Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-03 City CouncilCity of Palo City Manager’s Report 5 TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING -~rD COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 3, 2002 CMR:IS0:03 800 HIGH STREET [02-PC-01]: REQUEST BY HIGH STREET PARTNERS, LLC FOR REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM THE COMMERCIAL DO~rNTOWN SERVICE WITH PEDESTRIAN OVERLAY (CD-S(P)) DISTRICT TO PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONE, TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING _+17,600 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 61 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, _+1,900 SQUARE FEET OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING RETAIL SPACE, A SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND ’A VARIANCE FOR A PORTION OF THE FOURTH FLOOR THAT EXCEEDS THE CITY’S HEIGHT REQUIREMENT.ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) HAS BEEN PREPARED. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, including the program for mitigation, monitoring and reporting, based upon the findings in the CEQA Resolution contained in Attachment A. o Approve a zone change from the existing Downtown Commercial Service with Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S(P)) to Planned Community (PC) and g-rant a variance from the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.68.150(b) to allow portions of the project within 150 feet of the Planned Community District at 901 Alma Street (PC-4389) to extend above 35 feet (Attachment B). CIVlN:150:03 1 of 15 BACKGROUND The project before the Council is for a review of a design presented by High Street Partners, LLC, represented by Doug Ross and Curt Peterson. A previous proposal for the site was presented by the High Street Creamery Association, LLC. It requested a PC zone change to allow the construction of a mixed-use building containing approximately 37,000 square feet of office, 33 affordable housing units, and 2,500 square feet of retail space. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared in May 1999, and amended in September 2001, but was never certified by the City Council. On March 25, 2002, staff asked the City Council to initiate a pre-application review for a proposed PC zone change at the subject site (as per PAMC 18.97). The project included a predominantly residential mixed-use development, with market rate and below market rate (BMR) condominium units, approximately 1,900 square feet of retail space and a two-level subterranean garage. The City Council denied the request for pre-application review of the PC zone change. The City Council indicated its intention that the 800 High Street project should comply with the South of Forest Area, Phase 2 Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA 2 CAP) when the plan was completed. On November 18, 2002, the City Council continued its SOFA 2 CAP hearing to a date uncertain, until massing studies have been completed and presented to the City’s boards and commissions for their recommendation to Council. The massing study has been completed and was reviewed by the Historic Resources Board on January 15, 2003 and by the Architectural Review Board on January 16, 2003. The Planning and Transportation Commission is expected to review the massing study on February 4, 2003. The proposed project consists of the following components: Demolition of all existing structures on the site, including the Family Service Laundry building, a structure that appears eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. "O Const~’uction of a +96,000 square foot building (FAR 2.29:1) consisting of tln’ee and four story elements that range from 35’ to 50’ tall, plus stairway, elevator, and equipment towers that extend to approximately 55 feet (allowed per zoning). Sixty-one for-sale residential units, including eleven Below Market Rate (BMR) units. The unit configuration includes five one-bedroom unit, 34 two-bedroom units and 22 three-bedroom units. The total residential floor area would be approximately 78,000 square feet. CMR:150:03 2 of 15 Approximately 1,900 square feet of retail space, located in two separate retail units. Both units would have frontage on Homer Avenue. The space closest to the comer of High Street and Homer Avenue would have direct access to the courtyard on High Street, which is a publicly accessible space. A publicly accessible plaza at the comer of Channing Avenue and High Street, containing seating, landscaping, and a water feature. Benefits of the project include the following: A transit-oriented residential development consisting of 61 housing units within walking distance of the Palo Alto train station and neighborhood services, inc!uding a ~ocery store. Additional neighborhood serving retail space, and publicly accessible open spaces. The proposed SOFA 2 CAP emphasizes the need for both neighborhood serving retail and attractive publicly accessible open spaces. Both the Planning Commission and ARB found the plazas in need of redesign, and the Planning Commission added a requirement that a restroom in or near the retail establishments be available to the public during normal business hours. A subterranean parking garage that would fully park the proposed uses and provide an additional 57 parking spaces for uses to be determined by the City. The garage would provide parking for the residential and retail uses of the building. Fifty-seven of the . spaces would be made available to the City for the life of the project. Sixty-three public parking spaces would initially be provided before the subterranean connection is constructed, as described below. Undergound vehicular access to possible future subterranean garages below the sites on the 800 block of Alma Street. The Utilities Department has identified the City- owned electrical substation site in this block as a housing site upon relocation of the utility equipment. The applicants propose that the 800 High Street garage would serve as the connection and primary access point to this, and other, future garages. As a result of this connection, more affordable housing could be built at the City-owned site than would otherwise be possible. In addition, as the other sites along the 800 block of Alma Street are developed, they would be able to build subterranean garages that have access from the 800 High Street garage. The applicant’s Development Statement and Schedule is contained in Attachment D. CMR: 150:03 3 of 15 Building Design The proposed housing project at 800 High Street would be the largest new development in the South Of Forest Phase 2 Area. Along High Street, the most visible side of the building, special emphasis was placed on the entries to the gound floor units that face the street. The High Street side of the building was specifically designed to minimize expansive, unbroken building masses. The roof forms, the articulated building volumes and setbacks, the placement of exterior finishes and gound level planter boxes would help to break-up the building into smaller, pedestrian scaled elements. The result of this design is a large, multi-family residential building composed of smaller-scale building elements that is more accessible to pedestrians. Smaller scale, pedestrian design elements are also present along the Homer Avenue side of the building. This side of the building would be compatible with the proposed SOFA 2 RT-35 zone district directly across Homer Avenue. A publicly accessible open area near the comer of Homer Avenue and High Street would provide areas for seating and gathering and would provide secondary access for one of the commercial tenants. Large, divided light windows would recall the windows of the Family Service Laundry building. The tallest portions of the building are located at Channing Avenue and adjacent to Lane 8 West. These portions of the building would be adjacent to those sites in the SOFA 2 area that are proposed to rezoned RT-50, which would allow a maximum height of 50’ in this district. A publicly accessible open area at the comer of High Street and Channing Avenue containing landscaping, seating and a water feature will provide a place for pedestrians to gather. This comer open space would complement a publicly accessible open space area at the recently approved project at 901-925 High Street. The portion of the building along Lane 8 West (the alley) would contain residential building masses that extend to 50’ and a stairwell/trash!recycling tower that extends to approximately 55’ (allowed per PAMC 18.88.100). Four private, landscaped courtyards that would provide common open space areas for residents would separate the six building masses along the alley. The alley will be used to access the mechanical, electrical and waste disposal systems of the building. Landscaping The landscape plan goals include the addition of plant material throughout the project that is well-inte~ated with the architecture and design of the building and the site’s immediate surroundings. The landscape architect has identified specific zones that would be designed with landscaping features that directly relate to each zones primary use and function. The publicly accessible courtyard (at approximately 780 square feet) would be landscaped with small trees, shrubs and ground cover and have a seating area available for customers of the retail spaces. The public plaza (at approximately 800 square feet) CMR:150:03 4 of 15 would help connect the site to the public and private areas at the intersection of High Street and Channing Avenue. Both the Planning Commission and ARB recommend redesig-n of these spaces, and provision of access to a restroom in or near the retail spaces, to make them more attractive and useful to the public. These conditions have been included in the proposed ordinance and resolution. DISCUSSION Planning and Transportation Commission Review On January 15, 2003, the Planning and Transportation Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Planned Community zone change, and forwarded the following additional recommendations to the City Council, which have been incorporated in the proposed ordinance and resolutions: The maximum unit size shall be no g-reater than the largest unit size as proposed (1,702 square feet) and the average unit size shall not exceed an area to be recommended by staff. Staff recommends that the average unit size (not including the BMR units) shall be no greater than 1,400 square feet. The existing encroachments into the proposed daylight plane along High Street (as defined in the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommended SOFA 2 CAP) shall remain. The preservation of the historic Family Service Laundry building is not feasible given its condition and would impede the atta]nment of other SOFA Coordinated Area Plan objectives and the City Council should adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations as described in the Section 6 of the resolution certifying the Final EIR (Attachment C). The variance to exceed the maximum height of 35’ along the Channing Avenue side of the building should be approved, with the condition that the applicant reduce the massing elements and building volumes along this side, subject to review by the Architectural Review Board. The BMR pro~am as proposed should be approved, subject to review and recommendation from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. Publicly accessible open-space shall be expanded and redesigned at the Homer Avenue/High Street intersection and the Channing Avenue/High Street intersection. The private and common open space areas shall be expanded and improved. The applicant shall consider providing publicly accessible restroom facilities in or near the retail areas along Homer Avenue. Commissioners discussed reduction of floor area to comply with the Commission’s recommended SOFA 2 CAP of 2.0:1. They concluded after studying this particular project that the floor area would be reduced appropriately as the applicant complied with the requirements to reduce massing along Channing Avenue and increase the size of the open spaces. Verbatim minutes from the January 15, 2003 meeting are contained in Attachment E. CMR: 150:03 5 of 15 With respect to the demolition of the Family Laundry Services building, the Commission discussed the likely results of any restoration, and the impediment such restoration presented to achieving such important SOFA 2 CAP goals as market rate and affordable housing and addressing the parking shortage in the area.. It concluded that these factors justified the loss of the historic resource. Staff had recommended that any project approval be subject to compliance with any adopted SOFA 2 CAP. The Planning Commission rejected this recommendation, concluding that the Project, with the modifications recommended by the ARB and Planning Commission, meets the goals defined in the SOFA CAP process. Historic Resources Board Review At the November 20, 2002 HRB meeting, the Board reviewed revised project plans designed to reduce the apparent scale of the project on High Street, and to enhance the project’s compatibility with Homer Avenue. The Board reviewed the plans in light of the following design direction for new construction on the 800 High Street site that the City Council provided at its meeting of February 20, 200!: "In terms of design considerations, direct staff to look for opportunities to reconfigure the building to take advantage of established patterns by other developments in the area;" "Direct staff and applicant to break down the scale of the project not to read as a single building but as several different buildings;" "Refer the Homer Street fa,cade treatment to the Historic Resources Board." The HRB voted 4-1-1-1 to recommend to the City Council that the revised project plans appear consistent with Council’s design direction for the site. Also, in response to a November 19, 2002 report from the applicant’s historic consultant that questioned the Family Service Laundry building’s eligibility for the California Register, the HRB unanimously recommended that the City provide updated information on the building’s California Register eligibility. Finally, the Board unanimously recommended that the City provide a qualified study of the historic rehabilitation of the building consistent with the Council’s direction at its February 20, 2001 meeting "to review and consider incorporating the historic element of the Peninsula Creamery [originally the Family Service Laundry] building into the project" (Attachment F) At the December 18, 2003 HRB meeting, the Board reviewed further revisions to the project plans. The Board concurred with the staff recommendation that the revised project appeared compatible with Homer Avenue and High Street. The Board also unanimously recommended that the City provide a Historic Structure Report that would CMR:150:03 6 of 15 determine whether the Family Service Laundry building could be rehabilitated in a manner that would preserve its historic inte=~ty. In early January 2003, the City, consistent with the HRB’s recommendation, retained Architectural Resources Group (ARG) to prepare an updated report on the eligibility of the Family Service Laundry building for the California Register. The report was provided to the HRB at the January 8, 2003 Board meeting. In the report ARG reviewed all the information on the building, including the report by the applicant’s historic consultant, that had become available since ARG’s original determination of the building’s California Register eligibility in 1999. ARG concluded "that while the Family Service Laundry has been altered, it retains sufficient levels of inte=~ty to qualify for the California Register" and "should thus be considered a ’historical resource’ under CEQA" (Attachment G). At the January 8, 2003 HRB meeting, the Board reviewed several published studies relating to historic rehabilitation of deteriorated buildings, and adopted a revised final recommendation to the City Council regarding the Family Service Laundry building as follows: The Board recommends to the City Council that prior to Council’s decision on the building, a Focused Feasibility Study be prepared by a preservation architect with structural en~neering and rehabilitation economics expertise to determine the technical and economic feasibility of rehabilitating the Family Service Laundry building under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and that if the City Council elects to preserve the building, that a Historic Structure Report be prepared by a qualified consultant to guide the rehabilitation of the building under the Secretary’s Standards. Economic Feasibility of Retention of Historic Buildin,~ In response to the recommendation by the HRB for a feasibility study, the project applicants offered to fund an independent evaluation of their pro forma for retention of the Family Service Laundry in order to determine economic feasibility of retaining the building and incorporating it into the project. The Planning Department commissioned Bay Area Economics (BAE) to evaluate the applicants’ cost calculations for rehabilitating the building. The analysis prepared by BAE (Attachment H) concluded that the rehabilitation would generate negative returns to the developer and is not considered financially feasible. The BAE assessment found that even if the project incurred no construction costs at least $200,000 to $300,000 in subsidies would be required to provide a minimum g-ross profit margin for the developer. When construction costs are factored into the analysis, the subsidy would be closer to $1,000,000. CMR:150:03 7 of 15 This analysis did not consider the entire site as the one parcel proposed by the applicant. The existing project site is currently comprised of three separate parcels. The applicant would merge the three parcels into one large parcel prior to issuance of the building permit. The BAE study focused on the parcel which contains the Family Service Laundry (at 140 Homer Avenue), as described in the memorandum to the HRB, contained in Attachment I. The reten~on of the building would impede.the attainment of other SOFA Coordinated Area Plan objectives, including additional affordable housing and public parNng. Architectural Review Board Review The project was reviewed at three ARB meetings prior to the Board’s recommendation to the Planning and Transportation Commission. At those meetings, the ARB requested that the applicant reconsider the proposed fa,cade element on Homer Avenue. The ARB encouraged the applicant to either sa~,e the Family Service Laundry Building fa~cade and incorporate it into the project, or respond with a building face that was an authentic representation of the former building. The ARB did not want a response that mimicked or replicated something that had been demolished. The ARB wanted to see warmer colors, design details of the street-facing planter boxes, stoops and landscaping elements and additional work on the sustainability program. The ARB supported many elements of the project, including the massing scheme and articulated building volumes; the mixed-use functions and the transit-oriented desig-n; the use of authentic materials and an aggessive sustainability progam. The ARB was less supportive of the driveway access at High Street, but concluded that this location was a reasonable alternative to garage access on the alley. The ARB regetted the lack of retail areas along Channing Avenue and a large, publicly accessible open space area at Homer Avenue. However, the ARB recommended approval of the project on December 5, 2002. In addition, the ARB found that the DEIR was adequate in disclosing the significant environmental effects, identifying measures to .mitigate those significant impacts, and providing sufficient information for officials to make decisions regarding the merits of the project. As a condition of approval, the ARB recommended that if the project does not comply with the City Council-adopted SOFA 2 CAP (on issues such as footprint, density, floor area ratio, lot coverage and height), revised plans consistent with the SOFA 2 CAP policies and progams would be forwarded to the ARB and HRB for their review and recommendation to the Planning & Transportation Commission. CMR:150:03 8 of 15 ISSUES The Historic Family Se~wice £aundry Buildiug The Family Service Laundry building that is on the 800 High Street project site would be eli~ble for the historic preservation exception if it is adopted by Council. The Family Service Laundry building is eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. tn order to demolish the building, the Focused Envirom-nental Impact Report must be certified, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council. This process allows the City to approve the demolition of the historic structure if .it identifies the specific benefits of the new development that outweigh the loss of the historic structure. The City Council must also find that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make preservation of the building infeasible as an alternative. The applicants have provided an updated structural study describing the physical conditions of the existing building and the feasibility of preserving a substantial quantity of the historic materials (prepared by Meserve Engineering, December 12, 2001). The report concludes that much of the existing structure would need to be shored, removed, and replaced in order to meet current structural codes. On November 20, 2002, the HRB requested that the Chief Building Official (CBO) conduct a peer review of the Meserve Engineering report and an analysis of the structural integrity of the Family Service Laundry building. The CBO conducted an on-site inspection of the building and reviewed the Meserve Engineering Report. The CBO found that the exterior of the building is salvageable, but may not be worth preserving due to its deteriorated condition and the likely high cost of rehabilitation Based on the Chief Building Official’s opinion that the Family Service Laundry building can technically be preserved, the HRB recommended the prepgration of a study assessing the economic and technical feasibility of rehabilitating the building in a manner that would comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The HRB also recommended that if the Counci! requires the building to be preserved, that a Historic Sta-ucture Report be prepared to guide the rehabilitation progam. However, if the City Council finds (a) that there are benefits to the project that would be lost if the building were to be preserved and (b) that the environmentally superior alternative of retaining the building has been determined to be infeasible, then a Statement of Overriding Considerations may be adopted that would allow the building to be demolished. Draft language for the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations is in the Draft CEQA resolution, Attachment C, Section 6. Belo~v Market Rate Housing The revised Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan has identified 800 High Street as a Housing Opportunity Site. Under existing zoning, the site would allow up to 26 CIv~: 150:03 9 of 15 housing units. The Comprehensive Plan would generally allow 48 units, plus an additional three market rate units for every additional affordable housing unit added above the minimum required. The proposed project, which includes a zone change to a Planned Community district, would provide 61 housing units, including 11 below market rate units. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval of a project that contained eleven BMR units with a mix of one one-bedroom unit. and ten two-bedroom units, subject to further consultation with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, which the City retains as a consultant for housing progams. The applicant, worMng with City staff and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, has proposed a BMR pro~am that would include 10 units. The reduction of one BMR unit would require the removal of three market-rate units, which would thereby reduce the total number of units allowed on the project to 57. A copy of the BMR agreement is contained in Attachment J. Easements and Parking Agreements The project requires a number of access easements, surface rights and parking a~eements, and encroachments. The ultimate purpose of the easements and ag-reements is to create a successful project that meets Comprehensive Plan policies and pro~ams and to provide for the efficient, well-planned future development on the block and improvements to the public and lands that surround the site. Use of the entire Lane 8 West for undergound parking may require the consent of adjoining property owners as well as the City. As part of the project, a vehicular access ageement would allow those lands with frontage on the 800 block of Alma Street to have vehicular access via the subterranean tunnel in the garage of 800 High Street. Automobiles would enter the garage via the entrance on High Street and follow circulation routes under Lane 8 West to access the subterranean garages under each of the properties. The routes would be created if and when the sites along Alma Street are re-developed. The developer of 800 High Street has proposed three areas along the west wall of the first level in the garage. The three proposed openings would serve the sites containing Palo Alto Hardware, the Utilities Substation and Ole’s Garage. A fourth opening could be established for the site containing the RK Design building, but would result in the loss of three spaces allocated as part of. the applicant’s public benefit package. As the Alma Street sites are re- developed, the City would work to create the most efficient parking and circulation schemes. The City would ~ant the developer rights to develop the garage under the entire width of Lane 8 West and up to a width of three feet under the sidewalk at High Street, between Homer and Channing Avenues. The developer would ~ant the City the right to install and maintain its utility iines in the parking garage, essentially a relocation .of existing rights to do so in the alley. The applicant may also be legally required to obtain the CM]R: 150:03 10 of 15 consent of the adjacent property owners along the 800 block of Alma Street. The developer would bear all costs of constructing and maintaining these spaces for the. life of the project. The applicant would ~ant the City 57 parking spaces to manage in its discretion. The developer would also dedicate to the City a five-foot wide strip of land adjacent to Lane 8 West between Homer and Charming Avenue to widen the alley to 20 feet. This would allow emergency vehicle to access all areas of the project site. The alley would continue to be used as publicly accessible alley. The property owners would maintain the ability to conduct loading and unloading activities in the alley. RESOURCE IMPACT The project would result in negligible impacts to City resources and would provide certain benefits that would not be realized without the project. The applicant would be required to maintain al! surface and under~ound facilities related to the easements on Lane 8 West, the three-foot subterranean encroachment under the sidewalk along High Street, and the subterranean vehicular connection and circulation aisles between 800 High Street and the properties along the 800 block of Alma Street. The applicant would also be required to maintain the public parking spaces, including cleaning and other maintenance, striping, and signage. The City would receive Housing and Community Service Development Impact Fees prior to the issuance of the building permit. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan Consistency In order to approve a Plarmed Community (PC) zone change, the City Council must find that the permitted use(s) and the site development plan are consistent.with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Because the project includes more than the required number of below-market-rate units, the proposed unit density is consistent with the site’s land use designation under the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has found that the project would meet many of the policies and progams applicable to this project, including, Policy H-2: Policy H-4: Policy H-10: Policy T- 1: Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations; Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality; Encourage and foster diverse housing opportunities for very-low, low, and moderate income households; Make land use decisions that encourage walNng, bicycling, and public transit use; CMR:150:03 11 of !5 Policy T-23: o Policy T-47: o Policy L-5: o Policy L-9: Policy L- 11: Policy L-14: Policy L-16: Policy L-25: Policy L-48: Policy L-49: Policy L-67: Policy L-70: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on,street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details; Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts; Maintain the Scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their scale and size; Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed-use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development; Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods; Design and arrange new multi-family buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces, so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street; Consider siting small neighborhood serving retail facilities in existing or new residential areas; Enhance the character of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed use area; Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces; Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and. to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays, and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human scale details and massing; Balance traffic-circulation needs with the goal of creating walkable neighborhoods that are designed and oriented towards pedestrians. Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system; Two policies encourage, but do not require, the preservation of historic buildings: Policy L-51:Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit, including residences listed on the historic inventory; o Policy L-58:Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings. The applicant has provided technical studies on the preservation of the building, and the City itself has both studied the building and completed further analysis. The applicant CMR:150:03 12 of 15 has concluded that preservation of the Family Service Laundry would seriously impact the feasibility of the project. The ARB, HRB, and Planning Commission each reviewed the issue, as discussed above. South Of Forest Area Plan Consistency As a SOFA 2 CAP has not been adopted, consistency cannot be determined. The applicant has proposed a project that generally complies with the existing Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance for PC districts (except for the preservation of historic resources and the maximum height within 150 feet of a PC district containing housing). A comparison of the project with the Working Group and Commission recommended SOFA 2 CAPs in included in Attachment K. The Planning and Transportation Commission, at their meeting of January 15, 2002, supported the project, as modified by their recommendations, as essentially in compliance with the Commission’s recommended SOFA 2 CAP (as described above in the Planning & Transportation Commission Revie~ section). A full discussion of SOFA 2 CAP consistency is included in Attachment L, page 10. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is subject to environmental review under the provisions to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The SOFA Program Environmental Impact Report was prepared in November 1999 for an approximately 50-acre area bounded by Forest Avenue, Kipling Street, Addison Avenue and Alma Street. The 800 High Street project is located within the SOFA progam area. Although the SOFA Prodam EIR was a reference document for the DEIR for this project, the EIR for this project a Project EIR that satisfies Article 7 of the CEQA guidelines for the development of environmental impact reports. The DEIR was available for a 45-day period from October 11 though November 25, 2002. The DEIR was sent to the Commission at the start of the public circulation period, October 11 throughNovember 25, 2002. The Commission held a public hearing on the DEIR at the meeting of December 18, 2002. Oral comments were received from members of the public and Planning and Transportation commissioners. A Final EIR (FEIR) was prepared that included responses to oral and written comments. This document was available for the required 10-day review period, beginning on Januax’y 24, 2003. The FEIR is attached as "Exhibit A" to the Draft CEQA Resolution (Attachment A). ATTA CI-IlXlENTS/EXHIBITS Attachment A: Draft CEQA Resolution Attachment B:Draft PC Ordinance and Variance Approval Attachment C:Location Map, Zoning Map, Aerial Photo CM~R:150:03 t3 of 15 Attachment D: Development Statement and Schedule Attachment E: Verbatim Minutes, Planning & Transportation Commission, January 15, 2003 Attachment F: Excerpt Minutes, HRB, November 20, 2002 Attachment G: ARG Historic Evaluation: Family Service Laundry Building, January 7, 2003 Attachment H: BAE Economic Analysis, Preservation of Family Service Laundry Building Attachment I:Memorandum from Dennis Backlund to the HRB, January 6, 2003 Attachment J:BMR Ag-reement Letter Attachment K:Table 1: Comparison of Proposed Project to Commission and Working Group Recommended SOFA 2 CAPs Attachment L: Staff Report: Planning & Transportation Commission, December 18, 2002 (without attachments) Attachment M: Staff Report: Planning & Transportation Commission, January 15, 2003 (without attachments) Attachment N: Draft Design Review I~esolution Project Plans (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: Steven Turner, Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: S EMSLI~ Director of Planning and CommunitT Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager COURTESY COPIES: Applicant/Owner: Palo Alto High Street Partners, LLC, 909 Alma Street, Palo Alto,94301 Woody Gontina, Gazelle, LLC, 1450 Veterans Blvd., Redwood City, CA 94063 Jon Worden, 512 Matheson Street, Healdsburg, CA 95448 Carol Jansen, 575 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Elaine Meyer, 609 KingSley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ian Irwin, 800 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301-2813 CMR: 150:03 14 of t5 Joe YarNn, 152 Homer Avenue, Pa!o Alto, CA 94301 Pamela Christensen, 788 Clara Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Herb Borock, RO. Box 632, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Larry Hassett, 875 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Marlene Pender~ast, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, 725 Alma St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Lynn Chiapella; 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 Steve Reyna, 840 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, 94301 Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, Pato Alto, 94306 Irwin Dawid, 723 Alma Street, Pa!o Alto, 94301 Ole Christensen, 801 Alma Street, Palo Alto, 94301 Jean McCown, 1717 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, 94303 CMR:150:03 15 of 15 Attachment A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALT0 CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE 800 HIGH STREET FINAL EIR AND MAKING FINDINGS THEREON PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Palo Alto High Street Partners, LLC has made application to the City of Palo Alto ("City") for the 800 High Street Project ("Project"). The Project consists of an application for a Zone Change from the Downtown Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S) (P) to a Planned Community (PC) Zone, to allow the demolition of an existing ±17,600 square foot manufacturing building and construction of a new 50 foot high, four-story residential and commercial building. B. The City as the lead agency for the Project has prepared a Final Environmenta! Impact Report ("Final EIR"). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Final EIR consists of the fol!owing documents and records: "800 High Street Draft Focused EIR, October !i, 2002"; "800 High Street Fina! EIR, January 2003", the documents referenced therein, and the planning and other City records, minutes, and files constituting the record of proceedings. The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq. The Final EIR is on file in the offices of the DirectSr of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference. C. The initial Notice of Preparation was distributed in August 2002. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review between October ii and November 25, 2002. The Historic Resources Board reviewed the Draft EIR on November 21, 2002. The Architectural Resources Board reviewed the Draft EIR on December 5, 2002. The Planning Commission reviewed, and held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on December 18, 2002. 030130 syn 0091181 D. The City Council, as part of this resolution, is approving a reporting and monitoring program pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6. It is designed to ensure compliance with Project changes and mitigation measures imposed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR, and described in detail in Exhibit A which is attached to this resolution and a part of it. E. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and record of proceedings. SECTION 2. Certification. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project, and all other matters deemed material and relevant before considering for approval the various actions related to the 800 High Street project. SECTION 3. Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated To A Less Than Significant~ Level. The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies potentially significant environmental effects of the Project in regard to Land Use and Planning; Aesthetics; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Transportation and Circulation. The City Council finds that, in response to each significant effect listed in this Section 3, a!l feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR as summarized below. Each of the Mitigation Measures summarized below is more fully described in the EIR and in the attached Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program. A. Aesthetics Impact 4.1-1 concerns potential light and glare impacts created by public and private nighttime light sources. These impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 (selection and placement of exterior lights to reduce light and glare impacts). B. Air Quality Impact 4.2-1 concerns any air quality standard impacts created by construction. These impacts wil! be mitigated to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 (compliance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMIg) basic control measures). 030130 syn 0091181 C. Cultural Resources Impact 4.3-1 concerns impacts to archeo!ogical or paleontological resources. Excavation could uncover unknown archeo!ogical resources. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (archeological monitoring and, in the event of cultural deposits encountered, delaying further work until a feasible plan for avoidance or excavation is created and implemented) wil! reduce this impact to a less than significant leve!. D. Land Use and Planning Impact 4.4-1 concerns impacts resulting from conflicts with Comprehensive Plan Designation, Specific Plan, or the Zoning Ordinance. One is the loss of a significant building, which is discussed below. The other is a potentia! conflict with the zoning ordinance, which sets a height limit of 35 feet for PC district areas within 150 feet of a residential PC district. There is a mixed-use residential PC district at 901 Alma Street, which is itself 50 feet high. A variance from the requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 is not necessarily a significant impact in itself. The potential for a significant impact is measured in terms of how the proposed change would be inconsistent with land use policies. In order to grant the variance, the City must find that the variance will not be harmful or detrimenta! to property owners or residents in the area, and in this case, those findings can be made. The building design, setbacks, and articulation, as well as the relationship of the Project and the adjacent mixed-use residential development, reduce the potential significant impact to a less than significant level. E. Noise Impact 4.5-1 concerns noise levels of greater than 80 dBA that could be generated at the building fagade at anytime during the day by vehicle traffic or operations associated with the CalTrain railroad. Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 (using window with a high Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating for interior noise reduction), 4.5-2 (use of design features on the building for exterior noise reduction), and 4.5-3 (submittal of a construction management plan) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. F. Traffic and Transportation Impact 4.6-1 in the Draft EIR concerns impacts from increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion if, and only if, Homer Avenue and Channing Avenue are converted from one-way traffic to two-way traffic. The conversion of these streets to two-way 030130 s~a 0091181 traffic has been studied as part of the South of Forest Area review process since 1997. Action was deferred when the coordinated area plan was adopted for SOFA I, and deferral is again recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission and Working Group for the SOFA 2 area. Although the issue remains open, two-way traffic is not an existing or reasonably foreseeable condition at the time or Project approva!, construction or occupancy. Neither is it part of an adopted City plan. Therefore, the Final EIR has been revise~ to conclude that there is no significant traffic impact from the Project. The Council concludes that any need for a traffic signal at Alma Street and Channing Avenue would result from the reconfiguration of the City’s streets, not this Project. This Project has no significant traffic impacts. Therefore, no mitigation measure is needed or required to reduce the impact of this Project on traffic to an insignificant level. SECTION 4. Significant Impacts Which Cannot Be Fully Mitigated. The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies a significant environmental effect of the Project with respect to Cultural Resources, namely the demolition of the Peninsula Creamery Ice Cream Plant, originally known as the Family Service Laundry and built in 1930. The building, while much modified and in unsound condition, is potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. The major character-defining architectural features of the building have been identified as the multi-paned windows, the stepped-parapet, the gabled roof monitor, and the stucco finish. Its historic significance also lies in its location within the former laundry district and its association with two prominent local businesses, the Family Service Laundry and the Peninsula Creamery. Mitigation measure 4.8-1, which requires documentation of the building and its history, and preparation of a photographic records meeting the standards of the Historic American Building Survey, wil! not reduce the impacts to a less-than significant level. However, the proposed building has been designed to recall the industrial design of the existing building as wel! as the industrial character of the surrounding neighborhood. Stucco, the material used on the exterior walls of the original building, has been used on the vertical elements of the exterior of the proposed building. Steel grates and rails, a standing seam metal roof and steel sunshades have been used in the proposed building to reflect the metal materials commonly found in historic industrial areas. Finally, small multi-paned windows, a feature of the existing building, have been incorporated throughout the proposed building. The City Council that all identified feasible changes have been required or incorporated into the Project to reduce the environmental effects of demolition of the Peninsula Creamery building, while all identified feasible changes or alterations have 030130 syn 0091181 4 been required in, or incorporated into, these effects cannot be totally avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance if the Project is implemented. Section 5 below describes the infallibility of an alternative project that would preserve and rehabilitate the Pen±nsula Creamery Building. SECTION 5. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, or to its location, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, and that the City Counci! has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives and rejected them in favor of the proposed Project as summarized below: A. No Project Alternative. This alternative assumes no rezoning of the site, with any future development on the site consistent with existing zoning. The current zoning at the site allows a variety of commercial, office, and residentia! uses. However, less total square footage of development would be allowed than under the Project. Under current zoning, the amount of non-residential construction (both retail and office space) would be 16,800 square feet, and residentia! development would be limited to 27 units. This is compared with the Project with 61 (or 59) residential units, and approximately 2,000 square feet of retail space. This alternative would be unlikely to support two levels of underground parking. The site consists of multiple parcels; in some cases, surface parking might be used. If the historic building was retained and rehabilitated, it would be eligible for certain bonus space and parking exemptions. This alternative, although it might permit a project which rehabilitated the Peninsula Creamery Building, would be unable to meet the Project goals for the reasons set forth in Section 5 B below. This alternative is infeasible because it precludes satisfaction of two of the project goals, provision of a significant number housing units, including below market rate units, and a significant contribution to the alleviation of parking shortages. The "no projectH alternative would reduce the number of residential units by more than half, and increase the number Of jobs generated on site. Using the City’s normal estimate-of one job per 250 square feet of commercial space and 1.6 workers per household, the "no project" alternative would slightly worsen the City’s housing shortage. (It would generate jobs for about 60 workers and housing for about 43.) This is inconsistent with both the goals of the City’s Housing Element and the proposed SOFA 2 plan. It would also eliminate development impact fees totaling approximately $470,000, but those fees are set to offset the need 030130 syn 0091181 5 for park, library, and community centers created by the future occupants of the new construction. B. Retain Creamery Building Alternative It is assumed for this alternative that the Creamery Building would be rehabilitated under The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Standards). The Standards are the primary document used to plan and evaluate the treatment of historic buildings. A historic architect would review proposed project plans for compatibility with the Standards. Other project elements would be similar to the Proposed Project, but as the Creamery Building would be maintained, the total deve!opment on the site would be reduced. This is the environmentally superior alternative. The adaptive reuse of the Creamery Building, with seismic upgrading, remova! of later additions which mask the origina! character of the building, and replacement of. much of the structure, is difficult and expensive but not impossible. However, the Creamery Building, because of its dimensions and fenestration, is unusually unsuitable for adaptive reuse as multiple-family residences. Transfer of the ~lost" residential floor area from the Creamery Building’s footprint to the balance of the site is not desirable nor feasible because of the height limits on the site. Those limits were adopted to protect other properties from the adverse effects of buildings substantially over fifty feet in height on the light, air, and privacy of other properties and the aesthetics of the neighborhood. In this particular case, the additiona! height that such a transfer would require would ftself have adverse effects. An additional reason that this alternative is infeasible is the loss of underground parking if the Creamery Building is retained.Parking cannot feasibly be built underneath the Creamery Building.An underground parking garage on the balance of the site would provide far fewer spaces than those proposed under the Project. Meeting the Project goals requires the use of underground parking to provide approximately 200 spaces. This could only be achieved with three levels of underground parking. A third level of underground parking is not feasible; it would invade the water table and require specia! construction techniques that are substantially more expensive. Without subterranean parking, the Project goals of additional affordable housing and public parking, both of which are encouraged by the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan, cannot be obtained. If, because of the retention of the Creamery Building, the site is redeveloped as a number of projects, it is more likely that 030130 syn 0091181 surface parking would be proposed. The use of surface area for parking reduces that available for public and private open space and leads to greater lot coverage. It would contradict the City’s adopted goals of encouraging pedestrian-friendly residential development at higher densities in this area, which is close to transit facilities, neighborhood serving businesses, including a grocery store, and the City’s downtown commercial district. It would also not provide a more attractive neighbor for the adjoining residential areas. The City Council determines that this alternative is infeasible because the technical and economic limits on the development of this site under this alternative, as described above, by reducing the intensity of development over a large portion of the site, make it impossible to obtain the Project goals, which are also the City’s goals, of providing new public parking and affordable housing, together with market rate housing, on this site. SECTION 6. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Counci! finds that the unavoidable environmental impact of the Project, described in Section 4 of this Resolution, is acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the Project, even after giving greater weight to its duty to avoid the environmental impacts, and to protect the environment to the maximum extent feasible. This determination is made based upon the following factors and public benefits which are identified in the Final EIR and record of proceedings: A. The Project is in an area that lacks public parking to support existing development, including a grocery store which is vital to the health of the surrounding neighborhoods. The City has a shortage of both affordable and market-rate housing. Loca! residents have asked that the City establish a new park in the neighborhood. The City wishes to provide one, but it has lacked the funds to acquire and develop such a facility. The relocation of the principal Palo Alto Medical Foundation facilities from the neighborhood to a new campus has made land available for redevelopment for new uses, including a park. This project will provide substantial funding for development of the park. B. The Project will provide 63 parking spaces for use by the City (or 57 spaces and an automobile connection to parcels facing Alma Street via the below grade parking garage), ten below- market-rate condominiums, 51 market-rate condominiums, and a plaza accessible to the public. This will facilitate the construction of housing at appropriate densities along Alma Street between Channing and Homer Streets without interfering with the commercial use of Lane 8 to support local businesses or requiring additional driveways interrupting sidewalks. 030130 syn 0091181 7 C.The existing building, although eligible for the California Register of Historic Places, is not unique as a surviving laundry building in this area. Its distinctive architecture has been largely obscured for many years. It is in disrepair and does not meet current seismic safety standards. It has not been used in many years for industrial purposes. D. The Project will replace the existing industrial building and storage and parking areas with a new building which meets current seismic, energy efficiency and accessibility standards. By providing underground parking, the Project will increase the density of development in a transportation corridor while minimizing the aesthetic impacts on the neighborhood. Because the Project is designed with small gardens and interesting architectural features on the High Street frontage, together with a plaza accessible to the public and neighborhood serving retail uses, it wil! strengthen the neighborhood as an attractive place to live, work, and walk. Because it is well designed and will be constructed of high-quality materials, it will be an architecturally significant building in its own right. The City Council finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth above constitutes a separate and independent grounds for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh its significant adverse environmental impact and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. SECTION 7. Impacts Found Not To Be Significant. The City finds that the Final EIR neither expressly identifies, nor contains any substantial evidence identifying, significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to any of the environmental impacts dismissed through the scoping process with "no" responses on the initial Environmental Assessment (contained in Section 9B of the Draft EIR) and with respect to the following potential impacts identified as not significant in Section 7 of the Draft EIR. SECTION 8. Substantial evidence supporting each and every finding made herein is contained in the Final EIR and records of proceedings. // // // // // 030130 syn 0091181 8 SECTION 9. The Council finds that there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion that significant new information has been added to the Final EIR so as to warrant recirculation of the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. This finding is based upon all the information presented in the Final EIR and record of proceedings. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment EXHIBIT A Final Environmental Impact Report 8!)0 High Street Residential and Retail Building SCH #1999032075 January, 2003 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 EXHIBIT A 800 High Street Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 Introduction to the Comments and Responses Persons Commenting Standards of Recirculation Revisions to the Draft EIR Comments and Responses Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan 2 3 3 4 9 14 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 10. Comments and Responses 10.1 Introduction to the Comments and Responses This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) contains the public and agency comments received during the public review period on the 800 High Street EIR (DEIR). This document has been prepared by the City of Palo Alto, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is an informational document intended to disclose to the City Council, other decision makers, and the public the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the 800 High Street project. All written comments received during the 45-day public review period, and oral comments received during the public hearing on the Draft EIR before the Planning and Transportation Commission are addressed in this FEIR. This Final EIR consists of two volumes: the Draft EIR of October 2002 and the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR (this volume). Section 10.2, Persons Commenting, list the governmental agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Draft EIR. Section 10.3, Standards of Circulation describes the standards of recirculation of a Draft EIR for additional public review, and explains why this EIR does not need to be recirculated. Section 10.4, Revisions to Draft EIR, describes the revisions made to the Draft EIR. Section 10.5, Response to Comments, presents and responds to all comments on the Draft EIR and the project’s environmental effects. The original letters are reproduced, and comments are numbered for referencing with responses. Responses to individual comments raising environmental points are presented immediately after each comment letter. This section also contains responses to comments made by Plarming and Transportation Commissioners at the public hearing for the DEIR on December 18, 2002. Section 10.6: Mitigation Monitoring Plan, provides the City of Palo Alto with a simple guideline of procedures to ensure that the mitigation measures required under the certified EIR are implemented properly. 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 10.2 Persons Commenting Written comments on the Draft EIR were received from the following public agency: Roy Molseed, Senior Environmental Planner, Santa Clara Valley Transportation District Written comments were also received from Elaine Meyer and Palo Alto High Street Partners. These written comments are shown in Section 10.5, along with responses. Oral comments were received during a Planning Commission meeting of December 18, 2002. Those members of the public commenting were Elaine Meyer, Larry Hasset, Lynn Chiapella, Bob Moss, Irwin Dawid and Steve Reyna. Comments were primarily on the merits of the project, and not on the adequacy of the environmental review. Responses to oral comments addressing the EIR are in Section 10.5 10.3 Standards of Recirculation Section 15088.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that if after the public review period the City adds "significant new information" to the EIR, then the City must recirculate the EIR for additional commentary and consultation. 1 New information is considered "significant" when the EIR is changed in a way that "deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment". This occurs when:2 o A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. o A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures .are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. o A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from other previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. o The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. o A recirculation guarantees that the public is not denied "an opportunity to test, assess, and evaluate the data and make an informed judgment as to the validity of the conclusions" of the new information". Section 15088.5 also states that recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. None of the circumstances that require recirculation have OCCUlTed in this case. No new significant impacts would occur, no substantial increase in the severity- of an environmental 1 Public Resources Code Sec. 21092.1. 2 CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(a). 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 impact would occur, no considerably different project alternative or mitigation that the project proponents decline to adopt.has been recommended, and the Draft EIR is adequate. 10.4 Revisions to the Draft EIR The following section includes all revisions to the Draft EIR. Text changes resulting from the comments and responses are recommend. Information that is to be deleted is shown as ,~,,,o~,,,,~ ,,~,~,~-"÷ and information that is added is underlined. As discussed in section 10.3, none of these changes represent a significant modification of the already adequate EIR. A. CEOA Process for the Project The Draft EIR incorrectly identified this document as a one that "tiers" from the Draft EIR prepared for the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. While information in that document was used to prepare this one, this is an independent "project" EIR. Revised text: Page 7 of the DEIR: The proposed 800 High Street Peninsula Creamery project is a subsequent activity located in the SOFA CAP Phase 2 area. The proposed demolition of an historic structure is a significant effect that was not specifically addressed in the Program EIR and requires additional environmental review. ~"o~..~.o, this ~+ Althoutzh the SOFA Pr0gr, am EIR was a reference document for the DEIR for this project, the DEIR is not technically a tiered EIR. The DFEIR is a Project EIR that satisfies Article 7 of the CEOA guidelines for the development of environmental impact reports. B. Required Project Approvals The City Council has not yet completed its review of the proposed SOFA 2 CAP. Since the SOFA 2 CAP has not been adopted, the project may be reviewed under the existing comprehensive plan and zoning law. However, the City Council may consider the information and recommendations developed during the SOFA CAP processes in evaluating this Project. 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 Revised text: Page 7 of the DEIR: This Draft EIR will undergo a 45 day review period from October 11 to November 25, 2002. During this review period, the Architectura! Resources Board, the Historic Resources Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission will hold public hearings and make recommendations to the City Council As +~’; .... ;~..+ ; ~;~ ..~ ~.~ cc~:~, C~ ...... ~w ,~ c,;÷. C. Open Space Terminology Clarification Revisions have been made to clarify the landscaped area adjacent to public ways and available for public use. "Publicly Accessible Open Space" will be used throughout the document to refer to the "public space", "public plaza", "public retail space", and "open space. "The term "publicly accessible open space" will not be used for shared, but private, open space reserved for the use of the project’s occupants and their invitees. The revisions include the following: 2.2 Site Development Summary Revised text: Page 30 of the DEIR: Access to Project The below grade parking entrance/exit would be located at High Street. Pedestrian access to the building would be located on Homer Avenue (between the retail spaces) and at the~,~-,,-"~’u- ~-"~°’° publicly accessible open space at the comer of High Street and Channing Avenue. Page 31 of the DEIR: Setbacks Setbacks would be as follows: On High Street, 32 foot setback at theu~.~-~""~’~;" u~-"~°’° publicly accessible open ~ and three-foot to nine-foot setbacks along the ground floor residential and retail areas. On Channing Avenue, 25 foot setback at the public ~,,, publicly accessible open space, and zero to approximately four-foot setbacks along the residential and circulation areas of the building. 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 Landscaping The proposed landscaping plan will include private and pu-b~ publicly accessible landscaped areas, including private open space (in the form of interior courtyards), a v .....plaza publicly accessible open space, street trees and landscaping elements situated along public access ways. D. Aesthetics Revised text: Page 56 of the DEIR: ^ ,,,~,~,1;0 ~,1o,, Publicly accessible open space at the comer of Channing and High will provide a place for pedestrians to congregate. This space will also compliment a similar space planned for the 90 !-925 High Street project. Due to revised information from the project applicant, the DEIR on page 30 is revised as follows: Residential Use The building has been proposed to accommodate 61 residential units. Of these, 11 units will be designated as Be!ow Market Rate (BMR) units. The floor plan distribution includes f-rye one one-bedroom units, ~4 48 two-bedroom units, and 22 three-bedroom units. Parking A two-level underground parking facility will provide the required number of parking spaces for each use of the building. Entrance to the underground facility will be located at High Street at approximately the midpoint of the block. 138 parking spaces will serve the uses of the building, and an additional 6-3 57 spaces are included in the project as part of the applicant’s public benefit package for a total of 201 parking spaces. The project will initially provide 63 public parkin~ spaces. Six of these spaces will be removed at some point in the future to accommodate a subterranean circulation connection between the subiect property and the properties along the 800 block of Alma Street. The loss of six spaces to accommodate this public benefit will result in a total of 57 public spaces once the subterranean connection is completed. Bicycle parking faculties will be provided as part of each unit’s private storage areas in the parking facility. Public bicycle parking will be provided at the ground level retail areas and in the underground parking facility. Page 58 of the DEIR: The following is a text addition to the DEIR: 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 Shadow Studies Shadow studies, prepared by Jon Worden Architects at the request of the Architectural Review Board, were not available until after the Draft EIR was published in October 2002. The studies reviewed by the Architectural Review Board prior to the Board’s recommendation for approva! to the Planning and Transportation Commission. The studies indicate that the open spaces on proiect site will receive the best light in June. The residential units oriented on the west side of the site will receive the most light throughout the year, while those on the east side (which comprise most of the units in the proiect) will receive the least amount of light, Shadowing impacts from the built environment, both on and off the project site, are the result of the orientation of the grid street and block system in Palo Alto in relation to the sun’s path of travel throughout the -gear. Any si.m-fificant development on this site would result in similar shadowing patterns. The impacts of shadows along Homer Avenue have been mitigated by the reduced buildin~ height of 35’ along Homer Avenue. The building has been designed to respect a proposed (but not yet required) daylight plane along High Street, which would require the tallest building elements to be setback from the propert7 line. A series of gables and stair towers extend beyond the da¥1i~.ht plane: as a result, the building volumes are articulated, thereby breaking up shadow patterns that would extend across High Street. These design considerations have reduced the impacts of shadowing for the properties along High Street between Homer and Channing Avenue to a less than significant level. E. Cultural Resources The following changes were made to provide clarification: Page 63 of the DEIR: Human remains between 4,000 and 5,000 years old were discovered along San Francisquito Creek, approximately one mile north of the planning area, in 1922 and later in 1963, and burial sites and artifacts were discovered on the southern creek bank in 1951 ~ze ^ l na<~ (Environmental Science Associates. Palo Alto Medical Foundation Draft Environmental Impact Report. October 1995. (ESA !995)) Page 67 of the DEIR: Significance After Mitigation Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(a) would reduce impacts due to CRHR criterion "a-l" to a less-than-significant level. 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 F. Bibliography Revised text: Page 88 of the DEIR: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996 (Revised 1999). Page 89 of the DEIR: Environmental Science Associates. Palo Alto Medical Foundation Draft Envb’onmental Impact Report. October 1995. G. Land Use and Plannin~ The Draft EIR explained that part of the Project is within 150 feet of another mixed use Planned Community District at 901 Alma, and would therefore have a 35 foot height limit instead of a 50 foot height limit. Because a variance would be required, this was identified as a significant environmental effect. Because a variance is only granted if it will not be "detrimental or injurious" to neighboring properties or improvements, this is not the case, as more particularly described in the Draft EIR text revisions. Revised text: Page 69 of the DEIR: Impact 4.4-1 Conflict with General Plan Designation, Specific Plan, or Zoning Ordinance The proposed project would conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and for preservation of historic resources. The proposed project would conflict with the zoning ordinance for establishment of Planned Cornmun!ty districts in terms of maximum height of the project within 150 feet of an existing applicable PC district ~ ....... ;~’~+ ; .... +o Mitigation Measure A ~ 4.4-1 The 800 High Street proiect would requ~e a vafi~ce for those potions of ~e stmc~e that exceed a maximum height of 35 feet ~d ~e located ~thin 150 feet of the residential PC project at 901 Alma Street. In order to ~ant the v~i~ce, ~e CiW shall demonstrate that the request meets 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 the adopted findings for approval. The findings will address how the variance will not be harmful or detrimental to property owners or residents in the area, which includes mitigation (building design, setbacks, articulation) that would reduce the potential the potentia! significant impact to a less than si~-nificant level. H. Transportation and Circulation The analysis of traffic impacts assumed that a decision to re-establish two way traffic on Homer and Channing Avenues would have been made before this Project was approved. Neither the Working Group nor Planning and Transportation Commission recommended such a change in their proposed SOFA 2 CAPs. Revised text: Page 81 of the DEIR: Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 ^ +~°~"~" o;~,~ol ....]. ......;~,~ ;~ +~, ~,+~ ....+ +~ basis for Impact 4.6-! reg~ding the potential for increased tr~c delays at the Alma Street ~d Ch~n~ Avenue locations is ~e N~e ~plementation of ~o-wav tra~c on Homer and Chang Avenues. ~e DFE~ addresses ~e pro~ect traffic impacts ~d fo~d that there would be a potential si~fic~t impact oNy if ~o-wag ~a~c were reinstated. Neither the SOFA 2 C~ nor the proposed proiect would re,state ~s traffic pa~em prior to cons~ction of the project. ~erefore, there would be no si~fic~t impacts to ~a~c delays ~ the study intersections ~d the requirement for a ~affic sisal is not w~ted. 10.5 Comments and Responses The-letters received are shown on the following pages, followed by responses. Response to Letter A Roy Molseed, Senior Environmental Planner Santa Clara Valley Transportation District Comments in this letter are acknowledged. The commentor supports the mixed-use, transit oriented development at the site and supported the maximum density of housing that is allowed. The commentor supports the recommendations by the ARB and the Planning and Transportation Commission to include more pedestrian-oriented design elements. The commenter also expressed support for the required bicycle spaces and a fee-based system for the public parking spaces as part of a Traffic Demand Management System. These are project 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 related issues, in general, not issues or items related directly to the DEIR. They do not raise any new impacts or expand on any affects discussed in the DEIR. Comments and support for the project are noted. Response to Letter B Elaine Meyer 609 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto The commentor has raised helpful comments regarding public open space and the appropriate terminology for these areas of the project have been addressed in Section 10.4 Revisions to the Draft EIR. The commentor has questioned the use of the word "approximately" with regard to the description of the heights of the building. It is expected that the project, once approved, will comply with the height requirements of the development plan and the underlying PC zone district. It is intended that the project will not exceed a maximum height of 35’ along Homer Avenue and 50’ at all other portions of the property, except where allowed by zoning regulations or through granting of a variance. Comments in this letter are acknowledged. They do not raise any new impacts or expand on any affects discussed in the DEIR. Response to Letter C Palo Alto High Street Partners 901 Alma Street, Palo Alto Comment Numbers 1 and 2 The commentor suggests that the use of significance criteria issues (posed as questions within the Initial Study of the Project, Appendix B of the DEIR) under the Significance Criteria sections of the DEIR are vague in describing the potential for significant impacts to the environment. The City’s Initial Study (Appendix B of the DEIR) is consistent with CEQA Guidelines to determine the potential significant impacts for analysis in the EIR. It also provides for the determination of those areas enumerated in the Initial Study that would not result in a significant impact, and need not to be furthered analyzed in the DEIR. Ttie Significance Criteria sections of the DEIR are included to describe the probable impacts, if any, from implementing the project. These sections are not intended to describe or define the threshold that would result in the project having significant impact on the environment. The ~.ignificance Criteria sections do not suggest conclusions; they have been included to provide guidance with which the EIR has based its conclusions of significan.t impacts. The EIR appropriately concludes that demolition of the historic resource is a significant impact. The commentor’s "Important Revision #3" has been addressed in Section 10.4 Revisions to the Draft EIR. 10 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 The Initial Study found that there would be probable impacts related to the exposure of people to short term construction noise and long term severe noise levels. The DEIR identifies the impacts that are potentially significant, including the noise levels generated by the operations of the CalTrain railroad. Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 and 4.5-2 address this potentially significant impact, which would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Construction noise and operations are considered short-term imPacts, but were not identified as potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 addresses the short term impacts from the project. The implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan will require the project developer to ensure that the mitigation measures will be followed to reduce the impacts. Minor Revisions, corrected in Section 10.4 Revisions to the Draft EIR. t.Page 63: the reference to "ESA 1999" in the Cultural Resources section of the DEIR has been corrected as described. 2. Page 67: Significance After Mitigation, has been corrected to read, "CRHR criterion’ 1 ’" 3. Page 88: The 1999 revisions to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were used in the environmenta! review of the project. This has been clarified. Other comments noted. No other questions were raised on the adequacy of the environmental review of the project. Responses to Oral Comments Received at the December 18, 2002 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Commissioner Holman: 1. Page 33, a statement that there are no abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas. More discussion should be provided, because the projectproposes a FAR of 2.29 neat" FAR’s less than 1.0:1. Response: Policy L-6 states, "Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than a!ong streets wherever possible." The project includes design elements, including articulation and setbacks that avoids any abrupt changes between non-residential and exclusively residential areas. The project site is located in an underlying zoning district that contains a mixture of uses, including commercial and multi-family uses. The project is located approximately 200 feet from three structures that either meet or exceed the 50’ maximum height limit. 2.Page 38, the comment in response to the urban design guideline on building volumes does not adequately address the issues raised by the guideline discussio)~. 11 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 Response: The urban design guideline regarding building volumes suggests that appropriate building massing can help define the enclosure of public space. The guideline also states that solar access for the public spaces and streets at ground level should be considered. The various massing elements of the project are integral to the open areas and how they are defined. The upper floors of the building surround the private courtyards near the ground floor. This massing arrangement provides views from the units to the private open space areas. The publicly accessible open space areas are also defined by the massing arrangement. The orientation of the site limits the opportunities for solar access at every location. However, the building volumes are articulated along the length of the block and the varied roof forms are positioned in such a way to provide opportunities for light and air between the building volumes. 3.Page 40, the response to the comment encouraging roof gardens should have further discussion of why roof gardens are not proposed Response: The project as proposed would bring landscaping elements above the ground floor by means of trellis structures attached to the sides of the building, upon which vines and other landscaping features would grow. This option has been proposed in lieu of roof-tip gardens. 4. Shadow studies should be analyzed and commented on in the EIR. Response: Section 10.4 Revisions to the Draft EIR. describes the text addition regarding shadow studies. Staff has concluded that the orientation of the site, the building, and the location of the largest massing elements have reduced the impacts to a less than significant level for the properties along High Street between Homer and Channing Avenue. Page 70, it states that there is an impact resultingfi’om the conflict of the project with the zoningprovision requiring a 35foot height limit within 150feet of residential area. The mitigation for this impact, granting of a variance, is not adequate because the three findings required for a variance are not supported Response: Section 10.4 Revisions to the Draft EIR, describes the revision that asserts that the need for a variance is not a significant impact in itself. Page 56-57, there is a statement that a variance would not be required for the project (see above comment) if the SOFA 2 CAP is adopted This is only true if the Commission recommendation is adopted," the Working Group recommendation requires a 35’ height limit over the entire project area. Response: This comment has been noted. 7. A shuttle contribution should be considered because of the traffic impacts. Response: This comment has been noted. Any contribution to the Citywide shuttle program could be a component of any Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program for the project. ]2 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 8. The DFEIR refers to 63 public parking spots in several places, but the project only proposes 57. Response: This correction has been noted in Section 10.4 Revisions to the Draft EIR. With respect to aesthetics, it would be advisable to consider a different style for the southern portion of the project in order to break up the repetitive nature of having the same style over the entire length of the street. Response: This comment has been noted. The environmental review regarding aesthetics is generally focused on the degradation of scenic vistas, light and glare impacts, massing, scale and degradation of the visual character of the site or surroundings. Commissioner Bellomo: l.There is not adequate discussion and analysis of traffic impacts on High Street due to the mid-block location of the ramp to the parking garage. Response: The Transportation Impact Analysis (Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc, 800 High Street Project Transportation hnpact Analysis, July 2002, Appendix D) studied the Homer Avenue / High Street intersection and the Charming Avenue / High Street intersection and found that the cumulative traffic generated by the project would not result in a significant impact to the environment. The traffic consultant and Transportation Division staff reviewed the project design and concluded that there would not be any circulation impacts from the mid-block driveway-. This design would not result in any increased levels of service impacts to the surroundings intersections. 13 10.6 Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 Introduction California State Government Code Section 21081.6 (California Environmental Quality Act) requires a public agency to adopt a reporting or monitoring program when approving a project or changes to a project, in order to mitigate or avoid .significant effects on the environment. The program must be based on the findings and the required mitigation measures presented in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that has been prepared on the project and certified by the lead agency. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. Per the guidelines, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) must cover the following: The MMRP must identify the entity that is responsible for each monitoring and reporting task, be it the City of Palo Alto (as lead agency), other agency (responsible or trustee agency), or a private entity (i.e., the project sponsor). The MMRP must be based on the project description and the required mitigation measures presented in the environmental document prepared for the project and certified by the lead agency. The MMRP must be approved by the lead agency at tl~e same time of project entitlement action or approvals. MMRP’s are typically designed in chart and checklist format for ease of monitoring and reporting. Location and Description of Projects Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, an EIR was prepared to address the impacts of the project. This document, entitled 800 High Street DEIR, was certified by the Palo Alto City Council on The certified EIR consists of two volumes (Draft EIR dated October, 2002, and Final EIR / Response to Comments dated January, 2003), and is on file with the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Development. Purpose and Use of the Monitoring and Reporting Program The purpose of the monitoring and reporting program is to provide the City of Palo Alto with a simple guideline of procedures to ensure that the mitigation measures required under the certified EIR are implemented properly. Since each required mitigation measure approved as part of the certified EIR must be implemented, a monitoring chart and a reporting chart were created, which are attached to this report. These charts provide the following information and direction for use. 1)The required mitigation measures are listed in the first column, corresponding to the list of measures provided in the certified EIR. 14 2) 4) 5) 6) 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 The procedures for implementing the required mitigation measures are presented in the second colunm. This column provides a step-by-step approach to follow for each mitigation measure, to ensure that the recommendations are carried out. The third column provides a guide as to which agency or entity is responsible for a) requiring or imposing the mitigation measure and b) for monitoring or reporting the implementation procedures. This column also assists the City in serving as a "clearinghouse" where review of studies or monitoring activities could be required by another agency. This column provides a valuable reminder to the City that certain responsible or trustee agencies will need to be consulted through the various phases of City review. The agencies or entities listed in this column are abbreviated. The following is a key: DPCD -- Department of Planning and Community Development PW -- Public Works The fourth columns provide guidance on monitoring and reporting actions to ensure that implementation procedures are followed. The fifth column represents the recommended timing for initiating, completing, or implementing the mitigation. For example, implementation could be required to occur before the City approves a Grading Permit. This column is coded by letters, which represent the following: AP -- As a condition of approval for the new building DP -- Prior to issuance of Demolition Permit GP -- Prior to issuance of Grading and/or Building Permit DC -- During construction PCM -- Post-construction monitoring The sixth column provides a record of monitoring compliance. This line is signed and dated when the monitoring action is completed. 15 Letter A SANTA CLARA ~ Valley Transportation Authority November 19, 2002 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Comlnunity Development 250 Hamilton Avenue PMo Alto, CA 94301 Attention: Steven Turner, Planner Subject: SCH# 1999032075 / 01-PC-2 / 800 High Street Draft Focused EIR Dear ~’h’. Turner: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff have reviewed the October 11, 2002 Public Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report and the Architectural Review Board Staff Report, Agenda Date October 17, 2002, for the 800 High Street Residential and Retail Building Project, a mixed-use building wSth 80,000 square feet of residential and 1,800 square feet of retail space at 800 High Street in the City of Palo Alto. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) VTA staff support the proposed mixed-use, transit-oriented development at this site, and acknowledge that the proposed project should be designed appropriately to coordinate with the surrounding comnmnity. Contextual concerns considered, due to the site’s close proximity within ~A mile of the Stanford Stadium Caltrain Station, VTA staff strongly support the development of the site to the mm’dmum density and maximum height allowed under the proposed zoning, and suggest that three to four story mixed- use buildings are appropriate for this area. Pedestrian-Oriented Design v ~ staff support ~ ............~ "~-~ ~e ~r~hke~al Review Board that encourage ~ more pedestrian-oriented design induing elements such ~ pedestri~- sc~ed architeetur~ det~ls and more ground floor connections to the street. ~A st~f also support the recommendations of the Planning & Transportation Gom~ssion to orient the stoops on ~gh Street to face the street ~d h~ve the u~t entrances be visible from the street. Transportation Demand Management VTA staff support the proposal by the Planning and Transportation Commission for the project to prepare a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program for the project and other existing businesses in the area. The program would coordinate efforts to reduce traffic in the area and could include a car-sharing program. 3331 I%rth First Street ¯ San Jose, CA 95134-1906 ¯ Administration 408.321.5555 ¯ Customer Service 408.321.2300 City of Palo Alto November 19, 2002 Page 2 Auto Parking The Staff Report states that 63 parking spaces in the subterranean parking garage will be for the public benefit. VTA staff recommend that fees be charged for these 63 public parking spaces to encourage alternative methods of travel. VTA staff also suggest that these parking spaces be included in the area-wide TDM progran~ mentioned above. Bicycle Parking VTA staff consider bicycling to be an important commute mode by itself and in combination with other modes. VTA staff support the City’s 64 Class I and 6 Class II bicycle parking spaces requirement. Thank you for your support of transit in the City of Palo Alto. A project like this helps to promote increased transit and bicycle use and helps to create a n~xed-use, pedestrian friendly environment. If you have any questions, please call Lauren Bobadilla of my staff at (408) 321-5776. Sincerely, Roy Molseed Senior Envh~onmental Planner RM:LGB:kh Steven Turner Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton Ave. Pa_lo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Turner: November 25, 2002 Letter B Following are my com_ments and questions on the DFEIR for 800 High St. Descriptions of private property as public Pages 30, 56, and Design Guide pages: Describing private property as "public space" or "public plaza" p.30 should be avoided. p.31 three or more times; p.56 near bottom of page; p.30 "public retail courtyard"; "open space" and in the Urban Design Guide pages, and elsewhere. To refer to a building entryway as public space is misleading. To refer to a retail courtyard as public open space is misleading. To refer to sidewalk restaurant tables as public space is inaccurate. p. 56 next to !ast para.: The entryway to a residential building is twice referred to as a "public plaza." Lytton Plaza is a public plaza. Entryways to private residences even if attractively designed cannot be considered "public." The public is uMikely to gather in such spaces. The Cha_n_ning Ave. corner can be described as an entryway, or spacious entryway. Public pro.~rty The only public property is the project is under the alley, behind the property. If the alley is used for an),- purpose the city should be remunerated. That underground space is owned by the public (that is, the city) and should be referred as such. p. 31 Construction of housing on the substation site (841 Alma St.) is not going to happen in the forseeable future. The city (Utilities Dept.) has said it has no current plan to remove the substation. p. 31 Question: How high is "approxhnately 35 feet"? Heiohts p. 5~ The first line states that the SOFA2 plan allows a maximum height of 50 feet. is One of the two alternative plans allows 50 feet; the other plan limits heights to 35 feet. The assumption that either one of the plans will be approved is not correct. para. 4 "... portions of the building on this side will extend to approximately 50 feet." Question: How high is "approximately 50 feet"? This height dimension implies that the project will not abide even by the highest proposed 50 foot maximum. Sincer!! ~ Elaine h~e~ 609 King~ley Ave. Palo Alto, CA 9430:~ Palo Alto High Street Partners, LLC 909 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301-2405 Monday, November25,2002 Letter C Steven Turner Associate Planner Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 800 High Street DFEIR Dear Steve, There are a few areas of the Draft Focused ELR that we have comments on. They are organized as ’Important Revisions’ that we are requesting, ;Minor Corrections’ and ’Other Issues’. Important Revisions - 1.)The significance criteria for Cultural Resources (and other topics, as noted below) are somewhat vague and should be clarified. The key criterion as now presented on p. 64 is the project would have a significant environmental effect if it would "affect historical resources." It is difficult to tmow what this means, and it is not defined later in the section. We are concerned that this is vague. We suggest adding the fol!owing at the end of the Cultural Resources: Significance Criteria section on p. 64: 2.) To significantly affect an identified historical resource, a project would cause plo:sical demolition, destruction, relocation, or substantial alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the sign~cance of the resource would be materially impaired ~v advers@, altering the characteristics of the resource that convey its histotqc sign~cance or that make it eligible for or included in the California Register of Historical Resources or a local~,-adopted list of historic resources. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5) The same problem arises in the Transportation and Circulation section: the significance criterion is identified on p. 75 "increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion." Nearly all projects have increased vehicle trips, but Palo Alto does not prepare EIR’s for every project, because increased vehicle trips alone could not be a basis for determining significant impacts. The criterion is not actually used in the analysis that follows. In fact, the criteria used are listed on p. 77. That text. beginning with the second full paragraph on p. 77 and the two bullet items, should simply be moved td p. 75 and inserted after the single criterion listed and before the "Transportation and Circulation: Environmental Impacts" subhead. 3.)The discussion of land use on pp. 69 and 70 appears to suggest that the requirement for a height limit variance would be a sig-nificant impact. We don’t see how the requirement for a variance would have an impact in and of itself. It would be helpful to add the following text on p. 70 after the list of findings required for a variance to clarify the lack of significant impacts: If these findings can be made, the project would not be considered to be in cot~ict with the Zoning Ordinance and would not have significant land use impacts related to height. Any visual impacts that may result f!’om the increased height are addressed above in Section 4.1, Aesthetics. 4.)The significance criteria for noise are appropriately detailed and include short-term construction noise impacts. The impact identified on p. 72 does not address construction noise at all. There is, however, a mitigation measure that does address potential construction noise impacts. This mitigation measure is not quite the same as the means identified in the Initial Study to reduce construction noise impacts. We request the following clarifications in the EIR: Add the following new paragraph to the text on p. 73, following the first full para~aph: Construction noise was addressed in the Initial Stud), (see Append~ B, Initial Study, Section IX, Noise) and was found to be a less-than-significant impacts based on adherence to the consO’uction times set out in the CiO,’sconstruction noise ordi~mnce (Municipal Code Chapter 9.10). Minor Corrections - 2.) p. 63: the citation to ESA 1995 in the frrst para~aph does not lead the reader to a full citation to a report or other document either at the end of the Cultural Resources section or the Bibliography at the end of the EIR. The complete citation should be provided at the end of Cultural Resources. p. 67: Significance After Mitigation in mid-page references CRHR "criterion a". It should be criterion 1. p. 88: the bibliogaphy cites BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines from 1996. These Guidelines were updated in- 1999; the revisions were not material to the analysis in this Draft EIR, so a change may not be important, but it would be good to cite the most up-to-date version of the air district’s CEQA instructions if they were used. Other Issues - 1.) 2.) There is repeated reference to a ’Historic District’ on Homer Avenue that currently neither exists nor is being proposed. Please clarify that somewhere in the Cultural Resources section. We are concerned with the issue of the determination of"Potential Eligibility" of 140 Homer Avenue and have included the attached letter from JRP Historical Consultants and structural engineers report from Meser~e Engineering as response to that issue. Best Regards, 2 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 10.6 Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan Introduction California State Government Code Section 21081.6 (California Environmental Quality Act) requires a public agency to adopt a reporting or monitoring program when approving a project or changes to a project, in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The program must be based on the findings and the required mitigation measures presented in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that has been prepared on the project and certified by the lead agency. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. Per the guidelines, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) must cover the following: The MMRP must identify the entity that is responsible for each monitoring and reporting task, be it the City of Palo Alto (as lead agency), other agency (responsible or trustee agency), or a private entity (i.e., the project sponsor). The MMRP must be based on the project description and the required mitigation measures presented in the environmental document prepared for the project and certified by the lead agency. The MMRP must be approved by the lead agency at the same time of project entitlement action or approvals. MMRP’s are typically designed in chart and checklist format for ease of monitoring and reporting. Location and Description of Projects Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, an EIR was prepared to address the impacts of the project. This document, entitled 800 High So’eet DEIR, was certified by the Palo Alto City Council on The certified EIR consists of two volumes (Draft EIR dated October, 2002, and Final EIR / Response to Comments dated January, 2003), and is on file with the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Development. Purpose and Use of the Monitoring and Reporting Program The purpose of the monitoring and reporting program is to provide the City of Palo Alto with a simple guideline of procedures to ensure that the mitigation measures required under the certified EIR are .implemented properly. Since each required mitigation measure approved as part of the certified EIR must be implemented, a monitoring chart and a reporting chart were created, which are attached to this report. These charts provide the following information and direction for use. 1)The required mitigation measures are listed in the first column, corresponding to the list of measures provided in the certified EIR. 14 2) 4) 5) 800 High Street Final EIR January, 2003 The procedures for implementing the required mitigation measures are presented in the second column. This column provides a step-by-step approach to follow for each mitigation measure, to ensure that the recommendations are carried out. The third column provides a guide as to which agency or entity is responsible for a) requiring or imposing the mitigation measure and b) for monitoring or reporting the implementation procedures. This column also assists the City in serving as a "clearinghouse" where review of studies or monitoring activities could be required by another agency. This column provides a valuable reminder to the City that certain responsible or trustee agencies will need to be consulted through the various phases of City review. The agencies or entities listed in this column are abbreviated. The following is a key: DPCD -- Department of Planning and Community Development PW -- Public Works The fourth columns provide guidance on monitoring and reporting actions to ensure that implementation procedures are followed. The fifth column represents the recommended timing for initiating, completing, or implementing the mitigation. For example, implementation could be required to occur before the City approves a Grading Permit. This column is coded by letters, which represent the following: AP -- As a condition of approval for the new- building DP -- Prior to issuance of Demolition Permit GP -- Prior to issuance of Grading and/or Building Permit DC -- During construction PCM -- Post-construction monitoring The sixth column provides a record of monitoring compliance. This line is signed and dated when the monitoring action is completed. 15 o Attachment B RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (02-PC-01) FOR 800 HIGH STREET (HIGH STREET PARTNERS, LLC, O~ER AND APPLICANT)FOR PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE CHANGE PC The Council of the City of Palo Alto does resolve as follows: SECTION i. Background. The City Council finds, determines, and declares that: A.High Street Partners, LLC ("the applicant") has requested approval of the demolition of an existing ±17,600 square foot manufacturing building at 800 High Street, the Peninsula Creamery, and its replacement with a ±96,200 square foot mixed-use building including 61 for-sale housing units, ±1,900 square feet of retail space, and a subterranean parking garage (the "Project"). B o Resolution No. for the Project. The City Council has previously adopted approving the Environmental Impact Report C. The Architectural Review Board on October 17, 2002, November 21, 2002 and December 5, 2002 reviewed and considered the design of the Project and recommended approval upon certain conditions. D. The Planning and Transportation Commission held a public hearing on the Project on January 15, 2003 and recommended approval of the design of the Project based upon the findings and upon the conditions set forth below. E. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on February 3, 2003 and heard and considered all public testimony, both oral and written, presented to it, together with all staff reports and the record of the proceedings before the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commissions. SECTION 2. approves Planning Design Approval. The City Council hereby Application No. 02-PC-01, regarding the 030130 syn 0091196 architecture, site planning and related site improvements, subject to the conditions set forth below, finding that: a. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it complies with the Standards for Archi- tectural Review as required in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC. b. The design, as conditioned, is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan in that the project is consistent with the following policies and programs: Policy H-2: Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations; Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality; Policy H-!0: opportunities households; Encourage and foster diverse housing for very-low, low, and moderate income Policy T-l: Hake land use decisions that walking, bicycling, and public transit use; encourage Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details; Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts; Policy L-5: Maintain the Scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptabledue to their scale and size; Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development; Policy L-II: Promote increased compatibility, inter- dependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods; 030130 syn 0091196 2 Policy L-14: Design and arrange new multi-family buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces, so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street; Policy L-16: Consider siting small neighborhood serving retail facilities in existing or new residential areas; Policy L-25: Enhance the character of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed use area; Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding deve!opment and public spaces; Policy L:49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays, and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street leve!; and include human scale details and massing; Policy L-67: Balance traffic circulation needs with the goal of creating walkable neighborhoods that are designed and oriented towards pedestrians. Policy L-70: Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Pa!o Alto’s street tree system; c. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that it incorporates design features such as a reduced building height at Homer Avenue, an articulated and varied building face along High Street and public open space at the retail area and the public plaza at High Street and Channing Avenue. These design features reflect the context of the neighborhood and are intended to draw pedestrian activity to the area; d. The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the design accommodates the physica! and programmatic needs of the residentia! and retail components of the project; 030130 syn 0091196 e. The design is compatible with the character of the South of Forest Area in that the project promotes and enhances the existing mix of uses, supports the Homer Avenue retail corridor by incorporating retail and public plaza areas, and incorporates architectural elements that recall the light industrial character of the area; f. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that the residential and retai! portions of the project include design elements that distinguish between the land uses on site while visually relating them to the mix of land uses immediately surrounding the site; g. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that the project will accommodate planned improvements to the roadways and utilities surrounding the site; h. The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that each land use is supported by adequate amenities to ensure the harmonious co-existence of the different activities on the site; i. The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that appropriate private and public outdoor space are provided for the residential units and a public plaza is proposed on the corner of High Street and Channing Avenue to promote pedestrian activity further south on High Street. Additionally, the public courtyard near the corner of High Street and Homer Avenue is intended to support the Homer Avenue retail corridor; j. Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles in that access to the underground and surface parking will not interfere with existing traffic and !oading patterns in the area, all sides of the building are able to be accessed by pedestrians on designated walkways, adequate bicycle parking for the proposed land uses will be provided, and vehicular hazards have been reduced by widening the alley behind the project; k. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate to the design and function of the project in that they provide distinct visual clues to the land uses on the site, and are compatible with the 030130 syn 0091196 adjacent and neighboring structures, functions; landscape elements and I. The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms, and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment in that it enhances the streetscape and the surrounding pedestrian environment; m. 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; n. The design is energy efficient and incorporates design elements including, but not limited to: o Unit solar orientation promoting passive heat gain; Sorting, salvaging, and recycling of materials from building removal; SECTION 3. Conditions of Approval. General Plan Conformance. The plans submitted for Building Permit shal! be in substantial conformance with plans dated ......... revised as required by Ordinance No. and modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. o Planning Division Oversight° Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall place additiona! funds on deposit to the City for the ongoing Planning Division oversight of the project until the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Project Compliance, The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval set forth in this resolution and the Planned Community ordinance. Ao Planning Division The building may exceed the basic 35 foot height limit within 150 feet of 901 Alma Street, which is a mixed use PC 030130 syn 0091196 o zone which includes residences. However, the height and massing of portions of the building along Channing Avenue should be modified, without increasing the volume of the building in any other area, to provide better compatibility with neighboring properties. The modification shall be subject to review at a noticed public hearing by the Architectura! Review Board and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The total number of residential units in the project may be reduced if necessary to comply with this condition. The volume of the building shall be reduced, as necessary, to permit the expansion and redesign of the project’s private, common, and publicly accessible open space areas with specific focus on substantia! improvement of the High Street and Homer Avenue, and High Street and Channing Avenue, corners. These spaces shall be designed, built and maintained as attractive, accessable, usable, comfortable open spaces use by the general public. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall provide and where appropriate, record, documentation to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, the City Engineer, and the Director of Utilities of: (!) its right to construct the subterranean parking structure in land within the public right of way and outside the boundaries of its parcel; (2) the City’s right to relocate, at the applicant’s expense, and maintain, at its own expense, utilities in the Project’s garage that could otherwise be maintained in Lane 8 or the portion of the High Street right of way to be occupied by this Project; (3) the right of the City and other property owners in the 800 block of Alma Street to obtain access ~o High Street from their own future subterranean garages through the Project’s own subterranean garage.With respect to the City property at 841 Alma Street, no charge or other requirement shal! be made to the City for establishment or use of the easement. The City may be required to pay the cost of removing the section of the garage wall designated in the plans for access, and of the construction of its own garage, but all other expenses that may result from the establishment of the connection shall be borne by the Project. The City will grant the necessary easements to permit construction of the garage as part of a license agreement establishing the City’s right to use a certain number of parking spaces at no cost and confirming the Project’s sole responsibility for maintenance and other expenses of garage operation. 030130 syn 0091196 o o ° Prior to issuance of the building permit, Development Impact Fees in the amount required by City ordinances and resolutions shall be paid to the City. The following measures shall be incorporated into project to reduce light and glare impacts: the Shield or focus outdoor night lighting downward to minimize upward reflected light. Recess lighting elements within fixtures to prevent glare. Avoid placing lights too close to objects to prevent reflected glare. Avoid high-angle high-candela distribution. Select lighting features which can be shielded after installation, if a problem is identified. (Mitigation Measure 4.1-1) The following dust control measures shall be implemented during project construction to reduce the impact of construction dust: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Cover al! trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require al! trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. (Mitigation Measure 4.2-1) Project personnel shall be alerted to the possibility of encountering archaeological resources during construction and apprised of the proper procedures to fol!ow in the event that archaeological resources or human remains are found. In the event of discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office shall be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are, shall comply with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.5(e) ¯ In the 030130 syn 0091196 o o i0. ii. event that archaeological resources are discovered during grading or construction activities, all work shall cease within 150 feet of the find unti! it can be evaluated by a qualified, professional archaeologist.The archeologist shall conduct independent review of the find, with authorization of and.under direction of the City. Prompt evaluations should be made regarding the significance and importance of the finds and a course of action acceptable to al! concerned parties should be adopted. If mitigation is required, the first priority shal! be for avoidance and preservation of the resource. If avoidance is not feasible an alternative plan that may include excavation shal! be prepared. All archaeologica! excavation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in accordance with prevailing professional standards as outlined Guidelines and by the California Preservation. The Native American consulted on all aspects of the (Mitigation Measure 4.3-1) in the State CEQA Office of Historic community shall be mitigation program. The applicant shall hire a qualified architectural historian to complete a written history documenting the laundry business within Palo Alto and the families who founded those businesses. A full history of the Peninsula Creamery shall also be conducted. The building at 140 Homer Avenue, other laundry buildings, and other Peninsula Creamery buildings shall be photographed as part of these histories. The documentation shall be submitted to the City prior to final occupancy of the building. (Mitigation Measures 4.3-2 (a) and (b)) The Peninsula Creamery Buildings shall be photographed using the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standards prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. (Mitigation Measures 4.3-2 (a) and (b)) Windows in the building should have an STC (sound transmission class) rating of 28, except for those overlooking Lane 8 West, which should be 32 STC level. (Mitigation Measure 4.5-1) The project shall include design features that will reduce the maximum outdoor noise level to as close as the 60 dB standard as feasible through project design, such as installation of a sound wal! or barrier at the Lane 8 West side of the building, the use of absorbing or reflecting materials, or landscaping necessary to achieve desired noise levels. (Mitigation Measure 4.5-2) 030130 syn 0091196 12. 13. Prior to the submittal for a building permit, the applicant shall be responsible for submitting a construction management plan to the Planning Division,which shall include, but is not limited to, an expected timeline for demolition and construction activities, details regarding construction into the Lane 8 West, and hours of construction. (Mitigation Measure 4.5-3) The plan must obtain approva! from Public Works Engineering.The final logistics plan shal! incorporate al! required features of the PWE approved conceptual logistics plan with consideration given to other project Prior to the submittal for a building permit, the applicant shall be responsible for submitting a construction impact minimization plan for neighboring businesses, developed with cooperation from the neighboring business owners. The plan would identify the potential impacts from construction, the time when those impacts would be expected to occur during construction, and how those impacts would be minimized, including, but not limited to: temporary relocation of customer parking, loading/unloading areas and pedestrian access ways; identification of temporarily modified circulation patterns around the project site; and temporary signage providing identification to businesses that have views from public views that are blocked during construction. The plan shall be approved by the Planning Division and Public Works. B. Planning Arborist 14.Tree planting in the street right-of-way shall provide for the use of engineered structural soil beneath the sidewalk a!ong Channing Avenue and High Street to promote a sustainable street tree landscape. The civil and landscape drawings shall note a minimum 30" depth of structural fill above the podium slab from back of curb to the face of building. 15.Impervious courtyard areas within four feet of shade tree plantings shal! provide for additional root growing area using structural soil. 16.A landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on and off- site plantable areas out to the curb shal! be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division staff. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include: 030130 syn 0091196 17. a o h° All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. Irrigation schedule and plan. Fence and gate !ocations. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way, as shown on the approved plans, shal! be installed per Public Works Standard Tree Well Diagram #504, shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. The Public Works Detai! #504 shall be shown on Landscape ~Plans. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root bal! keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, details on the irrigation plans shall show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root bal! for each tree that is 15 gallon in size or larger. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside the aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow preventer is adequately obscured by planting the appropriate size and type shrubbery, fitted with green wire cage, or painted dark green to minimize visibility. Approved Planting Soil Hix. The planting soil in the planter areas shall show a uniform soil mix to a 24-inch depth. Prior to planting, the contractor shall provide soils lab report to the City Arborist verifying that soil mix acceptable to the City has been delivered to the site. Prior to Occupancy 18.Landscape Architect Inspection. The contractor shall call for an inspection by the Landscape Architect, and provide 030130 syn 0091196 10 written verification to the Planning Department that all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. Post Construction 19.Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be wel!-maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and American National Standards for Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance- Standard Practices (ANSI A300-1995) as outlined in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Any vegetation that dies shal! be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Co Building Division Prior to Application for Building Permit 20.The entire proposed building shall be constructed under a single building permit that includes the parking garage, structural frame and shel!, the interior construction of al! common areas and residential dwelling units, and all associated electrical, plumbing and mechanical work. Separate permits may be processed for interior work associated with tenant specific improvements in the individual commercial tenant spaces. 21.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 by the Chief Building Official prior to permit application. 22.The building’s electrical service location shall require prior approval by the Inspection Services Division and shal! be located at an exterior location or in a room or enclosure accessible directly form the exterior. Additionally, the main switchboard shall be located as close as possible to the service entrance in order to minimize the length of unused conductors passing through the building. The proposed locations of these areas shal! be shown on the revised plan sets. 23.The building shall be served by a single electrical service. If multiple electric meters are required due to 030130 syn 0091196 1! the multi-tenant configuration, they shall be located at a single location on the site. 24..The building shall be served by a single natural gas service. If multiple gas meters are required due to the multi-tenant configuration,they shall be located at a single !ocation on the site. 25.The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area Calculation that relates the mixed occupancies to the type of construction. 26.The residential portions of the project shall include the required number of handicap accessible and adaptable units prescribed in California Building Code (CBC), Chapter i!. 27.All public access areas, pathways and parking shall be accessible as prescribed in CBC Chapter i!. Prior to Permit Issuance 28.An acoustical analysis shall be submitted and the plans shall incorporate the reports recommendations needed to comply with the sound transmissions requirements in CBC Appendix Chapter 12. 29.Any existing buildings that are not required to remain shall be removed prior to issuance of the building or grading permits. Demolition permits shall be required for the removal of each separate building on the site. 30.The lot merger process shall be completed and the map shall be recorded prior tO permit issuance. D.Transportation Division 31.It appears that the required 5 feet of access drive aisle is provided, but the plans shall show the exact dimensions. Class III racks shall Me provided on the surface for residential and guest parking and for the retail uses. Racks for the retail uses shall be located near the retai! establishments. Racks for residential parking shall be located near the building entries. Combining the residential and retai! racks in the two retai! areas may be the best way to located the bike parking] since it appears that the building entrances are near the retail areas. The 030130 syn 0091196 12 32. 33. 34. 35. make and model of lockers and racks shall be shown on the plans. A signage improvement plan for Lane 8 West is required. Signage shall include a.stop sign and a one-way sign at the south end of the alley, loading zone signs for the Palo Alto Hardware store and other uses along the alley, and no parking signs for the remainder of the length of the alley. The plan shall be developed in consultation with the Transportation Division and approved prior to issuance of the building permit. The on-street parking stalls on the west side of High Street and north side of Channing Avenue shall be restriped to provide a new layout of parking stalls after the changes in the driveway locations are made. New and/or relocated signs will also be required along those blocks. The garage ramp shall meet the slope requirements of PAMC 18.83.090, Table i0. The landscaping and building edges shall be designed to provide adequate sight distance for traffic entering or exiting onto Homer Avenue and Channing Avenue. The garage exit must meet the sight distance requirement of PAHC 18.83. 37. 38. Fire Department Provide a Fire Department access road 20 feet in width with 13’6" vertica!clearance. Road to meet weight bearing (60,000 ibs.)and turning radius (40 ft. inside) requirements of fire truck. Road shall be all-weather, and shal! reach to within 150 feet of any point on the first f!oor exterior. (98CFC902.2.2) NOTE: This alley as currently shown will meet this requirement. Hydrants shall be spaced at intervals not to exceed 300 feet in both directions of trave! around the building, following the route of travel of a fire engine. (PAMCI5.04.140)NOTE:An additional hydrant wil! be required at or near the midpoint of the alley. The proposed location of the new hydrant shall be shown and labeled on the building permit plans. Elevator cars shall be sized for Fire Department gurney access requirements based on gurney dimensions of 24" x 82" 030130 syn 0091196 13 39. 40. 41. 42. plus a minimum of two emergency response personnel. 15.04.120) ( PAMC A fire~ sprinkler system shall be provided throughout each building which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13 - 1996 Edition. Fire Sprinkler system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMCI5.04.083) NOTE: Building plans will not be approved unless complete sprinkler coverage is indicated. A Class I standpipe system shall be provided for each building which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 14 - 1996 Edition. Standpipe system installations require separate submitta! to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMCI5.04.083) Approved 21/2-inch hose valves shall be provided at each underground floor level landing in every stairwell for the underground parking structure. (PAMCI5.04.178) NOTE: The standpipe system may be combined with the fire sprinkler system. A fire pump is required for combined systems capable of delivering 500 to 1250 gpm @100psi from the highest outlets from each standpipe. An approved underground fire supply shall be provided for the sprinkler system(s), and shal! meet the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 24 - 1996 Edition. Fire supply system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC!5.04.083) NOTE: Fire Department approval will be withheld until Utilities Department and Public Works Department requirements have been met. An approved automatic and manual fire alarm system shall be provided throughout the interior of each building. (98CBC3!0.14.12) Fire Alarm system installations require separate submitta! to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMCI5.04.083) Public Works Engineering Division The applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior to final ARB submittal to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water infiltration. The applicant is required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan that conveys site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan shal! identify the Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated into the 030130 syn 0091196 14 44. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall include permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect stormwater quality (Resources and handouts are available from Public Works - Engineering. Specific reference is made to Pa!o Alto’s companion document to ~Start at the Source", entitled ~Planning Your Land Development Project"). The elements of the PWE -approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shal! be incorporated into the building permit plans. The 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. At the conclusion of the project, the applicant shal! provide digital as-built record drawings of all improvements constructed in the public right of way or easements in which the City owns and interest. A digital copy of any project parcel map, subdivision map or certificate of compliance shall also be provided. All files shall be delivered in AutoCad.dwg format. For each CD delivery, a simple digita! 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. 45. 46. 47. 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 pgovide 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. 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 proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant’s monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approva! 030130 syn 0091196 15 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressin~ at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shal! conform with the City of Palo A!to’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering. Public Works Engineering (PWE) requires that this entire site be developed as a single parcel. Currently, the project encompasses three distinct parcels, which will need to be converted into one for the proposed development to proceed. The applicant should proceed with the Parcel Map process and prepare a parce! map application for submission to the Planning Division. A maintenance agreement is required for the private maintenance of the garage within the alley as well as the within High Street. All future plans shall show the proposed easements and include notation that they are to be privately maintained. This maintenance agreement will be part of the license agreement entitling the City to use of a certain number of parking spaces without charge. The applicant shall slurry seal High Street from Homer to Channing as part of this deve!opment. The proposed deve!opment shall include its own utilities, separate from the adjacent deve!opments. Backup pumps are required for the storm drain system in the garage due to the large, exposed surface area of the entrance and exit ramps. An oil-water separator is required for the underground garage and shall discharge into the sanitary sewer system. The applicant shall install additional conduits under the new sidewalk for future fiber optic/utility use. Number, size, and location of conduits to be determined by PWE. 030130 syn 0091196 16 Prior to Building Permit Issuance The applicant shall obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk and or.construction proposed in the City right-of- way. Sec. 12.08.010. 57.A detailed site-specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technical engineer must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement construction issues.This report shall identify the current groundwater level, if encountered,and by using this and other available information,as well as professional experience, the engineer shall estimate the highest projected ground-water level likely to be encountered in the future. If the proposed basement is reasonably above the projected highest water level, then the basement can be constructed in a conventiona! manner with a subsurface perimeter drainage system to relieve hydrostatic pressure. If not, measures must be undertaken to render the basement waterproof and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No pumping of ground water is allowed. In general, however, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels. 58.Although this proposed development will disturb less than five acres of land, it is located in an environmentally sensitive area and/or has potential for storm water pollution due to steep grades, paved parking areas or other site conditions. The applicant must prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit two copies of 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 as well as temporary measures employed during construction to control storm w~ter pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s) which apply to the work should be incorporated into the design. The applicant is not required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. 030130 syn 0091196 17 59. 60. The applicant is required to paint the "No Dumping/Flows to San Francisquito Creek" logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to al! storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. The project includes the construction of dumpster and recycling areas. City guidelines recommend that this area be covered where feasible. 61.The applicant shall post a bond prior to the issuance of a street work permit to guarantee the completion of the "on" and "off" site condition(s) of approva!. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning, Utilities, and Public Works Departments. During Construction 62.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approva! of Public Works Engineering. 64.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into ~ gutters or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09). All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. 030130 syn 0091196 18 66. 67. 68. 70. All sidewalks and curb and gutters bordering the project, along Homer from the Alley to High Street, the High Street frontage, and along Channing from High to the Alley, shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. The unused driveway located along the High Street frontage shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. Sec. 12.08.090. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off- site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. Similarly, all as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and post-developments BMP’s shall be Completed prior to sign- off. Public Works Water Quality 71. Any drain plumbing for the underground parking garage must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of i00 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system (PAMC 16.09.032(9) (17)). 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 an oil sensor system to prevent hydraulic oil spills from being pumped to the sanitary sewer. Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 16.09.032(b) (9) prohibits the use of copper or copper alloys in piping coming into contact with sewage, except for sink traps and associated connecting pipes. H. Public Works Operations Recycling Details of the proposed trash and recycling handling and transportation plan for the building shal! be included on the plans submitted for building permit: 72.Wherever the trash chutes are located in the residential buildings, recycling shall be located so that the residents make one trip to one location for their garbage and recycling. Each trash /recycling area shall be adequate to 030130 syn 0091196 19 73. 74. 75. accommodate the collection of cardboard, commingle (glass, cans and plastic bottles), mixed paper, and newspaper, in addition to the garbage. Each of the 4 different materials recycled is collected separately. PASCO services garbage and recycling on the street level unless other arrangements have been made. If the service of the garbage and/or the recycling is done from below street level, or in an area that is not accessible to PASCO’s trucks, additional charges for service will be substantial (hundreds of dollars). Contact PASC0 at (650)493-4894 for trash requirements and for collection vehicle access. Unless the project is designed to accommodate a mechanical recycling and trash collection station, there shall be a station on each floor of each residential building consisting of one 64 gallon wheeled cart each for commingle and mixed paper, and one 94 gallon wheeled cart for newspaper. The property management shal! come up with some method for collecting cardboard at each station. Note that cardboard is collected, by PASCO, in bins not carts. There would also need to be some mechanism (facilities maintenance) in place to transport the materials collected at the trash/recycling locations on each floor to a main area for service. In the case of cardboard, the cardboard would need to be transferred to a bin that would be shared by the retail and residentia! uses. Staff recommends two 4 cubic yard cardboard containers for the entire development, to be located between the buildings. For the retail use, there shall be one 64-gallon container for commingle, newspaper, mixed paper (for a total of three containers). Retail garbage, cardboard, and other recycling shall be in same !ocation for convenience. Utilities Marketing Services Prior to issuance of either a building permit or grading permit, all 6ommon 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 Pa!o Alto. A water budget shall be assigned to the project and a dedicated irrigation water meter shal! be required. Call the Landscape Plan Review Specialist at (650) 329-2549 for additional information. 030130 syn 0091196 2O Jo Utilities Water Gas Wastewater Division Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit 77.The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within i0 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. Prior to Submittal for Building Permit 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. Gas and water meter locations must comply with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas and wastewater. The gas and water meter locations shall be sufficiently detailed on the plans to allow staff to determine compliance with the utility standards. 79.The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. A separate load sheet must be provided for each gas meter and each domestic water meter. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in g.p.d.). 80.The applicant shal! 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. 81.The applicant’s engineer shall submit water flow calculations which will show that the on-site and off-site water distribution system wil! 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 current flows and water pressures on existing 030130 syn 0091196 21 main. Calculations must be signed registered civil engineer. and stamped by a 82.The applican~ is required to perform, at his/her expense, a f!ow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak f!ows 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. 83.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 civi! 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. 84.The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities wil! be performed at the cost of the person requesting the relocation. 85.Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water service, gas meter and sewer lateral connection. 86.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. 87.An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) shall be installed for al! existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative 030130 syn 0091196 22 88. 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. An approved detector check valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The double check detector check valve shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Show the location of the detector check assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. During Construction 89.The contractor shall contact Underground Service Alert (800) 227-2600 one week in advance of excavation to provide for marking of underground utilities. 90.The applicant shall provide protection for utility lines subject to damage. Utility lines within a pit or trench shall be adequately supported. Al! exposed water, gas, and sewer lines shall be inspected by the WGW Utilities inspector prior to backfilling. 91.The contractor shall maintain 12" clear, above and below, from the existing utilities to the new crossing underground facilities. 92.All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Pa!o Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 93.Utility service connections will be installed between 30 and 40 days following receipt of full payment. Large developments must allow sufficient lead time (6 weeks minimum) for utility construction performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 94.All utility work shall be inspected and approved by the WGW utilities inspector. Inspection costs for any work done before 8:00 a.m. or after 4:30 p.m. on a regular work day, or on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays shall be paid by the applicant’s contractor. Schedule WGW utilities inspections 030130 syn 0091196 23 at 650/566-4504 constructions. five working days before start of 95.The applicant’s contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department (650) 496-6982 or 650/329-2413 if the existing water or gas mains are disturbed or damaged. 96.All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division, inspected by the utilities cross connection inspector and tested by a licensed tester prior to activation of the water service. 97.No water valves or other facilities owned by Utilities Department shal! be operated for any purpose by the applicant’s contractor. All required operation will only be performed by authorized utilities department personnel. The applicant’s contractor shal! notify the Utilities Department not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time that such operation is required. 98.The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water main except by expressed permission of the utilities chief inspector and shall submit a schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. 99.The water main shall not be turned on until the service installation and the performance of chlorination and bacteriological testing have been completed. The contractor’s testing method shall be in conformance with ANSI/AWWA C651-86. i00. Changes from the utility standards or approved submittals wil! require new submittals, as specified above, showing the changes. The new submittals must be approved by the utilities engineering section before making any change. i01. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per Utilities WGW procedures. 102.The applicant’s contractor shall install the following to comply with gas meter requirements: bypass connection on the customer’s gas line; concrete meter pad; concrete walkway for access to meter; bollards if meters are subject to vehicular damage. 103.All improvements to the gas system will be performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 030130 syn 0091196 24 104. All customer gas piping shall be inspected and approved by the building inspection division before gas service is instituted.Gas meters wil! be installed within five working days after the building piping passes final inspection and the building inspection division sends the set tag to the Utilities Department. Ko Utilities/Engineering Electrical Division Prior to Demolition Permit Issuance 105.The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 106.The Applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building. Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within i0 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. Prior to Submittal for Building Permit 107.A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 108.Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 109.Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. ii0. This project requires a padmount transformer unless otherwise approved in writing by the Electric Utility Engineering Department. The !ocation of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by 030130 syn 0091196 25 the Utilities Department and the Architectural Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16. Review i!i. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers,switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shal!grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as required by the City. 112. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ~- inch size conduits are permitted. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. The design and installation shall also be according to the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 113.Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 114.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 115.For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 116.No more than four 750MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers, if customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of transition cabinet will not be required. 117.The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the 030130 syn 0091196 26 National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 118.Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities. charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. Prior to Building Permit Issuance 119.The .applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 120. During Construction 121.Contractors and deve!opers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 122.At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1- 800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 123.The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructure (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ~-inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. Utilities Rule & regulation #16. 124.All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pul! boxes. 030130 syn 0091196 27 125.All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. Rule and Regulation #16. 126.The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 127.Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enclosures, the customer must submit switchboard drawings to the Electric Metering Department at 3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto 94303 for approval. The City requires compliance with all applicable EUSERC standards for metering and switchgear. 128.All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. After Construction and Prior to Finalization 129.The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of al! switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size),splice boxes,vaults and switch/transformer pads. Prior to Occupancy 130.The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16. 131.All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrica! Underground Inspector. 132. All fees must be paid. 133.All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. 030130 syn 0091196 28 Additional Comments 134.The developer is required to maintain adequate vertical and radia! clearances from the existing 60KV lines as per G.0.95. 135.Customer shall not encroach into the substation area under any circumstances. 136.The existing street lights fronting the project site on Homer, High, and Channing that require relocation due to the proposed development shall be done at developer expense. Developer must provide lighting design that complies with Illuminating Engineering Society (I.E.S.) guidelines and City’s requirements. If the developer proposes to install exterior lights on the walls to .illuminate the alley, the lighting design must be approved by the Public Works Engineering Department. 137.Space and Public Utility Easement shall be granted for installing padmounted transformer and associated substructure on the private property. Location of the padmounted transformer and electric switchboard must be clearly shown on the drawings. Layout of primary conduits and associated substructure must meet with City’s requirements and clearances. 138.There shall not be any parking structure encroachment in the alley (Lane 8 West) above the ground level. Clear access in the alley to the pedestrians and Utility crews shall be maintained at all times. 139.Utilities Engineering recommends the electric panel/electric room for the proposed development to be as close as possible to the padmounted transformer. 140.Developer must schedule a meeting with Engineering prior to any further submittals to resolve any issues which may significantly impact the project. // // // // 030130 syn 0091196 29 SECTION 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon the effective date of Ordinance , entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto .Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the classification of Property Known as 800 High Street from CD-S(P) to PC Planned Community and Approving a Variance from a Height Requirement." INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 030130 syn 0091196 3O Jbrarv % Attachment C / PC-4465 795 Palo Alto Medical PF Foundation CC The Cily of Palo Alto 800 High Street 02-PC-01 Project Location This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GtS 273’ The City of Palo Alto This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS800 High Street 02-PC-01 ~ January 15, 2003 O’120’ Th-~ City Palo Alto Project: 800 High Street 02-PC-01 1999 Aerial Photo This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Attachment D The Development Statement and Schedule was not received in time to include with this City Council staff report, and will be forwarded to Council separately. Attachment E Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes Draft Excerpt 800 High Street [02-PC-01] %’. Request by Doug Ross and Curt Peterson of Palo Alto High Street Partners, LLC, for Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation to the City Council of an application to allow a zone change from Downtown Commercial Service with Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S(P)) to Planned Community (PC), the demolition of 17,632 square feet of existing buildings and the construction of a new 96,227 square foot residential and retail building, including 61 residential units, 1,833 square feet of neighborhood serving retail space, a two-level subterranean parking garage, and related site improvements. The project also requires a variance from Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.68.150 to allow a portion of the building to exceed the 35-foot height limit for portions of sites within 150 feet of Planned Community districts containing a residential component. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report wil! be prepared and presented to the Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council. Chair Bialson: The next item is regarding the High Street and I am going to be stepping down because I am still within the period of time in which I represented a client whose property w-ill be affected by this and the client is [Holly Christiansen]. So I’ll turn over this chair to Michael Griffin. [Chair Bialson steps down from being Chair. Michael Griffin presides over] Vice-Chair Griffin: Are there any more cards that people would like to pass and to speak on the next item on our agenda, 800 High Street? I’d encourage you to bring it forward. And we’ll start this off by asking Staff if they would like to make a presentation. Steven. Steven Turner. Planner: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Steven Turner. I’m a Plamaer with the Planning Commission and the project manager for the project. This is your second review of the project. Your last review w-as on December 18, 2002. And at that review, the Commission opened the public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the project itself. The Staff received comments from members of the public and Commission on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the project. Commission then closed the public hearing on the Draft EIR and continued the public hearing on the project to this meeting. At that December 18th meeting, Staff asked the Comrnission to identify or speak to actually 5 key issues on the project. And those key issues were: 1) consistency of the project with the Comprehensive Plan and the South of Forest Area to coordinate an area plan; 2) look at the adequacy of the Below Market Rate housing program; 3) discussion of the easements and the parking agreements that were proposed; 4) the granting of the Floor Area bonus over what is normally allowed on the site; 5) issue with regard to the Page 1 public open space on the project. Staff wanted to pool the Commissioners at that time on their thoughts and feelings about those five issues. Staff then took those comments from the Commission and formulated a recommendation for approval on the project. I wi!l go ahead and read Staff’s recommendation. Staff is recommending that the Planning and Transportation Commission review and consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report and make the following recommendations to the City Council. The first one that we’re asking that the Commission recommend to the Council that they should certify the Environmental Impact Report. Number two up on the list would be to grant a Zone change from the existing downtown commercial service zone district with Pedestrian Overl~iy to a Planned Community zone district. Number two would be to revise the project in accordance with the Commission’s prior recommendation for the South of Forest Area to Coordinated Area Plan as follows: to reduce the Floor Area to a Floor Area Ratio of 2.0 to 1.0 or less; to reduce the size of the individual units as necessary so that none exceed 1,500 square feet; reduce the daylight plane encroachments all on High Street and this would be to whatever daylight plane standardwould be set in terms of SOFA 2. This condition would apply only if the City Council adopts the South of Forest Area to a Coordinated Area Plan, prior to the issuance of the building permits for the project and within six months after Council’s adoption of the PC Ordinance for the project. Third, to retain the historic Family Service Laundry building unless City Council finds preserving it substantially impedes the attainment of other Coordinated Area Plan objectives. Grant a variance from the Municipal Code to allow those portions of the project within 150 feet of the existing Planned Community property at 901 Alma Street to extend above 35 feet in height based upon the findings as listed in Attachment D. Number 5, recommend the approval of the Below Market Rate housing plan for the sale of 11 BMR units. And require expansion and redesign of the project’s private common and publicly accessible open areas. Some significant issues that were touched upon at the last meeting. I’ll go over them here. Consistency with the SOFA 2 Coordinated Area Plan. At the December 18th meeting, the Commission generally agreed that the project should be reviewed under the policy’s programs and regulations of the SOFA 2 CAP that was recommended to the Council with the understanding that the project is subject only to the existing regulations for property, that is within the SOFA 2 area. Attachment F of your Staff Report contains a matrix that compares the project with the Working Group’s recommendation and the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council on the SOFA 2 plan. In regards to the demolition of the historic Family Service Laundry building, that building is eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. In order to demolish the building, the Environmental Impact Report must be certified including a Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council and members of the ARB and I believe Staff, Planning Commission Staff are present to summarize the ARB’s latest review of the project in terms of the retention of the building. Page 2 For the Below Market Rate housing program, the BMR units will be located on each of the four residential floors of the project, two-thirds of the units, which should be about 7 units would be affordable to families with an annual income between 80% and 100% of the 2002 median income for Santa Clara County. The BMR units include a mix often 2- bedroom units and one 1-bedroom unit. This is not the mix that an across the board sample would produce. One-third of the units in the building are currently 3-bedroom units but the goal of the BMR program is to make the units as attractive to as many qualified purchasers as possible. Staff recognizes the importance of making the units similar to the market rate units, however, the BMR program may not be as successful if there are fewer home buyers who have qualified for the larger units. In terms of the Environmental Impact Report and the response to comments and the text revisions, the SOFA program EIR was a reference document for the Draft document that was proposed for this project. It’s not technically a tiered EIR. It is an Environmental Impact Report that can exist on its own and satisfy the CEQA’s guidelines for them. Staff has identified three areas within the Draft EIR that will be clarified in the final EIR. Those areas include Section 1.2 require project approval.s, Section 4.4 Land Use planning, and Section 4.6 Transportation and Circulation. The response is to all the written and oral comments that Staff has received will be contained to the final EIR which will be presented to Council. That concludes the Staff Report. The applicant is here to make a presentation. Mr. Emslie: Thank you. Before we conclude the Staff Report, I just wanted to emphasize the Staff recommendation before you in the Staff Memorandum, as well as presented on the screen. We’re really recommending that the project be modified in a substantial way. I just wanted to clarify because at the December 18th, Staff had proposed a condition that said essentially that if this project were to move forward to the Council there was a requirement that this project will be required to conform to the adoption of the SOFA 2 plan, whatever form that it may take upon Council approval. This recommendation is more specific. It basically says that this project needs to conform with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council for SOFA 2 which and those under Item #3 and those three areas, the project is currently in conflict with the Planning Commission’s recommendations. The project is over 2.0 FAR. It has units that are larger than 1,500 square feet, and it has a daylight plane encroachment. So with those revisions to the plans, this project would conform with the Planning Commission’s recommendation in so far that it provides two or more of the public benefits that the Planning Commission had prescribed in its list. It facilitates affordable hotising by providing the access to the City owned property on Alma, the substation property. It provides public parking and also provides some amount of public open space. All of which are on the Planning Commission’s prescribed list of public benefits. So I just did want to emphasize that. We are recommending that we use the Staff recommendation format for guiding the Commission’s discussion tonight and wanted to clarify that we are recommending that this project essentially come into conformance Page 3 with the Planning Commission’s recon~nendations for SOFA 2 currently pending before the City Council. Vice-Chair Griffin: We have some questions here for you. Bonnie, you want to go first? Commissioner Packer: Just some questions on the scope of the project. On page 10 of the Staff Report, there was a discussion of access from the subterranean tunnel and that would be into the parking garage? Mr. Emslie: Yes. Commissioner Packer: So, there’s that discussion. Have the details of that been worked out? Because I would imagine if you’re going to have more driveways, it would affect the number of parking spaces in the whole circulation. Mr. Emslie: It has. And the applicants have prepared a plan that shows what happens if there are other openings into adjoining properties on Lane 8 West or the alley. And it’s been shown that the implementation of the additional access does not significantly diminish the provision of parking. I think at most we would lose 3 to 6 spaces out of the total number if that were the case. Commissioner Packer: So then what would happen is in addition to the access from High Street in the middle, there’ll be access into the parking garage from three driveways through the parking garage from Lane 8 West? Mr. Emslie: That would be the worst case scenario that they would have multiple. There’s also opportunities to coordinate that so that will reduce the need for additional openings but if in the future, it is impractical or if not possible to coordinate that, you could still have independent access from the garage and still not significantly impact the parking geometry of the project. Ms. Furth: If you look at the cover sheet on the plans, you’ll notice when they do the math on the parking spaces, they have six spaces as due to loss of circulation. And the proposed ordinance has two numbers for the number of publicly available parking spaces to be managed by the City. The first number is without losing, the second number is if we lose them. Commission Packer: 57, is assuming the additional access from Lane 8 if that happens? Ms. Furth: It’s 63 if that doesn’t happen. Commissioner Packer: Okay. The other question I have, a separate subject was the issue of the allowance for demolition of historic structures in the proposal for the Planning and Transportation Commission on the SOFA 2 CAP. I think this is from my perspective, inadvertently omitted that opportunity and I understand from the Staff Report that was included in our packet for the Historic Resources Board that request was made to the Page 4 Historic Resources Board to approve language to go into the proposed CAP. Was that discussed this morning in their meeting? Mr. Emslie: Yes, it was discussed this morning at the Historic Resources Board. We do have an HRB member present to answer your questions regarding the discussion of those proceedings. Beth Bunnenberg is with us if you have any questions, I’m sure she’d be happy to explain what happened this morning. Vice-Chair Griffin: All right, Phyllis, did you have a question? Are you asking for clarification? Commissioner Cassel: Under reduce the size of individual units is necessary so that none exceed 1,500 square feet, that’s a recommendation we made. But do we have any right at this time to make that decision? It’s never been done before. Ms. Furth: This is a Planned Community district request. This is a legislative act. This is zoning. Just like SOFA is a kind of zoning and so if you believe that’s appropriate, yes. Commissioner Burt: As long as we’re on the subject of the 1,500 square foot maximum which was a recommendation that the Commission made for the SOFA 2 area as a whole, PC within the SOFA 2 area, as I began to think about that more the concern is that if we put a maximum as the only controlling parameter, do we risk that we’re all going to have all the units at that size? And if that’s the case, do we need to have some other parameters such as an average size or something else that allows a maximum to be in place and yet it does not have a non-intended consequence of having one uniform size of all units at a maximum? Mr. Emslie: We would agree that if the prescribed is the maximum, the tendency would be to have all the units at the maximum. We know the forces are at work have increased that’s why we have a maximum unit size in the plan, is that the tendency is to add more square footage wherever possible. So, yes, I agree, I think that is one of the consequences of that. We’re not reading more into the Planning Commission’s recommendation and we feel that the Commission has spent a great deal of time thinking through the application of the standards and we think that they have application to this project because your recommendation is stil! pending in front of the City Council. I think you could indicate that you wanted to broaden the application of this but we’re taking it pretty much at face value and proceeding on that basis. Commissioner Burt: I appreciate your faith in the detailed amount of time we spent on it had generally good results. But there maybe some things that we did not appreciate at the time we made the recommendations. Has Staff.given any consideration to how the objective that we had in setting a maximum standard might be better achieved by including not only a maximum but some other control mechanism such as an average size or a mixture of unit sizes or some other mechanism that would achieve the dual objectives that I believe we had. One was to not have oversize units, and the other was to Page 5 have a mixture of unit sizes and types that would provide housing for a variety of potential residents. Mr. Emslie: It still is possible. You don’t have to accept that as it’s complete that you’re going to get all 1,500 square foot units. We’re still talking about an area that has discretion. It’s a PC so if you’re unhappy with the unit mix and still want to maintain a cap of 1,500 square feet, you can ask for a greater diversity of units. You have that within your power. I just think that we all know the market forces are such that the development is going to try to maximize that. It’s a force that you have to deal with. But you’re not somehow precluded from asking for diversity of units when you have a cap. You can sti!l ask for a range up to the maximum of 1,500 square feet if you so desire. Vice-Chair Griffin: Karen, did you have a question? Commissioner Holman: Wynn, did you want to say something? Ms. Furth: I was going to say with regard to this particular PC, you have a particular set of plans with a particular mix of units and you approve not only the text but the plans. Now, of course, the plans have to change in order to meet this recommended condition number 3 and so if you want to add text about retaining a mix of units to that direction, that would be fine. Another thing that you did in SOFA 1 was explicitly prohibit the collapsing of units together, punching through two adjacent units to make a single bigger unit. You did require that they maintain the originally improved number of distinct units. And we could certainly do that here as well. Commissioner Holman: Just to be a little bit of a devil’s advocate here. As we all know, when you come up with a plan and then you try to implement it sometimes you discover things. I guess it’s possible that in a development this size that you could end up with all 1,500 square foot units but doesn’t architecturally you’re going to end up with spaces that don’t really accommodate a 1,500 square foot unit for instance? And if you lop off a couple of hundred of square feet offofa number of 1,500 square foot units, you’re going to have more "For Sale" units than say, for purposes of the conversation, 1,300 square feet. So in the return better on a greater number of 1,300 square units as opposed to a fewer number of 1,500 square foot units? So in a way, is this an "argument" even to have about this project? Vice-Chair Griffin: I’m just going to interject and say perhaps now that’s a perfect question and a perfect lead-in to have a discussion with the applicant to see if they can address some of these because I think that’s a good point. I’m going to ask a point of clarification for myself, Steve. Those three items under point number 3, the reduction of the FAR, the 1,500 square feet and the daylight plane encroachment, you’re suggesting that we use the Planning Commission’s proposed SOFA guidelines as a way to judge those items. But at the same time you’re saying we’re not obliged to because those SOFA recommendations have not yet been approved by City Council. Page 6 Mr. Emslie: That’s absolutely correct. Because we are still looking at getting Land Use and policy direction when say, for two, the Planning Commission has made its recommendation, it seems to follow that you would have given those a great deal of thought. And the first project to come through, you’d want to be consistent. Vice-Chair Griffin: So we can’t use them as a guide? Mr. Emslie: Yes, you can but you’re not bound by that. Vice-Chair Griffin: We’ll have some latitude? Mr. Emslie: Yes, you do. Commissioner Bellomo: Just to clarify your question. This is a PC. We are looking at this as a PC project, not as a SOFA CAP project? There’s a little bit of ambivalence in the two things that you talked to. Mr. Emslie: Yes, this is a PC because the underlying zoning has not been implemented to implement the CAP. This is an extremely unusual and difficult project situation to be in. We had no benchmark or measuring stick for this. We’ve been dealing with a fluid condition of the SOFA 2 CAP and I think the best benchmark that we can provide is the one that the Planning Commission spent a better part of the summer and early Spring in crafting recommendations for it. And I think you did that with a great deal of thought and consideration for implementing the vision and balancing the many different interests at play. And we think that this is an excellent way to judge and evaluate this project. Vice-Chair Griffin: Great. We do have about 15 cards and so if we can have Doug Ross come forward and the applicant is allowed 15 minutes aggregate. So Doug, if you would like to be the lead-off speaker and then Curt and Carol, see if you can joint venture this 15-minute presentation, please. Commissioner Burt: Mr. Chairman, so the 15 minutes is both opening and closing statements by the applicant? Vice-Chair Griffin: They would have another 5 minutes to make additional comments if necessary. But let’s see how- we do with this. Commissioner Burt: You said 15 aggregate, you mean 15 at this time? Vice-Chair Griffin: Yes. Doug Ross. Palo Alto High Street Partners. LLC: We’ll try to make your life and your evening a little shorter tonight. We didn’t think we’d be representing since we did it at the first submission in mid-December. So I’m going to use my 3-minute allotment and other members of our team will do a similar exercise. And then at the end, we’d like to summarize if we could, if that’s appropriate. Page 7 You’ve touched on many of the issues that are pertinent to the project. I think Mr. Bellomo mentioned an important one that there is somewhat of a dichotomy here. And all the other Boards that we’ve been before and we’ve been to the ARB at least 5 times. The HRB at 4 times. We’ve been processing this project for a year. But those Boards elected to process under the current zoning, the Comprehensive Plan. With the caveat that we would return to them in the event our project was somehow revised through the SOFA process. So we’ve been processing diligently for a year. SOFA has been going on for 5 years, and I don’t know who’s going to win the race at the end but we’re running out of time. So I would personally plead with you to perhaps change your course and give us two recommendations. Give us a SOFA recommendation and then give us a recommendation if the current zoning stays in place or is not modified significantly by SOFA. Otherwise, we’re going to be coming back to you again and it takes a long time and we’re, quite frankly, running out of time and somebody else can take a shot at this very soon. And the Staff Report was actually pretty good in the respect of how many policies and programs that we need in the Comp Plan. We’re very consistent in that regard. The primary exception is the retention of the existing building and we’ve had multiple meetings with the HRB. The building has been considered potentially eligible. At our expense, we retained a historic preservation consultant who prepared a report which raised many questions regarding that eligibility. A structural report was requested. We furnished one from Ed [Maserve], a leading seismic structural engineer over a year ago. People are still wanting to go through more reports. [Maserve’s] report concluded that if the building were restored it would require a new roof, new windows which would have to be removed. The openings would probably be reduced in size in order to meet the new seismic code which no one has recently dealt with, it’s recently been adopted. The outside facade would be clad in new materials. You’re not going to have an existing building there. You’re going to have a new homogenized replica. The HRB requested that Fred Herman inspect the building. Fred determined that from a practical point of view, this is a quote. "The building was not worth saving." He also ranked the preservation cost is very high. We prepared our own economic analysis that shows an economic loss of over $2 million dollars to restore this building. Staff has commissioned independent analysis which is underway right now to review our findings. Retention of the building, quite frankly places the housing project in jeopardy. We’ve been in process for a year, the former applicant worked on this project for 5 years. We hear the Council and the City has a priority to have housing but it’s not happening. We’re probably the only viable housing project in downtown right now with the chance of that getting approved and we’re going nowhere. We’re being [rebuked] against the standard that doesn’t even exist. So I urge you to act on our application tonight to endorse a much needed [transit rented] housing project. Thank you. Curt Peterson, Palo Alto High Street Partners. LLC: Just wanted to discuss regarding the project economics based on all the BAE numbers, the City’s economic analysis, using Page 8 their numbers and parameters and using full underground parking and standard parking for the project. The FAR needs to be at least a 2.25 to be economically feasible. And the BAE analysis does not consider any public benefit cost. None of their analysis did. Our project at 2.33 FAR includes the substantial added cost of 57 public parking spaces and it’s barely economically feasible. If the FAR is reduced to 2.0 on this project, there will have to be substantial changes to the public benefit package, most specifically the elimination of the 57 public parking spaces. Regarding our BMR program, our project provides 18% BMR units. The quantity and size of the units has been agreed to and we have agreed to sell all units at our cost in accordance with the City’s BMR ordinance. In addition, we are offering furore access to the adjacent City substation site which will allow six additional parking spaces for that site and a potential, therefore, for six additional public housing units on the substation site. We encourage your support of our project and sincerely request that action is taken tonight so that we can make our February 3rd City Council meeting and keep this project viable. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you. Carol. Carol Jansen, Applicant, 575 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto: I am working with the 800 High Street Partners on this project and have been for sometime. I’d like to address just two issues and, in fact, you’ve hit upon at least one of them this evening in your initial discussion. They re the imposition of the 1,500 square foot maximum on the project and a suggestion that public restrooms be incorporated in the retail portion of the project. With regard to the 1,500 square foot maximum, in all of the meetings that I attended on the SOFA 2 Working Group and so forth, and I admittedly did not attend all 60-some, I believe there were. Karen can speak to that much better than I. There was very little discussion about this and I think that it sort of has a law of unintended consequences with some of you have perhaps raised initially here. There is a real need and desire for larger condominium units in an area like this in a "for sale" market project which this is for families and for what I call ’empty nesters,’ people who are leaving larger homes and want to move into a condominium unit. The project has currently proposed a 1,320 average square foot for the units. If a 1,500 square foot maximum is proposed, they will be !,500 square feet because they’re much more marketable. And I don’t think that’s really what the intention was in the Commission’s liberations on that issue. I urge you to really look at an average because that is a very feasible thing to do on a project of this nature. I think more importantly though is that the real public policy area of concern should be in the BMR’s and the size of those, certainly having smaller BMR’s and, therefore, more affordable BMR’s makes a great deal of sense. And that would be from my perspective where I would focus the discussion on the size of the units and certainly average makes a great deal more sense than 1,500 square foot maximum. Page 9 The second is the area of public restrooms. To be candid, this was actually sort of what I think we sort of perceived as an off-hand comment from a member of Staff or a question about whether or not there would be public restrooms provided in this project. It has never been a proposal that there be a public benefit associated with the project with regard to public r~strooms and it would be unprecedented to ever require such on any project in downtown Palo Alto. Not a single retail project to my knowledge and this is the last 15 years or so of extensive development has ever been required to provide public restrooms and certainly not mostly ’for sale’ residential project with a 2,000 square foot retail. I think it runs very much counter to the neighborhood desires and the Working Group desires to incorporate neighborhood serving retail in that space because it’s an [onerous] burden. It really is. Even the City who has a lease for MacArthur Park to my knowledge, and correct me if I’m wrong, Staff, does not require that those restrooms be open to the public and certainly the City would have the power to incorporate that in the lease agreement that it made. So I urge you to really take that off the equation. It’s never been something we proposed and the City’s precedent has always been that you evaluate the adequacy of the public benefit package that you can judge with PC’s but it hasn’t been one to impose public benefits that had been resisted by the applicant. Finally, I just urge you again because I think the Commission has made some great comments and has done some very deliberate considerations on this project that we move it forward this evening, and take it to the City Council because it is currently agendized for February 3rd and we very much like to see action on it so that we can finally, hopefully get resolution at the Council level and have a very fine transit-oriented housing project building in this community. Thank you. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak? Yes, please. Please reintroduce yoursel~ Mr. Architect. Jon Warden. Architect: I’d like to address just briefly two issues that have come up. One is the daylight plane issue and I’d like to give our understanding of what we thought the regulation, admittedly the sort of variable and as yet to solidify SOFA regulation relative to, the proposal for regulation relative to the daylight plane was. So the assumptions we made were based on early discussions we had with the City’s consultant to the SOFA 2 process when they were trying to determine how to figure the daylight plane along High Street. So our building was based on the assumption that from the face of curb, there’s a 35-foot vertical plane, it would run all the way along the High Street frontage and then going back at a 45-degree angle, there would be a daylight plane. Such that the western sun, the setting sun essentially, coming in at a 45-degree ang.le late in the afternoon would not cast a shadow on the buildings immediately opposite along High Street. That was the intent of the regulation. At the time, we asked if it would be possible for us to average the height because we were trying to use two strategies to create more diversity along the street. One of them was to move the building in and out along the street itself, which also has an influence on the daylight plane as you move the building further away from the sidewalk in which we’ve done in two different moves, move this building further away from the sidewalk, it Page 10 moves the building out of that projected daylight plane. And the other was to move the building’s design up and down such that rather than a monolithic 35-foot or 45-foot high building running all the way along the entire street, that we’d end up with a variety of building forms that help to break up the mass of admittedly a block on building. So this strategy of moving it in and out and moving it up and down entailed an averaging approach to the daylight plane. Our idea was that there were a few- places and there’s this one, this one, the top of this gable, this tower, this tower, the top of that gable. Those places only that would be above the daylight plane and barely above the daylight plane of that. And then there would be many other places in there, for instance, that would allowed the sun to shine through. This area here which allows a large shaft of sun to shine through. This area where the building is set back substantially that allows a much larger area of sun and the one down at the public plaza and the Homer building which is only 35 feet to its entire width. Those areas where we get greater amount of sun. So we had hoped that the daylight plane issue could be dealt with in this averaging method such that we would be able to maintain the diversity that we’d hope to create along the street itself. So that was the assumption that we made. In the current Staff Report, they say that there is a provision in the proposal, a two- document that we actually haven’t seen that says we are only allowed 15 feet for the lengaJa of the block to project above that daylight plane. I don’t know where the 15 feet came from. Some of the initial studies we saw said 15% and I don’t know whether that was an error just in transposition. And then I think the residential requirement for single- family residential does have a 15-foot provision on the lot-by-lot basis, the 15-foot of a single-family residence on a standard lot would be allowed to project above the daylight plane. Using that criteria and assuming a 50-foot average lot, we’d be able to have 8 places that would be 15 feet wide projecting above the daylight plane. We actually have five. So that was our assumption and that’s why the building ended up being the way it is or the way it’s proposed. One other thing, having to do with averaging also deals with this unit cap at ! ,500 square feet. I’ve been in business for 24 years and I’ve seen a lot of different ways of dealing with unit caps, different ways of dealing with unit sizes and averages and I’m also on the Planning Commission in Healdsburg, the community where I live so often times I sit on your side of the table as well. And we’re dealing with some of the very same issues in our community. I find that it’s important when you’re dealing with this type of regulation, a specific numerical regulation having to do with the design of the building to look to the intent of the regulation. And I think the intent of a regulation to limit the unit size of a project is 1) to ensure there is diverse type of housing; 2) to ensure that there’s a diverse visual effect; 3) would be to reduce the overall mass essentially to accompany the FAR as a way of bringing the mass of the project down; and 4) to ensure some sort of affordability for the housing with the idea that if the units are smaller, they’re likely to be more affordable. Page 11 I would argue that in this particular project, all of those, all four of those criteria would be served by an average as opposed to a maximum. Some of that may seem [counter intuitive] to some extent. Obviously the visual diversity you can see how a variety of unit types would.help to create that and a variety of unit types, as Karen said are going to be a variety of sizes no matter what you do. So I’ve got stacked to~thouses and stacked flats and it’s hard to get them all the equal 1,500 square feet. So, a variety of housing types are going to create a variety of unit sizes as well. But the other way is that a variety of unit types also helps to subsidize a variety of BMR’s and other unit types. So it takes a few larger units for the developer to make the kind of money necessary to have the types of diversity and the BMR, our program as well that we would like to see. So I would recommend that I ask you please to consider an average approach to the unit size rather than massing. And we have one more person, Woody Gontina who wanted to talk about the sustainability pro~am if that’s possible. Vice-Chair Griffin: About the sustainability program, I’m wondering, does any of our Commissioners have any questions that they would like to ask of the architect at this stage? Obviously they’re going to be available for later on. All right, so we do have one more? Mr. Warden: One more team member. Woody Gontina. Palo Alto High Street Parmers. LLC: Just want to briefly go over on one Of the more important aspects of the project and that is the sustainability program. Just want to briefly review with you what the guidelines in which we use to develop a program. First off is the leadership energy and environmental design. It’s a lead program. It’s predominantly a program dedicated towards commercial projects. However, it does have many strategies that are very useful for residential projects like this. Secondly, it’s the Energy Star program which primarily concerns itself with the building systems and efficiencies in the building systems. And then the third a more specific checklist which we found was [built green]. And like I said, it’s much more applicable to residential construction. We found it very valuable in coming up with our sustainability program. I wanted to highlight some of the strategies that we will be implementing in the program. Solid waste management recycling program with a goal of diverting 50% of the solid waste from land fills. The unit orientation to promote passive heating and promote natural air circulation. Use ofphotovoltaic cells for common areas and site lighting needs. The 57 public parking spaces, the important part of these public parking spaces is that they are subterranean parking spaces which eliminate the need for that space to be allocated on the surface to get the same number of spaces elsewhere. We are committed to entering into an agreement to provide one space for a car share program that would be subsidized by the developer and also the location of the project itself. In effect, that’s a wonderful transit-oriented housing project. Thank you. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you very much. I would like to have comments from the public and our first speaker is Beth Bunnenberg. Page 12 Beth Bunnenberg. Vice-Chair of Historic Resources Board: I just wanted to report to you a clarification on the motion that I hope you received in your packet. The HRB after looking more carefully at various kinds of information, Board recommends the City Council that prior to the Council’s decision on the building that a Focus Feasibility study be prepared by a preservation architect with structural engineering and rehabilitation economics expertise to determine the technical and economic feasibility of rehabilitating the Family Service Laundry building under the Secretary of Interior Standards. The Board also recommends that if the Council elects to preserve the building, that a Historic Structure’s report be prepared by qualified consultant to guide the rehabilitation of the building, again under the Secretary Standards. And the rationale behind that is in the Draft EIR that you’re looking at in looking at project alternatives number two which was to retain that Creamery building. It states that the City must take into account financial factors when determining feasibility. So that was our rationale. Thank you. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you, Beth. Commissioner Cassel: Beth, this project was reviewed in 1999, a project on this site, this building wasn’t an issue and the Historic Resources Board did not recommend the study at that time. Why? Ms. Bunnenberg: I think that it was a question that kept coming up what about retaining the Laundry building and the answer always came it did not meet the goals of the project then, the project now and it was not studied by an impartial source. And we did keep asking this question. So I think that it was a matter of continuing to ask, not getting any looking at retaining the Creamery building and, therefore, as we looked at alternatives finally, this is something that needs to be looked at. Commissioner Cassel: So you felt that the people who did the evaluations were not independent in their assessment? Ms. Bunnenberg; Were not necessarily independent in their assessment. Vice-Chair Griffin: Bonnie, did you have a question? Commissioner Packer: Yes, I have a question on the issue that was before the Historic Resources Board this morning regarding Phase 2 of the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan recommendations on changing the language. Can you briefly summarize if whether or not the HRB take any action on the Staff’s proposal? Ms. Bunnenberg.; Do you want a full rundown because there were a number of kinds of things. Was there a particular one you were wondering about? Because basically the HRB looked at the model supported the Working Group’s proposal with the addition of I think it was DC-14 which was part of the Planning and Transportation recommendation. We basically supported the idea of the joint Board with a member from Planning and Transportation as well as 3 from the HRB, 3 from the ARB. Supported the two Page 13 provisions added to the wording that economic feasibility be looked at that in other words it could not be a taking of the property. There were three things that the Staff said that were important that it needed to be looked at in terms of whether it was so economically unviable that it would constitute a taking of the property. Safety was another one of those provisions and we had some real questions about the third one. I’m searching on that one. Wynn, do you recall? Ms. Furth: The third one was whether the City Council should have the authority to authorize the demolition or relocation of a historic structure, if keeping it in that site where it presently is would be a substantial impediment to achieving another Coordinated Area Plan goal. And it was a 3:1 vote in favor of that. Ms. Bunnenberg: But with the addition of wording that it was to look at all alternatives such as relocation. Ms. Furth: The language in the framework that the City Council set up originally for the Coordinated Area Plan talks about considering a full range of alternatives before deciding to demolish authorized demolition of historic resource and the Board recommended adding that language in and also being clear that qualified experts need to provide assistance in figuring that stuff out. Commissioner Bellomo: I have one question. Is this a historic resource or is it eligible, Wynn? Ms. Furth: From the City’s point of view it’s a historic resource. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you. Commissioner Bellomo: Michael, excuse me. I see a Drew Maran here, a member of the ARB. Is it appropriate at this time to have to segue into the ARB’s comments on this? Drew-Maran. Vice-Chair of Architectural Review Board: In our review, we supported the approval of this project. There were three members present so you should know that the.re were not all five and we supported it unanimously. What I11 do is I’ll summarize the points that we supported and also summarize some of the points that we found to be flaws or weaknesses of the project, keeping in mind that we voted unanimously to support the project. On the support side, housing and generating this much additional housing and especially 11 BMR units. Architecturally, a diversified architecture especially as this project evolved we first saw the project roughly a year ago in a Study Session in this room and watched it evolve through our comments and through the support and comments of Planning Staff and we felt strongly that it evolved in a very good direction. From its function, we support the Mixed Use including retail and we especially support its location in a transit-oriented district and clearly position close to the train station, mass transportation in downtowaa Palo Alto. We supported the changes especially in some of Page 14 the materials. We argued against some of the construction materials specifically the foam stucco system. We asked for it not to be used and the developer took it out of the project. They also used real stone and slate in places where other materials have been proposed. We supported that. And, of course, we supported the aggressive sustainability program that the project that the fellow spoke to earlier including something that we’re pushing harder on now which is a feedback of data after the project is completed and after it’s occupied so that we as a City get a chance to see the results of the request for a green building in our projects which ones have failed, which ones have succeeded, to what degree the goals have been met. Some of the things we opposed or had objections to but not obviously so strong that we were willing to vote against the project. We all wanted to see the driveway that it’s positioned mid-way on the block placed on the alley. And we felt strongly that the alley was the best place to enter the project and the fact is, what an alley may be is considered to use for. We pushed hard for additional retail at the Channing end of the project. Consistent with the retail that’s developing in that neighborhood. Everything form anthropology to Palo Alto hardware to Watercourse Way to the deli across the street into the new project that’s going in at 901 High Street, all of which have retail at ground floor. We wanted more retail at the Homer end or at least a larger public plaza at the Homer Street end. Argued and got some concessions we thought for making what had originally been called the public plaza, that is the building. We argued that that was not a public plaza that, in fact, it was too much set off away from the public and wished that we’ve had more retail or open space at the Homer end. We also argued against a wall and even the gates. We won on the wall, lost on the gates. There are still gates to that plaza that I just po.inted to and it’s not called public plaza anymore. We also opposed using the preservation of the Family Service Laundry building as a roadblock to this project. This goes back quite a ways even including the previous attempt to develop this site. Though we clearly support and alvcays support the HRB’s great efforts to preserve our older buildings and our tradition in this town, we felt that this was not a place where that was appropriate and this building is not an example of any architecture that anybody would be proud of, or certainly that the architect at the time intended to be proud of. And we also, more importantly, saw that this is an opportunity, this project is an opportunity to establish the architecture of that in 50 years, we would be fighting to preserve or hoping to preserve. And so we focused our efforts more on enhancing the architecture that the developer is proposing rather than trying to preserve a building that we didn’t feel needed to be preserved. The last point and I’ve strayed a bit. These last two points are not ones that we opposed in terms of opposing the project. These are simply points that we raised. We didn’t fee! that it was fair to hold this project to a standard, specifically the SOFA 2 CAP that hadn’t been implemented as policy in the City. At least to our understanding, there’s never been a precedent for holding any project or any kind of submittal to a standard that hasn’t been implemented. And just because there’s not a precedent doesn’t mean that there can’t suddenly become a precedent but we felt that the developer had acted in good faith in trying to develop this project to serve the community as best as we felt it could. And that holding him to a greater standard than it was, in fact, in effect was a precedent for future Page 15 projects that could become really dangerous in this town. So we felt very strongly about that. That’s my summary of our comments. Shall I stand here and receive questions? Vice-Chair Griffin: Do Commissioners have any questions that they would like to propose to do at this time? Commissioner Bellomo: Just one, Drew. In regards to the driveway approach in the center in between on High Street, did the Review Board at the last meeting talk about the area of High between Channing and Homer as a two-way access? Was there any conversation about the current location proposed for that driveway? Or any other locations besides the alley? Mr. Maran: I’m going to dig deep and say, no, we didn’t do that. We reviewed the location of the driveway several other times in other reviews. I think we saw this project 4 or 5 times. We did talk about different possible locations. As I said, we weren’t happy with the result on this one. We also were told several times by the developer team that a driveway in another location would have a greater negative impact on the amount of parking and also the neighbors. That’s what I remember of our discussion of the driveway. Any other questions? Vice-Chair Griffin: Drew, that was a very interesting input. I’m sorry that I didn’t see you back there. Next time, you’ll have to wave higher. All right, now at this stage, I think in fact, we are ready to hear, young lady, from you. So please would you introduce yourself. Laura Stuchinsky, 224 Airport Parkway. San Jose: I’m representing the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, which you’re maybe familiar with. It’s another public organization based in San Jose. It serves the entire Silicon Valley. We’re here to speak in behalf of the developed proposal that’s before you today. We strongly support retain the density proposed by the High Street Partners proposal. We understand Staff has decreased the density of the development which had been previously been reduced by the developers from 64 to 61 units in response request by members of the community surrounding the project. Reducing the Floor Area Ratio will reduce the number in size of the homes that can be built, as well as make the second floor a public parking. Financially, unfeasible, we understand from the developer’s comments. These public parking spaces will be an enormous benefit to the surrounding neighborhoods in reducing the number of area employee and business patrons that now- park on the streets. And despite the economic downturn that we are facing right now, there is still a tremendous need for affordable housing, and when the economy re-bounces we certainly hope it will be soon that it will grow- even stronger. And I know that you’re also very well aware the fact that when folks can’t find. housing here, they buy it elsewhere and drive to our neighborhoods here which makes it even more traffic congestion in our neighborhoods. And if we are to maintain the quality of life that we want here in our communities that we need to be able to provide the kind of housing and range of home prices so that folks who are very critical Page 16 to our communities are able to buy and stay in our communities. So for these reasons and for the fact that this is one of the last larger parcels remaining in the downtown area that’s near the transit station, this multi-modal station that the City has invested an enormous amount of resources in, give the proximity to commercial, recreation and educational services. In fact, it does not abut the single family neighborhood. It’s critical that Palo Alto maximize the potential of this parcel by allowing a 61-home built on this site. And we urge your approval of this tonight. Thank you very much. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you for your comments. Sally Probst is our next speaker. Bob Moss, be so advised and Patricia Saffir, followed by Elaine Meyer. Sally Probst. 735 Coastland Drive. Palo Alto: Vice Chairman Griffin and Commissioners, tonight I’m speaking for the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. We had given the Commissioners back in July a written statement from the League about our support for this project. But it was a hearing which was really geared more towards the EIR so we didn’t make the statemen:t verbally. I hope that you read it and you all received it. At this time, let me say that this project meets many of the goals of the League of Women Voters. It is transit-oriented housing. It’s a diversity of types of housing. It’s what I consider beautiful architecture. There was an improvement to the blank wall that face the alley as result of comments so that even the alley view- is good. I do think it’s over parked. But I think that the idea of having 57 parking spaces for the community is something that the community wants. The project itself does not require anywhere near the parking that it provides. I think that the possibility of the connection to the current transformer station on Alma which would provide in the future for even more affordable housing is an excellent plus factor. And, of course, the Below Market Rate units, the fact that there are 11 Below Market Rate units and that they are for a diversity of economic levels and that they are both one bedroom and two bedroom and that those people who have the BMR’s won’t have to have cars will be able to reach downtow-n transportation, downtown shopping makes it very important. This project meets League goals from League studies at the local level, in the County level and the Regional level and the State level and the National level. We are gung-ho for a housing with many of the attributes of this project. And I would like to concur with much of the comments from your Architectural Review Board representative this evening. Thank you. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you, Sally. Bob Moss and Patricia Saffir. Bob Moss. 4010 Orme. Palo Alto: I agree with most of the recommendations of the Staff. I have reservations about a few of them. Some of the things I’d like to point out, areas that you approve are the reduction of the FAR to 2.0 at the very maximum and a serious consideration about reducing the number of units to no more than 40 or 45. This is over 60 units an acre which I consider excessive even with the excuse of this transit- oriented. You may recall some years ago we used to have an RM-50 zone in the City and that was eliminated, the maximum zoning has reduced RM-40 because we found we had Page 17 too many problems with congestion and traffic and that high density. And this is not going to be any better. So I would suggest that you reduce it. As for the BMR units, I’m a little bit concerned that we aren’t going to have the variety we normally do. When the BMR projects were first proposed 25 or 30 years ago, it was a strong, strong message to everybody we wanted the BMR units to be similar to the market rate units. And we drifted away from that over the years. So at least one of those units should be 3-bedroom. As for whether or not you can restrict the maximum size to 1,500 square feet, this is a PC. You can put any restrictions on this you wish. If you want to make them 1,500 square feet, that should be a condition of it being approved PC. I don’t see any problem with that. In terms of the daylight plane, I think it should meet the daylight plane. Daylight planes are in there because we have adjacent properties which would be the adversity effect. We should try to meet the requirements and with respect to the adjacent properties. And finally on the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, I disagree with a number of the statements that the Staff thinks this 5, I’ll just list them. [H-10] encourage and foster diverse housing opportunities for very low and moderate income. There’s no very low in here and as I said, they don’t have a range. We normally would have T-23 pedestrian friendly designs, sidewalk street trees, public spaces. We have a fence that keeps you from getting into that public space. That’s not a good idea. L-5, scale and character. This is out of scale with the community nearby. I-14, including entries which we link to the streets. Most of the entries on the backside do not relate to the street unless you consider the alley streetscape. So this does not comply in full with anywhere near the number of policies as they’re suggested. Thank you. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thanks. Patricia, followed by Elaine, followed by Marlene Prendergast. Patricia Saffir. 2719 Bryant Street. Palo Alto: I support the proposed development at 800 High Street. By the nature of things, only limited areas in the community are in close proximity to transit corridors. And I think communities are improved by putting more housing in those areas. This project does just that with 61 units and provides 11 BMR units, almost 20% to boot just what our community Comp Plan encourages. I do not object to reducing the size of the units, but I would not like to see the number of units reduced or the feasibility of the product jeopardized to meet a 2.0 FAR. I also do not object to the proposed variance in the height limits. Rigid adherence to such limits tends to result in ugly more monolithic appearing structures. I think this will be an attractive set of buildings and not inappropriate for the location. Regarding the question of the Laundry building on Homer Street. When I look at that building, I see more of an appeal to the nostalgia of those of us who’ve lived in Palo Alto a long time then I do see a building of true historic significance. If its condition makes preservation with a practical use difficult or interferes with the potential living unit for real people, I think the trade-off is well worthwhile. I think the project does fit well with Page 18 our general goals for ttie City and for SOFA. And I hope you will not delay it further and approve it. Thank you. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thanks. Elaine Meyer. Elaine Meyer. 609 Kingsley Avenue. Palo Alto: I’m a member of the SOFA 2 Working Group and President of the Neighborhood Association that surrounds this project. I brought this issue up in the past at the ARB and in the EIR and in talking to various Planning folks in the Planning Department. But it’s being ignored in the current Staff Report. I’m referring to the plan that the City has to give away its rights to the underground, under the alley and under High Street. And I’m not sure about Homer and Channing. I don’t know if there is building going on under Homer and on Channing. Try as I may, I am unable to understand why the City is planning to give away its property without recompense. I’m not suggesting it’s illegal, I’m just saying it’s wrong. The fact that the City is giving away the rights to the alley means that the City is paying for a large part of its public benefit. Who owns the rights under High Street? Apparently the ownership of these underground rights is very complex. I don’t understand it and I don’t have a feeling that other people understand it either. In the Ordinance, 3 feet all along High Street, that’s a full block with 3 feet under which the parking garage will be built, is planned to be built is called a small part of the street. I don’t think 3 feet with a whole block long is a small part. Since parking is the only real serious public benefit in this PC, if the City donates the land for the parking, how much is the public benefit worth? The way I think of it it’s just the additional cost of the construction, the additional to the parking garage that they’ll build in any event and the extra spaces for the public benefit. And by the way, that number 63 keeps slipping. Mr. Peterson who is one of the developers referred to it as 57. Sally Probst referred to 57. If it’s 63 spaces, the Ordinance should be clear about it. Now the Ordinance has both 63 and 57 in the Staff Report, refers to 57 parking spaces all the time. So if it’s 63 with a possible reduction later, that should be made clear because that’s slippery slope, I think we’re already near the bottom. I tried to read the Ordinance, I mean I did read the Ordinance and, well, I referred to the parking spaces. It would be helpful if the Ordinance combined all the garage and parking in one place so that they could be right there, there are many internal inconsistencies. According to this Commission, there should be two major public benefits for a large PC. Does 1½ additional BMR units count as a substantial benefit? I don’t think so. Vice-Chair Griffin: Yes, you have a question? Commissioner Packer: Elaine, could you clarify whether or not you’re speaking for yourself or for the Neighborhood Association? Ms. MeYer: This is the part that I could not get to. Commissioner Packer: I just asked whether or not you’re speaking for yourself or not? Page 19 Ms. Meyer: I’m speaking for our Board. Con~nissioner Packer: Okay, I just wanted to know. Ms. Meyer: And the members of the Board would be h~re but we’re exhausted. The developers can out-energy us every time and I’m still standing but who knows. Vice-Chair Griffin: All right, good. Marlene Prendergast followed by Larry Hassett. Marlene Prendergast. 725 Alma. Palo Alto: I’m executive director of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. I’m speaking on behalf of that organization. I am speaking to the adequacy of the BMR program specifically and really not much else abo.ut the project. I want to mention quickly a couple of points. One is Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s involvement and then also to just keep reminding you that the BMR program is a requirement. It isn’t part of the public benefit trade-off and a lot of negotiating here and there and the other. It’s a City requirement and sometimes we sort of feel like it gets a little looser than that and I just wanted to make that point, and then to speak to the prices and the sizes and the rest of this project. The Housing Corporation has a contract w-ith the City to administer the BMR program and part of that contract involves our involvement in unusual BMR projects, that is where it goes beyond the mathematical question of 10% of so many units. And so we certainly knew this project was coming and I did chat informally with the developers about the program and what sort of things that generally required and so forth. But I was saying to them also that in the next round of this, I might wear the hat of the Housing Corporation to comment on the adequacy of the BMR program. So we weren’t really terribly officially involved until we got involved in the conversation about prices of the units and I was not at present at that meeting but a couple of our Board members were. The Staff Report says that a recommendation early on was to consult the Housing Corporation and we did talk about it at our Board meeting last week but that was felt a little late in the game. And I’m also interested in the Staff Report’s rationale about the one and two-bedroom. And it says, "Based upon input from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, the most popular units are two-bedroom." I think ~vhat I really meant there was the most flexible, they serve the widest range of family household size. You can be from a two-member household to a five-member household and fit in a two-bedroom. That is not to say that three-bedroom units are not like gold in the BMR program. So I would echo the feeling that at least one 3-bedroom unit would be really useful in this to keep with the program’s requirement as sort of having the range of the units sizes that are available and particularly if 20% of the units are three-bedroom. The PC Ordinance have a kind of an odd thing. I didn’t know exactly, I think it was to create flexibility but on page 7 of the Ordinance under "Special Conditions," it says that before building permit, the project owner and the City Manager can determine and agree that the goals of the City’s Below Market Rate housing program are better met with the units are reconfigured and there’s more units or different allocation of bedrooms and so Page 20 forth. I think that’s just a little bit squirrelly. I don’t want to stay up all night for the next six months wondering whether the City Manager and the developer are going to decide that after you all have done all your work, they’re going to have a different configuration of unit sizes and so forth. So I appreciate flexibility because if are a developer, too, and we like to have the most ability to do the best thing as the project develops but I’ve just kind of cautioned you on that. And the chart that’s attached to the BMR agreement in your Staff Report with the prices, these are high prices. These are the highest ever. And I did hear Curt Peterson say that the developers had agreed to this agreement basically and if that’s true, I would say we are in support of this BMR agreement with the exception perhaps of the three-bedroom unit but I had understood there was more quibbling than was represented about the prices. So I just don’t want any slippage on these prices, I guess is what we’re kind of saying in a sum. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you, Marlene. Pat, would you like to ask a question? Commissioner Burt: Yes, Marlene. On the subject of the proportion of the BMR units, it should be three-bedroom. What would be the Housing Corps or your recommendation as to what proportion of the unit should be three-bedroom? Ms. Prender~ast: Well, the general principle is in the proportion that the regular units are dispersed. Now I recognize there’s an extra BMR unit or so here and, therefore, I don’t do the math well. But the principle is that they are equal to the proportion of the other units. And I did chat about the two-bedroom units being desirable in the sense that they can accommodate different sizes of families. So a three-bedroom unit is for a larger family. But I didn’t want it to be thought that we just said, oh wel!, we don’t need three- bedroom unit. So I think it’s whatever we can come up with. Vice-Chair Griffin: Any further questions? Karen. Commissioner Holman: Marlene, how do you feel about the square footage devoted to the BMR units satisfying the BMR unit requirement? Ms. Prendergast: You mean the size of each unit? Commissioner Holman: The total square footage. Ms. Prendergast: I haven’t really looked at that. I looked at the unit sizes and they seem adequate for two-bedroom and one-bedroom. I don’t know what the three-bedroom sizes are. Vice-Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Page 21 Commissioner Packer: Marlene, I wanted to get a better sense of how you felt about the proposed agreement that’s in here, vis-it-vis the prices. You said they were a little bit high but you would support them? Ms. Prendergast: They’re high and what I had understood in initial discussions in the meeting that I did not attend but Board members attended, that the developer ~vas pushing higher than the mid-point of 80% to 100% or 100% to 120% of a median income. And I don’t see a reason other than their own financial need to do that. And so I’m reading in the BMR agreement that it speaks to mid-point ~vhich is the normal way we calculate. And if, in fact, they’re agreeing to that that would be normal. Commissioner Packer: Thank you. Vice-Chair Griffin: All right, we’re going to have one more speaker here, Larry, and then I think we’ll take a short break. It’s 9:00 o’clock and we’ll come back quickly after that. We still have got a number of cards to go. So, Larry, if you’d like to speak? Larry Hassett, 875 Alma. Palo Alto: Owner of Palo Alto Hardware. I attended the last Planning Commission meeting on 800 High and at halfway through my letter, I hope you received that letter and read the balance of it. I’m not going to read the balance of it at tonight’s meeting. The project’s kind of evolved and my comments kind of evolve along with them. First thing I want to say is that the public benefit packages that now exist promises a public benefit of parking that basically includes a private property not currently owned or controlled by High Street Partners. In essence, the public benefit package of parking may or may not materialize, depending upon whether or not High Street Partners can cooperate or work with the surrounding neighbors including myself. Second of all, I’d like to recommend a denial of the variance that’s required for this particular PC project. There’s one variance that’s required. It allows height increase from 35 feet to 50 feet. It was actually imposed by a PC that Doug Ross built at 909 Alma Street, and the impacts surrounding properties and it impacted my property as well, as will this project impact all the surrounding properties to the same extent and each one of those property owners then would have to basically go get a variance for that. The reason I’d like you to consider recommending that the Council keep that or deny the variance is because I think you’ll end up with better transition to the neighborhood, better transition to surrounding buildings including the Peninsula Creamery building itself which is going to basically remain that same way. The 35-foot building at kitty-comer which is [D. Pierce’s] building, Palo Alto Hardware, one-story commercial, Watercourse Way, two-story commercial. I just think that denial of the variance actually gets you a better flow- of the building and a better transition into that neighborhood. Attachment D, which is referred to in this variance talks about the impact or the lack of impact it’ll have on 909 Alma Street. That’s the floor residences that Doug Ross built, tt doesn’t look at the impact that it would have on adjacent property ow-ners. I don’t really want to look at a 50-foot high wall with a zero setback from the alley which is presently Page 22 under consideration. This project still doesn’t recognize the impact is going to have on street parking, particularly a!ong Homer and Channing as well as High Street. I did my walk today. I talked to several of the surrounding property owners including [Malenco] at BMW shop, Robert at a small Honda car shop. I ran into Marlene on one of my walks. Philip Roberts of Philip Roberts.Models. John Roberts at Watercourse Way. All of these basically had, I can kind of summarize our quotes. It will make it extremely difficult for us to continue doing business here. That was actually out of Robert’s mouth from Honda small car shop. But others echoed basically the same thing. I don’t feel that a PC should have this kind of impact on surrounding businesses in this area. And I encourage you to go out and talk to those same folks. One comment about Drew’s remarks, I’m unable to attend many of the meetings that are focused on this. The access to the underground parking through the alley means Palo Alto Hardware becomes a housing development in Palo Alto Hardware district. Thank you. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you, Larry. We’ll be changing tapes and taking a break now. [break period] Vice-Chair Griffin: Ole, would you please start? Ole Christensem 801 Alma, Palo Alto: I own Ole’s Car Shop adjacent to the project. I’ve always been for housing projects in Palo Alto. I’m not against this one, per se. I am concerned about changes in the economy in the last year and changes of encroachment of the project that size during its process that will affect my business. I’m concerned about that area underground in there that everybody is saying, "Well, the City owns it, no, the City doesn’t own it." Who owns it? Where’s the property line? I’d like that to find. Is it the middle of the alley? Up to nay property line? Where is the ownership? Somebody needs to clear that up for me. I don’t think having business use on Homer is a good place. I don’t think you can park any business to be put in a 2000 square foot area adjacent to my building to make parking work for people in that neighborhood. If you’re going to have a business there, people are going to want to move in, move out, move in, move out, move in, move out. It’s 2.000 square feet, potentially you can have 8 employees, you got 8 cars that you might hive to deal with and who knows how many people need to come in to make that business viable. And that in itself would encroach on my business. Are they going to park on Homer and maybe down on Alma? I’m already squeezed. So you want to squeeze on me, that’s fine. I’m [wagering] on new housing market, too. I mean that’s the bottom line. And if that’s the case, here’s a new one. Maybe we should lo0k in EIR for the entire block, both sides. Long run. Just like you’re doing in South Palo Alto down on Charleston with the schools and the other projects that are going in there because we may end up that way in the long run within 10 years. So, you need to look at all of that. In the meantime, I’d like to talk to Doug Ross more about how we can integrate potential futures also. So, Doug door is open. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you. All right, we’re down to Wayne Swan. Page 23 Wayne Swan. 240 Kellogg Avenue. Palo Alto: I’ve been interested in the program and wanted to support people that worked hard to prepare the SOFA 2 plan. I decided to ask for a minute to speak after I heard Elaine and Larry talk. And I have a bias. I spent about 15 years working on Municipal Planning Staff to get the best possible development consistent with the existing code. I didn’t write the codes. I had to enforce them as best I could. So I worked to try to get the best possible. And I think the best possible will look more closely at the transportation issues that you create. I don’t live in that are but I drive by it an awful lot. I walk around there and I still don’t understand the statement in the Staff Report. It’s on page 4, speaking about the two-way streets, Channing and Homer. This project has no significant traffic impact. Well, I’ve been recovering from an operation lately. I haven’t been too very involved and I haven’t attended earlier meetings but I want to say you have to take a real close look at that traffic control of Alma traffic at Channing and Homer. And I’ve been upon record before the City Council to be opposed to Planned Community development. SOFA 2 people say no to Planned Community. I think it might be possible to create a project that would be a community development for the whole block. And I think that’s a great idea. So good luck on this. It’s a big project and let’s get the Undercrossing over to the clinic property so people at Channing house can get back and forth to the doctor. And if anybody is opposed to the two-way traffic, its residents of Channing House, talk to those people, too. Thank you very much. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you, Wayne. I have no more cards unless something else is up here. Larry, do you have a question? Mr. Hassett: I had a question, Michael. I didn’t finish my comments but on my exit out to the front, it states on the board there that we have 5 minutes. Did we, indeed, have 5 minutes? Did I use up 5 minutes or did we have 3 minutes? Vice-Chair Griffin: You actually used up a little more than 3. Mr. Hassett: On the board out front it indicates that the public would have 5 whole minutes to speak and then it shows that the applicant would have 15 minutes plus 3 to wrap up and stuff. I understand, it’s at the discretion of this Board but it clearly states on that board out there that I had 5. So that’s just a question for clarification. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Doug, would you like to make some final comments here? Mr. Ross: I just wanted to clarify a couple of issues that I think there’s some confusion on. One is the BMR’s are not part of our public benefit package. There was a testimony earlier that they thought it was part of it and it’s not. The link to the sub-station is potentially a public benefit. The alley ownership is being researched. Presently, there is an excellent chance based on other similar circumstances that people own to the mid- point of the alley. I think the Staff Report is consistent. If we do that parking beneath the alley, we are offering those openings to all the adjoining property owners. Everybody is being treated equally, the City and all of the adjoining properties. So I want to be clear Page 24 on that. I have personally talked to many of the neighbors in the area and they are in support of the project. Prior to this meeting, I just spent about a half an hour with John from Watercourse Way, Santana, Roxy, Palo Alto BMW, I’ve had many discussions supporting the project. So I think despite some of the earlier testimony there’s a lot of support in the neighborhood. My last comment is, following Mr. Betlomo’s comments about the building a historic resource I’m even more confused than I have been in the past because the Staff Report in numerous places references it being potentially eligible and that’s why people are going through all these consternation discussion about it. And then I heard Wednesday that it was a historic resource. So maybe there’s just a different terminology here but it seems like either it is or it isn’t. And everybody is saying, it might be but not definitive. So maybe someone could answer that for me. Thank you. Vice-Chair Griffin: Wynn, would you respond to that extemporaneously? Ms. Furth: First of all, Mr. Ross is correct. A lot of it has to do with which words you use from which context. And the Historic Resources Board uses language consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors, both the federal and state I should say, classification schemes for historic buildings. So you may recall the discussion of State and Local registers and buildings can be on those registers. They can be certified basically and Karen can correct me ~vhen I go wrong here. They can be certified as having met all the standards so that they are actually eligible to go on as soon the owner says put it on. They can be potentially eligible which means based on the research we have done, they look to be the kind of buildings that would be eligible if you did the paperwork and could actually be placed on the register. So that’s where these words about potentially eligible and so on and so forth come from. When we look at these from a California Environmental Quality Act point of view, what we’re required to do is look around and see if there’s something that looks like it might be historic. And then look at it more closely to see if it’s potentially eligible. And then to take two other classifying schemes, we’ve got Category 1, 2, 3 and 4 buildings on our existing historic inventory. And then in SOFA 2 you recall, we have a lot of buildings which have been identified as they sure look historic. And some of those buildings are already Category 1, 2, 3 or 4 building so we put them on one list and said these are definitely historic and if you’re talking about preserving buildings, we know these are buildings that you should be considering preserving. There’s a second group of buildings that may be just as historic in terms of the quality of the building or what happened there. In some cases, there even just as well documented because somebody has done a lot of paperwork and maybe even established that they’re potentially eligible. But they’ve never been through a City hearing process so we put them in the second list. But from the point of view of whether or not this Family Service Laundry building is the kind of building that you talked about preserving in SOFA 2, yes, it is. Page 25 Mr. Emslie: Let me just add on to what Wynn was saying. The reason this is a historic resource for our purposes of this discussion is that under the California Environmental Quality Act, any building that has a potential to be listed under State Register and this building is so defined under State law can only be removed when a Statement of Overriding Consideration is granted by the decision-making body. In this case, it’s the City Council. It is state law that in order for this project to go through, we have to override that through the preparation of the DEIR and the Council must adopt the Statement of Overriding Consideration to review of the HRB, the Planning Commission, the ARB, all has served to advise the City Council as to whether or not they should adopt that Statement of Overriding Consideration if they were to approve this project. It’s not a question of local decision whether this is a historic resource or not. For purposes of this project it’s potentially eligible for listing on the State Register. Consequently, California Environmental Quality Act gives us no option but to only remove that structure or substantially alter it with a Statement of Overriding Consideration. No choice. That’s something that’s handed to us by the CEQA. Vice-Chair Griffin: Well, not to confuse this issue too much more, during our meeting on the 18th, you said on page 67, line 36, 37 and 38. You did say that we needed as a Commission to advise Council whether or not we thought this building was worth saving or not. Now is there any of this verbiage that we heard just a moment ago conflict with that? Because I’m thinking about Item #3, the bullet point number 3 which is your recommendation to retain the historic Family Service Laundry building. What if I don’t want to? Ms. Furth: Then you recommend to the City Council that they not retain it. Vice-Chair Griffin: Very good. You answered the question, thank you. Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: In the Planning and Transportation Commission recommendations on the SOFA 2 CAP, the Appendix B which is suppose to list the historic resources, it does not include 800 High. So that when we were looking at this, when we were looking at maps that had buildings identified, this one was not when we were looking in SOFA 2. It wasn’t in color. We had maps and all that stuff. Vice-Chair Griffin: While Staff is consulting, do you have a question? Commissioner Butt: Yes, it’s my understanding we aren’t yet into our discussion period among Commissioners. Vice-Chair Griffin: The public hearing is still open. Commissioner Burt: I would like to raise a process question before we get into substantive discussion amongst ourselves. Mr. Hassett raised an issue that apparently there is a public meeting notice that states that 5 minutes with public comment would be allotted to each speaker and although that notice may have been incorrect in not acknowledging that it is both the discretion of the Chair and a common fact is when we Page 26 have a high number of speakers to limit it to 3 minutes, nevertheless, if that notice did state that and also judging from the number of speakers who seem to have completed their comments being the overwhelming number of speakers and only a few that did not complete, I would recommend or request to the Chairman that we allow any of those speakers who wish to have two additional minutes to do so out of sense of fairness in the process. : Mr. Hassett did not read the entire notice on the board. Commissioner Burt: Okay, so can we get clarification on the notice? : It’s on the agenda. Commissioner Burt: I want to get a clarification. If the statement is correct, then I would add to allow 2 additional minutes. Then if it’s not correct, then we don’t need to. I understand it’s on the agenda. So I don’t know what Mr. Hassett was referring to and I just like to for clarification. Mr. Hassett: For me the disturbing part of this whole thing is that this project impacts my life, my family’s life and the entire community of Palo Alto. Commissioner Burt: Okay, we have another way we can go about this, if I might. The Commission has the discretion to ask questions of speakers. True. Can I have the prerogative to ask a question if the speaker has already completed his comments? Vice-Chair Griffin: Yes, I’m going to say that you do. The public hearing is still open so please do inquire of Mr. Hassett. Commissioner Burt: WyTme, do you have a comment on that? Mr. Furth: No, however, the Commission is also free to and customarily does close the public hearing after everybody has testified. You can then continue to ask questions of the people who are here without reopening the hearing. Commissioner Burt: My question is, Mr. Hassett, would you please continue with the remaining comments that you have? Mr. Hassett: I really appreciate this. If you’re questioning me what other items I have, I have two quick short ones for you. One, there’s a lot said about the timing of this project and a lot of other deadlines and stuff. And just let me remind you that this is a PC process. A PC process is not an entitlement. And High Street Partners is completely allowed to go through and build something today, getting it through the normal channels under existing zoning.. As [Steve Pierce] says, kitty-corner across the street. In addition, High Si~reet Partners purchased the property knowing that it was going to be subject to the SOFA 2 requirements because of the previous property owner, Roxy Rapp have been instructed as the same. Page 27 The other thing I think is very important for this Commission to know is that there needs to be a benchmark for what’s feasible and what’s not feasible. And if you look at the kitty-corner across the street, you see a project that is a 1.0 FAR: t~vo levels of underground parking, 12 residential units, completely built under existing zoning, and apparently economically feasible. That’s a benchmark that I think it shouldn’t be thrown away or ignored. What High Street Partners is requesting is an extremely large increase in this and I think the public benefit really needs to be carefully scrutinized for anything that’s going to really overshadow the surrounding community and really change the lives of a lot of people in the community. I appreciate your extra time on that. Thank you so much. Commissioner Holman: Did you say that the, I think it would be the Steve Pierce project that it’s 1.0 FAR, 12 residential units and did you say two levels of parking? Mr. Hassett: It currently has two levels of underground parking, yes, it is scheduled for that project. Vice-Chair Griffin: And you know how many square feet? Mr. Hassett: I remember it something like at 26,000 square feet. I don’t have the thing here but 26,000 square feet of property size, it does include some office. But if you use that as a benchmark of 1.0, you can see that a 2 point whatever is a fairly high level of development for this area. Vice-Chair Griffin: Point taken. Commissioner Holman: I have a question that is actually partly to the City Attorney and partly to Mr. Hassett. And it concerns the alley and ownership and for the purpose of the question of Mr. Hassett, I’m going to say let’s suppose that you own half of the alley. Let’s just suppose that for purposes of the conversation. Would it benefit you or would there be any rationale, any benefit to you to agree to having underground parking developed under your ownership of the alley? Mr. Hassett: I’d have to investigate that. Clearly, what is a benefit to me, as a 10,500 square foot very typical SOFA parcel underground parking would be extremely difficult if I were to change the use of that property to say, residential. An underground parking is extremely difficult knowing now that I probably have an additional roughly 800 square feet of space to add to that 10,500, I could probably successfully carry off an underground parking thing on my own. A promise to be able to maybe build a breakthrough in between the two parcels although it could have some benefits to me or somebody in the future, it may or may not be something that we would choose to pursue. It maybe that we would choose to pursue a private underground parking alone. So how that property changes over the years is totally, I mean I’ll have to investigate how that would work. There obviously are some benefits to having being able to just punch through. I’m not sure that they overweigh no~v knowing just by discovery of coming to a Page 28 meeting that I now also probably own 7½ feet x 105 feet of real estate that I didn’t really realize I owned in the past. It’s an asset that I have to really evaluate. Commissioner Holman: And would your decision about whether that was of benefit to you be different if you retain Palo Alto Hardware as opposed to you mentioned the housing project, if you redevelop it as a housing project? Mr. Hassett: It really becomes an asset only ifPato Alto Hardware disappears. There’s no way I can put in underground parking with the existing business in place. It would have to literally shut down for a year plus in order for that to occur and feasibly it’s just, so we’d be looking at a development project in that comer. Commissioner Holman: And in all fairness, I also should ask the same question of Ole. Ole, I would have to ask the same question of you. Mr. Christensen: Same answer. I concur with Larry on that. I don’t know. But yes, if I’m staying, I’d like to leave it as it is for my future. Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Vice-Chair Griffin: Do any other Commissioners have further questions to ask? Elaine. Ms. Meyer: Another small point about the Ordinance. The Ordinance is unclear about who pays for the maintenance of the City’s parking spaces. You may recall in a previous docunaent, it was stated that the City would pay for the maintenance of those spaces and if not, they would revert back to the owner. I think that needs to be clarified in the Ordinance. And I have a second point. I understood the underground rights are being given away because they’re thought not to have all a lot of value. Would the City entertain an offer to buy the fights from the City? A serious offer to buy those underground rights from the City’s property. Vice-Chair Griffin: You’re asking a question of Staff. Ms. Meyer; It’s an odd-ball question. I know what is a serious offer. One can speculate in underground rights. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you. Are there any further comments from the audience or Commissioners? All right, unless I get some pushback, I would now like to close the public hearing which doesn’t mean that we can’t ask further questions of those here in the room. But the public hearing is now closed. Now, I would like to ask my fellow- Commissioners if you would please disclose your contact for the applicant and/or other people that have had substantive influence on this project. So, Joe, would you start? Page 29 Commissioner Bellomo: Prior to the December 18th meeting, I did and I disclosed that at the prior meeting but I have not since that time. Commissioner Packer: I haven’t had any additional contact except I was present at the Board meeting of the Housing Corp were some discussions were discussed by the Board of discussion that Board Members had with members of the applicant so I was just privy to that but that’s a public meeting, the Housing Corp. Commissioner Cassel: I have no additional comments. Commissioner Burt: I had a telephone conversation with Carol Jansen, representing the applicant. Commissioner Holman: And I think since the 18th, my only discussion with anybody has been a very brief conversation with Marlene Prendergast, today. Vice-Chair Griffin: And since the 18th, I’ve had a conversation with Carol Jansen. Ms. Furth: With respect to Commissioner Packer’s meeting with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, though it opened to the public it’s not part of this public hearing. So I think that Marlene Prendergast provided a summary much of the discussion there. If there’s any other information that you obtained there that was not discussed at this hearing, it would be part of the basis of your decision in this case, you need to disclose it. In other words, if you had important facts that which remains the discussion that you gathered there, I think there was a pretty good summary of that discussion already. Commissioner Packer: Yes, I believe Marlene discussed the concerns that the Board expressed. I was just listening to it. Vice-Chair Griffin: All right, let me say that in order for us to discuss this project, I’d like to revert back to the suggestion that we had from Steve earlier on this evening to approach this through the framework provided in the Staff Report by the recommendations which consists of on page 1 and 2 of a total of six different major items. And as we work our way tt~rough them, I’m then going to ask for a motion and we will then vote the item up or down at that stage. But that will allow- us to focus on one point at a time. And so I’m going to now open it to the Commissioners to take a look at the recommendations, paragraph number one which is to grant a zone change. The suggestion has been made that we could do the zone change as the last item and let’s turn the objections to that. We can proceed to Item #2 which is to revise the project, this is what Staff is recommending in accordance with the Commission’s recommendation on the South of Forest Area, the SOFA CAP. The first item there is reduction of the Floor Area Ratio to 2.0 or less. Would anyone like to start the discussion at this stage? Page 30 Commissioner Holman: I will make one comment more general to the general point of number 2 as opposed to 2A. I think it is appropriate to review this project under the SOFA CAP guidelines. Commissioner Burt spoke pretty eloquently to that at the last meeting. And the reason I think that even though SOFA 2 hasn’t been adopted is because this Commission looked-at this area and decided what was the appropriate t?,~e of development for that area, including scale, FAR, heights, etc. So it would seem to me that, in my perspective is at least that we can review" this project under SOFA 2 CAP guidelines and be entirely consistent with how we would be reviewing any PC project under any area had SOFA 2 never come about. This has had the benefit of this amount of review so we’ve already determined what’s appropriate. Commissioner Burt: Well, I think I agree with the essence of what Karen is saying. I would just phrase it slightly differently. I would say that I think we as a Commission have looked at what parameters we think are appropriate for PC’s in this area. And we also made those recommendations as SOFA 2 guidelines but whether there’s a SOFA 2 plan or not, we as a Commission have said we think these are the correct parameters for a PC in this area. And so I wouldn’t phrase it as the SOFA 2 guidelines. I would say guidelines that we have recommended that happened to be consistent with what we have proposed to the Council for SOFA 2, and whether there’s a SOFA 2 plan adopted by Council or not, those are guidelines that the Commission has found are appropriate for this zone. And that those are the ones that we should use for evaluating this particular project because we’ve already had extensive discussions on their appropriateness and consensus, I should say. Vice-Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: Well, this is very difficult and we did discuss FAR’s at length when we were looking at SOFA 2. And in many ways, I believe we came to that number more as a political compromise than is a really studied analysis of a particular project. If we look at it in. that context that I’m willing to be a little bit more flexible in looking at these absolute numbers, now that we have a real project in front of us, this is in essence the massing study for this address, this location. And we can see what, whatever this is, 2.35. It’s really a little bit more than 2.0 but it’s not a lot more than 2.0. It’s not 4.0, it’s not 3.0. And then when we see what it looks like, I’m willing to say well, okay, we were talking about a theoretical FAR and now we have a real project, I’m willing to be a little bit more flexible. And the reason is, I really want to see transit-oriented housing on this site and well designed project, and I’m willing to say, okay, I’m willing to go a little bit higher in the FAR when we have a well designed project that has some other public benefits. So I would ask Commissioners to go a little bit beyond the box we put ourselves in when we were looking at a plan for a huge area, not like in any specific projects. And look at the benefits we could achieve by being a little bit flexible because we know- the importance. The person from Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group talked about the importance of transit-oriented in/for development and if there’s any place in town where this makes sense, it’s this place. So that’s why I would ask my fellow Commissioners to go beyond the box. Page 31 Commissioner Bellomo: Very quickly. In all respect to the Commissioners, I was not part of that deliberation on SOFA 2. I have been involved in seeing the many versions of this project. I do think in the spirit as this project can become more spirited in a public beneficial way, I do think, I’m in agreement that it does not need to hold to a 2.0 FAR due to the public benefits, it can provide and the spirit as we get into the other issues of open area and public benefits. And touching on this, in the same respect that’s touching on the 1,500 maximum size unit, I don’t want to place this development, I don’t think into a constraining [factor] that limits the kind of the sculpting of it in a more beneficial way because as we all know the design is never over until it’s over. And there’s certainly a lot of issues being talked about that I think can benefit this project. So, I am one to not be in support of limiting it in such a manner. Commissioner Cassel: The problem is that for me, I want the larger number of units and at the same time, I’m very concerned about mass. And in boning for the 2.0, this is what I’ve been looking at. Can we get it within the height that we wanted? Can we respect the street front? And when we get down to this daylight plane, we’re going to have some interesting discussions because I never thought we would do a daylight plane on this and we did that as an alternative. But can we meet the height? Can we meet the density? Can we get the open space? In this case, we’ve used the 35-foot setback at the front and they have, in fact, respected that. We asked the Homer Street be back at least 35 feet was our discussion, it’s back 60. At the same time, I’m having this feeling about the need for the extra units. It’s hard to discuss this without getting to that next question on the 1,500 square feet that you were mentioning earlier about the average that we have here because this was a novel idea. In our plarming, we don’t have any place else in our guidelines citywide that we have put a size limit on the size of units. And it will, indeed, force us down to have some smaller units. And I think to a point in using an average may be a very wise one because that may give us some smaller units actually along with the larger units and we hadn’t thought of that. If we have to vote right now, I’m in trouble. I’d like to kind of go through the rest of this and see how it goes. Vice-Chair Griffin: I tried to start earlier and it kept s.lipping. I feel your pain. Karen. Commissioner Holman: Just one other comment I would want to make regarding whether to review this under the SOFA 2 guidelines is that when we were making those determinations and making our recommendations, we did look at this area as a transit- oriented development area. So the 2.0 was based on its location. Commissioner Burt: Yes, I’d just like to add that we not only looked at this area, we looked at this project prior to our recommendations on the SOFA 2 guidelines and we were fully aware of the prospective proposal of this project. I think that the integrity and the credibility of the Commission is at stake in this circumstance. I think that it would undermine the community trust in this Commission if we were to have made one set of recommendations a little over a month ago and then essentially said we really didn’t mean what we recommended, once we get a project before us and there is a way to circumvent Page 32 our own recornmendations. So I think the Commission really needs to be thinking about those issues. I have certain aspects of this project that I think have merit that may not go forward with the recommendations that we made on the SOFA 2 plan. I think that the public parking public benefit is a substantial public benefit. And I don’t know whether it will stil! exist when we have our recommendations consistent with the recommendations we made on SOFA 2. Nevertheless, I feel obliged to have an intellectual consistency between what we recommended a month or two ago and what we will be recommending tonight. Vice-Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I need to response to that. I understand what you’re saying, Pat. However, I don’t think if the Commission or individual Commissioners decide to change his or her mind on an issue means that we lose credibility. I think it’s a question of growth and the ability to change when you have new facts or new ways of looking at things. I mean, even the Supreme Court will redo their precedence. This is growth. And so it’s okay to go from one point to another point as we learn more as we can get more involved in the detail of a project. So you can stick with 2.0, that’s fine, if that’s what you fee! comfortable and I can see the reason for wanting to be consistent. But I think it’s also okay to change one’s mind. Commissioner Burt: If I may ask, what are the new facts that are substantive that is causing you to change your position? Commissioner Packer: We didn’t have this particular project in front of us exactly. We were trying to make a compromise between the Working Group’s recommendation for a lower FAR. It was more of a political discussion as opposed to a specific planning discussion and we talked about 2.0. And then when I looked back, just as we’re going to go into a discussion on this 1,500 square feet and I have a sense from w-hat other Commissioners are saying that maybe it should have been an average that something that’s within, a plus or minus 2% or 3 %, 25%, whatever percent we want to say is within the intent.of a 2.0. I think it’s okay for us to be flexible. I don’t think we’re undermining the trust. I think it’s okay to change. It’s okay if you don’t want to. I’m just saying that I don’t think it’s a bad thing if we, once we look at a project, w-e say, okay for SOFA 2 CAP, we say 2.0 but maybe we should have said 2.25 for SOFA 2 CAP. Vice-Chair Griffin: Do you want to enter into this yet? Commissioner Cassel: Only in this point that you’re asking the issue that you might consider and that is massing. Can you get this thing to look right and not so massive, even though you have the FAR there? Is it possible to do? And that’s the question for me. It’s trying to keep something so it’s not looking massive and monolithic. Vice-Chair Griffin: With softer comers perhaps. Page 33 Commissioner Cassel: Not necessarily. The last time it was here before us we never told the owners and the developers anything we liked about the project. I realized when we got home we told everything we didn’t like and nothing we liked. And that we don’t usually do but we were pressed on time. And there are some things I like about this project. It is articulated. It does setback so it looks like it’s got different units. They did a lot to the back. That back was awful. There’s fewer cars and winding ways and the way it looks, they brought it down four stories, where it was five. I think this is important. They kept that building along Homer and we’ll have a discussion about how that should go to 35 feet and they stepped it even back farther than what we asked for and they kept the 61 units while bringing it down in height. The entry way is on High because the neighbors behind really wanted it on High. They did not want cars running up and down that alley even though it would feel to me like it would be better to have it on the alley, the businesses behind don’t want it on the alley and so it was moved to the front in deference to them. And there’s some other smaller issues like making the are open, the bathroom, I don’t know isn’t there someone off the wall, public bathrooms are my issue. If it didn’t come from some place else, it would have come from me. But basically, I like the look of the project. So now my issue is, does it keep the massing feel of the project down enough? We could have a project of 2.0 that looks larger than 2.0. Vice-Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I didn’t mean to derail us but I think this is a really important discussion to have in how we’re going to review the project. I want to respond to something that was said earlier in that the 2.0 was a political compromise. I hope it wasn’t a political compromise because that’s not the charge of this Commission. This Commission is to make decisions based on best land use and decisions that are based on the Comprehensive Plan goals. So, that would be my comment to that. I think what we did was determine at 2.0 and height limits etc., and most of these issues that I think really need to follow-the SOFA 2 guidelines or the size of the box of daylight plane, I’m in agreement with you, Phyllis that it’s the size of the box that’s really very important here among other things but that’s a really huge one. And that the reason for the 2.0 was a couple of things that that was the best transitional size that this Commission determined, and also that to go further away from that would have been an absolute disregard for the literal years that the SOFA Working Group put into this plan as well. So you can cal! that political if you want but I think that was showing regard for a process that the City Council put into place and that’s why we decided also not to deviate further, one of the reasons why we decided not to deviate further. Vice-Chair Griffin: All right. I’m going to say that I’ve heard your points of view and I would like to be able to decide for myself as I move down this list. Those items that I want to modify in terms of changing from the recommended SOFA guidelines. This isn’t one of them. I think the 2.0 is the appropriate density for this project. For all the reasons Page 34 that we’ve discussed and that we agonized a lot I thought over the FAR. And we finally came to a consensus that this is the number for a PC and this district. And for that reason, I’m going to support FAR of 2.0. I am now going to ask if Pat would like to make a motion on this. Commissioner Burt: I will but I heard Phyllis say that she had a problem wi~h the sequence, if I understood you dorrectly of addressing the FAR issue prior to addressing the unit size issue. Was that your concern? Steve, you want to say something. Mr. Emslie: One way of dealing with the sequence of events that might prompt a subsequent action is to take a non-binding [straw] vote and move on to the next one and then you can come back and revisit this after you go through the list. I offer that as a suggestion. Commissioner Bellomo: What I was alluding to this 2.0 and heaving outside of it because again, I wasn’t part of your deliberations, when I see a project and maybe this one hasn’t done it quite yet when it moves outside of kind of the design box where you see exemplary architecture then you say, wow, this City wants it and we will break out of something that we thought was definitive because it’s extraordinary. So I really would caution you and this project hasn’t done it yet. It might be able to and with the issues that we’re talking about, passionately I would say design is never over and guidelines are there to be broken when we see things that are again, just exemplary so I just caution you. I don’t think this has gotten there. Certainly 2.0 is probably satisfactory but if the project went beyond something that we didn’t think it could, then I would think that we might reconsider a benefit to the deve!oper to increase the density. Commissioner Burt: If I might just following on there, Joe, I think those are good comments. And the only thing I would add to it is that in the SOFA Working Group, there was a great deal of discussion and out of that a real understanding that PC’s are not entitlements. And so going up to a 2.0 is the boundary in which we have that discretion. If we put a cap on a PC, we say we have a certain entitlement for a FAR and the difference between the entitlement and the PC is that discretionary zone, not an implication that the PC is the entitlement and we might go above the cap on the PC if it’s an outstanding building. But I do appreciate that significant architectural benefit is a consideration of the PC and public benefit is a consideration of PC’s, I just want to refresh everybody about this discussion that that’s part of why we have a PC and that 2.0 isn’t the baseline from which we exceed. It’s the maximum, not the entitlement. Vice-Chair Griffin: I have Bonnie and then I have Karen and then Phyllis. Commissioner Packer: I’m ready to go. Why don’t we take a [straw] vote and then move on because I think I know where everybody stands. Commissioner Bellomo: Why don’t we iterate that I think if there were changes made to the project, I could support the project exceeding the 2.0, not substantially but incrementally, if there was a position but I h~iven’t seen it yet but I think we haven’t even Page 35 allowed the applicant to really have his time to know all the issues that he would need to improve to make those findings for an increase to the FAR, if there were even any. Does that make sense? Commissioner Cassel: Couldwe not do a [straw-] vote on this one and just go on to the next one and reduce the size and let us talk a little more about the other issues and see how- it meets? Vice-Chair Griffin: All right. We’ve got 10:00 o’clock. Commissioner Holman: A clarifying question for Joe and somebody else sort of chimed in, I can’t remember who it was. I’m sort of basing this on this evening’s comments and also something I believe I heard stated before. My understanding and please correct me if I’m wrong. Am I understanding that if the building architecturally becomes superior that you think that is a reason to? Commissioner Bellomo: No, no. I talked about public benefit. We talked about the public realm in that sense where there was something that could be done with this building, in my opinion that would open it up more and it would provide more public benefit in a sense of.. I guess architecturally. I would say spatially form. This is my opinion, this is my position. Commissioner Holman: Can City Attorney respond to that? Because I thought in the community that we expect, now I’m not trying to be argumentative here, I’m really wanting clarification so we’re all operating on the same framework that I thought the expectation in the communities that we would get that we get good design. Ms. Furth: Well, expectations aren’t always realized. The way the City sets up its Land Use standards is first of all, in the Comprehensive Plan. And the Comprehensive Plan sets base FAR’s and base densities but it also says, those are intended to be what happens in general and the FAR’s may differ on any particular site. So it starts out with the notion of flexibility. And then the PC district itself says it’s specifically designed to provide flexibility. It does not have maximum FAR’s as you well know, they have a height standard. And it hasn’t been an entirely successful process in the view of the City Council. And one of the things that the Planning Commission wil! be addressing in the Zoning Ordinance update is what’s the best way to preserve the benefits of the process while reducing some of the risks. Because it’s inherently about a riskier kind of a review process in the sense that it’s less predictable. But it doesn’t have the risk .of ruling out things that the community finds desirable, that’s why we have PC Ordinances. Then when you analyze the SOFA 2 area, at first there was a thought that PC’s perhaps aren’t necessary at all that because this is a small area you can define the desirable by objective standards and that’s all you need to do. And that was the recommendation of the Working Group, it’s not the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended PC’s but in a narrower ranger than that under the existing zoning. But there’s nothing illegal about or inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan about the approach that the Commissioner is suggesting. Page 36 Commissioner Holman: Specifically in regards though to superior architectural design, if w-e start considering that as a public benefit, aren’t we just asking for projects to not conform with the best design? So the public benefit then is good design? I just need clarification on this. Ms. Furth: I think these are decisions for you all to make as Commissioners and they’re not really legal issues. Vice-Chair Griffin: With your indulgence, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to have a [straw] vote on this item, which means I like Steve’s approach here which basically, Phyllis, it would you the comfort of changing your mind. I mean if you vote on one, you can back out if you don’t like the way the 1,500 comes out, for example. So at least that keeps us moving here otherwise we’ll go all the way to the bottom. Commissioner Burt: You need a motion not for a straw vote, I don’t think, right? Ms. Furth: You have to state the proposition. VOTE Vice-Chair Griffin: I’ll say that the Floor Area Ratio is reduced to 2.0 or less as stated here in the report. All those in favor of FAR of 2.0 or less? Say aye. So we have 3. And all those opposed? 3 to 3. All right. Here we go. So the next item is to reduce the size of individual units as necessary so that none exceed 1,500 square feet. Would anyone like to start the discussion? Pat, you’ve been kind of a lead-off person on that, why don’t you take it? Commissioner Burt: I would say that I think the 1,500 square foot limit is a good one provided that we have another mechanism to have diversity in unit sizes. And it’s interesting that the applicant had stated that the average size currently is 1,320 square feet. I think something in that range. Before I heard that I had my head at 1,300 square foot average as being approximately appropriate. So I think those two parameters together achieved the objectives we’re looking for on the unit sizes and number of units and are consistent with Comprehensive Plan in general. Commissioner Cassel: I’m pleased with the size of the units. I went along with the 1,500 square feet because I thought that was a good way to start this issue going. I haven’t really thought of an average and you’re suggesting that the average be lower than the 1,500 is what you’re saying. Commissioner Burt: Well, certainly. If a maximum is the same as the average then we’re going to get everything right about the maximum. Commissioner Cassel: Well, I don’t think you have to say that. If you say an average of 1,500 you’re going to have the same effect. Page 37 Commissioner Burt: We have an average of 1,500, you ,know that we have units exceeding 1,500 and we’d average at 1,500. Commissioner Cassel: But this project has units exceeding 1,500, the average is still only 1,320. Commissioner Burt: But we have recommended that there be a limit, a maximum. That’s one recommendation we have made. And so to be consistent with that recommendation and not have a circumstance of all the units having an economic incentive to have all the units at 1,500, we would need to also have an average. Commissioner Cassel: You were saying or an average? Corrmaissioner Burt: No, you need both parameters to achieve the objectives. If you just have one of the two, you’re going to miss one or the other. Commissioner Cassel: You’ve accomplished your 1,300 square feet or 1,320 square feet average and you have not accomplished the maximum of 1,500 square foot size. Commissioner Burt: That’s correct. We made recommendations to the Council that in this area, we believed that these units should be 1,500 square foot maximum, ifI understand that correct as part of our SOFA 2 recommendation. So we would be inconsistent with our previous recormnendations but I think Wynn wants to chime in. Ms. Furth: I just wanted to say that because this is a PC where you approve a specific set of plans, if you approve the plans as submitted, you’d get this mix exactly. Now, I think that an issue arises when you reduce the FAR to 2.0, both as the unit count and to the size of particular units. But it doesn’t have to be a policy of general application. You can say that if the FAR is reduced, do you want to keep this unit count? You can say you want to keep this general proportion. You can say you don’t want the smaller units to get any smaller. You have a range of possibilities but you have a very specific plan in front of you. I don’t know if that makes it simpler or harder. Commissioner Cassel: Well, I think what you’re saying is that we don’t have to decide the overall policy issue tonight if we’re satisfied with the unit range that’s in front of us. Vice-Chair Griffin: Bonnie, did you want to make a point? Commissioner Packer: Yes. I did a little math also and when you count in the BMR’s I got an average unit size of a little bit less and the applicant said, I don’t "know why my math is different but I got 1,290. And then because the BMR’s are by definition tend to be smaller I decided to subtract the BMR’s and just did an average of the remaining 50 units. And those came out to 1,378. I don’t -know if anybody did that mentally. I got that right. So that just gives you an idea because I think when we talk about averages and we want to be consistent with the intent we are trying to achieve in our SOFA 2 Page 38 discussion, I think we should exclude the BMR’s in which by definition are going to be smaller anyway. Well, not necessarily because as we go down this list, we may want to recommend that there be a mix of BMR’s that we flex it. Anyway I just wanted to throw that in for information purposes and let you think about it. Vice-Chair Griffin: And say that when I voted for the 2.0 FAR, my presumption was that was going to change the building [envelope] and the applicant was going to have to re- massage the mix of the apartments having to do with quantity, having to do with the square footage, whatever because we are squeezing down the building envelope. So there was a part of me that was willing to let the applicant come up with something that work for him if we were in a position where we were going to dictate what it was that the massing came out to be. Karen. Commissioner Holman: Can I offer up this? Maybe I am being DHS reactive. But there is the issue of average unit size and then we didn’t put a minimum unit size in our recommendations for I think probably a good reason. But I think since we have a proposal in front of us and the maximum unit size is proposed at 1,702 square feet, for this project if we said the maximum unit size for this proposal will say, 1,750 square feet with an average not to exceed 1,500 square feet, I think we’re accomplishing what we want. So we’re not going to get like a penthouse on the top and a bunch of little units because I think that’s our intention. So if you all would consider that. Commissioner Burt: I would just say that I’m open to consideration of that sort of change but I think that the Commission should recognize that that is different from our recommendations that we made for this area. And if we think that that is the right policy within this area, then we should consider reviewing or recommendations to Council for the SOFA 2 and make a consistent change there for the Planned Area in our recommendations, but not recommend one thing in one context and change ourselves ’ again when we have a specific project before us. So if we think that it’s better planning policy to allow a recommendation along the lines of what Karen said, then I think we should separately and not at this meeting but review our recommendations to Council if we now think that we have more information or a reconsidered judgment. Commissioner Holman: I think that’s a good point. Vice-Chair Griffin: Any further comments on that? Commissioner Burt: One more. So if we agree with that intellectual premise, then that should also follow on a Floor Area Ratio. Vice-Chair Griffin: I’m ready for a straw vote. Commissioner Holman: The other thing to be consistent with our SOFA recommendations, the other thing we could consider is a maximum unit size of 1,500 square feet consistent with a recommendation with an average not to exceed like 1,350 or something like that. I’m not fast enough in Math to do that. Page 39 Commissioner Bellomo: I just want to add that if you had something that was scripted as an average 1,500, it’s always discretionary. If you saw this application come in and you saw something excessive with a penthouse unit, you would then have the opportunity to look at that situation. But I think with this, the average unit size is something that, if it’s maximum again I’d get concerned about with the maximums because then it doesn’t allow you a kind of a baseline. Commissioner Holman: But the whole point of establishing a 1,500 square foot was to provide for affordability. And if we don’t put a maximum on it, that means an applicant could come in and propose anything and I’m not saying that you’re going to. Vice-Chair Griffin: Steve, would you want to jump in here? Mr. Emslie: I thought I saw- in a kind of line of agreement and if you did want to put a cap and we would recommend you have some sort of cap. I think it helps limit the discretion and provide direction to Staff especially that this project may get revised you would want to put a maximum. And if you want to have that higher than 1,500, I think that’s fine, it’s within your discretion within your role as a recommender on a PC. Don’t lose sight of the fact that this is still a PC where you have absolute discretion. You have lots of control. We also would recommend that if you wanted to have an average, you would want to make sure that that average is probably significantly less than 1,500 and if you use that over a larger number of units, you could have great variance in that and still come up with the average that would be close to 1,500. So you probably want to have something closer to what their actual average is now ~vhich is 1,290 1 think was the final number. Vice-Chair Griffin: So, if understand it then we would have a choice, for example, of either supporting Item #B here which talks about none of these units exceeding. Commissioner Bellomo: Michael, can I just interject? Can this be scripted such in a way that it’s as proposed, accepted as proposed with this development? Mr. Emslie: The only thing we consider if, and again we don’t know what’s going to happen with the FAR if it goes down, that might change the number somewhat. Vice-Chair Griffin: Well, that was my point that the [envelope] is changing on them and so they’re going to have to make some modifications. Commissioner Ca’ssel: So what Karen was suggesting is that you put a maximum of 1,700 1 guess or 1,720 they have in the project so the maximum is what they’ve got now, the size. And we can leave the average slightly higher than what it is now because we don’t know what’s going to happen. Not exceed 1,400 or something. Ms. Furth: Again, it depends on what you do with the FAR but if you reduce the FAR, then obviously the average has to go down commensurately. Page 40 Commissioner Cassel: No, not necessarily because you can have - we’re not talking about units, we’re talking about FAR in the units so we’re trying to be somewhat flexible with it, recognizing that they’ve done a good job in coming up with the 1.,320 which was sort of the goal of what we’re actually trying to look at was to get a reasonable number of units, with relatively large/small number of units and they did that. And so we’re trying to craft something within that range is what we’re trying to do. Vice-Chair Griffin: So we have a choice between the 1,500 as a cap and, for example, Karen’s 1,750 as a cap. Commissioner Burt: What’s our current largest unit size? Vice-Chair Griffin: 1,702. Commissioner Burt: I think I heard Phyllis suggest that we put a maximum at the current largest unit size and establish an average. Mr. Emslie: That it’s slightly by lower than the average now. Commissioner Cassel: No, why? No, no, you don’t need to make the average, if you’re going to make this small you’re going to end up with small. Ms. Furth: You’d either end up with smaller units or bigger units or both. Commissioner Burt: Not necessarily. Commissioner Cassel: But they make take a whole section out or drop a whole piece and the rest of them may stay the same. Ms. Furth: The major dimensions of the PC right now specifies them as units. Vice-Chair Griffin: I would like to give the applicant a chance to clarify his position on this particular point. Would one of the three of you do it? Mr. Ross: I think if you’re headed toward a reduced FAR, it’s entirely possible that the average that we’re dealing with here is going to be comparable. One of the things you have to think about is that in that lower FAR, the parking leaves, and then we’re going to be reduced on our unit count anyway with the FAR and the parking is going to dictate how many units we have out there. Similar to earlier comments, everybody has looked at the SOFA thing as an abstract. We’ve got a rea! project in front of you and the 1,320 or whatever that average you arrived at meets the spirit of your Ordinance, and I think you want diversity in this town. You want some people that can have a 1,720 square foot unit, you want people that can have 1,200 square feet. So I think the 1,500 square foot average works out. It tends to compensate everything out. And then as Mr. Bellomo stated, you have the discretionary power. Somebody has a 3,000 square foot penthouse Page 41 and all the units are 200 square feet, you can say that’; not the spirit of the deal. We’re not going to do that. No one is going to sell those anyway. The market dictates what you need to do. What this 1,500 does it makes one size fits all. You’re going to have a little diversity but you’re not going to have very much. And I don’t think that’s what Palo Alto is all about. I can take any questions if you have any. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you. So here we are again. We have a 1,702 as a current maximum as proposed. We have an average of 1,300, including the BMR’s. Commissioner Butt: Excuse me, can we get a clarification. We referred to two numbers. 1,378 is excluding the BMR’s. Mr. Emslie: And with is 1,290. Commissioner Burt: So if we were to say 1,300 average including the BMR’s, then that would actually allow the developers a little bit higher average than they have proposed. So we’re at a [straw] vote stage and if I would say, I would support the [straw] vote contingent upon that we would be willing to lift the average to accommodate the increased FAR that would result from any increase in size of some of the BMR’s. Commissioner Cassel: We’ll just pick a number that’s high enough to allow- all of that. Commissioner Burt: Rather than us trying to calculate a number like that tonight, let’s just say that based upon the current proposal. Commissioner Bellomo: What’s wrong with the range? You’re feeling that if there was a range there will be too many of a higher average square footage number? This is what your concern is. Commissioner Burt: Right. Commissioner Bellomo: So why not script something that is spread through that there’s a, I guess it gets back to the square foot average. Commissioner Burt: That’s what it essentially requires and we have it before us. And all I want to do is not penalize the developer on the size of their market units if we should recommend that there be an increase in size on the BMR. Mr. Emslie: What you do is just exempt any increase BMR square footage for purposes of- Commissioner Burt: Either one of those options is fine by me. The [principle] is what we’re looking for. Ms. Furth: The BMR’s get counted as what is shown as here, whatever they actually get built in. Page 42 Mr. Emslie: And if they increase, it doesn’t count towards the average. Commissioner Burt: Okay, so I’ll make the proposal that the maximum of the market rate units be as the developer has proposed. The average of the market rate units be as the developer proposed. So the maximum be 1,702, the average of the market rate units will work out to 1,300 including the BMR’s. Ms. Furth: And any increase of the BMR size does not increase the average. It’s excluded in calculating the averages. Commissioner Packer: Wouldn’t this be simpler if we just didn’t include the BMR’s and the calculation of the average? [overlapping conversation] Vice-Chair Griffin: Would Curt please clarify? Mr. Peterson: The problem is I run these numbers all the time and we’ve done 6,000 iterations on this project. The situation is that if we go back to a 2.0 FAR, we lose a complete level of parking. We have to have larger average units to make the project work or it will not physically work. We have to have a certain level of market units to sell to carry the public benefits that are required to make the project to go forward or it cannot go forward. So we have 1,500 foot maximum which I would rather have than an average, or a 1,700 foot ceiling. If you’re going to drop the average down to 1,300, we physically are going to have a very difficult time making a 2.0 work with one-level of parking. It may even be impossible. So that’s my point, if you have a 1,500 foot maximum and we chose to make them all that same size, you’d have the exact same footage if you made it at 1,500 foot average. So that’s what Mr. Bellomo is saying, is that if you make it an average it basically solves its problem. If you want to put a ceiling on it at 1,750 then you’ve got a maximum at 1,750 and every time you do a 1,750 we’ve got it to a 1,250 and then you’ve got an affordable unit down here and you get a more expensive unit that carries the project, pays for the BMR’s and pulls the train to make the development work. So I would beg you to make the average !,500, not bring it down because as you lower the average you have to have more parking for the number of units that you generate. Vice-Chair Griffin: Do we have any consensus here? Commissioner Cassel: I think we have some consensus and the fact that we don’t feel we should reduce the size of the individua! units, all of them to 1,500 square feet, period. So there we have some consensus, right? There’s no problem there. The question is, and we have a consensus that the 1,700 square feet approximately that they proposed is fine. The question is then, where should our average be? We got that far. And the question then becomes how do we give enough flexibility to be able to come within that? And if we get it exactly as it is now and we reduce the Floor Area Ratio to 2.0, it may not work. Page 43 Commissioner Burt: That’s right. And one of our problems in trying to set a number right now is how can we do that if we haven’t reached agreement on the FAR. This probably only exist if we reduce the FAR. If we don’t reduce the FAR, then the only issue for the developer is the impact of larger BMR’s. Commissioner Casse!: So what we need to do is agree on the things we know we agree on, agree that ~ve need to come up with an average and go down through this and know that we have to come back and work on it. And we may not be able tonight to come up with an average, we may have to take the Staff working on that. Commissioner Burt: And Steve wants to say something about it. I think at this time we are in agreement in principles. Mr. Emslie: I think what was implied in the applicant statement is that if you apply this and you apply a higher average, the only way to do that is to reduce the number of units. So what they’re saying is that the implication is that they’re going to go lower units. I just wanted to make sure that you understand that that’s the way you get larger units to get a higher average is fewer units with a smaller FAR. Commissioner Burt: And we’d have a double impact. We have a smaller FAR with the same average, we’d have fewer units. If we have a lower FAR with larger units, we’d have fewer yet units. Ms. Furth: So it’s not proportional to the decrease in FAR. It’s a multiplier at that. Commissioner Burt: Yes, based on what the applicant has said would be their intention. Ms. Furth: Right. It’s not 15%, it’s something else. Commissioner Burt: So those will be decisions that we will yet have to make. Commissioner Cassel: But we have some agreements on some, so let’s keep going. Vice-Chair Griffin: Would the architect like to make a comment? Mr. Warden: Part of what’s determining the number of units is the amount of parking. So in order to be able to afford to reduce the FAR to 2.0 we have to go to a single level of parking with fewer cars. Therefore, because there are fewer cars, there are fewer units, not because they want to make larger units, there are fewer units but because there are fewer cars to support the units, there are fewer units. Vice-Chair Griffin: All I can say is that if we keep passing on each one of these items, we’ll never ever going to get there. Commissioner Cassel: Michael, we didn’t actually. We just didn’t come up with an average. We got a big portion of that item down in the sense that we’re proceeding to the Page44 next one. We did not agree to reduce the size of the new units as necessary to exceed 1,500 square feet. We did agree that we need to do some kind of averaging, that the max should be around 1,700 and that we needed to come back later to understand what the square footage should be. And we may have to leave that to Staff. Vice-Chair Griffin: Is Staff prepared to further analyze this? Mr. Kott: Yes, we are. Vice-Chair Griffin: Then can we have an agreement among the Commissioners? We’ve got that? All right, good. Then we’re off to Item #C which is to reduce the daylight plane encroachment along High Street to a maximum of 15 linear feet. And I’m going to ask Steven Turner, where did the 15 linear feet come from? Mr. Turner: Well, it’s clear during your discussions on SOFA 2 that the Commission was generally in favor of a daylight plane along High Street. And the architect in his description earlier correctly stated what that daylight plane was. It’s up 35 feet from the property line over at a 45-degree angle. And he also described correctly the protrusions that the current building has. It’s the 3 elevator, kind of stairway towers and 2 gables along the side that’s there. What’s not exactly clear was the Commission’s thoughts on the types of encroachments and a total length of encroachments. In residential districts, there is a 15-foot maximum length but that may not necessarily work here. Commissioner Bellomo: It’s at a 15-foot increment in an R-1. Incrementally, does it spread over this side? Mr. Turner: In an R-1 district it’s a 15-foot encroachment per side. Now that may work for residential single-family structures but it doesn’t work for commercial structures. Vice-Chair Griffin: So I have a question for the architect. How many feet of encroachment does your current design have? Mr. Warden: The total in the Staff Report is correct. It was 90-something, I can’t remember it. Commissioner Bellomo: Question for Steven. ARB looked at this daylight plane issue, correct? Mr. Turner: That’s right. Commissioner Bellomo: Their recommendation was that the proposed.design fit into the daylight plane overview. Mr. Turner: Well, because there’s not currently a daylight plane regulation for sites located in this zone district. Page 45 Commissioner Bellomo: The ARB recommended that this design was acceptable? Mr. Turner: That’s correct. Commissioner Cassel: Well, I thought that our intent when we did this was the real intent of what we were trying to do was make it when you walk down the street that you would feel like the 35-foot height on one side that’s on High Street, would feel like the 35ofoot height that’s going to be on the other side. And so that’s why we put this in here. And the reason the daylight plane was used was as a way to handle that mechanism. Commissioner Burt: My question on this drawing that we had from, is it Friedman? And we had a sketch on the High Street daylight plane and I’m unclear but my understanding is that the proposal that we have is not consistent with this drawing, is that correct? Mr. Turner: The daylight plane as measured for the sites is described as Mr. Warden did. Commissioner Burt: So how does this compare with our recommendations for the district as a whole? Mr. Turner: The 15-foot recommendation is not in this proposed SOFA 2 plan. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thanks for saying that. Commissioner Burt: Why if I might ask, what’s the rationale for the 15-foot recommendation? Mr. Turner: Any sort of protrusion is to take into account sort of minor intrusions like stairwells, elevators, gables, non-living areas that might promote articulation, interesting building design along a particular side of the building so it’s not all the same, like of massing along the sides so it’s intended to promote interesting design, more articulation. Vice-Chair Griffin: And the genesis of that is from the R-1 SOFA requirements. Commissioner Cassel: Yes, but the R-1 zone has standard units of 60 feet wide and 100 foot deep. Vice-Chair Griffin: Exactly. Commissioner Casset: It’s the whole long street. But it’s not consistent with it all the way a!ong, is what you’re saying is what we had proposed was all the way along. And our goal is to get articulation that would setback so we wouldn’t have a solid wall out front. Comrnissioner Burt: I need to take one more crack at this. Steve, can you in layman’s terms explain what’s the Staff reasoning as to why there are limitations being recommended for this project that are different from what were recommended to us for Page 46 SOFA 2 as a whole and what we adopted or recommended for SOFA 2 as a whole? And in this particular case, as it pertains to the High Street recommendation. Mr. Emslie: Essentially, what I believe we’re telling you and Staff, feel free to correct me ¯ is that there are permitted encroachments in your recommendations in SOFA and SOFA 2. The purpose of those encroachments was to not allow a monolithic building. You didn’t cut off the building, you allowed for some architectural interest, some minor enhancement encroachments and they have proposed those and you can have them in SOFA 2. However, they are not consistent with how this is calculated. There’s some discrepancies between the encroachments that they’re proposing and the way the SOFA 2 recommendations apply. So all we’re asking is that those be resolved in a mariner that’s consistent with the permitted encroachment sections on page 44. Commissioner Burt: Okay, because the way [C] is worded is summary, is that really consistent with what you just said to a maximum of ! 5 linear feet? Commissioner Cassel: No, none of them was supposed to be bigger than 7.5 feet. Commissioner Bellomo: Are you talking about incrementally 15 feet or are you talking about whole distance? Ms. Furth: What the text that you all looked at and approved, it says on page 44, on page 43 you all defined that the daylight plane and then on page 44 there are permitted encroachments. And it says, "Dormers, roof, decks, gables and similar architectural features may extend beyond the daylight planes. If the horizontal length of all such features combined doesn’t exceed 15 feet on any side and no single feature may be more than 7½ feet long and the height may not exceed 24 feet above grade? So this may need further work. Commissioner Packer: This is one of those areas we really never got into great depth. There’s so many details in SOFA 2 that I would feel comfortable taking the recommendations of the Architectural Review Board on an issue like this because it’s so beyond it. The scope of our expertise and recommend that maybe the language that we compose for SOFA 2 CAP be made a little bit more flexible for larger buildings. It sounds like it’s for a little tiny building as opposed to larger buildings or somehow work it and that I would propose that we recognize that there’s some significant articulation in the design of this project along High Street and that the daylight plane encroachment is not a problem for us. Vice-Chair Griffin: So if we did a straw vote on this one, which is to reduce the daylight plane encroachment along High Street to a maximum of 15 linear feet, you would vote against that then? Or would you rather propose a new standard? Commissioner Packer: No, I don’t have the expertise to do that. And I think this aspect of the plan is something I would prefer the Architectural Review Board to help us with or we get some more help from Staff on the relative size of projects. Page 47 Commissioner Bellomo: That’s what they did. The ARB did review this and did recommend this to move forward. Vice-Chair Griffin: They did approve it as drawn. Commissioner Bellomo: Right, so you might have some language in here that suggest that it moves forward and the ARB did look at it. I don’t want to speak too much of the architecture but this is something that did move to a body, a Commission. Commissioner Holman: I think this is something that probably as a Planning Commission didn’t consider thoroughly and all that well. And I would assume that when this went to the ARB even the last time, you didn’t have these shadoxv studies that we now have because this only came to us at the last Planning Commission meeting. Because one of the things I found really distressing was that the shadow studies showed that on December 21 st at noon, most of the street is in shadow, December 21 st in the afternoon, most of the street is in shadow, March 21 st at 3:00 p.m., the shadow is all the way across the street and on to the opposite side of the street, and December 21 st at 3:00 p.m. that the shadow is all the way across the street and well up on to the buildings across the street. And so, I guess w-here I’m left is if we didn’t really have a full discussion about this at the Planning Commission previously that we would need a little bit more information about how to make a determination about this point. Vice-Chair Griffin: Could we have an interjection here from the architect? Mr. Warden: This would be really brief. But assuming that the building conformed exactly to the daylight plane as proposed, you’ll notice that the sun at a 45-degree angle in this particular instance, it looks like it’s a little bit more than a 45-degree angle w-hich shade the entire street. And if you just project the sun up into the sky at above that angle, that’s about 3:00 or 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon on an average day within the year. Not the most extreme day which would be in the dead of winter nor in the middle of summer but you know, the kind of the fall type and spring type days. So even at 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon, that’s about what you’d expect, if the building were 35 feet right about the property line. And that is consistent with what you’re seeing. The most extreme version of the shadow- study, the one that shows black every~vhere would have been more consistent had I shadowed all the rest of the buildings in the areas as well. I was only shadowing ours. Any building throws along shadows at 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon on December 21 st. If you’ll notice on the very backs of the buildings, the little tiny meter rooms with the trellises on top of them are throwing shadows at almost across the courtyard itself. So any building at 4:00 in the afternoon or 3:00 in the afternoon on December 21 st is going to throw along shadows. That’s just the way the world works. So, ifw-e were to cut the buildings off per your regulation which certainly we can do, I mean it sounds like we’re going to be redesigning the project anyway, what would happen is imagine and I’m not proposing this is what we would do but just to give you an idea of the impact. Imagine that all of these gable roofs were hipped roofs so that this elevation Page 48 was maintained and the roofs slope back like this. So that one and this one would become [hipped] roofs and these little tower-like elements would be the same height as the standard parapet as it wraps around the building instead of projecting up. What we were trying to do by projecting into the daylight plane occasionally and going down beneath it in many other locations was to create an interesting silhouette against the sky. And we felt that to make it more homogenous, to essentially assume this profile all the way across the entire building would be less interesting and less good in terms of an Urban design. Commissioner Cassel: So most of this building, Karen, will have shadows that shows this w-ay even it was a 35-foot height building and only these small projection points go beyond at a 35-foot height building, that’s why we had this daylight plane set on there with that 45-degree. The shadow would be the same, with the exception of these projections. So the difference in the 35-foot height would have been the standard height anyway that was allowed at the site so the mono-shadowing has not increased by increasing the height of the building, and that was our goal. Commissioner Holman: So, this is clarification for me then. So the intrusions into the daylight plane are what? Commissioner Cassel: Little pieces that are protruding. Commissioner Holman: The 1,2, 3, 4, 5 elements. Mr. Warden: It’s this piece right here. All three of these that hook them like that and the tip of these gable elements. Commissioner Cassel: So, at an exchange what we have is some other depth areas that are farther back. If you’ll notice on the plan, some of these buildings are indented, where the porch areas are, there’s nothing over here in some of these areas so it’s farther back in that area, just to give a little articulation to the building. Mr. Emslie: Just real quick. Come back to the original purpose of this action and I agree the wording needs some work and you’ll have an opportunity to do that, Council has asked you to weigh in again on SOFA 2. You’ll have the opportunity early February so we can discuss and take that up then. I don’t want you to have to think about re-crafting that language. Let’s think of the intent. The intent was to allow architectural interest on a building that you wanted to have predominantly cast minimal shadows as possible. So you want a little of all. So you want a little encroachment and more sunlight and I think ¯ as it’s described by the architect and the applicant, they’re showing some limited areas. Now whether they’re 15 feet or not I think it’s more or less a matter of scale. I think the ARB has weighed in and they said that this is meeting the intent of that. Staff really views those as minor encroachments and that the predominant amount of daylight that can reach the street will reach the street in this case. And as such, we think that it meets the intent of the encroachment, not as it’s currently drafted but as it was envisioned by the Planning Commission. Page 49 VOTE Vice-Chair Griffin: So the text then that we would vote on, for example, would be that we would approve the recommendation of the ARB and take the project as designed. All fight, can we have a straw vote on that? All in favor of accepting the design as proposed, say aye? Commissioner Burt: Excuse me. We accepting as pertaining to shadow impacts, daylight plane encroachment, exactly. Vice-Chair Griffin: So, is it clear now on what we’re voting on? Do we need to restate this motion at all? So all in favor, say aye? All: Aye. Vice-Chair Griffin: Opposed say nay? [silence] So, we’re in agreement. This is marvelous. We’ve got 3 votes here. It is tough stuff, indeed, it is. I don’t mean to diminish it. I’m saying that we don’t need to deal with this condition to shall apply only if the City Council adopts the South of Forest Area. We now move on to the retention of the historic Laundry building unless City Council finds preserving it substantially impedes the attainment of other Coordinated Area Plan objectives. Who would like to start with that? Joe. Commissioner Bellomo: I have been looking at the Laundry building since Rapp’s project and I’ve certainly walked through the project. I understand the City’s intention of identifying projects or buildings as resources. I went to the Apple store development where we have a modem [Modair] tile that really in a sense in my opinion kind of dwarfed the opportunities to really create new architecture. And sometimes, a [bit of band] of tile can completely kind of tie up the designers and I think from my view point, I appreciate some of the preservation of buildings, preservation of materials, preservation of resources. But in my opinion, I find that building really not preservable. I find it wil! be a derivative upon renovation and I find that it will be a bit [toyed] like when it’s done. And I don’t those amount of resources that it would take to compliment that building would be appropriate to such a building after being in the building. And I’ve been involved with lots of renovations. That’s all I can say. It’s a subject of opinion. It is objective. What is for newness, but I’m also for preservation but in this regard, I cannot see .any findings to preserve a building as that one stands. Vice-Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: Well, it’s really sticky and complicated and complex and timing of things and Beth Bunnenberg of the HRB spoke earlier about they’ve been asking for a particular report for some time and they really should have been done a very, very long time ago because we might not even be having this discussion. So it is difficult. I have two questions about this. One is if we don’t make a recommendation, the way this is Page 50 written, it says, "Retain the historic Family Service Laundry building unless City Council finds preserving it substantially impedes the attainment of other." I would add the word or other significant Coordinated Area Plan objectives. If we approve that even, are we just abdicating our responsibility to the City Council as opposed to us making a recommendation? It’s a procedural question. Mr. Emslie: I don’t view it as abdication. I think you can add comments as to your views as to the relationship of this continued historic building, in terms of the Land Use and the fabric and how you envision the SOFA 2 area. But I don’t it’s an abdication because I think the Historic Resources Board is the body that is vested with the power to advise the Council on issues of historic preservation and they’ve done so. And that recommendation will go along with yours to the City Council. Now, if you want to add your thoughts and comments on the wisdom of that recommendation, I think you should feel free to do so. But I don’t think if you were to not make a comment on that that would not be an abdication. I think that’s covered in the process. That’s exactly why this went to the HRB because we wanted the HRB to be able to comment on the Council’s difficult issue of whether or not to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations on this. But certainly your thoughts and views are welcome and I think the City Council would ultimately welcome them as well. Vice-Chair Griffin: And I think it’s in our best interest to make a recommendation. I think that’s what Wynn said at our meeting on the 18th and it’s been reiterated here a number of times. I’d like to see Commission come to a decision on this item. Commissioner Holman: I guess then absent the information that I wish we did have, and certainly I think probably easy enough to anticipate what the outcome is going to be but absent that information, I would support the Staff recommendation that the Council make that determination. And I think that’s probably going to be pretty obvious what the outcome is going to be. But I would just add the word attainment of other significant Coordinated Area Plan objectives. Vice-Chair Griffin: Well, we have Bonnie who would like to make a point here. Commissioner Packer: I’d like to put in my two cents, retaining or not to retain this building. I would recommend that we not retain it just based on the information that’s been provided to us that the cement is deteriorating and it will cost a zillion dollars, (I’m exaggerating) plus whatever money to preserve it and if there would be kind of just wrapped in plastic or something and it really wouldn’t be a preservation. Based on those facts, I don’t see the point and I would hope that the City Council, if somebody does recommend retention that they find a Statement of Overriding Considerations because a good project with housing is certainly more important than preserving this particular building. Homer Street has some lovely historic buildings which I’m really glad have been preserved, and there are some really wonderful things. I’m not against historical preservation but there’s preservation and there’s preservation. So I would recommend that we don’t retain it. Page 51 Commissioner Cassel: Well, I would recommend that we suggest that we recommend the City Council that they make a Statement of Overriding Consideration and not preserve this building. And the reason has to do with, when you preserve the building, it should be a good likeness of the building. In my understanding of this process, it should represent the building itself and no being a model of the building. And my sense of the building itself is that, and I have not been in it and I am not an architect but as I understand the building and the reports that we’ve received so far, the building is not going to be a true restoration of an existing building. So much has to be done to it that it’s going to come out as being a model of what it is now. And that concerns me. We’re working on preser¥ing a French Laundry down the street, we are trying to preserve the Roth building, those are very worthwhile projects and emphasis needs to be made on that. I think the design on the building itself is going to pick up those main features that we wanted to preserve so much without being an imitation of the building. And I think it’s important that we do not try to create a model of the original building but rather retain some of the design of those buildings that currently exist on that street and make sure that this building blends to those buildings without being a duplicate thereof. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you. Commissioner Holman: I agree with almost everything that Phyllis said and in reading through this, I was trying to decide whether to support this part of it or abstain from this part. My reason for doing either one of those whichever I do is really a statement of not really protest, just kind of to accentuate the fact that the process was not a good process. If we knew absolutely that the building couldn’t be restored because you don’t want to do preservation that’s just a mock building, that certainly is not a goal of preservation. So absent that, it’s really is a statement I can say about that the process of the time lapse, or that it should have been done earlier, I might or might not vote for retention of the building if I had that information so that’s the purpose of my vote in the way of whichever it is. Commissioner Burt: I concur with Phyllis on her points and I just like to add, we can’t have everything on this project that we would like. And if we look for the developers to spend over a couple of million dollars on preserving a building that has questionable architectural value, great deal of difficulty in preserving it, then we’ve got to give up something else as a community in terms of public benefits or in terms of accommodating the surrounding businesses and the neighborhood and their problems on the building mass. And for those reasons, I would favor Phyllis’ recommendation that to Council. VOTE Vice-Chair Griffin: All right. I think everybody has had a chance to make their comments. I concur with your point of view and so, therefore, we’ve already had a [straw-] vote on this and I’m thinking that we would vote whether or not we agreed with the wording here what the Staff has recommended. Page 52 Mr. Emslie: What I heard, the proposition was that you were recommending to the Council that they override the preservation. Vice-Chair Griffin: So if that’s the substitute text, then we’ll go with that. And all in favor of that, say aye? 4 Commissioners: Aye. Vice-Chair Griffin: Opposed? Commissioner Holman: I think what I’m going to do is abstain just as a picket to a picket for better procedure in the future so that we aren’t left in this situation and the applicant isn’t as well. Vice-Chair Griffin: Good. So we have 5 ayes and 1 abstention on this particular item. And we now move to granting of a variance to allow those portions of the project with 150 feet of the Planned Community district at 901 Alma to extend above 35 feet based upon the findings as listed in Attachment D. Who would like to start on this one? Joe, are you the variance expert here? Commissioner Bellomo: Not necessarily, but I would say that I would support the variance to extend above based on the findings. I find that a project like as proposed does need the height to achieve not only the FAR but the proposed articulation and the amount of units required that we’re looking for. So that is really all I have to say to it. Vice-Chair Griffin: All right, so you’re in favor of granting the variance. Bonnie? And you as well and Phyllis? All right. My thought again was that by changing the FAR down to 2.0 that there would be an opportunity with perhaps a different building on below to, in fact, use that to soften the comer, the Channing!High Street comer and that entire area where the variance is being applied. Adjusting the massing from 2.0 to 2.0 can best be done by: a) softening the Channing Street edge where the applicant is asking a variance near 901 Alma; and b) a selective of lowering of the High Street facade. Well, we’ve dealt with the High Street fa,cade by accepting it as presented. Commissioner Bellomo: Just a clarification. We’re talking about the 50 excessive height of 35 along Channing. Vice-Chair Griffin: All right, any other clarifications here? Ms. Furth: I don’t know if you want to know all this. But Steven has educated me on a lot of this. Under SOFA 2 as you recommended, this wouldn’t need a variance. It eliminated that step down for vicinity to this kind of project because SOFA 2 is a Mixed Use area and if you don’t eliminate that step down rule, you pop buildings up and down all over SOFA every time you approve housing. The other thing that’s interesting about Page 53 this is that our 150-foot radius dates back to when we had RM-4 and RM-5 zoning and for a project which is at least 60% residential, this one is a lot more than 60% residential, the rules don’t apply if you’re near R-4 or R-5 housing but there is no exception if you’re near a PC. And then in this case, of course, the PC itself that creates this shadow is 50 feet tall. So this isn’t unusual set of regulations. Commissioner Burt: So I would recommend that we grant a variance for those reasons and I’d also wanted to have confirmation that this something that’s intended to be visited in the ZOU. Mr. Emslie: Yes, that’s correct. Commissioner Holman: I actually appreciate Michael’s comments because what we do have in the SOFA 2 recommendations is that we do have transition that’s also an end buffer and so I actually appreciate Michael’s comments. This is one way that the project could be reduced in FAR and it would be by better transition to the surrounding properties Commissioner Burt: I think it’s valid to address Michael’s issue and see whether we agree ~vith that but not necessarily to couple it with this aspect. I think it’s a valid issue on the design of the building that we can discuss, but we don’t have to link it with the variance. [changing tape - short break period] Mr. Ross: We’re going to the variance issue. I am the owner ofg01 and 909 Alma so I support the variance. But more importantly, the orientation on that side of the building for the residential units is such that this building does not put that in shade. If you’re in a residential unit there’s only one of the alley side, the bedroom is in the back, the living area is on the second floor effectively so it really is not a big issue for the intent of the Ordinance. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you. Larry Hassett, would you like to discuss something? Mr. Hassett: We did spend a lot of time on this on the SOFA discussions and in particular the transition between height and new projects in the neighborhood and things. My comments really and I agree that the ruling that puts us in place is kind of archaic right now-. But if you look at Attachment A of this map that’s in your packet, you will see kind of a cross patch area which would include 875, that’s the Palo Alto Hardware, as well as the area as influenced by the 35-foot height. If you look at all the adjacent properties as they currently exist, you have hopefully Palo Alto Hardware staying there and we’re at about 23 feet, I believe. Across the street is Peninsula Creamery, the sandwich shop, they just did some Transfer Development Rights to transfer out from redeve!oping that building so that building is pretty much locked in at a roughly the same height. Watercourse Way has spent a ton of money renovating their building and it’s pretty much locked in at that height. Roxy redid the Bill Young’s Automotive. It’s really a lower thing. So really the only property tl~at is even close to, as ~vel! as Steve Pierce’s Page54 which is actually at 35 feet height, kitty-corner from it, the only property that is anywhere near that 50 feet is Doug’s 909 Alma. And all I’m suggesting is that: a) it would be a better transition to all those buildings which I think may have long-term life there. Roxy’s being redeveloped recently, Watercourse being redone recently, Steve Pierce’s which is going to be built and the Creamery, and then hopefully ours maybe sticking around. But it would also lessen the impact of basically a 50-foot height as w-el! as we walk out our alley door and look straight up. And if you have an opportunity to go behind Doug Ross’ building now and look straight up, that’s roughly a 35-foot height that you’re looking at. And add another 15 feet on top of that with a zero setback and you’ll see how massive that is in relationship to all the surrounding businesses including mine. That’s my comments. Thank you. Commissioner Bellomo: I wanted to clarify. Regarding substation site, what height limit would be placed on that development? Would that be 50 feet? Mr. Emslie: Well, under the SOFA 2 recommendations and Planning Commission that would be allowed to go to 50 feet. Add to that whole quadrant between Alma and High is the RT-50 and that stands for 50 feet. Vice-Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: In the Comprehensive Plan and the SOFA 2 plan recommendations that we made, we’ve endorsed the concept of having transitions being very important. And this is, I can tell you within the SOFA 2 Working Group, there was extensive discussion on where the boundary should begin to transition to different heights that are in the adjacent neighborhoods and I would say that the Channing end of this building is definitely in that transitional area in addition to the points that Larry Hassett just made about those surrounding buildings for the most part with the exception of the substation which is on the other side, those other surrounding buildings are not candidates for redevelopment at significantly higher heights in the foreseeable future. Consequently, I’d recommend that we look at this height issue, not necessarily in the context of using this variance but in the context of what we would recommend be done with the FAR reduction should we recommend a 2.0 FAR it presents the opportunities to fix this problem to a good degree. Commissioner Cassel: May I request that we see the other end of that model? Commissioner Burt: And it goes back to the point that we can address the number of problems if we have a little bit of flexibility in that FAR. Vice-Chair Griffin: While we’re waiting for the set-up, I must confess that Zariah has chastised all of us for failing to speak properly into the microphones. Now apparently it makes her transcription job really difficult so to the degree that you can bear that in mind. Please shape up. Somebody wanted some discussion? Page 55 Commissioner Cassel: The reason why I wanted to see it was because you’re talking about the whole end. There is a step back automatically in the comer on High and Channing because that’s where the patio is. So that part of it already had the step back and the front building on the street side is perhaps one of our protrusions but basically is !ower in height at that point and reach this 35-foot. Commissioner Burt: If I can also just add that in our long discussions of the previous project proposal for this site, this issue was something that we addressed and was accommodated by the developer of a transition on this end of the building in height. And we thought that was an important issue, the community thought it was an important issue. And as I recall, the Council in their considerations of that project thought it was an important issue. Vice-Chair Griffin: Could the architect please show the area of the variance request? Mr. Warden: Doug’s building is approximately here on the alley and it’s about this high. So I guess it’s 150 feet from the furthest protrusion so it would be about that radius. This is Larry’s building approximately the right height and approximately the right distance. If you go out on to the site now, our buildings are actually pushed 5 feet further because we’re widening the alley by 5 feet and then we tried to create planting opportunities with trellises and things all the way along the alley side. So there’s a little bit of setback, I guess. Vice-Chair Griffin: And if you hit that roof as opposed to having a gable end then would that alleviate this? I’m talking about softening that edge. Mr. Warden: There are any number of ways of softening the edge, yes. Commissioner Cassel: Are you talking about bringing down the 35 feet or just softening it a little and loosening some of the articulation in getting it flat? Vice-Chair Griffin: Well, 35 feet would be more than just putting a [hipped] roof for sure. Commissioner Packer: I appreciate the response what Pat was saying about transitions and so I went to look at the SOFA 2 map from the Planning Commission one and we spent a !ong time talking about where the 50 feet should be, the 50-feet height limit and where the 35-foot height limit should be. And the RT-50 goes across Channing and goes to the mid-block between Channing and [Addison]. If they’re saying when SOFA 2 CAP comes back to us, Pat, we want to rethink that, that’s when we should rethink it but not now because I thought we already had this discussion. And earlier this evening, you talked about the importance of the Commissioners being consistent with the issues that we discussed at SOFA 2 and I know we discussed these zones in great detail. Commissioner Burt: So, Bonnie, are you saying that you are now in agreement with that consistency argument? [overlapping conversation] Page 56 Vice-Chair Griffin: Joe, would you like to make a point? Commissioner Bellomo: Just quickly, I am in support of the variance above 35 but there could be an opportunity here in this.effort of kind of compromising also with the FAR to look at that floor, that one unit as far as you would still exceed this 35-foot height and the variance would still be in place. But I know that with Peterson’s project, we didn’t look at this comer. There might be an opportunity if we allowed more daylight into your courtyard, you might look at losing a unit and there’s an opportunity there. And I think, I’m not talking and getting into specific architectural elements but in there you might have an opportunity. Vice-Chair Griffin: It’s probably going to lose units anyway with the lower FAR. Commissioner Cassel: If there’s a vote in favor of the lower FAR. Commissioner Burt: And if there’s a split in Commission vote then there’s no recommendation to approve the project. Commissioner Cassel: Not necessarily, it could go to Council without a recommendation on that point. Commissioner Bellomo: I guess I’m getting into an effort of compromise, too. Looking at some solutions that might achieve not only, there might be a balancing here where we could move this on and it’s getting to 11:30 p.m., too. I’m just looking at some opportunities architecturally, back to that architectural issue. Vice-Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: Regarding the variance, especially looking at finding number two, I don’t know exactly how-, I don’t think I could make that finding. It says that, "The granting of the application for an increase in the height of the building is a small proportion of the southwest corner of the building is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship." And I cannot make that finding in this case. I have a little bit of trouble with the first finding but certainly with the second finding, I’m not in a~eement with that. Vice-Chair Griffin: So have we discussed these issues? Commissioner Cassel: I think I’d like to say one thing and that is we can vote in favor of the variance finding and still need to have some softening on that side. Because a variance finding in the actual area covers quite a bit of area in this building and so I’d like to vote in favor of the variance but it doesn’t mean that I’m not in favor of having some softening dowrt on that end because it goes in quite a bit. Page 57 Commissioner Burt: Conceptually, I can support that. I’d like to hear how much softening we’re talking about. Commissioner Bellomo: Are we just talking about a floor? I thought I mentioned the floor. There could be a unit there. Commissioner Cassel: There’s two BMR units there and there is the tall piece that reaches to cover a walkway down through the center that will still have to be met at that point. Commissioner Burt: Okay. So a floor along the Channing Street edge, is that what we’re talking about? Commissioner Holman: I’m not comfortable with this trying to decide it that way. I think what’s more appropriate is, like I said I can’t make the second finding so I’m going to vote against the variance allowance. But I think the discussion about taking off a floor, taking off two units isn’t the discussion to be having if you’re looking for transition. The discussion to be having is that it provide transition as was accounted for in the SOFA plan guidelines. Commissioner Bellomo: You’re right. Maybe there is a way that the architect could not lose a unit or lose one or lose two or not loose any. I don’t know. I agree with you. But I think there’s an opportunity or there’s some possibility to loose some mass at that edge, if it still exceed at 35 foot, the height limit and not be as rigid as a kind of exceeding that height limitation. height limit and not be as rigid as a kind of exceeding that height limitation. Commissioner Holman: It’s a better way. Vice-Chair Griffin: Wynn. Ms. Furth: One way to think about this is to flip it around and say, do you support any portion of this area within the 150-foot radius being over 35 feetl Because if you do, then you would have to grant a variance. But that isn’t the same thing as saying you’re approving a particular design or the existing design. Commissioner Burt: And I would be inclined to support the variance but I would want at the same time to understand how- we’re going to accommodate the other SOFA plan objectives because the height limit, we have as in many parts of a plan and a Comprehensive Plan we may have asked [x] that up on the surface look contradictory. We have a requirement to have transition and we have a zoning height for that area and transition and compatibility. So, Joe, if you want to make a proposal, I’d be amenable to it. Page 58 Commissioner Bellomo: That there would be a granting of a variance for the project within the 150 feet of the Planned Community district and that the applicant look at reducing the mass around that edge of the south easterly node to accommodate a transitional piece and that return to the ARB for their review, in compatibility to the SOFA 2 standards. Mr. Emslie: That sounds like a very nice proposition framed. So it would be tO support the variance with the direction to the architect to evaluate reducing the mass subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Board. VOTE Vice-Chair Griffin: All those in favor? 4 Comissioners: Aye. Commissioner Holman: And one no because I can’t make the second finding but this does point out though that we probably need to look at the requirement of variances for this when we look at SOFA 2. Wynn, you’re shaking your head no. Ms. Furth: Only because variances are creatures of state law. Meaning that the standards are set by state law. Vice-Chair Griffin: All right. So, we’ve done that and we now have 35 minutes to go if we’re going to make it by the midnight hour. We are now to the approve the Below Market Rate housing plan for the sale of the 11 BMR units. And it talks about the sale price and the range of affordability and the 4 units at the more expensive rates, and then the Draft of the Agreement letter in Attachment E. Bonnie, you’re the BMR lady, why don’t you start? Commissioner Packer: I’m hardly an expert. But I think it might be [prudent] for us to advise the applicant to look at presenting a mix of BMR units that reflect more of the mix of bedroom numbers for the other units, and to be very clear in the Agreement that the sales price is at the mid-point of the range and then that’s in the Agreement because I don’t believe that is. That’s only a suggestion. And also, we want to be sure that the number, the 11 stays the same, the relationship as required by law is at least 15% so that the number may change if we chip away at the FAR and at comers in softening and transition and stuff. But then the developer still has to provide at least the 15%. Vice-Chair Griffin: Anyone else? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: No, I’ve been through this, been through several other BMR proposals. We have on our agenda someplace around to revise the BMR program but it hasn’t been revised and it doesn’t look like with our Staffing situation it’s going to be done any time soon. But this is a good proposal. It’s been presented well. I think Bonnie’s additional points should be made included and otherwise, we should approve it. Page 59 Commissioner Burt: I heard Bonnie say that we should ask the applicant to ask them to. I heard from Marlene that there was a misunderstanding of the Palo Alto Housing Corps position and ifI understood it right that there would be 20% of the units. Mr. Emslie: What I heard the comments, again, we can confirm with her but she was suggesting that one of the units be converted to a 3-bedroom. Commissioner Burt: I recall, I believe that she made one statement that at least that and then she stated that their normal recommendation policy is they be in proportion to the proportionality of the size of the market rate units. And that that was 20% three-bedroom and that would be the Palo Alto Housing Corps position and what would be consistent with the Comp Plan. Mr. Emslie: Can certainly do that. One thing to consider, when marketing these things, the family size per unit is incredibly important because that’s what determines the income levels and as Marlene pointed out, the two-bedroom units allows the ~eatest flexibility because you can get a larger family in there and, therefore, you can have a higher income to qualify for the units. You have a larger pool of people, should market condition shifted. You certainly can have the proportionality but there’s a lot more flexibility with the two-bedroom units. Vice-Chair Griffin: In other words, it doesn’t make any difference to have a lot of 3- bedroom units if people can’t afford to buy them. Mr. Emslie: Exactly. Commissioner Burt: I was perfectly willing to accept that reasoning based upon an understanding that that was what came from the Palo Alto Housing Corp. But that’s not what Marlene said tonight. She was clear that they believe would greatly prefer the 3- bedroom units to be in the BMR units the same proportion as the market rate units and that they definitely could find or get aids for 2 or 3-bedroom units. Vice-Chair Griffin: But at the same time, she flipped back to the report and said these are really expensive apartments. And so my thought was that she was [tampering] a bit her statement. In other words, all things being equal she would like to have an equal representation of the ratio of the goal all the way across. Commissioner Cassel: And the other poir~t she made was that some of these 18 units are in excess of per minimum requirements so that one 3-bedroom unit would be helpful. Commissioner Burt: Well, then we seem to be unsure of the recommendation of the Palo Alto Housing Corp. I believe I heard something different and I would be comfortable with having our recommendation to Council be contingent upon a further clarification from the Housing Corp. Page 60 Commissioner Cassel: That’s agreeable. That’s fine. Mr. Emslie: Remember, we do consult with them. They advise us. Commissioner Burt: That’s not what I heard from Marlene tonight. There was a disagreement between what we understood and what she said. Mr. Emslie: What it means is that you were essentially soliciting their advise and you can choose to take it. We don’t defer decisions to them. Vice-Chair Griffin: And she was decrying the fact that it had been presented to her on a pretty short fuse, at least. Mr. Emslie: Yes, she was. Vice-Chair Griffin: All right. Doug Ross. Mr. Ross: Marlene didn’t make the meeting held with the Housing Corp. I’d like Steven Turner to get up and address what happened in that meeting. From my perspective, the Housing Authority, the City Staff representative were all happy with the allocation of the units, the size, the location. No one talked about 3-bedroom units, there was a discussion about the larger unit, the more expensive, the less affordable. So I believe the only issue between the applicant and the Housing Authority at that meeting, maybe Steven can clarify, was where that cost issue was going to land. Am I correct, Steven? Mr. Turner: The majority of the discussion centered around how much the units are going to cost and not the configuration location or the mix of the particular units. Mr. Emslie: And based on the Housing Corporation’s comments, they essentially were agreeing with the calculation that the cost was allocated at the mid-point per our typical practice so that’s the cost that we are proposing the BMR Agreement is consistent with the comments we heard from the Housing Corporation. Vice-Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: One of the goals is to have a mix of variously affordable, different sizes of variously affordable units. And as this is proposed, it is 7 of the units in the 80% to 100% of a median family income in 4 of the sales prices would be for persons at 100% to .120% of the median income. And I would think it would be more consistent with our policies to have some of those units be for sale at a lower percentage of the median income so again, there’s a variety. Ms. Furth: Actually that is the income mix that’s specified by the Housing element. These units, because their ownership units are never affordable to very low-income households, those have to be addressed to other parts of the program. Basically what it says is that the first two-thirds are affordable in the lower housing bracket. And then the Page 61 second third which was added in the most recent part of the Housing element is the next income bracket up. Commissioner Burt: So, are we okay with deferring to a clarification from the Housing Corps recommendation? Vice-Chair Griffin: Or conversely, do we think we understand what Marlene’s group was trying to get across? Commissioner Packer: I think it would be a good idea to have the Housing Corp more involved in this. Commissioner Cassel: And they may, in fact, confirm that it’s the two-bedroom units they want. Commissioner Burt: If that’s what they want, I’m perfectly fine with that. Commissioner Holman: Can I get clarification on the applicant’s plan? It says, "BMR Unit #1 is 340 square feet." There is no 340 square foot unit. Commissioner Packer: It’s 821. Mr. Emslie: It’s a typo. VOTE Vice-Chair Griffin: All right. So we can do a straw vote going back to the Housing Corporation to seek clarification on their preference for the mix of the BMR units. Commissioner Packer: And that be certain that the Agreement specify that the sales prices are at the mid-point of the range on affordability. Mr. Emslie: That is what’s in the Agreement. Vice-Chair Griffin: All in favor, say aye? All: Aye. Vice-Chair Griffin: Opposed? [silence] Unanimity. Very good. The next item has t~ do with requiring an expansion and redesign of the project’s private, common and publicly accessible open space areas. And the second part of it is the famous requirement that the restroom facilities in the retail establishment at Homer Avenue be made available to the public at large during normal business hours. Who would like to start on the open space item? Pat, you’ve been an advocate of open space. Why don’t you talk to that issue? Page 62 Commissioner Burt: Well, I’ll make a couple of points. One is, that there was a lot of discussion in prior proposal from Roxy Rapp’s group where we conceptually talked about what would be valued in this area. And a plaza on the comer of Homer and High was something that was discussed in-depth and viewed as something that would create a real community gathering spot for that area that presently is a part of the center of that SOFA commercial district. And I would love to see something like that there. The current private courtyard, I don’t think is to be viewed as a community open space. It may have some visual value to having something like that but it’s not a community open space. And I think that also that if the applicant is potentially going to be moving in the direction of withdrawing their most substantial public benefit of the public parking, then they need to look for what would be a substantial public benefit and this may be in that category. Vice-Chair Griffin: To substitute for the lack of the parking. Commissioner Packer: That’s really interesting because this last point kind of loops back to the FAR discussion because what they’re saying it has to down to 2.0 FAR, that eliminates the public benefit of the parking. And the community has said that they need more parking area, and I’m just throwing this out. That means what we have to do, what we have to balance is what is more important public benefit, a little plaza at that comer which totally changes the historic whatever, I mean it just changes that comer completely. If anybody wanted to keep the big windows as a reminder of the [framework] that would change that versus the need for parking. I don’t know the answer. But that’s what we have to balance because if you go to this lower FAR, the 2.0 they’re probably going to lose some units and a result the percent would go down so that no more BMR units would go down. Vice-Chair Griffin: Not necessarily. Commissioner Packer: Well, no, because you have the legal requirement at 15%. Vice-Chair Griffin: But you could ask for public benefit of 20%. Commissioner Packer: You could. That’s tree. And then so that’s the trade-off that we really have to wrestle with. And then you have the restrooms or some other little public benefit. Vice-Chair Griffin: Well, let’s deal with that in a moment. Commissioner Packer: But it’s part of a public benefit package. And it wasn’t one of the ones w-e had in a PC public benefits in the SOFA 2 CAP. Vice-Chair Griffin: All right. Joe. Commissioner Bellomo: Quite candidly and I talked to Doug Ross a while ago regarding this project, and I think I always ask the question what happened. And that was with all Page 63 of the excitement around that public comer. I never knew and I’m sure there was some rationale logic from the developer why, in fact, that was taken away. A public court for a restaurant for a private use, more economically viable maybe, I’m not sure. But I just missed what the intention of that, what it could have gathered. Whether it was an industrial skeleton, something that was reminiscent in a modem way of what was and, of course, that’s part of this Creamery development. It got lost somehow, this node, this public realm area, it was lost and I was so excited about it and I don’t believe it would kill the project to rearrange in a sense to enhance the public plazas. Because I see on Channing, I really see a celebrated entry ramp to the building and not celebrating really public gathering spots. And I think that’s what missed in the SOFA 1 plan was a Master Plan of how people-have transitioned through all of SOFA. And I stated it at the beginning of SOFA 1, it was never really a pedestrian Master Plan. We think about vehicles, we think about a lot of things except how people transition. I walked to Whole Foods, I tried to walk as much as possible and I think that strategy and that rationale needs to be figured in, how the public, this is a different project than Roxy’s obviously. But I still think that needs to be accommodated in this plan so that vitality remains. Vice-Chair Griffin: It sounds like you and Pat are in agreement then. Commissioner Bel!omo: Yes, and I think the project got safe. I think the architect did a wonderful job of creating a safe approach so he satisfies a lot of needs. It’s certainly not the spirited project that I thought we could have the opportunity, it feels like SOFA 1, it feels like it’s a safe project. So, I really think that the open areas can make this a more viable, exciting spirited project, and I would hope that that’s looked at without and that would be a benefit that I think could not crush the FAR completely down to 2.0, but it might be some way of al!owing the developer to !ook at those areas. Vice-Chair Griffin: Thank you for that impassioned point of view. Karen. Commissioner Holman: Actually I wanted to absolutely support Joe’s comments about the public open space at Channing and High Street. It really is sort of a glorified entry to a building. It’s not really usable public open space and that’s a wonderful opportunity because of the Creamery across the street and because of Watercourse Way across the street on the other side. It’s a wonderful opportunity to get a space that people really habitate. And I think that’s a terrific opportunity, it’s not like it’s being taken advantage of. Commissioner Bellomo: That’s what we might consider moving this project to a place, I know there’s the consideration of a maximum FAR but I guess we start looking at transitional points on the building to accommodate those things, as well as open space and public vitality, and that’s where I would hope the Planning Commission would consider balancing the maximum FAR. VOTE Page 64 Vice-Chair Griffin: Great. Now, that being said to use the famous phrase, does he trademark that, I’m not sure. In any event, can we vote up? We are doing the requiring the expansion, the redesign of the proj ect’s private, common and publicly accessible open space areas and we have modified that with the items that have been discussed that we’re focusing on the comers here. All those in favor, say aye? 4 Commissioners: Aye. Commissioner Packer: Of what? Ms. Furth: Of passionately better public open space on both comers. Spirited engaging in buying spaces that will be inhabited by the public and transitional ones. Commissioner Holman: Just one little caveat is, I don’t know that the open space at Homer and High Street would need to be at the comer because sometimes interior open space can be very interesting, too. So this is a thought. Vice-Chair Griffin: All right, that’s a thought and now we’re going to look at the second half. Require that restaurant facilities and the retail establishment at Homer Avenue to be made available to the public during normal business hours. Commissioner Bellomo: They would be available to the public if that public person member was using the restroom facility. I would think it would be a problem for the developer. I would understand as we saw with the parking structures implementing public restrooms and how we do that, I think to place that on the developer of this project, open public restrooms, male/female, handicap accessible structures would be I think quite a condition to place on them and I .could not support that. Commissioner Cassel: My comment back to that was that it would clearly be a public benefit if it was done. And I understand that they have to volunteer to do that and so in other words, it’s not a condition but rather an acceptance as a public benefit and that has some limitations. If they don’t want to offer it, they can’t offer it. Having public restrooms in facilities is a real need that we simply do not recognize. Commissioner Bellomo: Wel!, then there’s a possibility of the modular that we proposed. I’m not sure but they need to be, it needs to be well thought out. Commissioner Cassel: But we need to keep working at this because there are buildings that we thought we think that there are going to have public restrooms to be available to the public, and they end up in the back comer in the dark part of the building when I thought that our discussion is going to be downstairs. Commissioner Bellomo: It’s really not as simple. Then maybe you should look at it in SOFA 2, how you scripted, in fact, the SOFA 2 guidelines. Page 65 Vice-Chair Griffin: Well, may I ask a question? Is it not true that anyone can walk into a restaurant and have access to the wash facilities? Ms. Furth: We should probably ask the Building Official here, maybe you guys know. They have to provide restroom facilities to their customers after a certain square footage or something. But they can require that you buy a cup of coffee first and what was envisioned here was not armored public restrooms but a sign that says if you need to use the restroom, ask for the key. Vice-Chair Griffin: If you want to use the restroom, ask for the key. Ms. Furth: In other words, you do not have to be a customer in order to use these facilities. Vice-Chair Griffin: And the reason that it’s burdensome, Joe, I’m asking this question of you, is the fact that the tenant is going to have to do the maintenance, supply the paper goods and swamp out the facilities twice a day or something. Commissioner Bellomo: If it was considered a public benefit and truly that was part of the Agreement with the developer and he was in agreement to it, then that would be something to seriously look at because it is a benefit. I agree with Phyllis that there are people looking for restrooms in downtown Palo Alto, I work above Blockbuster and it’s constantly a problem having people ask for the key in a private restroom area. There’s no question about it. And it’s a problem but it certainly could be a benefit though. Vice-Chair Griffin: And so, the tenant would understandably ask for some sort of a rental rate concession from the project owner to compensate him for the fact that he’s got to send a couple of his laborers over there, a few times a day to keep up the maintenance. Commissioner Burt: Question for Staff. What were the reasons why Staff thought that this was a reasonable request or requirement of the developer if we have not elsewhere in the City to date placed that requirement? And is that accurate that we have not elsewhere in the City placed that? Mr. Emslie: We have a long history of where we require that but the birth of public restroom facilities in this area is a big issue. City~vide, it comes up, when the [aids] come up with the Opportunity Center as you recall and it’s a big issue. We said this is a fairly straightforward, non-intrusive way, although the developer obviously disagrees to achieve a greater public benefit. Commissioner Burr: And if we haven’t had that in Palo Alto historically, are you aware of other Cities putting this in position on say, a PC or something like that? Like in shopping centers? Ms. Furth: One of the things is that because we’re such a new- Urbanist [older] than this town, we don’t have big centralized malls. We don’t have the kinds of facilities, that kind Page 66 of concentrated ownership and management produces. So instead, you have to find other ways of addressing those needs. Commissioner Cassel: I’ll give you an example. I believe that where Border’s is downtow-n, when we originally talked about that, we talked about a public restroom much closer to their exit, that’s what I call the back, the parking lot side of that. When it actually got designed, that is in fact a facility you can go in, go upstairs and not have to buy a book to get there. But it’s all the way on the other side of the building and very hard to reach unless you know it’s there. Vice-Chair Griffin: Nor do they have a sign that announces that fact. Commissioner Cassel: Right, but at least it’s there. At least it’s clean and neat. In that case, it’s been discussed in the PC process. Vice-Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: Can I ask a question? Ever since this came up I’ve been envisioning this as people, this is a fairly small retail space on this end of the project. So people are like traipsing in and out at that space, I can see those being kind of disruptive to actually the ambience of the retail space. So my question is, acknowledging that there is such a need, if there was a separate bathroom service of facility I should say, that had a different entrance than going through the retail space, would it have to be like handicap accessible, could it be unisex? Is there another way to accomplish this so that we’re not providing a detrimental aspect to the viability of a retail use? Commissioner Cassel: Do anything besides consider this a public benefit and we aren’t pushing the point beyond that and they’re not offering it, then it isn’t worth the discussion. I mean, obviously it has to be handicap accessible. There’s only one. Commissioner Holman: The reason why I asked that question, the reason I thought it might not have to be and with all due respect, is because of the, and maybe I’m not aware of this the free-standing toilets that we have downtown. Are those handicap accessible? Commissioner Cassel: Yes, but as far as I know, every bathroom that you put in has to be handicap accessible today. Now you may be able to get away with one that isn’t in the building that has one that is but you can’t put one in that’s not, is my understanding. Commissioner Holman: Okay. And I don’t want anybody to think that I’m showing bias here. I’m just looking at what the sizes would have to be and such. VOTE Vice-Chair Griffin: All right, we’re getting the point here as soon as we have our number six, as we can vote on this. I would like to take a [straw] vote now on the requirement for restroom facilities in the Homer Street. Page 67 Commissioner Holman: With all due respect, and I’m sorry. But could we just have a caveat that if we approve this in the retail establishment, that we also have an option for other access or something like that so that we don’t, per my comments earlier. Mr. Emslie: Yes, as far as we know you can do a separate entrance, handicap accessible bathroom that was not connected to a retail establishment. You can do that. Vice-Chair Griffin: Like it would be in the hallway? Commissioner Cassel: Let’s not design it tonight. Ms. Furth: It’s a concept. Mr. Emslie: It’s a concept of having it public accessible. We’re not presuming any kind of configuration. Commissioner Burt: So I’m not sure what we’re going to vote on. Are we going to vote that we want to require it? Or are we going to vote that we would like to further encourage the applicant to include it as a public benefit? I’m not sure which thing we’re voting on. Ms. Furth: It’s the other way around. Right now, the Ordinance says that they will provide it. And so they ask that you take it out and the question is, do you want to take it out. Commissioner Bellomo: Does the applicant know that this was a requirement? They say no. They didn’t know it was a requirement apparently. And you’re saying it has always been. Mr. Emslie: We’ve discussed this with them. We put a list of public benefits, we reviewed it with them and they disagreed. Vice-Chair Griffin: All right, are we ready to vote for this? Commissioner Packer: Are we voting on the requirement? Vice-Chair Griffin: We are voting for making it a requirement. Commissioner Holman: But not necessarily in the retail space? Vice-Chair Griffin: Not necessarily in the retail space but it must be publicly accessible. Commissioner Burt: I’m sorry. I just want to say that I’m torn on this. I’d certainly think it would be a very beneficial thing. Page 68 Commissioner Packer: Let’s have two votes. Let’s vote on the requirement and then see how that goes. And then if it doesn’t pass, let’s vote on whether we want to recommend it as part of a public benefit. Vice-Chair Griffin: Very well, if so, [facto] be a public benefit if we require it as is. Commissioner Packer: Well, no, we want to encourage. Commissioner Burt: It’s a way we can also to kind of keep this as, I feel like I don’t have enough understanding of really whether it’s a reasonable requirement or not. Commissioner Bellomo: You could put public restrooms into a facility and they’re locked. I mean it really is beyond I think the understanding of how it’s placed and how it’s maintained, how- it’s policed. There are a lot of different aspects to a public restroom facility in a privately owned building that I think we need to look at very carefully. I can tell you a situation of a parking special where we put a restroom in and we’re not sure how- we’re using it. It will probably stay locked because we don’t know how to actually maintain it, police it, clean it and monitor it during 12:00 o’clock at night. When does it close? When is it locked? I think it’s a lot trickier than you think. Commissioner Burt: But this one says normal business hours. Vice-Chair Griffin: And it also says, within the retail establishment which gets this self- policing aspect taken care of and that you do have a certain amount of supervision, if it is within the coffee shop, for example. Ms. Furth: The idea was to domesticate it. This issue does come up with practically every project that gets discussed downtown and practically every hearing that we have. And the notion was in response to all that conversation, that spaces which are domesticated in a way that are inhabited. It’s the same problem with public open spaces. They need a certain number of characteristics if the public is actually to inhabit them so that they don’t become scary, so they don’t become vandalized, so they’re not just too cold and dark to use. Commissioner Burt: What do you mean by domesticated? Ms. Furth: Civilized. People don’t vandalize or abuse facilities that are incorporated in other, we have very little difficulty in the upper floors of City Hall. We have very little difficulty in spaces which are seen as part of the social space of a larger entity, that they’re not isolated, they’re not cut-off, they’re not hidden where people see essentially you going in and out. I mean it’s not they’re surveillance but they’re included in an area where there’s a lot of coming and going. And somebody is in-charge. In other parts of the country, if you go to parks in many areas, you both see restrooms with attendants and you see restrooms that are in parks that are incorporated in eating establishments. Page 69 Commissioner Bellomo: I guess one question I have, you have an accessible bathroom, it’s approximately 9 foot x 9 foot, is it locked, is that door open, how many toilets/urinals are in the bathroom? I think there’s many things to consider when you’re talking, I think it’s a good idea and I think it can work. But you really have to understand how that facility is monitored and what it is before I think you go into this area. I think it’s a good idea because I do think restrooms are needed. But it’s how that you implement them and execute a lot of things of what the developer is looking at and I think I have a lot of questions. I’d like to script the motion that makes it maybe the applicant can kind of come up with some other ideas on this possibly. It seems like it’s something that needs to be explored further. Vice-Chair Griffin: Because with the way it’s scripted now, is that Staff is saying that it would be domesticated, in so many words by having it within the retail establishment and available during business hours. Mr. Emslie: I think one way you might want to do this is that the requirement for the restroom facilities is in the PC. I think you want to proposition deleting that and see what happens with that. You want to take a [straw] vote on deleting the requirement for publicly accessible restroom facilities. Vice-Chair Griffin: All right. So, we’re going to vote on it then to delete it. Mr. Emslie: That’s correct. Vice-Chair Griffin: So, all those in favor of deleting the requirement, say aye? Commissioner Packer: Aye. Vice-Chair Griffin: All those opposed, say no. [no response] We didn’t have a very verbalized response there. Commissioner Burt: I’m so undecided, I think I’m going to abstain. Commissioner Bellomo: I probably will, too. I think what I’ve suggested is that the developer might look at that as far as (he’s shaking his head) as far as a public benefit in how you would implement it. Mr. Ross: As a public benefit? Commissioner Bellomo: Yes. Mr. Ross: That’s a distinction then? Commissioner Bellomo: Yes. Mr. Ross: Well, that wasn’t the motion. Page 70 Vice-Chair Griffm: Oh, wow, that was a major misunderstanding. Mr. Emslie: Hold on. This is not a public benefit. It’s a project condition because the developer has not agreed to that. A public benefit has to be something that’s proposed by the developer that you accept. Commissioner Bellomo: We ask the developer in a motion that he would consider the restrooms as a public benefit for the project. Mr. Emslie: I throw in the towel. I’m going. Vice-Chair Griffin: All right, so, let’s try this again. The substitute motion then would be that do we accept the availability of a restroom in the facility as a public benefit? Commissioner Packer: We’re not accepting it as public benefit. We’re asking the deve!oper to consider it as a public benefit. Is that the motion? Vice-Chair Griffin: That’s the motion. All in favor? All: Aye. Vice-Chair Griffin: Opposed? [silence] So that carries unanimously. Commissioner Holman: I have a procedural question. So I know it is midnight and I have other comments on this project, not the least of which in questions. Not the least of which is the parking issue under alleys and such and how that would impact other properties and stuff. So I’m assuming, I’m actually asking if it isn’t already the intention for this project to be continued so we can continue the other aspects and discussion points of this project. Vice-Chair Griffin: Because my intent was to go back to the beginning here where it says, the Staff recommends that we review and consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report. You have it as number one up here. Ms. Furth: And that’s wrong. Vice-Chair Griffin: And that’s wrong, okay. So we go back to point number one which grant a zone change and revote on that because we had a tie vote on it. Commissioner Cassel: But she’s saying that she has all these questions that didn’t get answered. There were some questions about the parking underneath this alley. Vice-Chair Griffin: Is there any other mechanism for dealing with Karen’s legitimate questions without holding up this entire process? We’re so close to the goa!. Page 71 Commissioner Cassel: Can you answer some questions related to this parking underneath the alley? Ms. Furth: It’s our 16th hour of public hearing. We’re getting in the groove. Commissioner Packer: Would you prefer we continue this some other time? Ms. Furth: No, this is fine. Go. Commissioner Holman: So the question is, as it came up at the last meeting, who does own that property and what is the value of it? And you’ve heard two, well, one’s gone now- but other property owners say that it wouldn’t be of benefit to them to have some of these parking as configured. Now I understand that if we reduce the FAR they might go to one level of parking but there still would be parking under the alley. So how do we address that? Ms. Furth: It’s easier for me to answer your last question than your first string of questions. The City has easements on almost all of its streets and alleys. These are surface easements for ingress and egress and subterranean easements for Utilities and we probably can put underpasses in and things like that. So these are the City’s rights. We can use that property because we have an easement over it but that’s not the complete ownership of the land. Law3~ers think about ownership of being a bundle of rights and talk about it or imagining it like sticks. And in this case, we only own some of the rights by virtue of being the City. When Mr. Hopkins subdivided that area, he offered us that alley for ingress and egress and we’ve accepted that by use for a tong, long time. Every single parcel, generally speaking, in the City has a boundary line around it and then you see the streets. So when you look at our Zoning maps you see those streets laid out. As a technical matter, usually all the City owns is an easement for street purposes, street and utility purposes and if the City vacates that easement, then the land goes back to the adjacent properties, generally speaking, splitting down the middle. So at the adjacent properties owned the underlying fee, (I feel like I should put little asterisks up here saying I know this isn’t always true and there are exceptions but this is the general rule). In this case, the City’s got two roles because the City owns and uses for Utility purposes one of these parcels. So where these property owners are across the alley from us, between us the City and the property owners control all the ownership interest in that property, leaving aside mineral rights. I believe without having seen a lot of title reports and without having done detailed research here, that that is likely to be the case for all the properties along the alley that the City owns the surface rights and whatever other rights we don’t have, whatever we don’t own is owned by the adjacent property owners to the center line. So somewhere in these documents is the condition that they get whatever consents are legally required before they do construction under our alley. And also, one of the conditions of approval would be that we have the right to relocate our utilities which are under the surface to their garage. If you want to see an example of that, there’s one on Ramona Street. The Ramona Street project does the same thing of Page 72 encroaching locating its parking under the City fight of way. We have a couple of other projects that do that as well. It can be complicated and we don’t do it all the time because it limits your freedom, you don’t have as much freedom in terms of locating utilities in the future as you do. Steve says he disagrees. Public Works has some concerns about where we do this but they don’t have a concern over here on this alley because it’s not a complicated situation in terms of either present or future utilities. Another issue that keeps coming up is shouldn’t we make them pay. And what’s the value of this and who could buy it? The way you look at value like this is as a whole. And so the question you would ask is, the City owns the utility site. With that utility site sell for more or less on the market to a willing buyer with or without that underground access. We believe the answer is it would sell for more with that underground access and, therefore, this particular proposal is one that is financially advantageous to the City. In other words, the value flows from the developer to the City. Now that is saying that we believe that that access which would permit more efficient parking design on site would mean it wasn’t necessary to get into the alley, which of course, has planning implications for us, too, because of the concern about using that alley for commercial purposes that we believe that the value of the connection through the applicant’s parking lot is greater than any loss of future other things we might do in the alley. Particularly when combined with dedication of essentially 57 to 63 spaces to the City for its use. So in other words, we would get access through there, to our own property and we’d have 57 to 63 spaces that would be ours to manage. They would not be ours to pay for or to build or to maintain, that would all be done by this property but we’d have them. And that’s something of value. So we don’t split out, we don’t say "pay us" and then we’ll go back and forth. It’s an overall calculation of are we better of with this or not. And the Staff’s recommendation and conclusion is we’re better of with it. Commissioner Holman: Pretty darn good on a 16-hour workday. And the applicant’s plans though, as soon being able to build all the way under the alley. Ms. Furth: That’s right. And they may very well need the consent of every property owner along there. We don’t know. Commissioner Holman: But it sounds like that’s certainly the way it’s headed. Ms. Furth: As far as I know. And that would be their task to get those permissions. We’re not doing it. Commissioner Holman: Okay. And I guess the reason I brought that up is because even if this became a higher FAR, say for instance, it goes to Council and became a higher FAR. Ms. Furth: They can’t build it if they can’t deliver the proposed benefit. Commissioner Holman: Then that was leading to the PC portion of this. Page 73 Ms. Furth: Well, this is true of all PC’s. We approve them, that doesn’t assure that they get built. They all have issues of financing, they often have issues of cooperation with the property owners. This was certainly does, or apparently certainly does. Commissioner Holman: All fight. Then the location of the public parking spaces will be addressed at the later review. Something that I’m going to be consistent in this and the project to recognize the eclectic nature of SOFA 2 which is one of the charges that City Council gave the Working Group. I have often said that the latter portion of the building should be a different design so that it doesn’t look like such a large development. There’s nothing like that in SOFA 2 so that the building on the Homer facade, I think does a great job of differentiating itself being compatible and also differentiating itself from the project portion behind it. But then you have this long development feeling as you go down the street. So I still would make that comment that that should be differentiated. I didn’t see anywhere in here and maybe I just overlooked it which is certainly possible that issues should be resolved regarding any disruption to existing businesses, should be resolved. Ms. Furth: And some mitigation measure. Commissioner Holman: So that is in here? Ms. Furth: It’s in the construction management plan. Commissioner Holman: Okay, I just overlooked that then, thank you very much. And I also again, maybe this is an oversight is I didn’t see the requirement in the PC Ordinance about bicycle parking being identified. Commissioner Cassel: It’s in there. Commissioner Holman: It’s in the PC Ordinance as well? So the question is, should it not be? Ms. Furth: It’s your choice that everything in the plan is incorporated by reference, but if you want the bicycle spaces called out, we can do that. Commissioner Holman: All right. And the other point was because this is a very large development and I’ve discussions about this with Steve Emslie because it is a very large project, that I think it dictates and appropriateness for a second party review, just to assure quality construction methods. Vice-Chair Griffin: The second part of your review of what? Commissioner Holman: Of the plans. Page 74 Mr. Emslie: The working drawings you have, the architect review, the finishes and give the City a report, during the plan check process that’s fairly common. And you can add that as a condition here. Commissioner Holman: So I would suggest adding that as a condition. Vice-Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Colnmissioner Packer: I have a question. If it happens that the developer comes back with something that doesn’t have the lower garage, would the design still have the access to the substation property? Mr. Emslie: Yes. Commissioner Packer: But there would be as many parking spaces? Mr. Emslie: Yes. Vice-Chair Griffin: Any other questions before we go back and re-vote on the zoning change, on the FAR? Actually, we did slip the first item which is to vote on the PC and we did not do that. Commissioner Packer: Remember we were going to go back to the 2.0 just real quick? Mr. Emslie: I think everything has been resolved on that list, with the exception of the FAR. Commissioner Bellomo: Are we okay on the DEIR? Vice-Chair Griffin: Yes, that was a mistake. Ms. Furth: All we really wanted you to do was read it. Vice-Chair Griffin: Okay. So the presumption is that we are voting in favor of the PC that that’s a given because that’s paragraph number one, and then paragraph two gets into the re-vote on the level of FAR. Commissioner Burt: When you say a presumption, do you take that vote, too? Vice-Chair Griffin: Well, yes, we should. Commissioner Burt: Then let’s just do it. VOTE Page 75 Vice-Chair Griffin: All right. All those in favor of changing the zoning to a Planned Community, say aye? All: Aye. Vice-Chair Griffin: Opposed? [silence] All right, that carries good. Thank you for the reinforcement. Okay. We’re re-voting on paragraph number two, item #A, reduce the Floor Area Ratio to 2.0. The last time we had a 3-3 split and so we’re going to take one more crack at this. Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I would be real concerned that if we stuck to a very rigid 2.0 and couldn’t be a little flexible there that you lose that second level of parking which has the bikes and it has all kinds of stuff because if they have to cut the parking in half, it will probably reduce the number of units so they could meet the parking requirements of the code. Since we’ve voted on other things like expanding the plaza, looking at cutting back the daylight plane on that corner of Channing, then maybe that they could with those things the FAR would come down a couple of points, but maybe it’ll come down at 2.1 or something a little in between what they presented us but not exactly at that 2.0 and still allow the public parking benefit. That’s why I encourage a little bit of flexibility on our part. Vice-Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I certainly don’t mean to put this out there as a challenge or a dare or anything like that. But I am reminded that from this applicant when this project first came around to us, it was approaching a 3.0 FAR. And I remember discussions at that point in time where anything less than that would not be economically feasible. And I think at first it was like close to 3.0. At any rate, all the iterations this has gone through, every time that we have made an adjustment the applicant has said that any-thing less would not be economically feasible. So I’m just throwing that out there. Let’s see. Let’s do what we think is appropriate and then let’s see. Commissioner Bellomo: I just want to add that with some of the changes and suggestions and some of the drive that we talked about with open space, restrooms, reducing the transitional, obtain the transitional element, the FAR will come down. And I’m not sure how- to script the motion that speaks to where it would go with some of the changes that we alluded to. Ms. Furth: Ydu can just say that if you want. Commissioner Bellomo: Well, yes, I am saying it. So what I’d like to say is with our discussion tonight that, in fact, we have reduced the FAR. Commissioner Burt: Why couldn’t it pop up elsewhere? Page 76 Commissioner Bellomo: Well, I’m suggesting that it comes down but not necessarily to 2.0. That through these open space, the reduction of the transitional piece that we’re asking them to reduce the mass of the building which would reduce the FAR. What I’m suggesting is not necessarily to a rigid 2.0 but I understand your position. Commissioner Burr: If they weren’t going to add Floor Area elsewhere in the project, then I’m okay with that. That if we were in a~eement that they have the accommodations that we talked about without subsequently adding Floor Area elsewhere in the project and we would see what the result in reduction is, I think I can live with that. Mr. Emslie: Exactly. Ms. Furth: To modify the project in these substantive ways, wherever it comes out, that’s where it comes out. Commissioner Bel!omo: Without losing the public benefit. Commissioner Burt: And without allowing them to add Floor Area elsewhere in the project than what they have right now. Vice-Chair Griffin: But it seems, it’s open-ended because we don’t know- where it is. Commissioner Bellomo: It is open-ended. Yes, it isn’t that we’re asking them [talkover]. Ms. Furth: Yes, it’s within a band, it’s going to be less than 2.29. It’s going to less than 2.29, it’s going to have to be reduced to allow these better public open spaces. It’s going to have to be reduced to allow a better transition on the Channing side. Commissioner Bellomo: Maybe there’s group gardens. I don’t know-. Ms. Furth: And it doesn’t get to bulge out somewhere else to compensate this. Is that about it? Commissioner Burt: Yes. Vice-Chair Griffin: Why to me, we don’t know- what we’re buying here. Commissioner Bellomo: Well, but you see, we are buying it. Ms. Furth: Cutting out some parts of that model. Commissioner Cassel: How about calling a vote? A majority vote. Commissioner Holman: So one of the Commissioners that previously voted for the 2.0 consistent with the SOFA guidelines now- are saying we’re just going to let the chips fall? Page 77 Commissioner Burt: I’m saying that I think that we will fundamentally achieve consistency with our recommendations on the SOFA guidelines if this motion is carried. And that in doing so, have achieved a number, a consistency with a number of the SOFA guidelines. We’ll get the transition on Channing that we were looking for. We’ll get improved public openspace and I think that we will get something close to 2.0. Commissioner Packer: And may I suggest that I think we may improve on SOFA and that we’ll be talking about transition in a place where we hadn’t talked about it before, we’ll better express the issue of unit size in a way that’s more workable for developers. We’ll get the open space which is very much a part of the SOFA plan goals. And so we’ll do better because it’s kind of a learning experience for us in improving on the CAP. Commissioner Cassel: I’ll call the question. Commissioner Burt: Karen needs clarification that they’re not being allowed. Commissioner Holman: The balloon effect isn’t happening. Commissioner Burt: They’re not being allowed to add space elsewhere in the project to compensate for what they took away in these specific areas, correct? Mr. Emslie: Correct. Vice-Chair Griffin: And that works. accomplish that? Ms. Furth: We think your intent is clear. VOTE Vice-Chair Griffin: All right. All tldose in favor, say aye? All: Aye. Vice-Chair Griffin: Commissioner Holman: I mean you can structure the language so that we Opposed? I’m coming along with you, guys. It better pan out. Page 78 Attachment F MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26 Wednesday, November 20, 2002 REGULAR MEETING ~ 8:00 AM City Council Chambers Civic Center, First Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 800 High Street [02-PC-01] Historic Resources Board Action: The HRB provided recommendations to the City Council on the proposed project at 800 High Street in a series of 6 motions made in reference to 7 review items included in the HRB staff report for the Board meeting of November 20, 2002. The 6 motions ~vere as follo~vs: In reference to Item #1 (the adequacy of the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report) BM Mario moved, seconded by BM Murden, that the Board finds the DFEIR adequate, but the Board recommends that further information be provided regarding the feasibility of retaining the historic building and regarding its eligibility for listing on the California Register, and that a further mitigation be provided that would incorporate parts of the historic building into the project. Vote: 5-0-1-1 (Haviland not participating, Kohler absent) In reference to Item #6 (the pertinence of an independent study by a qualified historic preservation architect of the historic rehabilitation potential of the Family Service Laundry building) BM Mario moved, seconded by BM Makinen, that the Board recommends that the City Council request an independent study that would provide information allowing determinations to be made on Item #2 (the City Council’s direction to "review and consider incorporating the historic element" of the Family Service Laundry building into the project) and on Item #3 (the feasibility of retaining the historic building in light of the Meserve Engineering report dated December 12, 2001). Vote: 5-0-1-1 (Haviland not participating, Kohler absent) In reference to Item #4 (the City Council’s direction that the project be compatible with Homer Avenue and the area, and that the project read as several different Page i of 2 buildings along High Street) BM Mario moved, seconded by BM Murden, that the Board recommends that the project is consistent with Council’s direction. Vote: 4-1-1-1 (Makinen opposed, Haviland not participating, Kohler absent) In reference to Item #5 (the adequacy of the applicant’s response to the Board’s architectural design and historic preservation comments made at the October 16, 2002 HRB meeting) BM Mario moved, seconded by BM Bunnenberg, that the Board recommends that if it is determined infeasible to retain the Family Service Laundry building, then the proposed project adequately responds to the HRB’s architectural design comments. Vote: 5-0-1-1 (Haviland not participating, Kohler absent) In reference to Item #7 (the justifiability of a Council adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding demolition of the Family Service Laundry building) the Board made t~vo motions: o BM Mario moved, seconded by BM Bunnenberg, that the Board recommends that additional study is necessary to assist the Council in justifying the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations that would allmv the demolition of the historic building. Vote: 5-0-1-1 (Haviland not participating, Kohler absent) BM Mario moved, seconded by BM Bunnenberg, that the Board recommends that there be a review by the Chief Building Official of the integrity of the concrete of the Family Laundry building, and that if the CBO determines that the building cannot be retained, then no further historic study ~vould be performed, and the project could proceed on the site as proposed; if the CBO determines that the historic building can be retained, then the City would engage a historic preservation architect to determine, in a Historic Structure Report, whether the building can be rehabilitated in a manner that preserves its historic integrity. Vote: 6-0-1-0 (Haviland not participating) Page 2 of 2 FROM ARCHITECTURALRESOURCES GROUP (TUE) i, 7’09 I4:52/ST, 14:51/N0, 4861546617 P 2 Attachment G GROUP January 7, 2003 Ms, Juli¢ Caporgno City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Envirortmeat 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5~ Floor Palo A.lto, CA 94301 Re:Family Service Laundry / Peninsula Creamery 140 Homer / 800 High Streets, Palo Alto, Ca Dear Ms. Caporgno: We have reviewed the JP,.P Hi~torioal Consulting Services letter dated November l 9, 2002 regarding the above property. As you know, ARG eon~lted on the Draft Focused EIR dated October 2002 for the proposed project at the site. In the fall of 2002 we evaluated Family Set’Ace Laundry building using both National and California Register Criteria. Our conclusion at that time was that the building was eligible for the California Register under criteria I and 3 and that it retained sufficient integrity to justify ~his conclusion. Prior to our October 2002 evaluation, Dames & Moore completed a study list of historic properties (Januaw 22, 1999). In that report, Dames & Moore identifies the Family Scrvi¢cs Laundry bulldog ~s potentially eligible for the California Register under criteria 1 and 3. Further in the Dames & Moore Final Survey Report (February 200I), a historic context was established for the laundry industry in Palo Alto especially along Homer, Ramona, and Emerson StreW, where the Family Service Laundry was located. It is the professional opinion of ARG that while the Family Service Laundry Building has been altered, it retains sufficient levels of integrity to qualify for the California Register. The building remains in its historic location. It retains the major elements of it’s original d(sign: location of original window opemngs, some original multi- paned industrial sash windows, con~a-~t~ frame, storied parapets, roof monitor, entry locations, and overa!l industrial character. The overall ,.~tting, including several other laundry build~gs within the area, has been retained. Although s~me windows have bee~ lost, the refill at these locations could be removed a~d compatible new windows, that would meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, installcd. A major design element and material, the eoncrets~ frame, remains intact. FROM ARCHITECTURA.L RESOURCES GROUP (TUE) i, 7’ 03 14:52/ST, 14:51/N0, 4861546617 P 3 Ms. Caporgno Ianuary 7, 2003 Page 2 Thr overal! workmanship, feeling, and association of the building remain intact. The property’s expression of its origi~a! industrial aesthetic is quite strong. The direct link between this property and the laundry context established in the Dames & Moore report remains intact. A corrrl~arison of the stricture from a 1930 photograph and a preset day photograph r~veals that while change has occurred, th~ overall form, materials and appeazanee of the structure remain: it is r~ognizable from its period of ~gnificance. Overall, ARG is of the opinion ttmt the structure retains ~’nough integrity to meet the California Re~stcr criteria and should thus be considered a "historical resource" under CEQA. Please feel free to contact me again if you have any fttrther questions regarding the subject property. Sincerely, Senior Associate / Architectural Historian Jan-27-03 02:01P BAE -Davis, CA 530 750 2194 P.02 Attachment H MEMORANDUM DATE: January 27, 2003 TO:Julie Caporgno, City of Palo Alto ~OM:Matt Kowta, Principal RE:800 High Street Retail Rcuze Feasibility Assessment The purpose of this memo is to provide you with ou[ initial findings regarding our review tlf the project applicant’s feasibility calculations for rehabilitating and reusing the historic building at 800 High Slreet for retail use. The City of Palo Alto directed BAE to evaluate the applicant’s analysis (attached), and either verify or refilte the applicant’s general conclusion that such a reuse scenario would be infeasible, from a financial standpoint. It was agreed by the City and the applicant that the Santa Clara County Assessor’s appraised value for the property would be taken as a given. In addition, City staff agreed to the building and lot square footage numbers provided by the applicant. BAE’s project manager meet with City officials, applicant representatives, and a historic preservation architect for a tour of the existing building. BAE staff subsequently conducted limited lclephone research into the current retail real estate market conditions in the South t~f Forest Area, and interviewed property owners and developers regarding their opinions about the potential lease value the 800 l ligh Street. building if renovated for retail reuse, ~suming that the only oft’-strect parking to be provided would be what could fit on the portion of the parcel not already occupied by the building footprint, estimated to be five to six spaces. BAE staff then reviewed the applicant’s financial analysis, and tested key assumptions For sensitivity in regard to financial feasibility conclusions. Based on this limited review of the retail reuse alternative that ha.~ been possible since we visited the property and obtained background materials from the applica’nt on January 22, 2003, wc have concluded the following: The applicant’s own calculation~ may to over-state some rehabilitation line item costs listed in their analysis, namely construction costs; however, their analysis also omits some costs, such as site improvements that are normally included in a feasibility analysis. Sacramento Reg|on Office 740 ~3 Strut P~vi5~ CA 95616 Headquar~r~ Jan-27-03 02:02P BAE -Davis, CA 530 750 2194 P.03 Having taken the initial property acquisition cost as a given, the "hard" construction cost and the potential monthly lease ntte for the finished buildings are the two most significant assumption in the entire analysis. Flaying contacted a range of developers and retail property representatives regarding current lease rates and probable lease rates if the g00 lqigh Street property were renovated for retail use, we feel reasonably comfortable that lhe applicant’s analysis uses a reasonable lease rate aSSumption and that the resulting finished property value assure ption is reasonablc, i f sllghtly conservative. Rather than attempt to conduct ~t detailed architectural and engineering analysis to estimate precise historic rehabilitatitm construction costs fi,r the project, BAE instead posed the question of, "would the project be feasible if lh~ construction costs were essentially zero?" If not, then the question of the precise rehabilitation ct~sts is moot. BAE found that’ based on an initial look at the ~pplicant’s protbrma and accepting all of its assumptions, it is clear that if the Construction Cost line item were set to zero, then the project profit number would still remain as a negative. Even if a mm~bcr of other assumptions are also relaxed, such as reducing City Permits and Fees to approximately $25 per square foot (similar to costs BAE identified as part of our SOFA II financial analysis), reducing Architects and Engineers fees, and reducing various lump sum amounts tbr general administrative and project overhead c~sls, Ihe project still appears to generate negative returns to the developer, However, even if the project could break even (costs vs. sales proceeds), this would not constitute financial feasibility. Typically, a developer would require the opportunity to earn a gross profit margin of approximately |.ca percent or more for taking on a somewhat unique project (i.e., slightly offthe beaten path tbr retail, little off-street parking) such ~as this. This means, that under an unrealistically optimistic scenario (due to lack of any construction costs) the retail rehabilitation scenario would likely require at least $200,000 to $300.000 in subsidies in order to make it financially viable. In a more realistic, but untested, scenario in which rehabilitation costs are estimated at $100 per square foot’, the subsidy requirements would likely he closer to $1 million. I hope Ihat you find this preliminary assess,nent useful. My understanding is that City staffwill pass this preliminary assessment along to the applicanl~ for their review. If the City would like BAE t(~ refine this analysis and pr~wide additional documentation of our findings, please let me know as soon as possible so that we m~y make preparations to present the information at the February 3 City Council meeting. P, AE does not represent (hut rchabilkati,n costs arc likely t(~ ~ $100 per squ~e ft~ot. Rather, t~AE suggests that $1()0 per ~quare ~bot is likel~ closer ~o the minim~m cO~ to rehabilib~le the building lbr ~l~il reuxe (h~l{ ~0 p¢l’ ~u~e (~)1. Actual costs ct~uld ~ greater o~ le~r; however, it i~ beyt)nd the ~op¢ OF II)is ~lmdysis t~ pin~inl that cost. Jan-27-03 02:02P BAE -Davis, CA 530 750 2194 P.04 Bo610 SFle~ ! Units 5250 8FAJ~ O.7 FAR Cat~gory Calculations Land Architect & Engineer Fees Pm~y T~ Legal & Accounti~g Fees Per Un~ $1,3~S,000 $t89,000 $159,000 $1,575,000 Amount $1 $159,000 81,575,000 $2e ,000 Cor~ngeney b%~=a~~ Management & Admlr~rat~)n Loan Fees ~.s~ Interest ~nse 7.5%~,s yr~ Predict Cost 8F Sales - Market Rate 5,250 ~un~@ S3~3 fSF Total Sales ~ Les~ Sales Fee ~% Le~ Proje~ ~ Proiect Pro~-81.~ Urea 8135,000 $150,000 S6t ,000 ~,~2,ooo $1,643,000 $1 (~2,000) (~,052,000) (8~/,481,000) $!35,000 $150,000 ~61,000 $1,e43,~ (~2,000) , M morandum Attachment TO; CC: From: Date: Re: Historic Resources Board Dennis Backlund Curt Peterson; Doug Ross, 800 High Street Partners 01/06/03 Economic Evaluation of Saving the Existing Laundry Building at 800 High Street The existing Creamery building occupies a lot of approximately 8610 square feet. The value of this land based on recent comparable sales and the midrange of values noted on page 81 of the City of Palo Alto Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 ($150 to $167/sf) is estimated to be $158.50/sf or $1,365,000. Construction costs to build new structural interior and exterior walls to envelop the existing unsafe walls, to replace the existing roof as required by the Chief Building Official, and to provide full seismic upgrading is estimated to be $300/sf; rehabilitation of the total building footage of approximately 5250 square feet would result in construction costs of $1,575,000. Add soft costs including architecture and engineering fees estimated at approximately $200,000; City permits and fees estimated at $160,000; property taxes and insurance estimated at $65,000; management and accounting costs estimated at $200,000; loan fees and construction period interest estimated at $350,000; and lastly a 5% contingency on all costs (except land cost) estimated at $135,000. Total estimated soft costs are $1,110,000. The total project cost is therefore estimated to be $4,050,000. It should be noted here that the "saved" building would not be visible after construction since it would be clad entirely inside and outside to be structurally sound. The existing roof would need to be replaced, as would all new windows and doors installed as they have been removed over time, and existing window openings were saw cut to accommodate creamery equipment. The building, therefore, would not be the same building at all. It should also be noted that the existing structure would have inadequate room for onsite parking and therefore be difficult to rent or sell at premium market values. The "saved" building would have a market value that would be somewhere between $222 per building square foot on the low end (as estimated by the City’s Bay Area Economics report for the adjacent "Ole’s° property), and $404 per building square foot on the high end (as estimated by BAE for new commercial space with standard parking). For purposes of this analysis, using the midrange value of $313 per building square foot for the total building footage of 5250 square feet, the total market value would be approximately $1,650,000 less 5% sales fee, or $1,568,000. Saving the building will therefore result in a net loss of approximately $2,482,000. In addition to this substantial financial loss, the 800 High Street project would lose at least 7 housing units, 2 of which would be Below Market Rate, and a substantial number of parking spaces, since there could be no parking below the saved Creamery building. January 29, 2003 Doug Ross Curt Peterson Palo Alto High Street Parmers, LLC 900 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301-2405 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Enviornment Attachment J Planning DMsion Subject:Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for Condominium Project at 800 High Street (02-PC-01) Dear Mr. Ross and Mr. Peterson: This letter summarizes the agreement between the owners of 800 High Street, and the Department of Planning and Community Environment regarding satisfaction of the provisions of the City of Palo Alto’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Program for the proposed 54-unit, mixed-use, condominium development (the "Project") at 800 High Street between Homer and Channing Avenues. This letter is to be signed by the officers of the Palo Alto High Street Partners LLC as the project applicant. The BMR pro~am requirements are contained in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Palo Alto. You and Planning Division staff have discussed and negotiated the terms of this a~eement, and your signature(s) on this letter confirms that you agree to these provisions. This ageement will be included in the conditions of approva! for the project and its terms will also be incorporated into the subdivision agreement for the project’s condominium map. The site is currently zoned CD-S (P) and is composed of three parcels that total 42,000 square feet in size. The existing commercial buildings on the site w~ll be demolished. The Project includes: ~Approximately 87,000 square feet of new, mixed-use buildings ~About 2,000 square feet of neighborhood retail space on the ground floor ~54 for-sale condominium housing units on four floors ~Parking in an undergound parking garage The Project requires City Council approval of a Planned Community zone change and a subdivision map and agreement to allow the residential units and commercial space to be sold separately as condominiums. Printed with soy-based iruks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine 250 Hamilton Avenue RO. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329_9’~1 650.329.2154 800 High Street January" 29, 2003 Page 2 of 4 Application of Commercial Housin~ In-lieu Fee per Chapter 16.47 of the Municipal Code: Chapter 16.47 fees do not apply because this project does not include any net new commercial space. BMR Requirement: A total of ten (10) for-sale BMR units shall be provided; this is 18.52% of the 54 total units being constructed. Nine BMR units (15% of 54 units) are provided to meet the City’s basic BMR program requirements. The tenth unit is provided to meet the City’s "density bonus" provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The BMR units are not part of the project’s ~public benefits". Desianation of the BMR Units: There shall be four, one-bedroom, one bath BMR units, four, two-bedroom, one bath BMR units and two, three-bedroom, two bath BMR units. The BMR units shall be distributed on all four residential floors of the buildings. All the BMR units face either onto one of the project’s private open space courts or onto Channing. Each BMR unit shall have either a private open space deck or a patio. The BMR units ",-ill be designated on the plans that are approved by the City Council and referenced in the adopted PC ordinance. Attachment C to this letter summarizes the basic characteristics, locations and prices of the ten BMR units, based on information provided by the applicant as of the date of this letter. The final construction plans shall designate each BMR unit and those designations, locations and floor plans shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project for consistency with this a~eement. BMR Unit Sales Prices: Pricing for the BMR units has been set based on the most recent (issued January 2002) Santa Clara County HUD median income figures, adjusted for current (December 2002) home mortgage interest rates. In accordance with the recent revisions to the BMR program, there are two levels of affordability. Two-thirds (6 units) of the required BMR units are priced to be affordable to buyers at the midpoint of the 80% to 100% of median income range. The remaining one-third (3 units) of the required BMR unitS are priced to be affordable to buyers at the midpoint of the 100% to 120% of median income range. The tenth BMR unit, provided to meet the density bonus provisions, is also priced at the 100% to 120% level. See Attachment C for specific unit prices. The actua! prices for the initial sale of each BMR unit by the developer to the first BMR owner shall be the greater of the prices described above and in Attachment C or the prices in effect as of the date of the project’s final map approval. BMR A~eement to Be Recorded: The terms of this letter w-ill be incorporated into the Project’s conditions of approval. The specific requirements, including the provisions for \\cc-archive\S h aredkPLAN~PLADIV~dvance PlanningKtousing~BNqP,\800HighCondoProjBMRAgmt 01-03.doc 800 High Street January 29, 2003 Page 3 of 4 the sale of the BMR units shall be incorporated into the Subdivision Agreement that must be completed and signed prior to the final map being considered by the City Council. It w-ill be recorded with the recordation of the map. Term of A~eement: The initial term of the deed restrictions applicable to the BMR units beginning with the first sale to a BMR qualified buyer shall be 59 -gears. Future transfers to new- owners initiate a new term of affordability. Construction. Finishino,. Amenities: The BMR units shall be comparable in all aspects to the market-rate housing units including, but not limited to, construction quality, exterior appearance, interior finish work and features, storage units, par’king spaces, and access to all project amenities and facilities. Parking spaces for the residents of the BMR units shall be assigned, or available, on an equal basis with the parking spaces for the market rate units. It is agreed that you intend to request permission from the Director to install certain alternative interior finishes in the BMR units, including changes to flooring, appliances, tub enclosures, cabinets and counters. Such substitute materials and equipment must still be of very good quality and durability. A written request for such substitute materials, to~ether with exact descriptions and specifications, must be submitted to the City at least 60 days prior to issuance of the pro_iect’s building permit. The Director must approve the substitute materials in writin~o. Prior to the sale of a BMR unit, the City, or its desi~ee, shall inspect the BMR unit to determine that it meets these construction and finishing standards. The City Manager must approve the acceptance of each BMR unit into the program prior to its initial sale. Sale of BMR Units: The project requires City Council approval of a fin!l subdivision map to allow for the future sale of the individual residential units as condominiums. Owner shall cooperate with the City, the BMR unit buyers and the City’s program administrator as necessary in the sale of the BMR units, following the procedures in the BMR Program and Procedures Manual and the deed restrictions. A copy of the City’s current Deed Restrictions is attached as Attachment B; the deed restrictions may be revised before completion of the subdivision map and agreement, in which case the revised deed restrictions shall be used. The City shall select buyers, usually from the BMR ownership program waiting list, and the sales shall be conducted following the procedures for the sale of BMR ownership units. At the appropriate time in each sale transaction, the City will assign its right to purchase to a qualified BMR buyer approved by the City. Program Administrator: The Department of Planning and Community Development administers the BMR program. The Citw’s contract pro~am administrator for the BMR program is the Palo Alto Housino_ Corporation. The City may assign any or all of the \\cc-archivekSharedkPLANkPLAD I~SAdvance PtanningKtousingkBlvIR\800HighCondoProjBMRAgmt0 t -03.doc 800 High Street January 29, 2003 Page 4 of 4 administrative duties including review, approval and monitoring functions to its program administrator or other designee. Please sign this letter below, indicating that we have reached agreement regarding the BMR unit contribution. Since 1 , Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachments: No BMR Ownership Program Housing Price Guidelines, revised December 2002 Exhibit B: Below Market Rate Deed Restrictions, August 1993 version Description and Sales Prices of BMR Units for 800 High cc"Wyrme Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney Julie Caporgno, Advance Plarming Manager Amy French, Current Planning Manager Steven Turner, Planner Cathy Siegel, Housing Coordinator Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation We agree to provide a Below Market Rate unit at 800 High Street (02-PC-01) as described in this Letter of Agreement dated January 29, 2003: By: Curt Peterson, Managing Member Palo Alto High Street Partners, LLC ~21o~O~!ss, Managing MemberHigh Street Parmers, LLC Date:/-~ ~ @--O.~Date: \",cc-archive\Sh aredkPLANkPLADIV~dvan ce Planning~-IousingkBMR\800High CondoProj BMRAgmt01-03.doc Persons In Household 1 2 3 4 5 6 Assumed Household Size 1 1 or2 2,3, or 4 3,4,5, or 6 Attachment City.of Palo Alto BMR Ownership Program Housing Price Guidelines .for Households at 80% to 100% of Median Income Revised December 2002 80% of County HUD Median Income $53,750 $61,450 $69,100 $76,800 $82,950 $89,100 $95,250 $10___1,4o___~ .......................... 100% of County HUD Median Income $67,200 $76,800 $86,400 $96,000 $103,700 $111,350 $119,050 $126,700 Range of Affordable Prices at 80% to !00% of Median Income $148,500 $196,300 $175,800 $230,400 $203,000 -$264,600 $230,400 -$298,700 $252,300 -$326,100 $274,200 -$353,300 $296,000 -$380,700 $317,900 -$407,900 Unit Type Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Affordable Purchase Price Range $148,500 To $230,400 $175,800 To $298,700 $203,000 To $353,300 .......................~0,400 To $407,900 BMR Unit Price Guideline (Average). .... $172,400 $189,450 $237,250 $278,150 $319,150 ASSUMPTIONS: HUD Median Income: 4-person household (As of 01/31/02) Annualized Rates: Interest Rates As of 12/12/02 Mortgage Insurance (as of 12/12/02). Taxes Total Effective Interest Rate Number of Monthly Payments: Loan-To-Value (5% downpayment): Allowance for Association Dues, Repair Costs, & Insurance (Per Month) Loan Terms: Zero (0) Loan Points 30 Year, Fixed Rate Maximum of 30% of Gross Income for Housing Costs $96~000 6.00% 0.84% 1.25% 8.09% 360 95% $300 H:\Doc\BMRDec.2002Pricesat80-100 Attachment City of Palo Alto BMR Ownership Program .Housing Price Guidelines for Households at 100% to 120% of Median Income Revised December 2002 Persons In Household ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assumed Household Size 1 1 or2 2,3, or 4 3,4,5, or 6 4,_5,._~77, 8 100% of County HUD Median Income $67,200 $76,800 $86,400 $96,000 $103,700 $111,350 $119,050 $126,700 120% of County HUD Median Income s80,65o $92,150 $103,700 $115,200 $124,400 $133,650 $142,850 S152,05~ Range of Affordable Prices at 100% to 120% of Median Income $196,300 $244,100 $230,400 $285,000 $264,600 $326,100 $298,700 $367,000 $326,100 $399,700 $353,300 $432,600 $380,700 $465,300 $407,900 $498,000 Unit Type Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Affordable Purchase Price Range $196,300 To $244,!00 $196,300 To $285,000 $230,400 To $367,000 $264,600 To $432,600 BMR Unit Price Guideline ~..___.~Avera,qe) $220,200 $240,650 $298,700 $348,600 $398,350 ASSUMPTIONS: HUD Median Income: 4-person household (As of 01/ Annualized Rates: Interest Rates As of 12/12/02 Mortgage Insurance (as of 12/12/02) Taxes Total Effective Interest Rate Number of Monthly Payments: Loan-To-Value (5% downpayment): Allowance for Association Dues, Repair Costs, & Insurance (Per Month) Loan Terms: Zero (0) Loan Points 30 Year, Fixed Rate Maximum of 30% of Gross Income for Housing Costs $96,000 6.00% 0.84% 1.25% 8.O9% 360 95% $3O0 H:\Doc\BMRDec.2002Pricesat100-120% Attachment B SUBJECT TO: A.Right of First Refusal. Grantee hereby ~ants and Nves to the City of Palo Alto (" City") a right to purchase the real property conveyed hereby and any improvements thereon (the "Premises") under conditions hereinafter set forth. City may desig-nate a governmental or nonprofit organization to exercise its right of first refusal. City or its designee may assi~o-n this right to an individual private buyer who meets the City’s eligibility qualifications. After the exercise of said right by City, its designee or assignee in the manner hereinafter prescribed, City, its designee or assignee may assign said right to purchase to any substitute individual private buyer who meets the City’s eligibility requirements and is approved by the City; provided, however, that such subsequent assignment shall not extend-any time limits contained herein.. Any attempt to transfer title or any interest therein in violation of these covenants shall be void. B.Procedure on Sale. Whenever the Owner ( "Owner" refers to Grantee and all successors in interest ) of said Premises no lower desires to own said Premises, owner shall notify City in ~-iting to that effect. Such notice shall be personally delivered or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, f~rst class, certified, addressed to City Manager, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, with a copy to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, 725 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301-2403. City, its designee or assignee shall then have the right to exercise its right to purchase said Premises by delivery of written notice, by personal deliveo~ or certified mail, to the Owner thereof at any time within sixty (60) days from the receipt by City of such written notice from Owner of intent to sell or dispose of the Premises. If the City, its designee or assignee exercises its right to purchase said Premises, close of escrow of said purchase shall be within ninety (90) days of the opening of such escrow by either pard~. Said escrow shall be opened upon delivery to Owner of written notice of the exercise of the option or as soon thereafter as possible. In the event City decides to assign the right to purchase provided herein, City may postpone opening of escrow unti! selection of such assignee, or as soon thereafter as possible, provided that the opening of the escrow shall not be postponed longer that ninety (90) days .after the Owner is notified of the CitT’s exercise of its right to purchase. Closing costs and title insurance shall be paid pursuant to the custom and practice in the City of Palo Alto at the time of the opening of such escrow. Seller shall bear the expense of providing a current written report of an inspection by a licensed Structural Pest Control Operator. A!l work recommended in said report to repair damage caused by infestation or infection of wood-destroying pests or organisms found and all work to correct conditions that caused such infestation or infection shall be done at the expense of the Seller. Any work to correct conditions usually deemed iikely to lead to infestation or infection of wood-destroying pests or organisms, but where no evidence of infestation or infection is found with respect to such conditions, is not the responsibiIity of the Seller, and such work shall be done only ff requested by the Buyer and then at the Rev. 8/93)1 Reg. expense of the Buyer. The Buyer shall be responsible for payment of any prepayment fees imposed by any iender by reason of the sale of the premises. The purchase price shall be paid in cash at the close of escrow or as may be otherwise provided by mutual agreement of Buyer and Seller.. The purchase price of the Premises shall be fLxed at the lower amount arrived at via the following two methods: City or its designee shall have an appraisal made by an appraiser of its choice to establish the market value. The owner may also have an appraisal made by an appraiser of Owner’s choice to establish the market value. If a~eement cannot be reached, the average of the two appraisals shall be termed the market price. Dollars ( $) plus the amount of any prepaTment fees paid by the selling Owner at the time said Owner purchased the Premises (base price), plus an amount, if any, to compensate for any increase in the cost of living as measured by one-third (1/3) of the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (hereinafter "the Index"). For that purpose, the Index prevailing on the date.of the purchase by the selling Owner of said Premises shall be compared with the latest Index available on the date of receipt by CiD’ of notice of intent to se!l. The peircentage increase in the Index, if an?,, sha!l be computed and the base price shall be increased by one-third (1/3) of that percentage; pro’~ided, however, that the price shall in no event be lower than the purchase price paid by the selling Owner when he purchased the Premises. This adjusted price shall be increased by the value of an?, substantial structural or permanent luted improvements which cannot be removed without substantial damage to the Premises or substantial or total loss of value of said improvements and by the value of an?, appliances, fbxlures, or equipment purchased to reptace appliances, fixtures, or equipment which were originally acquired as part of the Premises by Owner; provided that such price adjustment for replacement appliances, fLxtures, or equipment shall be allowed only when the expenditure is necessitated by the non-operative or other deteriorated condition of the original appliance, f~ture, or equipment. If at the time of replacement the original appliance, future, or equipment had in excess of twenty percent (20%) of its original estimated useful life remaining, Owner shall document to the City’s satisfaction the condition of the appliance, fixture, or equipment which necessitated its replacement. No such price adjustment shal! be made si~cantly in excess of the reasonable cost to replace the original appliance, fixture, or equipment with a new appliance, fucture, or equipment of comparable quality as hereinafter provided. No such adjustment shall be made except for improvements, appliances, fixtures, or equipment made or installed by the se!ling Owner. No improvements, appliance, fixture, or equipment shall be deemed substantial unless the actual initial cost thereof to the Owner exceeds one percent (1.0%) of the purchase price paid by the Owner for the Premises; provided that this minimum limitation shall not apply in either of the following situations: (a)Where the expenditure was made pursuant to a mandatory assessment levied by the Homeowners’ association for the development in which the Premises is located, whether levied for improvements or maintenance to the Premises, the common area, or related purposes. (b) Where the expenditure was made for the replacement of appliances, fLxtures, or equipment which were originally acquired as part of the Premises by Owner. Rex,. 8/93)2 Reg. No adjustment shall be made for the value of any improvements, appIiances, f~-mres, or equipment unless the Owner shall present to the Civ valid written documentation of the cost of said improvements. The value of such improvements by which the sale price shall be adjusted shall be determined as follows: (a)The .value of any improvement, appliance, ftxture, or equipment, the original cost of which was less than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), shall be the depreciated value of the improvement, appliance, future or equipment calculated in accordance with principles of straight-line depreciation applied to the original cost of the improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment based upon the estimated original useful life of the improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment. Co)The value of an?, improvement, appliance, f~:ture, or equipment, the original cost of which was Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) or more, sMi1 be the appraised market value of the improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment when considered as an addition or fixture to the premises (i.e., the amount by which said improvement, appliance, fixture .or equipment enhances the market value of the premises) at the time of sale. Said value shall be determined in the same manner as the market value of the premises in method 1 above. (c)On January 1, 1982, and ever3, ~,o years thereafter, regardless of the date of execution or recordation hereof, the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) referred to in parag-raphs (a) and Co) immediately above shall be automatically adjusted for the purpose of those para~aphs in the following manner. On each adjustment date, the Consumer l:’rice Index, All Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco-Oakland area punished by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics ("Index") prevailing on January 1, 1980, shall be compared with the Index prevailing on the date of recordation of this deed. The percentage increase in the Index, ff an3’, shall be computed and the sum of Five Thousand Doltars ($5,000) shall be increased in the same percentage. In no event shall the sum be reduced below Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000). (d)No price adjustment, will be made except upon presentation to City of written documentation of all expenditures made by Owner for which an adjustment is requested. Any sale price determined through the use of this method number 2 (base price adjusted by Consumer Price Index and value of improvements, appliances, fixtures or equipment added) shall be adjusted by decreasing said price by an amount to compensate for deferred maintenance costs, which amount shall be determined as follows: Upon receipt of notice of Owner’s intent to sell, City or its desig-nee shall be entitled to inspect the Premises. City or its desig-nee shall have an oppornmity to determine whether all plumbing, electrical, and heating systems are in work_ing order; whether any violations of applicable building, plumbing, electric, fire, or housing codes exist; whether a!l appliances which were originally furnished to Owner as part of the Premises, or any replacements thereof, are in working order; whether walls, ceilings and floors are clear and free of holes or other defects (except for holes typical of picture tmngers); whether doors, windows, screens and similar appurtenances are cracked, broken or torn; and whether carpets, drapes and similar features which were originally furnished to Owner as part of the premises, or any replacement thereof, are clean and free of holes, tears or other defects. In the event deficiencies are noted, the Real Property Administrator of City shall obtain estimates to cure the observed deficiencies. The Owner shall cure the deficiencies in a reasonable manner acceptable to city or desi~ee within sixty (60) days of being notified of the results Rex,. 8/93)3 Reg. of the inspection, but in no event later than close of escrow. Should owner fail to cure such deficiencies prior to the scheduled date of close of escrow, at the option of City, its desig-nee or assig-nee, escrow may be c!osed, title passed and money paid to the seiIing Owner subject to the condition that such funds as are necessary to pay for curing such deficiencies (based upon written estimates obtained by City) shall be withheld from the money due the selling Owner and held by the escrow holder for the purpose of curing such deficiencies. City, its designee or assignee shall cause such deficiencies to be cured and upon certification of completion of work by City, escrow holder shall utilize such funds to pay for said work. Any remaining funds shall be paid to the selling Owner. No other payment shal! be due said Owner. In no event shall City become in an?, way liable to Owner or an?, potential or actual Buyer of the Premises in connection with an?, sale or other conveyance of the Premises. Nor shall City become obligated in any manner to Owner or any potential or actual Buyer by reason of the assignment of City’s right to purchase. Nor shall City be in any way obligated or liable to Owner or an), potential or actual Buyer for any failure of City’s assig-nee to consummate a purchase of the Premises or to comply with the terms of an?, purchase and sale a~eement. Until such time as the City’s right to purchase is exercised, waived, or expired, the Premises and any interest in title thereto shall not be sold, conveyed, leased, rented, assigned, encumbered or otherwise transferred to any person or entity except with the prior express written consent of City or its designee, which consent shall be consistent with City’s goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing in Palo Alto for persons of low and moderate income. An?, encumbering of title of the Premises in connection with securing any financing or loan may only be accomplished with City’s prior express written consent; however, in the event of foreclosure or transfer by deed in Iieu of foreclosure, the provisions of Section D of this instalment shall govern. The following transfers of title or an), interest therein are not subject to the right of ftrst refusal provisions of this deed: transfer by Nft, devise, or inheritance to ~antee’s spouse or issue; taking of title by surviving joint tenant; transfer of title to spouse as part of divorce or dissoIution proceedings; acquisition of title or interest therein in conjunction with marriage; provided, however, that these covenants shal! continue to run with the title to said Premises following said transfers. C.Termination of Right of First Refusal. The provisions set forth in this deed relating to City’s right to purchase shall terminate and become void automatically fifty-nine (59) years following the date of recordation of this deed. Upon the expiration of said fifty-nine (59) year period, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, a non-profit charitable organization or its successor organization, shall have the right to purchase the Premises, and if Owner no longer desires to own the premises, Owner shall notify the Palo Alto Housing Corporation in accordance with the procedures for notifying the City in Paragraph B above. If the Palo Alto Housing Corporation elects to exercise its right to purchase, it shall do so in accordance with the procedures and price set forth for the City in Para~aph B above. Rev. 8/93)4 Reg. D. Default. Owner covenants to cause to be filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara a request for a copy of any notice of default and of any notice of sale under an), deed of m.~st or mortgage with power of sale encumbering said Premises pursuant to Section 2924 (b) of the Civil Code of the Sate of California. Such request shall specify that any such notice shall be mailed to the City Manager, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Any notice of sale given pursuant to Civil Code Section 2924 (f) shall constitute a notice of intent to se!! hereunder and Cit3’ or its designee or assignee may exercise its preemptive right prior to any trustee’s sale, judicial foreclosure sale, or transfer by deed in Iien of foreclosure, provided, however, notwithstanding any lang-uage contained in this insmmaent to the contrary regarding the rights of the lien holder, the City, or its designee or assignee, must complete such purchase no later than the end of the period established by California Civil Code Section 2924 ( c ) for reinstatement of a monetary default under the deed of trust or mortgage. In the event of default and foreclosure, the City, or its designee or assignee, shall have the same right as the Owner to cure defaults and redeem the Premises prior to forec!osure sale. Such redemption shall be subject to the same fees, charges and penalties as would otherwise be assessed against the Owner. Nothing herein shall be construed to create any obligation on the part of the City to cure an?, such default, nor shal! this right to cure and redeem operate to extend any time limitations in the default provisions of the underlying deed of trust or mortgage. The Cit3’, or its desig-nee or assignee, shal! be entitled to recover from Owner a!I costs incurred in curing any such default. In the event City elects not to exercise its right to purchase upon default, any surplus to which Owner may be entitled pursuant to Code-of Civil Procedure Section 727 shall be paid as follows: That portion of surplus (after payment of encumbrances), if any, up to but not exceeding the net amount that Owner would have received after payment of encumbrances under the formula set forth above had City exercised its right to purchase the property on the date of the foreclosure sale, shall be paid to Owner on the date of the foreclosure sale; the balance of surplus, ff an?,, shall be paid to the City for increasing the City’s low-income and moderate-income housing stock. E.Distribution of Insurance and Condemnation Proceeds. In the even that the Premises are destroyed and insurance proceeds are distributed to Owner instead of being used to rebuild, or in the event of condemnation, if proceeds thereof are distributed to Owner, or in the case of a condominium project, in the event of liquidation of the homeowners’ association and distribution of the assets of the association to the members thereof, including Owner, any surplus of proceeds so distributed remaining after payment of encumbrances of said Premises shall be distributed as follows: That portion of the surplus up to but not to exceed the net amount that Owner would have receii/ed under the formula set forth above had City exercised its right to purchase the property on the date of the destruction, condemnation valuation date, or liquidation, shall be distributed to Owner, and the balance of such surptus, if any, shal! be distributed to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation or its successors or assigns. Rc~’. 8!93)5 Reg. All notices required herein shall be sent to the following addresses: CITY:City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 DEVELOPER: PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION: OWNER 725 Alma Street,Palo Alto, CA By acceptance of this deed, Grantee/Owner accepts and a~ees to be bound by the covenants contained herein, and further aclmowledges receipt of and agrees to be bound by the provisions of these deed restrictions. h-N WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersig-ned Grantee has caused this instrument to be executed this of , !9 day Signature of Grantee Print Name Rex’. 8193) 6 Reg, o ©© o o o Attachment C © c Attachment K 9" r" D3 0 J,<I---0I-- d Attachment L PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: Steven Turner, Planner December 18, 2002 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment SUBJECT:800 High Street [02-PC-01, State Clearinghouse #1999032075] Request by Palo Alto High Street Partners, LLC for Planning and Transportation Review of a proposed Planned Community development, including the demolition of an existing 17,632 square foot building and to allow the construction of a new 96,227 square foot building, including 61 residential units, 1,952 square feet of neighborhood serving retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. A variance is requested for a portion of the fourth floor that exceeds the City’s height requirement. A Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission hold a public hearing for the purposes of receiving public comments on the project and the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (DFEIR). Staff also recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission discuss the proposed project and the public benefits and provide direction for the preparation of the Planned Community ordinance to be considered at the January 15, 2003 Commission meeting. Staff requests that the Commission consider the following policy issues and provide comments to staff and the applicant in preparation for the January 15, 2003 meeting: 1.Consistency of the project with the Comprehensive Plan and the South Of Forest Area 2 Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA 2 CAP) recommendations from the SOFA 2 Working City of Palo Alto Page 1 Group-and the Plalming and Transportation Commission. Adequacy of the Below Market Rate (BNIR) housing program in terms of the number of units offered, the size and floor plan of the units, their location within the development, and their affordabitity to the community. Easements and parking agreements, including the proposal by the developer to grant 57 parking spaces to the City as a public benefit, the establishment of subterranean vehicular access ways between the project and the properties on the 800 block of Alma Street, and subterranean encroachments under Lane 8 West and the High Street sidewalk to accommodate the parking garage. A floor area bonus, as described in the Comprehensive Plan, above what is normally allowed on the site, granted as a result of the additional BMR and market rate units to be included in the project as an incentive to provide additional affordable units. (Comprehensive Plan, Program H-21). Publicly accessible open space on the project site and a recommendation to require that the restroom facilities in the retail spaces be available to the public. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of the following components: Demolition of all existing structures on the site, including one of cultural significance. Sixty-one (61) for-sale residential units, including eleven Below Market Rate (BlVIR) units. The unit configuration includes five one-bedroom units, 34 two- bedroom units and 22 three-bedroom units. The tota! residential floor area would be 98,227 square feet. The BMR units include one one-bedroom and !0 two-bedroom units A total of 1,952 square feet of retail space, located in two separate retail units. Both units would have frontage on Homer Avenue. The space closest to the comer of Hi~mh Street and Homer Avenue would have direct access to the public courtyard on High Street, which is a public space. A two level, subterranean parking garage providing 201 parking spaces. The garage would provide parking for the residential and retail uses of the building. Fi~- seven public spaces (temporar3,, two-hour parking) are proposed as a part of the City of Palo Alto Page 2 applicant’s public benefit packag.e. The garage would extend under the entire width of Lane 8 West to the adjacent private property lines and under the sidewalk along High Street, three feet beyond the property line. Vehicular access to possible future subterranean garages below the developable site on the 800 block of Alma Street. The substation site has been identified as a site for affordable housing to be developed upon relocation by the Utilities Department. The applicants propose, as a punic benefit, that the 800 High Street garage would serve as the connection and primary access point to th~s future garage. As the other sites along the 800 block of Alma Street are developed, they would be able to build subterranean garages that have access from the 800 High Street garage. o A public plaza area at the corner of Channing Avenue and High Street, containing seating, landscaping, and a water feature. In addition, the applicant has requested the following discretionary entitlements: zone change from Downtown Commercial Service with Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S(P)) to Planned Community (PC). A variance from Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.68.150 to allow the portions of the fourth story to extend to a height of 50 feet, where a height of 35 feet is normally the maximum height allowed within 150 feet of the existing residential Planned Community district at 901 Alma Street (PC-4389). In addition, the project will require a lot merger to combine the three existing parcels that comprise the project site and a major subdivision for condominium purposes. Building Hei~t~ The proposed building includes three and four story elements. The three story elements, along Homer Avenue are approximately 35 feet in height. The four story elements range in height from approximately 39 feet at the building face along High Street to 50 feet at the peak of the roof. The building height along Lane 8 West extends to approximately 47 feet. Heights along Channing Avenue extend to approximately 45 feet. A trash/recycling and stairway structure at the midpoint along Lane 8 West extends above 50 feet. This structure contains circulation areas and mechanical equipment, which may extend above the 50 foot height limit. Ci~/ of Palo Alto Page 3 Building Setbacks The building setbacks would vary around the perimeter of the building. Along Lane 8 West, the applicants propose to dedicate an additional five feet of right away to allow a 20-foot wide alley for emergency access. The setback from this new property line would vary between zero and three feet. The Homer Street building setback is four feet, to allow tables and chairs to be placed in front of the building without extending into the public right-of-way. The High Street building setback rages from five feet to fifteen feet. The building setbacks along Channing Avenue range from zero to four feet. Landscape features, planter boxes and covered porches extend beyond the building face into these setbacks. Public Benefits As previously mentioned, the applicant’s public benefit package includes 57 spaces of public parking the in the underground garage; subterranean vehicular connections to the properties across from Lane 8 West, including the Alma Street Substation site, the Palo Alto Hardware site, and the Ole’s Auto Body site to accommodate ingress and egress areas for these properties should they be redeveloped in the future. Although not specifically part of the applicant’s public benefit package, the project includes a public plaza at the comer of High Street and Channing Avenue to provide open space opportunities for residents and the general public. BACKGROUND: The applicant presented the project to the Planning & Transportation Commission for the initial review on July 10, 2002. The oriNnal project included 61 residential units, approximately 1,800 square feet of retail space, a two-level underground garage, landscaping and other site improvements. The Commission made the following general comments on the project: The building height and mass are the main issues, not neeessary the number of units. The required Planned Community finding regarding compatibility with the existing and potential uses cannot be made. There is no support for the project until the compatibility issue is worked out. Floor area probably needs to be reduced before the finding for compatibility could be made. Reducing the size of the units may be part of the solution and in doing that, there might be an opportunity to reduce the mass of the building. The height and massing of the Homer Street frontage has improved. The third and fourth stories along Homer Street should be set back further into the lot. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The idea of the stoops facing High Street was supported, but there were concerns about exceeding the overall 50-foot height limit. Height should be reduced in some way with the goal of keeping the stoops. The public open space at Channing Avenue needs improvement, and also the open space in. general needs to be reevaluated. Massing schemes should be addressed in more detail. The entrances for the units on High Street should be visible from the street. The Commission forwarded the project to the ARB, with conditions. The conditions included: 1.The formal review by the ARB shall take place only after the supplement to the Draft Environmental Report has been circulated. The formal review by the ARB shall take place after the Commission has made a recommendation to the City Council regarding the South Of Forest Area 2 Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA 2 CAP). 3.The formal recommendation by the Commission to the City Council shall take place only after the City Council has made a decision regarding the SOFA 2 CAP. On November 18, 2002, the City Council continued the SOFA 2 CAP hearing to a date uncertain, until massing studies have been completed and presented to the boards and commissions for their recommendation to Council. The massing studies are under construction and are expected to be reviewed by the ARB and HRB in January, 2003 and the City Council in February, 2003. Architectural Review Board Review The ARB has reviewed the project three times since the July 10, 2002 Commission meeting. Summaries of those meetings are discussed below. October 17, 2002 The project was first presented to the ARB on October 17, 2002. This review coincided with the availability of the DFEIR, which was circulated on October 11, 2002. The ARB provided comments to the applicant with regard to massing and floor area distribution, colors and materials, placement of the garage entrance and retail spaces, setbacks and building articulation, the use of art in and around publicly accessible areas of the building and the inclusion of a comprehensive sustainability plan or "green building" plan for the project. City of Palo Alto Page 5 The project was continued to the November 21, 2002 ARB meeting. This date was chosen because the Council was expected to act on the SOFA 2 CAP on November 18, 2002. Council’s adoption of a SOFA 2 CAP would provide the ARB with standards to evaluate the project. As mentioned previously, the Council continued the discussion of the SOFA 2 CAP to a date uncertain. November 2], 2002 Although the City Council did not approve a SOFA 2 CAP on November 18, staff presented project revisions to the ARB on November 21. Staff recommended the ARB recommend approval of the project, based upon the existing Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and existing zoning requirements. Staff’ s recommended conditions included the requirement for the applicant to return to the ARB for further review if the project is not in compliance with any future SOFA 2 CAP policies and programs. The project revisions included a change to the Homer Avenue fa,cade. The architect proposed a revised building face that closely replicated the look of the Family Service Laundry building (which has been proposed to be demolished as part of the project). The new fa,cade was to duplicate the pattern of the parapet and the industrial sash and window system found on the existing building. A similar revision was made to the High Street fa,cade. Other revisions included adjustments in building massing (movement of residential portions of the building away from Homer Avenue), height (no roofs over living areas to extend beyond a height of 50 feet), setbacks, roof lines and colors and materials. Although the ARB was generally in support of the revisions, the applicant was asked to reconsider the proposed fa,cade element on Homer Avenue. The ARB encouraged the applicant to either save the Family Service Laundry Building fa,cade and incorporate it into the project, or respond with a building face that was an authentic representation of the former building. The ARB did not want a response that mimicked or replicated something that had been demolished. The ARB wanted to see warmer colors, design details of the street facing planter boxes, stoops and landscaping elements and additional work on the sustainability program. The project was continued to the December 5, 2002 ARB meeting. December 5, 2002 The applicant presented the requested revision to the ARB on December 5, 2002. The ARB found that the DFEIR was adequate in disclosing the significant environmental effects, identi~,ing measures to mitigate those significant impacts, and providing City of Palo Alto Page 6 sufficient information for officials to make decisions regarding the merits of the project. In addition, the ARB found the revisions to be satisfactory and recommended approval of the revised project subject to staff’s recommended conditions. The primary condition addresses the adoption of a SOFA 2 CAP. If the project does not comply in material respects with the City Council adopted SOFA 2 CAP (such as footprint, density, floor area ratio, lot coverage and height), revised plans consistent with the SOFA 2 CAP policies and programs would be forwarded to the ARB and HRB for their review and recommendation to the Planning & Transportation Commission. Historic Resources Board Review The HRB has reviewed the project at two meetings since the July 10, 2002 Commission meeting. Summaries of those meetings are discussed below. October 16, 2002 The project was presented to the HRB on October 16, 2002. The HRB focused its review on the compatibility of the project’s design with the Homer Avenue area. The HRB found that lowering the height of the project along Homer Avenue from the previously proposed 50 feet to 35 feet represented a positive response by the applicant to the HRB’s previous recommendations regarding the character of Homer Avenue. The Board also briefly inquired about the degree of recession of the proposed windows on the Homer Avenue elevation, the project’s proposed public benefits, the impact of work on the mid-block alley on adjacent business owners, and the availability of landscape plans and shading studies of the project. Most of the Board’s comments to the applicant concerned the feasibility of rehabilitating the Family Laundry building and incorporating it into theproject. The Board questioned why an underground parking garage could not be built under the Family Laundry building and whether all the concrete walls of the building are in poor condition. The Board recommended that the applicant provide a study of project alternatives that would show whether the Family Laundry building, or at least all or portions of the exterior including the roof monitor, could be incorporated into the project. The Board requested that the City’s Chief Building Official should review the applicant’s structural report on the Family Laundry building prepared by Meserve Engineering and commented that an independent historic preservation architect should evaluate the historic rehabilitation potential of the Family Laundry building. The project was continued to the November 20, 2002 HRB meeting. City of Palo Alto Page 7 November 20, 2002 Revisions to the project were presented to the HRB. At the meeting, the applicant’s architect stated, based on the findings of the Meserve Engineering report, that the necessary rehabilitation would result in the loss of the historic integrity of the building and, therefore the building’s preservation would be infeasible. Consequently, the architect did not provide a stud?, of the incorporation of the historic building into the project, but rather redesigned the project’s Homer Avenue fa.cade using design principles found in the Family Laundry building (as described above in the ARB’s review of the project on November 21, 2002). The resulting revised plans appeared to staff to achieve a high level of compatibility with Homer Avenue. Attempts were also made to reduce the apparent scale of the project along High Street and to bring the proposed trash chute tower into a closer design relationship with the project. The HRB found that the DFEIR is adequate in disclosing the significant environmental effects, in identifying measures to mitigate those si~ificant impacts, and in providing sufficient information for officials to make decisions regarding the merits of the project. However, the HRB requested that the Chief Building Official (CBO) conduct a peer review of the Meserve Engineering report. Staff will present the findings of the Chief Building Official’s review at the December 18, 2002 HRB meeting. The HRB recommended that if the Chief Building Official found that the exterior of the building is so deteriorated that is cannot be salvaged (thereby supporting the findings of the Meserve report), then the applicant be allowed to proceed with the revised project as reviewed at the November 20, 2002 HRB meeting. If the CBO finds that the exterior of the building is salvageable, the City should hire an independent historic engineer to inspect the Family Service Laundry building and present the inspection findings to the HRB. If the independent historic inspector finds that the exterior of the building can be rehabilitated in a manner that would preserve its historic integrety, those findings would be forwarded to the City Council for their revie~v. The City Council would have to weigh the benefits of retaining the Family Services Laundry building against the loss of housing units from the project and the potential loss of a significant portion of the project’s public benefits as described in Section 6 (page 82) of the DFEIR. In order to demolish the building, the City Counci! would have to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations outlining the benefits that would be lost to the City if the building were to be retained. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Comprehensive Plan Consistency In order to approve a Planned Community (PC) zone change, the Planning and City of Palo Alto Page 8 Transportation Commission and City Council must find that the permitted use(s) and the site development plan are consistent with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Because it includes more than the required number of below-market-rate units, the proposed unit density is consistent with the site’s land use designation under the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has found that the project will meet many of the policies and progams applicable to this project, including, Policy H-2: Policy H-4: Policy H-10: Policy T-l: Policy T-23: Policy T-47: Policy L-5: Policy L-9: Policy L-11: Policy 1-14: Policy L-!6: Policy L-25: Policy L-48: Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations; Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality; Encourage and foster diverse housing opportunities for very-low, low, and moderate income households; Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use; Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details; Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts; Maintain the Scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their scale and size; Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development; Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods; Design and arrange new multi-family buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces, so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street; Consider siting small neighborhood serving retail facilities in existing or new residential areas; Enhance the character of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed use area; Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces; City of Palo Alto Page 9 Policy L-49: Policy L-67: Policy L-70: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays, and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human scale details and massing; Balance traffic circulation needs with the goal of creating walkable neighborhoods that are designed and oriented towards pedestrians. Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system; There are two aspects of the proposed project that need to be evaluated for conformance with Comprehensive Plan policies. Those policies include: Policy L-51: Policy L-58: Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit, including residences listed on the historic inventory; Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings; South Of Forest Area Plan Consistency As a SOFA 2 CAP has not been adopted, it is premature to discuss how this project will comply with any new regulations. The applicant has proposed a project that generally complies with the existing Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance for PC districts (except for the preservation of historic resources and the maximum height within 150 feet of a PC district containing housing). However, the project can be compared with the two proposed SOFA plans under consideration by the Council, and with the Council’s 1997 policy framework for the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. If the Working Group recommendation for the elimination of PC districts from the SOFA 2 planning area is adopted, the zone change request to a PC district would be prohibited. At a FAR of 2.33, the proposed project would exceed the recommended FAR of both plans. In both proposals, the Working Group and Commission recommend that historic resources that are eligible for either the State or National Register of Historic Places be retained. The 1997 Council directive provides: Identify historically significant and contributing structures in the South of Forest Area and encourage the preservation and viable continued uses of landmark structures. Evaluate preservation and continued use of contributing structures that compose the heritage of the South of Forest Area. Recognize that in order to City of Palo Alto Page 10 achieve other plan objectives, not all historical structures may be able to be preserved, and examine alternatives including preservation, alteration, demolition and relocation. Staff is recommending that for any protected structure, an exception prdcess be implemented similar to the exception in PAMC, Section 16.49.060(a). This exception permits the City Council to allow demolition of structures that do not have a significant effect on the achievement of the historic purposes of the PAMC Chapter 16.49 (Historic Resources), or if the building does not retain any reasonable economic use, or if the Chief Building Official finds an imminent threat to safety if the building is not torn down. SOFA Policies and Pro~ams Although the recommended development standards vary between the Working Group and Commission recommendations, the Policies of the SOFA 2 CAP are essentially the same. The project would meet the following applicable SOFA 2 CAP (proposed) policies: Policy L-1: Policy L-3: Policy L-4: Policy L-6: Policy L-7: Policy H-l: Promote varied residential development and neighborhood services while sustaining the character and vitality of the commercial and public facilities. Create an active commercial center for the South of Forest Area by encouraNng neighborhood-serving businesses to locate along Emerson Street and Homer Avenue. Encourage pedestrian activity along Emerson Street and Homer Avenue through uses that include retail, personal service and restaurants. Incorporate frequent building entrances, storefront windows, pedestrian-scale signage, and outdoor activity spaces into new development in the entire SOFA 2 area to create a lively, pedestrian-friendly environment. Enhance the vitality and livability of the South of Forest Area by allowing a mixture of residential and neighborhood serving commercial land uses. Enhance the character of the South of Forest Area by ensuring that new residential development is compatible with existing residential areas and incorporates measures to minimize potential nuisance conflicts with existing commercial land uses. Within the SOFA area, Phases 1 and 2, provide for a total of 300 residential units and promote the retention of existing housing units and encourage the development of new housing units throughout the City of Palo Alto Page 11 e Policy H-6: e Policy T-3: Policy T-4: Policy T-5: Policy T-6: Policy CF- 1: Policy CF-2: Policy DC- !: Policy DC-2: Policy DC-4: South of Forest Area. Preserve existing affordable housing opportunities within the South of Forest Area and expand the supply of affordable housing units. Pursuant to the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, encourage transit- oriented development by allowing greater housing density in areas located nearest to major transit routes providing access to housing and employment centers. Encourage shared parking for all uses with different peak hour parking demands and provide parking reductions of up to 20% for mixed-use projects with a housing component that have shared parking facilities and offset peak hour parking needs, and parking reductions of up to 15% for projects with multiple commercial uses that have shared parking facilities and offset peak hour parking needs. Reduce impacts on residential areas adjacent to SOFA 2 area from the parking impacts of the downtown area and the Residential Transition Districts by encouraging shared parking facilities and below grade parking. Decrease the adverse visual impacts of surface parking and street level parking garages by encouraging parking for mixed use and multi-family residential parking to be either underground or otherwise not visible from adjacent roadways through the use of landscape screening. Allow parking reductions and flexibility for historic buildings to avoid conflicts between preservation and provision of parking. Develop Urban Design Plan for improvements in the public right-of- way including street furniture, lighting and other amenities. Encourage private development proposals to accommodate publicly accessible open spaces and connections to other open spaces where feasible. Encourage establishment of usable outdoor pedestrian open spaces, plazas, etc. with pedestrian amenities. Promote quality design as defined by massing, detail, materials, etc. Implementation of the design guidelines should allow for flexibility and diversity in relation to the overall context of the neighborhood. With new development, require new street trees, storefront treatment of front facades, pedestrian scale signage, pedestrian/seating, sidewalk widening, and other improvements to improve pedestrian experience throughout SOFA 2. Incorporate transition techniques into new buildings to blend higher City of Palo Alto Page 12 Policy DC-5" Policy DC- 15" Policy PPT-3" Policy PPT-4: Policy PPT-5" density housing or mixed-use projects into the existing lower density residentia! housing adjacent to the southeastern portion of the plan area. Permit planned community districts, subject to specific development standards, to permit higher FARs in the SOFA 2 area for residential use. Require planned community districts to provide specific public benefits. Encourage new development to provide public art within all major projects. The art is to be reviewed and approved by the Public Art Commission. Any new- development or substantial renovation of an existing building within the Plan Area should consider the replacement of any "missing" street trees at an interval of approximately 20-25 feet on center. Street tree selection should be in accordance with the proposed street tree species shown in Appendix D (of the SOFA CAP) or as otherwise approved by the City. Adopt city policies that require use of structural soil to promote tree gow-th when sidewalks are replaced. However, there are two aspects of the proposed project that require further evaluation with the proposed SOFA 2 CAP policies. Those policies include: Policy DC-7: Policy DC-11" Require public and private efforts to maintain, preserve, and use historic buildings and other historic resources in order to maintain the scale and character of the area. Promote continuation or restoration of the original use of SOFA 2 Historic Resources wherever possible, but allow adaptive reuse if compatible with preservation of historic features where original use is infeasible. Below Market Rate Housing The revised Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan has identified 800 High Street as a Housing Oppommity Site. Under existing zoning, the site would allow up to 26 housing units. The proposed project, which includes a zone change to a Planned Community district, would include 61 housing units, including 11 below market rate units. The Comprehensive Plan contains policies and progams intended to promote a wide City of Palo Alto Page 13 variety of housing types, sizes and densities within the city. Program H-3 states, "Encourage zoning incentives that encourage the development of diverse housing types, including smaller; more affordable units and two- and three-bedroom units suitable for families with children. "The project complies with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed BMR units will provide affordable homeownership for ten households of two to four persons and one household of one or two persons. It is expected that a significant number of the two-bedroom BMR units would be purchased by households with children, most likely one child. Although the project includes 22 three-bedroom units, no three bedroom units will provided as BMR units. Because of the location in a mixed use area and the higher density, the project is better suited to providing housing for small households with and without children. The developer has proposed one 1-bedroom and ten two-bedroom units ranging from approximately 750 to 950 square feet in size. The market rate two-bedroom units range in size from 960 square feet to 1,206 square feet. Both the one and two bedroom BMR units have one bath. Each BMR unit has a private deck. One 1-bedroom, 1 bath 752 sq. ft Three 2-bedroom, 1 bath 913 sq. ft Four 2-bedroom, 1 bath 950 sq. ft Three 2-bedroom, 1 bath 951 sq. ft The BMR units are located on each of the three residential floors of the project. Two- thirds of the units shall be affordable to families with an annual income between 80% and 100% of the 2002 HUD median income for Santa Clara County. The remaining units will be affordable to families with a income between 100% and 120% of the 2002 HUD median for Santa Clara County. A Draft BMR agreements will be presented to the Commission when staff returns with a comprehensive draft Planned Community ordinance. Easements and Parking A~eements The project requires a number of access easements, surface rights and parking agreements, and encroachments. The ultimate purpose of the easements and .agreements is to create a successful project that meets Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and to provide the City with the maximum flexibility for future development and improvements to the public lands that surround the site. The vehicular access agreement between the project site and the lands across from Lane 8 West would be established as part of the project’s public benefit package. This agreement City of Palo Alto Page 14 will allow those lands with frontage on the 800 block of Alma Street to have vehicular access via the subterranean tunnel in the garage of 800 High Street. Automobiles will enter the garage via the entrance on High Street and follow circulation routes under Lane 8 West to access the subterranean garages under each of the properties. The routes will be created as the sites along Alma Street are developed. The developer of 800 High Street has proposed three areas along the west wall of the first level in the garage. The three proposed openings would serve the sites containing Palo Alto Hardware, the Utilities Substation and Ole’s Garage. A fourth opening could be established for the site containing the RK Design building, but would result in the loss of three spaces allocated as part of the applicant’s public benefit package. As the sites are developed, the City wil! work to create the most efficient parking and circulation schemes. The establishment of the 800 High Street automobile entry as the main point of access to the Alma Street subterranean spaces is not expected to create significant traffic impacts. The main auto entry on High Street will remove potentially dangerous automobile ingress./egress points along Alma Street, a main arterial road between North and South Palo Alto. The City would grant the developer rights to develop the garage under the entire width of Lane 8 West and up to a width of three feet under the sidewalk at High Street, between Homer and Channing Avenues. In return, the applicant would grant the City 57 parking spaces, to be used for public use and to be maintained by the developer at city expense. The City would have exclusive ri~ts to these spaces and would control how the spaces would be used. The developer has indicated that if the City does not pay the cost of maintaining the spaces, the number of public parking spaces would have to be reduced to 55. The developer would then sell the use rights to the two spaces and use the funds for maintenance costs. The developer would grant an easement to the City for a five-foot wide strip of land adjacent to Lane 8 West between Homer and Channing Avenue to widen the alley to 20 feet. This would allow emergency vehicle to access all areas of the project site. The alley would continued to be used as publicly accessible alley. The property owners would maintain the ability to conduct loading and unloading activities in the alley. The City would also retain sufficient rights to permit it to place furore utility lines and conduits in the garage along Lane 8 West. This provision would ensure that the City continues to enjoy subterranean rights to locate, repair and expand utilities within the easement. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Draft agreements on the parking, access, and encroachments will be presented to the Commission when staff returns with a comprehensive draft Planned Community ordinance. Floor Area Bonus As previously stated, the Comprehensive Plan allows a density bonus for the addition of more BMR units to a project. The Comprehensive Plan also allows the floor area as a result of the additional BMR and market rate units to be included as bonus floor area, above what is normally allowed on the site (Comprehensive Plan., Program H-21). This project complies with the Comprehensive Plan in this regard. Public Open Space The city acknowledges the public plaza at the corner of High Street and Channing Avenue as open space area that can be used by residents and the general public. Staff will recommend that the restroom facilities located within the retail areas at Homer Avenue be available for use by the public. Si~ificant Impacts Which can be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level. The DEIR identifies potentially significant environmental effects of the Project in regard to Land Use and Planning; Aesthetics; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Transportation and Circulation. Each of the Mitigation Measures summarized below- is more fully described in the DFEIR Aesthetics Impact 4.1-1 concerns potential light and glare impacts created by public and private nighttime light sources. These impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 (selection and placement of exterior lights to reduce light and glare impacts). Air Quality Impact 4.2-1 concerns any air quality standard impacts created by construction. These impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 (compliance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) basic control measures). Cultural Resources Impact 4.3-1 concerns impacts to archeological or paleontological resources. Excavation could uncover unknown archeological resources. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 City of Palo Alto Page 16 (archeological monitoring and, in the event of cultural deposits encountered, delaying further work until a feasible plan for avoidance or excavation is created and implemented) will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Land Use and Planning Impact 4.4-1 concerns impacts resulting from conflicts with Comprehensive Plan Designation, Specific Plan, or the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project would conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and for preservation of historic resources. The proposed project would conflict with the zoning ordinance for establishment of Planned Community districts in terms of maximum height of the project within 150 feet of an existing applicable PC district. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 would reduce some impacts to a less than significant level. However, the demolition of the structure would result in an unavoidable adverse impact to a historic resource. Noise Impact 4.5-1 concerns severe noise levels of greater than 80 dBA could be generated at the building fa,cade at anytime during the day from vehicle traffic or operations associated with the CalTrain railroad. Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 (using window with a high Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating for interior noise reduction), 4.5-2 (use of design features on the building for exterior noise reduction), and 4.5-3 (submittal of a construction management plan) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Traffic and Transportation Impact 4.6-1 concerns impacts from increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 (a fair-share contribution to a traffic signal at the Alma Street and Channing Avenue intersection if Homer/Channing circulation is changed to a two- way system) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Significant Impacts Which Cannot be Fully Mitigated Demolition of the Family Service Laundry Building The existing Family Service Laundry building is eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. In order to demolish the buildingl the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be certified, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council. This process allows the City to approv~ the demolition of the historic structure if the benefits of the new development substantially outweigh the benefits of retaining the historic structure. City of Palo Alto Page 17 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is subject to environmental review under the provisions to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The SOFA Program Environmental Impact Report was prepared in November, 1999 for a 10-acre parcel that was vacated by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, to be replaced with single and multiple family uses and public facilities. The 800 High Street project is located within the SOFA program area. Although the SOFA Program EIR was the basis for the Draft Focused EIR that has been prepared, the DFEIR is not a tiered EIR. Subsequently, the DFEIR is a Project EIR that Satisfies Article 7 of the CEQA guidelines for the development of environmental impact reports. The DFEIR was available for a 45-day period from October ! 1 though November 25, 2002. The DFEIR was sent to the Commission at the start of the public circulation period, October 11 through November 25, 2002. Staff received a comment letter from the Valley Transportation Authority. The letter did not raise significant environmental issues. The City will prepare written responses to all comments received related to environmental issues and publish the comments and responses together with the revised Draft EIR in the form of a Final EIR. The City Council is required to review and certify" the Final EIR prior to taking action on the project. NEXT STEPS: The Commission will hold a second public hearing on January 15, 2003, at which time recommendations on the Final EIR and the project will be made to City Council. COURTESY COPIES: Applicant!Owner: Palo Alto High Street Partners, LLC, 909 Alma Street, Palo Alt0, 94301 Woody Gontina, Gazelle, LLC, 1450 Veterans Blvd., Redwood City, CA 94063 Jon Worden, 512 Matheson Street, Healdsburg, CA 95448 Carol Jansen, 575 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ian Irwin, 800 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301-2813 Joe Yarkin, 152 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Pamela Christensen, 788 Clara Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Larry Hassett, 875 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Jim Burch, Councilmember, City Hall Yoriko Kishimoto, Councilmember, City Hall Historic Resources Board City of Palo Alto Page 18 ATTACItNENT S/EXI-IIBITS: Attachment A:DFEIR comments received during the comment period Attachment B:Plan sets -P&TC members only Prepared by: Steven Turner, Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning Approval: /:e~~e~Em~~orStDepartment/Division Head /.. /Community Environment Planning and City of Palo Alto Page 19 Attachment M PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Steven Turner, Planner January 15, 2003 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment 800 High Street [02-PC-01]: Request by High Street Partners, LLC for review of an application for a zone change from the Commercial Downtown Service with Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S(P)) district to Planned Community (PC) zone, to allow the demolition of an existing + 17,600 square foot building and to allow the construction of 61 residential units, +_ 1,900 square feet of neighborhood serving retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements and a variance for a portion of the fourth floor that exceeds the City’s height requirement. Enviromnental Assessment: A Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission review and consider the Draft Environmental hnpact Report (DEIR) and make the following recormnendations to the City Council: Grant a zone change from the existing Downtown Coxmnercial Service with Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S(P)) to Planned Cormnunity (PC). The draft ordinance is provided as Attachment B, subject to condition 2 and 3 below. City of Palo Alto Page 1 2.Revise the Project, (in accordance with the Cormnission’s prior recommendations for the South of Forest Area 2Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA 2 CAP) as follows: A. Reduce the floor area ratio to 2.0:1 or less. B. Reduce the size of individual units as necessary to that none exceed 1,500 square feet. C.Reduce the daylight plane encroachment along High Street to a maximum of fifteen linear feet. This condition 2 shall apply only if the City Council adopts a South of Forest Area 2 Coordinated Area Plan prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, and within six months after council adoption of the PC ordinance for this project. o Retain the historic Family Service Laundry building unless the City Council finds preserving it substantially impedes the attaimnent of other Coordinated Area Plan objectives. Grant a variance from the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.68.150(b) to allow those portions of the project within 150 feet of the Planned Community District at 901 Alma Street (PC-4389) to extend above 35 feet, based upon the findings as listed in Attaclvnent D. Approve the Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing plan for the sale of the 11 BMR units, with the sale price of seven of the units is set in the range of affordability for persons within the 80-100% of the median family income in Santa Clara County and 4 units with sales prices for persons at 100-! 20% of the median income. A draft of the BMR agreement letter between the developer and the City is in Attachment E. Require expansion and redesign of the project’s private, common, and publicly accessible open space areas and require that restroom facilities in the retail establishment at Homer Avenue to be made available to the public during normal business hours. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of the following components: Demolition of all existing structures on the site, including one of cultural significance. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Sixty-one (61) for-sale residential units, including eleven Below Market Rate 0~MR) units. The unit distribution includes one one-bedroom unit, 38 two-bedroom units and 22 three-bedroom units. The total residential floor area would be approximately 78,700 square feet. The BMR units include one one-bedroom and 10 two-bedroom units with one bath. The BMR units range in size from approximately 750 square feet to 950 square feet. A total of approximately 1,900 square feet of retail space, located in two separate retail units. Both units would have frontage on Homer Avenue. The space closest to the comer of High Street and Homer Avenue would have direct access to the courtyard on High Street, which would be open to the general public, whether or not they patronized the retail businesses. A t~vo level, subterranean parking garage providing 201 parking spaces. The garage would provide parking for the residential and retail uses of the building. Fifty- seven City-managed spaces are proposed as a public benefit. The garage would extend under the entire width of Lane 8 West and under the sidewalk along High Street, three feet beyond the property line. Vehicular access to possible future subterranean garages below the parcels on the 800 block of Alma Street. These parcels include a city-owned substation site has been identified as a site for housing in the Housing Element. The availability of an underground connection to the garage, with an exit on High Street, would increase the number of housing units that could be acco~nodated on that site while furthering pedestrian friendly design of the entire block. A plaza area at the corner of Channing Avenue and High Street, providing seating, landscaping, and a water feature, open to the general public. Site Information The proposed project site consists of three parcels that total 42,000 square feet in size. The site encompasses the half-block area bounded by High Street, Homer Avenue, Chaiming Avenue, and Lane 8 West, a 15’ wide alley lying between High and Alma Streets (Lane 8 West). The site may be accessed from all of the above streets and the alley. The site is currently occupied by buildings associated with the Peninsula Creamery. The largest of the buildings is located at the comer of High Street and Homer Avenue (140 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Homer Avenue). This building, formerly the Family Service Laundry, has been identified as eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. Across High Street to the northeast of the project site are several small office buildings, most of which are one story with a second story set back from High Street. Across Channing Avenue to the southeast is the Peninsula Creamery Dairy Shop, which appears to be a single story structure with a tall parapet. Adjacent to the Creamery building at the corner of Channing Avenue and Alma Street is a four-story building at 901 Alma Street. Across Lane 8 from the project site is the Palo Alto Hardware building (one story with a tall parapet), the electrical substation, and Ole’s Garage (a single story structure). Across Homer Avenue to the northwest of the project site is an office building with one and two story components, while a 50 foot high self storage and retail building is located directly north of the site across the intersection of Homer Avenue and High Street. The proposed building incorporates three and four story elements. The three story elements, along Homer Avenue would be approximately 35 feet in height. The four story elements would range in height from approximately 39 feet (at the building face along High Street) to 50 feet at residential roof the peak). The building height along Lane 8 West would be 47 feet. Heights along Channing Avenue would be 45 feet. A trash/recycling/stair~vay structure at the midpoint of the site along Lane 8 West would extend above 50 feet. This structure would contain circulation areas and mechanical equipment. The proposed building setbacks vary around the perimeter of the building. Along Lane 8 West, there would be no setback. However, the owners of the project would dedicate a five-foot strip to the City along the length of the alley to permit its widening to 20 feet for emergency access. The Homer Street building face would generally be set back four feet to allow tables and chairs to be placed in front of the building without extending into the public right-of-way. The High Street building face setback would range from five to fifteen feet. The building setback along Channing Avenue would range from zero to four feet. However, covered porches, landscape features, planter boxes and covered porches would be closer to the edge of the property, as shown in the project plans. The proposed project requires a zone change from Downtown Co~mnercial Service with Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S(P)) to Planned Community (PC). The project will also require a variance from Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.68.150 to allow a portion of the fourth story to exceed the 35-foot height limit within 150 feet of an existing residential Planned Community (PC-4389). City of Palo Alto Page 4 PROJECT HISTORY: Planning & Transportation Commission Review At the December 18, 2002 Planning & Transportation Commission meeting, the Commiss]on opened the public hearing on the adequacy of the DFEIR. Staff received oral cormnents from the Commission and members of the public. The Commission then closed the public hearing on the DFEIR. The Commission also opened the public hearing to discuss the project. Staff received oral comments from the Commission and members of the public. The Commission continued the public hearing on the project to January 15, 2002. Staff requested that the Commission comment on five key areas: Consistency of the project with the Comprehensive Plan and the South Of Forest Area 2 Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA 2 CAP) recommendations from the SOFA 2 Working Group and the Planning and Transportation Commission. o Adequacy of the Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program in terms of the number of units offered, the size and floor plan of the units, their location within the development, and their affordability to the community. Easements and parking agreements, including the proposal by the developer to grant 57 parking spaces to the City as a public benefit, the establishment of subterranean vehicular access ways between the project and the properties on the 800 block of Alma Street, and subterranean encroaclvnents under Lane 8 West and the High Street sidewalk to accommodate the parking garage. Granting of a floor area bonus above what is normally allowed on the site, since additional BMR and market rate units are to be included in the project pursuant to the December 2002 Housing Element, Program H-37. 5.Public open space on the project site and a recommendation to require that the restroom facilities in the retail spaces be available to the public. The Commission made the following comments regarding these five issues: Consistency with SOFA 2 CAP- The project should be reviewed using the recommended SOFA 2 CAP under consideration by City Council. However, the Commission should be flexible and not ignore that there are existing standards of City of Palo Alto Page 5 review that apply to this project. Adequacy of the BMR program- The program, as proposed is generally adequate. Increasing the BMR unit count would provide additional public benefits. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation should be consulted on the adequacy of the program, the size and location of the units within the project and sale price of the units. Easements and Parking Spaces- 57 parking spaces are a significant public benefit to help reduce parking impacts in the neighborhood. If a lower FAR requirement for the project results in the loss of public parking, then other benefits that are more beneficial to the enviromnent should be considered. Attention should be given to the on-site circulation patterns. Whether the subterranean garage access actually results in more affordable housing and other benefits depends upon future development decisions. Floor Area Bonus- Planned Community districts allow for floor areas beyond what underlying zoning would allow. Floor are bonuses for additiona! BMR units may justify an FAR higher than 2.0 to 1. Public Open Space / Restrooms- Private open space for individual units, common open space for the occupants of the project, and space open to the general public are all critical to the success of the project. The amount of open space accessible to the public should be increased and designed so that it may used by the general public. Private open spaces should exist not only at the ground level, but also above ground in the form of roof decks and gardens. The Homer Avenue and High Street comer should have a public gathering emphasis. Semi-Public/Private spaces can be designed well, but shouldn’t make up the majority of publicly-accessible open space on the project. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES: South Of Forest Area Plan Consistency As a SOFA 2 CAP has not been adopted, discussion of compliance with it is somewhat hypothetical. The applicant has proposed a project that generally complies with the existing Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance for PC districts, though the Comprehensive Plan encourages preservation of historic resources and a height variance is required in one area. At the December 18, 2002 meeting, the Cormnission generally agreed that the project should be reviewed under the policies, program and regulations of the SOFA 2 CAP that was recommended to Council, with the understanding that the project is subject only to City of Palo Alto Page 6 the existing regulations for properties within the SOFA 2 plan area. The Commission’s comments at the meeting indicated that the project should be held to the Commission’s recommendations for the SOFA 2 CAP. Attachment F contains "Table 1: Comparison of Proposed Project to Commission and Working Group Recommended SOFA 2 CAPs." In summary, the project does not comply with the Commission’s recommendations for floor area, unit size and daylight plane encroachments. The project does comply with the existing requirements for PC districts (except for maximum height adjacent to a residential PC property). Staff recommends that the PC Ordinance provide that the project comply with certain SOFA 2 CAP standards if the CAP is adopted in the near future. In both proposals, the Working Group and Commission recormnend that historic resources that are eligible for either the State or National Register of Historic Places be retained. The 1997 Council directive is as follows: Identify historically significant and contributing structures in the South of Forest Area and encourage the preservation and viable continued uses of landmark structures. Evaluate preservation and continued use of contributing structures that compose the heritage of the South of Forest Area. Recognize that in order to achieve other plan objectives, not all historical structures may be able to be preserved, and examine alternatives including preservation, alteration, demolition and relocation. Staff is reco~mnending that for any protected structure, an exception process be implemented similar to the provision in PAMC, Section 16.49.060(a). This provision permits the City Council to authorize demolition of structures if demolition would allow the achievement of major public benefits that could not be achieved in any other way, or if the building does not retain any reasonable economic use, or if the Chief Building Official finds an imminent threat to safety if the building is not torn down. The Historic Family Service Laundry Building The Family Service Laundry building that is on the 800 High Street project site would be eligible for the historic preservation exception if it is adopted by Council. The Family Service Laundry building is eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. In order to demolish the building, the Focused Environmental Impact Report must be certified, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council. This process allows the City to approve the demolition of the historic structure if the benefits of the new development substantially outweigh the benefits of retaining the City of Palo Alto Page 7 historic structure. The applicants have provided an updated structural study describing the physical conditions of the existing building and the feasibility of preserving a substantial quantity of the historic materials (prepared by Meserve Engineering, December 12, 2001). The report concludes that much of the existing structure will need to be shored, removed, and replaced in order to meet current structural codes. Historic Resources Board Review On November 20, 2002, the HRB requested that the Chief Building Official (CBO) conduct a peer review of the Meserve Engineering report and an analysis of the structural integrity of the Family Service Laundry Building. The CBO conducted an on-site inspection of the building and reviewed the Meserve Engineering Report. The CBO found that the exterior of the building is salvageable, but may not be worth preserving due to its deteriorated condition. The CBO’s statement regarding the building’s condition was, "Being objective, the building could be preserved and strengthened for seismic forces. The concrete strength meeting the minimum 2000 psi for epoxy anchors is a moot point. Through anchors and embedded steel plates could be utilized to encapsulate the existing concrete walls. The entire roof structure would undoubtedly need replacement. There are existing very light gauge steel trusses that have been basically butchered over the years. Having said that, and from a practical point ofvie~v, is the structure worth saving? Probably not. There is significant spalling of concrete in many locations due to corrosion of the reinforcing steel. The Homer Street fagade has been modified by saw cutting the original window openings to make the openings larger. There are no windows in these openings to preserve. If strengthened, we would have a strengthened bad building. If I had to rank the cost of preservation from low to high, this one would be very high." At the January 8, 2003 HRB meeting, the Board reviewed several model studies relating to historic rehabilitation of deteriorated buildings, and adopted a revised final recommendation to the City Council regarding the Family Service Laundry building as follows: The Board recommends to the City Council that prior to Council’s decision on the building, a Focused Feasibility Study be prepared by a preservation architect with structural engineering and rehabilitation economics expertise to determine the technical and economic feasibility of rehabilitating the Family Service Laundry building under the Secretary of the Interior’s City of Palo Alto Page 8 Standards for Rehabilitation, and that if the City Council elects to preserve the building, that a Historic Structure Report be prepared by a qualified consultant to guide the rehabilitation of the building under the Secretary’s Standards. On January 8, 2003, the HRB reaffirmed its cormnitment to further study of the building’s structural integrity. The HRB voted (4-1-1-0) to recommend that the developer be directed to conduct a Historic Structure Report to determine if the building could be successfully rehabilitated. This report would be presented to the City Council at the time of final review of the project. Below Market Rate Housing The revised Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan has identified 800 High Street as a Housing Opportunity Site. Under existing zoning, the site would allow up to 26 housing units. The proposed project, which includes a zone change to a Planned Community district, would provide 61 housing units, including 11 below market rate units. The BMR units would be located on each of the four residential floors of the project. Two-thirds of the units (7 units) would be affordable to families with an annual income between 80% and 100% of the 2002 HUD median income for Santa Clara County. The remaining 4 units would be affordable to families with an income between 100% and 120% of the 2002 HUD median for Santa Clara County. The BMR unit mix of ten two-bedroom units and one one-bedroom unit is not the mix that an across-the board sample would produce (one third of the units in the building are three bedroom units). A goal of the BMR program is to make the units as attractive to as many qualified purchasers as possible. Based upon input from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, the most popular units are the two bedroom units, which may up most of the BMR units offered in this project. Staff recognizes the importance of making the units similar to the market rate units. However, the BMR program may not be as successful if there are fewer homebuyers who Yvould qualify for the larger units. By selecting the unit size and configuration as proposed, staff feels that the units will be more affordable and will attract a larger pool of qualified homebuyers. In addition, the units complement the larger units proposed at the nearby Oak Court development. A draft BMR agreement letter, outlining staff’s recommended selling price for the units, is included in Attachment E. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Easements and Parking Agreements The project requires a number of access easements, surface rights and parking agreements, and encroachments. The ultimate purpose of the easements and agreements is to create a successful project that meets Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and to provide the City with the maximum flexibility for future development and improvements to the public lands that surround the site. The vehicular access agreement between the project site and the lands across from Lane 8 West would be established as part of the project’s public benefit package. This agreement would allow those lands with frontage on the 800 block of Alma Street to have vehicular access via the subterranean tunnel in the garage of 800 High Street. Automobiles would enter the garage via the entrance on High Street and follow circulation routes under Lane 8 West to access the subterranean garages under each of the properties. The routes will be created as the sites along Ahna Street are re-developed. The developer of 800 High Street has proposed three areas along the west wall of the first level in the garage. The three proposed openings would ser~re the sites containing Palo Alto Hardware, the Utilities Substation and Ole’s Garage. A fourth opening could be established for the site containing the RK Design building, but would result in the loss of three spaces allocated as part of the applicant’s public benefit package. As the Alma Street sites are re- developed, the City would work to create the most efficient parking and circulation schemes. The City would grant the developer rights to develop the garage under the entire width of Lane 8 West and up to a width of three feet under the sidewalk at High Street, between Homer and Channing Avenues. The applicant may also be legally required to obtain the consent of the adjacent property owners on Alma Street. The developer would bear all costs of constructing and maintaining these spaces for the life of the project. The applicant would grant the City 57 parking spaces to manage in its discretion. Although the plans indicate proposed locations for the spaces, the final layout and circulation patterns would be established before City Council review of the project. The developer would also dedicate to the City a five-foot wide strip of land adjacent to Lane 8 West between Homer and Channing Avenue to widen the alley to 20 feet. This would allow emergency vehicle to access all areas of the project site. The alley would continue to be used as publicly accessible alley. The property owners would maintain the ability to conduct loading and unloading activities in the alley. The City would also obtain rights from the project owners to place utility facilities in the garage along Lane 8 West, essentially a relocation of its existing rights to do so in the alley. City of Palo Alto Page 10 POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Comprehensive Plan Consistency In order to approve a Planned Community (PC) zone change, the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council must find that the permitted use(s) and the site development plan are consistent with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Because it includes more than the required number of below-market-rate units, the proposed unit density is consistent with the site’s land use designation under the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has found that the project will meet many of the policies and programs applicable to this project, including, Policy H-2: Policy H-4: Policy H-10: Policy T-l: Policy T-23: Policy T-47: Policy L-5: Policy L-9: Policy L- 11 : Policy 1-14: Policy L-16: Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations; Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality; Encourage and foster diverse housing opportunities for very-low, low, and moderate income households; Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use; Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details; Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts; Maintain the Scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their scale and size; Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development; Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods; Design and arrange new multi-family buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces, so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street; Consider siting small neighborhood serving retail facilities in existing or new residential areas; City of Palo Alto Page 11 Policy L-25: Policy L-48: Policy L-49: Policy L-67: Policy L-70: Enhance the character of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed use area; Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces; Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays, and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human scale details and massing; Balance traffic circulation needs with the goal of creating walkable neighborhoods that are designed and oriented towards pedestrians. Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system; There are two aspects of the proposed project that need to be evaluated for conformance with Comprehensive Plan policies. Those policies include: Policy L-51 : Policy L-58: Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit, including residences listed on the historic inventOry; Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings. The applicant has evaluated the potential for preservation of the Family Service Laundry building, but has concluded that preservation of the structure would seriously impact the feasibility of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is subject to enviromnental review under the provisions to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The SOFA Program Environmental Impact Report was prepared in November 1999 for an approximately 50-acre area bounded by Forest Avenue, Kipling Street, Addison Avenue and Alma Street. The 800 High Street project is located within the SOFA program area. Although the SOFA Program EIR was a reference document for the DEIR for this project, the DEIR is not technically a tiered EIR. The DFEIR is a Project EIR that satisfies Article 7 of the CEQA guidelines for the development of environmental impact reports. City of Palo Alto Page 12 The DEIR was available for a 45-day period from October 11 though November 25, 2002. The DEIR was sent to the Commission at the start of the public circulation period, October 11 through November 25, 2002. The Commission held a public hearing on the DEIR at the meeting of December 18, 2002. Staff is preparing responses to these ~ormnents, which will be available as part of a Final EIR to be submitted to City Council for review. DEIR Response to Comments / Text Revisions Staff is also preparing text revisions to the DEIR, which will include updated information on the project, significant impacts and the review process, edits to the text, and revisions to provide clarification of information contained in the report. Staff has identified three areas within the DEIR that will be clarified in the FEIR: Section 1.2 Required Project Approvals- The Draft Focused EIR addressed all of the required components normally found in a Draft EIR; essentially, it is a project specific enviromnental review document. This document referenced the 1999 SOFA CAP EIR, but did not "tier" from that EIR. The City Council reviewed the SOFA 2 CAP and EIR Addendum and continued the review to a date uncertain. Section 4.4 Land Use Planning- A variance from the requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18: Zoning is not necessarily a significant impact in itself. The potential for a significant impact should be measured in terms of how that portion of the project that requires a variance will ultimately affect the environment if the variance is granted. The 800 High Street project would require a variance for those portions of the structure that exc(ed a maximum height of 35 feet and are located within 150 feet of the residential PC project at 901 Alma Street. In order to grant the variance, the City shall demonstrate that the request meets the adopted findings for approval. Staff has analyzed the request for a variance and has determined that those findings for approval can be made (Attachment D). Specifically, the findings address how the variance will not be harmful or detrimental to property owners or residents in the area, which includes mitigation (building design, setbacks, articulation) that would reduce the potential the potential significant impact to a less than signifieant level. Section 4.6 Transportation and Circulation- The basis for Impact 4.6-1 regarding the potential for increased traffic delays at the Alma Street and Channing Avenue locations is the future implementation of two-way traffic on Homer and Channing Avenues. The DFEIR addresses the project traffic impacts and found that there would be a potential City of Palo Alto Page 13 significant impact only if two-way traffic were reinstated. Neither the SOFA 2 CAP nor the proposed project would reinstate this traffic pattern prior to construction of the project. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts to traffic delays in the study intersections and the requirement for a traffic signal is not warranted. The Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Attacl~nent H) will provide the City of Palo Alto with a guideline of procedures to ensure that the mitigation measures required under the certified EIR are implemented properly. Since each required mitigation measure approved as part of the final EIR must be implemented, a monitoring and reporting program was created, which are attached to the staff report. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Draft PC Ordinance Draft CEQA Resolution Variance Findings Draft BMR Agreement Letter Table 1: Comparison of Proposed Project to Commission and Working Group Recommended SOFA 2 CAPs; Recommended Conditions of Approval Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Plan COURTESY COPIES: Applicant/Owner: Palo Alto High Street Partners, LLC, 909 Ahna Street, Palo Alto,94301 Woody Gontina, Gazelle, LLC, 1450 Veterans Blvd., Redwood City, CA 94063 Jon Worden, 512 Matheson Street, Healdsburg, CA 95448 Carol Jansen, 575 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ian Irwin, 800 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301-2813 Joe Yarkin, 152 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Pamela Christensen, 788 Clara Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Herb Borock, RO. Box 632, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Larry Hassett, 875 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Marlene Pendergrast, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, 725 Alma St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 Steve Reyna, 840 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, 94301 Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, Palo Alto, 94306 Irwin Dawid, 723 Alma Street, Palo Alto, 94301 Ole Christensen, 801 Ahna Street, Palo Alto, 94301 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Jean McCowan, 1717 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, 94303 Historic Resources Board Prepared by: Steven Turner, Planner"~’1 Reviewed by: AmyFrench, Manager of C Department~ivision Head Approval ~hiefPla~g Official City of Palo Alto Page 15 Attachment N ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 800 HIGH STREET FROM CD-S(P) TO PC PLANNED COMMUNITY AND APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM A HEIGHT REQUIREMENT The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. Application and Hearings. (a) Application has been made to the City for approval of the demolition of an existing ±17,600 square foot manufacturing building at 140 Homer Avenue, and the construction on an approximately 1 acre site bounded by Homer Avenue, High Street, Channing Avenue and Lane 8 of a ±96,200 square foot mixed-use building including 61 for-sale dwelling units, ±1,900 square feet of retail space, and a subterranean parking garage (the "Project"). (b) The Architectural Review Board at its meeting of December 5, 2002 considered the Project, which then included 61 dwelling units, and recommended its approval, subject to certain conditions. (c) The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held December 18, 2002 and January 15, 2003, recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth to permit construction of the Project. (d) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public -interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2.Variance. The Project requires a variance from the height and daylight plane requirements of Section 18.68.150 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which reduces height limits from 50 feet to 35 feet within a !50-foot radius of a planned community district which includes residentia! uses. (a) The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held December 18, 2002 and January 15, 2003, recommended 030130 syn 0091188 that the variance be granted, on condition that certain alterations be made in the proposed massing of the structure along the Channing Avenue edge to provide a better transition to other development, even though this might result in the loss of one or two dwelling units. (b) The Council finds, with respect to the subject property, that: (i) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that in this case, the 35 foot height restriction, designed to protect existing residential development from the impact of taller buildings in the vicinity, is triggered by a building which is itself 50 feet tall. (ii) The granting of the application to construct a portion of the building above the 35 foot height at the southwest corner of the building is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia! property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that it would permit the higher housing density that is supported by the City’s Comprehensive Plan, it permits the construction of up to five of the dwelling units in a project within 2,000 feet of the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station that otherwise would be omitted, it will enhance the design of the building, it is needed to preserve the quality of the living spaces within the building, it would preserve stairway access to the upper floors, and it would permit heights in keeping with an area that provides a transition from two and three story buildings on Alma Street and Homer Avenue to the single family residences further south along High Street. (iii) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimenta! to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposed height in a portion of the southwest corner of the building would be adequate to provide and maintain privacy, light, air and natural screening for future residents of the development as wel! as the existing residents of the mixed use building located at 901 Alma Street. Because this project is itself residential, the prohibitions would not apply if the residence at 901 Alma Street had been constructed under multiple family zoning, without mixed use. Furthermore, privacy, light, and air will not be compromised given that the intrusions are comprised of articulated forms that are setback from property lin~s and only minimally cast shadow beyond property lines during short periods per day at certain weeks of the year. No shadows will be cast on the residential units at 901 High Street. The applicant must propose further reductions in the massing of the building in the reduced height area for review and recommendation 030130 syn 0091188 2 by the Architectural Review Board and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. (d) A variance from the height and daylight plane requirements of Section 18.68.150 of the PaSo Alto Municipal Code is hereby granted. The extent of the deviation from these height and daylight plane requirements shall be that shown on the final deve!opment plans reviewed and approved pursuant to Section 5 below. SECTION 3. Amendment of Zoning Map. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property known as 800 High Street (the "subject property") from "CD-S(P) Downtown Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay" to "PC Planned Community." The subject property, consisting of approximately .96 acres, is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4.Findings for Approva! of Planned Community District. The City Council, in approving the Planned Community district, hereby finds that: (a) The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the site are such that genera! or combining zoning districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development in that none of the City’s conventional zoning districts could accommodate the proposed square footage, floor area ratio, and building height unless variances were granted. (b) Development of the Project on the site will provide public benefits not otherwise attainable, as more specifically described below. (i) The site has been largely unoccupied and in a deteriorated state for many years. While this has generated little parking demand or traffic, it has been an obstacle to creating an environment that welcomes pedestrians and residential uses. It is presently zoned to permit commercial development, including office uses, which would exacerbate the City’s shortage of housing relative to jobs. The Project will replace a deteriorated, largely vacant manufacturing building with a well-designed structure built to contemporary building and safety standards using materials of high quality. (ii) The 1998 Comprehensive Plan promotes less dependence upon the automobile for daily travel. The site is within 2,000 feet of the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center and 030130 s)na 0091188 3 within easy walking distance of the University Avenue Business District and South of Forest Area businesses, including a grocery store Within one block. When the Homer Avenue bicycle and pedestrian underpass is completed, the Project will also be within easy walking distance of the Town and Country Shopping Center and the campus of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. The Comprehensive Plan al!ows for residential densities of up to 50 dwelling units per acre for sites such as this, as well as providing for 25% density bonuses when additional affordable housing is provided. However, because general zoning standards have not yet been adopted, a planned community district is necessary to implement these policies now. (iii)The Family Service Laundry was built on the site in 1930 and later converted to the Peninsula Creamery Ice Cream Plant. That business closed and the building and site have been used for storage since the early !990s. The building is potentially eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources, both as one of a number of commercially important laundries in the area and for distinctive architectural characteristics. It could be a contributor to a future commercial historic district in the area as wel!. Preservation of the building has been studied and reviewed. The building has low suitability for conversion to residential uses and preservation would be significantly more expensive than new construction. The proposed replacement structure, which includes multifami!y housing at a density appropriate for a transit oriented deve!opment, neighborhood serving retail spaces, publicly accessible plazas, underground parking and underground access to adjacent parcels on Alma Street, will advance other important Comprehensive Plan Goals, as well as goals of the adopted and proposed South of Forest Area coordinated area plans. These circumstances make the !oss of this historic resource acceptable. (iv) The site is unusual in that it consists of three parcels making up an entire half-block, surrounded on all sides by public rights-of-way and backing up to an electrical substation. Under existing CD-S(P)zoning, the three lots could be developed with office and other commercial uses with surface parking lots. This would worsen the City’s shortage of housing and do nothing to address the parking shortage in the area. By redeve!oping the entire site with underground parking, a more efficient, pedestrian- friendly design is possible. Appropriately dense housing, including both modestly-sized "market rate" and "below market rate" units, can be constructed. The Project can also provide parking surplus to its needs. (v) The subterranean garage under Lane 8 would permit future underground connection to parking structures on the lots adjacent to Alma Street. These include the City’s electrica! substation, which is designated in the Housing Element for 030130 syn 0091188 4 conversion to housing. .The availability of these subsurface connections would permit construction of housing on the Alma Street site at higher densities than would otherwise be possible. It would also eliminate the need for driveways opening onto Alma Street or Lane 8. This is desirable because Alma Street is a high- volume arterial street, while under the proposed SOFA 2 coordinated area plan, Lane 8 is to be used primarily to support commercial development in the area. (vi) By building two levels of underground parking under the site, Lane 8, and a smal! portion of High Street, the Project can provide additional parking spaces beyond those needed for its own residents, customers, employees, and guests. These spaces will be maintained by the Project’s owners at their expense, but they wil! be available twenty four hours a day for such uses as the City may authorize, including short term or permit parking. (vii) The Project will provide ten Below Market Rate Housing Units, the minimum required under the City’s Comprehensive Plan for a project of this density. The Project’s owner has signed a letter dated January 29, 2003 making a commitment to provide this housing. A formal Agreement to Provide Below Market Rate Housing must be executed prior to final adoption of this ordinance and recorded before the effective date of the ordinance. The tenth unit would not be obtainable without the use of a planned community zone because the City has not yet adopted an ordinance implementing this Comprehensive Plan policy. All the units further the City’s Housing Element goals but are not "otherwise unattainable public benefits" under the City’s planned community zone requirements. (viii) The Project will provide plazas accessible to the public at the corners of High Street and Channing Avenue and High Street and Homer Avenues. The plaza will include seating, landscaping and a substantial setback from the property line beyond those required by City’s zoning districts. They will prowide comfortable public, albeit privately owned and maintained, places for informal socializing in an area short of such amenities. (ix) The Project will build and maintain, as part of its private garage, sixty-three (63) parking spaces to be managed by the City for the life of the building. (Six of these may be lost to future subterranean connections to adjacent properties on Alma Street.) Prior to final passage of this ordinance, Project’s owner will execute a license and operating agreement with the City for the use of parking spaces, which will be recorded upon final passage of this ordinance. (c) The Council further finds that the Project provides public benefits, as described above, that are of sufficient importance to make the Project as a whole one with substantial public benefit. 030130 syn 0091188 (d) The uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the District are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the existing and potentia! uses dn the adjoining sites or within th~ genera! vicinity in that the Project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: (i) Local Land Use Program L-8: "Limit new non- residential development in the Downtown area to 350,000 square feet, or i0 percent above the amount.of deve!opment existing or approved as of May 1986. Reevaluate this limit when non- residential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area." The project involves the demolition of ±17,600 square feet of non-residential floor area, to be replace with ±1,900 square feet of commercial floor area, a net reduction of ±15,700 square feet. (ii) Policy L-9: "Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development."The Project is a mix of residential, retail and public uses.The uses provided, (housing, neighborhood serving retail space,public parking) are all desired uses in the City and the South of Forest Area. (iii) Policy L-25: "Enhance t~he character of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed use area." The Project includes a mix of uses, as well as a plaza accessible to the public, street trees, and pedestrian amenities at ground level. Piecemeal development would probably produce a pattern of equally tall buildings interspersed with surface parking !ots, resulting in multiple driveways and curb cuts, fewer design amenities, and a less pedestrian-friendly development. By replacing a former manufacturing site, now used for storage, with homes and local serving retail space, it advance the City Council’s goals for the South of Forest Area coordinated plan. (iv) Policy H-4: "Encourage mixed use Projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality." The Project includes 61 for-sale units that will increase the supply of for sale housing at both market and below market prices. Because the homes are condominiums, with an average size of 1,400 square feet and a maximum size of 1,702 square feet, they are expected to be less expensive than most Palo Alto dwelling while providing attractive dwellings for a range of households. (v) Policy B-2!: "Maintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the Downtown business district, al!ow for the continued operation of automotive services uses, and serve the needs of nearby neighborhoods." There is no significant 030130 syn 0091188 existing use on site. The Project provides neighborhood serving retail space and housing, both of wh±ch are desired in SOFA. Automotive services often rely on on-street parking. This project is fully parked itself and provides additional city-owned parking spaces. It is designed to be compatible with adjacent commercfal activities and the high levels of noise that are generated from time to time by truck loading and other activities in the area. SECTION 5. Deve!opment Plan Those certain plans entitled "800 High Street, Palo Alto, CA" prepared by Jon Worden Architects dated , 2002, copy on file in the Planning Division office, and to which copy reference is hereby made, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipa! Code Section 18.68.120. Provided, the Development Plan shall be revised to (i) reduce the number of units to fifty-nine; (ii) increase the quantity and quality of individual, shared, and publicly accessible open space; and (iii) revise the massing of the southwestern corner of the building to provide a better transition to adjacent development. The approval process for these revisions is described in Section 7, be!ow. SECTION 6. Uses. (a) Permitted Uses. to the following: The permitted uses shall be limited (i) Multiple Family Residential Use: In those areas designated on the Development Plan as "housing units," multiple- family uses and uses customarily incidental to multiple-family uses. In any individual unit, home occupations accessory to the residential use of that unit are permitted subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code provisions regulating home occupations. (ii) Neighborhood Serving Retail: In the area designated on the Development Plan as "Retail," neighborhood- serving eating and drinking services, personal services, and retail services. A neighborhood-serving use is one that primarily serves individual consumers and households, rather than businesses, and that does not generate noise, fumes or truck traffic greater than that expected for uses with a !oca! customer base. A neighborhood- serving use is also one which provides a significant portion of its goods, or services, or both, to customers who come to the premises. (iii) Parking Garage: One hundred and thirty-eight (138) spaces, including one hundred and twenty-two (122) for the residential units, shal! be reserved for the use of building tenants, as shown on the Plans. The balance of the parking spaces shal! be managed by the City under a license and operating agreement. The City shall determine, from time to time, the use of 030130 syn 0091188 the licensed spaces, which may include designation as parking spaces for residentia! units within the SOFA Community Area Plans. If final configuration of be!ow market housing units, as approved by the City, requires additional parking spaces reserved for those units because of increase in number or unit~ or number of bedrooms, the necessary number of parking spaces may be removed from the City parking allocation. If future, city-approved, subterranean connections with adjacent properties require removal of parking spaces, that number of spaces may be removed from the City parking allocation. The Director of Planning and Community Development may, after consultation with the Planning and Transportation Commission, permit changes in the required number of spaces to be al!ocated for residential or commercial use upon demonstration by the Project’s owners that such a reduction will still allow the Project to meet actual demand and not result in overflow parking. (b) Conditiona! Uses. Telecommunication facilities. SECTION 7.Site Development Regulations. (a) Compliance with Development Plan. All improvements and deve!opment shall be substantially in accordance with a revised Development Plan, and subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures adopted by City Council Resolution No. (i) Final plans, incorporating the revisions required under Section 5 above, and including materials and colors, complete lighting and photometric plans, detailed landscaping and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site planting areas, and signs shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment after review and recommendation by the Architectural Review Board ("ARB") prior to issuance of building permits. (ii) Any other exterior changes to the buildings or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, approval under Chapter 18.99 of the Pa!o Alto Municipal Code, as it is amended from time to time. (b) Tree Protection. The Development Plan requires the planting and protection of specified new trees within the development. These trees shall not be removed or destroyed without the prior approval of the City of Palo Alto in accordance with applicable procedures. (c) Limit on Unit Size. The average unit size shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. The maximum unit size shall not exceed 1,702 square feet. 030130 syn 0091188 (d) Parking and Loading Requirements. The garage shall contain a minimum of two hundred one (201) vehicle spaces and forty-four (44) bicycle spaces. No on-site loading zones are specified. The number of parking spaces may be reduced as described in Section 6 (a) iii) above. (e)Specia! Conditions (i) Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Requirement. The Project shall provide four (i) one-bedroom, one-bath units; four (4) two-bedroom, one-bath units, and two (2) three-bedroom, two-bath units to be included in the City’s Below Market Rate (i’BMR") program. The.units will be on all four residential floors of the building. All BMR units shall face either on to one of the project’s private open space courts or on to Channing Avenue. Each BMR unit shall have either a private open space deck or a patio. Each BMR unit will be designated on the revised Development Plan approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project, the Project Owner and the City Manager determine and agree that the goals of the City’s below-market rate housing program are better met if the space al!ocated to BMR units is reconfigured to provide more units or a different allocation of bedrooms, they may do so by amending the Agreement Regarding Provision of Below Market Rate Housing described below. The provisions of this condition e. (i) have been agreed to by the Project’s owner and are set forth in an Agreement Regarding Provision of Below Market Rate Housing which shall be executed and recorded prior to the final passage of this ordinance. (ii) Public Parking Agreement. Project’s owner and City will enter into an agreement for use of sixty-three (63) spaces in the parking garage by the City which shall be recorded prior to issuance of any building permit. Compliance with that agreement is a requirement of this PC zoning district. (iii) Underground Development Rights; Easement Dedications. Project’s owner shall provide evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney of the right to deve!op the garage on land not owned by it. Owner shall also dedicate to the City and additiona! five feet a!ong the entire length of Lane 8, and a right to locate and maintain utilities in the garage. These shall be in a form satisfactory to the City Engineer, the Utility Director, and the City Attorney. (iv) Automobile Connection Between the Project and 841 Alma Street (Alma Street Substation) Through the Underground Garage. Garage shall be designed so that properties on the 800 block of Alma Street can connect their underground garages, if any, in the points shown in the Project Plan. Owner’s shall dedicate to 030130 syn 0091188 9 the City, or otherwise provide, such parcels with an enforceable right to twenty-four hour access, free of charge, through the Project’s garage to High Street. Documents shall be in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney and may include reasonable provisions for proof of insurance and similar terms. (f) Development Schedule. Construction of the Project shall commence on or before July i, 2003, and shall be completed and ready for occupancy on or before December 31, 2004. SECTION 6. The City as the lead agency for the Project has caused to be prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Fina! EIR"). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Final EIR consists of the following documents and records: "800 High Street Draft Focused EIR, October ii, 2002; .... 800 High Street Final EIR, December, 2002", and the planning and other City records, minutes, and files constituting the record of proceedings. The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq. The Fina! EIR is on file in the office of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 7. Certification. The City Counci! certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Fina! EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project, and all other matters deemed material and relevant before considering for approval the various actions related to the Project. The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City as lead agency. // // // // // // ¢/ 030130 syn 0091188 10 SECTION 8. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 030130 syn 0091188 11 EXHIBIT A 800 High Street Palo Alto " 1Me&ca oundation The City of Palo Alto 800 High Street 02-PC-01 January 15, 2003 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 120’