The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-03-03 City Council (6)City of Pa]lo Alto TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: MARCH 3, 2003 CMR:157:03 33-49 ENCINA AVENUE: RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF AND THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY ROB WELLINGTON QUIGLEY, FAIA, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP AN~ THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, TO ALLOW FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM SERVICE COMMERCIAL (CS) TO PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED 5- STORY MIXED USE BUILDING, CONSISTING OF 89 UNITS OF INCOME-RESTRICTED RENTAL HOUSING AND THE OPPORTUNITY CENTER, TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES AND THOSE AT RISK OF BECOMING HOMELESS. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the Opportunity Center and Housing Project by adopting the resolution set forth in Attachment C. Approve the project by introducing the zone change ordinance set forth in Attachment D and the resolution approving architectural review set forth in Attachment E. BACKGROUND The applicant, Rob Wellington Quigley, FAIA, on behalf of the Cornmunity Working Group and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, proposes a rezoning of .42 acres from Service Commercial (CS) to Plarmed Community (PC) to allow for the construction of an approximately 46,100 square foot, 5-story mixed use building consisting of the Opportunity Center, a service center for homeless individuals and CMR:157:03 Page 1 of 6 families and those at risk of becoming homeless, and 89 units of income-restricted rental housing (Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and family units), a two-level underground parMng structure containing parking for autos and bicycles, and other site improvements. The project includes retention of two significant oak trees on site, and the protection of important trees on adjacent properties. A location map is Attachment A. The Opportunity Center, located on the ground floor, will provide services, primarily for lower income individuals and families, including light meals, transportation assistance, laundry facilities, men’s and women’s showers, child care, crisis support, case management, substance abuse counseling, mental health services, child abuse prevention, and employment assistance. The Opportunity Center’s hours of operation will be limited to Monday through Friday, from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with services provided from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Special events, classes and training are permitted on any day of the week but must end by 10 p.m. The potential for the new Opportunity Center to attract clients outside of the existing service area is addressed in a report from the City’s Human Services Division (Attachment G). The Planning and Transportation Commission staff report from January 29, 2003 (Attachment B) provides a summary of the significant issues for the proposed project, including the following: public benefits; reduction of total number of housing units from the 90 specified in the Housing Element to 89; project consistency with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan; and development and operation issues including design, scale, open space, par .’Mng and neighborhood compatibility. Two significant issues that were briefly discussed in the PTC staff report and are further discussed in this report are the project’s provision for affordable housing and the proposed Homer Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing. The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan identifies a City shortage of almost 300 units of housing affordable to households with low or very low incomes. The 89 proposed units of income-restricted housing greatly assists the City in moving forward with its housing goals. The project would also assist the City in achieving its "fair share" housing requirement identified by the State. The project site is conveniently located for alternative transportation modes of travel, including public transit, bicycling and walMng. An existing public bicycle path runs along the entire eastern perimeter of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) campus. The City has secured funding for the construction of the bicycle path to continue south, paralleling the railroad tracks, to connect to Encina Avenue, Palo Alto High School, Embarcadero Road and then terminate at Churchill Avenue. In addition to the extended bicycle path, the City has approved the Homer Avenue bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing to connect the downtown and areas east of the railroad tracks to the PAMF site, E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto Caltrain Station, and sites further west, including the Stanford campus (see Attachment H for undercrossing CMR:157:03 Page 2 of 6 location). The project conditions of approval for PAMF’s Architectural Review (94- ARB-30) included Condition #17 requiring at least two connections points from the bicycle path into the PAMF campus and Condition #18 requiring easement access for the Homer undercrossing landing. The design and location of the Homer undercrossing will provide PAMF’s patients and staff that live or work in nearby neighborhoods with safe and easy access by bike or foot to the PAMF facility. The undercrossing will also serve the Opportunity Center’s residents, clients and staff by providing access from the downtown and SOFA areas to the bike path and the path’s future connection at Encina Avenue or to Urban Lane, a public street that is privately maintained by PAMF. Construction of the bike path extension is estimated to begin in spring 2003 and construction of the undercrossing is estimated to begin in summer 2003. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On December 19, 2002, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) found the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) adequate and recommended approval of the proposed project to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, with the condition that the project return to the ARB at a later date for review of the final design and detail considerations, including windows, awnings, signage, and building colors. On January 29, 2003, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) unanimously (6-0) recommended that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and approve the proposed project based upon the Planned Community Ordinance (Attachment C) and subject to the Architectural Review Resolution (Attachment D). The PTC’s motion included the addition of a condition of approval requiring the project owner to provide a Transportation Demand Management Program that is consistent with the EIR mitigation and a post-construction noise audit for interior and exterior spaces. The PTC motion also included the deletion of two conditions of approval that are no !onger applicable to the revised project design: condition #39, which addressed a commercial kitchen, and condition #43 which required a Fire Department access way on- site (Attachment B). The Building Division and Fire Department concurred with deleting these two conditions. Minutes of the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission meetings are included in Attachment F. The Commissioners’ comments were very supportive of the project’s location, design and program. There were eleven public speakers providing comments on the project. The comments were very much in favor of the project. Mr. Timothy Tosta, an attorney representing the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), stated that PAMF has been working directly with the Community Working Group to establish a framework for positive interaction between the two organizations during construction and afterwards. Written correspondence received at the meeting from Mr. Tosta is included in Attachment I. CMR: 157:03 Page 3 of 6 One speaker also raised concern regarding the potential noise impacts of the proposed project, especially the impact from ambient noise on the outdoor balconies that would be located in the project, facing Encina Avenue. Staff discussed the Comprehensive Plan policies supporting housing and noted that there were methods within the project design to mitigate these impacts, and that the project architect agreed to work with staff. Staff also indicated that an outdoor noise audit would be conducted prior to occupancy. RESOURCE IMPACT: The total cost for the Opportunity Center is estimated at $22 million, of which approximatel3, two thirds will come from public funds: federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, tax credit financing, and other sources. The Community Working Group is conducting an $8 million private capital campaign, to provide both building capital and an endowment for services. Since May 2001, the City Council has allocated a total of $1.28 million in CDBG funds for the Opportunity Center project, to be used for predevelopment, relocation and land acquisition costs. In December 2002, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara submitted an application for $750,000 of City Housing Reserve Funds to be used for construction of the housing component. A separate action is scheduled for Council Action on this agenda regarding allocation of those funds. The applicant’s deadline for filing with the State for the Multifamily Housing Progam (Mt-12P) is March 18, 2003. The MHP Program requires that the developer obtain all discretionary land use and zoning permits from local government prior to submitting a funding application. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW City staff prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that analyzes the project for potential environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Copies of the Draft EIR were provided to the City Council on December 13, 2002. The Draft EIR and Final EIR have also been made available on the City’s webpage at www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/zonin.q/oppctr/. The analysis of the EIR concludes that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts. Locating the service center and housing on the site could have significant visual and land use impacts. However, the project as designed and proposed for approval includes mitigation that would reduce these impacts to less than significant level. Further discussion, including final text revisions, the mitigation monitoring program, comments on the DEIR, and responses to comments is included in the Final EIR (Attachment J). Subsequent to circulation of the Draft EIR, results of the preliminary Phase 2 environmental assessment were received for the soil samples taken at the project site. The soils sample results do not alter any conclusions or recommendations made in the Draft EIR. The Phase 2 report findings are incorporated within the Final EIR text revisions and mitigation monitoring program. The resolution approving the Final EIR is Attachment E. CMR: 157:03 Page 4 of 6 ATTACI~IENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I: Attachment J: Attachment K: Location Map Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, January 29, 2003 (with Attachment B only) Environmental Impact Report Resolution Planned Community Ordinance Architectural Review Resolution Architectural Review Board Minutes of December 19, 2002 and Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes of January 29, 2003 Human Services Division Report on Magnet Theory, February 13, 2003 Proposed Homer Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing Location Written Correspondence received on January 29, 2003 Final Environmental Impact Report [Council Members only] Plan Sets [Council Members only] PREPARED BY" ~t~"~v~-,--..~’Beth Young, Senior Planner /-) DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:~ STEVE EMgLm Director of Planning and Con~munity Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMII~ HARRISON Assistant City Manager COURTESY COPIES Maryanne Welton, Rob Wellington Quigley, FAIA, 210 High Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Matt Steinl~, Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, 505 West Julian Street, San Jose, CA 95110 David Jury, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 795 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Timothy Tosta, Steefel Levitt & Weiss, One Embarcadero Center, 13th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-3719 Margaret (Sandy) Sloan, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, 1100 Alma Street, Suite 210 Menlo Park, CA 94025 CMR:157:03 Page 5 of 6 Aino Vieira da Rosa, 951 Lincoln, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cole Bridges, Town and Country Village Shopping Center, Palo Alto League of Women Voters, 457 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Santa Clara County Supervisor Liz Kniss, Attn: Kindet Launer, 70 West Hedding Street, 10th Floor, San Jose, CA 95110 CMR: 157:03 Page 6 of 6 PC- 3902 PC-4465 Palo Alto Medical ")4... Foundation "\ Attachment A Project Location 33-49 Encina Avenue CC To~’n and Country The City of Palo Alto Zoning Map 33 - 49 Encina Avenue This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Attachment B PLANNING DI SION 1STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COM2vIISSION Beth Young, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Conmaunity Environment DATE:January 29, _00.~ SUBJECT:33~49 Encina Avenue, The Opportunitj’ Center and Housing Project [File Numbers: 02-EIA-12, 02-PC-04, 02-ARB-133 and State Clearinghouse #2002102110]: Recommendation by staff for the Plaiming and Transportation Commission to review and recommend on the Final Environnaental Impact Report and an application by Rob Wellington Quigley, FAIA, on behalf of the Commm~ity Working Group and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, to allow for a zone change from Service Commercial (CS) to Planned Community (PC) to allow for the demolition of the three existing buildings, and the construction of.the proposed 5-story mixed use building, approximately 46,100 square feet in size, consisting of the Opportunity Center to provide services for homeless individuals and families and those at risk of becoming homeless and 89 units of income-restricted rental housing. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Co~mnission (Conmaission) make the following recommendations to the City Council for the Opportunity Center aad Housing Project at 33-49 Encina Avenue: 1. That the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report. 2.That the project be approved, based upon the draft Pla~med Community Ordinance in Attachment A and subject to the draft Architectural Review Resolution in Attachment B. BACKGROUND The applicant, Rob Wellington Quigley, FAIA, on behalf of the Corm-nunity Working Group and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, proposes a rezoning of .42 acres from Service Coinmercial (CS) to Planned Cormnunity (PC) to allow for the construction of an approximately 46,100 square feet 5-story mixed use building consisting of the Opportunity Center, a drop-in service center for homeless individuals and families and those at risk of becoming homeless, and 89 units of income-restricted rental housing (Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and family units), an undergound parking structure and other site improvements. Site Location The proposed project site consists of three parcels that total 18,178 square feet. The site is located on the north side of Encina Avenue, approximately 190’ east of E1 Camino Real (see map, Attachment C). The adjacent parcel to the north is the site of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation clinic. The adjacent parcel to the west is developed with a single-story building containing a shoe store and par-king lot. The adjacent parcel to the east is developed with a two- story building. Directly across Encina Avenue are small office buildings and a parking lot and further to the south is the Town and Country Village Shopping Center. The site contains a one-story auto repair building, two one-story office buildings and paved parking areas. Two Coast Live Oaks, both protected trees, are located on the site. A protected Coast Redwood is also located on the border of the site on the property adjacent to the east (51 Encina Avenue). Several significant trees, that are not protected species under the City’s tree preselwation ordinance, are on the eastern perimeter. The proposed project is designed to preserve and protect all existing trees, both on site and adjacent sites. Previous Reviews The City’s approval process for a Plumed Community zone change requires an initial review of the proposal by the Conm~ission, followed, if the Commission acts favorably on the project, by desi~on review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The project is then returned to the Conmaission for its final recommendation to the City Council. The Cormnission reviewed the project on November 13, 2002 and forwarded it to the ARB. On December 5, 2002, the ARB reviewed a revised project desig-n based on the cormnents received at the November 21 ARB hearing. The ARB provided comments on the revised design and continued the application until December 19, 2002. On December 19, the ARB found the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) adequate and recommended to the Commission approval of the project subject to the draft Conditions of Approval (see Attachment B). On December 18, 2002, the Cormnission hetd a public hearing to receive public comments on the DEIR. The Commission also provided convnents to the staff regarding the DEIR. The public circulation period for the DEIR was from December 13, 2002 through January 13, 2003. At the December 19, 2002 meeting, the ARB reviewed the proposed project, with several redesig-ned architectural features. These changes are primarily focused on four areas of the building design: (1) the west building elevation that faces towards E1 Camino Real; (2) the south building elevation that faces towards Encina Avenue; (3) the appearance of the rooftop towers; and (4) the locations for public art. Proposed changes were generally to provide geater architectural interest and to emhance the residential character of the building, such as adding windows and awnings to the building facades, or to soften the appearance of the building by curving the rooftop towers. Cormnents from Board members included the following: The proposed building is compatible with the scale and character of the area. While the building type is new for Encina Avenue and is larger than the neighboring buildings directly on Encina, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation facility is more massive and larger in scale. The building’s creative design, articulation and the courtyard that faces towards Encina Avenue all help to maintain the neighborhood scale. The Opportunity Center and Housing Project 33-49 Encina Avenue Page 2 Concern with the location and handling of the trash and recycling receptacles. Concern that the rooftop towers (elevator mechanical rooms) are too tall and because they are not set back with the building face, this further contributes to the apparent hei~ht. In general, rooftop mechanical equipment penthouses are setback from the roofline of a building. Details of windows, awning, sig-nage and building colors and materials need further review by the ARB. In reviewing the DEIR, the Board did not feel that the proposed project would result in adverse visua! impacts. Board members stated that the proposed project vvould result in positive visual impacts to the area, specifically in the context of the current project site conditions. There was no public con~rnent made at the ARB meeting. The ARB (3-0-0-2, with Chair Lippert and Board member Komberg absent) found the Draft Environmental In, pact Report (DEIR) adequate and recommended approval of the proposed project to the Plaming and Transportation Cornmission and City Council with the condition that the project return to the ARB at a later date for the final desig-n and detail consideration of: 1.Awnings, windows and wil~dow screens. The applicant shall explore alternatives for window construction other than vinyl. 2.Materials and fabrication for signage. 3.The trash and recycling removal progam, including location of receptacles for pick-up. 4.Placement of electric charging stations in the garage. 5.Exterior colors and materials after opportunity for review of a mock-up on site. Verbatim minutes from the December 19 ARB meeting are included in Attachment E. It should be noted that, in Attachment B, staff is recommending that the requirement for electric vehicle chafing stations be changed to a requirement that the financial feasibility of station equipment be further explored. This is due to limited funding available for low-income housing and social service type projects such as the Opportunity Center. The City Utilities Department, and other public and private energy providers, may have ~ants or rebates available for electric vehicle char~ng equipment but the applicant has not had sufficient time to secure the additional funding. DISCUSSION The following discussion provides a smrmaary of si~aificant issues for the proposed project. Public Benefit The public benefit of this project is twofold. First, the project provides 89 units of income- restricted rental housing, with the targeted resident population being people earning 25% - 35% or less of the County of Santa Clara median income level. Second, the project will provide much needed services for homeless individuals and families and those at risk of becoming homeless. The Opportunity Center will provide ser~dces to the public and to the tenants of the SRO and family units, including light meals, transportation assistance, laundry facilities, men’s and women’s showers, child care, crisis support, case management, substance abuse counseling, mental health services, child abuse prevention, and employa’nent assistance. The Opportunity Center and Housing Project 33-49 Encina Avenue Page 3 Reduction of One Housing Unit Since the ARB’s recommended approval and the Commission’s review on December 18, the proposed project has been redesigned with one fewer SRO unit, in order to provide a community room for the SRO tenants. After researching successful SRO complexes, the Housing Authority believes that a shared kitchen!community dining room is a necessary social and economic component for the tenants. Because the individual SRO units do not have full kitchen facilities, the shared kitchen!community dining room will allow the tenants to reduce their food costs by not having to purchase prepared meals, as well as providing the opportunity to share meals with fellow tenants. The auto and bicycle parking spaces are not being reduced. The City’s Housing Sites Inventory includes the Opportunity Center at a yield of 90 potential dwelling units. The Housing Sites Inventoty identifies more than enough sites for building the City’s regional "fair share" of housing. It will still be in compliance with California law despite this loss of this single unit. Because the unit count for sites is generally a minimum figure, reduction in one unit at this site will almost certainly be offset by an increase in units at another site. Zoning Ordinance Compliance The proposed community service center is a permitted use in the CS Corrmaercial Service District. However, the CS District would not permit the addition of the proposed mix of residential and community service uses because the development standards in Chapters 18.24 (RM-30 District) and 18.28 (Multiple-Family Residence Guidelines) for setbacks, lot coverage, daylight plane and density which would be applicable to a mixed use project on the site. Table 1 illustrates the standards proposed for the Planned Community District in comparison to the CS Commercial Service and RM-30 High Density Multiple Family Residence District standards. Table 1. Comparison of Standards Bet~veen CS, RM-30 and Proposed PC District Standard Setbacks Front (south) Rear (north) Interior side (west) Interior side (east) Maximum Building Height Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Non-residential uses Residential uses Mix residential! non-residential Maximum Lot coverage Commercial Service (cs) High Density Multiple Family Residence (~M-30) Proposed Planned Community el’C) 0 10’ 10’ 10’ 35’ 6.1’ 6’ 6~ 50’50’ Not applicable .6to 1 .4 to 1 .6to 1 lto 1 0% * Not applicable 4O% .54 to 2to 1 2.54 64% The Opportunity Center and Housing Project 33-49 Encina Avenue Page 4 Standard Usable Open Space Common open space on gound floor Private open space per unit Off-Street Parking Spaces Bicycle Parking Spaces Commercial Ser~ice (CS) Not applicable Not applicable Non-residential: --1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of goss floor area Subtotal: 32 spaces Residential: --1.25 spaces per studio --1.5 spaces per 1-BR --2 spaces per 2-BR --1 guest space per 10% of total units Subtotal: 111 spaces (with all units calculated as a studio) Total: 143 Non-residential: --10% of required auto spaces Subtotal: 3 spaces Residential: --1 space per unit --1 guest space per 10 units Subtotal: 97.spaces Table Notes: Total: 100 spaces ttigh Density Multiple Family Residence 0~-30) 3O% 50 sq. ft. per unit** Residential: --1.25 spaces per studio --1.5 spaces per 1-BR --2 spaces per 2-BR --1 guest space per 10% of total units Total: 111 spaces (with all units calculated as a studio) Residential: --1 space per unit --1 guest space per 10 units Total: 97 spaces Proposed Planned Community (pc) 17% Shared upper decks for SRO and Family Units 43 spaces total 123 spaces total * A more restrictive standard may be recon~nended by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. **Part or all of the required private usable open space may be added to the required common usable open space in a development, for purposes of improved design, privacy, protection and increased play area for children, upon a recommendation by the ARB and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Height. The Planned Community zone limits the overall height of the building to a maximum of 50 feet. The Zoning Ordinance’s Special Provisions and Exemptions allow mechanical and architectural features up to an additional 15 feet in height. Density. Because the affordability of the SRO and family units is based upon the small size of individual units, the density of such projects is necessarily hig_her than other housing types. The proposed density for this project of_l.~ units per acres is sia-nificantly geater than would be The Opportunity Center and Housing Project 33-49 Encina Avenue Page 5 allowed in the City’s highest density district of P, dM-40, which allows 40 units to the acre, or R_M-30, which allows 30 units to the acre. However, the size of the family and SRO units is significantly smaller than market units built for those zoning districts. Design, Massing and Scale At a proposed height of 50 feet and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.54 to 1, the proposed building is larger in mass and scale than the existing one-story structures on site that it would replace. Smaller, one-story structures are located on neighboring sites to the west and south. As shown on the applicant’s revised contextual elevations, the height of the proposed building is less than that of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation facility and the Westin Hotel both located to the north on E1 Camino Real (see plan set). At 46,t00 square feet, the Opportunity Center building is 36 percent of the size of the Westin Hotel (127,000 sq. ft.) and 15 percent of the size of the PAMF facility (295,000 sq. ft.). In comparing the proposed project to Alma Place (107 SRO units at 725 Alma Street), the proposed project’s residential density is less at 213 units per acre than Alma Place with a density of 264 units per acre. The FAR is slig~htly peater at 2.54 while the Alma Place FAR is 2.51. Since the Connnission’s initial review of the project on November 13, the ARB process has guided the applicant in addressing the design aspects that relate to the project, including scale, massing, design details, and neighborhood context. The west building elevation that faces towards E1 Camino Real and the south elevation that faces towards Encina Avenue have been redesigned to include awnings and more prominent windows and sunshades that contribute to a peater residential feel for the upper four floors. The rooftop towers have been redesigned with a sloping side to soften the appearance. Locations for public art were proposed for the railing above the entry way or a donor colunm at the front of the building on Encina Avenue. The ARB concluded that the proposed design is compatible and would enhance, because of its design, the surrounding area. It was noted that, while the building type is new for Encina Avenue, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) facility is more massive and much larger in scale. Furthermore, the building’s varied articulation and the courtyard that face Encina Avenue help to maintain the area’s scale. Open Space and Common Areas The Plam~ed Conmmnity District has no specific requirements for open space. The Commercial Service zone does not require common open space for non-residential projects. For the RM-30 zone the requirements are that 30 percent of the ground floor area must be common open space and above the pound floor private units are required to provide 50 square feet of private outdoor open space per unit. The proposed project includes 3,800 square feet (17% of the site area) of common outdoor open space on the pound floor, including the large front courtyard and the family play yard on the west side of the building. The courtyard is designed to encourage visitors to use the outdoor space on site rather than spilling out onto the public sidewalk. Several upper decks provide shared common space for SRO and family units tenants in pace of private open spaces areas for each unit. In addition, the Opportunity Center provides indoor common spaces, including a living room area for families and a community room for individual clients to gather when the weather precludes use of the outdoor courtyard. Parking Facilities There are no specific standards for a Planned Community District. Within the two-level subterranean parking structure, a total of forty-three (43) parking spaces are proposed for the The Opportunity Center and Housing Project 33-49 Encina Avenue Page 6 project. The proposed Opportunity Center use is a mix of service center, training facilities, and offices to provide social services primarily for homeless and at-risk-of being-homeless individuals and families. As this use is not specified in the parking ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.83), the Director of Plarming and Community Environment may determine the parking requirement for the project. Chapter 18.83 sets forth the parking standards for residential units as follows: o 1.25 vehicle space per each studio unit o 1.5 spaces per each 1-bedroom unit ~2 spaces per each 2-bedroom unit o guest vehicle parking at one vehicle space plus 10% of total units ~tenant bicycle parking equivalent to one space per unit o one guest bicycle parking space for each ten units In order to meet these standards, the residential parking facilities for the project would need to include 130 vehicle spaces and 100 bicycle spaces. However, since it is likely that the majority of occupants and clients of this building will not own vehicles, the parking demand would not be as high as a standard residential project. In addition, the clients using the day services provided in the Opportunity Center would likely include tenants. Although the proj ect units are reduced to 89, the parking spaces will note be reduced. The project site is conveniently located for alternative transportation modes of travel, including public transit, bicycling and walking. The site is near E1 Camino Real, a major transportation corridor with regional bus service by Sam Trans, Santa Clara County VTA, and Dumbarton Express, as well as local shuttle bus service by Menlo Park and Stanford. The Caltrain station is less than half a m.ile from the project site and commercial centers and the downtown area are also within bicycling and walking distance. In the future, the proposed Homer Avenue pedestrian and bicycle underpass will further connect the proj ect to Alma Street and the do~vntown area. The traffic impact analysis included a parking analysis that concludes that the parking demand would be satisfied with the proposed 43 parking spaces. The parking analysis was based on a survey of providers of similar types of services and housing facilities in the area, including the Urban Ministry of Palo Alto Drop-In Center and InnVision’s Villa housing facilit3,. The project- generated on-site parking demand at peak hours totaled 36 vehicles spaces with the following breakdown: 12 employees will staff the site; a TDM progan~ using carpools and public transit could reduce this parking need o 150 patrons will visit the day services component; assumes 6%, or 9 patrons have autos 90 residential units; assumes that 1/3 of units own a motor vehicle, and 50% of residents are home during the day, for 15 resident vehicles For bicycle parking, the parking analysis indicated that the 123 bicycle parking and storage spaces (111 Class I and 32 Class II) proposed for the parking garage and near the wound floor entrance are more than sufficient for the project demand. The draft Planned Community only requires 100 spaces to allow some future flexibility. The Opportunity Center and Housing Project 33-49 Encina Avenue Page 7 The parking requirements are set in the new PC Zoning District. Design and Operational Compatibility with Neighborhood Several neighboring property owners have expressed their concerns with the proposed project. In general, the concerns are in regards to the operation of the drop-in service center and not the residential component of the project. Comments about the building design include the concern that the mass and scale of the proposed project will not be compatible with the smaller scale buildings on Encina Avenue and at the Town and Country Village Shopping Center. Staff believes that the ARB process has resulted in a project design that is compatible with neighboring uses. Public comment also included concerns regarding traffic impacts and insufficient parking for employees and volunteers. Staff concurs with the traffic impact study’s finding that the project is not expected to add sufficient traffic to significantly impact traffic operations in the area. General concerns regarding security issues have included loitering, panhandling, and littering that may be associated with the Opportunity Center’s day service o.perations. A representative from PAMF has expressed concern that the day service operations may jeopardize the security of patients, employees and property at the medical clinic. The project is designed to address security concerns both on-site and adjacent to the site. Design features include separate entryways for SRO and multi-family residents, exterior lighting and garage lighting, and minimal use of slmabs around the perimeter of the site. Other proposed security plan measures include on-site management and front desk staffing 24-hours a day, as well as surveillance cameras. The Opportunity Center’s hours of operation would be limited to Monday through Friday, from 7 a.m to 5:30 p.m., with services provided from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Special events, classes and training will end by 10 p.m daily, including weekends. The proposed Planning Conmmnity District ordinance requires that a security plan for the Opportunity City be approved by the City’s Police Chief and Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to occupancy. In addition, the property owner is to meet periodically with owners and tenants of the properties located on Encina Avenue to discuss and seek to resolve any common concerns regarding issues such as parking and security. Twice a year the property owner is to submit a written report to the Director of Planning and Conmmnity Environment, detailing complaints and a response to them. The City’s Economic Development Office has considered the concerns expressed by Town and Country Village Shopping Center representatives that the drop-in day service operations might negatively impact the shopping center. These concerns include loitering, panhandling, and increased cut-through traffic in the parking lot on the Town mad Country property, as well as vehicles parked overnight on Encina Avenue. In conjunction with the City’s Police Department staff, the Economic Development staff believes that any negative impacts will be mitigated by a comprehensive security plan and limited daytime hours of operation for the drop-in service center. The City is committed to working with Town and Country management to identify concerns and mitigate any negative impacts. The Opportunity Center may well have several positive impa~cts on surrounding businesses. It is a good central location that is accessible by both private and public transportation. Town and The Opportunity Center and Housing Project 33-49 Encina Avenue Page 8 Country is within walking distance from the Opportunity Center. Staff, residents and clients may chose to shop at local eateries and retailers at the shopping center, including a planned Long’s Drug Store. The proximity of local shops to the Opportunity Center increases the vitality and walkability of Encina Avenue and nearby E1 Camino Real. A large portion of the Opportunity Center’s single adult client population are expected to be from the same ~oup of individuals that presently access social services and reside in the Pa!o Alto area. Several services that are currently provided by the Urban Ministry of Palo Alto to homeless individuals will relocate to the Opportunity Center. The Urban Ministry drop-in center is located out-of-doors behind the Red Cross building, less than one half mile from the project site. Portions of the Elsa Segovi.a Center, located in Menlo Park, that serve women and children w-ould relocate to the family services portion of the Opportunity Center. Recommended Findings The Planning & Transportation Conmaission is required to establish the following three PC zone district findings before a recommendation is made to the City Council: The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. A~zalysis: The increased density and decreased parking requirement will allow a geater number of smaller units, thus serving a large.r number of persons needing housing, and will reduce the costs per unit. This, combined with public funding and private contributions, will make the units affordable to households with low and very low incomes. The CS Conmaercial Service District would permit the proposed community service use. However, it would not permit the proposed mix of residential and cormnunity service uses due to the restrictive standards of Chapters 18.24 (RM-30 District) and 18.28 (Multiple-Family Residence Guidelines) for setbacks, lot coverage and daylight plane which would be applicable due to the mix of residential and non-residential uses in a CS zone. Development of the site under the provisions of the Planned Community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In ma~ng the findings required by this section, the P&TC and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the Planned Co~rmaunity district. ~4nalysis: The project provides two public benefits: (1) a drop-in service center for homeless and those at risk of being homeless, and (2) 89 housing units for low- and very low-income persons. Both uses are needed resources in Palo Alto, as emphasized in the Housing Element to the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Council in 2002. The Housing Element identifies a City shortage of almost 300 units of housing affordable to households with low or very low incomes. At present, the City has insufficient indoor space to provide services to homeless members of the community. The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable witt~in the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The Opportunity Center and Housing Project 33-49 Encina Avenue Page 9 Analysis: The uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites and within the general vicinity, in that the permitted uses (housing for low-income persons and community service center) will have minimal traffic or noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The project will further the policies and pro~ams of the Housing Element by providing rental housing which meets the special needs of low- and very low-income individuals and families and by taking advantage of financing available from other levels of governments. Furthermore, the Opportunity Center will further the policies and progams of the Housing Element by providing needed social services to the residents of the complex as we!l as to homeless persons and those at risk of becoming homeless within the general public. The project would also further assist the City in achieving its "fair share" housing requirement identified by the State. Staff’ s recommended findings for the Planned Community District are included in the PC Ordinance (Attachment A). The Resolution for the Architectural Review, as recommended by the ARB and staff, is included in Attachment B. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed Opportmaity Center and Housing Project is consistent with the plans and policies of the City of P alo Alto. The project complies with the Comprehensive Plan’s updated Housing Element’s policies and programs for increased housing density for sites with close proximity to public transit and major streets and commercial areas. Chapter 3 of the DEIR provides a full discussion of the project’s conformance with applicable plans and policies. As the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Service Commercial designation, no Comprehensive Plan amendment is required. The Plan’s land use designation for this site is Service Commercial. The Comprehensive Plan defines the Service Commercial designation as follows: Seta, ice Commercial: Facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriving by car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in high volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses include auto see’vices and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, appliance stores, and restaurants, including fast service types. In ahnost all cases, these uses require good automobile and service access so that customers can safely load and unload without impeding traffic. In some locations, residential and mixed use projects may be appropriate in this land use category. Examples of Service Commercial areas include San Antonio Road, El Camino Real, and Embarcadero Road northeast of the Bayshore Freeway. Non-residential floor area ratios will range up to 0.4. This land use designation allows multi-density residential facilities providing citywide and regional services and mixed-use development. As a mixed-use development, including both multi-family housing and convrmnity services for low income and homeless people in the region, the proposed project’s uses are consistent with the Service Commercial designation. The Qpportunity Center and Housing Project 33-49 Encina Avenue Page 10 EINWIRONMENTAL REVIEW City staff prepared a Draft Enviromaaental Impact Report (DEIR) that analyzes the project for potential environmental impacts in accordance with the California Envirolzmental Quality Act (CEQA). The analysis of the DEIR concludes that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts. Locating the service center and housing on the site could have significant visual and land use impacts. However, the project as desi~o-ned and proposed for approval includes mitigation that would reduce these impacts to less than sig-nificant level. For further discussion of the environmental impacts and proposed mitigation, please see the earlier P&TC staff report from December 18, 2002 and the DE]Y,. The DEI~ was in public circulation from December 13, 2002 to January 13, 2003. The DEIR included a public circulation review for public and agency comments. The DEIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse, the Palo Alto Unified School District, the adjoining cities of Mountain View, East Palo Alto, and Menlo Park and the Counties of Santa Clara and San Mateo. The public review included copies being available at all City libraries and copies available for check out at the Development Center and at the Pla~ming Department in the Civic Center. Copies were also provided to the Commission and City Council. In addition, the Draft EIR has also been made available on the City’s webpage at www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/zoning/oppctr/. The Colrunission held a public heating on December 18 for receiving public comments. At the meeting, six speakers provided public comments addressing the DEIR and!or the proposed Opportunity Center and Housing Project. Two speakers submitted written comments that are contained in the FEIR with responses to those comments. In addition, three written comments from the community and one from the State of California were received and will be included, with responses, in the FEIR (Attachment D). The Con~nission comments included a request for a more legible sun-shadow study and further analysis of the visual impacts of the proposal in context of the neighboring uses. Attachment F is the revised sun-shadow study and revised contextual elevations are included in the plan set. The FEI~ includes the following additional information (Attachment D contains draft sections of the FEIR): Text revisions to the DE£R. List of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR. Written comments and responses to both the written comments and the comments received at the hearings held by the ARB and P&TC on the DEIR. Verbatim minute excerpts from the P&TC meeting of December 18. Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Pro~am. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, this document, especially the co~mnents and responses, will be available for public review for 10 days prior to City Council’ s action. RESOURCE IMPACT: The total cost for the Opportunity Center is estimated at $22 million, of which approximately two thirds will come from public funds: federal Corrmmnity Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, tax credit financing, and other sources. The Co~mnunity Working Group is conducting an The Opportunity Center and Housing Project 33-49 Encina Avenue Page 11 $8 million private capital campaign, to provide both building capital and an endowment for services. Since May 2001, the City Council has allocated a total of $!.28 million in CDBG funds for the Oppommity Center project, to be used for predevelopment, re!ocation and land acquisition costs. Predevelopment expenses are costs related to the PC application, including design and environmenta! studies. In December 2002, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara submitted an application for $750,000 of City Housing Reserve Funds to be used for construction of the housing component. The applicant’s deadline for filing with the State for the Multifamily Housing Pro~am (MHP) is March 18, 2003. NEXT STEPS On March 3, 2003, the City Council will consider certifying the Final EI~ and will take final action on the project. If approved by the Council, the final project design details such as landscaping, lighting, and signage would be brought back to the Architectural Review Board for further review. ATTACHMENT Attachment A:Draft Planned Cormnunity Ordinance Attachment B:Draft Architectural Review Resolution Attachment C:Site Location Map Attachment D:Excerpts from the Final Environmental Impact Report - FEIR [Commission members only] o Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Prograna o List of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR ~Written comments and responses ~Verbatim minutes excerpts from the P&TC meeting of December 18, 2002 Attachment E:Draft Verbatim Minutes Excerpts from the ARB meeting of December 19, 2002 Attact~rnent E:Revised plans [Commission members only] Attactm~ent F:Sun-Shadow Study [Commission members only] COURTESY COPIES Maryarme Welton, Rob Wellington Quigley, FAIA, 210 High Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Matt Steinle, Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, 505 ’,Vest Julian Street, San Jose, CA95!10 David Jury, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 795 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Aino Vieira da Rosa, 951 Lincoln, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cole Bridges, Town and Country Village Shopping Center, Palo Alto League of Women Voters, 457 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Santa Clara County Supervisor Liz Kniss, Attn: Kindel Launer, 70 West Hedding Street, 10th Floor, San Jose, CA 95110 The Opportunity Center and Housing Project 33-49 Encina Avenue Page I2 Prepared by:Beth Young, Senior Plarmer Manager Review:John Lusardi, Planning Manager D ep artment!Division Head Approv al:~~.~~ L~rote, ~n~ ~cial The Opportunity Center and Housing Project 33-49 Encina Avenue Page 13 RESOLUT!ON NO. RESOLUT!ON OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING ARCHITECTU~hL REVIEW (02-ARB--!33) FOR THE OPORTUNiTY CENTER AT 33-49 ENCINA AVENUE (COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP AND HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLAK~, OWNERS) _. ~ -of Pa!o Alto does resolve asThe Council of the C_~y --- follows : SECTION !. Backqround. The City Council finds, determines, and declares that: A. Rob Wellington Quig!ey, FAiA,("the applicant"), on behalf of the Community Working Group and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, has requested approval of a PC Planned CoMmunity zone change to ~ermit the deve!opment of its .42 acre site at 33-49 Encina Avenue with an approximat=!y 45,800 square f==~ building with 8,400 smuare _~u of community service area and e~gh~y-..in~ (89) units of income- restricted multi-family rental housing (the "Project"). ~ dB. The City Council has adop~e Resolution No. approving a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project. C. The Architectura! Review Board on November 21, 2002, December 5, 2002, and December 19, 2002 reviewed and cons-[dered the design of the Project and recommended approval upon the conditions set forth below. D. The Planning and Transportation CoMmission held a public hearing on the Project on january 29, 2003 and recommended approval of the design of the Project, based upon the findings and upon the conditions set forth below. E. The Ci<y Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on , and heard and considered a!l 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. SRCTTON .... 2 Design --.~°r°val. _ .... The City_ Council ..hereby_ approves O?an~ng~ ........ ~mpl~cation_ __ No. 02-ARB-!33, regarding the 030124 <vn 009119! 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- tectura! Review as required in Chapter 16.48 of the P:m~C. (b) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. There are general citywide policies in the Comprehensive P!an Land Use and Community Design Element, Transportation Element, and Housing Element that apply to this land use designation. Specific policy direction includes: (!) Policy H-2: Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations; (2) Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality; (3) Policy H-!4: Encourage the preservation, rehabilitation, and construction of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels and SRO housing; (4) Policy H-~6: Support housing that incorporates facilities and services to meet the health care, transit, or social service needs of households with special needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities; (5) Policy H-!9: Support the provision of emergency shelter, transitional housing and ancillary services to address home!essness; (6) Policy T-I: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use; (7) Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to Create opportunities for new mixed use development; (8) Policy L-!3: Evaluate alternative types of housing that increase density and provide more diverse housing opportunities; and (9) Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. (c) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the layout and circulation of the site is essentially the same as currently exists. The architecture, landscaping, parking and other site treatments will bring a new look to the center and will offer a better shopping opportunity for the surrounding Pa!o Alto residents. (d) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the design accommodates the physical and programmatic needs of the community service center and residential components of the project. 030124 syn 0091 I91 (e) The design is compatible with the character of the area in that the project promotes and enhances the existing mix of uses, by incorporating residential near shopping and service outlets, and transit use. (f) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated uses in that the residential and drop-in service center of the project include design elements that distinguish between the two uses on site while providing an overall attractive building. (g 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 genera! community in that each land use is supported by adequate amenities to ensure the harmonious co- existence of the different ~activities on the site. (h) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that public outdoor spaces are provided for Zhe residential units and a covered entryway is proposed on the southwest corner of the building to promote pedestrian activity further south on Encina Avenue. (i) The natura! features on the site are appropriately preserved and protected in that the building is designed to minimize impacts to the three protected trees (two Coast Live Oaks and one Coasta! Redwood and two additional trees of significant size on the site’s perimeter. (j) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles in that access to the underground parking will not interfere with existing traffic and loading patterns in the area. The site is accessible by pedestrians on designated wa!kways, adequate bicycle parking for the proposed land uses wil! be provided, and the future Homer Avenue bike and pedestrian undercrossing wil! connect to the downtown and transit corridors serve the site. (k) The design is energy efficient and incorporates sustainable design elements including, but not limited to: Addressing solar orientation and provide sun shading systems and natural lighting; incorporating operable windows for ventilation; Using recycled materials and recycling demolition materials wherever feasible; and including the provisions for rooftop solar hot water heating and photovo!taic cells. 030124 ~n 0091191 SECTION 3. Conditions of ApDrova!. General o The proposed project shal! comply with al! existing applicable policies, programs and requirements, including the City of Pa!o Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 and the Pa!o Alto Municipal Code (PP~C). The proposed project shall return to the ARB at a later date for review of the fina! design and detai! consideration of: o Awnings, windows and window screens. Materials and fabrication for signage. The trash and recycling removal program, including location of receptacles for pick-up. Exterior co!or and materials after opportunity for review of a mock-up on site. The Opportunity Center’s hours of opera<ion shal! be limited to Monday through Friday, from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with services (both family services and individua! homeless population) provided from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Special events, classes and training sha!l end by !0 p.m daily, including weekends. Prior to issuance of building permit the applicant shall submit a security plan to the satisfaction of the Police chief and the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The plan shal! include, but not be limited to hours of operation for both facilities, staffing on a 24- hour basis, exterior and interior lighting, access, site security measures and an emergency response plan. o At least once annually the property owner shal! meet with owners and tenants of the properties !ocated on the b!ock wherein the subject property is located. The purpose of the meeting shal! be to discuss and seek to resolve any common concerns regarding issues such as parking for the Project and security with respect to operations of the service center. o Twice a year the property owner shall submit a written report to the Director Of Planning and Community Environment.The report shal! describe complaints and concerns by neighboring property owners or tenants, or members of the public,about operations of the service 4 030124 syn 0091 !91 o ° center and contain a detailed log of al! complaints or concerns received by the project sponsor!property owner and the action was taken to address the complaint.The Director may waive the reporting requirement, or lengthen the interval between reports if he or she deems it appropriate. The following measures shall be incorporatedinto the project to reduce !_gh< and glare impacts unlessthere are extenuating circumstances, such as security requirements: Shield or focus outdoor night lighting downward to minimize upward reflected light. Recess lighting elements within fixtures to prevent glare. Select lighting features which can be shielded after installation, if a problem is identified. The proposed project shall incorporate sustainable design features and building practices, including, but not limited to the fol!owing: Address solar orientation and provide sun shading systems and natura! lighting. incorporate operable windows for ventilation. Reduce the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and consider the use of permeable paving. Use recycled materials and recycling demolition materials wherever feasible. Provisions for rooftop solar hot water heating and photovo!taic cells. The applicant shal! exp!ore alternatives for window construction other than viny! and placement of electric charging stations in the garage. At the time of filing for building permit, the applicant will submit a report to the Department of Planning and Community Environment detailing the sustainabi!ity features included in the project. Within 6-months of completing construction of the project, the applicant shal! prepare a report for the ARB’s review of the project’s sustainabi!ity program and LEED score. The applicant shal! exp!ore opportunities to incorporate public art into the project. 030124 syn 0091191 5 !0.Trash and recycling receptacles shall be placed outside for the length of time necessary for collection. Fol!owing pick-up, the empty receptacles shal! promptly be returned to their storage !ocation within the project. !i.The following dust contro! measures shal! be implemented during project construction to reduce the impact of construction dust: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Cover all 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 al! unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction Kites. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) al! 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. 12.Project personnel shall be alerted to the possibility of encountering archaeo!ogica! resources during construction and appraised oT the proper p_ocedur~s to follow in the event that archaeo!ogica! resources or human remains are found. In the event of ~cc~den~=l discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County corqner’s Office shal! be notified i~mediately. The coroner will determine if the remains ~are those of a Native American, and 7T they are, shall comply w_<h CEOA Guidelines Sec !5064.5(e). in the event that archaeo!ogica! resources are aculv!ule ,discovered during grading or construction ~’--’~’ s al! work shall__ cease within _750 ~=~=~ of the find until_ it can be evaluated by a qualified, professional archaeo!ogist. The archeologist shal! 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 archaeo!ogical excavation and ...... monitoring activities sha!~_ be conducted _..~n accordance with prevailing professiona! standards as 030124 syn 0091 ! 91 13. 14. 15. Gu~d~±:nes and by the Ca!i{orniaoutlined in the State CEQA ’ -~: ....... Office of Historic Preservation. The Native ~_merican community shal! be consulted on al!aspects of the mitigation ~rogram. The project shal! include design features that wil! reduce the maximum outdoor noise level to as c!ose as the 60 dB standard as feasible through project design. An updated acoustica! analysis shal! be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal of the building permit. The report shal! address the projected noise impacts to interior and exterior spaces noise after installation of design features and mechanica! equipment that are needed to reduce exterior noise levels to the 60 dB standard. 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 expectedtime!!he for demolition and construction activities, and hours of construction. If necessary, a Well Destruction Permit for the groundwater monitoring wel! _ocaLed on the 33 Encina Avenue parcel shal! be obtained from the Santa Clara County Water Authority. Transportation Division 16.Other development projects in the area have contributed a fair share amount to the City’s planned improvement at the Embarcadero/ECR intersection (addition of second southbound left turn lane). This is not due to a significant project impact, rather to a pre-existing unacceptable operation at the signal,and this project’s incremental (but not significant)future contribution to this problem. This contribution would be the project’s projected 5 PM peak hour trips turning left from s/b E1 Cam!no to e/b Embarcadero (Figure 8 of the TIA) divided by the 447 existing PM peak hour trips making that movement (October 17, 2001 monitoring count) multiplied by the mostcurrent estimated cost for the project ($312,000, as described in the October 25, 2001 letter from the Planning Department to David Jury of PAMF), resulting in a contribution of $6,282. 0301v4 svn 0091191 P!anning.~borist Prior to issuance of Demolition, Grading or Buiidinc Permit 17.Tree Protection instructions <i "~ ~¯~_x trees (~!,~, ~, 7, 8 and 9) shall be retained and protected bythe project sponsor.Al! recommendations specified in the Tree Preservation Report for the project shal!be consistent with the City Tree Technica! Manual (TTM), implemented and maintained throughout the course of construction. A plan sheet titled: TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION INSTRUCTIONS shall accompany the plans submitted for building permit and referenced on a!l Civil drawings (Utility, Storm, Grading, Erosion, etc.); Demolition; Staging; Building; Landscape, Planting and irrigation Plans. The Tree Protection and Preservation sheet sha]7 also contain the arbor!st remo~’~ (Arbor Resources Tree Survey dated July 22, 2002 and Addendum No. 1 dated July 16, 2002). This sheet shal! clearly! show ~ree mrotection zone, indicating where the fencing wil! be placed as a bold e=sn~e line and denote all ~rees to be retained and ~nose to be removed. ~h~ 6 trees to be protected shall be numbered on al! plan sheets and reference the tree protection instructions sheet. 18.All utilities, both public and private, requiring trenching or boring shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict wil! occur between the utilities and any landscape or trees to be retained. This shall include publicly owned trees within the right- of-way. 19.Utilities or trenching that must pass within a tree protection zone shall be directiona!ly bored beneath the root piare using the trenching!boring guidelines outlined in the Tree Technica! Manual, Section 2.20 (C and D) and review approval by the project arbor!st. !n no case shall open trenching within the TPZ occur. 20.inspection Schedule. All inspections outlined in the City Tree Technica! Manual, Section 2.30, shal! be performed as required. The inspection Schedule Table shal! be printed on the fina! set of plans submitted for the building permit. 21.Tree Protection Statement: A written statement shall be mrovided to the Building Department verifying that protective fencing for the trees is in place before 030124 ~,n 009119! demo!4ition, grading or building permit will be issued, unless otherwise approved by the C_~y Arbor!st. 22.Fencing -Protected Trees, Street Trees, or Designated Trees. Fenced enclosures shal! be erected around trees to be protected to achieve three primary functions, !) to keep the foliage canopy and branching structure clear from contact by equipment, materials and activities; 2) to preserve roots and sol! conditions in an intact and non- compacted state and 3) to identify the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) in which no soil disturbance is permitted and activities are restricted, unless otherwise approved. Size, type and area to be fenced. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with five or six (5’ - 6’) foot high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than !0-foot spac=_g Type i Tree Protection. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the canopy drip!!he or TPZ of theh ~ _ " ~ thetree(s) to be saved ~hroug..ou~ the li~e or project. Parking areas: fencing must be located on paving or concrete that will not be demolished, an appropriate grade leve! concrete base may support the posts. Duration. Tree fencing shal! be erected before demolition; grading or construction begins and remain in place until {ina! inspection of the project, except for work specifically allowed in the TPZ. Work in the TPZ requires approva! by the project arbor!st or City Arbor!st (in the case of work around Street Trees). ’Warning’ sign. A warning sign sha!-! be prominently displayed on each fence at 20-foot intervals. The sign shal! be a minimum 8.5-inches x !!-inches and clearly state: "WARNING - Tree Protection Zone - This fence shal! not be removed and is subject to a fine according to PP~]C Section 8.10.110.’" During Construction 23.Arbor!st inspection Report. The project arbor!st shall perform a site inspection to monitor tree condition on a minimum of four-week intervals. The Planning Arbor!st shal! be in receipt qf the inspection report during the first week of each month unt~] completion at fax (650) 329-2154. 030124 syn 0091191 9 24. 25. r-= that overhang the project site shallAll neighbors’ t_~s be protected from impact of any kind. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 26.The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a o So No storage of material, topsoi!, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enc!osure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. C o Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure surviva!. 27. do Watering Schedule. All trees to be retained shall receive monthly watering during al! phases of construction per the City Tree Technica! Manua!, Section 5.45. A written !og of each application of water shal! be kept at the site. The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of this !og before fina! inspection is requested. Prior to the installation of the required protective fencing, any necessary pruning or care for trees to remain shall be performed in accordance with the City Tree Technica! Manua!, Section 5.00. Any work on trees within the right-of-way must first be approved by Public Works at (650) 496-6974. Prior to Occupancy 28.Landscape Architect inspection. The contractor shall call for an inspection by the Landscape Architect, and provide written verification to the Planning Department that all trees; shrubs, planting and irrigation are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. Post Construction 29.Maintenance. For the life o{ the project, all landscape shal! be well-maintained, watered, {erti!ized, and pruned according to Nursery and ~ -rican Nationa! Standards for !0 030124 syn 0091191 Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance- Standard Practices (ANSi A300-!995) 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. Building Division Prior to Submitta! for Building Permit 30.The plans submitted for the building permit shall include the full scope of the construction including al! site development, utility installations,architectural, structural, electrical,plumbing and mechanica! work associated with the proposed project. 31. 32. The entire project is to be included under a single building permit and shal! not be phased under multiple permits. The plans submitted with the building permit application are to clearly indicate building height in accordance with UBC Section 209. 33. 34. Design .of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be "deferred" sha!l be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shal! be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. The !ocation of the bui!ding’s electrical service shal! r= ~r prior approva! by the inspection Services Division_~qu__e _- - and shal! be located at an exterior location or in a room or enclosure accessible directly form the exterior. 35.The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable f!oor area calculation that relates the mixed occupancies to type of construction. 36.The plans submitted with the permit application for the she!l building shal! include the complete design for disabled access and exiting for the entire site, building entrances and basement parking garage. Disable access features and exiting within the unimproved offices spaces may be deferred to future tenant improvement permits. 030124 syn 0091191 !! 37.The residentia! portions of the project shal! include the required number of handicap accessible and adaptable units prescribed in California Building Code (CBC), Chapter !i. 38.The acoustica! analysis shall be revised and expanded and the plans shal! incorporate the report’s recommendations needed to comply with the sound transmissions requirements in CBC Appendix Chapter 12. Revisions shall include an analysis proposed roof-top mechanical equipment. A follow- up letter from the acoustica! consultant with additiona! information is acceptable. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 39.Santa Clara County Health Dept. approva! is required for the commercial kitchen construction. Please submit 2 copies of plans stamped and approved by the Health Dept., prior to permit issuance. 40.A demolition permit shall be required for the removal of the existing buildings on the site. Removal of the existing buildings and fina! of the demolition permits is to be completed prior to issuance of the permit for the new building. 41.The lots comprising the site shall be merged. The parcel map or certificate of compliance shal! be recorded prior to building permit issuance. Fire Department 42.An alternate method wi!! be required, emp!oying additiona! fire protection measures to offset the lack of access. At minimum, the Fire Department will require the applicant to provide Opticom transponders for two Fire Department vehicles and a 20 foot wide surface designed to convey a fire truck to a point where the aeria! ladder can be deployed to reach the roof of the building. This alternate method wil! need to be approved by the Fire Chief, so there may be additiona! requirements besides those listed below. 43.Provide Fire Department access road 20 feet in width with 13’6" vertica! clearance. Road to meet weight bearing (60,000 !bs.) and turning radius (40 ft. inside) requirements of fire truck. Road shal! be al!-weather, and shal! reach to within 150 feet of any point on the first f!oor exterior. (98 CFC 902.2.2) 12 030124 s.vn 0091191 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. Hydrants shal! be spaced at intervals not to exceed 300 feet in the vicinity of the building, fol!owing the route of travel of a fire engine. (P~!C 15.04.140) A fire sprinkler system shall be provided throughout the building which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13 - 1996 Edition. Fire Sprinkler system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (P~!C 15.04.083) An approved underground fire supmlv shal! 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 submitta! to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC 15.04.083) NOTE: Fire Department approva! wil! 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 building. (98CBC3!0) Fire Alarm system installations require separate submitta! to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (P~!C 15.04.083) An approved standpipe system for the building, which may be combined with the sprinkler system, shall be provided and shal! meet the requirements of NFPA Standard No.!4 - 1996 Edition. Standpipe system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (P~IJC 15.04.083) NOTE: If the standpipe system is combined with the sprinkler system, a booster-type fire pump wil! be required to meet the required flow of 750 gpm at i00 psi. Hose outlets for the exterior of the building in approved locations wil! be required as part of the above mentioned alternate method. Elevator cars shall be sized for Fire Department gurney access requirements based on gurney dimensions of 24" x 82"’ plus a minimum of two emergency response personne!. (P~JC 15.04.120) Public Works Recycling 50.Provisions for trash storage for the project must provide for the storage of recyc!ab!es per P:I~C. The garbage/recycling hauler shall located and accessible in a way that the project can receive <he standard leve! of 13 030124 syn 0091191 way that the project can receive the standard leve! of service for this facility By Dqacing trash and recycling underground, versus ground level with consideration of vehicle access by the garbage/recycling hauler, the facility may incur significant additional charges for garbage and recycling collection service. The location and access to these trash storage and recyclab!es shall be shown on the plans prior to issuance of building permit. Public Works Water Quality 51.Pa!o Alto Municipal Code (PP!~C) Section !6.09.032(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. Project building plans must specify that non-copper wastewater piping will be used. 52.in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (P~iJC) Section !6.09.032(b) (8), condensate lines from HVAC equipment may not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. Project building plans must indicate that any condensate lines will be connected to the sanitary sewer. 53.if a hydraulic elevator is installed, any hard-plumbed water discharge to the sanitary sewer from the elevator sump pit must pass by gravity flow through an oil/water separator. If a sump pump is to be utilized, the pumped discharge must be contained in a tank, or the sump pump must be equipped with an oi! sensor system to prevent hydraulic oi! spills from being pumped to the sanitary sewer. 54.Drain plumbing for the underground parking garage must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of !00 gal!ons, and to the sanitary sewer system (P~!C !6.09.032(B) (!7)). 55.Pa!o Alto recently adopted Municipa! Code Section 16.09.!06(f), which requires that new residentia! buildings with 25 or more units provide a covered area for car washing by residents. The car washing area must be connected to an oil/water separator of at least i00 gal!ons capacity, and to the sanitary sewer. This requirement becomes effective on January i, 2003, and wil! affect the project. 030124 syn 0091191 14 56.A grease removal device may be required for the first floor kitchen area. Public ~orks Engineering Prior to Submitta! of Fina! ARB 57.The applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior to fina! ARB submitta! 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 potentia! storm water impacts, the plan shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that wil! be required for the project. The SWPPP shal! include permanent BMPs to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality (resources and handouts are available from Public Works Engineering). Specific reference is made to A!to’s companion document to "Start at the Source", entitled "Planning Your Land Deve!opment Project". The elements of the PWE approve@ conceptual grading and drainage plan shal! be incorporated into the building permit plans. Prior to Building Permit Apm!ication 58. 59. The applicant shal! 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 municipa! storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shal! be maintained. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shal! provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application.. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant’s monthly City utility bill wil! take place in the month following the fina! approval of the construction by the Building inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. 030124 syn 0091191 15 An easement is required as follows: public utility easement for access to pad mount transformer. 61.A construction !ogistics plan shal! be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. Al! truck routes shall conform with the City of Pa!o A!to’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance,~ Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Pa!o Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering. Prior to issuance of Building Permit 62.The applicant shal! 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 (P~MC Section 12.08.010). 63.An underlying lot !ine exists on the property. The deve!oper/applicant is required to apply for a Certificate of Compliance from Public Works Engineering, to remove the underlying !ot line from this parce!. Application information is available at the Deve!opment Center. Note: The building permit associated with the application wil! not be issued until this certificate is fully executed and recorded with the County Recorder’s office. 64.A detailed site-specific sol! report prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technica!engineer must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement construction issues.This report shal!identify the current groundwater level, if encountered,and by using this and other available information, as well as f= sionai experience, the engineer shall estimate thepro_us -- highest projected ground-water level likely to be encountered in the future. If the proposed basementis reasonably above the projected highest water leve!, 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 al! projected hydrostatic and sol! pressures.No pumping of ground water is allowed,in genera!,Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed ~n 030124 syn 0091191 16 65. such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels. The applicant is required to paint the "No Dumping/Flows to San Francisquito Creek" !ogo in blue co!or on a white background, adjacent to a!l storm drain inlets. Stencils of the !ogo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650)329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stenci!. Include the instruction to paint the !ogos on the construction grading and drainage plan. include maintenance of these !ogos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. During Construction 66.The con~rac~o_ must contact the CPA Public Works inspector at (650)496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. 67.No storage of construction._ mat=rials~__ is ~mermitted-- _ _._in the ~r ~the sidewalk without prior approval of Publicsu_eeu or on -_-- --- --- Works Engineering. 68.The deve!oper shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater pollution prevention in al! construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention P!an prepared for the project, it is unlawfu! to discharge any construction debris (sol!, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09). 69..__~l! construction within the City __gri ht-of-way,, easements or C_~y jurisdiction shall conform toother property under i= Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Prior to Finalization 70.All sidewalks and curb and gutters bordering the project shall be repai_ea and/or removed and reD!aced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. 71.The Public Works inspector shal! sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. ~l] off- site improvements shal! be finished mrior to th~ sign-off. 17 0a0194 svn0091191 Utilities Division Utilities Marketinm Services 72.Prior to issuance of either a building permit or grading permit, al! common area landscaping shall be approved by the utilities marketing services division of the Utilities Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. A water budget shall be assigned to the project and a dedicated irrigation water meter shall be required. Call the Landscape P!an Review Specialist at 650) 329-2549 for additional information. Water, Gas & Wastewater Utilities Department :.__or to issuance of Demolition Permit 73.The applicant shal! submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within !0 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after al! utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. Prior to Submittal for Building Permit 74. 75. The applicant shal! submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Pa!o Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in g.p.d.). The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of al! underground utilities within the deve!opment and the public right of way including meters, backf!ow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer c!eanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 76.The_.. applicant must show., on the sit=~ ~]an__ _~ the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 030124 syn 0091191 18 77. _The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water we!!, or auxiliary water supp!,i. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility laterals and services as necessary to handle anticipated peak !oads. This responsibility includes al! costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. Prior to issuance of Building Permit 78.The applicant’s engineer shall submit f!ow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. 79.The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a f!ow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remain@ng 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 over!oading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 80.For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. Al! utility work within the public right-of-way shal! be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil ~ ==r. The contractor shall a] so subm~ a completeeng_n .....- --- 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 amm]{cant’s contractor wil! not be al!owed to begin work unt%! the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. 19 030124 syn 0091191 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water service, gas meter and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the !ocation of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shal! be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service wil! be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Pa!o Alto water efficiency standards. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant’s contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required contro! equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detai!. Show the !ocation of the new water service and meter on the plans. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the !ocation of the new water service and ~ r .me~e_ on the plans A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the !ocation of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all f~re department’s remuirements An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backfiow preventer device) shall be installed for al! existing and new water connections from Pa!o Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California a6ministrative code, title 17,sections 7583 through 7605 inc!usige.The RPPA shall be installed on the owner’s property and directly behind the water meter. Show the !ocation ofthe RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross 030124 syn 009! 191 2O 88. 89. 90. 91. connection inspector ~s requ:_~ed between the meter and the asse_mbly. for the supply pipe 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 a6ministrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Double check detector check valves shal! be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Show the location of the 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. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter !ocation must conform with utilities standard details. ~ n=,~ sewer lateral installation oer lot is reGu~red the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. Show New sewer manhole on the main may be-reGuiredo __to be installed per the WGW Standards. During Construction 92.The contractor shal! contact nde- round servi ce alert (800) 227-2600 one week in advance of starting excavation ut!!l<!esto provide for marking of un@e_ground ¯ 93.The applicant shall provide protection for utility lines subject to damage. Utility lines within a pit or trench shal! be adequately supported. Al! exposed water, gas, and sewer lines shal! be inspected by the WGW Utilities inspector prior to backfilling. 94.The contractor shall maintain 12" clear, above and below, from the existing utilities to new underground facilities. The applicant shall be responsible for re!ocating the ~ _ _ ne ry toexisting uti!_~y mains and/or services as cessa _ accommodate new storm drains, w4th_ the _prior-- _ amprova]_ _ _ of the Utility Department. This responsibility includes al! costs associated with the design and construction for the re!ocation of the utility mains and/or services. Sanitary -~ ~- = for the fu!]sewer laterals wil! need to be r~p_=c~d of the latera! (if possible) per ~..e Utilizy Standards. Sanitary sewer mains can not be re!ocated. 030124 s.vn 0091191 21 95.i{ the Contractor elects to bore new pipes or conduits, the pi!ot bore hole shal! be 24" clear from any existing utility pipes and al! existing utility crossings shall be potho!ed prior to starting work. 96.All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Pa!o Alto utility standards for water, gas wastewater. 97.Utility service connections wil! be installed between 30 and 40 days fo!lowing receipt of full payment. Large developments must al!ow sufficient !ead time (6 weeks minimum) for utility construction performed by the City of Pa!o Alto Utilities. 98.Al! utility work shal! be inspected and approved by the WGW utilities inspector, inspection costs shal! be paid by the applicant’s contractor. Schedule WGW utilities inspections at 650/566-4504 five working days before start o{ constructions. 99.The applicant’s contractor shall im~mediately notify the Utilities Department (650) 496-6982 or 650/329-2413 if the existing wa~_ or gas mains are disturbed or damaged !00.All backf!ow 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. !01.No water valves or other facilities owned by Utilities Department shal! be operated for any purpose by the applicant’s contractor. Al! 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. 102.The contractor shall not disconnect any part o{ the existing water main except by expressed permission of the e . subm_~ a schedule ofutilities chi ~ inspector and shal!~ the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. 103.The water main shal! not be turned on unti! the service installation and the performance of chlorination and bacterio!ogica! testing have been completed. The contractor’s testing method shal! be in conformance with ANSI/AWWA C65!-!atest edition. 030124 sy~ 0091191 22 104.Al! existing water and wastewater services that wil! not be reused shal! be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 105.All i~provements to the gas system will be performed by the City of Pa!o Alto Utilities. 106.Al! 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 fina! inspection and the building inspection division sends the set tag to the Utilities Department provided that the customer’s piping conforms to the Utility Standards. 107.Changes from the uti.lity standards or approved submittals wi!l require new submittals, as specified above, showing the changes. The new submittals must be approved by the utilities engineering section before making any change. Utilities/Engineering Electrical Division Prior to Demolition Permit issuance 108.The Permittee shal! 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 shal! contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. Prior to Submitta! for Building Permit 109.A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with a!! building permit applications involving electrica! work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submitta!. !i0. industria!and large commercia! 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. !!!.Only one electric service latera! is permitted per parcel. Utiiitie~ Rule & Regu!a<ion ~7 8 23 030124 syn 0091191 112.This project requires a padmount transformer unless otherwise approved in writing by the Electric Utility Engineering Department. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16. 113.The deve!oper/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 shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as required by the City. 114. The customer shall install al! electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. Al! conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ½- inch size conduits are permitted. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. The design and installation shall a!so be according to the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 115.Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and UtiliL_es Dep~rLmen~. 116.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, a!l aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirement.s. 117.For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnect!on point between the uti!ity’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. ]!8_ . No more ~nan four 750MCM conductors per mhase, can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to pa~mount transformers, if customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and 24 030124 syn 0091191 the main switchgear, the installation of transition cabinet will not be required. 119.The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the Nationa! Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Ru!e & Regulation #18. 120.Any additiona! facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities wi!! be subject to Specia! Facilities charges. The Specia! Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additiona! facilities as wel! as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. Prior to Building Permit issuance 121.The applicant shal! comply with al! the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. During Construction 122.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. 123.At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must cal! Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1- 800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities !ocated and marked. The areas to be checked by USA shal! be delineated with white paint. Al! USA markings shal! be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 124.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 .al!owed in a secondary conduit run. Al! conduits must be sized according to Nationa! Electric Code requirements and no ½-inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work wil! 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. 030124 s}m 0091191 25 125.Al! 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 al!owed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additiona! pul! boxes. 126.Al! new underground conduits and substructures shal! be ~ ~ !!ed City standards and shall be inspected by the_nsLa per -_ Electrica! Underground inspector before backfilling. Rule and Regulation #16. 127.The customer is responsible for installing al! underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shal! meet the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 128.Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enc!osures, the customer must submit switchboard drawings to the Electric Metering Department at 3201 East Bayshore Road, Pa!o Alto 94303 for approva!. The City requires compliance with al! applicable EUSERC standards for metering and switchgear. 129.Al! new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building inspection Division and the Electrica! Underground inspector before energizing. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. After Construction and Prior to Finalization 130.The customer shal! provide as-built drawings showing the !ocation of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size),splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. Prior to Occupancy 131 The appl_canu shall secure a Public Utilities <asement for facilities installed on private property for City use. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16. 132.All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building inspection Division and the Electrica! Underground inspector. 133. All fees must be paid. 030124 syn 0091191 26 134.Al! Specia! Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon the effective date of Ordinance , entitled "Ordinance of the City Counci! of the City of Pa!o Alto k_mending Section 18.08.040 of the Pa!o Alto Municipa! Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 33-49 Encina Avenue from CS Co,mercia! Services to PC Planned Community " INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT" -ABSTENTIONS: A±T~ST:APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 030124 syn 0091191 27 Attachment C RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MAKING OTHER FINDINGS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY CENTER AND HOUSING PROJECT (33, 39 & 45/49 ENCINA AVENUE) PURSUANT. TO THE CALIFO~IA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Counci! 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. Rob Wellington Quigley, FAIA, ("Applicant"), on behalf of the Community Working Group of the MidPeninsula and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, ("Proponents’) for the demolition of three existing buildings and constructionof a 5- story mixed use building consisting of The Opportunity Center, a social service area, and 4 stories of subsidized rental housing units (the "Project") at 33, 39, & 45/49 Encina Avenue, (the "Site"), an 0.417 acre parce! which presently includes three existing buildings (approximately 5,260 square feet of commercia! space). The Project analyzed is construction of a 5-story mixed use building, approximately 45,800 square feet in size, with approximately 8,100 square feet of social service area, including drop-in services such as medical services, counseling services, bathing facilities, light meals, computer access and training, vocational training, and a community clothes c!oset; 38,000 square feet (89 units) of income-restricted multiple family housing; 24,000 square feet (43 spaces) of vehicle parking on two levels; up to i00 bicycle parking spaces; relandscaping of the site including retention and protection of all trees on the site and on adjacent sites; and the addition of new outdoor courtyard areas for both socia! and pedestrian circulation use. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (hereinafter "CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, Califoriia Code of Regulations Title 14, section 15000, et seq., an Environmenta! Impact Report ("EIR"), was prepared to evaluate anticipated environmental impacts resulting from changes in land use as a result of the !mplementation of the Project. The Final EIR is on file in the offices 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. 030225 syn 0091197 C. The draft EIR was offered for public review and comment beginning on December 13, 2002, and ending on January 14, 2003, and the City received written and oral communications during the public review period. The City fully and adequately responded to these comments in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, and the comments and responses have been included in the Fina! EIR. D. The Planning and Transportation Commission held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on December 18, 2002. The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed, heard public comments on, and considered the draft EIR and found that the draft EIR provided an adequate project description, identified and analyzed each potentia! significant environmental impact and proposed feasible mitigation measures, described and evaluated a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project and its proposed location, including those specific alternatives required by CEQA, and recommended preparation of Final EIR based upon the draft EIR reviewed by them. The Architectura! Review Board also reviewed the draft EIR on December 19, 2002. E. The City Council has fully reviewed and carefully considered the draft EIR, the comments and responses to comments concerning the draft EIR and all other environmenta! documents that comprise the Fina! EiR. SECTION 2. Certification. The City Council hereby finds, declares, and certifies that the Fina! EIR has been completed in compliance with the CEQA. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Fina! EIR, staff reports, ora! and written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project, and al! other matters deemed materia! and relevant before considering the Project for approva!. The City Council hereby finds the following: A. That the Draft and Final EIR were prepared by the City and reflects the independent review and judgment of the City as Lead Agency. B. That the EIR has been prepared in compliance with the CEQA. There is no significant new information that would support a conclusion that the EIR should be re-circulated pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. SECTION 3. Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated To A Less Than Significant Level. The City Counci! finds that the EIK identifies potentially significant environmental effects of the Project with regard to land use, transportation and parking, biological resources, visual quality and aesthetics, cultura! and historic resources, and public safety (hazardous materials). 2 030225 syn 0091197 Mitigation measures have been identified which eliminate or substantially reduce each of these impacts. The City Council finds that, in response to each significant effect listed in this Section 3, al! feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmenta! effects identified in the Final EIR as summarized below. Each of the mitigation measures summarized below is more fully described in the EIR. A. Land Use. Potentially significant impacts are identified for the change in zoning from Commercial Service district to Planned Community: the mass and scale of the new buildings; and neighborhood compatibility concerns such as security and construction noise. The Plam~ed Community district allows for project specific density, height, site coverage, setbacks, and parking requirements. The Planned Community district applies to projects with a public benefit, in this case homeless day services and income-restricted renta! units for very low- and !ow-income households. The Project includes design features, and retains existing trees, to avoid mass and scale impacts. A final security plan and the Construction Management Plan wil! address neighborhood concerns regarding security and construction issues. B. Transportation and Parking. The transportation impacts of the project include, although not a significant impact, the addition of vehicle trips on an intersection with an unacceptable (to the City) leve! of service. Parking impacts of the project include the proposed reduced parking rates due to the homeless population served having !ower vehicle ownership. The project includes adequate, as assessed, parking on-site for vehicles and bicycles. The issue of emergency vehicle access to the site since it is an interior lot with the only guaranteed long- term access from Encina Avenue was resolved by a portion of the front setback at 0’ Mitigation on the intersection includes a fair share contribution to the E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero Road intersection improvement. C. Biological Resources. biological impacts of the Project existing and adjacent trees The potentially significant include protection of the on and near the Site during construction. Building and parking garage setbacks have been incorporated into the project to retain the two significant oak trees on the site and protect adjacent trees. Construction and Tree Protection mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that trees on site and adjacent to the site are protected during construction activities. D. Visual Quality and Aesthetics. The potentially significant visual impacts of the Project include demolition of the existing 1-story buildings on site and replacement with a 5-story mixed use building, the mass and scale of the project, its visua! 3 030225 syn 0091197 compatibility with adjacent commercial properties, sun and shadow issues, light and glare issues, and its consistency with visual and aesthetic policies in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Project’s scale would be compatible with existing and potential development in the area. Mitigation measures for these impacts include a Construction Management Plan, design features such as articulation, colors and materials and retention of trees. E. Cultural and Historic Resources. The potentially significant impact of the Project for cultural resources is the moderate potential of discovering unknown cultural resources on the site. The potentially significant impact for historic resources is the protection of the adjacent local historic resource, the Greet House on the City’s Historic Inventory, during the construction phase of the project. The project would not alter the historic Greet House. Mitigation measures include a Construction Management Plan to protect the Greet House and establish a plan in case unknown cultura! resources are discovered. F. Public Safety (Hazardous Materials). The potentially significant impacts of the Project for hazardous materials include the on-site potential for demolition and construction exposure, and the discovery of unknown hazardous materials and underground storage tanks. The on-site potential for demolition and construction exposure to hazardous materials related to the prior uses on-site including automobile and appliance repair. This impact wil! be reduced to less than significant levels through the completion of required lead surveys, asbestos surveys, and Phase II environmental site assessments and any subsequent required remediation of materials found to be above acceptable levels prior to demolition. Mitigation measures for the discovery of unknown hazardous materials or unknown underground storage tanks includes a discussion in the Construction Management Plan to ensure al! subsequent notification and remediation of hazardous materials or underground storage tank, if discovered, occurs to local and State standards. SECTION 4. No Significant Impacts Which Cannot Be Fully Mitigated. The Final EIR concluded that the Project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts. The project would have potential significant visual and land use impacts. However, the project includes mitigation that would reduce these impacts to less than significant level. There is the potential for the project to have hazardous materials from contaminated soils, lead based paint and asbestos. The project includes Phase II environmental assessment testing and remediation standards in accordance with local and state law that would reduce these potential impacts to less than significant. The project would also have short-term construction related impacts, such as noise, that would also be mitigated through a Construction Management Plan to less than significant level. 4 030225 syn 0091197 SECTION 5. Impacts Found Not To Be Significant. The City finds that the Fina! EIR neither expressly identifies, nor contains any substantia! 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 6.3 of the Draft EIR) . It was. identified, through the Initial Study, that the proposed project would not have any impacts on Agricultura! Resources, Energy, Mineral Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, Recrea%ion, Population and Housing, Public Services, Hydrology, Geology, Air Quality and Noise. SECTION 6.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. With the City Council certification of the adequacy of the Final EIR and the elements of the Opportunity Center and Housing Project, it also, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines 15097, adopts the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Report attached as Exhibit A. SECTION 7. Substantial evidence supporting each and every finding made herein is contained in the Fina! EIR, and Addendum including amendments, revisions and records of proceedings. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Hanager Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment Exhibit "A" 33-49 ENCINA AVENUE THE OPPORTUNITY CENTER AND HOUSING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM The Final EIR identifies potentially significant environmental impacts with regard to Land Use, Transportation & Parking, Biological Resources, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources and Hazardous Materials. All feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR. The Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program describes each potentially significant environmental impact, appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant, and the responsible agency and time frame for mitigation monitoring. LAND USE IMPACT L-3: Neighbors and representatives of nearby businesses and the medical clinic have expressed a concern for security of the site and adjacent areas. These include concerns about visitors to the Center remaining in the area after they have received service and the potential for patrons with cars to use the Town & Country Village Shopping Center parking lot as a cut-through !rom Embarcadero Road to the Center. Mitigation Measure L-3: The City recognizes the rights of clients, residents, and employees of the Opportunity Center to be in the vicinity of the Center in the same manner as other individuals; it also recognizes the value of institutions such as the Center, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and the Town and Country Shopping Center, to work together to create a mutually supportive neighborhood. Prior to building permit approval, the project applicant will be responsible for creating a security plan that meets the approval of both the Planning and Police Departments. Elements of planned security measures in the design of the building and other on-site measures include hours of operation, staffing on a 24-hour basis, exterior and interior lighting, access, off-site security monitoring, and an emergency response plan. The Opportunity Center hours of operation would be primarily weekday daytime hours, with some allowance for events and group meetings, such as AA after hours. At least once annually, following project occupancy, the property owner shall meet with interested owners and tenants of the properties located in the vicinity of the project. The purpose of the meeting shall be to discuss and seek to resolve any common concerns regarding issues such as parking and security. Following project occupancy, the property owner shall submit a written report twice yearly to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The report shall contain a log of complaints or concerns received by the project sponsor/property owner and describe the action taken to address the complaint. The Director of Planning and Community Environment may extend the intervals between reports or waive this condition if he or she determines that it no longer serves a useful purpose. The project sponsor/property owner should consider working with the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce to form a community group from the project area that meet on a regular basis to review and discuss operations and overall conditions of the neiohborhood. A-1 Opportunity Center & Housing Project Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Program Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Palo Alto & Operator of the Opportunity Center Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Monitoring during design development and preconstruction activities. The security plan will be prepared to the satisfaction of City Police and Planning Departments. 2. Monitoring following completion of construction. The manager of the facility, InnVision, and the City will be responsible for tracking any neighborhood concerns or calls regarding the operation of the facility and how they were resolved. These matters, as well as further discussions with neighbors will be reported to the city on at least a yearly basis to track the success of the security plan and address any further matters. IMPACT L-4: The project would produce construction related noise including during demolition, site preparation/foundation work, and framing (includes roofing). Construction related noise is considered to be a less than significant impact because the construction period is of limited duration and is consistent with adopted City policies that recognize the reality of construction in the urban environment. There are several measures that can be taken to minimize construction related noise impacts to neighboring land uses. Mitigation Measure L-4: All construction activity is subject to the operating hours and limits in the City’s Noise Ordinance. The proposed development shall apply all recommendations of the noise assessment, including recommended follow up analysis of roof equipment and final building design, and conform to the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City. The construction management plan includes the posting of construction hours, identified truck routes, a neighborhood notification program, and measures taken to reduce construction noise. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. All construction truck traffic shall conform to the City of Palo Alto Trucks and Traffic Ordinance (PAMC 10.48) that also details city truck routes. Use of low noise emission equipment will also help reduce maximum sound levels. Prior to occupancy, the units must be tested to verify compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance, and results of the test provided to Planning and Police staff. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. The applicable City departments are responsible for review of construction management plan prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the project. 2. Monitor during construction activities. The City Police Department is responsible for the implementation of the Noise Ordinance and monitoring of construction hours. The City of Palo Alto and the construction project manager are responsible for monitoring that the conditions of the Construction Management Plan are implemented. A-2 Opportunity Center & Housing Project Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Program TRANSPORTATION & PARKING IMPACT T-l: Under the City of Palo Alto Level of Service (LOS) significance thresholds for intersections, the project traffic does not create any significant impacts to any of the intersections. According to the City of Palo Alto’s Transportation Division, other development projects in the area, such as the Palo Alto Medical Foundation have contributed to the City’s planned improvement at the Embarcadero/El Camino Real intersection. This is not due to an environmentally significant project impact, but rather to a pre-existing unacceptable operation at this signal and the project’s incremental (but not significant) impact to the problem. Mitigation Measure T-l: For projects such as this,.the city mitigation formula divides the added trips by the existing PM peak hour trips that would be making the turn on E1.Camino Real and multiplies the ratio by the estimated cost of the project. The proposed project’s estimated contribution is $3,490. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: Design development and preconstruction activities. Prior to the occupancy permit, the City Transportation Division is responsible for collecting funds for the future E1 Camino Real intersection improvements. IMPACT T-2: The Fire Department, using adjacent driveways and parking lots, has adequate access to the proposed structure. However, the project has no legal right to rely on access from adjacent land uses without an easement and therefore must provide alternative access. Mitigation Measure T-2: The project has designed a portion of its front face to project property line (0’ setback) for approximately 55 feet to allow for direct aerial ladder roof access for the Fire Department. In order to achieve a satisfactory level of fire safety, payment towards a traffic signal emergency vehicle priority system is also required. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: Design development and preconstruction activities. Prior to the occupancy permit, the project proponent will implement mitigation measures to the satisfaction of the City Fire Department and consistent with the Conditions of Approval for the project. A-3 Opportunity Center & Housing Project Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Program BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACT BIO-I: The project will preset-re the two significant oak trees located on the project site, and protect important trees on adjacent properties. Possible damage to trees during demolition & construction. Mitigation Measure BIO-la: Fencing - Protected Trees and Designated Trees. Fenced enclosures and warning signs shall be erected around trees as per outlined in the project arborist report and ~uided by the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Enclosures shall achieve three primary f~unctions: 1) to keep the foliage canopy and branching structure clear from contact by equipment, materials and activities; 2) to preserve roots and soil conditions in an intact and non-compacted state; and 3) to identify the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) in which no soil disturbance is permitted md activities are restricted, unless otherwise approved. Prior to the installation of the required protective fencing, any necessary pruning or care for trees to remain shall be performed in accordance with the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Mitigation Measures BIO-lb: Other Construction Protection Measures -Measures as outlined in the project arborist report and required by the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (such as storage of construction materials, trenching, tree maintenance, and tree protection) shall be followed. Mitigation Measures BIO-lc: Long-Term Tree Protection and Preservation - The project will also implement construction protection measures for long-term tree protection and preservation, such as a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan consistent with the City Tree Technical Manual for both demolition and construction prepared by an ISA Certified Arborist and submitted for review and approval by the Planning Arborist. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree to be retained in which no soil disturbance is permitted shall be established and be clearly designated on all ~mprovement plans as a bold dashed line, including grading, utility and irrigation, and show that no conflict occurs with the trees. The plan shall specify, but not be limited to, monthly arborist inspections, pruning, protective fencing, grading limitations and any other measures necessary to insure survival of the trees. Key elements of this plan shall be printed on a Tree Protection Instructions sheet with the Project Arborist contact number. Responsible Agencies for mitigation monitoring: City of Palo Alto Arborist and Project Arborist Time frame for mitigation monitoring: .. Design development and preconstmction activities. Applicable City departments are responsible for review of tree protection measures, the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan and the Construction Management Plan prepared to ensure that mitigation is included in the project. 2. Monitor during construction activities. The project arborist shall report to the City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist. The project arborist shall perform inspections of the tree protection measures, including modifications of the fencing between the demolition and construction phases. The arborist shall also be present for any required supervision, as outlined in the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan, such as for any work within fencing or excavation near tree protection zones. Site inspections to monitor tree condition on a minimum of four-week intervals shall also occur. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of the inspection report during the first week of each month until completion. A-4 Opportunity Center & Housing Project Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Program Mitigation monitoring wil! also extend to a minimum of at least a year after completion of construction to ensure the health and retention of trees. Site inspections following the completion of construction of the project shall occur on a quarterly basis, or as needed, for the first year. VISUAL QUALITY & AESTHETICS IMPACT VQ-I: Temporary demolition and construction impacts to views. The primary views that will be impacted during construction ih~ clude: 1) the view from nearby businesses on Encina Avenue 2) the view from PAMF clinic south-facing offices; and 3) the view from El Camino Real. Construction related equipment and surface disturbances may be noticeable from E1 Camino Real, however, these views are not direct and are partially screened by existing vegetation. Mitigation Measure VQ-I: The project shall include a Construction Management Program that addresses the impacts of construction. The program will establish construction hours, neighborhood notification, and monitoring that would reduce temporary construction impacts. The type of construction is not expected to require any extraordinary equipment that would present special challenges in reducing noise, dust and other impacts to an acceptable level. Equipment and construction methods will by typical of most construction sites. Dust control measures, as will be identified in the Construction Management Plan will include: Use of truck routes approved by the City of Palo Alto. Water active construction areas at least twice daily, or as needed to prevent dust. Cover all truck hauls of loose materials and maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. Stabilize all soils (using paving, watering, or nontoxic stabilizers) on unpaved construction roads, parking or staging areas. Street sweep, with water sweepers, all paved construction areas as needed and street sweep all adjacent public paved streets daily if soil material is carried onto these streets. Hydro seed or stabilize (using nontoxic soil stabilizers) inactive construction areas. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply nontoxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles. Install erosion control measures on site during construction to prevent silt runoff to public roadways during the rainy season (November through April). Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring:1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable City departments are responsible for review of, prior to granting the demolition pe~Tnit, the Construction Management Plant prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the project. 2. Monitor during construction activities. City of Palo Alto will monitor that the Construction Management Plan including dust control measures are followed. IMPACT VQ-3: The project includes lighting elements throughout the proposed development that may impact neighboring land uses. The City, of Palo Alto requires lighting of a project not to extend beyond the property lines. The project includes additional lighting on-site for security reasons and along the building at the 0’ front setback, and some lighting will extend into Encina Avenue and the public right of way. A-5 Opportunity Center & Housing Project Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure VQ-3: Consistent with City of Palo Alto standard conditions of approval, all on- and off- site plantable areas shall include a lighting plan with photometric data for review by the Architectural Review Board and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Other measures, including the following, shall be incorporated into the project to reduce light and glare. o Shield oi" focus outdoor night lighting downward to minimize upward reflected light. o Recess lighting elements within fixtures to prevent glare. o Avoid placing lights too close to objects to prevent reflected glare. o Avoid high-angle high-candela distribution. o Select lighting features that can be shielded after installation, if a problem is identified. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: City, of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: During Implementation of Construction Management Program. Lighting design elements will return to the Architectural Review Board for review and to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for final approval. Construction lighting will be addressed in the Construction Management Plan. All lighting shall be subject to final inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. A-6 Opportunity Center & Housing Project Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Program CULTURAL & HISTORIC RESOURCES IMPACT Arch-l: There is a medium potential for the discovery of unknown archeological resources on the project site. Mitigation Measure Arch-l: Project personnel shall be alerted to the possibility of encountering archaeological resources during construction and apprised of the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeological resources or human remains are found. If cultural deposits are encountered, the applicant shall halt construction in the vicinity and consult a qualified archeologist and the Native American community, in the event of accidental 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 event that archaeological resources are discovered during grading or construction activities, all work shall cease within 150 feet of the find until 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 all concerned parties should be adopted. If mitigation is required, the first priority shall be for avoidance and preservation of the resource. If avoidance is not feasible an alternative plan that may include excavation shall be prepared. All archaeological excavation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in accordance with prevailing professional standards as outlined in the State CEQA Guidelines and by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The Native American community shall be consulted on all aspects of the mitigation program. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: City of Palo Alto & Project Archaeologist Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable City departments are responsible for review of the Construction Management Plan prepared to ensure mitigation, including a plan if an archeological discovery is found, is included in the project. 2. Monitor during construction. The City of Palo Alto and Project Construction Manager is responsible for monitoring construction for archeological materials and the notification of appropriate authorities. IMPACT Hist-l: The locally, not federally, significant building adjacent and off-site from the project to the east may, similar to other surrounding land uses, be temporarily impacted by construction related noise, dust and vibration. The Greer House located on 51 Encina Avenue is owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and is currently vacant. This non-residential building is located approximately six feet from the project property line. Although no long-term impacts are anticipated to this building, care should be taken during construction along with previously discussed tree protection to minimize any temporary construction impacts. Mitigation Measure Hist-l: A Construction Management Plan will be included in the project to ensure that construction activities not affect the structure at 51 Encina Avenue or surrounding land uses. Appropriate dust, vibration and noise control measures shall be added to the Construction A-7 Opportunity Center & Housing Project Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Program Management Plan to protect this structure. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. City of Pa!o Alto Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable City departments are responsible for review of the Construction Management Plan ensures mitigation for construction noise, dust and vibration is included in the project. Monitor during construction. The City of Palo Alto is responsible for monitoring conditions presented in the Construction Management Plan. PUBLIC SAFETY (HAZARDOUS MATERIALS) IMPACT HAZ-I: Given the age of the building at 33 Encina Avenue, there is a potential for asbestos containing materials or lead-based paint within the structure. Mitigation Measure Haz-l: Asbestos and lead issues will be addressed prior to building demolition of all existing buildings on-site. Severa! materials are considered as asbestos containing under the California Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) regulations. Prior to the issuance of both the demolition and grading permit, the City will require that lead and asbestos surveys are conducted and reported on prior to demolition. Surveys will be conducted by a properly OSHA certified professional who has taken and passed the EPA-approved building inspector course. Depending on the magnitude and condition indicated in the results, conditions of removal will be outlined in an Asbestos Abatement Plan prior to .the demolition phase. The Abatement Plan will describe the required activities and procedures for handling, removal and disposal of building elements using the state and federal mandated procedures, work practices and engineering controls. If lead-based paint is discovered, the project applicant shall assume that all painted surfaces of that building contain lead based paint and remediate in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations, including lead-safe work practices and appropriate disposal of lead-containing waste. All removal shall be conducted in accordance with all state and federal regulations, including the hiring of hazardous material removal professionals. The applicant must submit plans to both the Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department and the City of Palo Alto prior to the issuance of a demolition permit by the City. Responsible Agencies for mitigation monitoring: 1. City of Palo Alto (primary) 2. County of Santa Clara Environmental Health Department (for any remediation) 3. State Department of Toxic Substances. Control (for any remediation) Time frame for mitigation monitoring: i. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable city, county, and state departments are responsible for review of technical analysis, such as lead & asbestos surveys and any resulting Removal Plans, prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the project. 2. Monitor during construction. The City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department, and the State Department of Toxic Substances Control, would monitor remediation or Removal Plans, if any were required. IMPACT HAZ-2: Localized areas of base rock and shallow soil below the chemical storage shed on 39 Encina Avenue may be impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons. A-8 Opportunity Center & Housing Project Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Haz-2: Soil samples of this area did not indicate the presence of hydrocarbons or VOCs above their respective method detection limits. Benzene at a concentration of 2.67 micrograms per liter was detected in the oroundwater sample. This level is slightly above the California Maximum Contaminant Level for drinking water. The project will use City allocated water, not groundwater, as their water source. Subsequent Phase II Environmental Assessments will be provided to the City and will discuss of any protection measures for construction is required. Further requirements of the Phase II Environmental Assessments are presented in Mitigation Measure Haz-4, below. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: 1. City of Palo Alto (primary) 2. County of Santa Clara Environmental Health Department (for any remediation) 3. State Department of Toxic Substances Control (for any remediation) Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable city, county, and state departments are responsible for review of technical analysis, such as lead & asbestos surveys and any resulting Removal Plans, prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the project. 2. Monitor during construction. The City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department, and the State Department of Toxic Substances Control, would monitor remediation or Removal Plans, if any were required. IblPACT HAZ-3: Due to its historical use for appliance repair and general age of the building at 45/49 Encina Avenue, there is a potential for lead-based paint and localized areas of base rock and shallow soil impacted by primarily solvents. Mitigation Measure Haz-3: Soil samples taken from the 45/49 Encina Avenue parcel did not ndicate significant levels of mercury, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) or hydrocarbons. Soil samples from the former appliance storage area indicated concentrations of lead ranging from 25.5 milligrams per kilogram (mJkg).to 1,564 mJkg. Soil samples from around the building perimeters detected lead levels ranging from 466 m~kg to 817 m~kg, suggesting the presence of leaded paint on the buildings. This soil, above U.S. EPA and California Modified preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) for soil on residential sites, will be excavated and removed, following proper remediation protocols. Asbestos and lead issues need to be addressed prior to building demolition of all existing buildings on-site. Prior to the issuance of both the demolition and grading permit, the City Will require that lead and asbestos surveys are conducted and reported on prior to demolition. The applicant shall submit all resulting reports to the City. The applicant shall also conduct Phase LI hazardous substance surveys, including the removal of lead contaminated soil for the entire site prior to construction. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: 1. City of Palo Alto (primary) 2. County of Santa Clara Environmental Health Department (for any remediation) 3. State Department of Toxic Substances Control (for any remediation) Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable city, county, and state A-9 Opportunity Center & Housing Project Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Program I departments are responsible for review of technical analysis, such as lead & asbestos surveysand any resulting Removal Plans, prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the project. 2.Monitor during construction. The City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department, and the State Department of Toxic Substances Control, would monitor remediation or Removal Plans, if any, were required. IMPACT HAZ-4: For all parcels there is a potential for previously unknown hazardous material related to prior commercial use to be discovered on-site. Mitigation Measure Haz-4: Following the completion of Phase II Environmental Assessments, the project will comply with City and State standards for subsequent cleanup and removal of any hazardous substances, as necessary. Testing prior to the demolition of existing buildings will indicate what standard safety protocols and best management practices for removal of hazardous materials are required. Required protocols are set forth in the California Health and Safety Code, including removal of asbestos, if found, by licensed asbestos removal contractors. The Phase II environmental site assessments will identify any necessary measures to clean up and remediate toxic materials, if any are found in the soil, in accordance with state regulations. If the need for soil excavation through remediation is discovered in the Phase II assessments, the assessment shall include and address the following: ¯An assessment of air impacts and health impacts associated with the excavation activities; ¯The identification of any local standards that may be exceeded by the excavation (including dust levels & noise); e Transportation impacts from the removal or remedial activities; and , Risk of upset should there be an accident at the site. The project specific remediation plan shall be developed by a licensed, qualified hazardous materials professional and implemented to reduce chemical contaminants to acceptable levels (acceptable to City of Palo Alto Fire Department, the Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Board, as appropriate). Soil contamination, if any, will be remediated in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations prior to initiation of construction activities. Excavation or any remediation activities shall be consistent with all other mitigation measures applicable to the project, including consultation with the project and City arborist for any removal of soil below tree canopies. If soil contamination is handled and disposed of in accordance with the state and local regulations, it should not pose a hazard to construction workers, nearby sensitive receptors, namely the Palo Alto High School or surrounding land uses, including the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, small office use, and nearby retail uses. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: i. City of Palo Alto (primary) 2. County of Santa Clara Environmental Health Department (for any remediation) 3. State Department of Toxic Substances Control (for any remediation) Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable city,, county, and state departments are responsible for review of technical analysis, such as lead & asbestos surveys and any resulting Removal Plans, prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the project. A-10 Opportunity Center & Housing Project Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Program Monitor during construction. The City, of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, Environmental Health Department, and the State Department of Toxic Substances Control, would monitor remediation or Removal Plans, if any were required. IMPACT HAZ-5: In urban areas and along automobile service corridors, there is always a potential to discover a previously unknown abandoned underground storage tank. Mitigation Measure Haz-5: If previously unknown underground storage tank(s) are discovered during the parking garage excavation, they will need to be removed under the direction of the Palo Alto Fire Department and additional soil and/or groundwater sampling and analysis would be required. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: 1. City of Palo Alto (primary,) 2. County of Santa Clara Environmental Health Department (for any remediation) 3. State Department of Toxic Substances Control (for any remediation) Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable City departments are responsible for review of the Construction Management Plan prepared to ensure mitigation, including required action plan if an underground storage tank is found, is included in the project. 2.Monitor during construction activities. The City of Palo Alto and the construction project manager are responsible for monitoring the conditions of the Construction Management Plan implemented.are A-11 Attachment D ORDINANCE ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO A~ENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 33-49 ENCINA AVENUE FROM CS COM}4ERCiAL SERVICE TO PC PLANNED COFIM-trNITY The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. Applications and Hearings. (a) Rob Wellington Quigley, FAIA, ("the Applicant"), on behalf of the Community Working Group and the Housing Authority of the .County of Santa Clara, formally applied on October 7, 2002 to the City for approval of the rezoning of three parcels totalling approximately 18,200 square feet, from CS (Commercial Service) to PC in order to replace the existing 5,260 square feet of commercia! space and two parking lots with an approximately 45,800 square feet building with 8,100 square feet of community service area and eighty-nine (89) units of income- restricted multi-family rental housing (the "Project"). (b) On November 13, 2002, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning and Transportation Commission gave conceptual approva! to the zone change and forwarded it to the Architectural Review Board. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public comment on December 13, 2002. On December 19, 2002, the Architectural Review Board, after a duly noticed public hearing and review and consideration of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, recommended approval of the Project. (c) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after duly noticed public hearings held December 18, 2002 and January 29, 2003, reviewed and considered the Enviror~ental Impact Report and the Project and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code be amended to permit construction of the Project. (d) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations and the Final Environmental Impact Report, and of al! public testimony, finds that the proposed amendment is in 030225 syn 0091192 the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. Hap Amendment. 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 33-49 Encina Avenue (the "subject property") from "CS Commercia! Service" to "PC Planned Co~munity~ " The subject property is shov~ on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Findings for Approval of the Planned Community District. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the subject property that: (a) The application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed deve!opment. The Project wil! provide housing for !ow- and very low-income persons and services to homeless individuals and families and to those at risk of becoming homeless. The increased density and decreased parking requirement will al!ow a greater number of smaller units, thus serving a larger number of persons needing housing and reducing the costs per unit. This, combined with public funding and private contributions., will make the units affordable to households with !ow and very low incomes. The CS Commercial Service District would permit the proposed community service use. However, it would not permit the proposed mix of residential and community services uses due to the restrictive regulations of Chapters 18.24 (RM-30 District) and 18.28 (Multiple-Family Residence Guidelines) which would be applicable. (b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District wil! result in public benefits not otherwise attainable. A service center for homeless and those at risk of being homeless, and housing units for low- and very !ow-income persons are much needed resources in Palo Alto, as emphasized in the Housing Element to the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Counci! in 2002. The City presently has insufficient indoor space to provide services to homeless members of the community. The Housing Element identifies a City shortage of almost 300 units of housing affordable to households with !ow or very low incomes. (c) This Planned Community district is consistent with the Palo Alto Com_mrehensive Plan. It is compatible with existing and potentia! uses on adjoining sites and within the 030225 syn 0091192 general vicinity. The permitted uses (housing for !ow-income households and community service center) will have minimal traffic or noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The Project will further the policies and programs of the Housing Element. It wil! .provide renta! housing for !ow- and very low- income individuals and families. Furthermore, the Opportunity Center will implement the policies and programs of the Housing Element by providing needed socia! services to the residents of the complex as well as to homeless persons and those at risk of becoming homeless. The project will assist the City in achieving its "fair share" housing requirement identified by the State. SECTION 4. Development Plan. Those Certain plans entitled "Opportunity Center and Housing Project" prepared by Rob Wellington Quigley, FAIA, dated February 14, 2003, and consisting of nineteen (19) sheets, a copy of which is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development, and to which reference is hereby made, are hereby approved as the Deve!opment Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.120. SECTION 5. Uses. (a) follows : Permitted Uses.The permitted uses shall be as (i) Residential. The second, third, fourth and fifth floors shall be used for 89 residential units. These units shal! be affordable to persons and households with low or very low incomes as those terms are defined in the City’s Housing Element; provided, one unit shal! be for a resident manager and any income restrictions for this unit shall be in the discretion of owner of the Project. Because these units are limited to occupancy by !ower income households and financed in part by state, local, and federal funds for that purpose, they are exempt from the rental stabilization provisions of Chapter 9.48 of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code. (2) Service Center. The ground floor ("the Opportunity Center") shall be used to provide services, primarily for lower income individuals and families,including but not limited to job training, counseling services,education and training services, limited food service, laundry facilities, c!othing supply, showers and bathing facilities,medica! examination and treatment, storage lockers, and similar services, childcare facilities, and administrative office services ancillary to this program. 030225 syn 009t 192 (b) Conditional Uses. None. SECTION 6.Site Development Regulations. (a)Compliance with Development Plan.All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the Development Plan. The following are site deve!opment regulations, which establish rules for modifications or additions to any building, accessory structure or landscaping on the subject property. Definitions of terms used shal! be in accordance with Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code as it exists at the time of adoption of this Ordinance. (i) Future Changes. Any future plan revisions shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, approva! under Chapter 18.99 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (2) Tree Preservation. The approved Development Plan requires the preservation and protection of specified existing trees within the deve!opment and within adjacent properties. No future development or improvement proposed for the subject property following initia! construction authorized by Architectura! Review Approva! shal! result in the removal or destruction of trees without the approval of the Director of Planning and Community Enviror~ent. (3) Site Standards. The following development standards shall apply to the development site: (i) Setbacks, Lot Coverage, Floor Area Ratio, and Open Space. The dimensions shall be substantially as shown on the Development Plan. (ii) Height. The maximum building height shal! be fifty (50) feet, with the exception of mechanical equipment towers, which may be an additiona! fifteen (15) feet tall. (iii) Parking. Forty-three (43) covered parking spaces for vehicles and one hundred (i00) bicycle spaces shall be provided onsite. (iv) Fina! Design Review. Fina! plans shall be reviewed and approved as required by Resolution approving the Architectural Review of the Project. 030225 syn 0091192 (d)Special Conditions. (i) Twenty-four Hour Staffing. The Project shall have management staff on site twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. (2) Security Plan. Prior to issuance of building permit the applicant shal! submit a security plan to the satisfaction of the Police Chief and the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The plan shal! include, but not be limited to hours of operation for both facilities, staffing on a 24-hour basis, exterior and interior lighting, access, site security measures and an emergency response plan. (3)Reporting Following Occupancy. (i) At least once annually the property owner shall meet with o~ers and tenants of the properties located on the b!ock wherein the subject property is located. The purpose of the meeting shall be to discuss and seek to resolve any common concerns regarding issues such as parking for the Project and security with respect to operations of the service center. (ii) Twice a year the property owner shall submit a written report to the Director Of Planning and Community Environment. The report shall describe complaints and concerns by neighboring property owners or tenants, or members of the public, about operations of the service center and contain a detailed log of al! complaints or concerns received by the project sponsor/property owner and the action was taken to address the complaint. The Director may waive the reporting requirement, or lengthen the interval between reports if he or she deems it appropriate. (4) Trash and Recycling. Trash and recycling receptacles shall be placed outside for the length of time necessary for collection. Fol!owing pick-up, the empty receptacles shall promptly be returned to their storage location within the project. (e) Hours of Operation. The Opportunity Center’s hours of operation shal! be limited to Monday through Friday, from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with services (both family services and individual homeless population) provided from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Specia! events, classes and training may be held on any day of the week but shall end by i0 p.m. 030225 syn 0091192 (f) Development Schedule. Construction of the Project shall commence on or before December 31, 2004 and shall be completed and ready for occupancy on or before December 31, 2006. If construction has not begun by December 31, 2004, or if it is not substantially complete by December 31, 2006, the City Council, upon the request of the applicant or the Director of Planning and Community Environment, may extend this schedule, without amending this ordinance, for up to an additiona! thirty- six months. SECTION 7.The Council has previously adopted Resolution certifying the Environmenta! Impact Report and finding that the Project as approved will not have a significant environmental effect. 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 Hayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment 030225 syn 0091192 "Exhibit A" P a lo Alto Medical r oundatmn Project Location 33-49 Encina Avenue CC Town a n d Country The Ci y of Palo Alto Zoning Map ~ - 49 Encina Avenue This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Attachment E RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (02-ARB--133) FOR THE OPPORTUNITY CENTER AT 33-49 ENCINA AVENUE (CO~IiNITY WORKING GROUP AND HOUSING _AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,OWNERS) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does resolve as follows: SECTION i. Background. The City Council finds, determines, and declares that: A. Rob Wellington Quigley, FAiA, ("the applicant"), on behalf of the Community Working Group and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, has requested approval of a PC Planned Community zone change to permit the development of its .42 acre site at 33-49 Encina Avenue with an approximately 45,800 square feet building with 8,100 square feet of community service area and eighty-nine (89) units of income- restricted multi-family rental housing (the "Project"). B. The City Counci! has adopted Resolution No approving a Fina! Environmental Impact Report for the Project. C. The Architectural Review Board on November 21, 2002, December 5, 2002, and December 19, 2002 reviewed and considered the design of the Project and recommended approval upon the conditions set forth below. D. The Planning and Transportation Commission held a public hearing on the Project on December 18, 2002 and January 29, 2003 and recommended approva! 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 March 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 Architectura! Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commissions. SECTION 2.Design Approval. The City Council hereby approves Planning Application No. 02-ARB-133, regarding the 030225 syn 0091191 architecture, site planning and related site improvements, subject to the conditions set forth be!ow, finding that: (a) The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, furthers the goals and purposes of Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code (PAMC) as it complies with the Standards for Architectural Review as required in Section 16.48.120 of the PAMC. (b) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. There are general citywide policies in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, Transportation Element, and Housing Element that apply to this land use designation. Specific policy direction includes: (i) Policy H-2: Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations; (2) Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality; (3) Policy H-14: Encourage the preservation, rehabilitation, and construction of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels and SRO housing; (4) Policy H-16: Support housing that incorporates facilities and services to meet the health care, transit, or socia! service needs of households with special needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities; (5) Policy H-19: Support the provision of emergency shelter, transitiona! housing and ancillary services to address homelessness; (6) Policy T-I: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use; (7) Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas; use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development; (8) Policy L-13: Evaluate alternative types of housing that increase density and provide more diverse housing opportunities; and (9) Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding deve!opment and public spaces. (c) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the design accommodates the physical and programmatic needs of the community service center and residentia! components of the project. (d) The design is compatible with the character of the area and with approved improvements both on and off site in that the project promotes and enhances the existing mix of uses, by incorporating residential near shopping and service outlets, and transit use. 030225 syn 0091191 (e) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated uses in that the residential and drop-in service center of the project include design elements that distinguish between the two uses on site while providing an overall attractive building. (f) 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. (g) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that public outdoor spaces are provided for the residential units and a covered entryway is proposed on the southwest corner of the building to promote pedestrian activity further south on Encina Avenue. (h) The natural features on the site are appropriately preserved and protected in that the building is designed to minimize impacts to the three protected trees (two Coast Live Oaks and one Coastal Redwood) and two additiona! trees of significant size on the site’s perimeter. i) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles in that access to the underground parking will not interfere with existing traffic and loading patterns in the area. The site is accessible by pedestrians on designated walkways, adequate bicycle parking for the proposed land uses will be provided, and the future Homer Avenue bike and pedestrian undercrossing wil! connect to the downtown and transit corridors serve the site. (j) 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 visua! clues to the land uses on the site, and are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; (k) 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; 030225 syn 0091191 3 (1) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety -that would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance; (m) The design is energy efficient and incorporates sustainable design elements including, but not limited to: Addressing solar orientation and provide sun shading systems and natura! lighting; Incorporating operable windows for ventilation; Using recycled materials and recycling demolition materials wherever feasible; and including the provisions for rooftop solar hot water heating and photovoltaic cells. SECTION 3. Conditions of Approva!. Genera! The proposed project shall comply with all existing applicable policies, programs and requirements, including the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 and the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) . The proposed project shall return to the ARB at a later date for review of the final design and detai! consideration of: Awnings, windows and window screens. Materials and fabrication for signage. The trash and recycling removal program, including location of receptacles for pick-up. Exterior co!or and materials after opportunity for review of a mock-up on site. o Prior to issuance of building permit the applicant shall submit a security plan to the satisfaction of the Police chief and the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The plan shall include, but not be limited to hours of operation for both facilities, staffing on a 24- hour basis, exterior and interior lighting, access, site security measures and an emergency response plan. The following measures shall be incorporated into the project to reduce light and glare impacts unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as security requirements: Shield or focus outdoor night lighting downward to minimize upward reflected light. 0~0~. svn 0091191 4 o Recess lighting elements within fixtures to prevent glare. Select lighting features which can be shielded after installation, if a problem is identified. The proposed project shall incorporate sustainable design features and building practices, including, but not limited to the following: o o Address solar ~orientation and provide sun shading systems and natural lighting. Incorporate operable windows for ventilation. Reduce the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and consider the use of permeable paving. Use recycled materials and recycle demolition materials wherever feasible. Provide for rooftop solar hot water heating and photovoltaic cells. The applicant shall explore alternatives for window construction other than vinyl and placement of electric charging stations in the garage. At the time of filing for building permit, the applicant wil! submit a report to the Department of Planning and Community Environment detailing the sustainability features included in the project. Within 6-months of completing construction of the project, the applicant shal! prepare a report for the ARB’s review of the project’s sustainability program and LEED score. The applicant shall explore opportunities to incorporate public art into the project. Trash and recycling receptacles shall be placed outside for the length of time necessary for collection. Fol!owing pick-up, the empty receptacles shall promptly be returned to their storage location within the project. The fol!owing 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. 5 030225 syn 0091191 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) al! paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soi! material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Project personnel shall be alerted to the possibility of encountering archaeo!ogical resources during construction and appraised of the proper procedures to fol!ow in the event that archaeo!ogical resources or human remains are found. In the event of accidenta! discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office shal! be notified immediately. The coroner wil! determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are, shal! comply with CEQA Guidelines Sec. !5064.5(e). In the event that archaeo!ogical resources are discovered during grading or construction activities, all work shal! cease within 150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified, professional archaeologist. The archeologist shal! 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. Al! archaeologica! excavation and monitoring activities shal! be conducted in accordance with prevailing professiona! standards as outlined in the State CEQA Guidelines and by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The Native American community shal! be consulted on al! aspects of the mitigation program. I0.The project shall include design features that will reduce the maximum outdoor noise leve! to as close as the 60 dB standard as feasible through project design. An updated acoustica! analysis shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal of the building permit. The report shal! address the projected noise impacts to interior and exterior spaces noise after installation of design features and mechanical equipment that are needed to reduce exterior noise levels to the 60 dB standard. Prior to occupancy, the results of an outdoor noise audit of the 030225 syn 0091191 ii. 12. 13. completed project shall be submitted to the Planning Division for its review and approva!.The Planning Division may require additiona! sound attenuation measures if it determines that the noise levels are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan standards. Prior to the submittal for a building permit, the applicant shall be responsible for submitting a construction management plan to the Planning Division,which shal! include, but is not: limited to, an expected timeline for demolition and construction activities, and hours of construction. If necessary, a Well Destruction Permit for the groundwater monitoring wel! located on the 33 Encina Avenue parcel shal! be obtained from the Santa Clara County Water Authority. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans dated February 14, 2003, except as modified to comply with these conditions of approva!. Amy mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report which have not been incorporated into the plans dated February 14, 2003, shall be incorporated into the designs where applicable, and shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application, along with these conditions of approva!. A reference to the Planned Community Ordinance shal! also be printed on that cover sheet, including the Ordinance number and a statement that the Ordinance is on file with the City Clerk’s office. Transportation Division 14.Project’s owner shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to assist in reducing the number of vehicle trips generated and the number of parking spaces used by individuals working in the service center ("Opportunity Center") portion of this site. The owner shall enter into an agreement with the City describing the methods for reducing demand, providing a TDH manger/commute coordinator, and providing for the monitoring of parking. The agreement must be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project. 15.Other deve!opment projects in the area have contributed a fair share amount to the City’s planned improvement at the 7 030225 syn 0091191 EmbarcaderoiECR intersection (addition of second southbound left turn lane). This is not due to a significant project impact, rather to a pre-existing unacceptable operation at the signa!,and this project’s incremental (but not significant)future contribution to this problem. This contribution would be the project’s projected 5 PM peak hour trips turning left from s/b E! Camino to e/b Embarcadero (Figure 8 of the TIA) divided by the 447 existing PM peak hour trips making that movement (October 17, 2001 monitoring count) multiplied by the most current estimated cost for the project ($312,000, as described in the October 25, 2001 letter from the Planning Department to David Jury of PAMF), resulting in a contribution of $3,490. Planning Arborist Prior to Issuance of Demolition, Grading or Building Permit Tree Protection Instructions. Six trees (#i, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9, as shown on the Arbor Resources Tree Survey dated July 22, 2002) shal! be retained and protected by the project sponsor. All recommendations specified in the Tree Preservation Report for the project shall be consistent with the City Tree Technica! Manual (TTH), implemented and maintained throughout the course of construction. A plan sheet titled: TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION INSTRUCTIONS shal! accompany the plans submitted for building permit and referenced on al! Civi! drawings (Utility, Storm, Grading, Erosion, etc.); Demolition; Staging; Building; Landscape, Planting and Irrigation Plans. The Tree Protection and Preservation sheet shal! also contain the arborist report (Arbor Resources Tree Survey dated July 22, 2002 and Addendum No. 1 dated July 16, 2002). This sheet shall clearly show tree protection zone, indicating where the fencing will be placed as a bold dashed line and denote a!l trees to be retained and those to be removed. The 6 trees to be protected shal! be numbered on all plan sheets and reference the tree protection instructions sheet. 17.All utilities, both public and private, requiring trenching or boring shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict wi!l occur between the utilities and any landscape or trees to be retained. This shal! include publicly owned trees within the right- of-way. 030225 syn 0091191 18. 19. 20. Utilities or trenching that must pass within a tree protection zone shall be directionally bored beneath the root plate using the trenching/boring guidelines outlined in the Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.20 (C and D) and review approval by the project arborist. In no case shal! open trenching within the TPZ occur. Inspection Schedule. All inspections outlined in the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.30, shall be performed as required. The Inspection Schedule Table shall be printed on the final set of plans submitted for the building permit. Tree Protection Statement: A written statement shall be provided to the Building Department verifying that protective fencing for the trees is in place before demolition, grading or building permit wil! be issued, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. 21.Fencing - Protected Trees, Street Trees, or Designated Trees. Fenced enclosures shal! be erected around trees to be protected to achieve three primary functions, i) to keep the foliage canopy and branching structure clear from contact by equipment, materials and activities; 2) to preserve roots and soi! conditions in an intact and non- compacted state and 3) to identify the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) in which no soi! disturbance is permitted and activities are restricted, unless otherwise approved. Size, type and area to be fenced. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with five or six (5’ - 6’) foot high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. Type I Tree Protection. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the canopy dripline or TPZ of the tree(s) to be saved throughout the life of the project. Parking areas: fencing must be !ocated on paving or concrete that wil! not be demolished; an appropriate grade level concrete base may support the posts. Duration. Tree fencing shal! be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins and remain in place unti! fina! inspection of the project, except for work specifically allowed in the TPZ. Work in the TPZ requires approval by the project arborist or City Arborist (in the case of work around Street Trees). 030225 syn 0091191 ’Warning’ sign. A warning sign shall be prominently displayed on each fence at 20-foot intervals. The sign shall be a minimum 8.5-inches x ll-inches and clearly state: "WARNING - Tree Protection Zone - This fence shall not be removed and is subject to a fine according to PAMC Section 8.10.110." During Construction 22.Arborist Inspection Report. The project arborist shall perform a site inspection to monitor tree condition on a minimum of four-week intervals. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of the inspection report during the first week of each month until completion at fax # (650) 329-2154. 23.Al! neighbors’ trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from impact of any kind. 24.The applicant shal! be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code. 25.The following tree preservation measures apply to al! trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shal! be permitted within the TPZ. b o The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. C o Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure surviva!. do Watering Schedule. All trees to be retained shall receive monthly watering during al! phases of construction per the City Tree Technica! Manual, Section 5.45. A written !og of each application of water shall be kept at the site. The City Planning Arborist shal! be in receipt of this log before final inspection is requested. 26.Prior to the installation of the required protective fencing, any necessary pruning or care for trees to remain shal! be performed in accordance with the City Tree Technical Manua!, Section 5.00. Any work on trees within i0 030225 syn 0091191 the right-of-way must first be approved by Public Works at (650) 496-6974. Prior to Occupancy 27.Landscape Architect Inspection. The contractor shall call for an inspection by the applicant’s Landscape Architect, and provide written verification to the Planning Department that al! trees; shrubs, planting and irrigation are installed and func%ioning as specified in the approved plans. Post Construction 28.Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be well-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 Manua!. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Building Division Prior to Submittal for Building Permit 29.The plans submitted for the building permit shall include the full scope of the construction including all site development, utility installations,architectural, structural, electrical,plumbing and mechanical work associated with the proposed project. 30. 31. The entire project is to be included under a single building permit and shal! not be phased under multiple permits. The plans submitted with the building permit application are to clearly indicate building height in accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 209. 32.Design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be "deferred" shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to building permit application. 030225 syn 0091191 !1 33. 34. 35. 37. The !ocation of the building’s electrical service shall require prior approval by the Inspection Services Division and shal! be located at an exterior !ocation or in a room or enclosure accessible directly from the exterior. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area calculation that relates the mixed occupancies to type of construction. The plans submitted with the permit application for the shell building shal! include the complete design for disabled access and exiting for the entire site, building entrances and basement parking garage. Disable access features and exiting within the unimproved offices spaces may be deferred to future tenant improvement permits. The residential portions of the project shall include the required number of handicap accessible and adaptable units prescribed in California Building Code (CBC), Chapter ii. The acoustical analysis shall be revised and expanded and the plans shal! incorporate the report’s recommendations needed to comply with the sound transmissions requirements in CBC Appendix Chapter 12. Revisions shal! include an analysis proposed roof-top mechanical equipment. A fol!ow- up letter from the acoustica! consultant with additiona! information is acceptable. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 38.A demolition permit shal! be required for the removal of the existing buildings on the site. Remova! of the existing buildings and fina! of the demolition permits is to be completed prior to issuance of the permit for the new building. 39.The lots comprising the site shall be merged. The parcel map or certificate of compliance shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. Fire Department 40.An alternate method will be required, employing additional fire protection measures to offset the lack of access. At minimum,the Fire Department will require the applicant to provide Opticom transponders for two Fire Department vehicles (total cost not to exceed $2,593) and a 20-foot 12 030225 syn 0091191 wide surface designed to convey a fire truck to a point where the aeria! ladder can be dep!oyed to reach the roof of the building. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Hydrants shall be spaced at intervals not to exceed 300 feet in the vicinity of the building, following the route of travel of a fire engine. (PAMC 15.04.140) A fire sprinkler s~stem shall be provided throughout the building which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13 - 1996 Edition. Fire Sprinkler system . installations require separate submitta! to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC 15.04.083) 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 submitta! to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAHC 15.04.083) NOTE: Fire Department approval wil! be withheld unti! Utilities Department and Public Works Department requirements have been met. An approved automatic and manual fire alarm system shall be provided throughout the building. (98CBC310) Fire Alarm system installations require separate submitta! to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC 15.04.083) An approved standpipe system for the building, which may be combined with the sprinkler system, shall be provided and shal! meet the requirements of NFPA Standard No.14 - 1996 Edition. Standpipe system installations require separate submitta! to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC 15.04.083) NOTE: If the standpipe system is combined with the sprinkler system, a booster-type fire pump wil! be required to meet the required flow of 750 gpm at i00 psi. Hose outlets for the exterior of the building in approved locations will be required as part of the above mentioned alternate method. Elevator cars shall be sized for Fire Department gurney access requirements based on gurney dimensions of 24" x 82" plus a minimum of two emergency response personnel. (PAMC 15.04.120) Public Works Recycling 030225 syn 0091191 13 47.Provisions for trash storage for the project must provide for the storage of recyclables per PAHC Chapter 5.20. The garbage/recycling hauler shall located and accessible in a way that the project can receive the standard leve! of service for this facility. By placing trash and recycling underground, versus ground level with consideration of vehicle access by the garbage/recycling hauler, the facility may incur significant additional charges for garbage and recycling collection service. The location and access to these trash storage and recyclab!es shal! be shown on the plans prior to issuance of building permit. Public Works Water Quality 48.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. Project building plans must specify that non-copper wastewater piping will be used. 49.In accordance with Palo Alto Hunicipal Code (PAMC) Section 16.09.032(b) (8), condensate lines from HVAC equipment may not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. Project building plans must indicate that any condensate lines wil! be connected to the sanitary sewer. 50.If a hydraulic elevator is installed, any hard-plumbed water discharge to the sanitary sewer from the elevator sump pit must pass by gravity flow through an oil/water separator. If a sump pump is to be utilized, the pumped discharge must be contained in a tank, or the sump pump must be equipped with an oi! sensor system to prevent hydraulic oi! spills from being pumped to the sanitary sewer. 51.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 (P~MC 16.09.032(B) (17)) ¯ 52.PAMC Section 16.09.106(f) requires that new residential buildings with 25 or more units provide a covered area for car washing by residents. The car washing area must be connected to an oil/water separator of at least i00 ga!lons capacity, and to the sanitary sewer. Public Works Engineering 030225 syn 0091191 14 Prior to Submittal of Final ARB 53.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 conceptua! site grading and drainage plan that conveys site runoff to the nearest adequate municipa! storm drainage system. In order to address potential storm water impacts, the plan shal! identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that wil! be required for the project. The SWPPP shal! include permanent BMPs to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality (resources and handouts are available from Public Works Engineering). Specific reference is made to Palo Alto’s companion document to "Start at the Source", entitled "Planning Your Land Deve!opment Project". The elements of the PWE approved conceptua!grading and drainage plan shal! be incorporated into the building permit plans. Prior to Building Permit Application 54.The applicant shall submit a fina! grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan sha!l show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shal! be maintained. 55.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 fina! approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. 56.An easement is required as follows: public utility easement for access to pad mount transformer. 57.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials 15 030225 syn 009119! storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 58.The applicant shal! 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 (PAMC Section 12.08.010). 59.An underlying lot line exists on the property. The developer/applicant is required to apply for a Certificate of Compliance from Public Works Engineering, to remove the underlying !or line from this parcel. Application information is available at the Development Center. Note: The building permit associated with the application will not be issued until this certificate is fully executed and recorded with the County Recorder’s office. 60.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 leve!, if encountered,and by using this and other available information,as wel! 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 leve!, then the basement can be constructed in a conventional 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 al! projected hydrostatic and soil pressures.No pumping of ground water is allowed. In general,Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels. 61.The applicant is required to paint the "No Dumping/F!ows to San Francisquito Creek" logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils 16 030225 syn 0091191 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. During Construction 62.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650)496-6929 prior to any work performedin the public right-of-way. 63.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approva! of Public Works Engineering. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater pollution prevention in al! construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soi!, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09). 65.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shal! conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Prior to Finalization 66.All sidewalks and curb and gutters bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. 67.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, al! as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and post-developments BMG’s shall be completed prior to sign- off. Utilities Division 030225 s)n 0091191 17 Utilities Harketing Services 68.Prior to issuance of either a building permit or grading permit, all common area landscaping shal! be approved by the utilities marketing services division of the Utilities Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. A water budget shall be assigned to the project and a dedicated irrigation water meter shall be required. Call the Landscape Plan Review Specialist at 650) 329-2549 for additional information. Water, Gas & Wastewater Utilities Department Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit 69.The applicant shal! submit a request to disconnect al! 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 al! utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed Prior to Submittal for Building Permit 70. 71. 72. 73. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - !oad sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in g.p.d.) . The applicant shall, submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and !ocation of al! underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water wel!, or auxiliary water supply. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility laterals and services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the 18 030225 syn 0091191 design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 74.The applicant’s engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to ~service the deve!opment and adjacent properties during anticipated peak f!ow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civi! engineer. 75. 77. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of f!ow 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 wil! be permitted. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shal! submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of waher and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. Al! utility work within the public right-of-way shal! 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 al!owed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. 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 re!ocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities wil! be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the re!ocation. 19 030225 syn 0091191 78.Each unit, parce! or place of business shall have its own water service, gas meter and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 79.A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shal! be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service wil! be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 80.A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant’s contractor must provide and instal! a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. The applicant shal! show the !ocation of the new water service and meter on the plans. 81.A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. The applicant shall show the !ocation of the new water service and meter on the plans. 82.A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. The applicant shall show the !ocation of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department’s requirements. 83. 84. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) sha!l be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17,sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner’s property and directly behind the water meter. The applicant shall show the !ocation of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 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, 2O 030225 syn 0091191 85. 87. title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Double check detector check valves shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. The applicant shal! 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 land the assembly. A new gas service line installation is required. The applicant sha!l show the new gas meter !ocation on the plans. The gas meter !ocation must conform with utilities standard details. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. The applicant shal! show the location of the new sewer latera! on the plans. New sewer manhole on the main may be required to be installed per the WGW Standards. During Construction 88.The contractor shall contact underground service alert (800) 227-2600 one week in advance of starting excavation to provide for marking of underground utilities. 89.The applicant shal! provide protection for utility lines subject to damage. Utility lines within a pit or trench shal! be adequately supported. Al! exposed water, gas, and sewer lines shal! be inspected by the WGW Utilities Inspector prior to backfilling. 90.The contractor shall maintain 12" clear, above and be!ow, from the existing utilities to new underground facilities. The applicant shal! be responsible for re!ocating the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to accommodate new storm drains, with the prior approva! of the Utility Department. This responsibility includes a!l costs associated with the design and construction for the re!ocation of the utility mains and/or services. Sanitary sewer laterals will need to be replaced for the ful! length of the latera! (if possible) per the utility Standards. Sanitary sewer mains cannot be re!ocated. 91.If the Contractor elects to bore new pipes or conduits, the pi!ot bore hole shall be 24" clear from any existing utility pipes and al! existing utility crossings shall be potholed prior to starting work. 21 030225 syn 0091191 92.Al! utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo 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 deve!opments 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 shall be paid by the applicant’s contractor. Schedule WGW utilities inspections at 650/566-4504 five working days before start of constructions. 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. 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 shall be operated for any purpose by the applicant’s contractor. Al! required operation will only be performed by authorized utilities department personne!. 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 ch!orination and bacterio!ogica! testing have been completed. The contractor’s testing method shal! be in conformance with ANSI/A¼~TA C651-1atest edition. i00. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shal! be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 22 030225 syn 0091191 i01.All improvements to the gas system will be performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 102.All customer gas piping shall be inspected and approved by the building inspection division before gas service is instituted. Gas meters will be installed within five working days after the building piping passes final inspection and the building inspection division sends the set tag to the Utilities Department provided that the customer’s piping conforms to the Utility Standards. 103.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. Utilities/Engineering Electrical Division Prior to Demolition Permit Issuance 104.The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of al! 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. Prior to Submitta! for Building Permit 105.A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with al! building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submitta!. 106. 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. 107.Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 108.This project requires a padmount transformer unless otherwise approved in writing by the Electric Utility Engineering Department. The !ocation of the padmount 23 030225 syn 0091191 transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16. 109. The deve!oper/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. ii0. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. Al! conduits must be sized according to Nationa! Electric Code requirements and no ½- inch size conduits are permitted. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additiona! pul! boxes. The design and installation shall also be according to the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. !ii.Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectura! Review Board and Utilities Department. 112.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shal! show that no conflict wil! occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, al! aboveground equipment shal! be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 113.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. 114.No more than four 750MCH 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 wil! not be required. 030225 syn 0091191 24 115.The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 116.Any additiona! facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities wil! be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Specia! Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additiona! facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. Prior to Building Permit Issuance 117.The applicant shall comply with al! the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. During Construction 118.Contractors and deve!opers shal! 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. 119.At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must cal! Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1- 800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked by USA shal! be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 120.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 al!owed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to Nationa! Electric Code requirements and no ½-inch size conduits are permitted. Al! off-site substructure work wil! 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. 121.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 al!owed in a primary 25 030225 syn 0091191 conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 122.All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shal! be inspected by the Electrica! Underground Inspector before backfilling. Rule and Regulation #16. 123.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. 124.Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enc!osures, 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 al! applicable EUSERC standards for metering and switchgear. 125.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 126.The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pmds. 030225 syn 0091191 26 Prior to Occupancy 127.The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16. 128.All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrica! Underground Inspector. 129. All fees must be paid. 130.Al! Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon the effective date of Ordinance , entitled "Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 33-49 Encina Avenue from CS Commercia! Services to PC Planned Community INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager 030225 syn 0091191 27 Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachment F Architectural Review Board December 19, 2002 VERBA TIM MINUTES EXCERPT Item No: 1 33-49 Encina Avenue, The Opportunity Center and Housing Project [02- EIA-12, 02-PC-04, 02-ARB-133]: Application by Rob Wellington Quigley, FAIA, on behalf of the Community Working Group and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, for rezoning from Service Commercial (CS) to Planned Community (PC) to allow for: (1) demolition of the three existing buildings (approximately 5,260 square-feet of commercial space), and (2) construction of the proposed 46,083 square feet 5-story mixed use building consisting of 8,155 square-feet of social service area on the ground.floor, to be occupied by the Opportunity Center to provide drop-in service for homeless individuals and families, and 90 units of subsidized rental housing on the upper four floors, a two-leve! subterranean parking garage, and other site improvements. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and circulated [Roll Call - 3 present: Vice Chair Maran, BM Eschweiler and BM Wasserman. 2-absent: Chair Lippert and BM Kornberg] Vice-Chair Maran: Thank you. Next item is Unfinished Business, Public hearing, major Item #1:33-59 Encina Avenue, The Opportunity Center and Housing Project (02-EIA-12, 02-PC-04, 0_-ARB-I::): Application by Rob Wellington Quigley, FAIA, on behalf of the Community Working Group and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, for rezoning from Service Commercial (CS) to Planned Community (PC) to allow for: (1) demolition of the three existing buildings (approximately 5,260 square-feet of commercial space), and (2) construction of the proposed 46,083 square feet 5-story mixed use building consisting of 8,155 square-feet of social service area on the ground floor, to be occupied by the Opportunity Center to provide drop-in service for homeless individuals and families, and 90 units of subsidized rental housing on the upper four floors, a two-level subterranean parking garage, and other site improvements. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and circulated. As I understand it, we are to review primarily today the EIR. A word from Staff? Staff Lusardi: Mr. Chair, Staff is asking for a recommendation by the Board on both the EIR and the project be forwarded to the Planning and Transportation Commission for their meeting in January. At the last Board meeting, you met Beth Young, the project planner. I would like to also introduce Susan Ondik on the project team. She is primarily responsible for the CEQA review in preparation of the Draft ELY,. With that, I’d like to ask Beth and Susan to state their presentation. Ms. Beth Youna. Project Planner: Good morning, Chair Maran and members of the Board. At your last meeting on December 5th, the Board conducted their second review of the proposed project and continued the item. A summary of the comments received from the public and the Board at that meeting are included in your Staff report. Since the last Board meeting, the architect, Rob Quigley has continued to work on the building design and is here today to present the revisions. As John mentioned, it’s a two-part recommendation today, both recommendation on the Draft EIR as well as approval of the project. And I’m going to go ahead and let Susan discuss the conclusions of the Draft EIR and then I’ll go back to the recommendation. Ms. Susan Ondik: Good morning. The scope of the Draft EIR includes the discussion of project consistency with plans and policies, primarily in Chapter 3. Environmental effects that were identified initially as potentially significant including Land Use, Zoning and Neighborhood concerns, Transportation, biological resources primarily the trees on site on the adjacent sites, aesthetics, cultural resources, health and safety, primarily hazardous materials discussion. The Draft EIR also includes the discussion of alternatives to the project which you can find in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR. The ERI concludes that the implementation of the project as proposed will not result in any significant unavoidable impacts. Potentially significant impacts addressed in the EIR include aesthetics, Land Use and potential hazardous materials related to the Commercial Use of the site. Through mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The Draft ElY, is now in its 30-day review period and that will continue until January 13, 2003. Written comment forms are available in the back for any public members that wants to take them home. They have the address of the Planning Department on the back so that it can be easily mailed in. And they also can email, fax or write comments to us. Copies are available for review at local libraries here at the Planning Department across the street at the Development Center and will be on the City Website as of Monday. At last night’s Planning Commission, a public hearing was held on the Draft EIR. Several members of the public spoke both on the project and environmental effects. And with that, I think I’ll turn it back to Beth. Thanks. Ms. Young: This second part of your recommendation this morning, you have probably received a memo earlier this week that includes some changes to the language and so I’ll just go ahead and read it. "That the project should be approved based upon the Draft conditions that are found in the report and subject to the Draft conditions that the project details will be brought back to the ARB for a final approval following the final action by the City Council on the project. And these details include the final lighting plan, signage, landscape plan, sustainability report, final colors and materials and any other items that are deemed necessary by the ARB. The project meets the existing policies and programs and requirements for the PC district. So Staff recommends the review and recommended approval of the revised project. And that concludes my presentation. As a major ARB project, the applicant, Rob Quigley, representing the Community Working Group and Housing Authority will have 10 minutes for his presentation. Mr. Rob Qui~lev. Applicant: I wanted to just review the changes we’ve made in response to your critique and show you where we are in the design process. There was a concern on the part of the Board that the project was not as engaging or as interesting from the south and the southwest as one enters the project, as it was from the courtyard side of the project. And that some of the delight, if you will, or the dynamic quality of the building and the courtyard could also, then it might be appropriate more appropriate that that also found its way around to the more public side. And on reflecting on those thoughts, we in our shop agreed with the Board rather enthusiastically that I think an architect’s job is to find a balance between cost and class and that we had erred maybe too much on the cost and that it needed to be more engaging as [the word I like] and this is where we were and this is how we would like to see it happen. And as we studied it, we realized that while this view is important, probably this view of the project, the first one you get off of E1 Camino Real, this should not be the most spectacular, the most strange, the most ’ " t appropriate image. It ought to beattention getting building in Palo Alto. It s jus doesn’t seem an ~ ~ more dignified, more subtle. But as you get toward the building, it was clear that what was ~vrong was that it was just too stiff and did not offer enough of an invitation that this was a wonderful place to be. So we changed it actually fairly radically by introducing the diagonal, bringing out sun shades to protect those southern windows properly, opening up the living rooms with floor to ceiling glass. And then on the other side, there’s an evolution beyond this first sketch where we combine the bedroom windows, made them a little larger shapes so they read better from the distant corner and those are the bedroom windows here. And then looked at the towers as well. There was some thoughts that they should be shorter or maybe not there at all. And we did some studies that eliminated them. It made the building look extremely boxy and we thought clumsy. And we felt that after studying it that the towers needed to be more delicate and more interesting. And it seemed that the height actually, if anything they needed to be higher, not lower. So we left them on the same height and rounded the top edge which is I think a subtle but noticeable difference and I like the way it brought the top of the building in relation form-wise with the bottom of the building with the arches. This is the latest rendering, this is just a few dab’s ago, we’re still in progress, of course. But other than what I’ve described, there you can see the larger shape of the windows so they’re graphically stronger from a distance. There was a second comment about the wall over here that maybe that needed to have more activity or more interest and more design. That wall will get largely covered with greenery and we felt that the notion of needing more interest on that fac~ade was accurate but that the wall was not the proper place. That the column, in fact, was the proper place. So here you see us beginning on this column to engage it artistically. And we would like to find a local artist that could work with us and that this would become not only a large vertical art piece but would also become a donor wall of sorts integrated in with the art and there will be plaques commemorating the donors that now need to donate even more money. Those are the major changes. (MaryAnn, did I forget anything?) Yes. This, we like this idea that these would be glass blocks here. This is the elevator that comes from the garage upward and will have a window in that elevator and kind of bring light through that wall through a little notch right here and through glass block into the porch area right here. The color of the building, I passed by the building on the southern part of Alma Street, that is I would call it orange. In comparison, our color is very, very earthy compared to that. We’re trying to find a building that has this color on it. There are a lot of them around but our intent is something much more earth-bound and much more subtle. But still have a color that has some weight to it. Any questions I could answer? Vice-Chair Maran: Thank you, Rob. I’m sure we’ll have some questions from the Board. Would you like to start Susan? BM Eschweiler: A question to Rob. Have you had a chance to look at the handling of trash in the building at all? Mr. Quigley: We haven’t looked at trash anymore than what we’ve described before. Ms. MarvAnn Welton: We’re going with the same procedure that we had discussed before which is to have the elevator from the garage bring the trash dumpster up. The other possibility if that does provide too much wear and tear on the elevator, we’ll have a real heavy-duty industrial type elevator to handle it. It’s the trash people bring a little mule, I think they call it and pu!l it up. BM Eschweiler: Okay, I’m just trying to understand how 90 people worth of trash or 90 units worth of trash can get hauled up. Ms. Welton: There are 107 units at Alma Place and we use the same type of system, it’s actually in the parking garage but there’s trash chutes and it goes down into a dumpster and it’s compacted. We use it on all our SRS. It’s a very common type of way to handle trash on that size project. BM Eschweiler: Okay. Ms. Young: I’d like to also add that there is a condition of approval. It’s number 9 on the second page, Attachment B. And the condition reads that "All trash and recycling receptacles shall only be placed outside for the length of time necessary for collection. That fallinJpick-up to empty the receptacles shall be merely returned to their storage location within the parking garage." BM Eschweiler: So that means that the trash comes out to the sidewalk and sits there? Staff Lusardi: It basically is until it’s picked up and then it has to be returned fight away. Basically, it can’t sit there all day or overnight so it only sits there for the length of time as to when it comes to be picked up. 4 BM Eschweiler: So what I’m struggling with is there’s no street side enclosure where this is protected. It’s sitting on the sidewalk, people walking by it, have to walk around it. Staff Lusardi: Well, it can’t block the public right-of-way so it’s going to be placed in a position that the truck can access it but it can’t block pedestrian access, no. BM Eschweiler: So where is that location? Staff Lusardi: We’ll work out that detail yet. BM Eschweiler: Thank you. In the Staff Report, there were comments from the different departments. And the Fire Department asked for a 20-foot wide road as they often do for access and I don’t see a road of that nature on this property and I’m not sure where it would go. Has that been addressed at all? Mr. Qui~le¥..i. MaryAnn went through the meetings with the Fire people. They were very extensive. Ms. Welton: We’ve met many times with [Gordon Simkinson] trying to resolve this issue because besides the 20-foot wide dedicated access, there was also the need to have a fireman run no more than 150 feet with the ladder and meet someone on the other side, not running more than 150 feet with the ladder which is also the length of their hoses. And what we’ve worked out is that by bringing the front of this building, this portion of it that you see right there to the property line and having a No Parking zone in front of it, they can pull their truck up and have their ladder reach the roof which satisfied their requirements. We talked to both PAMIP and the shoe store on the left-hand side about the possibility of getting a dedicated fire access easement which neither of them are willing to give, although PAMF’s 16- foot wide service alley behind there, they said, y~u know, of course the Fire Department can use it to fight any fire on the building if something like that happened. So those conditions and putting, I forget what it’s called the transponder I think in the light so that the fire trucks can turn without having to wait for the light to change or for cars to get out of the way. And the possibility of additional stand pipes met their requirements so we’re in the process of proposing alternatives methods which we have worked out verbally with the Fire Department to deal with that condition. BM Eschweiler: Thank you. That was a very thorough answer. There was also one other item raised from Staff that was a new one to me. Perhaps to you also, about the car washing area for residential projects. Have you also had a chance to address that one? It’s pretty new. Ms. Welton: Yes, we’re going to put that down in the garage. And we have to have the drainage system has to hook up to the sanitary to get rid of the things that they wouldn’t want going into the storm drain from the parking garage and washing cars. BM Eschweiler: So it’s connected to sanitary? Ms. Welton: Yes. BM Eschweiler: Also in the garage there, there’s the storm water containment and pump system. could you elaborate on that as well? Ms. Welton: I can try to elaborate on that. I’m not a civil engineer but the ideas that the storm water comes down off the roof and is held in a large pipe so that it is released slowly over time into the gutter that goes down to the storm drain. The City at first was asking us to put in an 800-foot long new storm drain system along Encina which, of course, was very expensive. And since the site has more permeable area now, with the new building we’ll have more permeable area than it does now, we worked with the Public Works Department on alternatives. If there is a storm drain system put in, in the future we would be more than happy to hook up to it. But putting in the 800-foot system ourselves seemed like an undue burden to place on the project. So we’ve worked out this other way of handling it. They were afraid of too much water coming down and going into the gutter so we worked out this way to contain it. BM Eschweiler: Thank you. BM Wasserman: I have a question for Staff about what happened at the Planning and Transpol~ation Committee last night. You just said that the members of the public spoke but you didn’t say what they said. What did the Planning and Transportation Commission do? Staff Lusardi: There were several speakers, I think around 6 speakers on this item, although it was a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. I would say most of the speakers were speaking to the project, a mixture of in support and some raising some concerns about the project. None of the speakers raised any new or significant environmental impacts. One speaker did concur with the mitigation section relative to neighborhood impacts that is contained in the EIR, the security system, the Outreach. The Commission itself had very little comments on the EIR. One Commissioner did raise concerns about the sun/shadow studies in the Appendices that it wasn’t very clear to decipher and asked us to get better sun/shadow studies and we concurred with that. And the other comment from another Commissioner was that they felt like the Visual Impact analysis wasn’t detailed enough, that is it didn’t show the relationship of the project to the existing buildings other than the PAM2F building. The other smaller buildings, the Town & Country and stuff so they wanted to see a more visual representation of that. The Commissioner expressed the concern that the conclusion in EI~R probably wasn’t, she wasn’t in agreement, she thought there was more of a visual impact than the EIR concluded and that might be something that this Board wants to comment on with respect to the visual impacts of the project in relation to the EIR. And that’s essentially the comments we received from the Commission and the public. BM Wasserman: Thank you very much. I had a couple of questions for the applicant. On the color, the Staff Report suggest that that final colors and materials come back to us. Are these the final colors and materials that you’re proposing. 6 Mr. Qui~lev; Yes, close to it. What you don’t see yet is the art project on the column. BM Wasserman: So technically, Staff, we could pass these if the applicant says that they are the final. The art actually goes back to the Public Art commission? Staff Lusardi: Yes, Staff would recommend that you recommend approval on the project with those colors and materials. What we would like to do is this is essentially a [inaudible] if the color should change, some of them will change, we would like to have that come back to the ARB. BM Wasserman: Okay. And the sun that shone on the building, Is that the location that you’re proposing for the sign? Mr. Quiglev: Yes, we’re proposing that there’d be two signs since there’s two entrances. One, you can just barely see over the arch as the raised letters off.the stucco. And then the main sign, the Opportunity Center w6uld be hung from the balcony there probably free-standing aluminum letters. BM Wasserman: So you have a location proposed but you don’t have the actual letters yet? Mr Quigle¥). Right. We don’t know precisely what the words would be but those are the locations we’d like to see. BM Wasserman: But there’s no typography for this yet? You don’t know what the letters will be like? Mr. Quigley: No, we don’t know what the font style is yet. We’d work with the signage people for that. BM Wasserman: Thank you. Vice-Chair Maran: Thanks, Judith. I’d like to just ask some questions about the EIR for just a moment. First of all, it’s been reduced to a 30-day period instead of 45? Staff Lusardi: That’s correct. Vice-Chair Maran: That’s for public review and comment? Staff Lusardi: That’s for the public review and other outside agencies for a review and comment. And we’ve gotten approval by, the State Clearinghouse for the 30-day review. Vice-Chair Maran: This is a special instance because there’s public funding involved? Staff Lusardi: The applicant is seeking funding deadline and the funding deadline is February. For the applicant to secure that funding, they need project approvals at the local level. That means the City Council would have to act on this project prior to them getting that funding so they need the EIR and the project to actions before that. 7 Vice-Chair Maran: So in this case the project has to get its approvals before it gets its funding? Staff Lusardi: Essentially they’ve gotten some funding for site acquisition but for other funding, yes, they do need local approvals. Vice-Chair Maran: The EI2R seems to raise no issues as in conflict with the project, is that right? Staff Lusardi: The EIR identifies several potentially significant impacts, however, it concluded that none of the impacts were significant. Some of them were reduced to a less insignificant level because of mitigation measures that were included in the project. Vice-Chair Maran: Traffic was not one of the ones that was considered significant, was it? Staff Lusardi: That’s COITeCt. There was no Level Of Service impact. Vice-Chair Maran: Doesn’t it also address the location of the building itself and the site appropriateness and it also found no problems with that? Staff Lusardi: That’s correct, yes. Vice-Chair Maran: Great. Just briefly, what would be the type of negative impact that the EIR could find or normally finds on a project like this? We don’t come across that many EIR’s that I understand the range of possibilities for what we’re looking at here. Staff Lusardi: Actually, given the level of impacts there were found in EIR, it could have been appropriate to issue a mitigated negative declaration on this project. However, given the public interest., the scope of the project and the potential impacts, especially with respect to hazardous soils and materials and the fact that we’re introducing a new, larger building on a site that doesn’t have that mass and scale, Staff thought it was appropriate to do a full Environmental Impact Report to assess all of the impacts. Vice-Chair Maran: Thanks. I’m going to ask a few questions about the building itself. The sun/shade studies that was done, Rob, was that done based on the model or was it a computer graphic? Mr. Quiglev: It’s actually an animated study. The comment last night, I don’t think had to do with the content of the study, it had to do with the graphics when they were reproduced or Xeroxed. We couldn’t get a good readable image on some of the winter hours so we need to go back and retexture or something so it reads better. Vice-Chair Maran: Do you plan on taking it to the Heliodon at Pacific Energy Center when it’s fully constructed as a model? Mr. Quigle¥: We can do this although this computer study should pretty much, it does exactly the same thing. Vice-Chair Maran: It does exactly the same thing? Mr. Oui.-.q.leyi. It shows there actually that there’s surprisingly little shadow on PAMF. In the winter, it shadows maybe the first level of the Medical Center which is their storage area. It does not shadow even in winter any of the windows. Vice-Chair Maran: Do you have a site plan that indicates where PAM1= is in relation to this building? Mr. Qui~lev: So in the winter, it throws a shadow across the road and up into the first story along here, and in the spring and summer there are no shadows on there. Vice-Chair Maran: Is it right at the north/south accesses diagonal from bottom left up to upper right on that? Mr. Oui~_ley;. Yes, here’s the north arrow. Vice-Chair Maran: Got it. So is the western sun in the dead of winter going to set behind PAMF up sort of towards [inaudible]? Mr. Quiglev: Yes. The mid-day sun is a slight angle like this and then that means my finger is due west which means that winter sun is setting just about perpendicular with the fa~cade. Summer sun is setting on the other side of the Medical Center. So in the afternoon in the summer, we’ll get fairly, large shadows from the Medical Center on our windows. Vice-Chair Maran: I understand you haven’t done mechanical studies of the building yet. Are there any potential impacts of the increased window sizes in the front left corner or tower of the building that you indicated that were bedrooms that you were increasing the size? Mr. Qui~lev: We have not studied that. We don’t anticipate any effects we can’t compensate for. Vice-Chair Maran: Could there be some good effects as in more natural lighting in the bedrooms? Mr. Qui~lev: Well, we’ve got good size windows actually in all the living areas so our ventilation will probably remain the same. I don’t see ant’ big changes heating and ventilation. Vice-Chair Maran: Thanks. Last question. Are you planning on making any provisions for electric cars charging stations in the parking area, in the garage? Mr. Qui~lev: I don’t know. We don’t have any now, do we? It’s been discussed but I guess at the moment, we do not have that facility. Vice-Chair Maran: Thanks. Does anybody, else from the Board have any questions? BM Eschweiler: I have one architectural question about there were a couple of different sketches that you showed on the E1 Camino elevation with windows with the new awnings. And 9 I think there was one where it was showed that the two windows came together as a single window and one that showed two, which do we have? Mr. Quigley: We like the single because we think the single window makes a larger window, apparently, a larger window even though what it is it’s two windows exact same size as the old project but pushed together with a single awning over the top. And that seems to make it more visible from a distance. So by putting the two windows together with a wider awning, we get more clarity from this distance. In other words if the detail is too fine or the window is too small, it’s not clear graphically, from this far away. So that’s why we did that, we think it’s more successful artistically. The awnings, I didn’t mention, we were adding the awnings there on the windows that face west for sun shading and we’re also looking at adding the windows (I don’t have the model here) on the southern [inaudible] right here. We’re looking at adding the awnings here and here and possibly on the east. We’re going to do some more sun studies whether those would be appropriate. [pause] Awnings are here which is southwest orientation. No, we don’t have large windows here and these are elevated [course] so we don’t need those. These we think will get shading from the tree on that side. But we may, want to add them here and here. They would be the same type awning. Vice-Chair Maran: Any other questions? BM Eschweiler: Following up on a question from last time, have you decided what the window types are? Is that a detail yet to come? Mr. Quigley: What the window construction is? BM Eschweiler: Yes. Mr. Qui~lev: The discussion with the contractor yesterday was leaning towards vinyl, that he had better luck with vinyl windows than with aluminum windows. Those are two choices, we can’t afford wood windows. BM Eschweiler: And what is the detail of those windows as they’re set against the outside? Is there any setback to them? Mr. Quiglev: Yes, we hope, it depends on budget but my hope is to set all the windows back from the stucco fa.cade a couple of inches so it just makes the building look richer. BM Eschweiler: Yes, I agree with that. Vice-Chair Maran: Any other questions? Seeing none, we’re going to open it up for the public comment. Anybody from the public who wish to speak to this item? Seeing none, we’ll move on to comments from the Board. Susan, would you like to start, please? BM Eschweiler: Rob, you weren’t here last time but we complimented MaryAnn on the changes in response to our comments. We liked the triangulation of the windows facing Encina and the 10 artistic changes that you made to the entryways. I personally still have a concern about the elevator towers. It’s about height and how plain they are. And I appreciate the curve that you’ve made but I really don’t feel it’s going to be perceived and really enough to soften the height of those. Obviously, there’s a functional need for elevators to have a penthouse of some type but I would just like to see it minimized as much as possible. With regards to the color of the building, I would like to see this color in the field, so to speak. I don’t think that we can tell under these lights how it will work with the neighboring building such as Palo Alto Medical and so I’d like to recommend that we have a Committee or whatever that reviews it in the field when you’re fine tuning that actual final color. There’s also the color of the awnings that have not been submitted and the color of the windows. So there are some materials that we haven’t seen yet that make for the whole composition. There are a number of policy questions from the general plan that I think the main comments were about compatibility and maintaining the scale and character of the City. And I think that’s a sensitive issue that someone addressed in the DEIR. This building is setting a new type of neighborhood. I think it’s the Palo Alto Medical facility is already a 50-foot tall building and much more massive than this one so this is small by comparison but it is larger than the neighboring buildings directly on Encina. And there, it’s a much more dense project. So we’ve created a new type of neighborhood look here with the taller building but it does have a lot of articulation and has a very nice courtyard that I think the courtyard offsets the face that’s right along Encina. So I’m very comfortable with that. It’s a creative design. We just need much detail as possible on this building to make it successful. My concern about the elevator towers really has to do with the massing and the fact that we are already allowing the building to be taller but coming to the 50-foot elevation that any screening should be 15 feet, per the code would be a maximum of 15-feet above the roof plane. So I think we need to take a look at that to hold that. The elevator [course], because they are part of the wall elevation seem even taller than that. And in the drawings, there were some perhaps old notes that talked about a 78-foot elevation, a higher elevation and I don’t think that any pertinence would be higher than 65 feet so we need to just check on these details. There was a submittal about lighting and that looked to be progressing in the right direction and it looks like we could recommend that we review the details of that later on. That’s all. ~Mr. Quiglev: This is the image of the study we did without the towers. You can see they’re in the background covered with a different material because we still need the mechanical override for the tower. But this was where we looked at just bringing the cornice straight across and we felt that it just looked too corporate, I guess. Vice-Chair Maran: Thanks, Rob. We’re just going to keep moving along with comments. Judith. BM Wasserman: Thank you. As I said previously, I think it’s a wonderful project and I would like to comment on the visual impact of part of the DEIR. There is an implication in the structure of EIR’s that I believe I have commented on before that. The implication is that any change to the existing condition is somehow detrimental. And I feel that the format of the EIR 11 does not take into account that architecture can be an improvement. I think this is yet another case where the architecture although large is certainly not anywhere near as large as the Medical Foundation building behind it and it’s a great improvement to a neighborhood which is sort of got nothing much to recommend it. So I think that although there is no way to register that in the way it’s structured, I think it should be recognized at least by us as an improvement. I would like to move that we approve the Draft EIR or whatever it is that we’re supposed to do with it technically. And also approve the building with the Staff recommendations. I would like to tentatively approve the color and materials and have any changes come back. You want to see a mock-up on the side, is that what you’d like? BM Eschweiler: I would like to see the colors, it doesn’t have to be a big mock-up but something else [inaudible]. BM Wasserman: Something out there in the field? Yes, I think that’s a good idea. I would like to approve the locations of the signs and have the lettering come back to us. And the final details of how the trash is going to be handled. Basically, I think this is a great project and an asset to the City and we ought to get off the dime and get it done. Vice-Chair Maran: Judith, was that a motion that you were ma~ng? BM Wasserman: That is a motion, yes. Is there a second for that motion? BM Eschweiler: I second. Vice-Chair Maran: Okay. Before we vote on that, I’d like to just have a little bit of discussion and just to clarify what the conditions are. In the Memo Staff Report that we received as a separate item, there were several items that are suggested to be brought back to the ARB for final approval following the action by the City Council. Is that part of your motion? BM Wasserman: It says final lighting plan signage, final landscape plans, sustainability report, final colors and materials and any other items. So my adjustment to that would be that the location of the signage be approved and only the form of the letters come back that the final colors and materials be approved with a mock-up in the field and specifically the trash, the location of the dumpster where it waits for pick-up come back to us. And other than that, this is what I had in mind. Staff Lusardi: And Staff is fine with that. Just a clarification, Board Member Eschweiler asked that the details on the awnings and materials also come back, is that correct? BM Wasserman: Absolutely, yes. Vice-Chair Maran: Question for Staff. Do we need to do two motions or two approvals? Or can we combine the approval of the DEIR with the approval of the project? Staff Lusardi: You can do it in one motion, yes. 12 Vice-Chair Maran: Great, saves time. I would like to just make a few comments. And my comments are simply items that I would like to suggest as friendly amendments to the motion. Two things. One is I would like to have the project include electric car charging in the garage, electric car charging stations, not the cars but just the stations. And hopefully the cars at some point soon. The second is to re-examine the vinyl windows question. I know that that’s been looked at some by the project architects and to see if we can find perhaps through some sort of partnership with the wood window company or an alternative material company that something as energy efficient and also as inexpensive as vinyl windows just to explore that some more and see if we can stop using vinyl in Palo Alto. Those are my two amendments to the motion. Are those acceptable to you, Judith? BM Wasserman: Acceptable to me. Vice-Chair Maran: The seconder, are you fine with those? BM Eschweiler: I find those acceptable. Vice-Chair Maran: Now, we’ll take a vote on the motion then. Do we need to read the motion before taking a vote on it? Sure, please. Staff Turner: There is a motion by Board Member Wasserman to make a recommendation on the project to the Planning Commission and the City Council that one that the Draft EIR is adequate and disclosing the potentials, significant environmental impacts, identifying those measures to mitigate those impacts and providing sufficient information for Officials to make decisions regarding the merits of the project. And that the project should be approved based upon the Draft findings in Attachment A and subject to the Draft conditions in Attachment B. There are additional conditions that the Board Members indicated they wanted attached to this motion that they’re tentatively approving the colors and materials for the project. That the color scheme should be mocked up on the site and reviewed by at least the sub-Committee if not the full Board. That the locations of the signs are the recommending approval of those but the lettering and the details of the signage shall return to the Board at a later date. That further detailing of the trash locations and trash handling on the site be brought back to the ARB, as well as details of the awnings, windows and window screens. Board Member Maran added two amendments. One was to include electric car charging stations in the garage and to re-examine the use of vinyl windows in the site and to explore other options for windows. Vice-Chair Maran: The part where it says that the DEIR has sufficient information for public agencies to make decisions, how does that relate to the idea that that visual impact is actually a weird setup technical? Staff Lusardi: Your comments will be forwarded as part of your action on ElY, and just also to clarify that the EIR does contain mitigation statements that the building although larger in mass 13 and scale does have design details, colors and articulations that addresses that massing and scale. And your support of that project would articulate that with respect to that potential impact. BM Wasserman: Thank you. Vice-Chair Maran: aye? All Aye. Vice-Chair Maran: absence. So we have a motion on the floor, it’s been seconded. All those in favor, say All those opposed? None. The motion passes J-0-0-., two members in Thank you. We’re going to move on to the next item on the agenda. 14 Planning and Transportation Comntission Janttat:y 29, 2003 Verbatim Minutes EXCERPT NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings: 1. 33-49 Encina Avenue*: The Opportunity Center and Housing Project [File Numbers: 02-EIA-12, 02-PC-04.02-ARB-133 and State Clearinghouse #2002102110] Recommendation by staff for the Planning and Transportation Commission to review and recommend on the Final Environmental Impact Report and an application by Rob Wellington Quigley, FAIA, on behalf of the Community Working Group and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, to allow for a zone change from Service Commercial (CS) to Planned Community (PC) to allow for the demolition of the three existing buildings, and the construction of the proposed 5-story mixed use building, approximately 46,100 square feet in size, consisting of the Opportunity Center to provide drop-in services for homeless individuals and families and 89 units of subsidized rental housing. Staff Report: 13ttp://www citv.palo-alto.ca us/cit~/agendaJpublish/plannin~-transportation- meetin~s/1483.pd~ Ms. Beth Young. Senior Planner: Thank you Chair Griffin and members of the Commission. Good evening. The item before the Commission is proposed mixed use project consisting of 89 units of income restricted housing including 70 units of single room occupancy, 12 one-bedroom units, six two-bedroom units and one manager’s unit. A two level subten-anean parking garage is provided for autos and bicycles. A community service area, approximate 8,100 square feet in size, will provide services for the homeless and those at risk of being homeless. City Staff prepared an Environmental Impact Report that analyzes the project for potential environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. On December 18, 2002 the Commission held a public hearing to receive public comments on the Draft EIR. The Commission also provided comments to the Staff regarding the Draft EIR. The public circulation period for the EIR was from December 13, 2002 through January 13 of 2003. The Final EIR including text revisions, comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR is included in the Commission’s packet. Prior to this evening’s hearing the Commission received a staff memorandum, which summarized the preliminary findings on the phase two findings which was soil samples at the project site. The Draft EIR identifies a transportation demand management program as mitigation for the project. This was not included in the project conditions. At this time Staff recommends that the Commission include a condition with approval that requires a transportation demand management program be provided by the project owner that is consistent with the EIR mitigation. The applicant has said that they are aoreeable to this condition. In addition the applicant had requested that two conditions be deleted. These are condition number 39 which addresses a commercial kitchen and condition number 43 which address a fire truck access way. Both building and Fire Department Staff are agreeable to their deletion as they no longer apply tO the revised project design. On December 19, 2002 the Architectural Review Board found that the Draft Environmental Impact Report was adequate and they recommended approval of the proposed project. There were no public comments made at the Architectural Review Board hearing. Several significant issues have been identified by Staff and they are summarized in your Staff Report. The project architect, Rob Quigley will make a brief presentation on the project and the revised design. Captain Brad Zook is available in the audience to answer any questions on behalf of the Police Department. In addition we have Judith Wasserman representing the ARB and she is here tonight to address any architectural or design review. On March 3 this project is scheduled to be heard by the City Council. Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council that the Final Environmental Impact Report be certified and that the project be approved based upon the Draft Planned Community Ordinance and subject to the Draft Architectural Review Resolution. This concludes my Staff Report. Thank you. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you. Does Judith Wasserman wish to make a presentation from the ARB? Welcome, Judith. Ms. Judith Wasserman. Architectural Review Boardmember: I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a presentation. It is not exactly a presentation but I did want to express the positive response of the ARB to this project. It is not often that you get real dynamite architecture in Palo Alto and this is the real thing and we were very pleased to see it. One of the issues of scale came up in the discussion and it seemed to us that this building presented a reasonably good transition from the PAMF campus which is very massive to the smaller scale of the buildings further down on E1 Camino and that the massing of the building itself and the way it was designed with the courtyard and the articulation of the building was a very successful response to that issue. In general we think that the project will be a benefit not only to the community but to the immediate area and that it will actually be an improvement. There is an underlying assumption that I find in EIRs that somehow assume that any building you build is going to be worse than whatever is there. So you have to somehow mitigate the impact of building a building, which I find offensive, never mind. In this case I don’t think there is any question that the building is a great improvement not only over what is there but over probably most things that could be there. That is pretty much what we had to say. I will answer other questions and specific issues as they come up if you would like. Commissioner Griffin: Does the Commission have any questions for Judith? Joseph. Commissioner Bellomo: The elevator issue, can you just speak briefly to the scale? Ms. Wasserman: The height of the elevators? Commissioner Bellomo: The height of those elevators on that southwest side. Ms. Wasserman: There was a difference of opinion among the Board Members as you might remember. One or two Board Members thought that the towers were too tall and some didn’t mind them. I think the response of the architect was to bend one of the walls of the towers to sort of soften the general impression. He was pretty convincing about the proportions of the towers and the way they relieved the massiveness of that side of the building. Commissioner Bellomo: Thank you. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you, Judith. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation. We can grant you 15 minutes. Welcome. Mr. Don Ban, Applicant. 948 Ramona. Palo Alto: Good evening. I am Don Barr, President of the Board of Directors. of the Community Working Group. I am on the faculty at Stanford and also I am a practicingphysician at the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. I would like to acknowledge some of my partner agencies in this. Christine Burrows of the Innvision Urban Ministry is in the audience of you have any questions of her, the major service provider. Also Vince Cantore of the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara who will be the housing management agency is also in the audience if you have any questions of him. There are a whole bunch of people that didn’t sign up who are in support of this. Just know that they are out there also. I would like to just quote if I could briefly from the editorial of the San Jose Mercu~3’ Ne~f’s from yesterday. This says the Opportunity Center will offer men, women and children including many working families a way off the street. It will provide local residents and student opportunities for community service. Homelessness is not just a big city problem. Every community regardless of size or affluence needs to do its part to address it. I would suggest that this project is the right project in the right place at the right time to address it. It is the right project. It provides the three legs of service: jobs and housing that have been shown to have the highest chance of leading to independence and self-sufficiency. It addresses both single adults and women with children and families and it continues the basic hospitality services that have been provided for years by the Urban Ministry. It is the fight place. This site was chosen after careful consultation with the staff of the City of Palo Alto. All of the uses are consistent with the zoning for this site. The increased housing density of course needs your attention for the PC. It stays away from residential and central commercial zones as well. It is the right time because the time has now come for Palo Alto to really develop housing and services for the very low income. They have been working on it for a long time. It is also the tight time because there is quite a bit of support from philanthropic and public agencies providing funding. It is the right time because the people of Palo Alto and the mid peninsula have made it very clear that they want this project to happen. There have been a number of meetings going forward involving myself and Dr. David Druker of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation to be sure that we have a supportive relationship between the medical foundation and the project based on the principle of mutual respect and support of activities. We also have been having a safety committee meeting under the supervision of the Chamber of Commerce and the Police Department. There have been three meetings of that committee and a general safety consensus and plan will be coming out of that as well. So I feel very positive that the neighborhood will be supportive of this project as wel!. As for the Environmental Impact Report I think it has identified the issues of impact on the environment and that they will be mitigated. I should just like to emphasize that that impact on the lives of those who will be served will also be profound. I would like to ac ~knowledge Rob Quigley and Maryanne Welton the architects involved and turn the mike over to them. Mr. Rob 0uiglev, Project Architect: Good evening. I have presented the project to you before so I will just briefly summarize the project and talk a little bit about the changes that were begun with the design review board. Then I will be available for questions after that just to save time. think the aerial photo explains the massing issues most succinctly. You can see what is really the back of PAMF here with the service side and then our project and how in fact it can and does mediate scales from the larger building down to the smaller ones. Here this is the back service drive, PAMF, and then our building and existing oak trees right here. You can say this is a building shaped by concerns for green on two very different levels. One is quite literally it is shaped by a concern for preserving and saving these trees in three different locations on our site. The building actually is formed and responds to those wonderful amenities. Secondly, we are going to make every attempt to do an ecologically ~een building with proper materials, recycling materials and doing every possible thing to really make the building be responsible to the concerns that we all have about our environment. This is a view down Encina from the highway and you can see the trees, the wonderful oak trees, in the front of our site right there. This was the project you saw last time I presented it to you. The ARB review process that took place after we spoke with you suggested several things. One was they felt this building needed to announce itself with a little more authority, I am paraphrasing, that they felt it was a little too insulated perhaps not engaging enough at this corner, which is a very public comer for this building. They, a number of them, also felt that the towers were a little too bulky for the elevators. We upon reflection actually agreed very much with those comments and think that we have a much better building now because of that. We opened up the front living spaces, living rooms, of these family units in a much more generous way,, sloped the wall and articulated the masses on the street, reconfigured the windows on this side, on the west side and reshaped the towers. Actually I looked at cutting the towers off and it made the building very bulky and clumsy. The towers it turned out are quite necessary to give the building a more human scale. Height sometimes actually gives building more human scale. We did take the bulk out of it. I think they are a little more graceful and there is a relationship now with the top tower and the lower arches. This is the study model that you have before you and a computer rendering that show it a little more accurately. 4 We also reinvestigated the entry sequence here for the day center and are proposing that artists intervene with the architects on this building in two areas. One the handrail here, we imagine working with some kind of ironmonger type artist that is really wonderful at shaping iron into interesting things. That is the children’s deck and it is a very important dialogue between the street and the activity above. Secondly, this round column, we see that as a donor column with decorative tiles commemorating donors but we would like to take that a step further into an art piece. It is of course a structural column as well. One last thing to talk about is the way trash is removed from the building. This elevator right here goes down to the garage, opens up into a porch-like affair right here. This is actually the front wall of the building, entry into the day side, the staff zone here and then entry for the residential side. This is a little larger. Trash will come up out of the elevator, the dumpster will be placed in this area here which is closed at nighttime and then at 4:30 it is taken out by the service people and taken away. This is looking the other direction and gives you an idea of the streetscape. The courtyard is open for activity, shaded by that wonderful tree. We have elected to make about a five foot high wall there. It could be any height but it seemed like five feet was still one that would be friendly enough with plants growing over it. It shows a little better on the study model there. Yet it still provides a certain level of privacy. Thank you very much. Are there any questions I could answer at this time? Commissioner Griffin: Commissioners? Joseph. Commissioner Bellomo: One question on the elevator, the curved elevator roof towers. The proposal is for a plastered form. Mr. Quigley: Yes. Commissioner Bellomo: So viewed from the train area and Downtown you would see a plastered form? Mr. Qui~lev: Yes. Everything that is painted that color is intended to be piaster. Other than the very fiat roofs on the other little towers, the horizontal pieces would not be stucco. We have developed ways that have been successful in waterproofing and then placing the stucco over the waterproofing. Commissioner Bellomo: Okay. It is an integral color versus or have you decided yet? _Mr. Quigley: With stucco this dark it may be better to paint it. Commissioner Bellomo: Thanks. Commissioner Griffin: Any other questions? Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I just want to ask the same question I had asked via email so that everybody could have the benefit of the answer. I was looking at the plans and looking at the new facade and I was trying to match up the windows in the family units with the new fa~cade on the southwest. So I think it was explained to me that the windows will really be larger. I was concerned about the second floor family unit it seems t<) have the smallest opening in terms of light. Mr. Quigley: Yes. When we rearranged the outside of the building we have not updated the window arrangement on the plans. It is merely a drafting item that we haven’t yet gotten to. The largest windows will be on those front units but the all the family units have very large windows in the living area, smaller windows in the bedrooms. Commissioner Packer: The other question I had which was answered to me was in the discussion last time it was told to us that the access to the SRO units and the family units would be kept separate but on the ground floor there is a shared vestibule for the two elevators. It was explained to me that and maybe you can confirm this, that you need a keyed access to go up those elevators. Mr. Quigley: That is correct. Shall I review that? Commissioner Packer: Yes. Mr. Quigley: There are two separate entrances on either side of the reception desk. So the reception desk can actually serve both sides. This is the entry for the day care people. It is only operable during those hours. This is the residential side with a small lobby here, this is glass around that side, there would be three or four chairs in that area. They come through here. Now both family and singles enter through that same door, go past this control point and enter into the same vestibule but the families have keys that open this elevator, the singles have keys that open that elevator and once they are above that floor there are two entirely separate circulation systems. Commissioner Bellomo: One other question, Rob. I am sure the ARB went through this but mechanical systems screening, the model doesn’t reflect any mechanical system screening. Mr. Quigley: The fiat top towers are holding mechanical equipment. Commissioner Bellomo: These? Mr. Quigley: Yes, all three of those. Commissioner Bellomo: All three of those carry it. The proposal is for no through the wall air conditioning equipment or future mechanical cooling through walls. Mr. Quigley: No, the only proposal for additional equipment up there, are photovoltaic. If we are lucky enough to have a donor that would help us out with that we would love to provide photovoltaic cells to generate electricity. Commissioner Bellomo: So the units are heated only and not cooled? Mr. Quigley: We still don’t have cooling. It is still heating only. Commissioner Bellomo: Thank you. Commissioner Holman: I have one question regarding the elevator shafts, the towers. I really like what you did from a design perspective in softening those by adding a curve to them and it does pick up. the arches below. I have one question though. Did you consider turning them 90 degrees so that it would soften the mass both from the west and from the Encina side? Did you consider that? Mr. Quigley: Yes actually I have drawings. I don’t have them with me. We turned them 90 degrees and 180 degrees. This is purely an artistic choice obviously that this seemed to announce the building and at the same time welcome people in. When we turned it around it was I don’t know how to explain it, it came out a little zoomy. It didn’t quite fit as nicely with the sculptural qualities of the building. Commissioner Holman: I wish you had brought those so we could take a look at it but I appreciate that you explored that. Mr. Quigley: Thank you. Commissioner Griffin: Unless there are any more questions, is the applicant finished with their presentation? I take it the answer is yes. So if we can now open the public hearing to the public. I have only six cards. There are more. If each speaker would please take three minutes. Our first speaker is Heather Trossman followed by John Abraham and followed by Norman Carroll. Heather. Ms. Heather Trossman, 769 Garland Drive. Palo Alto: Good evening. I am a Palo Alto resident, an architect, a member of the Chamber of Commerce GEC and now a new member of the Citizens Action Committee for CDBG housing reserve funds allocation. I am happy to report that last night after a very persuasive presentation by members of the Community Working Group that our Committee voted unanimously to recommend to City Council that $750,000 from the housing reserve fund be allocated as expeditiously as possible for the Opportunity Center. Timeliness is critical so that the Working Group’s application for MHP funds on March 16 based on a point system, it is very competitive I understand, that their application be strong with as high a number of points as possible. Certainly continued unanimous support from the P and T Commission would aid in this endeavor. On a drizzly morning last week I went on a tour of applicant non-profits with my fellow Community Action Committee members. The first stop was the Urban Ministry drop in center for the homeless on E1 Camino Real, which of course is to be incorporated into the ground floor of the Opportunity Center. I am embarrassed to say that I had been oblivious to its existence until this visit. As you know, every morning about 150 homeless people converge there outdoors under tall oak and redwood trees and food and coffee and bus vouchers and counseling are offered in an atmosphere that seemed to me surprisingly convivial. Since this was Wednesday a medical van and a volunteer physician had come to provide medical services. We watched as a man with diabetes walked toward the van, his pants already rolled so that the sores on his legs could be treated. It was a very moving experience. Later we went on to some SRO projects like the Barker Hotel, which gave us a better sense of the ultimate goal of moving people along in a progression away from being homeless. Then I went online and studied the plans for the Opportunity Center. I could see that the tree canopied outdoor space that I just described had been suggested in the new center’s gated forecourt with a careful juxtaposition of security, reception, outdoor transitional spaces and direct access to indoor services. I could see the separation that the architect described between the different populations. Anyway, in short I strongly support this project and encourage you to do so. Thank you. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you Ms. Trossman. John Abraham to be followed by Norman Carroll. Mr. John K. Abraham. 736 Ellsworth Place. Palo Alto: Thank you very much members of the Planning Commission. I would like to mention some of the problems, the noise problems that may not and I don’t believe have been resolved. The good news is that on this particular occasion DEIR did recognize Palo Alto’s Noise Ordinance. That does not happen all the time. And they did get most of the Comprehensive Plan. If you proceed with the project I think you do need to take extra care to protect the future residents from noise intrusion. There is a tendency for that to be lost I believe in the shuffle. In particular I am advocating an after-project study by an independent noise consultant, and I do mean independent, to come up with binding requirements both on PAMF and also on the project so as to make the noise bearable for the residents. The problem for the project is the HVAC equipment on the roof, which is not particularly well documented. The low frequency noises refract more. There isn’t a very good estimate of that noise. The problem for the PAMF is the loading dock noise impacts on residences is guessed, it is estimated. These are sharp, they are intrusive, they occur late at night and they can change. There is a small sample to document this problem so far. The other problem that need to be addressed is material for patios. Patios are going to be used. I am advocating anything but wood. Wood deteriorates. It is fine to start out with but it goes to pieces in a few years and it is not a good sound mitigation. The noise will increase over time. If you start out just barely at the threshold you are going to have problems from HVAC, from increasing noise in the public area and you need to have a little bit of a cushion and safety. So I am asking that you consider a binding adjustment. I see my time is running out. The other thing is PAMF is a sensitive receptor. The problem is that it has been ignored. Policy N-43 says protect the community and especially sensitive noise receptors including schools, hospitals and senior care facilities from excessive noise. It is in the Comp Plan, it goes through under CEQA, to ignore that is in my opinion a violation of CEQA and it is a problem. I don’t think that has been addressed. I do think PAMF has a case. You can do construction mitigation, 110 decibels is a terrible amount of noise. It is 100 jackhammers at 50 feet in a circle, if you are in the middle imagine being there. That is not much protection. Thank you very much. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you, John, Norman Carroll to be followed by Anne Wright followed by Tim Tosta. Norman. Mr. Norman Carroll. P.O. Box 213. Palo Alto: First I would like to address the fact that I am not a homeless person. My home is Palo Alto. I am a legal resident. I am a legal resident of Palo Alto, I am not homeless, I am just unhoused. I hope that quells any fears people might have of my behavior in an anti or asocial way compared to homeless or housed people. The proposed project is intended to be supportive housing and consolidated social services center. It is neither a shelter facility nor a soup kitchen as opponents of it may fear. One of the issues that have been brought up is that there are too many units, that the backers are ignoring the ordinances. The reason for this part of these meetings is to change the zoning so that it will conform. The lack of setbacks is an issue that has been okayed by Planning and Fire basically on their recommendations. The major complaint seems to be the drop in portion not the housing portion. Everybody says that there is a better place. I would like somebody totell me, one of the places suggested in a Mercury, Ne~f’s article does not exist. There is not mental health services campus in Mountain View. Tt~ere is one in Sunnyvale and there is one near California Avenue and I am sure the merchants there would just love to have it moved right into their neighborhood as opposed to the Downtown merchants in this portion of Palo Alto having it several blocks away. One of the other issues is the security access. It is not that far, like a ten-minute walk from the current drop in location to the medical foundation. The reason it is only ten minutes is because there is a path that leads from the Cal Train station that empties into the south parking lot of the medical foundation. It doesn’t go all the way to Encina which means because of the design of that. I am not sure who insisted that it terminate there rather than go to the street, there are going to b~ people going from the buses to the current drop in center or to Town & Country currently who are going to be passing through their property whether they want them there or not. As far as the flood of homeless people coming over there at closing time, where do they go now at noon when the drop in center is already closed? If they are going to go to Town & Country they are there at noon. Wouldn’t it be better to have them wait until four o’clock? That is a realistic question in my book. The drop in center provides prevention services. It is not going to help everybody. I think it is an odd way to say it but I think we need to fight a war of attrition, cut down my competition. Don’t let me be replaced when I am gone. Stop the spiral that drags people down. The longer they are out the harder it is to get back. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you, NoiTnan. Anne Wright followed by Tim Tosta followed by Janet Owens. Ms. Anne Wright. 1080 Tanland Drive. #106. Palo Alto: I am also here representing the First Christian Church of Palo Alto at 2890 Middlefield Road. I just wanted to state my support for the Opportunity Center. I think that especially the representative of the Community Working Group has already made excellent points about how having the services and the housing and the ability to serve people through both of those mechanisms and job training and such is really very beneficial and is very much needed. We have worked with Urban Ministries in the past and they are a fine organization. Having them have the ability to no longer be homeless themselves and be able to provide indoor services will be quite helpful. I think that this is a wonderful project. We have committed to support the project through the donations. I also think that the way they are doing it to include the community and they have really reached out to the faith community as welt to make people feel that they have a stake in it and to feel that it is really part of the community is very well done. I think it is a great project. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you. Now we will have Tim Tosta. Mr. Tim Tosta. 1 Embarcadero. 30th Floor. San Francisco: Good evening. I am an attorney with Steefel Levitt and Weiss. I hope the letter has been passed forward of today’s date. That letter simply sets forth the position of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation which has begun in fact this evening to engage in very specific conversations with the Opportunity Center and the affiliated service providers to identify very specific items of concern with the intent to have all of these matters resolved before this matter reaches the City Council. We are doing that because the Foundation recognizes the difficulty in providing the kinds of services and uses that are aggregated at this site but also recognizes, and you can kind of inherit a bit of the sense of the potential interpersonal conflicts just by the architectural design. That is, I am a lawyer that does work generally for for-profit developers but I am also involved at this point in I think that I am currently handling over 600 affordable units in San Francisco in several different projects. I am also working on homeless transition housing. The proposed project is a very important project but it is also a very experimental project in that it brings a number of different use types together. Although it doesn’t appear from the face of it you can almost tell by the security doors and the separate elevators you are actually bringing different populations with different service needs into one location. I ~know that the service providers are dealing with the complex issues that arise from those differing populations and their particular needs. What the Foundation is attempting to insure is that the same type of care, which has been put into the building design to make multiple populations function well together does not disintegrate once the various populations leave the property. So the same type of care that has gone into the architectural design and the design of the onsite programs is the kind of care that we are seeking to have taken into a dialogue between the Medical Foundation and the service providers to see that the interaction between the clientele going into the Medical Foundation and the clientele at the Opportunity Center is harmonious. I know that you can empathize with the concern of the Medica! Foundation if any of you have ever had a parent die or if you yourself had a serious medical illness you know you kind of check out. I myself am a cancer survivor. I was given a prognosis that no one wants to receive and I will tell you it took me months approaching years to kind of feel like a whole human. So when you are in a medical facility you have a different state of being and you really can’t take the kind of interpersonal exchanges that often happen. So I think what we have is two organizations working very hard to find a solution. What I would ask from you is to wish us your best and we will work very hard to find a solution for all of the individual problems. To the extent that we can’t find a specific solution I think what we will do is find a process so that the solution is forthcoming before there is really any damage done. I hope you appreciate the 10 direction of the Foundation in taking this approach. We certainly appreciate the project’s sponsors in coming at the issues we have raised in a positive manner. We will hope to respond in a very positive way with a successful conclusion. So thank you very much for your time. Commissioner Griffin: That is good news. Thank you. Janet Owens followed by Shiloh Ballard. Ms. Janet Owens. 850 Webster. #421. Palo Alto: I want to remind you of a few facts about the housing problems that we are facing. Our state if it were a nation would be the fifth largest economy in the world. Our country is the largest economy in the world. Our economy has never developed the economic infrastructure that would provide adequate housing for the people. Other large developed Western economies have made shelter a basic right. Many segments of the U.S. economy are becoming interested in our problem, our plight here. The Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group sees our local housing shortage as being a barrier to economic growth at this time. Other areas in the U.S. face similar problems, barriers that is, at this time. Now is the time and place for innovative approaches to the housing problem. I urge you to move ahead carefully as you always do but surely. The Opportunity Center is a creative concept not only providing shelter but also services to help families and individuals with severe economic problems to become independent citizens capable of full participation in the economy. The same services can also benefit people who still do not have housing. These will often be people already in the community. With help they may not reach the desperate situation some are now in. K we do not let our fears overcome us we may find this project can reduce the number who turn to begging on the street. Isn’t that better than running them out of town, often their own town? Some seem to feel that there is no solution only growing problems. This is all about opportunities, the opportunity to help those less fortunate, those who have been beset by several calamities at once. Thank you. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you. Shiloh Ba!lard. Ms. Shiloh Ballard: Good evening. I work for the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group and I staff the Housing Action Coalition. I know that most of you know what the HAC is. The Housing Action Coalition is a broad-based coalition of many organizations such as the Sierra Club, Green Belt Alliance to name some of the environmental organizations, several labor unions to name some of the labor unions like the VTA Labor Union, the ATU and the building and construction trades. Of course business is represented by the Manufacturing Group and then we have lots of housing types of organizations like the Affordable Housing Network, Tri-County Apartment Association, organizations like that. Then some faith based organizations like PACT and the Interfaith Council of Santa Clara County. What we do is look at development proposals such as this and we weigh them against our criteria, a criteria that all of us have come together to develop, and we vote to endorse development proposals or not to endorse development proposals. This is one that got our endorsement. I am here to tell you that it is a great proposal. We heartily support it and we look forward to helping to move things along. So thank you very much. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you. Now we will have Faith Bell followed by Kate Hill followed by Darin Lounds. Faith. 11 Ms. Faith Bell. 536 Emerson Street. Palo Alto: Hi. My family runs Bell’s Book Store in Palo Alto. For the last few months I have been asked to participate as a member of the retail community in the Off The Streets Team, which is a multi-disciplinary approach to the hardest to serve homeless. That includes representatives of the Corporation for Public Housing, the Alliance for Community Care, members of the Unhoused Community, the Urban Ministries, Santa Clara County Mental Health, Social Advocates for Youth and many local police departments. The over~,helming message I am hearing from all of these groups is that an immediate daily response to the needs of the homeless community will meet with the best success rate in regards to breaking the cycles that hold people in homelessness be that food, housing, medical treatment, etc. and the Opportunity Center can be a wonderful chance to provide the entry to those services. I am also a member of the Downtown Marketing Committee and I would like to tel! you that the overall mood that I have observed in the DMC is one of enthusiastic support of the Opportunity Center. Personally I would like to reemphasize the distinction that Norm Carro!l made that he is unhoused not homeless, as Palo Alto is his home. A number of unhoused people here have been Palo Altoans for over 20 years, longer than a !ot of us with more expensive houses. So let’s make sure this project goes through smoothly and rapidly. As to the Medical Foundation’s concern that people who are ill won’t be able to interact with the homeless what about those homeless who are ill with nowhere to go and recourse to help? When Larry Duncan was released from Stanford Hospital after a month in the cardiac care unit he was going to be put in a taxi with his oxygen tanks which he still needs 24 hours a day and he had nowhere to go other than a soaking moldy tent which was left behind when he went for emergency treatment. I have no sympathy for people from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation who say that this cannot be an interactive community. We all need to help in the ways that we can and we all need to be tolerant and helpful. I would like to ask for your support in moving this project through as rapidly as possible. Thank you very much. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you. Kate Hill. Ms. Kate Hill. 884 Los Robles. Palo Alto: I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak. Tonight I am speaking to you as President of the Palo Alto Council of PTAs. I would have brought you a letter tonight that we passed a couple of weeks ago at our Council meeting but I seem to have misfiled it. So I will get it to you as soon as I find it. In sum, the Council unanimously passed a resolution to support the efforts of the Community Working Group in getting this Opportunity Center up and running. The Community Working Group solicited input from all over the Palo Alto community and the Palo Alto Council of PTAs is especially pleased that the concerns of Palo Alto High School were addressed or looked at and were considered carefully. The Palo Alto High School PTA offered their support to our resolution as well. All Children deserve a safe place to land in the event that unforeseen things happen and leave them without a home. We feel that the services and the housing offered by the Opportunity 12 Center give children of families in transition that safe haven and we urge your support of this. Thank you. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you, Kate. Darin Lounds followed by Owen Byrd. Mr. Darin Lounds. 795 Willow Road, Menlo Park: I am with the Corporation for Support of Housing based in Menlo Park. I work, as mentioned earlier, with Off The Streets Team as well as Supportive Housing Sponsors in Palo Alto. I would like to present some statistics that are related to the kind of housing and services that are planned to be provided at the Opportunity Center. Although these statistics have a fiscal focus please also be mindful of the positive effects that these statistics will have on those in our homeless community. The annual cost to our social welfare and health system by homeless folks has been found to decrease by 45% for each homeless person housed with easily accessible services. This decrease includes factoring in rental subsidies and funds for services provided within supportive housing. So it is a substantial amount of fiscal savings to systems to put people in housing and provide services so that they can remain stable there. Within 12 months of moving into housing with access to support services studies have shown a 58% decrease in emergency room visits by its tenants, a 57% decrease in hospital inpatient days with another 20% decrease in the following year after the initial 12 months. And use of residential mental health programs drops from an average of 2.5 days per ?,ear pre-housing to virtually zero days once the individuals are housed in supportive housing. One reason for this dramatic decrease in costly services mentioned above is that 80% of the tenants of supportive housing utilize the low-cost non-crisis medical, mental health and other support services onsite. Just another reason why the services and the housing are so intrinsically linked for success. Is supportive housing a humane option? Yes definitely it is. Is it a cost effective option? Yes I feel that has been demonstrated. Does it work in Palo Alto? Yes it does by the Barker and Alma Place and a couple of other places through the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. They have some very successful programs. In closing, housing is a right and the Opportunity Center is a humane and fiscally responsible solution allowing our homeless citizens to gain stability and move forward in their lives. Thank yOU. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you, Darin. We have Owen Byrd and that will be the last speaker unless there is someone else that would like to come forward. Owen, you will be our last speaker. Mr. Owen Byrd. 418 Florence Street. Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I always wondered what it felt like to stand down here and face this Commission and tonight is my first chance to find out. 13 I want to add my voice to those in support of your recommendation to the Council to certify the EIR and to recommend the zone change for this property to enable the construction of the project as proposed. I don’t want to repeat the many benefits of the project that have been voiced here tonight. I would however like to briefly address a couple of the issues that appear to have been raised by the Medical Foundation and I have briefly reviewed Mr. Tosta’s letter. Having reviewed the project plans and it is especially helpful seeing them in full size set tonight I believe that the project proponents and the architect have done an outstanding job of addressing the adjacencies of uses and that the baiting language that is contained in the letter that suggests that those adjacencies need additional time for better treatment I think is unfounded. I also urge you to forcefully reject the notion that locating a medical facility use with the uses proposed to be contained in this project adjacent to each other somehow presents a potential challenge to the delivery of medical services. I am certainly not a doctor but I can’t imagine myself as a patient of the Medical Foundation anything more insulting being said in my name on behalf of the place where I get care that somehow my care would be compromised by having that care delivered in a facility that is adjacent to a facility that also helps people just as the Medical Foundation helps me. The tone of the opposition up until now has reeked of the code words and fear and lack of comfort that we have witnessed over time in other circumstances and that kind of attitude we have learned to reject and I think it is time to reject it here. I think we need to distinguish between that which makes us uncomfortable and that which may perhaps make us truly unsafe or in some other way prohibit us from doing what we need to do. There is nothing in the design or location of this project, in my mind, that is going to interfere with the Medical Foundation’s ability to fulfill its mission. In fact just the opposite, the location of people who need treatment adjacent to a facility that provides treatment is just the sort of smart growth mixed uses within a district that our General Plan promotes and that this City prides itself on. So I urge you to forward this project with your strongest recommendation. Thank you. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you. Would the applicant like to make any closing comments at this stage? If not, I will close the public hearing. Before we engage the Commission in discussion I am going to ask if Commissioners would please disclose contacts with interested parties. Joseph, I will start at your end please. Commissioner Bellomo: Prior to our last meeting I was asked by the architect to come to their office and I did. I met with them to go over the plan at Rob Quigley’s office. Commissioner Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Cassel: I don’t have anything specific. I have had a lot of people and just too numerous to list come up to me and support the project. I Could never begin to keep track of all of those people. Commissioner Packer: Likewise. Commissioner Griffin: I have had two conversations with the representatives of PAMF. At this point I am going to open up the discussion to Commissioner questions. Any comments? Pat go ahead. 14 Commissioner Burt: Could Staff comment on some of the issues regarding the noise concerns that M_r. Abraham raised? Mr. John Lusardi. Manager, Special Projects and ZOU: Members of the Commission just in summary the Environmental Impact Report addresses existing conditions. So the noise conditions that are being addressed in that report and in the noise analysis are conditions that are already existing the exceedance of acceptable standards in that relationship of the project being developed there. There are three kinds of noise impacts that are being addressed in that context. First are interior noise impacts. That is the type of noise that exists there, how would it affect the interior of the residential units in the Opportunity Center. The EIR and the noise analysis includes mitigation measures in building materials, in window treatments that reduce those noise impacts to an acceptable level, that is below the maximum standards. The second is the noise that is actually generated by the project itself. That is subject to the noise ordinance itself. That noise is generated by the mechanical equipment in the building. The project is conditioned to provide for mechanical equipment that would meet the noise ordinance standards and further that when that mechanical equipment is installed that testing is done to ensure that those standards are being met. The third noise impact is the noise impact of the existing noise levels on the exterior that is the balconies of the proposed project. That is where there is some exceedance of standards of a 60 DB on some of the balcony areas. The most critical one is the family balcony that faces Encina Avenue. I want to point out that that is a public balcony it is not a private balcony. In that context the noise report identifies that the noise impact there would be 64 where 60 is the standard. Staff has identified Comp Plan language that allows for some flexibility with respect to noise impacts in those areas to provide for multiple family housing especially on exterior areas. Staff has also worked with the applicant and identified with the applicant that the railing that is being proposed there could accept materials such lexicon or plexiglas which is identified in the noise report which would reduce that noise impact to a 60 DB that is an acceptable level. The applicant has agreed to explore that and we will work with the applicant in that regard. Commissioner Griffin: I have a follow on question related to noise. John Abraham made the point about the jackhammers and the 110-decibel reading and what have you. Can you add any context to that as to how that fits in with the report? Mr. Lusardi: In that context you are talking about construction noise. It is standard in environmental review and in projects to accept some interim level of construction noise. You have to accept that. There is nothing in this project that is above normal as far as typical construction that is going to happen there. There will be pile driving there nothing of that sort. So you will have intermittent experiences of high noise levels during construction. Again, that is a temporary condition and that is a condition that the Staff feels very comfortable that we can work with the applicant on for a construction management program to reduce those noises as much as possible to an acceptable level through construction hours, which is required through the noise ordinance in the City and through other mitigation measures such as noticing or being receptive to neighborhood concerns in that regard. 15 While we are on this, let me also point out the speaker also commented that it might be appropriate to do an audit of the exterior noise after the project is completed. We will as a course do an audit of the interior of the building to make sure Title 24 is met. I think we would be willing to add a condition that the exterior noise levels on those decks also be measured to ensure that there is some mitigation there to reduce it to an acceptable level. Commissioner Griffin: Wynne. Ms. Wvnne Purth, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Mr. Abraham’s specific reference to jackhammers in a circle is a reference to the City’s adopted noise ordinance. It is not part of the zoning code it is our general noise ordinance in Title 9 of the Code. That sets an absolute limit on construction equipment and that is where the 110-decibel figure comes out. He is pointing out that that’s a high limit for individual pieces of equipment. We also of course have construction management plans for individual projects to address construction in particular locations. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you. Joseph. Commissioner Bellomo: Michael, would it be appropriate I have a question regarding noise On the mechanical equipment on the rooftop. I just want to get clarity from the applicant regarding the noise control within the mechanical penthouses. Is that appropriate to ask at this point? Commissioner Griffin: Yes. Commissioner Bellomo: Rob, could I ask one question regarding the noise generated by mechanical penthouses and where in fact, I understand these systems must breath, where in fact are the openings for the permeability of the systems and where would the noise be directed to? Would it be upward and is there clearance? How do the mechanical systems sit inside this? Mr. Ouigley: On the top? Commissioner Bellomo: Yes. Mr. Quigley: First of all the rooms are heated only so we don’t have the number of compressors on the roof that you might expect for a residential project. Second of all where we do have a need for noise emitting equipment we can direct the sound up if that is a problem because of the rooftop location. Commissioner Bellomo: Is that your intent? Mr. Quigley: We need to discern the number of decibels and whether or not it is a problem. Commissioner Bellomo: The solidity of this I notice it is enclosed. So I am wondering where is the direction of the noise from the equipment and the intent. 16 Mr. Quigle~/: The intent is to meet all of the sound control items that we are required to meet. can’t tell you exactly at this point which grills will be up, over or sideways. We are up five floors there. Commissioner Bellomo: I understand. Thank you. Commissioner Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a question about something in the ordinance. The annua! and twice a year reviews that will be done, is there a way to monitor that or see that it really does happen? How is that going to be addressed? Mr. Lusardi: The direct answer to that is monitored in the sense of Staff monitoring it, the administration? Commissioner Holman: Just to see that it is happening. Ms. Furth: It is the Director’s responsibility under the ordinance. Mr. Steve Emslie. Director of Planning: I just would like to add that the City has recently implemented parcel based database that enables us to do this electronically and flag the parcel so that it can come to the attention of the Development Center Staff so we can have an automatic red flag of this. So it shouldn’t be a problem to monitor. Commissioner Holman: Isn’t software wonderful. Commissioner Griffin: I am wondering in that regard, the ordinance language states that there will be a report made on security measures and there will be a discussion between the neighbors of the site and the Opportunity Center staff to resolve problems of security and whatnot that may arise over the course of time. If resolution is not achieved through informal means the only recourse is then civil court or what is your take on that? Mr. Emslie: I think it is very likely that because of the productive conversations that have ensued so far. Operating conditions that can be mutually beneficial to all the stakeholders could be productive. I think we certainly could avoid the civil actions based on the discussions that we have had so far. I think you heard a commitment from the various stakeholders to do that and to leverage the resources to the maximum extent possible to achieve the right amount of security to ensure the coexistence of these uses for the long term. Commissioner Griffin: Attitude is everything. So those are encouraging words. Pat. Commissioner Burr: Did other Commissioners have additional questions of Staff? Then I will wait to make a motion until Commissioners are through with their questions. Commissioner Packer: Mine is a quick one. I just was going through the ordinance and loo~ng at the mitigation monitoring plan that is in the back of the Final EIR. I was wondering how 17 much of that mitigation plan is in the conditions of approval. I am not sure I see all of the mitigation measures in the conditions of approva! that are in the ordinance. Is it referred to somewhere and I missed that it is incorporated by reference or is that something we have to point out to make sure it happens? This is sort of how the whole thing is organized on paper. Do you understand my question? Mr. Lusardi: CEQA requires a Mitigation Monitoring Program, which has to be implemented as part of the project when the EIR is certified. So in essence they are a separate set of conditions that we have to apply and monitor and be prepared to report on. Most of that monitoring with respect to those mitigation measures are done by City Staff. A lot of it coincides with the condition such as construction management, such as soil testing and those Mnds of measures. So there is a crossover but the Mitigation Monitoring Program is a set of standards that we have to apply to the project as well. Ms. Furth: I should also say that when this goes to City Council there is another resolution which you don’t have a copy of and that is the resolution formally certifying the Environmental Impact Report and adopting the Mitigation and Monitoring Report. We do try to integrate these documents so that you don’t have to look in very many places to see where all the rules are. So before it goes to Council we will double check to make sure they are well integrated. Commissioner Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: This is a simple question. Presuming Staff would have no qualm with requiring deconstruction as opposed to demolition? Mr. Emslie: That is acceptable to Staff. Commissioner Holman: Great, thank you. Commissioner Griffin: I am wondering if Beth could say one more item here to recapitulate on the traffic demand management program. My understanding is the applicant is willing to incorporate a TDM program for employees in this plan. Is that correct? Mr. Lusardi: That is correct, yes. Commissioner Griffin: I am wondering if we might incorporate that in our motion so that that is stated. Mr. Lusardi: Staff is recommending that you incorporate that as a condition and that you delete the two conditions that we identified in the Staff presentation. Commissioner Cassel: Delete which two? Ms. Furth: 39 and 43. Commissioner Cassel: Delete conditions 39 and 43. 18 Ms. Furth: Yes and then we will incorporate the TDM measure as Commissioner Packer pointed out from the Mitigation and Monitoring Report and wewill probably put it in the ordinance as a long term requirement and then in the resolution in terms of describing when it has to be produced and who reviews and approves it. The ordinance is those part of the rules for the site that go on through time. The resolution primarily covers those conditions that are fulfilled by the time the certificate of occupancy is issued. Commissioner Griffin: Phyllis, are you ready to make a motion? MOTION Commissioner Cassel: I will move that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the follow recommendations. For the Opportunity Center and the Housing Project at 33- 49 that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, that the project be approved based on the Draft Planned Community Ordinance in Attachment A and subject to the Draft Architectural Review Resolution in Attachment B, that a condition be added to do a noise study on the external areas following construction and that we add a TDM program and delete conditions 39 and 43. Commissioner Griffin: Do I have a second to that? SECOND Commissioner Burt: I’ll second the motion. Commissioner Holman: Can I get clarification? Are you asking for an noise audit post construction or a yearly audit post construction until the Director determines it is no longer necessary? Mr. Emslie: We would recommend that it be done post construction and it would be done one time. Commissioner Cassel: I agree to that. There is a reason for that and that has to do with there is no point in continuing to monitor something over which they have no control. The sound that is in the external areas unless we are doing some kind of study to learn what happens in these areas in general. Commissioner Griffin: Phyllis, do you want to speak in support of your motion? Commissioner Cassel: Yes. I am absolutely delighted to be able to make this motion. I want to congratulate the Working Group. Once in awhile we sit here with a full audience and everyone is in favor of a project but it isn’t very often. They have gone out and reached out to many, many groups in the area and talked to them about what they are doing, why they are doing it, what the benefits are and have brought in a considerable body of information to help make wise judgments on this project. 19 I believe this is the right location for this project for all the reasons that everyone has been talking about. It is near the Downtown area. It is close to transit. We have done a number of other discussions of reasons why this should be close to that area. I am glad to hear that PAMF has agreed to work with the Working Group. I think this is a very positive relationship. I have a feeling that this is still tentative but I think it is very important. Housing is more basic as a need than is medical care. It may be very hard to say when we are the ones that need the medical care but I have personally been in situations when I have tried to care for someone who is homeless in a professional medical setting and been unable to do it because that person is homeless. I don’t know how I am going to teach them to use a sterile needle to give themselves an injection for insulin when they have no place to go and no clean water to even wash their hands. It is a serious problem. I think the two facilities can help each other and that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation can offer a great deal for support of this group and in return will gain probably less people in the door in need or at least Stanford Hospital which has to accept them will do that. So I am very pleased and I hope to encourage that. I think time is urgent. We have to move forward. Funding is limited and we need to be able to capture that money which is available at this time. The big issues really are design, mass the FAR because the use is an accepted use in that area. This would not be coming forward to us if what had been presented was an Opportunity Center at .4 and a housing at .6 on this same site. We would not be here to discuss what mitigations we should be taking and how we might help integrate this project into the community,. I think the design and the mass are done well. I am pleased to hear the Architectural Review Board support of that. The noise for construction. Someone was going to build on this site. Palo Alto Medical Foundation had hoped to build on this site however someone else captured the land earlier than they did. If they had built on this site it would have noise on it. In this case someone else is building on this site and it will have construction noise. This is difficult. It can be done. It has been done. I have worked in hospital situations with clinics and clinic patients and hospital beds and had construction going on those sites. That happens if you are going to build any additional buildings on the site and Stanford Hospital is a good example of that. I feel that this is an important project, that it has a lot to offer the community. We need to continue the support for this. It cannot get all set up and we forget that it exists. It is going to take some ongoing work. I am delighted to recommend it to City Council. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you, Phyllis. Pat, do you have any comments? Commissioner Burr: I would like to concur with the comments that Phyllis has just made and also like to commend the progress that has been made by the neighbors and the Working Group to address the concerns that the neighbors had, specifically the medical clinic and the PTA Council have indicated that they are both encouraged that they can resolve their concerns in a constructive manner. I am just very pleased that that progress has been made and I would like to compliment all parties on that sort of approach. In interest of further brevity I will just say that I am also enthused to be able to present this to Council. 2O Commissioner Griffin: I think we are ready for the question. I am going to ask if there is any further discussion. Commissioner Bellomo: The.comment that I would like to make quickly is enthusiastically send this to City Council with supporting it of course and concurring with the comments that have been made but especially into creating a place and I actually believe that this is a place that does transition in its scale and its mass and in its types of uses. I just am thrilled with this type of architecture coming into Palo Alto and being received with arms wide open. This is the type of architecture that kind of transcends some of the fear around what types of buildings we should see. So I am just delighted to see this from its stud?, sessions at ARB to where it has come. This actually speaks to our process and speaks to the type of urban development and types of uses and buildings we should have here. I am just delighted. I appreciate everyone’s support on this. Commissioner Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I am more than delighted. I feel honored to have this role, small as it is, to help move it forward by a yes vote. This is such a wonderful project. It is kind of a privilege to be able to say yea on this. It is a place where I see every individual involved will be treated with dignity because it is a beautiful place to be. You just feel good about yourself and that is the other added benefit of having a well-designed place with all the services that are needed. The interaction of the so-called different communities is exciting. This could be a good thing not a negative thing as was referred to before. I would encourage the Medical Foundation to continue being more positive with the interaction that is being proposed in the next few weeks to work out what they perceive as problems and that it will go forward without any further obstacles in that respect. Commissioner Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I will be really brief. I think it is really great that this project will help support one of the things that I really appreciate about this community and has been diminishing in the last years and that is a community of diversity. It is a mix of uses in an area and I really appreciate that the clinic is coming forward and the other neighbors too are coming forward to work together toward resolving the issues. So I look forward to a positive and productive outcome to those discussions. Commissioner Griffin: An5’ more comments? I think everyone has made all the points that need to be made. Mr. Lusardi: Was the motion seconded by Commissioner Burt? Commissioner Griffin: Yes. MOTION PASSED All those in favor say aye.(ayes)Opposed? We carry that motion unanimously. 21 February 21, 2003 City of Palo Alto Department qf Co~nmunity Services Attachment G Office of Human Services To:Steve Emslie, Director Planning Department From: Kathy Espino ,.z~ward,Director Human Services l~lslon Subject: The Opportunity Center Service Program and the Magnate Theory The purpose of this report is to provide factual information regarding the theory that the Opportunity Center’s Service Pro~am will serve as a magnate to draw the San Francisco and East Bay homeless population to Palo Alto for services. BACKGROUND The Opportunity Center Project and its service pro~am have been reviewed in many community and commission meetings during the past year. The issue of the Opportunity Center serving as a magnate and drawing large numbers of homeless people from San Francisco and the East Bay has been raised. This report identifies current data that addresses the magnate issue and illustrates what homeless survey data reveals about the residency of those receiving services in Santa Clara County and the experience of local service providers and their clients residency statistics. DISCUSSION In the 1999 Santa Clara County conducted a survey of homeless people. The survey," 1999 Santa Clara County Homeless Survey", interviewed approximately 1,805 homeless people. The countywide survey included the City of Palo Alto. 73% of survey respondents stated that they were residents of Santa Clara County prior to experiencing homelessness. An earlier Stanford University study of homeless families determined that homeless families on the average were nine-year residents of the County prior to becoming homeless. Cubberlev Community Center 4000 Middlefield Road, Suite T2 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2418 650.856.8756 fax The non-profit agencies serving homeless people in Pato Alto also gather statistics on the former residency of their clients. City staff surveyed multi-service centers that provide similar services to those ser¥ices that will be provided by the Opportunity Center. The following agency data identifies the percent of local clients served as compared to the percent of clients outside the mid-peninsula region: InnVision’s Cecil White Center--- 92% local residents, 8% out of the area. InnVision’s Georgia Travis Center---97% local residents, 3% out of the area. InnVision’s Urban Ministry of Palo Alto---90% local residents, 10% out of the area. Clara-Mateo’s Elsa Segovia Center---90% local residents, 10% out of the area. Fair Oaks Multi-Service Center--- 75% local residents, 25% out of the area. These same agencies stated that they did not experience large numbers of homeless people accessing the services upon the opening of their service centers. Agencies state that it took approximately 3 to 6 months for the centers to experience full client use and participation. The multi-service centers also stated that they do not have large numbers of clients standing outside of their centers waiting to access services. The nature of the progams requires clients to register or make appointments in order to participate in the programs. This enables centers to have a manageable flow of people in their centers on any given day. Of course there are exceptions especially when a center is having a special event. These special events are usually few in number. Staff has not found any statistical data or factual information to support the theory that significant numbers of San Francisco and East Bay homeless people and families will be coming to Palo Alto to access the services that will be provided by the Opportunity Center. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this report. Opportunity Center 2001 Aerial Map Attachment H STEEFEL LEVITT & WEISS .A. PROFESSION.4~ CORPORATION INTO PUBLIC ~OP~D ( o,.P... ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER ¯ THIRTIETH FLOOR ¯ SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94111-3719 TELEPHONE: (415~ 788-0900. FACSIMILE: (415)788-2019 Writer’s Direct Dial: (415) 403-3343 E-Mail: ttosta @steefel.com Attachment January 29..00~ 17245 Chair Annette Bialson and Members of the Commission Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hanzilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re:33-49 Encina Avenue: The Opportunity Center and Housing Project (File Nos. 02-EIA-12, 02-PC-04, 02- ARB-133, and State Clearinghouse #2002102110) Dear Chair Bialson and Members of the Commission: We represent The Palo Alto Medical Foundation ("PAMF") with respect to the proposed "Opportunity Center and Housing Project" at 33-49 Encina Avenue in Palo Alto, California ("Project"). PAMXc currently provides medical care for approximately ~4.000 of the 61.000 Palo Alto residents. This number has been increasing annually. Its patients come from all income levels. The Foundation is the only medical care provider in Palo Alto accepting new Medicare patients and, to our knowledge, is the only medical organization participating in the Healthy Family Program. PAMF also cares for Medi-cal patients in both San Mateo and Santa Clara counties on both an individual and contract basis. One of the main reasons that more and more Palo Altans are seeking care at PAMF is because it places a great emphasis on providing for a patient care environment that emphasizes the well-being of its patients and the positive effect this has on the overall healing process. For PAMF to continue to serve the citizens of Palo Alto, it must preserve this sense of well-being for its patients, physicians and staff. Today, you will consider the Opportunity Center and Housing Project and will provide recommendations to the City Council regarding whether to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the Project, as well as whether to approve the requested zone change from Service Commercial (CS) to Planned Community (PC). SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA ~¯ LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA o " STAMFORD. CONNECTICLT e Members of the Commission January 29, 2003 Page Two STEEEEL LEVITT & WEISS A PROFESS!ONAL CORPORATION We previously submitted a letter to the City of Palo Alto ("City") presenting our comments on the Draft EIR prepared for the project. As noted in that letter, PAMF deeply appreciates the situation facing the City with respect to meeting the needs of its homeless population, and understands that a solution must be reached. Given this understanding, PAM~ has raised concerns regarding the Project in the past, both in public hearings and through its comments on the Draft EIR, not to oppose the Project, per se, but rather to ensure that the goals sought by, the Project sponsors can be achieved without conflicting with PAMF’s well- established use. Please note that no local or state agency has ever undertaken a project of this type, which mixes Single-Room Occupancy ("SRO") units, family .units, and a homeless service center, particularly when different parts of the project are operated by different entities. Therefore, the types of situations that could arise from such a mix of uses, and their interactions with sunounding uses, generally are unknown. As such, it would seem prudent to allow time to fully explore potential land use and operational conflicts and how they n~ght best be addressed from an operational standpoint. PAMF is an approximately, 300,000 square foot facility located directly north of the proposed Project site that serves approximately 2,500 patients on a daily basis, many of whom are suffering from serious medical conditions. Because of the substantial number of daily visitors and their highly sensitive health situations, PAMF is highly concerned about the operations of the Project_. Such concerns include issues arising from potential conflicts between the nature of the Project features (e.g., residential windows facing the rear of the PAM1= facility, where loading docks are located), as well as issues pertaining to potential interactions between each facility’s clientele. Because of the serious nature of these concerns, PAMF has initiated communications with the Project sponsors in an attempt to establish an "operations" framework for the Project that will anticipate situations and avoid conflicts where possible, and provide for prompt resolution when conflict is unavoidable. For example, an agreement may be reached regarding coordinated security efforts that will occur between the sites. We believe that articulating our concerns at today’s hearing on the Project is not necessary, if these important issues can be privately resolved. PAMF believes it imperative that the sponsors of the Opportunity Center recognize the importance of preserving this positive atmosphere and work with PAMF to establish an enforceable agreement including a code of conduct for its clients that will enable the Foundation to continue to serve the residents of Palo Alto with the highest quality of care possible. By entering into these discussions with the Project sponsor, PAMF is not foregoing its objections to the Project as proposed. Rather, it is hopeful of resolving matters Members of the Commission January 29, 2003 Page Three STEEFEL LEVITT & WEISS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION privately, with the knowledge that a City Council hearing remains available should such matters not be fully resolved. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 403-3343. Sincerely, David Druker, M.D. President and CEO Palo Alto Medical Foundation Timothy A. Tomb. !7245:6333236.1