments about that now and you want to make them, sure. Board Member Eschweiler: Well, relative to parking spaces, I agree with Cliff that to be a viable office building it would be better to have more than 3.0 per thousand parking spaces. They’ve taken it to 4.0 per thousand on a gross square footage basis. It might City of Palo Alto Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 be that one could look at that 4.0 on a net usable, and that would then bring it down to a more reasonable.compromise position. I think the applicant’s concern of having a landscape reserve is that it’s just not a flexible situation. If you get a tenant that has the need for the higher parking ratio, you have to add three months to come through a whole process to undo a landscape reserve to add more parking. I don’t know if we’re on a bus route or not, but we don’t have a train station or anything close - I guess a bike path is the only really strong alternative mode of transportation to get to this site, but everybody else is going to be coming off that off-ramp - that we should acknowledge, I think Angelica mentioned that there are neighboring buildings with 3 - 3.5 per thousand in the neighborhood, and Cliff also mentioned that there’s a lot of street parking and spillover because of that. So that probably needs to be looked at a little more closely as to what the right amount is, and I think it’s probably somewhere in the middle of those two. 14 With regard to the driveway on East Bayshore, I would like to see it removed so that all 15 traffic is controlled by going in and out of Watson Court. 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 Board Member Maran: Is that less convoluted, Chris? Mr. Chang: Yes, it’s pretty clear. Board Member Maran: Okay. At this point, shall we ask the applicant if the comments are clear? Anything else we need to do on this? No? We have to vote; it is a motion. Mr. Riordan: Just one more comment. The public hearing I guess has not been closed. There’s a request by a member of the public to make a comment, it’s up to your discretion whether or not you’d like to allow that member of the public to speak. Board Member Maran: Sure. We would like to limit this to three minutes. Ms. Volterra: I just wanted to make the specific comment that in the staff’s recommendation, in your ARB staff report, this is a quote: "Recommendation - Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that ARB recommend the City Council approve the mitigated Negative Declaration with the finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts." That’s what I was specifying; since that is staff’s recommendation to you, I believe it is incumbent upon you to have the opportunity to review the environmental documents since you are being asked to make a finding that there will be no significant impacts. So that is a very specific request that has been made by staff to you. That is the reason why I believe you should have the opportunity to review commer~ts made by the public, whatever revisions have been made, and then perhaps even the public’s responses to those since you’re having to make that finding before it goes to City Council. And the Planning Commission, even though they again, are not decision-making body, they did not have the opportunity to review the complete environmental documents, so really, you are the final body that will have this opportunity before it goes to City Council. Thank you very much. Board Member Maran: Thank you. Now we’ll have a vote on the motion. The motion is to continue this project to - do we say a date certain? City of Palo Alto Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ms. French: I was going to ask if you wanted to dialogue with the applicant on that, or just say - date uncertain, we will re-advertise. Board Member Maran: Cliff, would you like to choose a date for the next review? Mr. Chang: [off mike - inaudible] Board Member Maran: So we’ll leave it as a date uncertain. Those in favor, say aye. Those opposed. This motion to continue passes 3-0, 0-2. City of Palo Alto Page 32 Attachment H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. 3o 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Plarming and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes December 17, 2003 NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearing: 2300 East Bayshore* [03-D-4; 03-EIA-17]: Application by Clifford Chang on behalf of Richard Peery for Site and Design review of a new 73,932 square-foot office building and related site improvements located on a 5.66-acre site. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration will be prepared. Zoning: Limited Industrial Site Combining District (LM(D-3)). Mr. Chris Riordan, Planner: Good evening Chair Griffin and Commissioners. The project before you this evening is a request for Site and Design Review of a new approximately 74,000 square foot two-story office building with a 300 space at grade parking lot on a 5.66 acre site at the comer of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road in the LM(D-3) Zoning District. Presently the site is composed of two parcels, a 3.8 acre parcel developed with four vacant office buildings and a 1.8 acre parcel developed with a vacant Scott’s Seafood Restaurant. As part of the project the existing structures totaling approximately 42,000 square feet ~vould be removed and the lots would be merged. The proposed building materials would include pre-cast concrete and spandrel and vision glass. Metal panels would be used along the base of the building and as rooftop mechanical screening. To analyze the potential traffic impacts related with the project analysis was prepared in March 2002. That report analyzed traffic impacts for 110,000 square foot building. The project before you this evening would have less impact at 74,000 square feet. The report indicates that the project would impact the unsignalized intersection at San Antonio Road and the northbound 101 off-ramp. That signal currently operates at a Level of Service F during peak morning and evening commute times. A signal is planned for this intersection jointly by the City of Palo Alto, Cal Trans and the City of Mountain View. As mitigation for the traffic impact the applicant would be provided to pay $8,500 prior to the issuance of a building permit. With a new signal the intersection would improve to a Level of Service B according to the traffic impact analysis. The City Cotmcil has approved a three-party agreement between Cal Trans, Mountain View and Palo Alto and the signal project is fully funded. AI! the design details have been agreed upon and the final design has been completed. Construction of the signal is expected to begin before the end of the fiscal year. This concludes the Staff Report. Dave Dockter, the Planning Arborist, is here to answer project specific landscape questions and Joe Kott of the Transportation Division is here to address questions as they may pertain to traffic. The applicant will have 15 minutes to present the project. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Will the applicant step forward and if you would please introduce yourself. You have 15 minutes. )cir. Lee Ashb,¢, Hoover Associates, Architects: We hope that the package and everything is fairly self-explanatory but let me just review a few things. We are looking at a 74,000 square Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 foot office building built on a 5.66-acre site. I think that everyone knows where this site is. It is the site of the previous Scott’s Seafood. We have actually been through several iterations of design with a larger footprint and a larger project and we have scaled that down and been through a number of meetings in the process of that with the ARB. We have kind of distilled this down to the project that you see in front of you which is a 74,000 square foot building, two stories. It has kind of a circular entrance that is kind of the focus of entry then two wings that sort of emanate from that circular drum. The building that we are showing is a combination of pre-cast concrete, a sample of which I have here so kindly lent to me by Staff, and also metal panels and visual glass and spandrel glass. I think you have a color version of the prospective in your packages. Am I corre.ct? I hope that you do. I might just mention a few things on the site. Our landscape coverage in this concept is all surface parking but our landscape coverage is actually quite a bit higher than what is required I think in terms of height and setbacks and all of those things. You will see in your Staff Report that those are all conforming. We are looking at basically a very conforming project in terms of the numbers. The one thing that is a little bit different on the parking and I want to explain that is the parldng count is above what the City typically has for their parking requirement. This was a parameter that the owner has put on the project in terms of their own operational things. I guess it is one space per 250 square feet of office instead of one per 300. This results in some additional parldng spaces but we would definitely like to - we don’t want to be parking on the street and we kind of respect their operational experience in this type of building. They feel that that is needed so I wanted to explain that. We feel very strongly that the building that is before you in the site plan and its arrangement works well. We think that it is a big improvement from what is there right now. It is a little bit spotty and a little bit different and this will be very cohesive. We think that it will be a tremendous asset to the area and particularly to that site as you are coming off the 101 Freeway it will be a very prominent structure where it is proposed to be located. I those are probably the things that I would like to point out. If there are any questions of the Commission I would be happy to field those. Chair Griffin: Thank you. If you will just stand by we do have a question for you. Commissioner Bialson. Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. I have a question with regard to the first driveway that you show on East Bayshore very close to the intersection with Embarcadero. Can you tell me how far that is from the intersection? And where it is related to the existing driveway that is there now. Mr. Ashby: It is’ approximately about 60 feet from my quick review without a scale. I might want to point out that this driveway that you are referring to is an existing driveway that is there right now. Commissioner Bialson: Okay. Had you considered putting the driveway anywhere else? Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Ashby: We felt that this was a good location. It works now or it has been working for entering the project. For right turning in it is really very positive. It gets you ir~ quickly to the project. For a left turn outside the project it wouldn’t work and we don’t intend to use it as such. Commissioner Bialson: So you will have markings on the parking lot indicating those areas that are for entrance only and for exit only? Mr. Ashby: Yes. Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. Ch~ir Griffin: Bonnie. (ommissioner Packer: The plans that we have don’t show the internal improvements that would be made. Is this going to be leased out subject to tenant improvements? Mr. Ashby: The answer is yes it would be. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: My question had to do with the height of the building. What percentage of this area at the center of the building will reach the maximum height of 43 feet, in other words, the screening area what percentage of that area that’s doing the screening? The center of the building is screened. Mr. Ashby: I think I might best answer that by referring you to a drawing. If you will look at drawing A-3 which is toward the back of the set you will see the circular area that I mentioned earlier which is kind of the focus of the entry and that is the area that goes up higher to that 43 feet. Then the wings that extend out they are at 36 foot, three inches I believe is the height of the wings. Is that clear? I hope I have answered your question. There is the circular drum. area again at the entry. The mechanical screens on those go up to the 43 that is referred to as being the height.of the proposed project, which is the maximum height. The wings that extend out from that drum or entry area would be at the lower height. Chair Griffin: Commissioners? Karen. Commissioner Holman: A follow up to that. So the 33 feet, nine that you are saying goes up to 36 feet, what takes that above the 33, nine on the wings? Mr. Ashby: On the wings? It is the mechanical screen that is setback further from the actual walI parapet and that is all it is, a mechanical screen. Commissioner Holman: So that screen runs basically the full length of the building. Mr. Ashby: Yes. Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Holman: And then taller in the center portion. Mr. Ashby: Exactly, it steps up is what happens and it is setback away from the face of the building. Commissioner Burt: Regarding the height, this is in a flood plane is there a grade elevation here? Mr. Ashby: We are in the flood plane area and we have this sited so that we are at least one foot of free board above the flood plane area. Commissioner Burt: So when we are looking at the building height the ground level is compared to what? Your zero elevation. Mr. Ashby: The zero elevation? Commissioner Burt: Yes, how elevated are you required to have that above the surrounding ground areas. Mr. Ashby: We are not mounding up all that much. It does come up some. Just to give you an idea by comparison if you look on the grade and drainage plan on C-2 our proposed building finished floor height is at 9.00. I think it is probably best to answer it this way because you can look at the adjacent .grades. Depending on where you look top of curb for example out at Watson Court is down about 3.6 feet or 3.8 feet something like that. So as you cross the property you are going up about 60 inches but you are doing that gradually and not abruptly. Commissioner Burt: Okay. Mr. Ashby: There is also a little bit of rise right at the court if you look at the parking the way it is graded it comes up slightly and then goes back down again. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Regarding the parking the developer would like to put in an extra 60 spaces beyond what is mandated. Do you have an idea of what portion of the spaces would be for tenant use and what portion for visitor use? Mr. Ashby: I don’t really. I don’t know what that ratio is that they would maintain for that. I don’t know the answer to that one. Commissioner Burt: This is essence a gateway property into our Baylands. In your design can you explain to us how this design fits into the Baylands development concepts that have gone on and its compatibility? Mr. Ashby: Let me just say a littte bit about that because it is interesting on the gateway as we went through a number of schemes and it seems these days that many projects get called gateways to places. I think probably the Strength of this solution lies in sort of the gesturing and Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 the fluidness of the design in terms of its geometry and kind of sort of pulling you through the space and not necessarily as a sort ofa Baylands entity. It is not the Baylands itself. If you look around it it really isn’t the Baylands but it is pulling you through and leading toward the more sensitive parts of the Baylands, which are out further. Again, it is not an entity in terms of the landscaping and all the provisions of the site itself. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: Did you consider other materials for this that would be more natural in keeping with the Baylands environment? Mr. Ashb-g: I think we did at one point. I think there is always wood and things like that but it is not something the owner was interested in doing. In terms of going into that kind of a wood vocabulary or even that form of concrete could be accomplished in some concrete forms but I think this is where they would like to be. This is an office building to them also. It is of a certain character and they needed the ability to have a very leasable product there in terms of being a home for certain kinds of tenants as well. Sometimes they are not always exactly the same in terms of their vocabulary and language. Chair Griffin: To follow up on that talking about different kinds of tenants have you designed this building in such a way that it would accommodate a restaurant for example or medical offices in addition to attorney’s offices and architects and other professionals? Mr. Ashby: I can’t speak for the owner in that in terms of those specific tenants. Generally what we see is medical use buildings are more plumbing intensive, significantly more plumbing intensive. That has not been sort of the general tenant characteristic that in other projects for this particular owner and I don’t think that is the general direction or the general tenant profile that they are seeking here. Chair Griffin: So you would say that the way your firm designed the building is not plumbing intensive and would not particularly lend itself to either restaurants or medical offices then? Mr. Ashby: It could. It is not that the geometry wouldn’t lend itself to medical offices, it could be. It is just a question of is someone really willing to put in the plumbing. It has nothing really to do with the planning or the architecture in terms of what’s here. It could be adapted but it is probably not their sort of primary tenant target. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: As a follow on to Michael’s question maybe more pointedly, is this building designed with a particular tenant in mind or just for general office to be sublet to whatever tenants may be there after construction? Mr. Ashby: I am not aware of a specific tenant at this time. It is possible that they might be but I am not aware of a specific tenant. Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have an initial question for the applicant and later for Staff. How did you go about the selection of trees? Is that too general a question? Mr. Ashby: No, I understand the question. I am not the landscape architect either and he is not with me here. In terms of the palate of trees I am not sure I can answer that without the landscape architect being here and addressing that. It is probably a better question for him. Chair Griffin: Do other Commissioners have questions? Phyllis? Apparently we are finished here for the moment. Thank you for your responses. Mr. Ashby: I am not going anywhere so if you have more questions. Chair Griffin: Stay close that would be fine. Now I am going to ask Commissioners if they would like to pose any questiotas to Staff and following that we will go to the public comments. Annette. Commissioner Bialson: This would be a question for Joe. I believe I raised this concern previously and I recognize that there has been a traffic impact analysis but with regard to the intersection of Embarcadero and East Bayshore what Level of Service does that intersection operate at at this time? Mr. Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official: The intersection operates at Level of Service E in the evening peak and D in the morning peak. Commissioner Bialson: Has that gotten better or worse recently? Were these levels what were determined to exist by the March 2002 analysis done for the applicant or were they independent figures that we reached as a City? Mr, K0tt: The traffic analysis that was done for the applicant under accepted practices, the VTA, our own traffic engineers takes into account not only existing conditions at the time, 2002, but reasonably foreseen projects including IKEA and their in effect forecast of their conditions with the project show an increase of average stop delay of about half a second in the morning and half a second in the evening peak and no change in Level of Service grade. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: Mine also is a traffic question. Given the applicants stated experience, and this is why they are wanting the extra parking places, how does that dovetail with the traffic analysis? Mr. Kott: It appears as though the applicant is desiring to over park, to put more parking than the land use and trip generation would appear to require. Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Holman: At the same time they are saying that their experience dictates a need for that. That to me implies trip generation because you have to have trips to create a demand for parking. So that is where my query rests. Mr. Kott: Again, the traffic analysis did use the standard methods of really a.ssumptions about the trip generation of an office development like this. The assumptions and the methods were acceptable to us. The parking appears to be more than would be needed under the use that they have so one doesn’t really know why they are requesting more or wanting to have more. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: Joe, do you happen to remember what the assumptions were for the trip generation? I know it was based on the 110,000 square foot and is that just a number of trips per square foot or for 250 or 300? What was that assumption so that we can figure that into our analysis tonight? Mr. Kott: The analyst was Fred Cho at Fehr& Peers and I believe Fred used the ITE trip generation handbook for his trip generation rate. That is an acceptable source for us. Commissioner Packer: But do you know what that rate is offhand? Mr. Kott: I would have to look that up. I don’t have it handy. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: The intersection at San Antonio that is impacted, would you kindly explain that because I went through that intersection and there is a beautiful light there? I think what you are talking about is not quite the light I went through. Mr. Kott: Thank you Commissioner Cassel for characterizing that signal as beautiful. We love to hear that. The improvement is needed at the stop control at the northbound ramp off 101 onto San Antonio. That currently operates at a Level of Service F, which is certainly unacceptable to us and unacceptable to VTA too for that matter. The new signal which has been funded, designed and will begin constructed in the next six months will raise the Level of Service to B. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: That is the northbound. There is no .southbound ramp at that intersection. Am I correct? So no one could come south on East Bayshore and get from the San Antonio intersection south onto 101 you have to go over to Charleston. Mr. Kott: I believe you are right,, yes. Chair Griffin: Karen. Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Holman: I have a question going to trees so it is probably for Mr. Dockter. The Staff Report talks about how many trees are existing on the site and then it also goes on to say how many new trees are going to be planted but it doesn’t particularly describe if there are going to be trees removed. So that’s a question. Then the other part of the question is is the type of tree that is being put there, can you speak to the relevance of the site given it’s Baylands location to the type of trees that are being recommended here by the applicant?. Mr. Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist: Yes, thank you. The first part of your question on how many trees are going to be retained. The applicant proposed to retain 13 trees that are existing on this site. In our conditions of approval we have asked the applicant to identify exactly how many trees are expected both to be retained ~nd/or relocated also because there are some good candidates for trees that can be relocated. That hasn’t been submitted to us yet in the details with the revised arborist report of the trees on the site. When the detailed landscape plan does get presented to Staff for review we will have several deletions and I am sure additions to augment their landscape plan to better incorporate a Baylands sensitivity to the landscape theme. The landscape theme as presented is pretty general and the Site and Design findings for environmental sensitivity are still not perfect yet. A detailed landscape plan will need to be reviewed though to actually dial in on what plants should be actually accepted. Does that fully answer your question? Commissioner Holman: It sounds like it does to the extent that you have information at this point. Just for my own edification I was wondering about the appropriateness of pears and ash and plum and crepe myrtle at this location and if there is a proliferation of them to just help educate me or the Commission on appropriateness of those types of plantings in the Baylands. Mr. Dockter: Some of the deletions that we will obviously target on are many of the oaks that are proposed here are really a foothills type of oak and we would not want to encourage that in a Baylands situation. S’ome of the plums and pears are so much of an ornamental tree that they really belong close next to buildings and they are not generally considered a Baylands tree. The Baylands are is a very un-tree, not too tree friendly actually. The Baylands Master Plan that was prepared for the business park areas of this area in the 1970s has a list of trees that will survive in saline situations that we would also want the applicant to select trees and shrubs and ground cover from. Again in the detailed landscape plan we can work directly with the landscape architect to gain a sensitivity for this Site and Design finding. Chair Griffin: I woutd like to sneak a question in here of my own. I would like to ask Dan if you could respond to this. In the SR it states that we are going to see the project generating 98 new car trips in the morning and 37 new car trips in the afternoon. The NegativeDeclaration says that this traffic count, 98 and 37, is not significant.. If the Commission wishes to make a condition of approval of some sort of further mitigation even though it is not considered to be significant in the Negative Declaration, can we do that? Mr. Dan Soder~ren, Special Council to City Attorneys: You can but I think it is important to keep a couple of things in mind as you are going through this. First of a!l, as you know the use on the site has already previously been approved through the zoning. So we are not really Page 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 talking about use here we are talking about the Site and Design. As you pointed out the 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration did take into account the potentially significant traffic problem 3 and offered up mitigation. You can impose additional mitigation requirements if you feel they 4 are needed for this Site and Design application and they somehow relate to the findings you need 5 to make, which are included in the Staff Report on page six. So you do have that authority as long as you tie them to those findings on the Site and Design application. Chair Griffin: So in other words, on page six for example finding number two where it talks about the project is designed in such a way as to ensure the desirability of future investment or conduct of business, etc. and if the Commission would say no I can’t make thatfinding because there istoo much traffic over there being added by this project then the finding would not be made and consequently we could then ask for the project to come forward with additional mitigations. Mr. Sodergren: Right as long as it was somehow tied to one of those findings then you could do that. Chair Griffin: I guess that answers the question. Thank you. Pat. Commissioner Burt: I would like to return to that traffic question. I have struggled to envision the reconciliation between the traffic impact analysis report that Fehr & Peers had prepared and the parking and the applicant’s experience that they need 300 parking spaces for the occupancy that is going to be there. So how can we have a demand for up to 300 parking spaces the vast majority of which presumably would be for occupants and only a minority for visitors that would come and go throughout the day and have only 37 evening peak hour trips and for that matter only 98 morning trips for maybe 250-plus cars. How does this come about it just doesn’t seem to make sense? Mr. Kott: Before I attempt to answer that question Commissioner Burt I would like to answer Commissioner Packer’s earlier question on trip generation rates used. Mr. Cho did use the Institute of Transportation Engineer’ s Trip Generation Handbook and the category used for real aficionados is 710, which.is general office buildings. It is liable to be.a very good database. As Commissioner Packer knows based on Professor Shoop’s lecture here a couple of years ago some of those land use categories are based on very slender numbers but general office buildings is a very robust one. There are a lot of those around the country and case studies to draw from. It says1.56 trip per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in the morning for the morning peak hour generation rate and 1.49 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in the evening peak. I just have to fall back on the trip .generation rates that Mr. Cho used which are accepted in this kind of traffic impact analysis or practice. The category is liable to be quite robust. I don’t have the handbook in front of me, which lists the number of case studies and shows the distribution of trip generation rates in the sample of case studies but my guess is these are very good. This is national experience. The applicant may have different experience or may have different thinking about parking. We do require when a traffic impact analysis is done and a trip generation rate is Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 put forward we do require that to be documented. We do accept the ITE Trip Generation Handbook as adequate documentation for those rates therefore we accept the rates. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: A follow up. Is this not 98 trips over what would be there now? Mr. Kott: Right. Vice-Chair Cassel: So it is not 98 trips it is 98 trips over and above if the space that was there now was occupied. Mr. Kott: Yes, I was bit distracted thinldng about Professor Shoop’s lecture. I really regret ever bringing him to Palo Alto. But that Commissioner Cassel is right. These are net new trips. They subtract out the land use that was there or the trip generation that is being displaced you might say. So this is anet addition to the land use itself. Commissioner Burt: Joe, could we go down to near the bottom of page three of the Staff Report, second paragraph under traffic? The first sentence refers to the TIA estimate for 110,000 square feet 98 new morning trips and 37 evening peak trips. The second sentence say this number of trips however is only 16 additional trips than what would be generated by the existing office and restaurant land uses. So can you clarify forme your previous statement? I am not following. Vice-Chair Cassel: I found that later on in the report, that 16 more trips per day versus 98 trips in the morning. The whole trip generation for the day with a restaurant and everything I found it someplace. Mr. Kott: Thank you Commissioner Cassel i wouldn’t have-remembered that without you recollecting it yourself. So there is a difference in the basis of the number. One is a day long number the other one is a peak period number. Chair Griffin: Even though it is not so identified in the SR? Mr. Kott: It certainly is in the traffic impact analysis here. Is that attached to the Staff Report? This is dated March 2002. Vice-Chair Cassel: I think I found it in Attachment C as I was reading along. Commissioner Packer: Page 22. I want to ask a question ifI may, Michael? Chair Griffin: Please, Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I should have checked this but I didn’t. In the Comprehensive Plan EIR would it not have assumed the use on this site at what it was zoned for at the time and have assumed the traffic on that basis? Just looking at the Comprehensive Plan EIR is very much Page 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 more than what would have been in our Comprehensive Plan? Steve, would you know off-hand? I think I am putting you on ’/he spot with that question. Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: The Comprehensive Plan analysis would have been based on the existing land use designations that were in place. As you recall from the rezoning that was a combination of retail or restaurant .and the balance being the office designation. Then the Commission recommended and the Council accepted to convert the comer, the restaurant site, to match the remaining office designation on the rest of the site. The Comprehensive Plan EIR would have used the existing restaurant and I believe it was in operation at the time that the EIR was done so that would have most likely just been factored into the baseline analysis that was done for the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. ¯ Vice-Chair Cassel: Another traffic related question. What improvements are you planning in Embarcadero Road and that section? Mr. Kot~: That is a very good question. As the Commission may know we are now modernizing our traffic signal system. That will be completed by the end of 2004, likely by fall, but we are replacing equipment and we are interconnecting our signals with fiber optic and so forth. In conjunction with that we wi!l do retimings ourselves. We will be able to do the retiming and monitor traffic in our offices. So we should have a fairly significant improvement in the operation of those signals. In other words we will be able to reallocate the green time. Longer term as the Commission knows the City is very interested in automating all of our traffic signals beginning with certain corridors including Embarcadero Road and Charleston!Arastradero Roads so that the retimings occur automatically based on real time traffic conditions. That is the ultimate. In the nearer term we will see a considerable improvement in the operation of signals like the one at Embarcadero and East Bayshore without physical capacity expansion. Chair Griffin: I would like to follow up on Phyllis’s-question. You say "nearer term" and I would like to pin you down a little bit specifically in relationship to when this project could be expected to comeon-stream. For example two years from now I am going to say one would presume they would be up and running by then. Is that two year timeframe, does that window work for your near term traffic signal timing improvements? Mr. Kott: Yes, Commissioner Griffin. We expect to implement all of our signal modernization this first phase with all the new equipment and the ability to retime from the office by the end of 2004. So if this project has a timeline beyond that we will definitely be in a much better operational situation when this project opens up. Chair Griffin: I am going to ask again a question on page 22 of the Negative Declaration referring back to this paragraph under roman numeral XV, Traffic, where it says the project is estimated to generate only 16 additional daily trip~ when compared to the existing office and restaurant land uses but because of the multi-tenant office land use the project is estimated to generate 98 new trips inthe morning and 37 new evening peak hour trips. So we are going to Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 have an impact on the morning commute period of 98 new trips, 37 of them in the evening and the 16 additional daily. Help me understand that again please. Mr. Kott: The daily number I think that reflects the restaurant use and restaurant traffic is a little better distributed throughout the day. Office traffic, as we all know, is more concentrated because people tend to come in and leave during typical commute peak hours in the morning and the evenings. ¯ . Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Bu~t: Joe, there wasa question earlier about the traffic assumptions and the IKEA impact and when the traffic impact analysis was done it was based upon anticipations with IKEA. Do you have any knowledge as to how the reality has compared to the projections? Mr. Kott: That is interesting that you ask that. We did get a call yesterday from a local report that asked that .very same question. We have done some monitoring counts after IKEA opened and compared them with before counts. In general the impact has really not been very great, much less than the perception. It isa pretty instructive lesson I think for all of us to think about. Mr. Cho did assume IKEA would be opening at the size they opened at and assumed a trip generation rate appropriate to that size and factored that into a so-called with background and IKEA traffic analysis for this project. Commissioner Burt: So do we have any knowledge as to whether those assumptions are approximately what we found on the ground? Mr. Kott: I think offthe cuff it is likely Mr. Cho might have been a bit conservative but I think he was safe making the assumptions he did and they should stand as being adequate. Commissioner Burt: I have another question I guess for Chris. Chris, the surrounding buildings what height is the adjacent buildings or the nearby ones compared to what this would be including the elevation from street level? Mr. Riordan: I don’t have that information currently at my disposal but we will have that for the ARB when we go to the ARB. Commissioner Burt: Okay. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: I have a question in another area. That has to do with the impervious surface on the site. Could one of you tell me what the impervious surface is now in comparison to what the impervious surface will be? Is it going to be more or less? Ms. Amy French, Current Plannin~ Manager: That study, we know what it will be as proposed is 60% apparently if you calculate building plus parking area. We didn’t get a number from them for existing but we realize that we need that and we will put that into the environmental Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 document and adjust that document to reflect what is existing as impervious. We don’t have the number for you tonight. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have one.more. On page 16 of the environmental document it talks about mandatory findings of significance and the language that is there could Staff explain to me how the language that is there relates to the language on page 24 under mandatory findings of significance? I am not quite relating the two. Is that clear enough or do you want my question more directly? Ms. French: Let me try. In general the checklist is a question as we are doing the preliminary environmental. The second one is a statement basically after we have done our study to say it will not degrade the surrounding environment. It is basically summarizing instead of asking a question. There may be some differences in the words that are used in there.. Commissioner Holman: I understand the question/answer aspect of it and I apologize because I probably wasn’t clear enough in what my question was really getting at. The A under that where it say the potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated, the language in that A talks about plant life, rare and endangered species and habitat and all of that but yet when we go over to mandatory findings of significance and so it would require a mitigation directly related to those as I would read it. Then when you go to the mandatory findings on page 24 and the response I don’t see a mitigation that would respond to that potentially significant unless mitigated check that is put on page 16. Ms. Lisa Grote, ChiefPianning Official: The second sentence in the summary on page 24 says the project as mitigated would create less than significant impact so that does refer back to the previously stated mitigation measures that are under each individual category. So when you look at those mitigat.ion measures they will result in a project that does not substantially degrade the surrounding environment. Commissioner Holman: I am afraid I am still a little confused because there is no mitigation for the specific environmental impacts that are checked on page 16-A. ° Ms. Grote: Let us look for those and we will get you a little bit more detail. They should be stated earlier in the document but we will look for those. Commissioner Holman: I appreciate that. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Just as a follow up. I don’t know if Staff can try to provide any additional input on my previous question about surrounding building heights. I really think that is within the purview of the Commission on Site and Design Review. I would not want to just defer that to ARB review. Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Griffin: If there are no further questions from Commissioners I am going to give the public an opportunity to comment. If you have an interest in speaking please obtain a speaker’s card from the Secretary. I only have one speaker card at the moment. Angelica Volterra and you will have five minutes. Ms. Angelica Volterra, P.O. Box 1724, Palo Alto: Thank you. I believe that the Environmental Review of this project is inadequate with respect to traffic. Staff has relied on a traffic analysis that was prepared by Fehr & Peers in March of 2002, almost two years ago. In my opinion the data reported is outdated, the methodology flawed and the analysis should be discarded and replaced by a study that accurately reflects the existing traffic conditions and complies with CEQA. First the Fehr & Peers analysis used inflated baselines to calculate the trip generation statistics it reports. The proposed office building would replace the Scott’s Seafood building which has been empty for over one and a half years and four small office buildings on Watson Court, which have been empty for over three years. All these empty buildings generate no, zero, traffic. I have copied the Fehr & Peers trip generation estimates from the 2002 traffic analysis as the first page in the handout I have provided. The pink line highlights the estimated trips generated by the 110,000 square foot office building originally proposed. The blue line highlights the estimated trips generated by the 33,200 square feet of office building. The green line highlights the estimated trips generated by an 8,400 square foot restaurant presumably the sizes of the now empty buildings, office and restaurant buildings. Even though all of these buildings are empty and generate no traffic the analysis subtracts their calculated trips from the totals estimated for the project to arrive at the figures in the line highlighted in yellow which are figures that the current Staff Report and environmental document cite. The results of this flawed methodology is an artificially inflated baseline on a low number of predicted trips and inadequate disclosure of the true numbers of trips to be generated by the project. Now looking atthe second page that I have given in the handout these tables estimate the trip generation rates using the 74,000 square feet of the current project but not subtracting out any numbers for traffic that does not currently exist. The first table looks at estimated trips generated based on square feet of space, i.e., 74,000. The numbers in the table are my calculations and the numbers just below the tables in black are the Fehr & Peers numbers for the 110,000 square foot. project minus 5,000 feet of exempted floor space. The actually daily average number of cars generated by the proposed project becomes 814, not the 16 estimated by Fehr & Peers. The total a.m. peak number of trips is 115 not 98 and the total p.m. peak number of.trips is 110 not 37. The second table below estimates the number of trips calculated by employee rather than square feet. Using the four to six employees per 1,000 square feet of office develop statistics that were discussed at the September 2002 Planning Commission about this project, the 74,000 square foot development would generate approximately 296 to 444 employees. These employees would generate 983 to 1,474 daily trips, 142 to 213 total a.m. peak hour trips and 136 to 204 total p.m. peak hour trips. Compare these numbers to the Fehr & Peers numbers below, 16 daily, 98 a.m. and 37 p.m. peak hour trips and you can see how much traffic would be added by this project that has not been disclosed in the Fehr & Peers report. Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Remember the Fehr & Peers figures are for 110,000 or really a 105,000 square foot building. The numbers that Fehr & Peers would generate for a 74,000 square foot building would be even less than that. Also the 300 parking spaces represent 23% more spaces than the 244 spaces required by the City. So shouldn’t the City add another 23% more to reflect a comparative given the owner’s experience? Next is the East Bayshore/Embarcadero intersection, which is’ currently problematic and dangerous. In January 2002 according to Fehr & Peers’ own direct documented observations for another project this intersection was operating at an unacceptable or F Level of Service during p.m, peak hours under existing conditions. This LOS of F was by direct observation and they noted that this LOS was substantially worse on direct observation than the calculated LOS. The LOS of E that Mr. Kott was referring to was a calculated rate. This was before IKEA yet the present traffic analysis fails to adequately study the impact of the project’s addition of significant amounts of traffic especially at peak hours to the existing traffic toad and capacity of the roadway and of this intersection, an intersection that is already dangerous and at times heavily congested. This intersection serves regional commuters as well as local traffic accessing office buildings, IKEA, other retail establishments, the main post office, a school and the Dumbarton Bridge. Moreover, at the present time a significant number of the office buildings in the area have empty available space for lease. So when these buildings are fully occupied there will be significant amounts of additional traffic at this intersection. Also when the .economy improves conceivably IKEA traffic will also be worsened. Moreover, the proposed if built would significantly exacerbate the City’s housing shortage. The296 to 444 employees calculated would further exacerbate Palo Alto’s current jobs/housing imbalance. Finally, this site is located near the Baylands a sensitive environment with very precious biological resources and therefore extreme care should be taken with respect to any potential negative impacts on this area. The project is not transit oriented rather commuters to this building will be relying heavily on automobiles and in many cases single occupant vehicles because of the lack of convenient public transit alternatives to this site. Thank you very much. Chair Griffin:Thank you. We have questions for you. Pat. Commissioner Burt: Angie, you covered a lot of territory there so it was hard to keep up. At my pace would you walk me through your assertion on the daily average trip generation and bearing in mind that I think this Fehr & Peers 16 that was based upon the difference between if the current buildings were occupied and the new building? As I understand it your assertion is that at least the intersection analysis was done at a time when these buildings were not occupied. Is that correct? Ms. Volterra: That’s correct. Commissioner Burt: So how did you arrive at your 814 trips per day? Page 15 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 Ms. Volterra: The Institute of Transportation Engineers has trip generation rates and actually the 2 ones that Fehr & Peers used were from 1997. There are updated ones from I believe 2002 maybe 3 Joe can correct me about the dates on that: So what I did is I just used the multiplier in the tables 4 for 710 which is the general office use that he alluded to earlier. You just multiply those out. If 5 you 10ok at the Fehr & Peers study if you look at that pink row on the Fehr & Peers, the daily the 6 1,156, they ha;ce done the same thing there to arri-~e at their rates basically. They multiplied the 7 per 1,000 square feet by the multiplier in this table which I could again show you. It is under the 8 category 710 for general office use. So I just applied that same multiplier except for the updated 9 I think it is 2002 ITE statistics to the 74,000 square feet. I will note, because [ did in a letter but I didn’t have any time to say it, is I did not use any exempted floor space. Fehr & Peers did. They decreased theirs from 110,000 to 105,000 because they considered there were 5,000 feet of cafeteria and something else. I didn’t have any.design plans in front of me so I used the entire 74,000. Commissioner Butt: So fundamentally you used the same trip generation per square foot although you are using the 2002 updated version. Ms. Volterra: I think the date is 2002. Commissioner Burt: So the main difference is that you are saying that the net impact on the intersection is based upon at the time of the analysis there was no trip generation from this site on that intersection and the generation from this project is all an increase on the site versus the time, which the intersection analysis was done. Ms. Volterra: I can’t say no because when I called Scott’s Seafood to see when they had moved from that site today they told me they moved in either March or April. The problem is that in these statistics here, the green one, they utilized the statistics in the ITE figures of a restaurant that is fully operational and very viable. What had been stated in previous Planning Commission and City Council meetings in order ~to get the zoning change one of the developer’s representatives stated that the restaurant basically wasn’t viable at this site. So we don’t know in fact what the actual, at leas I don’t, what the actual trips generated by the restaurant at that time were and I don’t know if the restaurant was actually there in March when they were doing. I also want to make one more note that may help explain why I think this is so important is I don’t think that the Environmental Review complies with Section .15.125A of CEQA which states, ~An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation is published or if no Notice of Preparation is published at the time environmental analysis is commenced from both the local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is .... significant." That is why I think this is a very significant thing determining what these .baselines are. I think that the baseline should be zero because there are no. occupied buildings. These buildings have been empty anywhere from a year and a half to four years or excuse me, three years. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Page 16 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Griffini Joe, do you either wish to respond or does the applicant wish to respond to any of this? Mr. Kott: I do have a few comments. I think it is important to note we are all concerned about daily traffic from an environmental standpoint certainly in Palo Alto each of us as individuals and in our professional and civic capacities. For the purpose of a traffic impact analysis the critical analytical period is the peak period. That is where the traffic load demand is the highest. So in that very strict sense, putting aside environmental issues which are important to all of us, in the strict traffic impact analysis sense the daily trip generation is irrelevant. The peak period trip generation rate is very relevant indeed. Secondly in terms of land use, what’s viable and what’s not, our long established practice and procedure in Palo Alto is to give credit in effect to existing land uses and net those out when there is a redevelopment and the assumption is full occupancy. Certainly occupancy rates vary up and down all over the place but the practice and I think this is a practice very widely shared around the country is that we assume a restaurant for example is a going concern and has a typical trip generation rate for a restaurant. I should say too that we have been doing this kind of thing for quite a long time and we do evaluate our intersection operations every year, our major intersections, including Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore. The last analysis we did was just a few months ago and there has been no change in the level of service on that intersection compared to the existing condition data the Mr. Cho reported. Chair Griffin: So you are saying it is still an E. Mr. Kott: Yes, it is still an E and believe me we stand by that. We collect very good data indeed. We use accepted practices and we have been doing it for a very long time. That is I think about all I have to say at this point. One last point, I would like to be fair and I think it is fair to say that Fred Cho did disclose his whole analysis. I am looking right now at page 25, clear as day, Table 8. He shows existing restaurant, daily trip generation, a.m./p.m, peak in and out, all that stuff, existing office building, proposed Watson Com’t office project. It shows all the trip generation for existing and new and he nets out from the new the existing. It is very clear there is nothing camouflaged whatsoever as far as we can determine. He did it very professionally and we find it quite acceptable. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I didn’t understand there was an implication of anything being veiled. As I heard it I think the City as you stated it has been using a number for some time that assumes full occupancy of existing allowed land uses. Where I think Ms. Volterra was saying that to get at a real impact from at least her perspective that you would take what is actually physically happening at the time of a new application. So can you explain to my why does the City use the basis that it does as opposed to a basis that Ms. Volterra is saying should be the basis? Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Kott: I think if one thinks it through it becomes a little clearer. We may go out there and take a look at the restaurant, let’s say it is a restaurant, and it is not doing very well right now with just a few cars in the parking lot. We do driveway counts’ and we determine there are just a few cars in the peak hour. Then the restaurant cl~anges management and they change the menu, they hire a French chef and all of a sudden they are really booming. Well obviously methodologically this is a roller coaster. So either you assume zero trip generation rate or you assume full occupancy or a going concern you might say, a going concern kind of a trip generation rate. You can’t very well go out there every month or every quarter and do driveway counts and so forth. After all we are looking at least for a stable number that will hold for a few years. We are not looking at a number that is [effinescent] and based on how good the menu is and so forth. So there are a lot of methodological problems with that. I think our practice is very similar to what most other communities do. If the City does decide not to consider existing land uses there are some implications to that too. Fairly stated this traffic impact analysis followed our conventions. Chair Griffin: If there are no further questions we will hear from our second speaker, John Ciccarelli. Welcome John, you have five minutes. Mr. John Ciccarelli,. 2065 Yale Street, Palo Alto: Thank you. I don’t think I’ll need five minutes. I actually came to speak on item two but saw this and realized there is a minor ]?ublic benefit to be suggested. The property abuts the Baysho~?e Freeway and also the southwest comer, if north is toward San Francisco, abuts the City’s bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing path that spans US 101. I would consider it a benefit regardless of what land use is approved there if a connection were made to that path from the backside of the parking lot. A local example of this is at 4001 Miranda, the Foothill Research Center, which has a back of parking lot connection to the ballpark path. There are many people who might work or visit that building that is proposed who live in Midtown or the Greer Park area and could easily walk or bike to work. It. makes it a slight bit more convenient to bike to work if a backside connection is made [o the parking lot. The alternative is to use the sidewalk between Watson Court and the path entrance, a bit inconvenient. For a pedestrian the time advantage is substantial. You probably save close to four or five minutes either way to work. So I would like to suggest that the Commission consider conditioning the land use to making a connection to the path that goes over the 101. Chair Griffin: Thank you. There are no questions of Commissioners so I will ask the applicant if he would like to make any closing remarks. It is not obligatory. Mr. Ashby: I won’t make long remarks but I think that we. have been through a fairly long process with this building in trying to bring it to the levels of acceptability in terms of its square footage and size and location. We have.downsized it quite a bitl We have changed it over many, many iterations-and would like to proceed at this point. We think that the traffic analysis has been done and redone. It has been done carefully as I think has been a~tested to and done in a manner that would be done in other communities. We would like to simply urge you to support us in this and go forward on this project. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you for your comments. At this point I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commissioners for discussion. This item is a quasi-j udicial item subject to Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 the Council’s disclosure policy. I wiI1 just ask if any Commissioners have any disclosures that they would wish to make at this time. Seeing none then I will invite Commissioners .to open a discussion on this topic. It can be basically broken down into landscaping, traffic, parking, zoning ordinance compliance and Site and Design Review findings plus the environmental review. If you feel comfortable in taking it by topic we could start for example with landscaping. Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I just have a preliminary question to help us in our discussion as far as the scope. Since this is a Site and Design Review we are not looking at the land use. The zoning and all that is a given and the use is a given and the FAR and all the development standards according to the table is all within the zoning. So our scope of discussion is just in connection with the findings that we need to make on page six and seven. Would be the way to approach it? ~ Chair Griffin: Actually, if there is a consensus here that would make me very pleased..I suggested doing it.by topics but if you have other ways that you wish to approach it that’s not a problem. Commissioner Packer: I just want us in our discussion to keep in mind that this is a Site and Design. Originally, we have seen this a couple of times before, it was in the context of a PC and zoning change and we had more latitude tO suggest conditions. Whereas in this context i think we are a little bit more constrained. That is my understanding. Chair Griffin: In fact maybe we need to clarify that. In general I agree with what you are saying but this is Site and Design Review and we can in fact impose conditions of approval, is that not the case? Mr. Emslie: Yes, this is a discretionary act but it is true that there are issues that you don’t have latitude over and is clearly the use and the development standards because they are within the building envelope as described by the zoning. You do to the extent you find there is an impact related to your making the findings of the Site and Design and a condition is necessary in order for you to make that finding certainly that is within your discretion. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: One of our other responsibilities tonight is review of the Mitigated. Negative Declaration as well. So we have both of those areas that are proper discussions tonight. I have one process question. Where the recommendation talks about approving the Site and Design Review application could Staff review what would be the subsequent steps if that is approved? Ms. French: If the Planning Commission were to forward this to the ARB that would be the next step. The ARB would then review the project and forward their recommendation to the City Council. That would be the final step. Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: Now if the Commission attached certain contingencies to the findings .would there be a process for us to review the response to those or would it just go forward? Ms. French: It is not like a PC where it comes back again. It would just plainly go forward to Council for their final action. We hav.e had follow up details come back to the ARB on design details in the past. .. One thing I would like to add to the process is the Mitigated Negative Declaration that is proposed has not yet been circulated for public review. It has come to you but we have not officially opened the public review period. That will be opened and will run prior to the ARB review and in which case we can modify the document, as we need to. Commissioner Burt: Then I have one question for the City Attorney. Ms. Volterra raised an issue on whether CEQA requires a comparison to an existing baseline of environmental impact versus our customary and apparently the custom of other cities to compare versus a hypothetical full occupancy. Could the City Attorney comment on what CEQA required? Mr. Soder~ren: I think the guideline section to which she referred deals with when you are addressing and Environmental Impact Report and how you address the baseline in an EIR situation and that is at the time of Notice of Preparation. In this case, as you know, we are not doing an EIR we are doing a Mitigated Negative Declaration and actually the baseline is really built into the project description which is included in the initial study. So it doesn’t take into account the existing buildings on the site. That is basically all that CEQA requires in this case is that you take that into account. As Mr. Kott.pointed out you really take into account what the use is. If it is a restaurant use rather than the specific operator per se it is really a land use issue on what is existing on the site. Commissioner Burt: I just want to make sure I understand that. So for purposes of a Negative Declaration to determine that a full I~IR is not required we would not use the actual existing condition as the baseline we would use a hypothetical condition if the existing property were fully occupied? Mr. Soder~ren: You base the initial study on the project description and the project description in this case is the demolition of those two existing buildings and the construction of two new buildings on the site. That is what you would base your initial study on. Commissioner Burt: What I am trying to get- at is we have a traffic impact on this intersection. Mr. Sodergren: Right. Commissioner Burt: And if at the time of the application there is zero impact from the existing buildings is the baseline based upon an assumption that those buildings were occupied and in full use or should the baseline be based upon the actual conditions at the time of the baseline? Mr. Soder~ren: It would be actual conditions of the average restaurant use on the site. Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 .32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: So the hypothetical use of the existing buildings rather than the actual conditions. Mr. Soder~ren: Right. And as Mr. Kot.t pointed out you really have to base it on the average standard for average restaurant use. It is hard to go out there when you are dealing with a fluid situation on a day-to-day basis. You have look and give your best guess of what that restaurant use generates at the time of the application and the time you are preparing the initial study. Chair Griffin: Lisa, would you like to comment? Ms. Grote: Thank you. The reason why we use that "hypothetical condition" is because the building could be occupied without.an environmental analysis with those uses. So office uses or research and development or a restaurant use could go into those buildings now without any kind of discretionary review. So that is why we use that condition as the baseline and then you add to it if there is going to be a change in use or additional square footage. Chair Griffin: Karenl Commissioner Holman: So hypothetically wouldn’t this be an opportunity though, not just this case but any situation like this where you have empty buildings that could be reoccupied that could cause an impact, although it wouldn’t be considered an impact because the buildings exist, but it would necessarily exacerbate a traffic condition at whatever intersection would building a new building though give an opportunity for the community to correct or better a situation that could exist if those buildings were reoccupied? Mr. Emslie: You can’t because the re-occupancy of those buildings is not discretionary it is ministerial. They have a right to do that. Maybe it would be good practice to report for informational purposes what the actuals are but in terms of consistent and professional transportation planning we believe the methodology as Joe has described is the accurate way to best predict the function of our street system. It may be instructional to see based on cycles and the occupancy of a building and the success of that business to show what the difference is but we believe it would be very, very bad practice for us to start advising you based on the vagaries of occupancy rates and success of businesses. That is not a consistent way for us to predict and to plan for the City street system. It is information that may be helpful and for you to assess what the real incremental change would be but it is not an accepted way to report out on transportation impacts. They could reoccupy those buildings with uses and leases tomorrow and we would not be able to report back to you or give you any kind of discretion over that impact. So we think it is very important for us to be able to assume the worst case so we can best predict how this affect the transportation system. Mr. Kott: May I add to what Steve said? The assumption is it would be kind of a migration to the median, in other words, to the case study rather than a zero condition with no traffic. The assumption is long term. The typical case would be you would have a restaurant there and it would have trip generation characteristics, which are typical with this kind of restaurant or its scale of restaurant likewise with an office building. Using case studies around the country, the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, it is a pretty good worldng assumption over the long term. A Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 snapshot in any given year you may have an empty building but the assumption is this won’t be a long-term condition. We must p!an our transportation facilities with a view toward a likely probable condition, which we will obtain in the future for most of the time. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: Let’s see ifI can get this off dead center. We have a building that exists. We have a new building that they have the right to build and it is going to create a certain amount of trip generation. I think the question that I heard this afternoon from Michael when we. were discussing the process was is there enough of an impact to in some way create any way to put a condition of any sort on this project because of the impact that it creates and is there any justification for doing that? I think that is where that question is headed. I don’t happen to think that there is a way to handle that at this time, to tie this intersection but maybe other people do and I think that’s the question we are looking at. We aren’t going to change the way these trip generation numbers are generated. We put the lowest possible zone we could put on this site to keep it low intensity and that allows them to put up a building of 73,000 square feet and that is going to create a certain amount of trip generation that goes with that. But can we or should we in any way put any other conditions on it? I think that may be the direction some people are going. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I want to cut to the chase on this. I am hearing there is some concern about the incremental traffic impact. So I was wondering in making the findings is there a way we could put a condition even though we don’t who the tenant or tenants are going to be such as a traffic demand management program? How do we go about doing something like that in the context of Site and Design Review? Can we or can we not legally? Mr. Emslie: We believe you can’t becituse it is related to the findings of making the site development conditions. I think the City Attorney might want to elaborate on that because you would be limited. Say for example if you required a TDM to come back to you for your review and you say okaywell we don’t like these uses you can’t put ’x’ use in there which would be allowed under the zoning, you couldn’t do that but you could have some performance in there for certain number of trip diversions to either carpool or public transportation. You couldn’t use it as a backdoor approach to get at the use. Mr. Soder.~ren: Just a couple of other quick points. I agree as long as the need forthe program is somehow tied or is related to the design and siting of the project I think that is acceptable under the findings. If you do want to go in that direction though I think it would be helpful to put some sideboards on what you want to see in that type of a program, what particular items that you want to be included in that program and how you want that program to be finally approved. Do you want that to come back and be approved at the Director’s level or do you want that approved by the Council or who makes the final approval on the program? I think those three things are important to keep in mind. Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Kott: Chair Griffin may I add we do have a travel demand management specialist in our office, Amanda Jones, and she would be glad to work with this firm and any other firm in town. It is important to note too that our shuttle does go out to this area. The Embarcadero Shuttle is connected to the train service at Cal Train, which in turn is connected to the entire Bay Area basically. It gives a nice opportunity for example to subsidize train passes. Our shuttle is free but it gives a nice opportunity for using public transit as a travel demand management measure. Chair Griffin: Pat, Commissioner Burt: Well our shuttle is free to the riders not free to the City so this may be an opportunity to have a contribution to expan.sion of the shuttle in proportion to the impact. Joe, I realize that there is to some degree.a fallacy in our assumption at least from my perspective about the baseline but it may not have a real impact. The fallacy being that this rezoning was reviewed by the Commission and reviewed by the Council on the basis of the argument that the no restaurant at this location would be viable as a replacement to Scott’s leaving and it needed to be rezoned because not only had Scott’s declined in its use but there was no potential replacement that economically be viable at that location and have the normal sort of trip generation that you would expect from a restaurant. That was a basis for the Commission and the Council decision to allow for elimination of the PC and rezone it to office. So that is the fhllacy but it.may not have an impact because, and this is my question to you, what is the comparison of peak hour generation or maybe an approximate comparison of what was used for these assumptions for a fully viable restaurant versus an office that is more peak hour concentrated and what we used for the baseline which was a restaurant of full occupancy but spread over a longer period of time? Mr. Kott: That is a good statement and those are goodquestions. I would like to preface my response by expressing a lot of sympathy for the view that has been articulated by Ms. Volterra and Commissioners: We do have a lot of cars at that location and arguably we have too many cars in Palo Alto period. So whatever we can do to reduce the number of cars is a very good thing from a lot of points of view. Our obligation is to advise on accepted best practices in doing this kind of work, which is what we have done. We have been very constrained in our acceptance of this traffic impact analysis and we believe it conforms to best practices, In terms of the likely effect on the ground, let’s say this project opened tomorrow, the likely effect my guess Would be and we haven’t run the new numbers, my guess is there would be no change in letter grade and there may or may not be a significant increase in terms of the four second increase of average stop delay of four seconds even if you are within a failed grade like that intersection is in evening peak hour which is E. It is conceivable that there could be an average stop delay of four or more seconds or there may not be. I think it would be quite interesting and quite appropriate for the Commission to consider, a travel demand management condition, on this project because that may have the very practical effect of making sure there won’t be an on,the-ground significant impact. Chair Griffin: So my question is can we put a TDM program on this project as a condition of approval if we do not have some analytical study that gives us the proper underpinning or Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 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 conversely can we just say that it will generate 98 new morning trips and 37 new evening trips and consequently we. can see emphatically that there is traffic impact and therefore we want to mitigate it and we want to mitigate it with a TDM program? Mr. Emslie: The short answer to that is yes, yes absolutely. That is a supportable factual basis for malting that a requirement because you are linking it to the predicted maximum impact. The increment between the existing and the actual impact is useful information but it is not instructive in making your findings because it has to be based on the project conditions that are predicted by the full build out of the project not the difference between what is there or the maximum land use. One other point to kind of maybe drive this home is the reason baseline is important for Environment Impact Reports because Environmental Impact Reports as you know laave a requirement that no project alternative has to be included in an Environmental Impact’ Report. Well, that is how you decide what tlie difference between not doing the project and what existing is is because you compare that to the baseline. That is not the case in a Negative Declaration. You do not do an alternatives analysis and you are not required tO do one for no project. So consequently you explore the maximum build out of that and that is your impact and you can mitigate those impacts to less than significant levels. Chair Griffin: Do Commissioners want to consider any more of these different items or are we getting closer to making a motion? Karen. Commissioner Holman:. I just want to ask one follow up to that. Hypothetically, if a zero occupancy, zero trips basis were used and this building were constructed would that reach the level of requiring an EIR or would it still be a Mitigated Negative Declaration? Mr. Emslie: No because the scale of the project doesn’t result in any impacts that can’t be reduced to less than significant levels. So this project is fully, you are able to alleviate the conditions through project conditions and mitigation measures. The EIR would produce the same traffic analysis. It would show what the build out would be. It is just that a Negative Declaration doesn’t have a no project alternative. That is ~he only difference but that information is clearly readily available. As Joe pointed out those numbers are there so they can be taken into account when you make your decision. Chair Griffin: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I want to go back to my very specific point, which deals with the driveway. I appreciate the discussion on theories of governance and political science and I am glad we are getting through that but again let’s go back to my driveway. On page G-3 that driveway is being shown as an ingress and egress driveway. Again, I am going only from my experience, nothing scientific, but having gone down that intersection quite often which I continue to do people tend to block that whole intersection pretty often and especially if they try to enter or exit from anything close to that intersection. I would like one of the mitigations we provide to be that that driveway be removed because there is no policing mechanism. You can put up signs saying it is for ingress only but as we wind our way through the City and ultimately find this project being completed I have a sense that driveway is going to be there and it is going Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 to be used for ingress and egress. So I would like that driveway struck from the project entirely. It is my one little step towards trying to do something to benefit that intersection. Chair Griffin: That is a well-perceived point of view and in fact I have made the same observation myself. Bonnie, do you wish to say anything? Phyllis. MOTION Vice-Chair Cassel: I am not quite sure how to integrate that into this. I would like to make a motion that we recommend the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, etc. but with four conditions. The first one is that we do a TDM program, that it go back to the Director’s Office fo~ approval, i.e., so that it can be monitored and developed by the Traffic Department and that would be of course based on the impact of the 98 trips and the 37 trips to our finding number one. In addition to that I wouldmove that we take the 47 extra parking spaces and put them in a landscape reserve so that only if they demonstrate a need could they use that. That we move the driveway, I was going to say away from the intersection and you want to strike it? Okay, strike it. There may be some Fire Department problems with that. Strike it subject to any Fire or Police needs for that. The fourth recommendation is that the landscape plan reflect appropriate Baylands habitat as referenced in the Baylands Master Plan. So move the driveway, put the additional 47 parking spaces in a landscape reserve so that it is not used unless demonstrated to be needed later and the TDM. Chair Griffin: Now before I ask for a second may I clarify with Staff, have we been specific enough in the way the TDM program has been outlined here to give you sufficient direction? You were saying earlier that you needed to have sideboards I think the word was. Mr. Kott: Well we would assume, I will ask a leading question here, that the Commission would find acceptable even desirable a TDM program that would include consideration of provisions such as transit passes, namely Cal Train passes, a carpool matching program, a consideration of possibly a sponsorship a van pool and similar measures, telecommuting opportunities for employees and so forth. Chair Griffin: So we can incorporate those? Vice-Chair Cassel: Absolutely. Chair Griffin: Is there a second? SECOND Commissioner Packer: I’ll second it. I want to add this as a possible friendly amendment if we can do it also in the context of these findings. That is a way to have some kind of subsidy for the City shuttle service. I don’t know if we can ask this of the owner or not. Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Cassel: Why don’t we ask the Staff if that is possible because that may get back into conditioning, I don’t know? Mr. Sodergren: I think it would be difficult to have a nexus between that sort of financial requirement and the unique Site and Design of the project. You may be able to make it but I can’t see the tie in there. The financial requirement would somehow have to be tied to that. Chair Griffin: Is there a possibility of adding to the amount of the $8,500 that is being Contributed toward the cost of the traffic light on San Antonio andHighway 101 off-ramp? Mr. Sodergren: It is my understanding, as you know, that is part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and that mitigation measure was tied to the level of impact. That was my understanding. So unless there is a change to that level of impact I don’t think you could change that monetary amount unless there has been some difference in that level of impact. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Aside from this reallocating signal resources I think that is well established and the proportionality that is in the Staff Report but why would we not be able to have a condition that in order to make a finding that this project would be compatible and harmonious with existing uses of adjoining or nearby sites that we can’t have this level of peak hour impact on that intersection that is at such a high congestion level and that that impact has to be mitigated. And if one of the most effective ways to mitigate it would be through greater use of the shuttle then the contribution to the shuttle could be part of a TDM program. Is that a legally reasonable condition? Mr. Soder~ren: Again, I think since the condition would be based on factors other than the CEQA factors, it would be based on the findings which relate to Site and Design I think number one you would have to tie it to the unique Site and Design features of the property and two you would have to quantify the level of financial contribution to those impacts on the Site and Design. I think quantifying those in financial terms may be difficult. It could be done. Vice-Chair Cassel: Could it be added as one of the options in the TDM program? Mr. Emslie: It could be an option we could explore but I think all we are trying to do is tell you that there are some difficulties in getting an ongoing exaction out of this, that it may be possible but we just want to manage expectations a bit. Mr. Kott: One possibility might be consideration of a one-time contribution to marketing the shuttle services to the employees and visitors and so forth of that facility. That would include some marketing presumably at the Ca! .Train Station and we do have a need for greater visibility to our customers in that Downtown location there. Vice-Chair Cassel: Could you then add that into the condition that you will explore that and see what is possible? Does that help? Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Packer: Phyllis, I was just suggesting that so do you accept all that discussion as part of your motion? AMENDED MOTION Vice-Chair Cassel: I think we better keep the motion tighter than that. So let’s just add to the condition that any possibilities of additional funding into the shuttle be considered as part of the TDM program. Chair Griffin: On that note I am going to ask for a second in order to make this happen. SECOND Commissioner Packer: I’ll second that. Chair Griffin: Phyllis, do you wish to speak to your motion at all? Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes. I think we have done a lot of discussion on the details and why we want to be there. This actually is going to be I think when the Architectural Review Board works with the applicant an attractive building. We did downzone this I think wisely. It is, I agree with Pat, an entry area or a transition area into this Baylands area. It is in an area where certain kinds of trees will not grow well because of the high water levels so we are going to have to be careful about what we plant in that area so that they are viable and blend into the surrounding areas. I am very concerned about the additional parking spaces. I know it is used as a marketing tool for developers but I would like to see that kept as minimal as possible with a better TDM program. This is on the shuttle as we just mentioned and it does have a very regular morning pickup and I think that is very important. It also has its own special-dedicated bike path right into it. Someone mentioned the bike path but we cannot condition that bike path because this is not a PC. So I think that is important. I think when it is done it will be a great improvement over what we have there now. We just have to careful about some details. Chair Griffin: Bonnie, would you like to speak to your second? Commissioner Packer: I don’t have very much to add to what Phyllis said. We just have to keep in mind this is zoned for what it is and the developer has proposed a building for what the zoning can accommodate. I thi~ the "conditions" that we are adding on to this will certainly improve the project. That’s all I have to s@. Chair Griffin: Pat: Commissioner Burt: A question for Staff regarding the connection of the bike path to the parking lot. Is that something that there is any problem with being able to legally add that as a condition? Mr. Kott: I wilt let Steve and Lisa address this too but the Transportation Staff did suggest that and we had discussions internally with our staff and also the developer on that topic. I don’t Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 t4 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 think the developer was that keen about the idea. We think it would be a useful addition to our bikeway connections. Commissioner Burt: Legally is there any problem? Mr. Soder~ren: I guess, if you could establish that the way the building is sited on the property creates a need for that sort of connection then I believe you could require it. But that is what you would have to do you would have to show how the siting and/or design creates a need for the extension. Commissioner Burt: Joe, alternatively to having that bike path have a connection to their parking lot the way that bike path dumps out now onto East Bayshore is a sharp angle turn as it just comes to an end there. Is there some other way that might be incorporated into the design that would improve the north and south flow from the terminus of that bike path? It would be the more northwesterly flow other than dumping into the parking lot. Mr. Kott: Gosh that is a good question. Too bad Gayle Likens isn’t here she really knows what she is talking about with bikeway planning. We did recommend the developer consider a connection that would be on his property but alongside the property line kind of in the margins. It would end up not so much dumping in the parking lot it would be separate from the parking lot. We think that is probably a pretty good solution. AMENDMENT Commissioner Burt: I would like to offer as a friendly amendment the inclusion of the Staff preferred design of integration of the bike path into the southern edge of the property as described by Mr. Kott. Vice-Chair Cassel: I am amenable to that. It is only a case of whether we can do it. If we can do it, sure. Commissioner Burt: It sounds like that is not an issue legally. Chair Griffin: Will the seconder accept? Commissioner Packer: Sure. Chair Griffin: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I think if we find that but for that path we would be subjecting the surrounding property owners to an undue amount of traffic, which could be mitigated by having more people encouraged to bicycle to this particular location that we would find it more legally defensible to require that sort of bike path, I am getting a sense from my fellow Commissioners that that is our finding. They are all nodding. Page 28 .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Burt: So it seems like we are getting a concurrence on addressing the traffic impact issues and some of the others. I still have concerns on the overall building itself and its compatibility with the Baytands Master Plan and as a gateway project. This appears to be a very attractive building that would be an outstanding contribution to many of the industrial parks in the area. But I amnot at all sure that this building design is at all compatible with the Baylands Master Plan and the objectives that we have for this area. It just strikes me as inconsistent with the surrounding buildings. I don’t know how familiar the Commissioners are with the buildings that are in that area but this is strikingly different. Its height also between the grade elevation of it looks like six feet above street level and then 40-some odd feet above that including the screen we end up having a building that is 50 feet to the top of the screening area. I don’t think we have anything ’else around there that is close to that in height. Then the design is quite different from the overall character of these buildings. I would like to point out that the Baylands if you cross East Bayshore you only have about 50 yards before you hit.the Baylands bike path. Despite what the architect’s concept is this is very adjacent to the Baylands. We even a building just south of this one on the edge between East Bayshore and the freeway that is built on stilts and kind of has a Baylands flood elevation style to it. So even out that close to the freeway we have that context. Then south of there we have from the freeway visibility directly to the Baylands. I think we have done a good job on the traffic impacts and I think I have swayed to accept the Negative Declaration which I had concerns about but the other site issues and design issues I should say of this building I think are very problematic and I don’t know whether we want to break up the motion into all those other things that we are in agreement on and this separate or go into some discussions of these other issues, Chair Griffin: Let’s take it down the desk here and see what kind of comments we can generate on that topic. Karen. AMENDMENT Commissioner Holman: I have very similar concerns about the skin design of this building. This isn’t just adjacent to the Baylands it is in the Baylands. It is a gateway to the Baylands. It is in Comp Plan Map L-4 and two Comp Plan policies. Policy L-46 and L-48 talks about how building design should be compatible with the public environment and the setting. I am going to come back to that in just a moment because the main motion as it stands I have a couple of comments on that. As regarding the friendly amendment to the landscape plan if the maker and seconder of the motion would consider asking the applicant and Staff to relook at the removal of all but 13 of the existing 120 mature trees on the site that is quite a significant change to that property. I was wondering if the maker and seconder would accept that as a consideration.. Vice-Chair Cassel: It is my understanding that Dave Dockter has not finished with his plans and what he is going to allow to be there not that this is in a preliminary stage. So I was presuming that Dave would look at that and see how many more trees he could save. He is pretty stiff on that issue. Commissioner Holman: I would really like it included in the motion if we could please. I am just asking for a consideration. What I am asking for is a consideration by the applicant and for Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Dave Dockter to review the retention of many more. trees where all but 13 are now being removed. Vice-Chair Cassel: ~)kay. I will just leave it that vague, of the 120 Commissioner Packer: Okay. AMENDMENT Commissioner Holman: Thank you. I have one more friendly amendment to be added to the TDM program. I understand that we cannot require first source hiring of applicants but I would like that to be included as an option for the applicant to be considering. Vice-Chair Cassel: I have not a clue what you are talking about. Commissioner Holman: First source hiring.is a program where tenants, property mangers, owners give preferential hiring treatment or consideration to people who can use alternative sources of transportation because they live with a certain radius of the building. So you try to keep people off the freeways in other words, You try to minimize long commute periods. Vice-Chair Casset: I have no idea whether that is something we can do or not. I have never considered that as a requirement. Chair Griffin: Would Staff like to talk about some of the ramifications? Does that constrain employers to some adverse degree? Commissioner Holman: Let me clarify here. I am not asking for it to be a requirement. I understand from past discussions we can’t make it a requirement. I would just like for Staff to put it on the table for the applicant to consider and have as an option. Vice-Chair Cassel: I think it would be fine if they just put it in their discussion. They can do that without it being part of the formal motion. AMENDMENT Commissioner Holman: Then another friendly amendment to the motion would be that I would . like for the design of the building to be reflective of its natural setting and its Baylands surrounding. I cannot make the finding myself and I agree witl~ the comments that Commissioner Burt made earlier that this building is reflecting of its natural setting. There is an awful lot of, and we saw the samples come around there is an awful lot of glass that is reflective and that is certainly not from my viewpoint consistent with the Baylands or the Comp Plan requirements for the Baylands. Vice-Chair Cassel: This item is going back to the Architectural Review Board and I was surprised to hear this evening that it had already been there. I did not realize that I had presumed that this was a rough Sketch. The Architectural Review Board has very strong feelings about Page 30 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. .19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 making these buildings as environmentally friendly as they possibly can, not just here but all 2 over the City and that they would be working with the architect to make this building not 3 reflective and to meet the many stringent requirements that they have. I think the shape of the 4 building being curved and so forth takes a lot of the harshness out of a square building. I was 5 surprised to see it not up more to the corner but that would give us some feeling at the corner of not having a building not on the corner, of stepping it back, hopefully with more landscaping than it now has. I am not an architect so I did not want to condition it in that way. I do expect the ARB to hear our comments concerning the fact that this needs to reflect the space that it is in. Chair Griffin: So Phyllis, you do not accept that friendly amendment? Vice-Chair Cassel: No, because I think that is the job of the ARB to make sure that fits into the Master Plan requirements and be out there. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: These Site and Design projects come to the Planning Commission. It is our purview and our responsibility to as I see it and understand it to look at these for Site and Design issues. What is a concern to me is this has been to the ARB and this skin has been approved by the ARB. Yes, I am so very, very supportive of the ARB’s direction to do sustainable buildings but the sustginability of the building does not preclude a more environmentally sensitive exterior to the building to its surroundings. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I thihk I am sensitive to what Pat and Karen are saying about whether the building fits into one’s vision of what kind of building would fit into the Baylands, which is essentially marsh and water. Our first building that we think of in the Baylands is in the Interpretive Center, which is on wood pilings, and it is a lot of lumber and natural looking wood. On the other hand another person’s view of what is appropriate in the Baylands my be something that is reminiscent of all the water, all that flat expanse that reflects so beautifully in the morning sunlight. And somebody might argue that this style of office building, which I have to say is kind of a cookie-cutter approach to office buildings, but somebody might argue that the curvy window kind of thing is reminiscent of water. So there are lots of different ways of perceiving what could fit into the Baylands. I don’t know what’s right and like Phyllis I am not an architect and we do leave a certain amount of that interpretation of what’s appropriate to the Architectural Review Board. So it is a difficult issue. I think I would like to just have the Architectural Review Board read the minutes of this meeting, take our comments in the different possible views when they look at this again. Chair Griffin: I am wondering if Annette would like to speak, You are the only one who hasn’t commented on this design aspect. Commissioner Bialson: I will be brief about that. I was a little disappointed when I saw this project and felt that much more could be done to make it a suitable design for its location. I gave it some thought and realized that at the intersection where this property is located we have a busy Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 intersection, traffic going lots of different ways, we are surrounded by buildings. It is not like. the building further on East Bayshore which is on stilts .which Pat mentioned which is the first building you see after the wide view and large expanse of the Baylands that you have. So I decided to sort of recognize that I am not an architect and that this is in somewhat of an urban environment. I do think it is a gateway however. It would be nicer if it was a different design and I leave that to the ARB because I don’t have any expertise in that area I just have feelings. Chair Griffin: I would like to be able to put in my two cents here and then I will let you carry on. I will go out on a limb and I will say I really like the looks of this curvilinear building. I think it has a nice effect, a welcome effect as the architect tonight described, pulling you into the Baylands. Admittedly it doesn’t look like those buildings down in the harbor complex that are up on pilings but then again this is out near the freeway and I like. it and I am quite pleased to let the ARB exercise their expertise on it. Staff, please. Mr. Soder~ren: We just wanted some clarification on the bikeway easement question. We didn’t know whether the intent of that condition was simply to adjust the site plan to accommodate an existing bike trail or the intent was to require that the applicant dedicate actual trail easement through his property. It was my understanding that if it was just simply to adjust the site plan in such a way as to accommodate the existing trail easement I think that would be acceptable because that is what you are dealing with here, Site and Design. But if the intent was to actually require the applicant to dedicate that easement through the property I don’t know if a nexus can be established because I just don’t know how that need is created. Chair Griffin: Pat, did you want to address that? Commissioner Burt: As the maker of the amendment I was basing the amendment upon Mr. Kott’s description. Could you clarify Joe when you were talking about what Staff had reviewed on what it would take to improve the bike path flow there, whether that would require any easement dedication or what it would require? Mr. Kott: Our discussions with the developer occurred during the time this was being considered as a PC. So we assumed a much wider latitude than I think we have now. We did assume that we would need an easement dedication to go onto the property to make the connection that was desirable to Watson Court. Mr. Soder~ren: I think the legal question is not whether it would be beneficial to actually have the easement. The question I think you need to address is whether the siting and design of this project creates that need. So I am not disputing that it may be beneficial to have the easement running through the property I just don’t know whether this Site and.Design application creates that need or whether the need has always existed. Chair Griffin: Well the first hand I saw was Annette’s. Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Bialson: What t would ho~e to accomplish is a recognition that we need to make that corner a little more bicycle friendly and to do so what we need to avoid is landscaping or a fence or something there. So I am not looking, I realize I have enough background in this to know that you can’t get an easement out of that but you. can make that a heck of a lot easier for bicyclists to go around. I do see the need to change some of the improvements and the landscaping. So that is what I was directing my concern towards and that is what I was hoping I heard coming from the Commission. Is that right, Joe? Mr. Kott: That is certainly doable, yes: Of course we were looking at the more optimal ultimate solution but we really are very constrained in this situation. Commissioner Bialson: Right, but given the changes that we are talking about to the site design would that accomplish some things for the bicycle route? Mr. Kott: We think it would, yes. ¯ Commissioner Bialson! Is that what you wanted to have in the motion, Phyllis? Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes. What I would like to have happen is that in order to encourage bicycle use from this site, to this site/from this site, that as part of the TDM program we need to encourage the use of bicycles by making it easy to get to that bicycle path. iV’n:. Kott: The building does have a shower and will have bicycle storage and so forth. Chair Griffin: I am interested in coming to a vote here but Karen you have a comment? Commissioner Holman: Yes. I think we stated earlier, I can’t remember who did it but I think it was mentioned, that finding number two couldn’t be made without the continuation of this bike access because ensured desirability or investment or conduct of business in the adjacent area, I am paraphrasing here .but if you just chop off the bike path and bike access you are lessening the desirability of adjacent businesses. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: I don’t think an alternative that was being proposed was to reduce the present bike access. What I think I heard Joe say was that we could have at least a moderate improvement in the northwesterly direction of that bike path without having to have an easement. Is that correct? Mr. Kott: Yes, a safer connection, a more visible connection and so forth. "Yes: Commissioner Burt: And less sharp turning radius there? Mr. Kott: .Yes, all those things. Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: Okay, if that is the case then my amendment is clarified to reflect that it doesn’t require an easement but does require a moderate improvement in bicycle safety and ease of flow. Chair Griffin: We have one last one here. .AMENDMENT Commissioner Holman: One last one and I can’t believe I overlooked this but I think it is a simple friendly amendment. That salvage be required for the buildings that are going to be removed from the property. Vice-Chair Cassel: Is that not already in the conditions related to how we are now encouraging the green whatever it is called? Mr. Emslie: Because the next step is ARB and they typically are the ones that will put that into it. If you want to put that in to reinforce that and send the message to the ARB that would be fine. Vice-Chair Cassel: Sure. Commissioner Packer: Okay. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: So I heard Commissioner Gomments regarding a hesitation to look at the architectural design issues because we are not architects but we are doing a Site and Design Review and that is our responsibility with an understanding that architectural detail is primarily the responsibility of the ARB. The overall building compatibility within the Baylands Master Plan, with its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan that is what the Planning Commission has the greatest.focus on and I want to make sure that we are not punting all design aspects to the ARB. This is a very large building, taller than anything near it, of an architectural style that is quite different from what we have as other buildings that were built in compliance.with the design guidelines of the Baylands Master Plan. I would like to ask Staff whether they have evaluated hillside impact of if this building with the screening is going to rise as much as 50 feet above the street level. Does that impact hillside visibility from adjacent areas and from the Baylands in any way? Per Policy N-6 of the Comp Plan that says through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space Zone District Regulations minimize impacts of any new development.on views of the hillsides, on the open space character and the natural ecology of the hillsides. So view of the hillsides is an important consideration. If we are talking about hillside view from the Baylands it is something I want to understand whether we have any impact on it. Chair Griffin: This would be from Ming’s parking lot for example or from the street? Commissioner Burt: Or from the Baylands. Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Grote: We would need to look in more detail at that prior to the Architectural Review Board review. I don’t believe it has an impact, a significant impact, but we would need to look more specifically at that. AMENDMENT Commissioner Burt: Then maybe I could put it in the context of a friendly amendment that approval contingent upon it having no significant impact on the hillside views from adjacent areas. Vice-Chai~ Cassel: Sure. Is that okay, Bonnie? Commissioner Packer: No. Commissioner Burt: Bonnie, you decline to accept that. Is that what you said? Commissioner Packer: Yes, I think it is just hard to explain why. I am having a visceral reaction. Commissioner Burt: Let’s keep it intellectual rather than visceral. Commissioner Packer: IfI can. We have a height limit in town of 50’feet. We have in that area huge power lines. We have the overpass going over Embarcadero. We probably have things that make it hard, it depends on where you are looking whether you can see the hills or not. I just don’t know how this is going to - if we are concerned about the height of buildings impacting the view of the hills then we should have a lower height limit in our development standards. Commissioner Burt: First the proposed amendment was contingent upon just assuring that it would have no significant impact. If it doesn’t have an impact then the amendment has been met by the existing proposal. But second, Commissioner Packer, we also have our Comprehensive Plan and whether we have buildings down there or not we have an obligation to do Site and Design approval based upon consistency with the Comp Plan. I am mystified by the rationale that we would completely disregard a Comp Plan element for the reasons that you stated. Vice-Chair Cassel: May I comment? I agreed to put that in because I am sure it won’t have an effect on the general views but I think the Comp Plan review says that these are views down roads. It doesn’t indicate that every little one-story house going across the street is cutting out my view of the hillside and it doesn’t get to be turned down on that basis. It would be nice to have a review of that height to see if it does have any effect but I suspect with the surrounding lands that it won’t. Commissioner Burt: IfI might just respond to that. I read the Comp Plan policy verbatim and it does not say it can have no impact it says we are to minimize it. The amendment that I proposed spoke about not having any significant impact. So mischaracterizing the amendment doesn’t alter the Comp Plan and it doesn’t alter the amendment. Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Chair Griffin: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I just want to get to the motion if we could vote on that I would appreciate it. Chair Griffin: Are you calling for the question? Commissioner Bialson: Yes, I am. Commissioner Burr: Is that with or without the amendment because the seconder did not accept the amendment. Vice-Chair Cassel: It is without the amendment because the seconder didn’t amend it. Commissioner Burt: Isn’t there a vote on calling for the question? Chair Griffin: To be legit we are going to have a vote for calling for the question. All those in favor of calling for the question say aye. (ayes) Opposed. So it looks like we are going to call for the vote on the motion in play. MOTION PASSED (5-1-0-0, Commissioner Burt voted no) All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? The motion carries with Commissioner Burr objecting. We have now come to the end of this item. Page 36 Attachment I 2300 East Bayshore Road Project Comments Regarding the Submitted by Angelica Volterra January 29, 2004 To: Palo Alto City Council Attachment J RECEIVED Department of Planning & Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for 2300 East Ba~6~itY Environment Road comments. .- Dear Mayor and Council Members: I write to you with concerns regarding the environmental impacts of the’ proposed project at 2300 East Bayshore. Please do not approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Instead consider that the project may cause significant environmental impacts and require the project to conduct a thorough environmental impact report (EIR) or at a minimum carefully consider the potentially significant environmental impacts that have not yet been, mitigated and device appropriate mitigations to abate these issues. I possess a PhD in Environmental Engineering. Additionally I possess expertise in reviewing project impacts since I served as a Planning Commissioner in Menlo Park for 4 years (1999-2003). Additionally I review environmental impact concerns regarding traffic and development in my current capacity as a Member on the San Mateo County Congestion Management and Air Quality Commission (CMAQ)1. Air quality: The Tables in the following BAAQMD report at http://www.baaqmd.gov/pio/aqsummaries/pollsum02.pdf shows that the federal ambient air quality standards for ozone criteria pollutant and PM10 and PM 2.5 have not been met in the Bay area over the past years back to 1993. Near the 2300 East Bayshore site ( redwood city and Sunnyvale and Fremont measuring stations all show exceedences of the air quality criteria standards for the year 2002. Also the following BAAQMD report, http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/ambientairquality.asp shows that the cumulative air quality throughout the9 county Bay Area air basin as recent as 2003 indicating that the region is classified as Nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone Federal and California State Ozone Standard, the State PM10 and PM2.5 standard. With air quality in the region non-attainment for ozone the contributions of projects such as 2300 East Bayshore exacerbate and degrade air quality worse. The baselines used for the MND do no[ reflect the unoccumpied vacant site and skew the assessment of the impacts of this project. If one considered the baseline zero then the project impacts calculated for the project in the Fehr and Peers report according to ITE calculations may These comments represent nay personal viewpoint and do not claim to represent any of the bodies that I am affiliated with. exceed the significance threshold for the BAAQMD’s NOx or hydrocarbon precursors (VOCs). These calculations were not adequately made. The proposed development will result in a change in the area covered by paved cover pervious or impervious and this significant change in paved coverage to provide the 300 parking spaces may significantly contribute to additional heat generation from energy from the sun. There were no conditions of approval requiring that the paving material possess and be maintained with an emissivity that is equivalent or less than the baseline characteristic of the material covering the gound such that there would be no significant heat build up that may significantly increase the production of ozone at this site that is located directly adjacent to the 101 highway where NOx and hydrocarbon emissions are high in addition to the emissions brought by the project itself. Additionally the mitigations for fugitive dust generation during construction on the site may not be adequate relative to the construction activities described for the project. Particularly it was described that the asphalt concrete is to be removed from the site for the new construction and grading. No specific fugitive dust plan was provided for the project description making the environmental impact assessment inadequate since it is not possible to assess whether the dust and particulate that will be generated from the removal of the existing pavement is in fact going to be mitigated properly. During such activities water spraying is needed on the site where the pavement is being broken and crashed and picked up and dropped inte trucks. Such mitigations go beyond the dust control conditions in #45. The dust and particulate from these activities may result in public health impacts if they are not mitigated. For example, workers and people in the vicinity could be triggered into asthmatic conditions if this is not controlled properly. Soils: There is no valid soils report on file for the project. The Geotechnical Investigation and Pavement Design dated 2000 states in its contents on page 17 number 3, "° The findings of this report are valid as of the present time. However the passing of time will change the conditions of the existing property due to natura! processes, works of man, from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Therefore-, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Traffic In Attachment B, The Record of the Land use Action for 2300 East Bayshore Road: Site and Design review 03-D-04 and EIA O3-EIA-17 it states on page 3 Section 3 that" An EIA was prepared for the project and it was determined that, with the implementation of traffic mitigation measures, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. Also the Staff report dated January !5th 2004 recommends that the MND be approved with the finding that the project does not result in significant environmental impacts based on the findings and subiect to the conditions in the Record of Land Use Action. Staff report states that the PTC on Dec. 17, 2003 proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of trip generation. It states that conditions # 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 on page 2 and 3 of that staff report, "have been incorporated into the Record of Land use Action (Attachment B)" In particular condition #10 states that : "A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan shall be submitted to the Transportation Division for review and approval prior t0the issuance of a building permit. The TDM shall contain, but not limited to, promotion on the use of bicycles, transit passes, funding for the PA Free Shuttle Service, a carpool matching program, van pool sponsorship, telecommuting opportunities, etc. Attachment B attached to the January 15th staff report however does not reflect that ¯ conditions # 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 on page 2 and 3 of that staff report have been incorporated as stated. Attachment A lists under Alternative Transportation only that" Showers and Lockers provided for bicyclists" This does not adequately comply with Condition #3 listed above. Page 14 of the MND lists that potentially significant negative environmental impacts arebrought by the project unless mitigation is incorporated for a substantial increase the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersection, and b exceed a level of service standard. The MND among other things states on page 22 that the project would generate 98 new trips in the morning and 37 in the evening peak hour. If the true baseline of zero were used however then the numbers of trips generated by this project would be considered substantial and therefore need to be mitigated. No mitigation measures to address trip generation for the CEQA process or to comply with the Record of Land use Actions. The traffic signal fair share mitigation does not address mitigating these new trips but instead addresses a separate traffic concern - impact to signalized intersections. The project does not adequately mitigate the traffic impacts. It is inadequate to state that a TDM plan w0u!d be created after the MND is approved since the conditions of the TDM plan are critical in assessing the environmental impacts. In addition the conditions of the TDM plan would be considered part of the project and their environmental impacts need to be assessed. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Section VII of the MNI)) The MND wrongly states that the project has "no impact" in the check list for Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The environmenta! ira_pacts were not adequately assessed in the MND and need to be amended to reflect that the project may create a potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials if it is not mitigated. ( Sub section VII (a)). In particular Mitigations are needed to prevent the possible adverse environmental impacts of the project condition requiring the use of fluorescent bulbs. Note that in the project staff repo~ dated Jan. ! 5 2004 in A~ac~n,~ent A it states that" the following sustainable materials/methods are incorporated into the project: " and in the Section for Energy and Atmosphere it states that the project will "Use all fluorescent interior lighting versus incandescent" The Department of Toxic Substances has acknowledged the scientific data supporting the assessment that broken fluorescent lamps are one of the largest sources of mercury in California’s landfills. The DTSC report states that," For instance, as noted in San Francisco Bay TMDL 2000 Report2 and the Palo Alto Mercury Headworks Analysis3, amalgam and fluorescent lights are considered sources of mercury in the Bay and in wastewater." And, "In like fashion, most fluorescent tubes currently contain mercury in concentrations that are considered hazardous waste and must be managed accordingly. However, as manufacturing industry progresses and the mercury concentration in lighting is reduced to the point that the lighting waste is below the hazardous waste threshold, the consequences may equate to a significant source of mercury to air, water and land. That is, the quantity of lighting waste, along with their reduced concentrations of mercury to nonhazardous waste levels, may add up to a significant amount of mercury, adding to the total mercury burden in airand water, as well as to their impact to direct land contamination..." And, "Mercury air emissions due to breakage, spills, and leaks are uncontrolled and cause an incremental increase in the inhalation hazard. Mercury may enter the water due to breakage, spills, leaks and improper storage or disposal and enter storm drains and ultimately the open waters." As a result there is evidence that disposal of fluorescent tubes may adversely impact our environment. As a result the MND should be amended to require that all fluorescent tubes removed from the project due to use are to the greatest extent possible removed and not intentionally broken and that they are required to be properly delivered to a recycler for recycling. Assessing the baseline of the buildings lighting and comparing it to the projects quantity of fluorescent lighting was not adequately presented in the project description. Also the MND failed to calculate and show the estimated number of fluorescent tubes entering the environment as a result of the project is significant. The following calculation shows the significant amount of mercury that would enter the environment without mitigations: Assume: The building will require 2 fluorescent light bulbs per 400 square feet. This would be 1/200 tube per square foot. For the 73932 sq foot building, 3697 tubes in the whole building. Assuming that the bulbs would be changed 2 times per year. And the building would last 30 years. This would be 221820 bulbs disposed of. The San Francisco Bay TMDL 2000 Report cites data that commonly-used T8 fluorescent tubes contain approximately 10 mg of mercury each. Hence if no mitigation were required; 2218200 mgs of mercury may enter the environment. Compared to the baseline where the building square footage is significantly smaller and the use of fluorescent tubes is not required it is concluded that there is evidence that this project may adversely impact the environment if proper mitigations are not put as conditions to this project. 2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (SFRWCB), 2000. Watershed Management of Mercury in the San Francisco Bay Estuary: Total Maximum Daily Load Report to U.S. EPA. 3 Barton, Thomas, 2001. Mercury Headworks Analysis for 2000. Biological Resources The MND wrongly states that the project has "no impact" in the check list for Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The environmental impacts were not adequately assessed in the MND and need to be amended to reflect that the project may create a potentially significant hazard to the environment by interfering substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wild life corridors. ( Sub section IV (d)). In particular the MND does not recognize that the project may significantly result in potentially significant negative impacts on bird nesting unless mitigated. In particular the MND inadequately states on page 18, "No endangered, threatened, or special status animal or plant species have been identified at the project site." Without any supporting authority. The project description and reports do not include any biological resource evaluation by any professional experts. The project description instead states that the project is located at 2300 East Bayshore within the Baylands designated area of Palo Alto. The critical resource that the Baylands serves to migratory birds is stated in a Palo Alto City sponsored brochure for the Baylands: "Traveling from the northern reaches of our continent to the warm south coasts, migrating birds depend on the rich food sources found in the wetlands along the way."4 And the Audubon society’s book entitled Birding at the Bottom of the Bay lists the numerous wide array of birds that visit and nest in this habitat including rare birds5. The following birds are listed as rare, threatened and endangered: Burrowing Owl, California Least Tern, California Clapper Rail, the t~i-colored blackbird, and the northern harrier. The attached photos provide evidence that migratory bird nests exist on the project site in trees that appear to be removed by the project plans unless special conditions are made to protect these bird habitats6. The removal of these trees would destroy the habitat of the wildlife.birds that use these Baylands as their migratory corridor. The project does not recognize that it may significantly impact the birds and it provides no adequate mitigation for these impacts. Sincerely, Antoinette "Toni" Stein, PhD 800 Magnolia Street Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: 650-853-0314 cell: 650-823-7662 tweil@i~c.org 4 Birds of the Bayiands, http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/~oss/naturepreserve/pdf/baylands/panel3.pdf5Birding at the Bottom of the Bay, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Chapter I, 1990.6 The photos were delivered to the Palo Alto Planning department on 1/30/2004 for Mr. Riordan and date stamped by the clerk. Attachment K 2300 East Bayshore Road Project Comments Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration Submitted by Angelica Volterra October 12, 2004 Attachment H July 6, 2004 Members of the Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Street Pato Alto, CA 94301 RECEIVED JUL 07 20011 Department of Planning & Community Environment ,Subject: 2300 East Bayshore: Application for Site and Design Review of a New Office Building and Related Site Improvements Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board: The proposed office building project at 2300 East Bayshore would have significant unacceptable environmental impacts, impacts that are not disclosed and analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that has been circulated. Based on my review of the MND, I believe the City of Pa!o A!to has failed to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA,) in its environmental review of this project. 1.The City is incorrectly interpreting the law regarding the project baseline, resulting in a failure to disclose-significant environmental impacts of the project. This will cause environmental harm. Two striking examples are traffic and jobs/housing impacts. 2. This project provides no housing. It will further worsen the Cit-v’s already terrible jobs/housing imbalance. The creation of new jobs without addressing housing needs is not consistent with Goal H-1 of the Comprehensive Plan. Also, the City’s own studies say th~ the housing in-lieu fee charged covers only 26 percent of the nexus housing impact costs being generated. This means that the-project will be generating significant unmitigated housing impact costs. The project builds only offices that are unlikely to generate ongoing sales tax revenues for the City. 3. This project will harm the Baylands. Replacing the existing buildings with a masswe office t)ul~ding will create envitoamental har~ and -violates key elements of the Palo Alto "Baylands Master Plan" and the "Palo Alt0 Comprehensive Plan." Members of the public, members of the Architectural Review Board, the Planning and Transportation Comrm,,slon, -,,~ +~-* City Councd ca,, be,,,s asked to re!y on the "Conditions of Approval" as related in the document entitled "Record of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Land Use Action for 2300 East Bayshore Road" to ensure that there are critical environmental and other safeguards. However, there are well-documented examples of non-enforcement of and/or non-compliance with conditions of approval in connection with other development projects in Palo Alto. (Please see Attachment 1 for two exampIes.) . " Furthermore, it is my understanding that developer John Arrillaga is one of the owners of the property at 2300 East Bayshore Road. In October, 2002, articles in both the.Palo Alto March 25, 2004 Members of the Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 RECEIVED MAR 25 2004 Department of Plan ning & Cornmunity Environment Sub|ect: 2300 East Bayshore: Application for Site and Design Review of a New 73,932 Square Foot Office Building and Related Site Improvements Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board: The proposed office building project at 2300 East Bayshore will have significant unacceptable environmental impacts, impacts that are not disclosed and analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that has been circulated. Based on my review of the MND, I believe the City of Palo Alto has failed to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in its environmental review of this project. 1.The City is incorrectly interpreting the law regarding the project baseline, resulting in a failure to disclose significant environmental impacts of the project. This will cause environmental harm. Two striking examples are traffic and jobs/housing impacts. 2. This project provides no housing. It will further worsen the City’s already terrible jobs/housing imbalance. The creation of new jobs without addressing housing needs is not consistent with Goal H-1 of the Comprehensive Plan. Also, the City’s own studies say that the housing in-lieu fee charged covers only 26 percent of the nexus housing impact costs being generated. This means that the project will be generating significant unmitigated housing impact costs. The project builds only offices that are unlikely to generate ongoing sales tax revenues for the City. 3. This project will harm the Baylands. Replacing the existing buildings with a massive office building will create environmental hrann rand violates key- elements of the Palo Alto "Baylands Master Plan" and the "Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan." Moreover, I believe that approval of this project by the Architectural Review Board would violate impo.a~ut.provisions of the Palo .~Ato Mvmicipal Code. Section 18.82.010 "Specific Purposes" (of Chapter 18.82 "Site and Design Review Combining District Regulations (D)") of the Palo Alto Municipal Code states: "The site and design review combining district is intended to provide a process for review and approval of development in envtronmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use Subject: 2300 East Bayshore December 17, 2003 Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners: I believe that the environmental review of this project is inadequate with respect to traffic. Staff has relied on a Traffic Analysis that was prepared by Fehr and Peers in March of 2002 almost two years ago! In my opinion, thddata reported is outdated, the methodology flawed, and the Analysis should be discarded and replaced by a study that that accurately reflects the existing traffic conditions and complies with CEQA. 1.First, the Fehr and Peers Analysis used inflated baselines to calculate the trip generation statistics it reports. The proposed office building would replace the Scott’s Seafood building, which has been empty for over one and a half years, and 4 small office buildings on Watson Court which have been empty for over three years. All of these empty buildings currently generate no (zero) traffic. I have copied the Fehr and Peers Trip Generation.Estimates from the 2002 Traffic Analysis, as the first page in the handout I have provided (Attachment A). The pink line highlights the estimated trips generated by the 110,000 square foot office building originally proposed. The blue line highlights the estimated trips generated by 33,200 square feet of office building and the green line highlights the estimated trips generated by an 8,400 square foot restaurant, supposedly the sizes of the now empty buildings. Even though all of these buildings are empty and generate no traffic, the Analysis subtracts their calculated trips from the totals estimated for the project to arrive at the figures in the line highlighted in yellow which are figures that the current Staff Report and environmental document cite. The result of this flawed methodology is an artificially inflated baseline and a low number of predicted trips and inadequate disclosure of the true number of trips to be generated by this project. Now looking at the second page of the handout, these tables estimate the trip generation rates using the 74,000 square feet of the current project (but not subtracting out any numbers for traffic that does not currently exist). (I did not have access to design information at the time of this writing. Therefore, I did not know if there is any proposed exempt square footage, so I have used the entire 74,000 square feet in my calculations.) Attachment L City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date:January 5, 2004 Application Nos.:03-D-04,03-EIA-17 Address of Project:2300 East Bayshore Assessor’s Parcel Number:008-03-039,073 Applicant/Owner:Clifford Chang 1900 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Project Description and Location: The existing buildings at 2300 East Bayshore Road (41,654 square feet of floor area) would be demolished and replaced with a single, 73,932 square-foot two-story office building. The first floor would be 35,579 square feet, and the second floor area would be 38,353 square feet. The proposed increase in floor area is 32,278 square feet. The design is an L-shaped building surrounded by vehicular circulation and parking spaces, with two plaza areas, one at each end of the building lobby. The proposed building is two stories, to reach 33’-9" in height, plus roof screening, for a total height of 43’-9". The proposed materials include.pre-cast concrete and spandrel and vision glass. Metal panels ~would be used to cover the Concrete and would be used along the base of the building and to screen roof mounted equipment. Surface parking would be provided for 300 vehicles. Access driveways are proposed from both Watson Court and East Bayshore Road. The existing driveway on East Bayshore Road closest to Watson Court would be eliminated and the two driveways on Watson Court would be realigned. Landscaping The preliminary landscape plan (pg. 6 of the Development Plans) indicates 146 new trees are proposed including three species of 24" box Oak and 24" box London Plane and Crape Myrtle trees. Fifteen-gallon size trees include Ash, Plum, Pear, and Coast Redwood. The existing, mature Eucalyptus and Casuarina trees along Embarcadero Road, the common property line of the adjacent commercial site and the Cal Trans property to the southwest would be retained. \\CC-ARCHIVE\SharedkPLANXPLADIV~Current PlanningkEIAkMIGDEC.MLk2300 East Bayshore.doc An extensive variety of shrubs, ground covers, vines, and perennials, including a selection of native species, would be planted on site. Lawn area for employee recreation purposes would be located at both ends of the building. II.DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project located at 2300 East Bayshore Road could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project: The project applicant shall pay a fair share portion of the cost of a traffic signal planned for the San Antonio / Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp intersection, jointly by Palo Alto, Mountain View and Caltrans. The revised proportionate percentage based on the smaller project size is 1% of the total cost, or $8,500.00. Project ~ner Directly" of PtIaning and Community Environment Date \\CC-AKCHIVE\Shared~PLAN~PLADIVXCurcent PlanningkEIAXMIGDEC.ML~2300 East Bayshore,doe ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 2300 East Bayshore Road City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Tricia Schimpp, Contract Planner 408-209-9782 4. Project Location:2300 East Bayshore Road 5. Application Number(s):03-D-04,03-EIA-17 6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Clifford Chang 7. General Plan Designation:Research/Office Park 8. Zoning:LM(D)(3) Limited Industrial Site Combining Description of the Project: The project site consists of approximately 5.66 acres that is developed with a currently vacant 8,400 square foot restaurant and a 33,200 square foot single tenant office complex that consists of four concrete office buildings that are also currently vacant. The project consists of the removal of the restaurant and four office buildings and new construction of a 2-story office building of approximately 74,000 square feet, 300 perimeter surface parking spaces with 8 handicap accessible spaces (one van accessible), and 32 bicycle parking spaces. 10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The subject property is bounded by U.S. Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway)on the west, Embarcadero Road on the north, East Bayshore Road on the east and Watson Court and Caltrans right, of-way access ramps to Highway 101 on the south, The site is screened from Highway 101 and access ramps by existing stands of mature Eucalyptus trees on Caltrans property. Adjacent land uses include a LM(D)(3) zoned site located to the south of Watson Court that is under the same ownership as the subject property and is developed with four office buildings, additional office land uses to the east and north, and a restaurant across the street at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road, ............... Site access is proposed at two project access pointS: The first access point would be located approximately 100 feet south of Embarcadero Road/East Bayshore Road intersection, and the second access point would be off East Bayshore Road on Watson Court that is a cul-de-sac. Page 1 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation X Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in X the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Page 2 Project Director of ~lan~ing and Community Environment Date Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). ¯ 2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) 4) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. :Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced) ..... 5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review, b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Page 3 c)Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) 8) 9) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Issues and Supporting Information Resources I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on.a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Sources 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,5 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the 1 X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson 1, 7 (L-X Act contract?9), 8 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could N/A X result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Ill.AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) b) c) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1,6,7, 10 1,6,7, 10 1,6,7, 10 X X X Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Significant Issues d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1 concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,2 people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species 1,7 in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional 1,7 plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? e) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal 1,7 pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife 1,7 corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Significant Issues resources, such as a tree 1,2,4,7, preservation policy or ordinance?8,12 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community 1,7 Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the pro’ect: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,7 historical resource as defined in (L-7) 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,7 archaeological resource pursuant (L-8) to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 1,7~ or site or unique geologic (L-4, feature?L-8) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside 1,7 of formal cemeteries?(L-8) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known 9 fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Potentially Significant Unless ¯ Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X X X X Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Resources ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Sources 2,7 (~-5) 70N-5) 1,2,14 2,7 (N-5), 14 Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X 2,7 13 1 Issues X No Impact X X X X VII. a) b) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport,1,2,5 use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable, upset and accident conditions 1,2,5 involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Would the project? X X Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1,2,5 2,5 1 1,2,7 11 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death invol~,ing wildland fires, including where wildlands are 1, 7 adjacent to urbanized areas or (N-7), where residences are intermixed 11 with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1,2,7, requirements?19 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Would the project: Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Resources b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or Sources 2,7 (N-2) 14 1,2,14 1,2,14 1,2,14 1,2,14 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X 1 No Impact X X X Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood 2,7 flows?(N-6) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including 2,7 flooding as a result of the failure (N-6, of a levee or dam?N-8) j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami,7(N-6, or mudflow? N-8) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the a) PhysicallY divide an established community?1 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not 1,2,7 limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation 1,2,7 plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the los~ of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region 1,7 and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific 1,7 plan or other land use plan? Potentially Significant Issues ~roject: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact NO Impact XI. NOISE. a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Would the project result in: 2,5,7 2,5,7 2,5,7 2,5,7 Would the project: 1,2,7 X X X X X X Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Resources b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Sources 1,2 11,7 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X Page 13 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Significant Issues b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of 1,2 recreational facilities which ~ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which 2,6,7 (T-7, T-8), 10 2,6,10 2,10 1,2,11 1,2,10 is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated X X Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X X X Page 14 Issues and Supporting Information Resources I Sources Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Issues Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. a) Exceed wastewater treatment b) requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 2,16,19 2,16,19 2,14 2,17,19 2,16,19 2,15 2,15 Would the project: X X X X X X X Page 15 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Issues Unless Mitigation Incorporated XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ~ ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects ofa project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1,2,5,7 1,2,7 1-19 b) c) X Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact Page 16 SOURCE REFERENCES: .... o 9. 10. 11. 12.City of Palo 13.City of Palo 14.City of Palo 15.City of Palo 16.City of Palo 17.City of Palo 18.City of Palo 19.City of Palo Project Planner’s knowledge of the site Project Plans, entitled "2300 East Bayshore Road" prepared by Hoover Associates, dated July 15, 2003 Project Documentation by Hoover Associates, dated July 24, 2003 Project Tree Survey and Tree Preservation Guidelines, McClenahan Consulting, June 4, 2003 and Addendum dated July 21, 2003 Project Description and Environmental Assessment Worksheet, dated April 23, 2003 Project Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr & Peers Associates, March 2002 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010. Parenthetical references indicate maps found in the Comprehensive Plan Palo Alto Municipal code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault Zoning Map City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division memoranda, June 11, 2003, September 25, 2003, October 27, 2003 City of Palo Alto, Fire Department memorandum, June 5, 2003 Alto, Planning Arborist memorandum, June 18, 2003 Alto, Building Inspection Division memorandum, June 24, 2003 Alto, Public Works Engineering, June 19, 2003 Alto, Public Works Operations, June 5, 2003 Alto, Public Works Water Quality, June 5, 2003 Alto, Utility Marketing Services memorandum, June 7, 2003 Alto, Utilities Engineering (Electrical)memorandum, June 16, 2003 Alto, Utilities Engineering (WGW), July 6, 2003 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I. Aesthetics The proposed project is required to meet the City of Palo Alto development standards and review by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board to ensure that the new construction would be compatible, harmonious and appropriate to the site and surrounding development..The proposed project meets the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.64, LM(D)(3) Limited Manufacturing zoning district, additional site development and design regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts and Section 18.64.030(a)(2)(A) that requires the elimination of glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the development ........... Mitigation Measures: None required. II. Agricultural Resources The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Page 17 Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None required III. Air Quality Demolition and new construction activities could have a significant impact to air quality through the release of respirable particulate matter concentrations. Although there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the subject site, the project is subject to City Building Department regulations that require approval of an adequate dust abatement plan for construction activities for both demolition and new construction prior to the issuance of a building permit. The dust abatement plan requirements would reduce the potential significant air quality impacts relating to demolition and new construction of the project to less than significant. Motor vehicles are the major source of ozone precursors and contributors to carbon monoxide generation in the Bay Area. The project proposes to replace the existing buildings with office buildings that are consistent with the policies of the LM(D)(3) zoning district and Comprehensive Plan. The trips, generated by the proposed use do not require a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. City development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. IV. Biological Resources No endangered, threatened, or special status animal or plant species have been identified at the project site. The site is developed with some mature landscaping including street trees. Conditions of approval for the proposed project require the developer to obtain approval by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of a building permit for; (a) the removal and/or relocation of regulated and protected trees per the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, PAMC, Section 6.30 and 2.00; (b) for the landscape planting and irrigation plan; and (c) for tree protection measures during construction phases of the project that must comply with and Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, PAMC Section 8.10, City development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. V. Cultural Resources The site is currently developed with a restaurant building, four office buildings, parking facilities and landscaping. There are no known cultural resources on the site. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the project site is located within an Archaeological Resource Area of moderate sensitivity. In the event of accidental discovery of archaeological resources on the site, work at Page 18 the place of discovery shall be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find. At the applicant’s expense the qualified archaeologist will perform an archaeological reconnaissance and develop mitigation measures to protect archaeological resources. In the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office shall be notified immediately who will determine if the remains are those of a Native American. All subsequent actions and mitigation measures shall comply with Public Resources Code, Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). Mitigation Measures: None required. VI. Geology and Soils Conditions of approval for the project require the preparation of a geotechnical and soils report for the project site prior to the application for a building permit. All new construction shall comply with the provisions of the geotechnical report and with the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. City development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project site is not designated as a high fire hazard within the City and is not designated as a wildland. The new construction and site design shall be required to comply with the City’s building permit approval standards and fire equipment and fire protection coverage standards as conditions of project approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The proposed project site does not contain hazardous or toxic wastes as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. However, it is not known if a past use of the site may have released hazardous substances into the soil. Until recently, asbestos was used in many building materials. The existing buildings may contain asbestos-containing construction materials (ACM’s). Conditions of project approval prior to the application for a demolition permit shall require the developer to test for ACM’s and, if necessary, provide for standard safety protocols and best management practices in doing removal of any hazardous materials. Required protocols are set forth in the California Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) regulations and the California Health and Safety Code. ACM’s and lead paint containing materials shall be handled only by trained construction workers and disposed of in a manner prescribed by State Law. If the materials are handled and disposed of in accordance with the regulations they should not pose a hazard either to the construction workers or to any members of the public nearby or neighboring residents. Additionally, the developer shall conduct a Phase I hazardous substances survey for the site prior to application for a building permit to determine the historic use of the site. If the results of the Phase I survey indicate the potential presence of hazardous substances, the developer shall Page 19 conduct a Phase II survey to test soil samples at the site and shall comply with City standards for subsequent cleanup and removal of hazardous substances, as necessary. City development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. " Mitigation Measures: None required. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality The project would cover approximately 16% of the site where 30% is allowed by zoning standards of the LM(D)(3) district. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it substantially alter the existing drainage pattern or storm water run-off of the already developed site. The City’s Public Works Department requires the project to meet specific conditions of project approval that require compliance with City, State and Federal standards pertaining to water quality and waste discharge and storm water run-off. City development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project.to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. IX. Land Use and Planning The project replaces an existing developed use of the site for office buildings and does not conflict with any land use plans for the site. The project complies will all massing, height, setback and lot coverage standards for the LM(D)(3) zoning district and complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies for Research/Office Park. Mitigation Measures: None required. X. Mineral Resources The project will not impact known mineral or locally-important mineral resources. XI. Noise The project will replace buildings of the same office use and eliminate the restaurant use on a site that is not adjacent to residential land use or sensitive receptors, The new buildings would have HVAC units on the roof that would generate noise. The building design would include sound proofing measures to mitigate for the off-site traffic noise. The project site is not located within any public or private airport zone. Project related traffic would.not cause a noticeable increase in noise on any public streets. However, the construction of the project would temporarily increase current noise levels in the vicinity of the site. All development of the site shall comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, as amended, and shall be required to follow standard construction tec.hniques and best management practices. Page 20 City development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. XII. Population and Housing The project would increase the square footage of office space at the site by approximately 32,304 square feet which means more employees in Palo Alto that may require additional housing. Based on the standard used by City staff for jobs created by development of 4 jobs per 1,000 square feet of commercial space, the additional square footage could result in 129 additional employees at the project site over the current development. The project does not include any housing development and is subject to a housing in-lieu fee based on 32,304 square feet of net new floor area. The fee as of May 8, 2003 is $15.24 per square foot for a total fee of $492,312.96. 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, PAMC,~ Section 16.47. City development standards, development fees and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. XIII.Public Services Fire The project site is not located in a high fire or wildlands fire area. The project would be required to meet Fire Department development standards prior to issuance of a building permit. Police The project would not alter the use of the site or result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. Schools The project does not include housing and is not subject to school impact fees. Parks and Public Facilities The project is subject to Development Impact fees for parks, community centers and libraries based on the amount of net new square footage of 32,304. The park rate is $3.38 per square foot for a total fee of $109,187.52. The community center rate is $0.19 per square foot for a total fee of $6,137.76. The library rate is $0.18 per square foot for a total fee of $5,814.72. The total fees for parks and public facilities is $121,140.00. These fees may be adjusted by the City, and the fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance is the fee required. City development standards, development fees and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. Page 21 Mitigation Measures: None required. XIV. Recreation The project could increase the number of employees to the site and thus, potentially, increase the usage of nearby recreational areas, such as the Baylands Recreational Area. The project does not include the development of any recreational facilities on the site. It is not anticipated that the proposed office use would accelerate the need for any additional recreational facilities or pose substantial physical deterioration to existing recreational facilities in the vicinity. Mitigation Measures: None required. XV. Transportation Traffic Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants prepared a traffic impact analysis for the project in March 2002. At the time of the report, the proposed IKEA project was uncertain. The report analyzed ct)nditions for an 110,000 square foot multi-tenant office project (the proposed project would have less impact with 74,000 square feet) with and without the IKEA project. The traffic impacts of the development were evaluated following the guidelines of the City of Palo Alto and the VTA, which is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. The project is estimated to generate only 16 additional daily trips when compared to the existing office and restaurant land uses. But, because of the multi-tenant office land use, the project is estimated to generate 98 new trips in the morning and 37 new evening peak-hour trips. AM and PM peak-hour analyses were conducted for the following intersections: 1.East Bayshore Road / Laura Lane (Palo Alto) 2.East Bayshore Road / Embarcadero Road (Palo Alto) 3.East Bayshore Road / San Antonio Road (Palo Alto) 4.U.S. 101 Off-Ramp / San Antonio Road (Palo Alto) 5.Charleston Road / San Antonio Road (Palo Alto) 6.Donohoe Street / University Avenue (East Palo Alto) 7.Donohoe Street / Capital Avenue (East Palo Alto) 8.East Bayshore Road / Clarke Street (East Palo Alto) 9.East Bayshore Road / Pulgas Avenue (East Palo Alto) In addition to arterial intersections, the following three freeway segments of U.S, Highway 101 were analyzed: 1.U.S. Highway 101, South of San Antonio Road 2.U.S. Highway 101, South of Embarcadero Road 3.U.S. Highway i01, North of Embarcadero Road The report found that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the freeway segments. However, it would have a significant adverse impact at the City of Palo Alto study intersection under both Without IKEA and With IKEA scenarios: Page 22 1.San Antonio Road / Northbound U.S. Highway 101 Off-Ramps (Unsignalized, AM and PM peak hours) The existing un-signalized intersection currently operates at unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) F conditions during both morning and evening peak hour conditions, and the addition of any vehicle traffic only exacerbates the poor operating conditions. Heavy traffic volumes on northbound/southbound San Antonio Road results in long delays and queues for vehicles exiting northbound U.S, 101 and waiting for acceptable gaps in traffic, ÷ It should be noted that the San Antonio Road / Northbound U,S. 101 Off-Ramp intersections already meets the requirements for a traffic signal as descried in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. The installation of a signal at this intersection would improve the operations of this intersection to acceptable LOS B conditions during both AM and PM peak hour conditions. A signal is planned for the San Antonio / Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp intersection, jointly by Palo Alto, Mountain View and Caltrans. This project is expensive and complicated, with a total cost currently estimated at $850,000. The conditions of project approval would require that the project developer would pay a fair share portion of the cost based on the actual square footage of the approved project. The TIA analyzed a project of 110,000 square feet that results in a proportionate share of 2.2% of the total cost. The actual proportionate percentage would be based on the approved project square footage, approximately 74,000 square feet as proposed, and would be assessed at the time of application for a building permit. The revised proportionate percentage based on the smaller project size is 1% of the total cost, or $8,500.00. Although the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to signalized intersections on East Bayshore Road, minor improvements to the existing signal timings would improve the overall fiow of traffic on East Bayshore Road. Therefore, it is recommended, but not required, that the proposed project work with the City of Palo Alto / Santa Clara County and City of East Palo Alto / San Mateo County to make minor signal timing adjustments to the following intersections: Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road Laura Lane / East Bayshore Road. San Antonio Road / East Bayshore Road Pulgas Avenue / East Bayshore Road Clarke Street / East Bayshore Road The complete March 2002 Fehr and Peers TIA is included in the project files, City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. Residual Impact: The project includes mitigation that results in a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure: The project applicant shall pay a fair share portion of the cost of a traffic signal planned for the San Antonio / Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp intersection, jointly by Palo Alto, Page 23 F~ NO, 6503282154 p, Mountain View and Caltrans. The revised proportionate percentage based on the amalkr project size is I% of the total =ost, or $8,500.00. The City of Palo requires 1 pa~ng spa~e fox" each 300 sq~tare feet of office building use. Based on the project size of 73,932 square feet, 246 spaces wou(d be required of which 7 would be handicap accessible (l van accessible), and one loading space. The City bicycle parking requirement is 10% of the total parking spaces, or 25 spaces. The project would provide 300 standard size parking spaces of which 8 would be handicap accessible (1 van a~essible), and 34 bicycle spaces. Mitigation Measures: None required. XVI.Utilities and Service Systems The project would not significantly increase the demand on existing ufih’ties and service systems or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Mitigation Measures: None r~uired. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project with mitigation measures for traffic impacts will not substantially degrade the surrounding environment, !mpaet wildlife species or their habitat, or eliminate important examples of cultural hi~o.ry or pre-history. The mitigation measures for the projects’ Transportation impacts as listed in Section XV (pg,22) of this report would reduce these impacts on the quality of the environment to a less than significant level. Additionally, the project will not create considerable cumulative impacts when viewed in cormeation with past, current m3d probable future projects, b~ause (1) it is replacing existing office and commercial deveJopment with the same land use and is located in an area that is largely developed, and (2) there are no currently approved projec!3 in the City of Palo Alto in the vicinity of the project site. The project will not cause substantial adverse effeet~ on human beings. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED /Z ]0.~ , PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY~ovo/AS . PALO ALTO, 25 Attachment M Staff Summary Responses to Public Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration dated Dated January 5, 2004 for 2300 East Bayshore Road The following is a list and staff responses to the comments received during the public comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Aesthetics The publie commented on the proposed projeets lack of conformance with aesthetic policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The project is in conformance with the following policies from the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Baylands Master Plan: Comprehensive Plan Policy L-3 "Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public streets in the developed portions of the City ... Views of the hills can be seen from many City streets. They provide a sense of enclosure and a reminder of the City’s proximity to open space and the natural environment. Views from the baylands are equally striking, taking in the Bay, the East Bay hills, and the Santa Cruz Mountains. These visual connections are part of what makes Palo Alto attractive. The design and siting of new buildings should take into account impact on views... "" Comprehensive Plan Policy N-6 "Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. "" Comprehensive Plan Map L-4 "’Locations of major view corridors and viewsheds’" and Embarcadero Road in the project area is designated as a "Scenic route" and the area near the Embarcadero/East Bayshore intersection is a "Primary entry point. "" Comprehensive Plan Program L-71 "’Recognize ...Embarcadero Road...as (a) scenic route "" Comprehensive Plan Policy L- 71 "Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including entrances to the City at Highway 101 ... entries to commercial districts...’" the Policy L-5 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan "Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. ’" that are Baylands Master Plan’s Overall Environmental Quality Policies "The urbanized Embarcadero Road corridor’s relationship to the open land will be recognized and maintained, but no more urban intrusion will be allowed. "’ Baylands Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report Any future development should be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and should continue to receive extensive design review’" (page 45), and that development is to be consistent with the adopted Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. New construction will be reviewed for environmental and design impacts during review of development application, and impacts will be dealt with at those times" (page S8). The existing five structures occupy a 41,654 square foot "footprint" on the project site. The proposed project would remove the existing buildings and-replace five one-story structures with one two-story structure that has a "footprint" of 35,579 square feet. While the proposed structure would be taller than the existing structures, it would not be out of character with the established office/research park profile of adjoining structures that are also two-story. The 50’ structure would be well screened by existing mature trees that are taller than the proposed building and by proposed additional landscaping (including retaining/relocating some of the on-site mature trees) on the site. The existing mature eucalyptus trees thatare over 50’ high are located along the west and north perimeter of the site. These trees provide a beneficial screen of the highway traffic and also obscure any potential views to the west that would include the highway and lands beyond. The access ramps on the east side of Highway 101 are densely vegetated with mature trees that accomplish the same function of screening views to and across the highway from the project site. The landscape plan also indicates 146 new trees are proposed for the site including Oak and London Plane trees that mature well over 50’ high (80’ to !00’). While the zoning code requires a minimum of 10% interior landscaping for the surface parking lot, the applicant has proposed approximately 14% of interior landscaping. Anyviews to the site would be enhanced by the resulting tree canopy coverage of the site ...... The project is required to meet the City of Palo Municipal Code Section 18.64.030(a)(2)(A), such that glare and light may not spill over beyond the perimeter of the development. The project plans include a site lighting photometric plan that is under review by the ARB. The proposed landscaping would enhance the retention of on-site light by provision of new tall tree screenings, including London Plane trees (70’), Oak trees (60’ - 80’), and the existing Eucalyptus trees. The use of glass on the exterior of the building benefits the workplace environment and sustainable energy effectiveness of the building by maximizing the amount of natural daylight into the interior spaces. The project site is located on flat, low, non-hillside land. The proposed development would not impact any views of the hills to the west. There are no scenic views from the site or adjoining East Bayshore Road. The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Research/Office Park and is flanked to the north, east and south with office development that obscure any views of the baylands. The proposed two-story office building would not rise higher than the adjoining tree screen and would be consistent with adjacent two-story office buildings at 2370 Watson Court, 2465-2483 East Bayshore Road, 2225 East Bayshore Road and 1731 Embarcadero Road (all visible from the project site). The construction of a two-story office building that is 50’ in height would not significantly impact the existing view situation to or from the project site. The proposed office building is consistent with the urban scale and established character of the existing office/research development that adjoins the site. Both the Comprehensive Plan and the Baylands Master Plan designate this site for the proposed use, and the size and scale of the project are consistent with applicable LM(D)(3) zoning standards. The project has been reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and will ultimately be reviewed by the City Council to ensure that the new construction would be compatible, harmonious and appropriate to the site and surrounding development. Among several ARB comments during a preliminary review in 2001 of a larger project requested the applicant consider possibilities for a Baylands gateway, such as widening the parking lot landscape perimeter at Embarcadero Road by eliminating excess vehicle spaces. The review process has resulted in the redesign of the project to incorporate a "baylands theme" with plant material and amenities in the landscape desigh of the entrance to the project site. The PTC has recommended a reduction in the proposed number of parking spaces to provide additional landscaped open space on the site. The Council may approve the PTC’s recommendation, resulting in a development with more permeable open space; Air Qualit~ The public commented on the impact of dust generated by the project and the increase in the production of ozone on the site as a result of paving material. The proposed project will include the removal of all existing buildings and on site paving. As stated on page 18 of the MND, this construction activity could be a potential source of dust in the immediate area if not properly mitigated. The City of Palo Alto’s has standard conditions of approval for all construction projects to minimize the amount of generated dust. These conditions have been added to the project. These conditions require daily sweeping and watering of the construction site and covering the loads of trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose material. The "Heat Island" effect caused by the suns heating of paving will be reduced because l) Permeable area will be increased by 22% over the existing site condition and 2) The landscaped area would be increased from 69,575 square feet to 84,108 square feet, an increase of 14,533 square feet of landscaping. Biological Resources The public commented on the presence of birds and empty bird nests on site and the possible negative construction related effect on these birds. As stated on page 18 of the MND, the project would not have a significant effect on any endangered, threatened, or special status animal or plant species. However, the site has the potential for birds to nest in the existing Eucalyptus trees on the perimeter of the site, existing street trees, and other trees located on site. Trees on the site would be removed as part of the project. Deborah Barrens, the City’s Naturalist, visited the site and observed that the majority of the birds on site are migratory birds, including Songbirds,. that can be present during the summer months. These birds’ nesting period extends from April - June and they abandon their nests after each nesting period and build new nests the following year. The project would include an increase in the number of trees. Ms. Barrens indicated that these additional trees would provide an increased amount of habitat for nesting birds. The following condition of approval is included in the Record of Land Use Action. BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF BUILDING PERMIT The removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the April 1 through June 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, or buildings; or grading or other construction activity. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys shall be required. Survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey; therefore, if vegetation or building removal is not started within 21 days of the survey, another survey shall be required. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. Geology/Soils/Hydrology The public commented on the validity of a Geotechnical Investigation report for the project PrePared four years ago. The City of Palo Alto Palo Department of Public Works Engineering has reviewed the Geotechnical Investigation and Pavement Design report prepared by United Soil Engineering dated July 2000, and considers it to be adequate for the entitlement process. The site is located in a flood hazard zone. Staff from both the Building Division and the Public Works Department would review the project to ensure that the project conforms to all regulations pertaining to construction in a flood hazard zone prior to building permit issuance. As stated on page 19 of the MND, the proposed construction shall comply with the recommendation of the geotechnical report and the Uniform Building Code. Because the report is four years old and was prepared for the project when it included a larger building and underground parking, the Public Works department will require that an addendum to the report be prepared to address the new building foundation design. This report would be submitted for review prior to the issuance of a building permit Hazards and Hazardous Materials The public commented on the proposed projects use of fluorescent tubes to illuminate the interior of the building and the possible hazardous effects associated with improper disposal of Fluorescent tubes. As stated on page 10 of the MND, the project would not have a significant effect on hazards or hazardous materials. However, the public raised concem about the projects use of fluorescent tubes. Most fluorescent tubes are considered "Universal Wastes", a subset of hazardous waste in the state of California due to their hazardous waste characteristic (contains small amounts of mercury). Universal wastes are hazardous wastes that are more common and pose a lower risk to people and the environment than other hazardous wastes. Federal and State regulations identify universal wastes and provide simple rules for handling, ¯ recycling, and disposing of them. The regulations, called the "Universal Waste Rule," are in the Califomia Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 23. Commercial businesses are legally required to either send their tubes to a certified ~ecycler for recycling or send the tubes to a hazardous waste facility for recycling or disposal. However, hazardous waste disposal is not normally utilized because of the exorbitant costs. Fluorescent tube recycling involves the extraction of the mercury compounds for refurbishment to be re-used in other mercury products. Presumably, there would be no significant release of the mercury to air or groundwater from the tube recycling. Land Use/Planning The public commented on the projects standards of the LM(D) (3) zone district. lack of conformance with development As included on Page 20 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and noted in the staff reports to the. ARB, Commission, and Council, the project does not conflict with any land use plans for the site and conforms to all LM(D)(3) development standards (see Zoning Conformance Table, Attachment D of the Council Report). The project is’in conformance with policies of the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, including "Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore areas as diverse business and light industrial districts" (Policy L- 46). However, the Comprehensive Plan also states that new and redeveloped buildings and landscaping should reflect the area’s location near the Baylands. There is no "unified design character" in the Baylands. Staff is preparing draft guidelines entitled "Site Assessment and Design Guidelines - Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve", the purpose of which is to establish the "character" of the Baylands. These draft guidelines do not include architectural guidelines for commercial buildings, but do include such statements as: The Baylands area is a distinctive landscape notable for openness and subtlety - flat and treeless, defined by the expansive horizon - big sky, fiat water, waving grasses Use muted~ natural colors, and materials that weather well Keep constructed elements low and horizontal in the open, treeless landscape - a vertical element has a large impact The design of the project and choice of building materials could be considered to be consistent with the above statements. There is a certain openness provided by the substantial setback of the building from the street. The proposed colors are. muted. The applicant has stated that the pre-cast tan-colored concrete represents the shoreline and that the clear and green glass is reminiscent of the water and:the plants found in the Baylands natural environment. The "Baylands Interpretive Areas" proposed for both street intersections include long grasses and native plants designed to attract wildlife, along with pedestrian amenities such as benches. Noise The public commented on the noise that would be generated by the construction of the proposed project. The Noise Ordinance was referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (page 20), which noted that standard construction techniques and best management practices would be used. The project is subject to the City’s standard conditions of approval regarding noise. There are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. The construction of the project would temporarily increase current noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation and grading and construction of the building. Such noise will be short in duration. Once completed, long-term noise associated with the new building would be within acceptable noise limits and no impacts are anticipated. Proper implementation of and compliance with Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of the PAMC (limiting construction between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. Monday - Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m. on Saturday, and construction hours prohibited Sundays and Holidays would reduce construction- related noise impacts. Population/Housing The public commented on the projects possible effect on the Jobs/Housing Imbalance. The standard estimate used by City staff for jobs created by development is 4 jobs per 1,000 square feet of commercial area. With this formula, the proposed office building could have 296 employees.. As stated on page 31 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the project does not include any housing development and is subject to a housing in-lieu fee based on 32,304 square feet of net new floor area. The fee as of May 8, 2003 is $15.24 per square foot for a total fee of $492,312.96. 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, PAMC, Section 16.47. Other major projects presently going through the entitlement process (i.e. 901 San Antonio Road) propose replacing office with multiple family housing. This additional housing would help compensate the additional 73,932 square foot non - residential floor area. Transportation/Traffic The public commented on the proposed projects effect on traffic. Mitigation measures to offset the traffic impacts of the proposed project are included in page 22 of the MND. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommend a condition of approval that requires a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. This requirement for a TDM program is subject to review and approval by the Transportation Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. The TDM program would include, but would not be limited to, promotion of the use of bicycles, transit passes, a one time financial contribution to market the Palo Alto Shuttle Service to employees and visitors of the project, funding for the Palo Alto Shuttle Service, a carpool matching program, van pool sponsorship, and telecommuting opportunities, etc. ~ The City Attorney has prepared a memo (Attachment R of the Council staff report) for Council. The memo discusses the baseline issue as is it relates to the evaluation of the traffic generated by the proposed project. The Attorney presents three options and staff supports Option One. California law requires that the City - when analyzing impacts based on the California Environmental Quality Act, use as a baseline normal permitted activity on the site, not the intensity at a particular time. Intensity of activity fluctuates, while the permitted level of activity is more stable. California law favors the use of a baseline that assumes occupancy of all space in the existing building(s), not just the portion actually rented in 2000, or on a particular day in 2000. See, for example, Fairview Neighbors v. County of Venrura (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 23 8. In terms of trip generation, giving credit for existing land uses is consistent with the City of Palo Alto and County of Santa Clara (VTA) methodology to determine the number of vehicle trips generated by a proposed project. Existing land uses have the potential to be i:e-occupied and would therefore have the ability to generate traffic. For the intersection operations analysis, the credit is applied and the total trip generation is used to det~nine whether or not the proposed project would result in a significant impact. Attachment N EXCERPT: -v~,~ technical appendices Draft Report: WATSON COURT PROJECT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS 1616cvrb Prepared for: City of Palo.Alto Prepared by: ~.. FEHP,~PEERS ASSOaATES,~NC,¯Transportation Consultants March 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................. i 1 - INTRODUCTION ..............................: .................................................................1 " Report Organization ....= ...........................................................................................5 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................~ .....................................6 Roadway Network ................ .......-....:~ 2 ................................, .....................................6 Existing Transit Service ...........................................................................................7 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ...............................................................7 Existing Traffic Volumes-and Lane Configur.ations ................................................8 Level of Service Methodology .................................................................................8 Existing Intersection Levels of Service .................................................~ ...............t 3 Signal Warrant Analysis ...........- ....i .........................................................................15 Existing Freeway Levels of Service ......................................................................16 3 - FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS ...............: ..................................18 Background Traffic Estimates ........................." ......................................................18 Background (Without IKEA Project) IntersectionLevels of Service ...................19 Background (Without IKEA Project) Signal Warrant Analysis ............................21 Background (With IKEAProject) IntersectionLevels of Service .........................22 Background (With IKEA Project), Signal Warrant Analysis ..................: ..............22 4 - PROJECT CONDITIONS .........................................................................................24 Project Traffic Estimates .........................................................................................24 Trip Generation ............................................................................................., ........24 Trip Distribution ........................................." ...........................................................25 .25Trip Assigmnent ............................................................................... ~ .................... Watson Court Project (Without IKEA) Intersection Levels of Serwce .................29 Watson Court Project (With IKEA) Intersection Levels of Service ......................29 Project Intersection Impacts ...................................: ..................... ...........................32 Project Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................33 Proposed Improvements to East Bayshore Road / Embarcadero Road .................35 Freeway Segment Analysisz ..................................................................................35 Freeway Segment Impacts .......: ................................................i ............~ ...............36 TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 - PROJECT SITE ACCESS AND PARKING ..............................~ ...........................37 Site Access .............................................................................................................37 Queuing Analysis ..........: .................................., ......................................................38 Parking ...................................................................................................................38 Technical Appendices Appendix A -AM Peak Hour (Without IKEA Project) Service Calculation Sheets Intersection Level of Appendix B- PM Peak Hour (Without IKEA Project) Intersection Level of Service Calculation Sheets - Appendix C - AM Peak Hour (With IKEA Project) Intersection Level of Service Calculation Sheets Appendix D - PM Peak Hour (With IKEA Project) Intersec.tion Level of Service Calculation Sheets Appendix E - Mitigated Project Conditions (With IKEA Project)Intersection Level of Service Calculation Sheets LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1, ES-2. ES-3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5, 6, 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Project Trip Generation EStimates ...................................................." .....................iii Summary of Intersection Levels of Service (Without IKEA Project) ...................iv Summary of Intersection Levels of Service (With IKEA Project) ..........................v Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay ..............................................................12 Uns.i_gnalized Intersection Level of Service D_efmitions ........................................13 Density Based Freeway Levels of Service Criteria ...............................................13 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ..............: ...................................................14 Existing Freeway Segment Levels of Service .................................................... 17 Background (Year 2004 Without IKEA Project) Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................................21 Background (Year 2004 With IKEA Project) Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................................23 Project Trip Generation Rates and Estimates ......................................................25 Background and Watson Court Project (Without IKEA Project) Intersection Levels of Service .........2 ......................................................................30 Background and Watson Court Project (With IKEA Project) Intersection Levels of Service ............... ......." .....................................................: ....31 Mitigated Watson Court Project (With IKEA Project) Intersection Levels of Service .........................................i.. .....................................34 Project Freeway Segment Ailalysis ................................................................: ......36 LIST OF FIGURES 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Project Location and Study Intersections ..........................................................., ....2 Project Site Plan .............- ..........................................................................................3 City of Palo Alto Bicycle System ............................................................................9 Existing Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................10 Existing Intersection Lane Configurations and Control ........................................11 . Background (Year 2004 With IKEA Proj ect) Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...............................................................20 PrNect Trip Distribution:.: ...............................~. ............................................~ ..........26 Pro]ect Trip Assignment (Net New Trips) .............................................................27 Project Conditions (With IKEA Project) Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...............................................................28 , Watson Court’Project,Transportation fmpact Analysis - Executive Summary March 2002 This TIA ~as.conduct~d: follSwing, the.guidelines set forth by.the City.of P~IO Alto andthe ’ ~TA, .which is the congestion management agency f~J~.Santa Clara County.. The City o]~ Ease . ¯ .Palo Alto does not hai’~ an ~adopted methodology_ for analyzing signalized intersections. Although previous traffic studies hav~ used a critical ~¢01u.me method for analyzing impacts, the methodology used. by th~ City. of Palo Alto and the VTA (and described.in the.HighwaY Capacity .Manual: Special Report’209; Transportation Research. Board) were used for this study., This methbd proyides, a more detailed representation Of traffic operationsincluding. estimates of average.vehicle htopped.delaY.and.potential project .impacts. The following key intersections and freeway segments were analyzed for thisproject : EXE. cuTrv-E : This executive summary presents the primary results Of the transportation impact analysis (TIA) for .the proposed.WatSon Court Office Building’ Project (2300 East. BayshoreRoad) in Palo-Alto, California.-The Proposed Project would include.the removal of an existing¯ 8,.400 square-fo0t restaurant and. 33,200 square,foot single tenant office building and-construction ofa new .110,000 square-foot multi-tenant office building before December 2004.1 The.: pro]cot site is located at 2300 East Bayshore Road, dire~t!y east of U.S..Route 1.01. Access toNe site will.be provided .via One driveway on East Bayshore Avenue-and .Watson Court, a .cul-de-sac.located appr0ximately450 feet south of Embar(ader.0 Road. Key Intersections . ¯ 1 East Bayshore Road / Laura La~e (CiCg 0fPalo Alto) :2 EastBayshore Road / Embarcadero-Road (City of Palo AltO) 3 East Baysh0re Road / San ?mtoniO.Road (City of Palo Alto) 4 U,S: 101 Off-Ramp / San Antonio Road (City of Palo Alto) 5 Charleston Road / san Antonio Road" (Ci.ty..ofPalo Alto) "6 Don0hoe. Street / University:Avenue (City of East Palo Alto) .7 .D0nohoelstreet/Capital Avenue (City-0f East Pal0 A!to).. 8 East.Baysh0re Road/Clarke" Street (City :of East Palo Alto) 9 East Bayshore Road / Pulgas Ayenue (City of East Palo Alto) ¯" *Designated Conge.stion Management Pmgram’(~MP),in~erse~tion." ¯ " tn addition to arterial intersections, th~ f~llo.w~ngthree freeway segments of U:S. HighWay ) 01 were analyzed: Freeway S~rnents :U,S. Highway 101, South of san Antgnio Road; " u.s. Highway 101, South of Embarcadero~ Road; and U.S. Highway 101, North Of Embarcadero Road Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc, Watson. Court P~’oject Tr.anspor~atT’on [rnpa~t Analysis.- Executive Summary It should’be noted, that because 0f.the uncertain status of tt~e proposed IKEA Project.in the City of East Paio Alto, -this study an,alyze.d potential impacts of the Watson Court Prbject Withand Without the IKEAProject. By doing so, pbtential.pr0ject impadts and-mitigation measures for both future scenarios are identified .~ . . . . The Operations of.key inter~edtions Were evaluated during ~e morning (.AM..) and evening (PM).peLlc.periods for the following five s~enarios: Existt’ng Conditions - Existing vol_um~s obtained from. counts, representing prakoiae-hour .traffic 0nditirns .during the morning and evening commute..periods. Background Conditions (Future ’WithoutP,:oject Conditions) Without lY~EAii.Pi:oject:- Future traffic volumes based on.the Completiondate of the Project..(Deeember .200z~), the Palo Alto Citywide Traffic Model. - . . " " Project Conditions Without IKENProject.-Backgr0und momAng and e~rening peak-hdur traffic Volumes Plu~ project-generatedtraffic. - The prdject involves demolishing ’two existing land uses from the project site and. construction of a new. I10,000 squfire:fooi m~lti-tenant office buildings, with 105,000"gross square feet of’office space. The remaining 5,000 square feet ar~ comprised of .exempt square f0o~age for cafeteria. and empl0yee locker/shower facilities, and was approved for exclusionfrom the bi~iiding square footage by the City Of Palo. Alto Planning Division: ¯ ¯ Background Conditions (Future Without Projec.t Conditions) With ]KEN Project -.Future traffic volumes ¯based on the completion date of the Project. (December’ 2004),’ the Palo Alto Citywide Traffic Model, and the, proposed.IKEA.project in the City of East Palo Alto. Project Conditions With IKEA Project- Background morning and evening peakrhour traffic ;¢olumes plus project-generated traffic. The project involves demolishing two existing land uses from the project Site and construction of a new 110,000 square-foot multi:tenant, office building, with 1.05;000 gross square .feet 0f office~ space. The remaining 5,000 square feet are cgmprised of exempt square footage for cafeteria and employee loCker/shower facilities, and was approved for: exclusion from the building .s.quare footage by the City of Palo Alto Planning Division. Project Traffic Estimates The amount Of traffic added to the surrounding roadway system by the proposed 110,000 square-foot multi-tenant office, project was estimated using the. Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition, 1997. Vehicle trips associated with the existing land uses were subtracted from the trips generated-by--~-th-e-~op0sed new use Fehr & Peers Associates~ -Inc. Watson Court Project Transportation _~mpact Analysis.-’ Executive Summary March 2002 This creditfor existing land uses was used to estimate the net-new vehicle trips.that would use the .surrounding transportation system. As sh0wnin Table E:I, the Proposed Project is estirriated to ge~erate. 0nly 16 additional daily trips when compared.to the exist.ing, office and restaurant"land uses..- But because-of the mu!ti,tenanto -i .:. ~ ~-. ~_ -op0sed ~rojedt .will increase .the" morning, and.~ evening peak,horn:,, trfp generation.. The Proposed Project fs estimated to-gdierate 9.8 newraps m the morning a~nd:3~ening.peak-h0u~ trtr~ps. lherefore, the restrks-of, th -%p gen~te th~pos ~-; -i -:-t ~generate le’ss than 100 ’net’ ne~¢ vehicletrips diaSag both morning and. 6vening peak Land Use project Trip Generation Estimates AM. Peak Hour Daily.In Out Total PM Peak Hour. - In ’Out Total Frip Generation Estitnates Proposed Watson dourt Office.. Prpject (110,000 square feet). ! ¯ Existing O’fficeBuilding (33,200 square feet). i,156 144 ,384 .- 53 20 -6 164 - 59 27. -9 130 .~57 -48 -57 -"21Existing Restaurant ..-756 - 7 -’0 - 7(8;400 square feet) . Total Net New Trips 16 84.14 98 - 24 61 -. "37° Notes: ~ A total0f 105,000 gross square feet of office spa:ee was used in the aual~s[s, with ’5,000 square feet 0f exempt square footage.¯ comprised of an on-site cafeteria and.employ6e locker/shower facilities. Source: Trip Generation (Six~E~lition, 1997, Institute ofTransportatiori Epgineers). -. Source: Fehr &Peers A~sociates. _ March, 2002 Intersedtionoperations were evaluated for Existing,. Background, and Project Conditions, The City of Palo Alto, aswell .~ts the VTA assesses level of service based on the average stopped delay per vehicle. The level of service standarddefined as acceptable.by the City of Palo Alto and the City 9f East palo Alto is LOS.D. or. better, for City-contro!led intersections. The .VTA defines .an acceptable operathag level as,LOS. E or ~better for. Congestion Management Program (CMP) de;ignated intersections." The results are-presentedin Table ES-2 for Without IKA COnditions and Table ES-3 for With IKEA Conditions.. .. Insert table ES-2 (at end Of document) Fehr & Peers Associates,iii Watson Court Project T.ransporiation Impact Analysis - Executz’ve Summary March 2002 Stand’ards of Significance The results of the level of service Calculations for Project.Conditions were compared to ~he resu!tsfor Background Condition~ to .identify. significant project, impacts. Becausethe City of Palo Alto does not ’have a standard for identifying significant ,impacts tO .unsignalized intersections, a modificatioia to the criteria used for signalized City-co~trotiedintersections was applied to .ansignalized’interse~tionso Therefore, a significant proje.ct impact to a Signalized interSrction wiI1 result if.the project causes one,of the....following cofiditions to be mete . ." . .- - ¯A non-city contrblledCMP intersection to degrade from acceptable Los E Conditions or better to unacceptableLOS F .. ¯At CMP intersectidr~s currently operating at LOS-F condi.tions, a project Would. cause"a significant impact if:it increases the average-stopped delay for cr_itical movements by.. four (4).~ecrnds. or more,. and project=generated: traffiC increases.the critical.v/c ~alue by 0.01 or more :- A City0fPa]o Alto or ~City-of East Palo Alto:controlled interseclt~0n to degrade from acceptable LOS D conditions or’.better to unacceptable LOS E or F conditions : At City-~ontrolledintersectidn currentlyrpemting at LOS E-Or F conditions., .a project would cause a significant impact if it exacerbates unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) by increasing the critical delay by more than four (4)seconds and. increase~ tlze volume- ..to2capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.0t or more.- " For unsignalized fiatersecfions; the following,modified level of c~iteria was used to determine if the project causes a significant project impact: At ..unsignalized City-c0ntrolled Ntersection currently operating at-LOS E or F conditions, aproject would cause a significant, impact if it exacerba[es unacceptable operations,(LOS E or F) by increasing the. critical .delay by more than four (4).seconds or increases the volume-to-.capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more Proj ect Intersection Impacts.. According.to these defmiti0n.s, the project is Shown to have a significant adverse, impact at the City of Palo Alto study intersection under-both With0utIKEA. and With IKEA Scenarios: 1)San Antonio Road / Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramps.(Unsignalized - AM and PM Peak Hours) Fehr & Peers Associates, .Inc.vt Watson Court Projec~ Transportationfrnpa’ct Analysis- Execua’v.e Summaly March 2002 The existing unsignali~ed intersection currently. 9Perates at LOS F onditions during both morning and evenin.g peak hour conditions, .and the addition: o.~ any vehicle traffic only. exacerbates the poor operatihg conditions. Heavy traffic volumes on northbound/soUthbound San Antonio Road results in long’delays and queues for vehfcles exiting northbound U:S. 101 and waithig for-acceptable gaps in traffic, .. It should ~lso be noted that the-San Antonio Road Northbound U.S..101 Off-Ramp intersections alr’ead~, meets the rec~ui2ements (ile. warrants) for a .traffic:.signal the Caltrans Traffic Manual. " " Proj eet Mitigation. Measures The resUltS of the level .0f:service’.analysis .indicate that the ’Pi:oposed P~dject will have a significant impact on One lmsignalized .intersection during both the AM and PM peakh0urs; San Antonio Road / NorthboundU.S. 101. Off=Ramps This intersecti0Ii,which CUrrently operates at.LOS F for bbth m0ming and evening peak’hour conditions, has .a tbtal iraffic :~’olume"of. 1,474 vehicles during the morning peak hour and 1,335 vehicles duringthe evening-peak hour. Under.Background(With IKEA) Coildifions, the intersection is. e.xpected-tO have a total .traffic "voliime of 1,49.5. vehicles during the morning peak hour and 1.,359.vehic!es .during the evening peak hour. This_!si’anincrease Of 21 vehicles during the rooming peak hour and 24 vehicles .during the .evening peak hour. The Proposed Pr~iject is expected to add an additional..!4.morning peak hour and l0 evening peak hour tiips. This intersection meets the requirements for a signal warrant ag described in. the Caltrans Traffic Manual. As .shown in. Table E-2 and E-3, the installati.on ofa ~ignal at this intersectibn wOnld improve the ope.rations Of .this intersection to acceptable LOS B conditions during both morning ana evening peak hour conditions.. Therefore, the projectimpact at the. interseciion of San.Antonio. Road /NB U.S. 101 Off: Ramp would be mitigated with the installation of a traffic, signal. Total Cost estimate - $150,000 The Proposed Project ’s"p.roportionate share of the mitigation measure would, be .$3, 3 O0 (2.2%of the total cosO Signal Timing Improvements. along East Bayshore Road . Although the Proposed project would not result:’ in a significant impact to signalized intersectilons on East Bayshore Road, .minor improvements to the existing signal timings would improve the overall flow of traffic on East Bayshore Road. Therefore, it is recommendedthat the Proposed Project work With the City of Palo .Alto / Santa Clara Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. vii Watson Court P~oject Transportation ~rmpact Analysis- Executive Summary March 2002 County and. City of .East Palo Alto/ San Mateo. County to make minor signal timing adjustments to the following intersections: -Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road;¯ Pulgas Avenu~ / East Bayshore ¯Laura Li~ne / East BayShore Road;Road;and. ~ San.Antonio Road / East Bayshore Road; ¯~, ClarkeStreet East BayshoreRoad. The Proposed Project would pay 100% ~)f the total cost of $50; 000 Table 11 showsthat with- ~signal- timing improvement~ on East Bab;sh0re .Road (be’.tween Embarcadero Road and Clarke Street), intersection levels of service would improve,- During the morning peak hourl the intersection of Embarcdder6 Road / East Baysh0reRoad would improve from.EOS D-t-to’LOS C- conditions with minor.signal timing improvements. The intersection of Pulgas Avenue/. East Bayshore:Road w0uldimprove from’ LOS C+ to LOS B conditionS:.- - During the evening.peakhour,, implementa~ion~of:signal timing improvements to improve coordination and traffic .flow on East Baysh0re Road would result in the Laura Lane / East B ayshore Roadintersection improving-from LOS D to LOS B conditions. The intersection of Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore.Roadwould continue to, opei:ate at LOS E conditions, but signal timing improvemerits would ,result in the minor decrease in a~’erage .vehicle delay of 2.4 seconds per vehicle..With atotal Of 3,150 Vehicles projected to use this intersection in Year 2004,. this represents a reduction of 2:1 hours of Vehicle delay during the. evening peak hour. " ~ Proposed.lmprovements to East Bayshore Road / Embai:cadei~oRoad A capacity impfoveme,nt consiStingof wide.n.ing of. East Bayshore Road (on"the east side of the roadway) to provide a gecond left-.turn lane Was identified,but-l~t0t recommended, in the 1989 Citywide Transportation Study. As part of the 1998. Comprehensive Plan. Update, the following capacity improvements were identified: .. ’ ’ ’ a) Converting the eastbound Embarcadero Road shared left/thr0ughiane toan, exclusive left-turn lane and removing the ehst-west split S.ignat phase; b) . Adding a second northbound East Bayshbre Road travel lane to be shared as a second. left-turn/through !ane;~and .~ c) Removing the northbound-southb0und split,signal phasing. Alternative (a) was deemed not feasible due to the heavy eastbound.through volume .during the AM peak hour. Alternative (c) was deemed not-feasible due to safety concerns with. simultaneous northbound and southbound left.turning Vehicles. ’ Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.viii ¯ Watson¯ Court Project Transpo?’taa’on [mpdct Analysis- Executive &tmma~y Marek 2002 In the. .1989Citywide Transportation Study Alternative (b) wasdeemed feasible, mad would improve Year 2010.service leqels from LOS. E (54 seconds of delay) to LOS E (41 seconds. of d~lay).i But even with ’the propo.sed mitigation measure, the City:controlled intersection would continue.td, opera/re at unacceptable’. LOS E .coiaditionS (for .City c0n~rglled intersections, LOS D is the-minimum level 0f.threshord):. Tlierefore, the Overall Conclusion Of the 1998 Comprehensive. Plan Update was. not’ .t0implement the mitigation, measure because the.level of sei-vice i .mprovemen.t.wouldbe minimal..Additional, issued, include; ¯" , Rigl~t-6f-way would be require, d ~rom.th; neighboring private.prope~es; -- ~".. ¯Ten trees would’needtbberemoved; and -~ . ’ : " " ’ ......." ¯’ ¯.Any minor benefit in.intersection levelof service would likely:be quickly overcome ...by additional ,northbound. PM peakl commute traffic :seeking an. alterna.tive trave.1 r0~ute. ¯ to the Dumbarton Bridge from u.s. Route 101. . ¯.: . . ... . FreewaY.. ~egment Aini~lysis :.~ ..... ....~ .... .~ Accb~ding :to CMP-guideli~e£, f~eeway ..segments to. ~¢l~ich a. prop0sed, development is projected to add trips equal to or greater than one percent Of the freewaY s.egrnent’ s: capac.ifies mus~ be, evaluated, in detail..-Se~nents of U.S. Route-101 were reviewed to. determin.e if the minimum threshold of p~:ojeet-g~nerated traffic wouldbe added to. these freeway segments. Capacities of 2,300 vehic.les per hour per lane (vphpi) for. freeway segme.nts With six ormore ’lanes were used in the scoping analygis. A capacity~ of 1,.800 vphpl.was, usedfor Ito¥ ianes. . The amount of project trips assigned to. HOV lanes was based on the.percentage 6f existing ..usage between the mixed-flow lanes and the ’HOV lanes. Tke.pr0ject’s .impact. on the segments, of U;S, Route 10! in the project study area was deterinined to be insignificant. Site Access "’ .. The p~oject site is located at 2300 East:Bayshore Avenue, theexisting site of Scott’S .seafood restaurant and a 33,200 square foot single tenant office building.. According .to the project site plan (Dated February 27, 2002), two project .access points are proposed.. The firs~ access point would be. located approximately. 100 feet south of the Embarcadero R0ad/East Bayshore Road intersection. The driveway Would provide one outbound lane and one inbound lane. The second access .point (Watson Court). would-be located approxi.matel3~ 450 feet South of the signaliZed Embarcadero Road / East. Baysho~e Road signalized intersection: At the end of the Watson Court cut-de-sac, two driveways woi~ld each provide o~e outbound lane and one inbound.lane.. From the project driveways, drivers will be able to access, parking located along the perimeter of the project site. and the main entrance of the building. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.viii . " ... ~’atson Court Project Transpdrta~on fmpact Analysis -= Executive Summary "March 2002 In addition to: the surface ’parking areasl an unde.rgr’ound, parking garage .with two’.access points will be provided. The.In:st access~ isoin(wi11be located towards the.realr of ~e.project ¯ . site, with the parking garage, ramp pm~iding one inbound and oneoutbound.tane. The second p~rking garage.ramp. Willbe located tow..ard the l~orth-east corne~ of the project site. ’ This driye.way will als6 pr.oizide one inbpund and one outbound lane~.’ ., , .. In order tO improve Overail. traf-fi.c flow on Ea’st’Ba~shore Ro:ad, it.is recommehdkd that. thb ..- project driveway locate~l app~-oxima.tely l OO feet. south~ of the signalized East Bayshore Road ./Embarcadera Road intersection, be constructed as .aright-.tiirn in/right turn;out only driveway2. By doing so,. the driveway will continue to provide ~fficient access t~) thd project site for inbound vehicles trayeling through the .E~zst "Ba3)shore Road~/ Embarcadero Road int.ersect.ion.. :In :’addition, the"driveway .would:serve outbound v~ehidles making the. right:t~ u~m. . . ’ inovdment towakds San Antonio Road.~ . :, ’ " , .... ... ~ : : The ;rima,y benefi¢ Of elim?nating left-t.urn:.movemeht.’s..out of the’~roject d~’ivewa.~ ;located,. approximately i00 feet- south of the sigttali~ed East Bayshore:Road / Eihbarcadero Rd’ad intersection would be to eliminate.the potential foe Outbound vehicle~ attempting ~o. make the .. left-turn movement towards Embarcadero.ROad from potentially. blocking southbound )raffic " and i!npacting.the operations of theEast.B, ayshore Road/Embarcadero.Road intersection. Outbound drivers (who want. tO makb::the left-turn mOv, emenO W.ould be required to use. Watson Court ..... ¯ . QuieuingAnalysis .. ...:",. .. ". . , .. Under Existing a~d Back~ound PM peak. hour Conditions; the -l~eavy northbound ~raffic-- ’ volume on East Bayshore Road restilts in vehicle queues extending from the signalized Eas( BayshoreRoad / Embarcadero-Road to Watson Court (approxim. atel~:.450 feet): .... -. i .- " With the Proposed. Project, the additional 43 outbound ’vel~icles making the !eft-turn moyement from Watson Court during the evening peak hofir will result in aminor increase ha .thenorthb0und left.-turnqueue fi:om 14 vehicles (350 feet)to 16 .vehicles (400 feet), .The seven (7) additional Project irips traveling-through the .intersection towards. East Palo.Alto and the Dumbartbn Bridge will not result in an increase in.the .northbound.through/right-turn- lane Vehicle queue... " " ’ ’ ’ " " ’ ’ " More importantly; during’the evening peak hqur the 130 outbound vehicles, on Watson Court " will result in an average of three :to .five vehicles per minute exiting, the project site from Watson Court." This will " " " ’ ; " " "result ma vehicle quefie.tanging~e vegicles (7..5 feet)to a " maximum of seven vehicles..(175 feet), as, they wait for gaps in northbound EastBayshore ’ " Road traffic, The ov.erall result of the queuing analysis shows that the addi.tion of Project- ge~nerated traffic Will not have an adverse, impaCt to vehicle-queues, on northbound East Bayshore Road during ,the critical evening peak hour conditions. In addition,. Watson Court Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.’. " Watson CoUrt "Project Transportatioi~ Impact Analysis - Exectitive Summ~zry ’ March 2002" provides sufficient capaci~ to sei-ve the.projected :outbound traffic .volume during the eyeni~:g peak hour. .. .. .. .The City ofPal9 Alto requii:es 3.J parl~g’ spa6es per i:,000 square feet of Office .Building ¯ space. Based on the C!ty!s Code requirements, the Pioposed Project is required to. provide 363 park~g Spaces on-site. By proyiding a total of. 396 parking spaces; with 255. surface parking, spaces and 141. tmderground.parking spaces,, the project site plan .will providea sufficient:supply of. parl~g spaces to meet., projected peak parking deraand. In addition,, of the total number of parking Spaces .provided on:site, eight spaces .will be desi~ate~l .for handicapped patrons, .with one space being designedt0 be: v~ accessible. Overall, the Proposed Project is.pr0viding 3.6 parking spac.esper 1,000 square feet of multi;tenant office space. = " Fehr & Pe~rs Associates, Inc. Watson Court Project Transportation Impact Analysis March 2002 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION This report presents the presents the primary results of the transportation impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed Watson Court Office Building Project (2300 East Bayshore Road) in Pale Alto, California. The Proposed Project would include the removal of an existing 8,400 square-foot restaurant and-33,200 square-foot single tenant office building and construction of a new 110,000 square-foot multi-tenant office building before December 2004. The project site is located at2300 East Bayshore Road, directly east of U.S. Route 101. The site location and surrounding roadway network is presented on Figure 1. Access to the site will be provided via one driveway on East Bayshore Avenue and Watson Court, a cul-de-sac located approximately 45.0 feet south of Embarcadero Road. The project site plan is shown on Figure 2. This TIA Was conducted following the guidelines s~t forth by. the City of Pale Alto and the VTA, which is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County: The City of East Pale Alto does not have an adopted methodology for analyzing signalized intersections. Although previous traffic studies have used a critical volume method for analyzing impacts, .the methodology used by the City of Pale Alt0 and the VTA (and described in the Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) were used for this study. This method provides a more detailed representation of traffic operations including estimates of average vehicle stopped delay and potential project impacts. The following key intersections and freeway segments were analyzed for this project: " Key Intersections 1 East Bayshore Road / Laura Lane.(City of PaleAlto) 2 East Bayshore Road / Embarcadero Road (City of Pale Alto) 3 East Bayshore Road/San Antonio Road (City of Pale Alto) 4 U.S. 101 Off-Ramp / San Antonio Road (City of Pale Alto) 5 Charleston Road / San Antonio Road* (City of Pale Alto) 6 Don0hoe Street / University Avenue (City of East Pale Alto). 7 Donohoe Street / Capital Avenue (City of East Pale Alto) 8 East Bayshore Road / Clarke Street (City of East Pale Alto) 9 East Bayshore Road / Pulgas Avenue (City of East Pale Alto) *Designated Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection. In addition to arterial intersections, the following three freeway s.egments of U.S. Highway 101 were analyzed: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page Watson Court Project Transportation Impact Analysis March 2002 PROJECT SITE N Not to Scale Figure IKEY: Study Intersections PROJECT LOCATION AND STUDY INTERSECTIONS Fehr & Peers Associates Page 2 Watson Court Project Transportation Impact Analysis March 2002 Freeway Se .g-ments 1.U.S. Highway 101, South of San Antonio.Road; 2.U.S, Highway 101, South of Embarcader0 Road; and 3.U.S. Highway 101, North of Embarcadero Road It should be noted that. because of the uncertain status of the proposed W,2EA Projectin the City of East Palo Alto, this study analyzed potential impacts of the Watson Court Project With and Without the IKEA Project. By.doing so, potential project impacts and’mitigati0n measures for both future scenarios are identified, The. operations-of-key _intersections were evaluated during the morning. (AM) and evening (PM) peak. periods for the following five Scenarios: : Existing Conditions - Existing volumes obtained.from counts,, representing peak one-hour traffic conditions during the morning and evening commute periods. Background Conditions (Future Without Project Conditions) Without IKEA Project - Future traffic volumes based on the completion date of the Project (December 2004), the Palo Alto Citywide Traffic Model. Project Conditions Without IKEA Project- Background moming and evening peak-hour traffic volumes plus project-generated traffic. The project involves demolishing two existing ¯land uses from the project site and construction of a new 110,000 square-foot multi-tenant office building, with 105,000 gross square feet ofoffice space. The remaining. 5,000 square feet are comprised of exempt square footage for cafeteria and employee locker/shower facilities, and was approved for ¯exclusion from the building square footage by the. City of Palo Alto Planning Division. Background Conditions (Futu~’e Without Project Conditions) With IKEA Project- Future traffic volumes based on the .completion date of the Project (December 2004), the Palo Alt0 Ci~ide Traffic Model, .and the proposed IKEA project in the City of East Palo AJto. ’ Project Conditions With IKEA Project- Background morning and evening peak-hour- traffic volumes plus project-generated traffic. The project involves demolishing two existing land uses from the project site and construction of a new 110,000 square-foot multi-tenant office building, with 105,000 gross square feet of office space. The remaining 5,000 square feet are comprised of exempt square footage for cafeteria and employee locker/shower facilities, and was approved for exclusion from the building square footage by the City of Palo Alto Planning Division. Fehr & Peers Associates, fnc.Page 4 Watson Court Project Transportation Impact AnalysisMarch 2002 Report Organization This report is divided into five chapters. Chapter 2 describes the "Existing Conditions" of the project site area as they relate to the surrounding roadway network, morning and evening peak-hour traffic volumes, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and intersection levels of service. Chapte~ 3, "Background or Future Without Project Conditions", presents the methodology used to extrapolate existing morning and evening peak-hour volumes to Year 2004 Conditions Without and With the proposed ]KEA project in East Palo Alto. Intersection operating conditions prior to the completion of the Proposed Project were analyzed to determine "Background Conditions" at the nine study intersections. Chapter 4, "Project Conditions", presents the methodology .used to estimate project-generated traffic and the Project’s impacts on the surrounding transportation system. Finally, Chapter 5 presents the project site access and on-site circulation. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Page 5 Watson Court Project Transportation Ilnpact Analysis March 2002 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter provides a description of Existing Conditions in terms of roadway facilities, traffic volumes, intersection operations, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit service. Roadway Network Figure 1 presented the Project location and the surrounding roadway system. U.S. Route 101 provides regional access tO the project site. The primary access route to the project site is East Bayshore Road,.. a two-lane frontage road. Other access routes include University Avenue (a two to four-lane roadway), Embarcadero Road (a two to four-lane roadway) and Page Mill-Oregon Expressway., a four-lane regional expressway. Descriptions of these roadwa~’s are provided below.. U.S. Route 101 is a north-south freeway, providing four travel lanes in each direction, located west of the project site. One travel lane in each.direction is designated as a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. HOV lanes, also known as diamond lanes or carpool lanes, are restricted for use by vehicles occupied by two or more persons between 6:00 am and 9:00 am and between 3:00 pm and 7:00 pm. Highway 101 is located directly west of the project site and extends northward through San Francisco and southward through San Jose and Gilroy. Access to and from Highway 101 is provided via its interctianges with Embarcadero Road / Page Mill-Oregon Expressway, and Charleston Road / San Antonio Road. U.S. Route 101 has an existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT).volume of 196,000 vehicles south of San Antonio/Charleston Road, 212,000 between San Antonio - Charleston Road and Oregon Expressway/Embarcadero Road and 199,000 vehicles north of Oregon Expressway/ Embarcadero Road. East Bayshore Road is a two-lane frontage road providing access to streets located directly east of the U.S. Route 101 Corridor. Near the project site, the roadway extends from San Antonio Road to Cooley Avenue, providing access to ~the freeway via the San Antonio Road, Embarcadero Road and University Avenue interchanges. East Bayshore Road has an Average Daily Traffic volume of 10,600 vehicles south of Embarcadero Road and. 16,600 vehicles north of Embarcadero Road. University Avenue is a two- to four-lane, east-west roadway that extends from State Route 84 (Bayfront Expressway) to E1 Camino Rea!. West of E1 Camino Real, the roadway changes name to Palm Drive and provides primary access to Stanford University. In the vicinity of the project site, University Avenue provides two travel lanes in each. direction, with a signalized intersection at Donohoe Street / University Avenue. University Avenue has an Average Daily Traffic volume of 23,000 vehicles north of Donohoe Street. ¯ Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page 6 Watson Court Project Transportation Impact Analysis March 2002 Embarcadero Road is a two- to four-lane, east-west roadway that extends from the Palo Alto Airport and Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve to E1 Camino Real. West of E1 Camino Real, the roadway changes name to Galvez Street and provides a secondary access point to Stanford University. In the vicinity of the project site, Embarcadero Road provides two travel lanes in each direction, with a Signalized intersection at East Bayshore Road. Embarcadero Road has an Average Daily Traffic volume of 25,300 west of East Bayshore Road. Page Mill/Oregon Expressway is a four-lane, east-west major arterial, located south of the project site. The roadway extends from Interstate Route 280 to U.S. Highway 101. West of E1 Camino Real, Page Mill Expressway is primaril3i lined with law offices, corporate offices, and research & development land uses. East of E1 Camino Real, Oregon Expressway is primarily lined with residential land uses..Page Mill/Oregon Expressway has an existing .. ADT ’01ume of 30,z~00 vehicles west o~US Rout~ 101. Existing Transit Service Bus service in Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and SanMateo County is operated by SamTrans. Commuter rail service (CalTrain) is provided from San Francisco. to Gilroy by the Joint Powers Board. None of these currently serve the project site. However, since January 1999, the City of Palo Alto has been offering free shuttle service. Currently, there are two bus routes, one of which, the Embarcadero Shuttle (E), serves the project site. In September 2001, the shuttle program was expanded to serve more community needs, including more frequent commute service to and from the CalTrain station of the Embarcadero shuttle. The Embarcadero Shuttle runs every 15 minutes during morning (6:20 to 9:30 a.m.) and evening (3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) commute periods and is coordinated with the CalTrain schedule. The shuttle serves employers in the Embarcadero / Baylands area, residents in the Embarcadero Road corridor and students at Palo Alto High School. One Embarcadero shuttle tripin the morning is deviated to serve Jordan Middle School. And,. on a trial basis, lunchtime service is being offered between 11:45 a.m. and 1:45 p.m. The southbound Embarcadero Shuttle (E) transit stop is located directly south of tile project’ site and Watson Court. The northbound Embarcadero Shuttle (E) transit stop is located across the street, south of Ming’s Chinese restaurant. Neither transit stops provide benches or shelters for inclement weather. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities are comprised of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Six-foot sidewalks are provided along both sides of East BayShore Avenue at the project ~ite. A pedestrian bridge is located just south of the site, routing pedestrians away from Embarcadero Road, which does not have sidewalks at East Bayshore. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page 7 Watson Court Project Transportation.Impact Analysis March 2002 Bicycle facilities include bike routes, lanes, and paths. Bike paths are paved trails that are separated from the roadways. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles by striping, pavement legends, and signs. Bike routes are roadways that are designated for bicycle use with signs. Bicycle facilities are provided just south of the project site, along East Bayshore Road, in both the northbound and southbound directions. The City of Palo Alto bicycle system is shown in.Figure 3. Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations. The key intersections were analyzed under Weekday morning and evening peak-hour traffic conditions. Peak conditions u.sual!y occur during the .morning and evening commute periods between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and 4:00 and 6:00 PM, respectively. Intersection operations were evaluated for the one-hour during each of these commute periods for which the highest traffic volumes were measured. Turning movement counts for the CMP designated intersection, San.Antonio Road/Charleston Road, were conducted by the City of Palo Alto in October 2000. Peak hour traffic counts were also conducted by the City of Palo Alto for the intersections of Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road in October 2001. Traffic counts for the remaining City of Palo intersections were conducted in October and November 2001. Traffic counts for intersections in East Palo Alto were obtained from supplemental traffic analysis completed for the proposed IKEA project. The morning and evening peak-hour traffic volumes at each study intersection are shown on Figure 4. The intersection lane configurations are presented, on Figure 5. Level of Service Methodology The operations of ’the intersections were evaluated using Level of Service (LOS) calculations. Level of Service is a qualitative description of an intersection’s operation, ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions, to LOS F, or over-saturated conditions. The intersection level of Service methodology approved by the VTA, and adopted by the City of Palo Alto, evaluates an intersection’s operation based on the average stopped vehicular delay calculated using the method described in Chapter 9 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) with adjusted saturation flow rates. The average delay for signalized intersections is calculated using the TRAFFIX analysis software and.is correlated to a level of service designation as shown in Table 1. Because the City of Palo Alto does not have a standard for unsignalized intersections, for the purposes of this study, the LOS standard (i,e., minimum acceptable operations) for all intersections in the City 0f Palo Alt0 and the City of East Palo Alto was defined to be LOS D. The standarit for CMP-monitored intersections is LOS E. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page 8 Watson Court Project Transportation Impact AnalysisMarch 2002 TO BAYLANDS MENLO PARK ALMA EAST. PALO ALTO BAYSHORE FREEW~ 1555~55555’ Off-Road Bike Path O I ~ Sidewalk Bike Path IIIii11111 Signed Bike Route ~ N~ighbodng Jurisdiction Bike Route I Bike Bridge/Underpass ~’~’~ Bike Boulevard Source: City of Palo Alto - Division of Transportation TO FOOTHILLS © Not to Scale Figure 3 I6I~..31 CiTY OF PALO ALTO BICYCLE SYSTEM Fehr & Peers Associates Page 9 Watson Court Project Transportation hnpbct Analysis March 2002 14 (38) 426 (494) 443 (564) (196)14~ (254) B (14) 273 (135) PROJECT SITE IKEY: XX (XX) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 198 (132) 507 (353) f Figure 4 1616-12 EXISTING INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Fehr & ?eers Associates Not to Scale Page l 0 Watson Court Project Transportation Impact Analysis March 2002 PROJECTISITE KEY: t~ = Signal!zed Intersection ~ = Stop Sign Figure 5 EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND CONTROL Not to Scale Fehr & Peers Associates Page ll Watson Court Project Transportation Impact Analysis March 2002 Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ¯Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay ¯ Average Stopped ¯ Level of Delay Per VehicleService(Seconds),Description A"< 5.0 Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression find/or short cycle Iength. B+5.1 to 7.0 B 7.1 to 13.0 Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or B-13.1 to 15.0 short cycle lengths. C+-15.1 to 17.0 Operations-with. average delays resulting from fair progression and/orC17.1 to 23.0 C-23.1 to 25.0 longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. D+25.1 to 28.0 Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable D 28.1 to 37.0 progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles D-37. i to 40.0 stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. E+40.1 to 44.0 Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long E 44.1 to 56.0 cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are E-56.1 to 60.0 frequent occurrences. ¯Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occu .rring due toF> 60.0 over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Source:VTA’s CMP Transportation hnpact Analysis Guidelines, May 7, 1998, and Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1994. The analysis o’f unsignalized intersections was completed using the methodology described in Special Report 209." Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 1994). This methodology is applicable for intersections with either two-way or all-way stop control and calculates the average vehicle delay. Each range of delay corresponds to a level of service as shown in Table 2. Freeway level of service was analyzed according to VTA guidelines, which is based on the methodology described in the 1994 HCM. Freeway LOS is calculated based on the density of traffic flow or the number of passenger cars per mile per lane. Density is calculated based on the peak-hour traffic volume, the number of travel lanes, and the average travel speed for a given mainline segment. The level of service criteria are shown in Table 3. ~’ehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page 12 Watson Court Project Transportation lmpact Analysis March 2002 Level of Service A B C D E Minimal Delay Table 2 Unsignalized Intersecti0n, Level of service Definitions Interpretation Very light congestion; short delays Light congestion; average delays,. Significant congestion on critical approaches, but intersection is functional. Moderate t0 l~.~igthy delay.s, ~ .- Average Total Delay per Vehicle (in seconds) < 5.0. > 5.0 and_< 10.0 > 10.0 and _< 20.0 Severe congestion with some longstanding queues on critical appro aches. Extremely.lengthy delays. > 20,0 and < 30.0 > 30.0 and < 45.0 Total Breakdown, stop-and-go operation >45.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, SpeciaI Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994. Level of Service A B C D E F Source: VTA’s CMP Transportation hnpactAnalysis Guidelines, May .7, 1998. Table 3 Density Based Freeway, Level of Service Criteria Density (vehicleslmile/lane) _< 10 10.0 to 16.0 16.0 to 24.0 24.0 to 46.0 46.0 to 55.0 > 55.0 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Existing peak-hour volumes, lane configurations, and signal phasing / timing plans were used to calcuJate the levels of service for each of the study intersections. All study intersections are signalized with the exception of the Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramps / San Antonio Road. The results of the existing LOS analysis are presented in Table 4 and the corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix A for AM peak hour conditions and Appendix B for PM peak hour conditions. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page 13 Watson Court Project Transportation Impact Analysis" March 2002 Table 4 Existing Intersection Levels of Service City of Palo Alto Intersections Intersection Laura Lane / East Bayshore Road Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road San Antonio Road / East Bayshore Road San Antoni6Road/NB U,S. 101 Off=Ramp San Antonio Road / Charleston.Road * Peak Traffic Hour Control AM PM Signal PM . Signal PM I Signal " PM PM Signal Stop Sign Average Intersection Delay~ 12.9 32.6 26.5 47.9 10.7 10.8 > 100 77.8 32.7 32.1- LOS2 B D D+ E~ B B F F D D Donohoe Street / University Avenue Donohoe Street / Capital Avenue / N-B U.S, 101 Off-Ramp East Bayshore Road / Clarke Street East Bayshore Road / Pulgas Avenue City of East Palo Alto Intersections PM PM AM PM AM PM Signal Signal Signal Signal Notes: I Average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 31.9 30.2 "21.1 16.4 1,3:5 8.0 16.7 86.5 D D 2 LOS = Level of service. Calculations performed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for signalized intersections or 1994 HCM methodology for all-way stop controlled intersections. * Designated Congestion Management Program (CMP) Intersection. Source: Fehr & Peers Associates March, 2002 As shown on Table 4, the unsignalized San Antonio Road / NB U.S. 101 OCf-Ramp intersection currently operates at. unacceptable level of service conditions during both morning and evening peak-hour conditions. During the morning peak hour, the CMP intersection of San Antonio Road/Charleston Road operates at acceptable LOS D conditions, with an average delay of 32.7 seconds. All City- controlIed signalized intersections operate at LOS D conditions or better. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page I4 Watson Court Project Transportation-Impact Analysis March 2002 During the moming peak hour, the unsignalized City-controlled intersection of San Antonio Road / Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp operates, at unacceptable LOS F, with excessive delays for the stop sign controlled off-ramp approach. The City-controlled intersection of Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road operates at LOS D condition, with an average delay of 26.5 seconds per vehicle. Heavy eastbound through traffic (800 vehicles) towards existing employment land uses located in the Baylands area of Palo Alto and southbound right-turn traffic (500 vehicles) result in delays for these movements. But overal!, the intersection operates well within the City’s level of service standard. During the evening peak hour, the East Palo Alto signalized intersection.of East Bayshore .Road / Pulgas Avenue currently operateS at unacceptabIe LOSF donditions, with an average delay of 86.5 seconds per vehicle. Heavy traffic volumes on northbound East Bayshore Road exceed the capacity of the one travel lane and results in long queues extending back from the signalized intersection..towards Laura Lane and Embarcadero Road. It should be noted that the vast maj ority of this traffic is regional cut-through traffic.traveling towards the Dumbarton Bridge and the East Bay, bypassing congestion on northbound US 101 and the University Avenue interchange, and is not originating from the Baylands area of Palo Alto. The CMP intersection of San Antonio Road / Charleston Road operates at acceptable LOS D conditions, with an average delay of 32.1 seconds. And similar to morning peak hour conditions, the unsignalized City-controlled intersection of San Antonio Road / Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp operates at unacceptable LOS F, with excessive delays for the stop sign controlled off-ramp approach. The City-contro’lled intersection of Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road currently operates at unacceptable LOS E condition, with an average delay of 47.9 seconds per vehicle.. Heavy westbound through traffic (575 vehicles) leaving the existing employment land uses located in the Baylands area of Palo Alto, eastbound left-turning traffic (650 vehicles) and northbound through traffic (350 vehicles) traveling towards the Dumbarton Bridge, and southbound right-turn traffic (450 vehicles)result in long delays for these movements. The overall result, is that the City-controlled intersection of Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road exceeds the City’s level of service standard. Signal Warrant Analysis Due to the unacceptable (LOS F) existing operations at the minor street stop controlled intersection San Antonio Road / NB U.S. t01 Off-Ramp, a signal warrant analysis was conducted based on criteria published in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. The results of this analysis showed that a traffic signal is warranted based on AM and PM peak-hour volumes. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page 15 Watson Court Project Transportation Impact Analysis March 2002 Existing Freeway Levels of Service Table 5 contains the existing freeway level of service results as reported in the CMP’s 2000 Monitoring and Conformance Report. Existing data includes the maximum density, volume and level of service for each segment by direction and peak hour. During the .morning peak hour, southbound US Route 101, from Embarcadero Road to Oregon / Page Mill Expressway, is operating at LOS F conditions, and at LOS E from-the Oregon / Page Mill Expressway to Rengstofff. The remaining freeway segments on studied U.S. Route 101 are operating at LOS D conditions or better. During the evening peak hour, northbound U.S. Route 101, from Rengstorff to Embarcadero Road, is operating at LOS F Conditions. The remaining freeway segments on U.S. Route 101 are operating at LOS D conditions or be{-ter. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page I6 Watson Court Project Transportation Impact Analysis March 2002" Table 5 Existing Freeway Segment Level of Service . Existing Conditions1 Peak Average Direction Hour Lanes Volume Speed Density 32.4 . 93.9 40.7 58.9 37.8 55.6 106.7 33.3 47.0 i7.7 51.2. 24.9 32.4 22.5 8.1 17.3 2O.O 33.3 40.0 20.0 17.8 14.6 23.9 22.5 LOS2 B F I3 F C F F B E A Lanes, volume mad density from VTA 2000 CMP Monitoring Data. LOS based on density presented in CMP monitoring report. Source: Fehr & Peers Associates March, 2002 Fehr & Peers Associates, ~[nc.Page 17 Freeway Segment US 101 R.engstorffto San Antonio NB AM 3 5,830 US 101 P, engstorffto San Antonio NB PM 3 4,230 US101 San Antonio to Oregon N’B ¯A_M 3 6,720 US 101 San Antonio to Oregon NB PM 3 4,420 US 101 Oregon to Embarcadero N13 AM 3 6,230 US 101 Oregon to Embarcadero .....NB"PM 3-4,I70 US 101 Embarcadero to Oregon SB AM 3 3,200 US 101 Embarcadero to Oregon SB PM 3 6,000 US 101 Oregon to San Antonio SB AM 3 6,35.0 US t01 Oregon to San Antonio SB PM 3 3,440 US 101 San Antonio to R.engstorff SB AM 3 5,370 US 101 San Antonio to Rengstorff SB PM 3 4,480 US 101 Rengstorffto San Antonio NB HOV AM 1 1,940 US 101 Rengstorffto San Antonio NB HOV PM 1 1,350 US 101 San Antonio to Oregon NB HOV AM 1 530 U8 101 San Antonio to Oregon NB HOV PM 1 1,120 U8 101 Oregon fo Embarcadero NB HOV.AM 1 ¯1,200 U8 101 Oregon to Embarcadero NB HOV PM 1 ’2,000 US I01 Embarcadero to Oregon SB HOV AM i 2,200 US 101 Embarcadero to Oregon 8B HOV PM I 1,200 US !01 Oregon to San Antonio SB HOV AM 1 1,160 U8 101 Oregon to San Antonio SB HOV I~M 1 950 U8 101 ’ San Antonio to Rengstorff 8B HOV AM 1 1,440 US 101 San Antonio to Rengstorff SB HOV PM 1 1,350 2 60 15 55 25 55 25 10 60 45 65 35 60 60 60 65 65 60 60 55 60 65 65 60 60 E A B A A A- B C A -A A A Watson Court t~roject Transportation [myact Analysis March 2002 CHAPTER 3 - FUTURE YVITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS This chapter discusses the operations of the key intersections under Future (Year 2004) Without Project Conditions. Furore Without Project Conditions, also described as "Background Conditions," is defined as conditions prior to .completion of the proposed 110,0.00 square-foot multi-tenant office building, which will to be completed before December 2004. Traffic volumes for Background Conditions comprise existing volumes from counts plus traffic generated.by approved developments in the City of Palo Alto, the City of East Palo Alto, and regional traffic growth. It should be noted that the Existing conditions traffic counts that were conducted in October 2001, do not include historical vehicle trips from the .existing 33,200 square-foot single tenant offide building. :The Scott’s Seafood restaurant is.still in. operation and has nit relocated to its new sit~e in Palo Alto. Therefore, the Background Conditions analysis also includes approved trip generation associated with the existing land uses. This chapter describes the methodology used to determine Year 2001 traffic volumes and summahizes the Ievel of service analysis results. Baek~ound Traffic Estim ates Background traffic volumes for study intersection were developed using the following process. In addition, because of the uncertain status of the proposed IKEA Project in the Coty of East Palo Alto, this study developed Background traffic estimates for tlae following scenarios: I) Year 2004 Without IKEA Conditions (AM and PM peak hours); and 2) Year 2004 With IKEA Conditions (AM and PM peak hours). The first step of de~rmining Background traffic volumes was applying yearly growth factors derived from the Citywide Traffic Model and provided by the City of Pa!o Alto Transportation Division; The Citywide Traffic Mo~tel reflects reasonable build-out conditions of the City of Palo Alto and incorporates regional background traffic growth. Intersection volume growth f~ctors ranged from 0.4 percent per year (Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road;’ Laura Lane / East Bayshore Road, San Antonio Road / East Bayshore Road) to 0.8 percent per year (San Antonio Road / Charleston Road). Fo) the intersections of Donohoe Street / University Avenue and Donohoe Street / Capital Avenue / NB US 101 Off- Ramps, a yearty growth rate of 1.6 percent per year was applied. Using the individual intersection growth factors, existing morning and evening traffic counts were extrapolated to represent Background (Year 2004) Conditions. ~’ehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page 18 Watson Court Project Transportation Impact Analysis March 2002 The second step of the process was adding traffic associated with the "underutilized" land uses, The previously approved trip making characteristics of the existing 33,200 square-foot single tenant office building was included in the background traffic volumes. The underutilized trips represented 59 morning peak hour and 57 evening peak hour vehicles trips that were added to the surrounding roadway network and represent.Background (Without IKEA Project) Conditions. Figure 6 presents Background Conditions morning and evening peak-hour .traffic volumes. In order to develop Background (With IKEA) Conditions~. trip generation estimates for the proposed IKEA Project were obtained from traffic studies completed by the City of East Palo Alto. The morning and evening peak hour trip generation and assignment were used to add IKEA generated traffic to the surrounding roadway network. These volumes represent Background (With IKEA Project Conditions). Background (Without IKEA Project) Intersection Levels of Service Levels of service were calculated for the study intersections using the background traffic volumes. Table 6 presents the LOS resuRs under Background (Without 1-KEA Project) Conditions and the corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix A for AM peak hour conditions and Appendix B for PM peak hour conditions. As shown on Table 6, during the morning peakhour, the CMP intersection of San Antonio / Charleston will continue to operate at acceptable D conditions, with an average delay of 33.1 seconds. The remaifiing.City-controlled s~gnalized intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better. The unslgnalized intersection of San Antonio Road / Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F, with excessive delays forthe minor street stop controlled off-ramp approach. During the evening peak hour, the intersection of Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road will continue to operate at unacceptable LOS E conditions, with an, average delay of 49.4 seconds (a 1.5 second increase when compared to Existing Conditions). The,signalized intersection of Pulgas Avenue / East Bayshore Road (East Palo Alto) and the unsignalized intersection of San Antonio Road / Northbound UIS. 101 Off-Ramp would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F. " The CMP intersection of San Antonio Road / Charleston Road would continue to operate at acceptabl.e LOS D conditions, with an average delay of 32.6 seconds. The remaining City- controlled intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS D conditions or better. Fehr & Peers Assoeiates, fnc,_Page 19 ~at~on Court Project Transportation Impact Analysis March 2002 14 (38) 452 (943) PROJECT]SITE ~.-lgg (133) 509 (354) IKEY: XX (XX) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = Figure 6 1616-14a BACKGROUND (YEAR 2004) INTERSECTION PEAK I-[OUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Not to Scale Fehr & Peers Associates Page 20 Watson Court Project Transportation fmpact Analysis March 2002 Table 6 Background (Year 2004 Without IKEA Project) Intersection Levels of Service City of Palo Alto Intersections - Intersection Laura Lane / East Bayshore Road Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road San Antonio Road / East Bayshore Road San Antonio Road/NB U.S. 101 Off-Ramp San Antonio Road / Charleston Road* Donohoe Street / University Avenue Donohoe Street / Capital Avenue / NB U.S. 101 Off-Ramp East Bayshore Road / Clarke Street .East Bayshore Road i Pulgffs Avenue Peak l~our Traffic Control Average Intersection D.eiay1 AM PM AM PM PM AM PM Alto Intersections Signal Signal Signal Stop Sign Signal 13.4 35.4 26.7 49,4 10,7 10.8 >100 87,3 33.1 32.6 City of East Palo AM PM Signal AM PM Signal AM PM Signal AM SignalPM 33.9 30.9 21.3 i6.5 13.5 8.0 I6.8 92.3 LOS2 B- D D+ E B B F F D D D C C B- B C+ F Notes: t Average stopped delayexpressed in seconds per vehicle.. = LOS = Level of service. Calculations performed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for signalized intersections or I994 HCMmethodology for all-way stop con~olled intersections. *Designated Congestion Management Program (CMP) Intersection. Source: Fehr & Peers Associates March, 2002 Background (Without IKEA Proj ect) Signal Warrant Analysis Similar to Existing Conditions, a signal warran~ analysis at the.minor street stop controlled intersection San Antonio.Road / BIB U.S. 10t Off-Ramp (LOS F) was conducted under Background Conditions because of poor unsignalized operations. The results of this analysis showed that a traffic signal is warranted based on Background (Without IKEA Project) AlVl and PM peak-hour volumes. Fehr & Peers Associates, fnc.Page 21 V~a~son Court Project Transportation Impact Analysis March 2002 Background (With IK~A Project) Intersection Levels of Service Levels of service were calculated for the study intersections using the background fraffic volumes. Table 7 presems the LOS results under Background (With IKEA Project) Conditions and the corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix C for AM peak hour conditions and Appendix D for PM peak hour conditions. Based onthe Environmental Impact Report compIeted for the IKEA Project, the majority of traffic would access the IKEA project site via University Avenue and Donohoe Streer. Less than 25 percent of all traffic generated by the proposed IKEA project would travel though the .City of Palo Alto intersection of Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road. During the morning peak.hour, the. proposed lXEA.project-would.generate approximately 50 vehicle trips. During the evening peak hour, the IKEA project would generate approximately 231 vehicle trips. And on Saturdays, the 1KEA project would generate approximately 1,165 vehicle trips. As shown on Table 7, the IKEA Project Will only result in minor increases in average vehicle dela-cs, during the morning peak.hour, the CMP intersection of San Antonio / Charleston will continue to operate at acceptable D conditions, with an average delay of 33.1 seconds. -The remaining City-controlled signalized intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better. The unsignalized intersection of San Antonio Road /Northbound U.S. 101 ...Off, Ramp would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F_, with_excessive delays .for_the ......... minor street stop controlled off-ramp approach. During the evening peak hour, the intersection of Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road wilt continue to operate at unacceptable LOS E conditions, with an average delay of 52.6 seconds (a 4.7 second increase when compared to Existing Conditions and a 3.2 second increase when compared to Background..Without IKEA Conditions). The signalized intersection Of Pulgas Avenue / East Bayshore Road (East Palo Alto.) and the unsignalized intersection of San Antonio Road/. Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F. Background (With IKEA Project) Signal Warrant Analysis Similar to Existing Conditions,. a signal warrant analysis at the minor street stop controlled ¯ intersection San Antonio Road / NB U.S. 101 Off-Ramp (LOS F) was conducted under Background Conditions because of poor unsignalized operations. The results of this analysis showed that a traffic signal is warranted based on Background (With IKEA Project) AM and PM peak-hour volumes. Fehr & Peers Associates, inc.Page 22 Watson Court Project Transportation hnpaet Analyszs March 2002 Table 7 Background (Year 2004 With IKEA Project) Inter~ection Levels of Service City of Palo Alto Intersections Intersection Laura Lane / East Bayshore Road Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road San Antonio Road / East Bayshore Road San Antonio Road/N]3 U.S. 101 Off-Ramp San Antonio Road,/Charleston Road* Peak Hour Traffic Control Sisal Signal Average Intersection Delay1 14.1 39.3 26.8 52.6 AM 10.7 PM AM PM AM PM City of East Palo Alto Signal Stop Sign Signal I_nterseetions 10.8 >100 87.3 33.1 32.6 Donohoe Street / University Avenue_ Donohoe Street / Capital Avenue / N-B U.S. 101 Off-Ramp East Bayshore Road / Clarke Street East Bayshore Road / Pulgas Avenue AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Signal Signal Signal Signal 33,9 31.8 21.2 16.8 ~3.4 8.0 t6,8 > 100 LOS~ B- D D+ E B B F F D D D D C C B~ B C+ F . Notes: 1 Average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.a LOS = Levd of service. Calculations performed using the 1985 [-iighway Capaci~ 3~’anual (HCM) -methodology for signalized intersections or I994 IiCM methodology for all-way stop controlIed intersections. ’~ Designated Congestion Management Program (CMP) Intersection. Source: Fehr & Peers Associates March, 2002 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page 23 Watson Court ]~rojeet Transportation Impact Analysis March 2002 CI-IAPTER 4 - PROJECT CONDITIONS The impacts of the proposed 110,000 square-foot multi-tenant 0ffice-building project On the surrounding transportation system are discussed in this chapter. The Proposed Project would include the removal of an existing 8,400 sqixare-foot restaurant and 33,200 square-foot.single tenant office building and construction of a new 110,000 square’foot multi-tenant office building before December 2004. The methodology.used to estimate the amount of traffic generated by the Proposed Project is described, and the results of the level of service calculatior~s for.Project Conditions are presented in this chapter. Project .Conditions are defined as Background?Conditions plus traffic generated by the Proposed Project:.Because this project involves the demolition and removal of an existing traffic-generator, net new trips were assigned tO the surrounding roadway system. Project impacts-were then identified by comparing the Level of Service results for Project Conditions to the results previously identified for Backgrotmd Conditions. Proj ect Traffic Estimates The amount of traffic associated with the 110,_000_s_q~_are-foo!. m.ulti-tenant_office_pr_oj~ect.was ........ estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In the first step, the amount of traffic generated by the project (beyond that which is already generated by the existing land use), and entering and exiting the project site are estimated on a daily and peak-hour basis. In the second step, the directions the trips use to approach and depart the project site are estimated. In the third step, project trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection .turning movements. The results of the three-step process are described in the following sections. Trip Generation The amoun~ of traffic generated by the existing uses and the proposed development were estimated by applying appropriate trip generation rates that correspond to the iand use type, current square footage of the existing office buildings and restaurant, and total square footage of the new office building project. Trip generation ra~es from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (6th Edition, 1997) were used to estimate existing and project trip generation. Vehicle trips associated with the existing land uses were subtracted from the trips generated by the proposed new use. This credit for existing land uses was used to estimate the net new vehicle trips that would use the surrounding transportation system. As shown m Table 8, the Proposed Project is estimated ~o generate only I6 additional daily trips when compared to the existing office and restaurant land uses. Fehr & Peers Associates, fnc.Page 24 ~Vatson Court groject Transportation ~mpact Analysis March 2002 But because of the multi-tenant office land use type, with the majority of trips occurring during the traditional employee commuting time periods, the proposed project will increase the morning and evening peak-hour trip generation. As shown in Table 8, the Proposed Project is estimated to generate 98 net new morning peak-hour trips (with 84 inbound and 14 outbound), and 37 net r~ew evening peak-hour trips (all of wNch are outbound). Table 8 Project Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour Land Use Daily In Trip Generation Estimates Proposed -Watson Court Office Project (1 lO,O00 square feet) ~ Out Total PM Peak Hour In Out Total 1,156 144 20 164 27 I30 157 Existing Office Building (33;200 square feet)-38# -53 -6 -59 -9 -48 -57 Existing Restaurant (8,400 square feet)-756 -7 -0 -7 -42 -21 -63 TotalNetNew Trips 16 84 14 98 -24 61 37 Notes: ~ A tots[ of 105.000 gross square feet of office space was used in the analysis, with 5,00Q ~quare feet of exempt square footage comprised of an ca-site cafeteria and employee Iocker/shower facilities. Source: D’ip Ge*aeration (Sixth. Edition, 1997, Institute of Transportation Engineers). Source: Fehr & Peers Associates March, 2002 Trip Distribution The trip distribnti0n pattern for the proposed development was estimated based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the site and the relative locations of complementary land uses in the area. The major directions Of approach and departure for the project are shown on Figure 7. Trip Assignment Trips generated by the Proposed Project were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure described above. The trip assignments for both morning arid evening peak hours are shown on Figure 8. Project trips were added to Background traffic volumes vo estimate morning and evening peak hour volumes under Project Conditions as shown on Figure 9. Fehr & Peers Associates, fnc.Page 25 ~Vatson Court_?Tvject Transportatio~ fmpaet Analysis March 2002 PROJECT SITE i ~o~ to Scale KEY: ~}1 Study Intersections Figure 7 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Fehr & Peers Associates Watson Court P~’ojee~ T~-a~sportation Impact A~alysis M~zrch 2002 PROJECT ./,/ KEY: XX (XX) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes f Not to Scale PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENTFigure8NET NEW TRIPS1616-1{~a Fehr & Peers Associates Page 2 7 Watson Court Project Tra~zsportation Impact Analysis March 2002 31 (67) --~ 553 (240) ~ 54 (828) 161 (523) IKEY: (XX) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 9 1616-17a 199 (133) 509 (354) f ~ 51 (219) ~ 42 (279) PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ~ PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ~’ehr c~ ~eers Associates _Page N ¯ Not to Scale Watson Court Project Transpor~a~zon Impact Analysis March 2 002 Watson Co urt Project (Without IKEA) Intersection Levels of Service Intersection level of service was determined to evaluate intersection operations under Project Conditions. The results of the LOS analysis for Background and Project Conditions are summarized in Table 9. The changes in critical movement delay and critical volume-to- capacity due to the addition of project-generated traffic are also shown in Table 9. The corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix A for AM peak hour conditions and AppeffdiX B for PM peak hour conditions. During the morning peak, the addition of project-generated traffic will not canse any changes in letter grade. The unsignalized intersection of San Antonio Road / Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp will continue to operate at LOS F. The remaining City-controlled intersections will continue to operateat acceptable LOS. D or better conditions. The CMP intersection of San Antonio Road / Charleston Roads will continue to operate at a~ceptable LOS D conditions, with a less than one second increase in average delay. During the evening peak hour, the addition of project-generated traffic will no~ cause any changes in letter grade. The unsignalized intersection of San Antonio Road / Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp will continueto operate at LOS F conditions. The CMP intersection of San Antonio Road / Charleston Road will continue to operate a~ acceptable LOS D conditions, with a less than a one second increase in average or critical delay. The remaining City-controlled intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better. Watson Court Project (With IKEA) Intersection Levels of Service Intersection level of service was determined to evaluate intersection operations under Project Conditions. The results of the LOS analysis for Background and Project Conditions are summarized in Table 10. The changes in critical movement delay and critical volume-to- capacity due to the addition of project-generated traffic are also shown in Table 10. The corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix C for AM peak hour conditions and Appendix D for PM peak hour conditions. During the morning peak, the addition of project-generated traffic will not cause any changes in tetter grade. The unsignalized intersection of San Antonio Road / Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp will continue to operate at LOS F. The remaining City-controlled intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better conditions. The CMP intersection of San Antonio Road / Charleston Roads will continue to operate a~ acceptable LOS D conditions, with a one-half second increase in average delay. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page 29 Watson Court Project Transportation Impact Analysis March 2002 Table 9 Background and Watson Court Project (Without 1KEA Project) Intersection Levels of Service Background Project A in Crit.A in Delay Crit. Delay LOS Seconds ~V/C 4 13,5 B-+0.i +0,001 3 6.3 D + 1.2 + 0.003 27.2 D++ 0.0 + 0,001 49.9 E + 0,4 + 0.002 10,7 B + 0.0 + 0.000 10.7 B -~0.0 +0.006 >100 F + 6.4 ÷ 0.000 91.3 F + 4.0 + 0,000 33.i " D + 0.0 + 0,000 32.8 D + 0.2 + 0.001 33.9 D + 0.0 + 0,000 31.0 D +0.0 +0.001 21.3 C + 0.0 + 0.000 16.6 C ÷ 0.0 + 0.000 B-+ 0.0 + 0.001 B + 0.0 +0.003 C++ 0.0 + 0.001 F + 2.3. + 0.003 Peak Intersection Hour Delay~ LOSz 13.4 B-Ea.st Bayshore Road / Laura Lane_.PM 35.4 D East Bayshore Road /AM 26.7 D+ Embarcadei~6 Road ’ PM 49.4 E- East Bayshore Road / San AM 10.7 B Antonio Road PM 10,8 B San Arttonio Road/NB U.S, 101 AM >100 F Off, Ramps PM 87.3 F San Antonio Road / Charleston AiV~33.1 D Road*PM-32,6 D Donohoe Street / University AM 33.9 D Avenu,e PM 30.9 D Donohoe Street / Capital Avenue AM 21.3 C /NB U.S. 101 Off-Ramps PM 16.5 C East Bayshore Road / Clarke AM 13.5 B- Street ¯,PM 8.0 " East Bayshore Road / Pulgas AM 16.8 C+ Avenue PM 92.3 F Notes: ~ Average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 13.5 8.1 16.8 94.3 2 LOS = Level of service. Calculatlons performed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for signalized intersections or 1994 HCMmethodology for stop-controlled intersections. ~ Increase in the critical movement delay from Back~ound to Project Conditions.4 Increase in critical volume-to-capacity ratio from Baekgrqund to Project Conditions. * Designated Congestion Management Program (CMP) ~ntersection. Source: Fehr & Peers Associates March, 2002 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page 30 Watson Cou/’t Project Transportation Dnpact Analysis March 2002 Table 10 Background and Watson Court Project (With IKEA Project) Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Background ~Peak Hour Delays LOS2 - AM 14.1 B-East Bayshore Road / Laura Lane~PM 39.3 D EastBayshoreRoad/AM ’ 26.8 .D+ Embarcadero Road PM 52.6 . E- AM 10.7 B PM 10.8 B AM >100-F PM 87.3 F AM 33.1 D PM 32.6 D Delay LOS D+ B B. D D East Baysho~e Road/.San Antonio Road San Antonio Road / NB U.S. 101 Off-Ramps San Antonio Road /Charleston Road* Donohoe street / University Avenue Dgnohoe Street / Capital Avenue /BIB U.S. 101 Off-Ramps AM 33.9 D PM 31..8 D AM 21.2 C PM 16.8 C AM 1.3.4 B-. PM 8.0 B AM 16.8 C+ PM > 100 F :14.2 39.6 27.3 53.1 10.7 ’10.7 > 100 91.3 33.6 32.8 East B ayshc~re Rold/Clarke ¯ Street East Bayshore Road / Pulgas Avenue 33.9 D 31.8.D 21.2 C 16.7 C 13.4 B- 8.1 B 16.8 C+ > I00 F Project A in Crit. Delay Seconds A in Crit, V/C 4 + 0,1 + 0.001 ¯ +. 1.3 + 0,003 + 0.0 + 0.001. +.0.4 + 0.002 + 0.0 + 0,000 + 0,0 + 0,006 +6,4 + 0,000 +.4.0 + 0,000. +.0.4 ÷0.011 + 0.2 + 0.001 + 0.o + o.ooo + 0.0 + 0.001 + 0,0 + 0,000 + 0.0 + 0.000 + 0.0 + 0.001 ~- 0.0 + 0.003 + 0.0 + 0.000 + 2.4 " + 0.003 Notes t Average stopped delay expressed in seconds l~er ~,ehicle, . 2 LOS = Level of service, Calculations performed using the 1985 Highway Capacity 19£anual (HCM) methodology for signalized intersections or 1994 HCMmethodology for stop-controlled intersections.3 Increase in th~ criticai movement delay from Background to Project Conditions, 4 Increase in fiticalvolume-to-capacity ratio from’Background to P.roject Conditions. * DeMgnatedCongestion Management Program (CMP) Intersection, Source: Fehr & Peers Associates March, 2002 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page 31 ~atson Court Pmoject Transportation Impact Analysi~ March 2002 During the evening peak hour, the addition of project-generated traffic will not cause any changes in letter grade. The unsignalized intersection of San Antonio Road / Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp will continue to operate at LOS F conditions. The CMP intersection of San Antonio Road / Charleston Road will continue to operate at acceptable LOS D conditions, with a less than a one second increase in average or criticaI delay. The remaining City-controlled intersections.will continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better. Proj ect Intersection Impacts The results of the level of service calculations for Project Conditions were compared to the resuRs for Background ConditiOns .~o identi~ sigiaificant project impacts. Because.the City of Palo Alto does not have a standard for identifying significant impacts to unsignalized intersections, a modification to the criteria used for signalized City-controlled intersections was applied to unsignalized intersections. Therefore, a. significant project impact to a signalized intersection will result if the project causes one of the following conditions to be met: : A non-city, controlled CMP intersection to degrade from acceptable LOS E conditions or better to unacceptable LOS F At CMP intersections currently operating at LOS F conditions, a project would cause a. significant impact if it increases the average stopped delay for critical movements.by four (4) seconds or more, and project-generated traffic increases the critical v/c value by 0.01 or more A City of Palo Alto or City of EastPalo Alto-controlled intersection to degrade from acceptable LOS D ~onditions or better to unacceptable LOS E-or F conditions At City-controlled intersection currently operating at LOS E or F conditions, a project would cause a significant impact if it exacerbates unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) by increasing the critical delay by more than four (4) seconds and increases the volume- to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more. For unsignalized intersections, the following modified level of criteria was used to determine if the project causes a significant project impact: At unsia~nalized City-controlled intersection currently operating at LOS E or conditions, a project would cause a significant impact if it exacerbates unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) by increasing the critical delay by more than four (4) seconds increases the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more Fehr & _Peers Associates fnc.Page 32 Watson Court Project Transportation [mpact Analysis March 2 002 According to these definitions, the project is shown to have a significant adverse impact at the City of P alo Alto study intersection under both Without IKEA and With IK_EA Scenarios: 1)San Antonio Road / Norfhbound U.S. I01 Off-Ramps (Unsignalized - AM and PM Peak Hours) Proj ect Mitigation Measures The results of the level of service analysis indicate that the Proposed project will have a significant impact on one unsignalized intersection during both the AM and PM peak hours. Table 11 presents the mitigated Project Conditions level of service analysis. The corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix E. San Antonio Road / NorthboundU.S. 101 Off-Ramps This intersection, which currently operates at LOS F ~or both morning and evening peak hour. conditions, has a total traffic volume of 1,474 velaicles during the morning peak hour and 1,335 vehicles during the evening peak hour. Under Background (With rKEA) Conditions, the infersection is expected to have a total traffic #olume of 1,495 .vehicles during the morning peak hour and 1,359 vehicles during the evening peak hour. This is an increase of 21 vehicles during the morning peak hour and 24 vehicles during the. evening peak hour. The Propdsed Project.is expected to add an additional 14 morning peak hou~ and 10 evening peak hour trips. This intersection meets the requirements for a signal warrant as .described in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. As shown in Table E-2 and E-3, the installation of a signal at this intersection would improve the operations of this intersection to acceptable LOS B conditions during both morning and evening peak hour conditions. Therefore, the project impact at the intersection of San Antonio Road/NB U.S. 101 Off- Ramp would be mitigated with the installation of a traffic signal. Total Cost estimate - $150,000 The Pro osedPro "ect’s proportionate share of the mitigation measure would be $31300 (2.2% of the total cost) Signal Timing Improvements along East Bayshore Road Although the Proposed project would not result in a significant impact to signalized intersections on East Bayshore Road, minor improvements to the existing signal timings would-improve the overall flow of traffic on East Bayshore Road. Therefore, it. is recommended that the Proposed Project work with the City of Palo Alto / Santa Clara County and City of East Palo. Arid / San Marco County to make minor signal timing adjustments to the following intersections: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Page 33 Watson Court Project Transportation Impact Analysis March 2002 Table 11 l~iitigatedWatson Court Project (With IKEA Project) ¯ Intersection Levels of Service Intersection East Bayshore Road / Laura Lane East Bayshore Road / Embarcadero. Road San Antonio Road/NB U.S. 101 Off-Ramps East Bayshore Road / Clarke Street East Bayshg._re Road / Pulgas Avenue Peak t~our AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Delay 183 23.5 50,7 8.9 8.5 9.1 9.4 12,4 31.2 Project LOS" B C- E 13 13 B D Notes: ~ Average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle,a LOS = Level of service: Calculations performed usrag the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for signalized intersections. Source: Fehr & Peers Associates March, 2002 Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road; Laura Lane / East Bayshore Road; San Antonio Road / East Bayshore Road; Pulgas Avenue / East Bayshore Road; and Clarke Street / East Bayshore Road. The Proposed Project would pay 100% of the total cost o.1°550, 000 Table 11 shows that with signal timing improvements on East Bayshore Road (between Embarcadero K0ad and Clarke Street)£ "intersection levels of service would improve.- During the morning peak hour£ the inter~ection of Embarcadero Rdad / East Ba3~shore R0id would improve from LOS D+ to LOS C- conditions with minor signal timing improvements, The intersection of PuIgas Avenue / East Bayshore Road would improve from LOS C+ to LOS B conditions. During the evening peak hour, implementation of signal timing improvements to improve coordination and traffic flow on East Bayshore Road. would result in the Laura Lane / East Bayshore Road intersection improving from LOS D to LOS B conditions. The intersection of Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road Would continue to operate a~ LOS E conditions, but signal timing improvements would result in the milaor decrease in average vehicle delay of 2.4 seconds per vehicle.. With a total of 3,150 vehicles projected to use this intersection in Year 2004, this represents a reduction of 2.1 hours of vehicle delay during the evening peak hour. Fehr & Peers Associates, fnc.Page 34 Watson Court P~oject Transportation Impact Analysis March 2 002 Proposed Improvements to East Bayshore Road / Embarcadero Road A capacity improvement consisting of widening of East Bayshore Road (on the east side of the roadway) to provide a second left-turn lane was identified, but not recommended, in the 1989 Citywide Transportation Study. As partof the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update, the following capacity improvements were identified: a) Converting the eastbound Embarcadero Road shared left/through lane to an exclusive left-turn lane and removing the east-west split signal phase; b) Adding a second northbound East Bayshore Road travel lane to be shared asa second left-turn!through lane; and c). Removing the northb0und-sot~thbound split signal phasing. Alternative (a) was deemed not feasible due to the heaw eastbound t~ough volume during the AMpeak hour. Alternative .(c) ’ was. .deemed not feasible due to safety, concerns with simultaneous northbound and southbound left:turning vehicles. In the 1989 Citywide Transportation Study Alternative (b) was deemed feasible, and would improve Year 2010 service levels from LOS E (54 seconds of delay) to LOS E (41 seconds of delay). But even with the proposed mitigation measure, the City-controlled intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS E conditions (for City controlled intersections, LOS D is the minimum level of threshold). Therefore, the overal! conclusion of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update was. not to implement the mitigation measure because the level of service improvementwould be minimal. Additional issued include: Right--of-way would be required from the neighboring private properties; Ten trees would need to be removed; and Any minor benefit in intersection level of service would likely be quic!dy overcome by additional northbound PM peak commute ~xaffic seeldng an alternative travel route to the Dnmbarton Bridge from U.S. Route 101. Freeway Segment Analysis According to CMP guidelines, freeway segments to which a proposed development is projected to add trips equal to or greater than one percent of the freeway segment’s capacities must be evaluated in detail. Segments of U.S. Rou~e 101 were reviewed to determine if the minimum threshold of project-generated traffiC would be added to these freeway segments. Capacities of 2,300 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) for freeways segments .with six or more lanes were used in the scoping analysis. A capacity.of t,800 vphpl was used for HOV l~nes. The amount of project ~rips assigned to the HOV lanes was based on the percentage of existing usage be~,veen the mixed-flow lanes and the HOV lanes. Table 12 presents the capacities of each segment, and whether the freeway segmem must be evaluated in ~eater detail. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page 55 Watson Court Project Transportation fmpact Analysis ¯ March 2002 Freeway Segment Impacts Table 12 shows that the project would not add eqnal to or greater than one percent of the capacity to any freeway segment. Therefore, additional freeway analysis is not required as .part of this TIA. The project’s impact on the segments of U.S. Route 101 in the project study area was determined to be insigni~can, t. Table 12 Northbound US NorthboundUS Northbound US Northbound US Northbound US Northbound US Southbound US Proiect Freeway Segment Analysis Segment 101, Rengstorff to San Antonio. 101 I-!ov, Rengstorff to San Antonio 101; San Antonio to Oregon 101 I-tOV, San Antonio to Oregon 101, Oregon to Embarcadero 101 FIOV, Oregon to Embarcadero 101, Embarcadero to Oregon Capacity 1 6,900 1,800 6,900 1,800 6,900 1,800 6,9OO Capacity 69 18 69 18 69 18 69 Proj ect ¯ Trips 19 (0) 7 (0) 19 (0) 7 (o) 39 (0) 8 (0) 4 (19). Southbound US 101 HOV, Embarcadero to Oregon Southbound US 101, Oregon to San Antonio Southbound US 101 I-IOV, Oregon to San Antonio Southbound US 101, San Antonio to Rengstorff Southbound US 101 t-IOV, San Antonio to Rengstorff 1,800 6,900 1,aoo 6,900 1,800 18 3 (4) 69,3 (5) 18 1 (2) 69 3 (16) iS Requires Analysis? "No (No) No (No) No (No) No (No) No (No) No (No) No (No) No No (No) No (No) N~ (No) No (No) ¯ Notes: l A capacity of 2,300 vehicles per hour per lane was used for freeway segments with si~ or more lanes. Auxiliary and HOV lanes are not included in the calculation of the capacity. Source: Fekr & Peers Associates March, 2002 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.Page 36 7~atson Cour~ Project Transpor~ation~mpae~ ~nalyzis March 2002 CHAPTER 5 - PROJECT SITE ACCESS AND PARKING This chapter discusses project site access, on-site circulation, and parking supply. Tlie site plan is presented on Figure 2 (Page 3) in Chapter 1, "Introduction". site ’Access The project site is located at 2300 East B~yshore Avenue, the exist.ing site of Scott’s Seafood restaurant and a 33,200 square foot single tenant office building. According to the project site plan (Dated February 27, 2002), two project access points are proposed. The first access point would be located approximately 100 feet south of the Embarcadero. Road / East Bayshore Road intersection. The driveway would provide one outbound, lane and one inbound lane. The i-- second access point (Watson Court) would be !0c~ited approximately 450 feet south of the signalized Embarcadero Road /East Bayshore Road sigaalized intersection. At the end of the Watson Court cul-de-sac, two driveways would each provide one outbound lane and one inbound lane. From the project driveways, drivers will be able to access pa~:king located along the perimeter of the project site and the main entrance of the building. In addition to the surface parking areas, an underground parking garage with two access points will be provided. The first access point will be located towards the rear of the project site, with the parking garage ramp providing one inbound and one outbound lane. The second parking garage, ramp will be located toward the north-east comer of the project Site. This driveway will also provide one inbound and one outbouiad lane. fn order to improve overall traffic flOW on East Bayshore Road, it is recommended that the project dri:~eway located approximately J OO fee~ south of the signalized EastBayshore Road / Embarcadero Road intersection be constructed as a right-turn in / right turn out only driveway. By doing so, the driveway will continue to provide efficient access to the project site for inbound vehicles traveling through the East Bayshore Road / Embarcadero Road intersection. ;n addition, the driveway would serve outbound vehicles making the right-turn. movement towards San Antonio Road: The primary benefit of eliminating left-turn movements out of the project driveway located approximately 100 feet south of the signalized East Yayshore Road / Embarcadero Road intersection would be to eliminate the potential for outbound vehicles attempting to make the left-turn movement towards Embarcadero Road from potentially blocla’ng southbound {raffic and impacting the operations of the East Yayshore Road /EmbarcaderoRoad intersection. Outbound drivers (who want to make the I@-turn movement) would be required to use Watson Court. Fehr &’Peers Associates, _~nc.Page 3 / ~Vatson Cot!rt Project Transportation fmpact Analysis March 2002 Queuing Analysis Under Existing and Background PM peak hour conditions, the heavy northbound traffic volume on East Bayshore Road results in vehicle queues extending from the signalized East Bayshore Road / Embarcadero Road to Watson Court (approximately 450 feet), With the Proposed Project, the additional 43 outbound vehicles making the left-tam movement from Watson Court during the evening peak hour will result in a minor increase m the northbound left-turn queue from 14-vehicles (350 feet) to 16 vehicles .(400 feet). The seven (7) additionalProj ect trips traveling through: the- intersection towards East Pa.lo Alto and the Dumbarton Bridge wil! not result in an increase in the northbound through/right-tam lane vehicle queue. More importantly, during the evening peak hour the-130 outbound vehicles on Watson Court will result in an average of three to five vehicles per minute exiting the project site from Watson Court. This will result in a vehicle queue ranging, from three vehicles .(75 feet) to a maximum of seven vehicles (175 feet), as they wait for gaps in northbound East Bayshore Road traffic. The overall result of the queuing analysis shows that the addition of Project- generated traffic will not have an adverse impact to vehicle queues on northbound East Bayshore Road during the critical evening peak hour conditions. In addition, Watson Court provides suffici6nt capacity to serve the projected outbound traffic vol,ame during the evening peak hour. Parking The City of Pal0 Alto requires 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of Office Building space. Based on the City’s codg requirements,, the Proposed Project is required to provide 363 parking spaces on-site. By providing a total of 396 parking spaces, with 255 surface parking spaces and 141 underground parking .spaces, the project site plan wili provide a sufficient supply of parking spaces to meet projected peak parking demand. In addition, of the total number of parking spaces provided on-site, eight spaces will be designated for handicapped patrons, with one space being, designed to be van accessible. Overall, the Proposed Project is providing 3.6 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of multi-tenant office space. .Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc,Page 38 FEHR & PEERS TR~ NSPORTATION [ONSU.TANTS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Subject: October 22, 2003 Carl Stoffel, City of Palo Alto Transportation Division Fax (650) 617 - 3108 Fred Choa, Fehr & Peers Associates Addendum to the March 2002 Draft TIA for the Proposed Watson Court Project (2300 East Bayshore) This memorandum presents responses to the September 25, 2003, letter (see attached) and revisions to the March 2003 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) that are required to finalize the rePort for the proposed Watson Court Project (2300 East Bayshore). Comment 1, Page 25. The text or table should state what ITE land use categories were used for the trip generatio~ calculations. The rates should also be stated. Land use category 710 (General Office Building) was used to determine the trip generating characteristics of the existing land use and proposed Watson Court Project. During morning and evening peak hour conditions, a general office building generates 1.56 and 1.49 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of~oss floor area, respectively. ~- ~" Land use category 831 (Quality Restaurant) was used to determine the trip generating characteristics of the Scott’s Seafood restaurant.. During morning and evening peak hour conditions, a quality restaurant generates 0.81 and 7.49 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, respectively. Comment2. .Page 33. A signal is being planned for the San Antonio / U.S. l Ol Off Ramp, jointly by Palo Alto, Mountain View and Caltrans. This project is unusually expensive and complicated project, with a total cost currently estimated at $843,000 [as of last year]. The applicant’s 2.2% share would thus be $18,546~ Contact Ashok Aggarwal for the latest cost estimate for the project and revise the calculation. 3685 Mt. DiabLo BLvd., Suite 301 Lafayette, CA 94549 (925) 284-3200 Fax (925) 284-2691 www.fehrandpeers.com Carl Stoffel October 22, 2003 Page 2 of 7 The text on Page 33 will state: Therefore, the project impact at the intersection of San Antonio Road / NB U.S. 101 Off- Ramp would be mitigated with the installation of a traffic signal. Total cost estimate -=$850,000 The Proposed project’s proportionate share of the mitigation measure would be $18,700 (2.2% of the total cost)_ Comment 3. Pages 33-34. We agree that the applicant should fund and implement the signal timing improvements along this highly congested corridor. To implement this mitigation measure, the applicant should hire a traffic engineering firm to handle all interageney coordination and perform all technical work, at the applicant’s expense. The text on Page 33 and 34 will state: Although the Proposed project would not result in a significant impact to signalized intersections on east Bayshore Road, minor improvements to the existing signal timings would improve the overall traffic flow to the four (4) traffic signals on East Bayshore Road. Therefore, the Project applicant will hire a registered Traffic Engineer in the state of California to optimize and coordinate the traffic signals, perform all technical work, and conduct interagency (City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, City of East Palo Alto, San Mateo County) coordination and implementation. Improved signal timing plans will be developed for morning (6:00 to 10:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 7:00 PM) peak period conditions. The Project applicant Would pay 100% of the total cost not to exceed $ 60,000. Comment 4. The Watson Court / East Bayshore intersection requires more study with regard to project impactsl Our Police Department is recommending that left turns out of Watson Court be prohibited during PM peak hour. The City wants to avoid a similar situation where this project causes a need for a traffic signal (either short or long term), but is allowed to proceed without this possibility being acknowledged and/or without being held accountable for full or partial funding of the signal. Specifically, further analysis should focus on the following: The Proposed Watson Court Project has been reduced from a110,000 square.foot general office building to a 74,000 square foot general office building, resulting in a 30 percent decrease in trip generation. With the credit for existing land uses, the proposed project would generate 50 net new morning peak hour and zero (0) net new evening peak hour trips. Carl Stoffel October 22, 2003 Page 3 of 7 During the morning peak hour, the proposed 74,000 square foot general office building would generate 116 vehicle trips, with 103 inbound and 13 outbound. During the evening peak hour, the proposed project would generate 111 vehicle trips, with 19 inbound and 92 outbound. (a) Analyze signal warrants, The Peak Hour Volume Warrant was analyzed for Year 2010 Plus Watson Court Conditions to determine if the intersection of East Bayshore Road / Watson Court. A two percent per year growth factor was applied to existing traffic volumes on East Bayshore Road to estimate traffic volumes on the major roadway. The results are included in Appendix A. During both morning and evening peak hour conditions, East Bayshore Road currently serves 950 vehicles and is projected to carry approximately 1,100 vehicles under Year 2010 Conditions. During morning peak hour conditions, approximately 13 vehicles would leave the project site with 11 vehicles making a left-turn movement towards Embarcadero Road and 2 vehicles making a right-turn movement towards San Antonio Road. During evening peak hour conditions, approximately 92 vehicles would leave the project site with 72 vehicles making a left-turn movement towards Embarcadero Road and 20 vehicles making a right-turn movement towards San Antonio Road. The results of the analysis indicate that the intersection does not meet signal warrants for either morning or evening peak hour conditions under Year 2010 Plus Watson Court Project Conditions. Analyze gaps in East Bayshore traffic during PM peak hour and state whether sufficient safe gasp exisr for outbound Watson Court left turns, without drivers becoming inpatient and taking chances In addition to signal warrants, a gap study was completed during evening peak hour conditions on Thursday, October 16, 2003. The results of the gap study are contained in Appendix B. According to Chapter 17 - Unsignalized Intersections of the Highway Capacity Manual, the base critical gap for a left-turn movement from a minor street is 7.1 seconds (Exhibit 17-5) and a 3.5 seconds follow-up time, or 10.6 seconds to serve two left-turning vehicles. Carl Stoffel October 22, 2003 Page 4 of 7 Based on field collected data, a total of 105 gaps of more than 10 seconds were identified, with 27 between 5:00 and 5:15, 28 between 5:15 and 5:30, 25 between 5:30 and 5:45, and 25 between 5:45 and 6:00. A total of 136 gaps of more than 8 seconds were identified. With a projected 16 percent increase in traffic volumes o1~ East Bayshore Road for Year 2010 Conditions, the number of available gaps will decrease. For the purpose of this analysis, a conservative reduction of 25 percent was assumed. This results in approximately 102 gaps of more than 8 seconds and 79 gaps of more than 10 seconds. With approximately 75 vehicles making the left turn movement during PM peak hour conditions, the critical gap analysis shows that sufficient gaps will exist for project generated traffic to safely make the left-turn movement onto northbound East Bayshore Road. Provide further discusston in regard to PM peak hour queues from Embarcadero and its possible interference with outbound left turns f"orn Watson Court. The Police Departmem is concerned that outbound drivers block southbound East Bayshore traffic as they try to exit Watson Court and enter the northbound queue. This discussion should include potential increases to 2010, At the same time the critical gap surveys were being conducted, the maximum queue length for northbound East Bayshore Road was recorded. The results of the survey are contained in Appendix C. Between tile Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road intersection and the East Bayshore Road / Watson Court intersection, there is 400 feet of stacking space before it blocks left- turn egress from Watson Court. Using an average vehicle length of 25 feet, this represents a maximum storage space for 16 vehicles. The results of the field collected data show that the maximum vehicle queue on northbound East Bayshore Road averages 8 vehic les and only during one cycle did the maximum vehicle queue of 16 vehicles reach Watson Court. Therefore, the combination of the left-turn gap and maximum queue length surveys indicate that even as traffic volumes on East Bayshore Road continue to increase ~turing evening peak hour conditions, sufficient gaps in the traffic stream will occur for drivers to safely make the left-turn movement out of Watson Court. Carl Stoffel October 22, 2003 Page 5 of 7 Discuss the advisability and impact of prohibiting outbound left’turns in the peak hour. Prohibiting left-turns out of Watson Court during PM peak hour conditions would require people to travel almost 2 miles south to the San Antonio Road interchange to either cross the freeway or access either northbound or southbound U.S. 101. But with almost 60 percent (as shown in Figure 7 of the TIA) of all project-generated traffic with destinations north of Embarcadero Road, prohibiting left-turn movements would also result in drivers making u-turns at other driveways along East Bayshore Road. In addition, the critical gap and maximum queue length surveys discussed in the previous sections show that sufficient gaps in the traffic stream will occur for drivers to safely make the left-turn movement out of Watson Court. Comment 5. [n October 2002, at least one resident pointed up some inconsistencies in the LOS methodology used in this report (and as specified by the City) compared to that used in the Fehr and Peers report for the University Palms project in East Palo Alto. ~gou provided an explanation at that time that was included in the October 15, 2002 staff report. This TIA should now. include that discussion, or something equivalent, in the "’Level of Service Methodology" section (Chapter 2) The City of Palo Alto / Santa Clara County and the City of East Palo Alto ! San Mateo County use different analysis methodologies to analyze the operations of signalized intersections. Although both methodologies are consistent with Chapter 16 -Signalized Intersections of the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board), different parameters are used in the calculation of vehicle delay and the corresponding level of service. This resulted in different level of service conditions for intersections evaluated using either the City of Palo Alto methodology or the City of East Palo Alto methodology. In addition, the City of Palo Alto performs yearly traffic counts and level of service analysis for key intersections, including Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road. This yearly monitoring report was used to determine the Existing PM peak hour operations conditions of Level of Service E, with an average intersection delay of 47.9 seconds per vehicle. Carl Stoffel October 22, 2003 Page 6 of 7 Comment 6. At you option, and with agreement of your client, I suggest that you provide an addendum chapter in the Final TIA to discuss, qualitatively, how the impacts of the revised project might differ from those of the project analyzed in the TIA. This is not required, but it might be helpfid to members of tke public and to us wken we are questioned about the differences. The discussion should not require any new quantitative analysis, unless you want to provide it. A few issues that might come up during the public review process are." The AM and PM peak hour traffic counts for the intersection of Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road and used in the March 2002 TIA were conducted by the City of Palo Alto in October 2001. The City of Palo Alto performs yearly traffic counts at this intersection and Appendix D contains AM and PM peak hour traffic counts for October 2002 and October 2003. Table 1 presents the total intersection volume for the past three years. Table 1 Total Intersection Volume at Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road Traffic Count AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour October 2001 2,635 3,015 October 2002 2,500 2,715 October 2003 2,590 2,550 Source: City of Palo Alto Transportation Division (a) Now that IKEA is open, what haven been the actual impacts at Embarcadero / East Bayshore as compared to what were assumed in the TIA? (b) Have traffic conditions changed since the counts used in tke TIA ? (c) How muck does tke smallerproject reduce the impact at the San Antonio / 101 off ramp intersection? At the Embarcadero/East Bayskore intersection ? The results of the traffic cdunts show that even with the opening of IKEA in East Palo Alto, traffic volumes have remained relatively constant during AM peak hour conditions. During evening peak hour conditions, traffic volumes have actually decreased 15 percent (2,550 ~ versus 3,015) when compared to the traffic volumes used in the TIA. Carl Stoffel October 22, 2003 Page 7 of 7 //With a field verified reduction of over 450 vehicles, the City ofPalo Alto’s yearly .:/ monitoring of the intersection of Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road indicate that the /intersection is currently operating at LOS D conditions with an average delay of 39.3 seconds per vehicle. In the March 2002 TIA, the intersection was shown to operate at LOS E, witti an average intersection delay of 47.9 seconds per vehicle. Therefore, with the intersection of Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road improving from LOS E to LOS D Conditions and a 30 percent decrease in trip generation for the proposed 74,000 .Watson Court project, the level of service results documented in the March 2002 TIA are conservative. Appendix A Peak Hour Signal Warrants East Bayshore Road / Watson Court FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION IZONSULTANTS Project No 1001-1616 Page No 1-2 Subject Watson Court / East Bayshore Back.qround + Watson Court Pro ect o .9 - 600 500 400 300 2OO IO0 0 4OO 500 600 Figure 9-8 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Urban Areas) 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 M~or Street-Total of Both Approaches-Vehicle Per Hour(VPH) 1600 1700 *Note: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Source: Traffic Manual, Caltrans 1996. 50 0C 1800 Name of Street Major Street Minor Street .Warrant Met Number of Lanes Two or More Lane (Y/N) One Lane (Y/N) Traffic Volume (VPH) * y 1100 NO ’*Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Conditions Cumulative No Project Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Conditions FEHR & PEERS TIRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Project No 1001-1616 Page No 1-2 Subject Watson Court / East Bayshore Back,qround + Watson Court Proiect 600 500 400 300 200 100 400 500 Figure 9,8 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Urban Areas) 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) 1600 1700 *Note: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Source: Traffic Manual, Caltrans 1996. I800 Name of Street , Number of Lanes Two or More Lane (Y/N) One Lane (Y/N) Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met y y N__O_O Traffic Volume (VPH) *I000 15 ¯ Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Conditions Cumulative No Project Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Appendix B Critical Gap Survey PM Peak Hour Conditions Appendix C Maximum Queue Length Survey PM Peak Hour Conditions Appendix D AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Counts Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road 00T-21-2003 TUE 10:26 fin 0 P fl TRANSPORTATION DIV FAX NO, 650 617 3108 P, 02 : "ON ×Ud 00%2!-2003 TUE 10:26 RM 0 n R TR~NSPORTRTION DIV H~× NO, 65r qlT 3108 P, 03 ET/RICS ._TRAF/FIC .,RESO UR .... INTERSECTION TURNING Mo~i~MENT SUM~IAR-~--~ 275 379 14 ~l,t~d84 ~7 J76 ?~289 99 374 ~7 271 77~ 521 177 7! d49 ~.4 1,03~~63 191 ’1,130 416 1~7 4~ 241 1~~05 273 17" 57 7B 209 4~ 1,107 aS9 147 9~?’180 $.0~ Attachment O Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date:January 15, 2004 To:Architectural Review Board From: Subject: Christopher Riordan, Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 2300 East Bayshore Road [03=D-04, 03-EIA-17]: Request for Site and Design Review of a new 73,932 square foot officebuilding with at gade parking and related site improvements located on a 5.66-acre site. Applicant: Clifford Chang on behalf of Richard Peery. Zone District: LM (D)(3) Limited Industrial Site Combining District. Environmental Assessment: Draft Initial Study recommending the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, with a timing that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts m~d’ approve the Site and Design application for a new oftice building in the LM(D)(3) (Limited Industrial Site Combining) District, based upon the -findings and subject to the conditions in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Requested approval of the project scope, as indicated above, involves demolition, of the existing buildings on the site and construction of a new 73,932 square-foot two-story ofl]ce building. The ’ design is an L-shaped building surrounded by vehicular circulation and surface parldng spaces for 300 vehicles (See Attachment C for a detailed project description and discussion of the other elements of the project). Green Building and Site Features The applicant intends to use green building techniques such as: *Building orientation to maximize sun exposm’e. *"Low E" glazing. Dual glazing along freeway elevation to reduce heat gain and traffic noise. *Pervious pavers. 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D:04) Bio-swales and fossil filters to decrease stormwater pollution. Drought tolerant landscaping with drip irrigation. Water efficient plumbing Additional sustainability information submitted by the applicant is contained in Attachment A. BACKGROUND PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The PTC reviewed this project at its meeting of December 17, 2003 and voted (5-1-0-0) to recommend approval of the Site and Design Review application to the City Com~cil (see Attachment G). During the meeting, the Commission discussed the proposed project effects, on trip generation and the proposed mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. The Commission also commented on the height of the proposed building with respect to the potential loss of hillside views and the lack of Bayland influence in the proposed building desigT~. The Commissions recommendation included one modified condition (# 4) and five new conditions of approval (#’s 3, 6, 9,10,11, and 12), which have been incorporated into the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B), and are presented below: Condition #3 The appiicant shall submit a salvage and recycling plan for the buildings and paving to be removed from the site. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to building permit issuance. Condition #4 A Tree Survey prepared by a certified arborist including the trees on site and those on adjacent parcels, including the Caltrans off ramp landscape area. The tree survey shall be consistent with the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.20-6.25, and recommend those trees, which are suitable for preservation and/or relocation. Specifically, there are several London Plane Trees, which are good candidates for relocation. The project applicant shall coordinate with the Planning Arborist to minimize the number of existing trees to be removed as part of the project. Condition #6 Condition #9 The landscape plan shall be revised to include plants and trees from the Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan List and the Baylands Master Plan that are appropriate to the.Baylands habitat. All proposed plants and trees shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit. The project shall be redesigned to incorporate 56 of the proposed 300 at grade parking spaces into a parldng reserve. This area shall be indicated on the project 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04) Condition #10 plans as "Parking Reserve" and shall be landscaped subject to review and approval bY the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. Conversion of the parkingreserve to usable parking spaces shall be subject to review and approval by the Transportation Division. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan shall be submitted to the Transportation Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The TDM shall contain, but not limited to, promotion on the use of bicycles, transit passes, funding for the Palo Alto Free Shuttle Service, a carpool matching program, van pool sponsorship, telecommuting opportunities, etc. Condition #11 Condition # 12 The project shall not include driveway access onto East Bayshore Road. The landscape plan shall include the existing City path adjacent to the southern property line. The proposed improvements to the parking lot landscaping adjacent to the path shall be reviewed by the Transportation Division to ensure that adequate clearance is maintained for bicycle and pedestrian use and that safety is not compromised. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) STUDY SESSION The ARB reviewed a preliminary proposal for a larger version of the project in conjunction with a Planned Community rezone application during a study session on December 13, 2001. The ARB’s comments included the following suggestions: o The project provides opportunity to be inventive and include sustainable design. ¯The plant palette should remain rich and feature Baylands indigenous species. ¯Consider the use ofhardscape at vehicle entries for deliveries such as Fed Ex. ¯Orient the building to maximize views and exposure to the sun. ®Consider possibilities for a Baylands gateway, such as widening the parking lot landscape. perimeter at Embarcadero Road by eliminating excess vehicle spaces. o Consider the shading impact of the existing trees along the freeway. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Applicants project sustainability recommendations. Attachment B: Record of the City Council Land Use Action (including the Site and Design Review Findings for Approval and Draft Conditions of Approval. Attachment C: Report to the Planning and Transportation Commission dated December 17, 2003 (without attachments) Attachment D: Location Map Attachment E: Applicants Project Description Attachment F: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Assessment 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04) ARachment G: Attachment H: Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes for the meeting of December 17, 2003. ( Board Members Only) Project Plan Set (Board Members Only) COURTESY COPIES Clifford Chang, Hoover Associates, Architects - Richard Peery Lee Ashby, Hoover Associates, Architects Angelica Volterra John Ciccarelli Prepared by: Manager Review: Christopher Riordan, AICP, Planner Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04) Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date:April 1, 2004 To:Architectural Review Board From:Christopher Riordan, Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment Subject:2300 East Bayshore Road [03-D-04, 03-EIA-17]: Request for Site and Design Review of a new 73,932 square foot office buitding with at Fade parking and related, site improvements located on a 5.66-acre site. Applicant: Clifford Chang on behalf of Richard Peery. Zone District: LM (D)(3) Limited Industrial Site Combining District. Environmental Assessment: Draft Initial Study recommending the pr.eparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) forward the project and Mitigated Negative Declaration (1rIND) (Attachment K) to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of a Site and Design application for a new office building in the LM(D)(3) (Limited Industrial Site Combining) District, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions inthe Record of Land Use Action (Attachment L). BACKGROUND The ARB reviewed a preliminary proposal for a larger version of the project in conjunction with a Planned Community. rezone application during a study session on December 13, 2001. The ARB’s comments and suggestion are provided in Attachment A. The project was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) at their meeting of December 17, 2003: The PTC recommend approval of the Site and Design Review application to the City Council During the meeting, the PTC discussed the proposed project’s potential effects on traffic and the proposed mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. The PTC also commented on the height of the proposed building with respect to the potential toss of l~illside views and the lack of 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04) Bayland influence in the proposed building design. The PTC’s recommendations are provided Attachment D. The ARB reviewed the formal project proposal at their meeting of January 15, 2004 and continued the project to a date uncertain. Minutes of this meeting are attached to this report (Attachment C). During the meeting, the ARB noted that comments made during the December 13, 2001 preliminary review of a similar P!armed Community development proposal had not been addressed in the revised design: The topics not adequately addressed were solar orientation, architectural inventiveness, landscaping and sustainable design features. The ARB also echoed the PTC comments regarding the (1) use of plants and trees more appropriate to Baylands habitat, (2) elimination of the driveway access onto East Bayshore Road, and (3) reduction in the number of parking spaces. In summary, the ARB member’s comments from the meeting included the following: Differentiate the architecture ffom other buildings to include an element Of inventiveness as a -gateway building to the Baylands Provide information on how the building exterior (skin) is detailed, inclnding the components of the materials and the details of the mullions. The "material samples" should also be revised. Study the solar orientation of the building. The ARB also requested the applicant have the project reviewed at the Pacific Energy Center. Heliodon and submit the results for ARB review. Revise the landscape plan to include an increased number of species as listed in the Baylands Mater Plan plant list. Minimize the number of redwood trees or move them away from the building. Break up the expanse of parking with landscape elements and explore the use of bio-filtration swales where there exist "nose to nose" parking spaces. Clarify how the north and south ends of the building relate to one another. One is asymmetrical while the other is formal. The south end of the building could include a three dimensional element such as a sculptural feature or balcony, rather than just a wall of glass. Submit a LEED or similar checklist. Prepare a cost/benefit analysis for a solar power option and other considerations from the LEED checklist that may be ruled out for cost reasons. PROJECT REVISIONS The applicant has submitted a written response (Exhibit H) to concerns expressed by the ARB during the meeting of January 15, 2004 and has revised the plan: The changes can be summarized as follows: The colors of the building have been changed to be more compatible with the Baylands. The upper and lower wails of the south elevation have been offset and additional columns have been added. Columns have been changed to precast concrete and the metal coltwrms have been changed to spandrel glass. 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04) In response to meetings with the Planning Arborist, the landscaping has been modified to include two areas with a Baylands interpretive theme located at the comer at East BayshoreiEmbarcadero Road and East Bayshore/Watson Court. The variety of oak trees has been limited to one species of Oak. The Redwoods adjacent to the curved northeast fascade have been eliminated from the plan. Redwoods are still proposed along the southern proper~y line. A solar study has been.done at the Paciflc Energy Center Heliodon and the results of this study will be presented at the meeting. A revised list of sustainability practices includes: Window glazing Showers and lockers provided for bicyclists Bioswales located in the parking lot "Energy Star" high reflective cap-sheet roof system to reduce heat gain Drought tolerant landscaping and drip irrigation, low flow plumbing fixtures Low VOC adhesives, sealants, paints, and carpets are to be used for construction Fly ash as an additive in concrete foundations and building slabs ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Assessment has been completed for this project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended. The document was circulated or_ December 31, 2003 for a 20-day. comment period and extended to January 30, 2004 to allow the public more time to review the MND. Public comments on the MND were submitted on both January 21 & 30, 2004 from Toni Stein and Angelica Volterra, respectfully (Attachment J). The following is a list stating the general issues raised and who raised them. Attached to this report (Attachment I) is.a summarj of the project’s compliance with aesthetic policies in city planning documents. Other issues raised during the comment period will be addressed in the staff report submitted to the City Council. The comments from Angelica Volterra generally covered the following issues with respect to the proposed project: Aesthetic impacts were not adequately addressed to ensure that the proposed development would be aesthetically appropriate and compatible with the site. Air quality impacts and the lack of analysis with respect to demolition and construction, traffic, cumulative impacts of increased development, and the impact on the air quality of the Baylands. ¯Biological impacts given the proposed project’s location in the Palo Alt0 Baylands. ¯Geolo~!, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise impacts were not adequately analyzed. ~Lack of substantiai evidence to support the claim that the project would not have any environmental impacts with respect to Hazardous Materials. ~Project inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Baylands Master Plan. ~Possible impacts of the proposed project effects on Population and Housing and the jobs/housing imbalance. o Traffic Impacts. 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04) The comments from Toni Stein included the following generally covered the following issues with respect to tie proposed project: Increase in the amount of air borne dust during construction and the production of Ozone due to hydrocarbon emissions. Inadequate soils analysis due to reliance on a report that is four years old. The projects impact on the possible movement of an native resident or migratory wildlife species and the impact on nesting birds was not addressed in the ~kND. Mitigation is insufficient to address the new vehicle trips generated bythe project. Project should include mitigation to address the possible hazardous material impacts attributable to the disposal of spent fluorescent bulbs ........... ATTACHMENTS - Attachment A: Architectural Review Board StaffReport dated January 15, 2004 (without Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I: Attachment J: Attachment K: Attachment L: Attachment M: attachments) Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report dated December 17, 2003 (without attachments) Dram Verbatim Minutes of the January 15, 2004 meeting of the Architectural Review Board (Board Members Only) Adopted Verbatim Minutes of the December 17, 2003 meeting dfthe Planning and Transportation Commission (Board Members Only) Location Map Applicant’s Project Description Proposed sustainability measures for the project submitted by the applicant Written response from applicant to address ARB concerns Projects’s conformance with aesthetic policies in Palo Alto’s plann~g documents Public comments received Mitigated Negative Declaration Land Use Action No. 2003-12. Project Plan Set (Board Members Only) COURTESY COPIES Clifford Chang, Hoover Associates, Architects Richard Peery Lee Ashby, Hoover Associates, Architects Angelica Volterra Toni Stein John Ciccarelli Prepared by: Manager Review: Christopher Riordan, AICP, Planner ~’~------ Amy French, A_ICP, Manager of Current Planning 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04) Attachment P PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION C OMMIS SION FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Christopher Riordan Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment December 17, 2003 2300 East Bayshore Road [03-D-04, 03-EIA- 17]: Request for Site and Design Review of a new 73,932 square foot office building with at grade parking and related site improvements located on a 5.66-acre site. Applicant: Clifford Chang on behalf of Richard Peery. Zone District: LM (D)(3) (Limited Industrial Site Combining Environmental Assessment: Draft Initial Study recommending the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment D), with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts and approve the Site and Design Review application for a new office building in the LM(D)(3) (Limited Industrial Site Combining District, based upon the findings in Attachment C. BACKGROUND Site Information The proj ect site is located on the comer of Embarcadero Road and East B ayshore Road and bounded to the south by Caltrans Right-of Way, comprised of the Oregon Expressway exit loop and access road to Embarcadero Road, to the west by the Bayshore 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04, 03-EIA-17)Page 1 Freeway, to the north by Embarcadero Road, and the East by East Bayshore Road. The project site is 5.66 acres (246,442 square feet), comprised 0fparcel 1 (3.82 acres) and parcel 2 (1.84 acres) of that parcel map. There are five existing structures with floor area totaling 41,654 square feet on the 5.66 acre project site, for an existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of. 17:1. Parcel 1 (2540 Watson Court) The 3.82-acre (166,400 sq. ft.) parcel is developed with four office buildings (currently vacant) totaling 33,200 sq. ft. The buildings were most recently occupied by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). Four driveways provide ingress and egress to the site (two at East Bayshore Road andtwo at Watson Court). A 65-foot wide public utilities easement runs across the northerly portion of the site. There are 120 mature trees on the site, including significant Eucalyptus, Casuarina and Pine trees that border the edges of the property. There are no protected trees on the site. Parcel 2 (2300 East Bayshore Road) The 1.86-acre (81,160 sq. ft.) parcel is developed with an 8,400 sq. ft. vacant restaurant (formerly Scotts Seafood Restaurant). On March 31, 2003, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning application to rezone the parcel from Service Commercial to Research!Office Park land use designation and from a Planned Community Zone for a restaurant to the LM(D)(3) zone (Limited Industrial Research Park Combining District). DISCUSSION Proiect Description The existing buildings (41,654 square feet of floor area) would be demolished and replaced with a single, 73,932 square-foot two-story office building. The first floor ¯ would be 35,579 square feet, and the second floor area would be 38,353 square feet. The proposed increase in floor area is 32,278 square feet. The design is an L-shaped building surrounded by vehicular circulation and surface parking spaces for 300 vehicles. There would be two plaza areas, one at each end of the building lobby. The proposed building is two stories andwould be 33’-9" in height as measured to the parapet. The proposed materials include pre-cast concrete and spandrel and vision glass. Metal panels would be used along the base of the building, to cover the concrete columns, and used to screen rooftop mounted equipment. Access driveways are proposed from both Watson Court 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04, 03-EIA-17)Page 2 and East Bayshore Road. The existing driveway on East Bayshore Roadclosest to Watson Court would be removed and the two driveways on Watson Court would be realigned. Landscaping The preliminary landscape plan (pg. 6 of the Development Plans) indicates 146 new trees are proposed including three species of 24" box Oak and 24" box London Plane and Crape Myrtle trees. Fifteen-gallon size trees include Ash, Plum, Pear, and Coast Redwood. The existing, mature Eucalyptus and Casuarina trees along Embarcadero Road, the common property line of the adjacent commercial site the and Cal Trans property to the southwest, would be retained. An extensive variety of shrubs, ground covers, vines, and perennials, including a selection of native species, would be planted on site. Lawn area for employee recreation purposes would be located at both ends of the building. PAMC Section 18.83.100 requires that surface parking lots in excess of 30,000 square feet provide a minimum of 10% of interior landscaping. The proposed project would include approximately 14% of interior landscaping. A reduction in the number of proposed parking spaces (56 more spaces than the minimum requirement) would decrease the amount of impervious area and increase the opportunity for additional on site landscaping. Traffic A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for the project by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants in March 2002. At the time of the report, the proposed IKEA project was uncertain. The report analyzed conditions for a 110,000 square foot multi- tenant office project (the proposed project would have less impact with approximately 74,000 square feet) with and without the IKEA project. The traffic impacts of the development were evaluated following the guidelines of the City of Palo Alto and the VTA, which is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. The TIA estimated that an 110,000 square foot project would generate 98 new rooming trips and 37 evening peak-hour trip. This number of trips however, is only 16 additional trips than what would be generated by the existing office and restaurant land uses when fully occupied. The TIA studied the proposed project effects on the following three freeway segments of U.S. Highway 101. 1. U.S. Highway 101, South of San Antonio Road 2. U.S. Highway 101, South of Embarcadero Road 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04, 03-EIA-17)Page 3 3. U.S. Highway 101, North of Embarcadero Road The TIA found that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the freeway segments. However, it could have a significant adverse impact at the San Antonio Road /Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp intersections intersection under both without IKEA and with IKEA scenarios. This un-signalized intersection currently operates at unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) "F" conditions during morning and evening peak hour conditions and the addition of any vehicle traffic would exacerbate the poor operating conditions. Heavy traffic volumes on northbound/southbound San Antonio Road results in long delays and queues for vehicles exiting northbound U.S. 101 and waiting for acceptable gaps in traffic. It should be noted that the San Antonio Road /Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp intersection already meets the requirements for a traffic signal as descried in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. A signal is planned for the San Antonio /Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp intersection, jointly by Palo Alto, Mountain View and Caltrans. This project has a total cost currently estimated at $850,000. To mitigate the potential traffic impact, a condition of project approval would require that the project developer pay a fair share portion of the cost based on the actual square footage of the approved project. The TIA analyzed a project of 110,000 square feet that result in a proportionate share of 2.2% of the total cost. The actual proportionate percentage would be based on the approved project square footage, approximately 74,000 square feet as proposed, and would be assessed at the time of application for a building permit. The revised proportionate percentage based on the smaller project size is 1% of the total cost, or $8,500.00. The installation of the signal would improve the operation of the intersection too acceptable LOS B conditions during both AM and PM peak hour conditions. Parking All proposed parking would be located at grade. The size of the proposed project requires that 244 parking spaces be provided. The applicant is proposing 300 parking spaces. During the preliminary review conducted for the previous Planned Community proposal, Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended the applicant provide only the required number of spaces and convert the extra.spaces to landscaped area. Staff has discussed this with the applicant for the current project. However, the applicant wishes to maintain all of the extra spaces in the project. The ARB will review the design proposal prior to City Council review. The board’s feedback regarding the landscape design and parking facility will be forwarded to the City Council. 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04, 03-EIA-17)Page 4 Zoning Ordinance Compliance The Limited Industrial zoning district contains the following regulations for properties. The project would meet all zoning requirements for the Limited Industrial zone as demonstrated in the following Table: Feature Table 1: Project on combined parcels in relation to LM(D)(3) zoning Minimum Site Area Min: Site Width Min. Site Depth Front Setback Interior Side Yards Street Side Yard Rear Setback Floor Area Ratio Site Coverage Building Height LM (D)(3) Regulation 1 Acre 100 Feet 150 Feet 20 Feet 20 Feet 20 Feet 20 Feet .3:1 on LM 3 site 30% 35 Feet Proposed Project Combined site is 5.66 acres or 246,442.4 s.f. 280 Feet on E. Bayshore Road 560 feet 182 feet to E. Bayshore Road 140 feet to adjacent commercial parcel 197 feet to Embarcadero 74 feet to Bayshore freeway 73,932 sq.ft, building is the maximum FAR. Proposed building is 73,932 sq. ft. 16.2% 33’9" to parapet, 43’9" to top of roof screen Conformance/Issue Conforms Conforms ConforlTiS Conforms Conforms Conforms Conforms Conforms Conforms Conforms Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.83 (OFF STREET PARKING) Parking Spaces Parking spaces required for non- exempt floor area Accessible Parldng Required/Allowed 1 space for each 300 sq.ft, of non-exempt Proposed 3 O0 spaces gross floor area (246 spaces for 73,932 sq.ft.) 7 accessible parking stalls for 30 t-400 provided parldng spaces - 1 to be van allocated 7 spaces including 1 van accessible space Conformance/Issue Exceeds requirement by 56 spaces Conforms 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04, 03-EIA-17)Page 5 Bicycle Parking Landscaping 10% of provided auto parking = 30 spaces, 18 spaces as lockers, 12 rack spaces 10 percent of total parking facility area (114,020/.10=11,402) 24 lockers and 8 rack spaces. All spaces provided at the front and rear entrance. 16,365 square feet of landscaping is proposed (14.35%) Exceeds requirement by two locker spaces Exceeds requirement by 4,963 square feet. Site and Desi~ Review Findings The required findings (PAMC 18.82.055) can be made for the project and are listed as follows: The project, as conditioned, will be constructed and operated iN a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The project proposal will be compatible with existing nearby office uses and the proposed design of the building as well as the extensive amount of landscaping will not detract from the natural character of a site. The siting of the proposed improvements would result in no negative impact(s) to neighboring properties. The project is designed in such a way as to ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent area. The project will maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas, the proposed design and related improvements are generally consistent with the existing structures on East Bayshore Road, and the construction of all improvements will be governed by the regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a high quality of development. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed in construction of the project. The proposed building would be raised above the flood zone elevation. The new building would be conditioned to incorporate sustainable building objectives and materials to reduce energy needs and increase the recycled content of the building. The project would not create significant environmental impacts on the environment as indicated by the Negative Declaration prepared for this project. 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04, 03-EIA-17)Page 6 The project is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The project proposal as conditioned complies with the policies of the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. RESOURCE IMPACT The proposed increase in commercial floor area would yield, on a one-time basis, Development Impact Fees of $492,739.68 and $122,861.60 for housing and community facilities, respectively. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan The project is in conformance with the City ofPalo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, . including Policy L-46 of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. The building could be leased out for both single tenant or multi-tenant uses. Such permitted and conditional uses possible in the proposed building, including but not limited to, medical and professional, manufacturing; research and development, and restaurants, would help maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as a diverse business and light industrial district. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Impact Assessment (03-EIA-11) and a Negative Declaration were prepared in conjunction with the rezoning of the 1.86 Acre Site (Scotts Seafood) from a PC zone district to LM(D)(3). It was determined that the rezoning of the site would not substantially degrade the surrounding environment and that any development project on the site would be subject to site specific environmental analysis. The proposed.project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was prepared for the project. It was determined that, with the implementation of the recommended traffic mitigation measure, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. NEXT STEPS If the Planning and Transportation Commission recommends approval or approval with additional conditions, the project applicatibn will be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board for their review and recommendation to the City Council for final action. 2300 East Bayshere Road (03-D~04, 03-EIA-17)Page 7 ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B:Applicants project description. Attachment C:Record of Land Use Action (including the Site & Design Review Findings for Approval and Draft Conditions of Approval). Attachment D: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Assessment Attachment E: Plans for current project (Commissioners only) COURTESY COPIES: Clifford Chang, Hoover Associates Richard Peery Prepared by: Reviewed by: Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP, Planner ~ ~ French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning .’~~ ¯Amy Department/Division Head Approval: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official 2300 East Bayshore Road (03-D-04, 03-EIA-17)Page 8 Attachment Q B R E S S A C K and A S S E R M A N A R C H I T E C T S T W E N T Y O N E O S A G E A V E N U E LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA 94022 650-321-2871 650-941-9837 October 7, 2004 To: Palo Alto City Council Re: 2300 Embarcadero Road Dear Members of the Council, It is rare that the Architectural Review Board denies acceptance of a project. Generally speaking, an applicant will either comply with conditions or withdraw the application. In this case, the applicant has neither complied nor withdrawn, but has chosen to take his proposal to Council for review without the approval of the ARB. You have seen this proposal before as an application for a Planned Community zone, which you denied. The Planning and Transportation Commission, in its review of this smaller and zoning-compliant project, commented that the EIR for this project was acceptable because the ARB would review the aesthetic aspects of the design. Therefore, the Board felt that our responsibility was two-fold: to apply the ARB Standards for Review (PAMC 16.48.120), and to ensure the aesthetic quality required by the EIR. Aside from the technical deficiencies of the application, which might possibly have been remedied by another continuance, the project had three basic flaws that the applicant did not correct, either in his initial presentation or in any subsequent review. These relate directly to its location in the Baylands: Compliance with’ the Baylands Master Plan.requirement for compatibility with the Baylands, and for no increase in urbanization of the Baylands; 2.Compliance with the Baylands Master Plan requirement for sustainable architecture; 3.Design of the project as a gateway building, given its location at the freeway exit. Although the landscape design was changed to comply with conditions i and 2, the building was not changed at all. No attempt was made to provide remedial energy efficient measures to compensate for the POOr solar orientation, for example. The materials of the building, concrete and glass, were compared to the sand and water of the natural environment, an interpretation with which the Board was unable to agree. The applicant supported his position by saying that he had built many buildings similar to this one, only reinforcing our conclusion that he did not understand the site-specific conditions of his present project. Our decision to deny the project was unanimous. Very truly yours, Judith Wasserman, Vice Chair, ARB Attachment R FROM CITY ATTORNEY October 12, 2004 4 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Pa!o Alto, California RE: 2300 Ease Bayshore Baseline Issue Dear Members of the Council: One or more opponents Of the 2300 oEasc Bayshore project have raised the issue of the appropriate standard for the project’s Baseline. This report aEnempms to analyze the Base!ime issue and provide options for the Council’s consideration. Baseline Analysis i. Introduction When preparing environmental analysls,Usually related to an Environmental Impact Report (~EIR"), the staff must choose a Baseline environmenta! condition no snarn the analysis. The Baseline is the point from which all analysis of environK.ental impacts begins. The appropriate Baseline is mosn important for the traffic ana!ysis in this project, but it does affect other portions of the environmenta! review. Although determinlng the current Baseline for a project seems straightforward, zn fact that determinaiion is a very complicated question. There are a few easy Baseline situations to analyze. For example, the baseline of.a.site that is raw land or a site in an urban setting where there have been no strmctures for five years is obviously zero, as such sites generate no traffic. At the opposite extreme, land with existing structures that are presently unoccupied, but were occupied very recently, say within the last sixty days, should be analyzed as if the structures were fully occupied. 041012 srn 0110067 THE HONORABLE CITY COLTNCIL October 12, 2004 Page 2 RE: 2300 East Bayshore Baseline Issue A more difficult Baseline question armses for sites that have had unoccupied buildings for extended periods of time. These. situations require additiona! analys~s and legal review. This memorandum focuses on 2300 Bayshore, a project that sits within the grey area for B&seline analysis. 2. Factual Summary 2300 Bayshore consmsts of five- structures. One structure is a resnaurant that has been closed since Hay of 2002 -- a period of about nwo and one-half years. The remaining four buildings have been vacant since September of 2000, or slightly more than four years. 3. Legal Standard The question presented ~s: What is the appropriate Baseline for 2300 Bayshore? The answer depends on whether the now vacant restaurant and the long vacant office buildings are analyzed as occupied for purposes of the Baseline. The firsz step in analyzing a California Environmental Quality Ac~ ("CEQA") ~ssue is Zo examine Public Resources Code Section 21000 en seq. No provision of the Public Resources Code speaks directly to the Baseline question. The second step is the Guidelines, or administrative regulations adopted to assist in the analysis of CEQA issues. Section 15125 of the Guidelines sets a standard for Baseline: An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the zime zhe notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation ms published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and .regional perspective. This environmental se~t±ng will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. 041012 srn 0110067 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL October 12, 2004 Page 3 RE: 2300 East Bayshore Baseline Issue (14 Cal. Code Regs. § !5125(a)). This Guideline is instructive as iz provides the basic standard and timing for establishing a project’s Baseline.. Clearly, the conditions must be evaluated as they exist at the time the environmental analysis is started. However, the Guide!ine’s use of the word "normallyn is vague and leads to difficulty in interpretation because it implies that the legislative body, in this instance the City Council, has a degree of flexibility in setting the Baseline. The Guideline gives the foundational point in determining Basel~ne.; .case law addressing Baseline issues is also instructive. 4. Case Law on the Baseline Issue Although a definitive court ruling on the Baseline issue would assist the City in ins analysis, no case on point exists. In fact, there are relatively few cases that actually use the word "Baseline," and even those that do use the word end up on both sides of the issue. Authors of CEQA texts explaining Baseline refer to an additional series of Baseline cases, although many of those cases are factual in nature and. do not actually contain a judicial analysis of the Baseline concept. a. Save our Peninsula~Case The mo.st recent case on Baselines is Save our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 97 CA 4th 99, 125. Save our Peninsula concerns an EIR reviewing a residential project in Carmel Valley, for which the Board of Supervisors reviewed and adopted a water use Baseline. The Court found that the Board could set the Baseline, but rejected the EIR because there was no evidence that the Board used reasonable criteria in establishing the Baseline.. The Court required preparation of a new EIR containing a Baseline that could be justified.. The Court noted that the overall of CEQA is environmental protection, stating, ~the overriding purpose of CEQA is to ensure that agencies regulating activities that may affect the quality of the environment give primary consideration to preventing environmental damage." (97 CA 4th 99, 117 (citation omitted)). 041012 sm 0110067 THE HONOP~ABLE CITY COUNCIL October 12, 2004 Page 4 RE: ~2300 East Bayshore Baseline Issue In .addressing the requirements for establishing Baseline, the court upheld the standard of "existing conditions: .... Before the impacts of a project can be assessed and mitigation measures considered, an EIR must describe .the existingenvironment. It is only against this baseline that any significant .environmental eZfects can be determined.’" (I_~d. at i!9-20 (quoting County of Amador v. E1 Dorado County Water Agency 76 Cal. App.4th 952; Guidelines Section 15125, subd. (a), 15126.2, subd. (a))). The Court also required that the decision making body, in our circumstance the City Council, produce a reasonable analysis supported ~y clear evidence: If an EiR presents alternative methodologies for determining- a baseline condition, however, we believe CEQA requires that each~ alternative be supported by reasoned. analysis and evidence in the record so that the decision of .the agency is an informed one. We fur~ther find that the ~EIR must set forth any analysis of alternative .methodologies early enough in the environmental review process to allow for public comment and. response. This is particularly important in a case such as this, where water issues were a matter of widespread public concern, and where the determination of the figure for baseline water .usage dictated the density of the project. (.I_~d.. a~ !20) . Finally, the~Save our Peninsula court rejected the EIR because .it did not clearly describe the existing conditions, noting that "As various courts, including this one, have held, the impacts of the project~ must be measured against the ’tea! conditions on the ground.’" (Id. at 121 (quoting Carmel-by-the Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 246)). The court concluded, that .the. Board’s "treatment of baseline water violated the basic principles of CEQA, which require that an EIR start with a description of the existing environment." (Id. at 120) 041012 sm 0110067 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL October 12, 2004 Page 5 RE: 2300 East Bayshore Baseline Issue Save our Peninsula tackles the traffic Base!±ne issue a bit differently, suggesting .that the time of project approval might create a more accurate environ_mental analysis than would be generated by using the time of initial envirornmental review. The Court opined, ~Since the environmental review process can take a number of years, traffic levels as of the time the project is approved may be a more accurate representation of the existing baseline against which to measure the impact of the project. (See e.g. Fairview Neighbors Group v. County of Ventura (1999) 70 Cal.App.4~h 238 [maximum estimated traffic was appropriate baseline] Id~ at 126)." 5. VTA Ana!ysis of Baseline The Valley Transportation Authority (~VTA~) provides some input on Baseline in their Transportatfon Impact Analysis Guidelines. Like Save Our Peninsula, VTA acknowledges the flexible approach needed for the traffic arena by making their guideline suggestive~ ("ma~") instead of mandatory. VTA’s approach is as follows, at p. 18.: Vacant or Underutilized Development: If the proposed project involves a Vacant or underutilized development site with development rights, the number of trips originally associated with that development may be included in the background conditions. The background trips associated" with the vacant or underutilized development should be estimated from trip generation rates, size and land use type of the existing site. The ~project trips" would be the additiona! trips generated by the re-occupancy of the Site, i.e. the total number of trips generated by the. proposed project minus the estimated background trips of the vacant or underutilized development.If the proposed project involves a vacant or underutilized site without development rights, al! trips generated by. the proposed project would be ~project trips. 041012 sm 0110067 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL October 12, 2004 Page 6 RE: 2300’East Bayshore Base!ine Issue ¯What does Save our Peninsula mean to the City of Pale Alto and the review of the 2300 Bayshore project? Save our Peninsula allows the City Council to adopt any Baseline as long as it clearly justifies that determination. The case also sets the Baseline for traffic .at the time of approval, while a!l other environmenta! analysis is tied to the time of commencing .environmental review. If the City Council were to follow Save our Peninsula, a separate evaluation of the two abandoned buildings would be needed. a. The Restaurant The restaurant has been ’closed for two and one half years. Although there i:s .no Case directly iaddressing the issue, that time period is probably not long enough to justify evaluating the restaurant, as an empty building and giving no ~credit" to the developer for the occupied restaurant. However, the cases require evaluating development based on conditions permitted for the land. In this case, the land on which the restaurant is located already been rezoned to commercial (light industrial), which could justify a refusal to count the restaurant as occupied..However, .this is a dramatic approach and the Council may wish to authorize the baseline as inc~gding a fully occupied restaurant. b. The ~Office Buildings Save our Peninsula .seems to support a refusal to provide ~credit" toward th6 Baseline for the four office bui-!dings that have been vacant for more than four years. However, Save our Peninsula is by no means the only authority on Baseline. Several cases support the approach in Save our Peninsula, but a nearly equivalent amount takes a different view.. Ultimately, Save our Peninsula is valuable to the City Council because it approves of and vests within them the discretion to choose the baseline. 041012 sm 0110067 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL October 12, 2004 Page 7 RE: 2300 East Bayshore Baseline !ssne 7. Other Baseline Cases County of Amador v. E1 Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 CA 4th 931, cited by Save our Peninsula, rejected an EIR and reciuired additional CEQA review based upon an improper Baseline choice, nothing that ~[a]n EIR must focus on impacts to the existing environment, not hypothetical cases." The other compelling case on the Baseline problem is Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of E1 Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 352. The E.P.I.C. case led to the adoption of the Guideline in section 15195. E.P.I.C. rejected an EIR- f,or the adoption of an amended General Plan (Palo Afro’s General Plan is called a Comprehensive Plan) that reviewed" future projections rather than actual conditions. Lewis v. Seventeenth District Agricultural Associations (1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 823, also rejected the Baseline (although that word was not Used) and required an EIR. Save our Peninsula ~seems to follow the reasoning in the E.P.I.C. and Lewis~ cases. Baseline. Cases that Uphold a Variance that is Different From Present Cbnditions There is a line o~ cases that contradicts the decisions .in Save our Peninsula, County of Amador, E.P.I~C., and Carmel-by-the Sea. These contradicting cases review and approve EIRs where the conditions used to establish a Baseline include existing illegal ’activi<y, long standing operations started before permit~ were required, or activities without a permit or based upon an old permit. These cases include Fairview ~Neighbors v. County of Ventura (1999) 70 Cal. App.4th 238, Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. v. P.U.C. (1990) 50 Ca!.3d 370, and Committee for a Progressive Gilroy v.. State Water Resources Control Board (3d Dist. 1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 847. Fairview upheld the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations based on an EIR that examined mining activities. Although the mine at issue was not operating at the full capacity al!owed in its Conditional Use Permit, the Court allowed the EIR to be based upon the highest permitted use rather than the actual use, which was significantly !ower than 041012 sm 0110067 THE HONOP~ABLE CITY COIINCIL October 12, 2004 Page 8 RE: 2300 East Bayshore Baseline Issue the permit maximum. This case is also noteworthy because a Statement of Overriding Considerations was involved, and Palo Alto may need to consider adopting Statements of Overriding Considerations for projects that, due to Baseline calculations, generate significant impacts. Napa Valley Wine Train upheld the use of a CEQA exemption for the operation of the new Napa Valley Wine Train even though the ~ail line~ were not in use when the project was proposed because sometime in the recent past the railroad right of way had been used for freigh} line[ Cases using the Fairview Baseline approach reach a different conclusion from the cases applying the Save our Peninsula Baseline rationale. Taken together, these cases illustrate the problem in assessing Baseline--courts taketwo approaches and, clearly _reasonable minds can differ onthe issue. Council Options The Counci! has the fol~owing options: Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project, and find that the Baseline chosen in the Mitigated Negative Declaration is correct. Reject i the " Mitigated Negative Declaration by determining Zhat the wrong Baseline was chosen. Direct staff that the Baseline should not include the traffic generated by the office buildings., it is likely that staff would be directed to bring this matter back to ¯ the Council after the calculations have been~ completed. Reject theMitigated Declaration by determining that the wrong Baseline was chosen. Direct staff that the Baseline should not include the traffic generated by the office buildings or the restaurant. It is likely that staff would be directed to bring the matter back to the Counci! after the calculations have been completed. 04]012 sm 0110067 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL October 12, 2004 Page 9 RE: 2300 East Bayshore Baseline Issue ~i0. Recommendations and Conclusion~ Baseline .determination is not straightforward. It requires a [act based, project-by-project analysis. Any of the three options listed above are legally defensible. Based upon the information provided to the City Attorney to date, the City Attorney recommends that Option 2, rejecting the .Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommending. deletion of the "credit" for the four vacant office buildings with the matter to return to Council for final action after completion of the environmenta! review by staff. This is a matter for. Council determination and the Council is entitled to choose any option listed. I will be available at the Council to respond to questions on this difficult issue. Respectfully submitted, GARY N. BAUM City Attorney @KS:sm cc:Frank Benest, City Manager Emily Harrison, Assistant City Manager Carl Yeats, Director of Administrative Services Steve Emslie, Director of Planning and Community Environment 0~-1012 sm 0110067 Attachment S Dear Mayor and city Council Members:October 13,2004 I have reviewed the MND with respect to traffic impacts. My conclusion is that pursuant to Section 15064 of CEQA, an EIR must be prepared. My argument is presented below on why I find that the project in its current form may result in significant unmitigated impact on the environment. I have included substantial evidence, in the form of referenced material from the literature and manuals and basic engineering calculations to support all claims. These comments are in addition to comments on this project and the MND that were submitted to the City in January. The Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) incorrectly evaluates the project’s AM, PM peak, and daily trip generation. It fails to properly evaluate the baseline and the zoning land use designation’s in the project scope. CEQA requires that the project’s environmental review include an accurate and complete evaluation of the project’s traffic impacts. The analysis to date is inadequate and there is a need for the analysis to be updated and corrected. There is a need for the full scope of the project to be examined and analyzed using proper and correct assumptions and methodologies including baseline assumptions and trip generation for the full scope of the uses permitted at the site. The proposed traffic impacts were incorrectly evaluated in the MND Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) by Fehr and Peers. In particular, the Fehr and Peers TIA failed to properly estimate the traffic generation for the proposed project. The Fehr and Peers TIA estimated traffic impacts using the land use code for thd’proposed project, Land Use Code# 710 for a "General Office Building," that does not adequately reflect the full scope of the uses permitted at the site. Recall that there are a number of possible uses allowed within the OR zoning land use designation. Table 1 lists four possible permitted uses1 in the Office Research district and the associated Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) land use codes2 and the average3 AM peak, PM peak, and daily trip generation estimates for the 74,000 square foot building. Office Research District/ Permitted Uses/ 74,000 sq. ft. Building Table 1 Trip Generation Estimates for the Permitted Uses in the Office Research District of a 74,000 sq. ft. Building ,,~,~ .AM Peak PM Peak DailyTotal e Hour Trip Hour Trip Trip Generation 4 Generation 5 Generation 6 1 from Municipal Code 18.37.030 land use designation of OR office research district 22 ITE Manual 6th edition 3 Table 1 uses the average ITE factor, however factors that are more precisely extrapolated from the particular graphs for the 74000 sq ft building will be submitted in an added memo to the City Council prior to the City Council meeting.4 Trip generation for the 1000 sqft Gross Floor Area 5 Trip generation for the 1000 sqft Gross Floor Area 6 Trip generation for the 1000 sqft Gross Floor Ar’ea Junior/Community 540 132 College Day Care 565 940 Center Medical-Dental 720 179 Office Building General Office 710 115 Building 123 976 271 110 1359 5865 2674 815 Table 1 shows that [he "General Office Building" category results in the lowest AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily trip generation amounts of the four permitted uses examined in the table. Selection of the category °’General Office" for the analysis of the proposed project’s traffic impacts results in a failure to properly estimate and evaluate the potentially significant CEQA impacts of the full scope of this project. Although there may be current intent for this project to be built for general office use, there is no guarantee that the site after being approved or constructed will become or be maintained as a general office building. Instead, the site may be converted to any of the other permitted uses without having to undergo additional environmental review. The CEQA evaluation should therefore have included an analysis of the environmental impacts of the worst permitted use case scenario. It is worth noting that the supposition that the site may be converted to some other use is not an implausible case There is in fact at least one other site in the area of the proposed project where conversion of this sort has precisely occurred and resulted in unanticipated and significant traffic impacts. In 1981, an application was submitted for a 24,758 sq. ft. Office/Warehouse building at 151 Laura Lane, near the signalized Laura/Embarcadero intersection immediately north of the project’s Embarcadero/East Bayshore intersection. However, in March, 2000, a building permit was issued to allow conversion of the commercial/industrial building to a school -- a permitted use under the zoning. The International School of the Peninsula has since generated significant amounts of traffic and congest~on about which ~here have been a number of public hearings with considerable public testimony presented regarding the negative traffic impacts. CEQA requires a "worst case scenario" analysis to avoid problems like this. With the experience of the.International School in mind, we believe it is in the best interest of Palo Alto, and a requirement of CEQA, to fully evaluate the traffic impacts of all possible potential uses allowed under the zoning for the site. With the amount of excess vacant office space in the 2300 East Bayshore project area, there is probability that the site may not be in demand and occupied as an office. Instead. there is known demand in the area for housing, lodging, medical offices, day care centers, etc. which are all permitted uses at this site. The City must require evaluation of all of the potential uses, or at a minimum the worst case scenario, to estimate the potential impacts on trips, intersection levels of service, air quality, etc of the full scope of the project. Until this analysis is completed, there is no way to fully comprehend the environmental impacts of this project. Importantly, Table 1 provides trip generation data for the 74,000 sq. ft. building using a zero baseline methodology. A zero baseline methodology (a method that reflects that the existing uses at the project site are five vacant buildings)provides a more accurate and correct assessment of additional traffic generation to the city of Palo Alto. Using a zero baseline methodology with the full scope of the permitted land uses results in a more reasonable estimation of the project’s potentially significant traffic impacts. Using these assumptions and methodology, the project generates significant amounts of traffic and would create significant or potentially significant impacts. Even if the Fehr and Peer’ s incorrect baseline methodology is used that assumed that the project site’s vacant buildings were fully occupied and operational, Table 2 shows that the project would still generate potentially significant AM and PM peak trips and daily trips. The impacts of these trips were not assessed i.n theMND’s traffic impact analysis. Table 2 lists trip generation data using the Fehr and Peers incorrect baseline methodology and shows net new trips calculated for various permitted uses of the 74,000 sq: ft. project. This analysis applies the methodology and land use categories for the existing buildings that are used by Fehr and Peers in the TIA: [trip estimates for a new fully occupied 74,000 sq. ft. building] minus. [trip estimates for four fuli~y occupied office buildings totaling 33,200 square feet plus trip estimates for a fully occupied and viable restaurant totaling 8,400 sf] to arrive at the ’°net new project trips." Table 2 Net New Trips Generated by a 74,000 sq. ft. Building: Permitted Uses in the Office Research District Office Research .District/ Permitted Uses/ 74,000 sq. ft. Building Junior/C0mmunity College Day Care Center Medical-Dental Office Building General Office Building ITE Code 54O 565 72O 710 Net New AM Peak Hour Trips7 73 881 120 56 Net New PM Peak Hour Trips8 11 864 159 0 Net New Daily Trips9 (Actually Mihus two by calculation) 237 4743 1552 0 (Actually Minus 308 by calculation) As this Table demonstrates, even using the Fehr and Peers incorrect baseline methodology, the project generates significant amounts of traffic and would create significant or potentially significant impacts. Trip generation for the 1000 sqft Gross Floor Area Trip generation for the 1000 sqft Gross Floor Area Trip generation for the 1000 sqft Gross Floor Area When the permitted uses at this site are correctly considered, the project generates a significant number of AM and PM peak hour trips as well as daily trips. The intersection impacts of these trips needs to be conducted. Importantly, these calculations show that the project generates more than 100 AM and PM peak trips in a number of permitted categories thus exceeding the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Plan threshold of significance. The TIA fails to recognize that the proposed project exceeds the SC County’s Peak Hour trip threshold, triggering the need for Countywide mitigations. The county has its 100 Peak Hour trip threshold, and there is s.ubstantial evidence presented that this project exceeds this threshold when the full suite of potential uses for a 74,000 square foot building at this site are evaluated. Table 1 and Table 2both show that there are cases where the proposed project would result in peak hour trip generation greater than 100. Attached also is a copy of my memo with comments on this project and the MND that were submitted to the City in January. Sincerely, Antoinette "Toni" Stein, PhD 800 Magnolia Street Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: 650-853-0314 cell: 650-823-7662 tweil @igc.org To: Palo Alto City Council January Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for 2300 East Bayshore Road comments. Dear Mayor and Council Members: I write to you with concerns regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed project at 2300 East Bayshore. Please do not approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Instead consider that the project may cause significant environmental impacts and require the project to conduct a thorough environmental impact report (EIR) or at a minimum carefully consider the potentially significant environmental impacts that~ have not yet been mitigated and device appropriate mitigations to abate these issues. I possess a PhD in Environmental Engineering. Additionally I possess expertise in reviewing project impacts since I served as a Planning Commissioner in Menlo Park for 4 years (1999-2003). Additionally. I review environmental impact concerns regarding traffic and development in my current capacity as a Member on the San Mateo County Congestion Management and Air Quality Commission (CMAQ)1°. The Tables in the following BAAQMD report at http://www.baaqmd.gov/pio/aqsummaries/pollsum02.pdf shows that the federal ambient air quality standards for ozone criteria pollutant and PM10 and PM 2.5 have not been met in the Bay area over the past years back to 1993. Near the 2300 East Bayshore site ( redwood city and Sunnyvale and Fremont measuring stations all show exceedences of the air quality criteria standards for the year 2002. ,Also the following BAAQMD report, http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/ambientairqualit¥.asp shows that the cumulative air quality throughout the 9 county Bay Area air basin as recent as 2003 indicating that the region is classified as Nonattainment for the i-hour ozone Federal and California State Ozone Standard, the State PM10 and PM2.5 standard. With air quality in the region non-attainment for ozone the contributions of projects such as 2300 East Bayshore exacerbate and degrade air quality worse. The baselines used for the MND do not reflect the unoccumpied vacant site and skew the assessment of the impacts of this project. If one considered the baseline zero then the project impacts calculated for the project in the Fehr and Peers report according to ITE calculations may 10 These comments represent my personal viewpoin~t and do not claim to represent any of the bodies that I am affiliated with. exceed the significance threshold for the BAAQMD’s NOx or hydrocarbon precursors (VOCs). These calculations were not adequately made. The proposed development will result in a change in the area covered by paved cover pervious or impervious and this significant change in paved coverage to provide the 300 parldng spaces may significantly contribute to additional heat generation from energy from the sun. There were no conditions of approval requiring that the paving material possess and be maintained with an emissivity that is equivalent or less than the baseline characteristic of the material covering the ground such that there would be no significant heat build up that may significantly increase the production of ozone at this site that is located directly adjacent to the 101 highway where NOx and hydrocarbon emissions are high in addition to the emissions brought by the project itself. Additionally the mitigations for fugitive dust generation during construction on the site may not be adequate relative to the construction activities described for the project. Particularly it was described that the asphalt concrete is to be removed from the site for the new construction and grading. No specific fugitive dust plan was provided for the project description malting the environmental impact assessment inadequate since it is not possible to assess whether the dust and particulate that will be generated from the removal of the existing pavement is in fact going to be m,.itigated properly. During such activities water spraying is needed on~ the site where the Pavement is being broken and crushed and picked up and dropped into trucks. Such mitigations go beyond the dust control conditions in #45. The dust and particulate from these activities may result in public health impacts if they are not mitigated. For example, workers and people in the vicinity could be triggered into asthmatic conditions if this is not controlled properly. Soils: There is no valid soils report on file for the project. The Geotechnical Investigation and Pavement Design dated 2000 states in its contents on page 17 number 3, " The findings of this report are valid as of the present time. However the passing of time will change the conditions of the existing property due to natural processes, works of man, from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Therefore, ~this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Traffic In Attachment B, The Record of the Land use Action for 2300 East Bayshore Road: Site and Design review 03-D-04 and EIA O3-EIA-17 it states on page 3 Section 3 that " An EIA was prepared for the project and it was determined that, with the implementation of traffic mitigation measures, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. Also the Staff report dated Jan.uary 15th 2004 recommends that the MND be approved with the finding that the project does not result in significant environmental impacts based on the findings and subiect to the conditions in the Record o.fLand Use Action. Staff report states that the PTC on Dec. 17, 2003 proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of trip generation. It states that conditions # 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 on page 2 and 3 of that staff report, "have been incorporated into the Record of Land use Action (Attachment B)" In particular condition #10 states that : "A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan shall be submitted to the Transportation Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The TDM shall contain, but not limited to, promotion on the use of bicycles, transit passes, funding for the PA Free Shuttle Service, a carpool matching program, van pool sponsorship, telecommuting opportunities, etc. Attachment B attached to the January 15th staff report however does not reflect that conditions # 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12.on page 2 and 3 of that staff report have been incorporated as stated. Attachment A lists under Alternative Transportation only that " Showers and Lockers provided for bicyclists" This does not adequately comply with Condition #3 listed above. Page 14 of the MND lists that potentially significant negative environmental impacts are brought by the project unless mitigation is incorporated for a substantial increase the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersection., and b exceed a level of service standard. The MND among other things states on page 22 that the project would generate 98 new trips in the morning and 37 in the evening peak hour. If the true baseline of zero were used however then the numbers of trips generated by this project would be considered substantial and therefore need to be mitigated. No mitigation measures to addresg trip generation for the CEQA process or to comply with the Record of Land use Actions. The traffic signal fair share mitigation does not address mitigating these new trips but instead addresses a separat.e traffic concern - impact to signalized intersections. The project does not adequately mitigate the traffic impacts. It is inadequate to state that a TDM plan would be created after the MND is approved since the conditions of the TDM plan are critical an assessing the environmental impacts In addition the conditions of the TDM plan would be considered part of the project and their environmental impacts need to be assessed. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Section VII of the MND) The MND wrongly states that the project has "no impact" in the check list for Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The environmental impacts were not adequately assessed in the MND and need to be amended to reflect that the project may create a potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials if it is not mitigated. ( Sub section VII (a)). In particular Mitigations are needed to prevent the possible adverse environmental impacts of the project condition requiring the use of fluorescent bulbs. Note that in the project staff report dated Jan. 15 2004 in Attachment A it states that" the following sustainable materials/methods are incorporated into the project: " and in the Section for Energy and Atmosphere it states that the project will "Use all fluorescent interior lighting versus incandescent" The Depgrtment of Toxic Substances has aclcnowledged the scientific. data supporting the assessment that broken fluorescent, lamps are one of the largest sources of mercury in California’s landfills. The DTSC report states that, "For instance, as noted in San Francisco Bay TMDL 2000 Report11 and the Palo Alto Mercury Headworks Analysis12, amalgam and fluorescent lights are considered sources of mercury in the Bay and in wastewater." And, "In like fashion, most fluorescent tubes currently contain mercury in concentrations that are considered hazardous waste and must be managed accordingly. However, as manufacturing industry progresses and the mercury concentration in lighting is reduced to the point that the lighting waste is below the hazardous waste threshold, the consequences m.ay equate to a significant source of mercury to air, water and land. That is, the quantity of lighting waste, along with their reduced concentrations of mercury to nonhazardous was.t,e levels, may add up to a significant amount of mercury, adding to the total mercury burden in air and water, as well as to their impact to directland contamination..." And, "Mercury air emissions due to breakage, spills, and leaks are uncontrolled and cause an incremental increase in the inhalation hazard. Mercury may enter the water due to breakage, spills, leaks and improper storage or disposal and enter storm drains and ultimately the open waters." As a result there is evidence that disposal of fluorescent tubes may adversely impact our environment. As a result the MND should be amended to require that all fluorescent tubes removed from the project due to use ate to the greatest extent possible removed and not intentionally broken and that they are required to be properly delivered to a recycler for recycling. Assessing the baseline of the buildings lighting and comparing it to the projects quantity of fluorescent lighting was not adequately presented in the project description. Also the MND failed to calculate and show the estimated number of fluorescent tubes entering the environment as a result of the project is significant. The following calculation shows the significant amount .of mercury that would enter the environment without mitigations: Assume: The building will require 2 fluorescent light bulbs per 400 square feet. This would be 1/200 tube per square foot. For the 73932 sq foot building, 3697 tubes in the whole building. Assuming that the bulbs would be changed 2 times per year. And the building would last 30 years. Tl-iis would be 221820 bulbs disposed of. The San Francisco Bay TMDL 2000 Report cites data that commonly-used T8 fluorescent tubes contain approximately 10 mg of mercury each. Hence if no mitigation were required, 2218200 mgs of mercury may enter the environment. Compared to the baseline where the building square footage is significantly smaller and the use of fluorescent tubes is not required it is concluded that there is evidence that this project may adversely impact the enwronment if proper mitigations are not put as conditions to this project. 1] California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (SFRWCB), 2000. Watershed Management of Mercury in the San Francisco Bay Estuary: Total Maximum Daily Load Report to U.S. EPA.- 12 Barron, Thomas, 2001. Mercury Headworks Analysis for 2000. Biological Resources The MND wrongly states that the project has "no impact" in the check list for Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The environmental impacts were not adequately assessed in the MND and need to be amended to reflect that the project may create a potentially significant hazard to the environment by interfering substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wild life corridors. ( Sub section IV (d)). In particular the MND does not recognize that the project may significantly result in potentially significant negative impacts on bird nesting unless mitigated. In particular the MND inadequately states on page 18, "No endangered, threatened, or special status animal or plant species have been identified at the project site." Without any supporting authority. The project description and reports do not include any biological resource evaluation by any professional experts. The project description instead states that the project is located at 2300 East Bayshore witl-iin the Baylands designated area of Palo Alto. The critical resource that the Baylands serves to migratory birds is stated in a Palo Alto City spgnsored brochure for the Baylands: "Traveling from the northern reaches of our continent to the warm south coasts, migrating birds depend on the rich food sources found in the wetlands along the way.’’13 And the Audubon society’s book entitled Birding at the Bottom of the Bay lists the numerous wide array of birds that visit and nest in this habitat including rare birds14. The following birds are listed as rare, threatened and endangered: Burrowing Owl, California Least Tern, California Clapper Rail, the tri-colored blackbird, and the northern harrier. The attached photos provide evidence that migratory bird nests exist on the project site in trees that appear to be removed by the project plans unless special conditions are made to protect these bird habitats~5. The removal of these trees would destroy the habitat of the wildlife birds that use these Ba,,lands as their migratory corridor. The project does not recognize that it may significantly impact the birds and it provides no adequate mitigation for these impacts. Sincerely, Antoinette "Toni" Stein, PhD 800 Magnoiia Street Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: 650-853-0314 cell: 650-823-7662 tweil@igc.org 13Birds of the Baylands, http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/ross/naturepreserve/pdf/baylands/panel3.pdf14Birding at the Bottom of the Bay, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Chapter I, 1990.~5The photos were delivered to the Palo Alto Planning department on 1/30/2004 for Mr. Riordan and date stamped by the clerk. Fr~ench, Amy ~ __ T _ ~ From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Toni Stein [tweil@igc.org] Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:12 PM Toni Stein; French, Amy Riordan, Chris; Emslie, Steve Re: comments for 2300 East Bayshore 041013 Ltr Cal Review.doc > Attached is a memo zhat I would like to enter into the record for the MND and the project at 2300 EB for the CC > packet I will also send you a list of David Liebgold’s full credentials. > Antoinette "Toni" Stein, PhD > 800 Magnolia Street > Menlo Park, CA 94025 > > Telephone:650-853-0314 > cell:650-823-7662 > tweil@igc.org > October 13, 2004 Mrs. Antoinette Stein, PhD 800 Magnolia Street Menlo Park, CA 94025 Re: ITE Trip Generation for a 75, 000 square foot building Dear Mrs. Stein: Traffic projections for proposed developments are typically prepared using rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. This ITE reference includes compilations of trip generation data collected at various uses in the United States. Table I displays the projected trip generation rates for the uses Medical-dental Office Building (720) and General Office Building (710) utilizing the ITE manual fitted curve equations. Medical-Dental 720 Office Building General Office 710 Building Table 1 ITE Trip Generation 74,000 sq. ft. Building ITE AM Peak Code Hour Trip Generation 180 149 PM Peak Hour Trip Generation 241 162 Daily Total Trip Generation 2851 1068 Other use categories of Junior Community College (540) and Day Care Center (565) are both irrelevant for a 74,000 s.f. building due to area being to large .for a typical day care use and to small for a typical Junior College use. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (201) 723-9019. Sincerely, David Liebgold Transportation Project Engineer