Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-09 City Council (17)TO:~HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Repo DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: APRIL 9, 2001 CMR:192:01 2685 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD: APPEAL BY JOHANNA SANTER OF THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTTO ALLOW MINOR FACADE IMPROVEMENTS, TO INCLUDE ONE NEW PEDESTRIAN ENTRY DOOR AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, TWO NEW SERVICE ENTRY DOORS AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, ROOF TOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, AND A REFACED NON- ILLUMINATED .ROOF SIGN; THE APPLICANTS ARE K&K BUILDERS AND HOLIDAY CLEANERS ON BEHALF OF KATHLEEN E. HALEY AND ELIZABETH B. KULEMIN, OWNERS AND BABAKI KAHROBAIE, BUSINESS OWNER RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s approval of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) application 00-ARB- 158. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION The application was originally reviewed and approved with conditions by the Director on February 15, 2001. An appeal was heard by the Architectural Review Board at the request of Ms. Johanna Santer of 732 Rosewood Drive, Palo Alto, on March 15, 2001. At that meeting, staff from the Fire Department and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) were present to answer technical .questions regarding fire safety, air quality and the dry cleaning chemical to be used. Please refer to the ARB minutes and the March 15, 2001 staff report, included as Attachment C and Attachment. D. The Architectural Review Board approved the application on March 20, 2001, with the conditions suggested by staff (see attachment B to the ARB staff report) and with following added conditions:. a) Revisions to roof screening to provide a more orderly form and appropriate location, study to determine if roof screens are needed around all existing and proposed rooftop equipment; revisions to screen materials to provide noise reduction; CMR:192:0!Page 1 of 4 b) A complete site plan showing parking and circulation diagrams, as well as location of trash/recycling enclosures; c) An external lighting plan indicating zero cut-off (no light spilling on to neighboring properties); d) Study of possible noise impacts from roof top equipment; indicate compliance with PAMC 9.10 (noise ordinance) - ¯These additional conditions were recommended to ensure that the issues raised by the community, including noise, parking, circulation, lighting, roof screens, and trash and recycling were addressed before the building permit could be granted. A copy of the approval letter is included as Attachment A. The ARB’s recommendation was appealed to the City Council on March 26, 2001 by Ms. Santer. In the appeal letter, written by Kirsten M. Powell, (Ms. Santer’s attorney), the appellant requested that Council delay the hearing of this item until the Holiday Cleaner representatives could provide the revisions requested by the Architectural Review Board. The appellant believes that her concerns may be alleviated by the revisions, but until she has the opportunity to review those changes, the appe_llant continues to oppose the decision made bythe Director of Planning and Community Environment. A copy of the appeal letter in included as Attachment B. As part of its. motion, the ARB recommended that the City Council review the appropriateness of the dry cleaning use in the Neighborhood Commercial zone district. Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to conduct this review as part of the comprehensive zoning ordinance update. Summary_ of Appeal In a letter to the Architectural Review Board, dated March 8, 2001, Ms.iPowell, on behalf of Ms. Santer, asserted that the project did not meet specific ARB standards or other items as listed in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) section 16.48.120(a) and (b), contained in this report as Attachment E, including: ¯Environmental factors, including but not limited to noise, emission of smoke, fumes, odors, fire safety, life safety and fire access. ¯Compatibility, visibility and effect upon view of neighboring properties and uses. ¯Site development characteristics, including but not limited to pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle circulation. The Director of Planning and Community Environment has been satisfied that the issues raised by Ms. Powell have been addressed in the application, including the requirements for development in the Neighborhood Commercial zone district (PAMC 18.41); the requirements for hazardous materials storage (PAMC Title 17); BAAQMD requirements; and the ARB conditions of approval. CMR: 192:01 Page 2 of 4 Throughout the review of the application, members of the community have raised two broad questions regarding this project: ¯Is dry cleaning a permitted use within the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zone district? ¯What level of environmental risk is associated with a dry cleaning business located in Midtown? Dry cleaning, subject to conditions, is included in the definition of the Personal Service use category (18.41.030). Cleaning and laundry facilities with conditions are also included in the definition of neighborhood business service, which is a!so a permitted use in the CN zone district. . In order to permit dry cleaning within the CN zone district, the facility must meet specific conditions. First, only clothing and other articles that are dropped-off at the dry cleaning facility are allowed to be cleaned on site. The facility cannot accept clothing from other stores, whether located within Palo Alto or outside the city. Second, the facility must meet all applicable requirements regarding hazardous materials storage, as outlined in Title 17 of the PAMC. Third, the facility must be reviewed by the BAAQMD and obtain any necessary permits. The BAAQMD completed a review of the project on January 2, 2001 and determined that thefacility was exempt from the permitting requirements, based on the amount of chemical to be used at the site on a yearly basis. Furthermore, the BAAQMD has stated that the chemical to be used, Exxon DF-2000, does not contain applicable amounts of. Toxic Air Contaminates or Hazardous Substances. In fact,-the use of DF-2000 is encouraged by the District as an alternative to Perchloroethylene (PER.C), the chemical used atall other dry cleaning plants currently located within Palo Alto. A map of existing PERC plants in Palo Alto is included as Attachment F. The Fire Department completed a review of the facility on January 16, 2001 and granted approval with conditions. The project must conform to the Fire Department’s Fire Code Plan Review conditions of approval. Any modification to the project or scope of business requires additional review by the Fire Department. In summary, the use as proposed by the applicant and conditioned is a permitted use in the CN district and the environmental concerns have been addressed and mitigated by the business owner, the BAAQMD and the City of Palo Alto. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW this application is exempt from environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15, Class 3, which exempts new CMR:192:01 Page 3 of 4 construction, of limited small new facilities; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and conversion of the use of small existing structures. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: ARB Approva! Letter, March 20, 2001 Appeal Application and Letter Architectural Review Board Staff Report of March 15, 2001 Draft excerpt Architectural Review Board Minutes. of March 15,2001 PAMC 16.48.120 Map of existing PERC plants in Palo Alto Community Letters PREPARED BY: Steven Turner, Associate Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ’ ~/~,~,/_._ G. EDWARD GAWF Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~, ¯ ¯ MILY’~ARRIS~--N - Assistant City Manager . Johanna Santer, 732 Rosewood Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Kirsten M. Powell, Logan & Powell LLP, 255 W. Julian Street, Suite 302, San Jose, CA 95110 Joseph Bishop, Holiday Cleaners, 2701 Monarch Street, Suite 150, Alameda, CA 94501 Babaki Kahrobaic, 7279 Via Vico, San Jose, CA 95129 Kathleen E. Haley, 1473 Dana Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Elizabeth B. Kulemin, c/o Alhouse-Deaton Property Management, 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 100, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Midtown Residents Association, c/o Annette Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 CMR:192:01 Page 4 of 4 Department of Planning and Community Enviromnent Planning Division March 20, 2001 Joe Bishop Holiday Cleaners- 2701 Monarch Street, Suite 150 Alameda CA, 945.01 Jerry Kolodzik ~ K&K Builders 818 N. Delaware Street, #408 San Mateo, CA 94401 Subject:2685 Middelfield Road, 00-ARB-158 Dear Mr. Bishop and Mr. Kolodzik: On March 15,2001, the Architectural Review Board reviewed plans dated March 8, 2001, and recommended approval of the application. On March 20, 2001, the Director of Planning and Community Environment conditionally approved the following: PROJECT: Application by K&K Builders and Holiday Cleaners on behalf of Kathleen E. Haley, Trustee (property owner) and Babaki Kabxobaie (business owner) for minor faqade .improvements, to include one new pedestrian.entry door at the front of the building, two new service entry doors at the rear of the building, rooftop mechanical equipment, and a refaced non-illuminated roof sign. The following conditions shall apply to the project: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans dated March 8, 2001, except as modified to incorporated these conditions of approval. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted for the Building Permit application. Consent Review Prior to Building Permit 2. The applicant shall return to the Board on Consent Calendar to address the following: a) Revisions to roof screening to provide a more orderly form and appropriate 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 fax location, study to determine if roof screens are needed around all existing and proposed rooi~op equipment; revisions to screen materials to provide noise reduction; b) A complete site plan Showing.parking and circulation diagrams, as well as location of trash/recycling enclosures; c) A external lighting plan indicating zero cut-off (no light spilling on neighboring properties); d) Study of possible noise impacts from rooftop equipment; indicate compliance with PAMC 9.10 (noise ordinance) Planning Equipment screening shall be installed to screen mechanical units and related equipment that are used by each tenant of the building, if it is found that these units impact neighboring property owners, (see Condition #2(a)). Plans for the location and construction of the screen shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of any building permits. Mechanical units shall be installed in accordance with the reqised plans submitted to the Planning Division on March 8, 2001 The existing roof sign (for the former Larry Wells Hair Salon) shall be refaced, rather than replaced, to identify the new dry cleaning establishment (Holiday Cleaners) as per the plans, submitted to the Planning Division on March 8, 2001. The sign shall not be .illuminated. All exposed wiring at the rear of the building shall be removed and relocated in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code and the City of Palo Alto’s Building Division. " The project shall conform to the Fire Department’s Fire Code Plan Review conditions of approval, as per the letter addressed January 16, 2001. Any ¯ . modification to the project or scope of business shall require additional review by the Fire Department. The project shall meet the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for air quality permits, as per the letter from the District, dated January 2, 2001. Any modification to the project or scope of business will require additional review by the BAAQMD. The project is required to meet all other BAAQMD regulations in addition to the regulations of other regulatory agencies. o Any change to the scope of services of the business, which differs from the scope of services as outlined in the revised project description submitted on January 10, 2001, shall require Planning Division review and approval. " ,? An appeal of the Director’s decision may be filed in writing with theCity Clerk within four working days of the date of the Director’s decision. If no appeal is filed, Building Permits may be issued on the fifth working day. Should you have any questions regarding this ARB action, please do nothe~itate to call the Planning Division at (650) 329-2155. Sincerely, Current Planning Manager Kathleen E. Haley, 1473 Dana Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Elizabeth B. Kulemin, e/o Alhouse~Deaton Property Management, 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 100, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Babaki Kahrobaie, 7279 Via Vieo, San Jose, CA 95129 Jeff Deaton, Alhouse-Deaton Property Management, 2600 El Camit~o Real: Suite 100, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Midtown Residence Association, e/o Annette Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 .. Joharma Santer, 732 Rosewood Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Debra Webb, 2579 Greer Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Frank Benesk, City Manager Ed Gawf, Director of Planning and Community En~ronment Lisa Grote, ChiefPiarming Official John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager Dan Hie~er, Fire Marshal Gordon Simpkinson, Hazardous Materials Specialist ~,1%4R-23-2001 FRI 09:44 AM DEVELOPMENT OENTER NO, 650329 2240 P. O1 Attachment B CITY OF FALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK’S OFFICE CITY OF P~g.O ALTO 01 Offi©e of the City Clerk ~,=PEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND CO~,~ff~IUNITY ENVIRONMENT (ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPUCATIONS) Application No. Name of Appellant To be filed In duplicate OO -~-~ - Johanna Santer Address 73.2 Rosewmn~ nr~ve ~)alOStreet city 9430.3 ZIP LOCATION OF PROPERTY~ Assessor’s Pamsl No. 127--33-062 Zone Disttlot CN Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) ¯ Property Owner’s Address c/o Alhouse-Deato~ Street Kathleen E. Haley, Trustee Property Management 2600 E1 Camino C~ Palo Alto Z~p94306 The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated March 2 0, 19_whembythe application of K&K Builders/Holiday Cleaners (originaJ applicant) ’ for architectural review we= 2001 approved (approved/denied) !, Is hereby appealed for the reasOns stated , in the attached letter (in duplicate). ...,.~..,\ ~-~ Date 3 / 2 6 / 01 Signature of Appellant -"~"~ Real CITY COUNCIL DECISION: Date Remarks and/or Conditions: ¯ Approved Denied SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENq’S SATISFIED: 1.Plans 2.Labels 3.Appeal Application Forms 4,Letter S.Fee 4 ~00.°0 By:. By:. By: By: .. i2/89 LOGAN POWELL A’I’rORNEYS .AT LAW 255 W. Julian Street, Suite 302 ¯ San Jose, California 95110-2406 ¯ Telephone (408) 287-2156 ¯ Fax (408) 280-1749 ¯ E-m0il: info@rjloganlaw.com March 26, 2001 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 2685 Middlefield Road- 00-ARB-158 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: On behalf of Johanna Santer, this letter shall serve as an appeal of the March 15= decision of the Architecture Review Board ("ARB") to approve the Holiday Cleaners to be located at 2685 Middlefield Road (the "Project"). (I have enclosed a check in the amount of $100.00 to cover the appeal filing fee). As Ms. Santer stated to the ARB, her opposition to the Project is based on the Project’s incompatibility with the neighborhood and the impacts it will have on the residents and visitors to the neighborhood~ (A copy of the letter submitted to the ARB is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference). .Specifically, she is opposed to; among other things, the noisel lighting, ha~zardous materials, parking and view impacts caused by the rooftop units and the sign the Project will have. She respectfully requests that this matter be brought before you for consideration. A more detailed analysis of her bases for opposition to the Project will be submitted to the City Council prior to the public hearing. At the March 15, 2001, meeting, the ARB requested additional information from Holiday Cleaners regarding elements of the Project. This information included a study of the acoustics of the rooftop units, a study of the screening of the rooftop units and possible alternatives, a study of the lighting on the site, a study of the location of waste facilities on site, a clarification of parking issues and a revised Hazardous Materials Disclosure checklist. It is possible that the additional information will alleviate Ms. Santer’s concerns. However, based on the ARB Guidelines, Ms. Santer is required to appeal the decision of the ARB within 7 working days of the ARB’s approval of the Project. In order to meet that deadline, Ms. Santer is required to file this appeal without seeing the additional information. For that reason, we respectfully request that the City Council not hear this matter until Holiday Cleaners has provided the additional information to the ARB and Ms. Santer has had a chance to review the information. It is our hope that the information will be Honorable Mayor and City Council Members RE: Appeal of 00-ARB-158 March 26, 2001 Page 2 adequate and an appeal will be unnecessary. But that determination cannot be made until the additional information is provided. Postponing the City Council hearing until that time, may save all of us a lot of time and resources. In order to postpone the headng until the be stayed I~bnding the submission of the additional information. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Kirsten M.Powell ¯KMP:kl attachments cc: Santer LOGAN & POWELL A’I"rORNEY$ AT LAW 255 W. Julian Su’eet, Suite 302 . ¯ San Jme. Cali~rnia 95110-2406 ¯ Telephone (408) 287-2156 ¯ Fax (408) 280-1749 S E-mail: imeo@rjloganlaw.~om March 8, 2001 Honorable Chairperson and Board Mbmbers Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 2885 Middlefield Road-00-ARB-158 Dear Honorable Chairperson and Commissioners: This office represents Ms. Johanna Santer in her opposition to the Holiday Cleaners to be located at 2685 Middlefield Road (the "Project’).. Ms. Santer’s opposition is based .. on the Project’s incompatibility with the neighborhood and the impacts .it will have on the residents and visitors to the neighborhood. Additionally~ approval of the Project as designed is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and duties of the Architectural Review Board (the "Board"). . ~/: .1¯ ’ The Project as proposed is a dry cleaning plant which will use a chemical procedure to .clean clothing on site. This process involves the use of DF-2000, a hydrocarbon solvent. This is entirely different from the operation at Gate Cleaners currently owned by the applicants. Gate Cleaners is merely a drop-off location. No chemicals are used on site.. The Project involves facade improvements, a.new pedestrian entry door, 2 new service entry doors, rooftop mechanical equipment and a resurfaced non,illuminated sign all necessary for the conversion from a hair salon to a dry cleaning plant. When reviewing a project, the Board has specific standards by which to determine the appropriateness of a project. The standards used include compatibility of design and harmonious transition in scale between the project site, adjacent sites, natural features, land uses, on-site improvements, adjacent improvements, and any historically significant buildings or features and the amount and arrangement of open space, access, ancillary functions and circulation areas. (ARB Board Guidelines). Using these standards, the Project is not compatible with the.surrounding area. There are several areas of the Project that are within the Authority of the Board pursuant to the ARB G~idelines that warrant denial of the Project: Honorable Chairperson and Board Members RE: 00-ARB-158 March 8, 2001 Page 2 1. Environmental Factors including but not limited to noise, emission of -smoke, fumes, odors, fire safety, life safety and fire access...ARB Guidelines. Fire Safety =A major hazard associated with the hydrocarbon solvents is their potential flammability." Cleaner Technolo~lies. Substitute~; Assessment for Professional. Fa.bdcare pro.qessors, Environmental Protection Agency, June 1998. In order to assure that proper fire suppression measures are taken at the Project.due to its use of hydrocarbon solvents, the Fire Department would need to be informed of the types and amounts of hazardous materials at the Project and the manner in which they will.be used and stored. The applicants provided a list of chemicals used and quantities but did not descdbe the storage or disposal of the chemicals or the manner in which the chemicals will be used at the Project as requested by the Fire Department. DF-2000 poses a significant fire safety issue.. "It was not possible to quantify the dsk of fire in this CTSA. However, the dsk for fire is an important concem for the HC solvents and would be a greater risk for the HC solvents that for PCE based on their higher flammability rating." The dsk from this chemical is repeatedly outlined in the Matedal Safety Data sheet supplied by Exxon, manufacturers of DF-2000, a copy of.~hich isattached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A’. ~ [’l’]his product is combust~le .................. combustible liquid, can form combustible mixtures at or above the flashpoint [140 degrees Fahrenheight]. Matedal can accumulate static charge which can cause an incendiary electrical discharge .................... ,empty containers retain product residue [liquid and/or vapor] and can be dangerous. Do not pressurize,, cut or expose such containers to heat, flame ,s parks, static electricity or other sources of ignition; THEY MAY EXPLODE-AND CAUSE INJURY OR DEATH. Empty drums should be completely drained, properly bunged and promptly returned to a drum reconditioned or propedy disposed of ........ This liquid is invisible and gives off invisible vapors. Either the liquid or vapor may settle in low areas or travel some distance along the ground or surface to ignition surfaces where they may ignite or explode. [note: from ignition of cars in back for example]. Such is the like,hood of ignition with this chemical that Exxon emphasizes that extreme care should be taken to "protect stored matedal from direct sunlight." This chemical is combustible and is then heated in a clothes dryer which is an inherent!y.dangerous thing to do - so much so that these machines have an ’explosion kit’ which pumps out oxygen Honorable Chairperson and Board Members RE: 00-ARB-158 March 8, 2001 Page 3 to reduce the fire dsk. Some agencies believe that a stray cigarette lighter could potentially spark a fire in the machine. Special measures are needed to ensure safety. Despite the clear wamings from the manufacturer of DF-2000, the Fire Department has not requested specific fire suppression measures for the. Project. Hazardous Materials The conditions of approval issued for the Project required the Project to comply with the Fire Department’s Fire Code Plan Review conditions of approval, dated January 16, 2001. As part of its. application for the Project, the. owners completed a Hazardous Materials Disclosure Checklist. (A copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit =B’). The Checklist submitted by the owners is incomplete and contains misleading information. Based on the deficiencies of the Checklist, it is impossible to determine whether or not the designand transition of the Project are compatible with adjacent sites,land uses and adjacent improvements. Will the chemicals be stored in close proximity to any heat sources on-site or at adjacent sites? Will used materials be stored near heat sources or be disposed of in the same manner as typical waste? Until the details of the storage and disposal of hazardous materials are disclosed, compatibility cannot be determined. As seen on the checklist, the owners failed to disclose whether 0~ not the Project will involve the storage/use of hazardous materials; As Gordon Simpkinson requested in an email to Anna Camaraota, dated November 21, 2000, "Applicant shall provide a list of all hazardous materials to be used or stored on site along with a bdef description of the manner of use or storage for each." This information was never provided. Therefore, the City is operating under false and incomplete information. The Project does involve the use and storage of hazardous materials. DF 2000 and at least four (4) other chemicals used on-site are classified as hazardous materials under the definition in the Fire Department Hazardous Materials Disclosure Checklist. (See Exhibit B). DF-2000 is also defined as a hazardous product by the manufacturer and federal agencies. In the Matedal Safety Data sheet supplied by Exxon, manufacturers of DF-2000 say’this product is hazardous as defined in 29 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1910.1200. DF-2000 is also listed as an "OSHA hazard" and a "health hazard" by the Environmental Protection Agency. By not disclosing this information, the Fire Department was unable to properly analyze the impacts the Project will have on the surrounding community and was unable Honorable Chairperson and Board Members RE: 00-ARB-158 March 8, 2001 Page 4 to impose necessary conditions relative to the storage and use of those hazardous matadals. " The applicants also provided false information when they stated that the Project would not generate hazardous materials waste stream to the air, sewer, storm drain or waste facility. Once hazardous materials are used at the Project, they will need to be disposed of in some manner. This manner should be disclosed in order to determine whether or not it will have a detrimental Impact on the surrounding community. Another issue which was not addressed, most likely because Inadequate and inaccurate information was provided, is the potential impact the use and disposal of these hazardous materials will have on the Bay Area Action Organic Garden. The garden is located directly behind the Project. As can be seen on the photograph attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit =C’, water accumulates near the garden. How will that garden be protected from the hazardous materials used and disposed of for the Project? Can the hazardous materials seep into the organic garden? Can the run-off which accumulates near the garden and the Project be contaminated bythe hazardous materials stored and used on the site?. Will the Project produce run-off which can impact the garden? Additional information is essential to determining the impacts from this use and to determining if the Project design is compatible with the neighborhood. ~ /2. Compatlbili~Y, visibility and effect upon view of neighboring propertles and uses. ARB Guidelines. View from Neighboring Properties The Project is located in an area adjacent to residential development. Ms. Santer’s property is contiguous to the property on which the projectiis located. The view from her home, as well as from some of her neighbor’s homes, will be detrimentally impacted by the Project. The Project calls for the installation of an exhaust pan with a total height of 39 3/4", an evaporating cooler with a total height of 63 1/4", and a cooling tower which a total height of 65 1/4". The cooler tower will rise approximately 4’ above the roof line of the Project. Although screening has been required to cover these units, the height and mass of the screening will similarly impact the view. This structure will be incompatible with the surrounding retail and residential uses. Adding approximately 4’ to the building will not create a harmonious transition in scale between the Project site and other uses in the Midtown shopping center. This will not enhance the desirability of residence in the Midtown neighborhood. This will not enhance the desirability of living conditions in Midtown. Honorable Chairperson and Board Members RE: 00-ARB-158 March 8, 2001 Page 5 3. Site development characteristics including but not .limited to ...pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle circulation. ARB Guidelines. Parking/Circulation i As many of you know, parking and vehicular circulation in Midtown has become a growing concern. The concentration of retail business in Midtown has Greated considerable circulation problems. Steven Turner admitted in a letter to the Midtown Steering Committee on February 15, 2001, that the parking lot is =a congested shopping center parking lot." The Project is proposed to be located next to Victoda Emmon’s catedng at the back of the Midtown shopping center. As can be seen in the photos attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit =D," the current uses in the shopping center utilize the majority of the parking. Alarge portion of the parking spaces surrounding the Project site are taken by delivery trucks for the catedng company. These photographs were taken on Friday, March 2, 2001, at approximately 11:00 a.m. The parking situation is even worse on the weekends. Now imagine the Impact a larger dry cleaners and the additional retail space proposed for the Project will have on the already limited parking and traffic congestion. The construction of an additional pedestrian entrance evidences the intent to increase the clientele of the Project. The increased size of the dry cleaners ~vill draw additional clients to this area and exacerbate an existing parking and circulation problem. The additional retail space will similarly draw additional patrons, require more parking and intensify the traffic problems in the area. Without adequate parking, circulation problems will result in the parking lot as well as on neighboring streets. Some measures mus.t be taken to assure that the parking and traffic problems in Midtown does not deteriorate further. All of these issues are within the jurisdiction of the Board and should be remedied to meet the goals and objectives of this Board. One additional issue relating to the Project is the appropriateness of the use under the current zoning. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.41.030(h), personal services are permitted in the CN Neighborhood Commercial District. Personal service means ...a use providing services of a personal convenience nature and cleaning, repair or sales incidental thereto, including: (C) self-service laundry and cleaning services; laundry and cleaning pick-up stations where all cleaning or Honorable Chairperson and Board Members RE: 00-ARB-158 March 8, 2001 Page 6 servicing for the particular station is done elsewhere; and laundry and cleaning stations where the cleaning or servicing for the particular station is done on site, utilizing equipment meeting any applicable Bay Area Air Quality Management District requirements, so long as no cleaning for any other station is done on the same site, provided that the amount of hazardous materials stored does notat any time exceed the threshold whichwould require a permit under Title 17 (Hazardous Materials Storage)of this code. Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.41.030(114). The owners publically admitted at the public meeting on February 17, 2001, that they would be processing clothing from their Saratoga operation. This is a clear violation of the municipal code and eliminates the Project as a permitted use in the CN Neighborhood Commercial District. If this use is allowed, the Project will not promote ordedy and harmonious development in the City; it will not enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the City; it will not encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; it will not enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or adjacent areas. See ARB Guidelines. The Project will be in direct violation of the City’s code and your ARB Guidelines. The Project is not compatible with the surrounding area. The cleaning plag~t will usehazardous materials on site that can pose a threat to the surrounding residents and users of the Midtown shopping center. The Project will pose an increased fire dsk that has not been propedy addressed. The Project is inconsistent with the current zoning of the property. The Project will detrimentally impact the value of neighboring properties because of the tall equipment Installed on the roof of the Project. The .Project will increase the already inadequate parking and circulation in the shopping center by bdnging in additional clientele and an additional retail use. For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that you deny the application for the Project. Very.truly yours, Kirsten M. Powell KMP:kl attachments cc: Santer MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET ExxonMobl~ Chemical Company A Dlv~blon of Exxon. Mob±l Corporation PAGE:1 DATE PREPARED: JUL 30j 189B MSDS NO.: .- 82842583 DF-2000 FLUID SECTION T CHEMIOAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION. ~RODUCT NAME: DF-2OOOFLUID CHEMICAL NAME: _.Synthat£~ Altphatt¢ Hydroo~rbonr HydPotreatad 84742-48-8 CHEMICAL FAMILY:~ A1~phetlo Hydrocarbon .. PRODUCT DESCRIPTIOM; Clear ~01orless 11quid. CONTACT ADDRESS: ExxonMobL1 Chem±oal Company P.O. Box 3272, Houetonj Tex~s 77283-3272 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS: (24 Hours) CHEMTREC (800) 424-9300 ExxonMob~ Chemical Company (800) 726-2015 NON EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS : (Sam-Spm M-F) FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY INFORMATION CALL : (281) 870-6884 FOR GENERAL PRODUCT .INFORMATION CALL : (281) 870-8000 ,. SECTION 2 COMPOSITION/INFORMATION.’ ON ~NGRED~ENT8 Th£s product :~e hazardous as del":Lned in 21) CFRll)lO.1200. OSHA HAZARD Combust±ble /’~ SECTION 3 HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECT8 EYECONTACT: : $118htZy. /rrttat/ng but does Rot /nJqre eye-tLssue. SKIN CONTACT: Low order of toxicity. Frequent or proZonged contact may Lrrttate end oause dermatltLa. INHALATION: Hlgh vapor/aerosol oon~entretLona (greeter then approxLmately 1000 ppm) ere irr£tat£n8 to the eyes end the respiratory tra~t, may ~ause hoadechee~ dlzz±ness, anesthoota~ drowaLnees~ unoo~s¢lou8nesa~ ~nd other centre1 nervous system effeots~ kn~ludLng death, INGESTION: Smell amounts of thka produo~ aspirated ~nto ~he ~eap±ratory system during ~ngeat±on or vomiting may cause m~d to severe pulmonary ~nJury, poss±bly Continues on page 2 EXHIBIT ’ PAOF / OF MATERZAL SAFETY DATA SHEET ExxonMobkl Cheml¢lZCompany A Division of Exxon Mo~ corporation PAGE: 2 DATE PREPARED: dUL 30, 1888 MSDB NO.: 82842583 DF-2000 FLUZD ~, progressing to 8EGTZON 4 F~R6T AZD MEASURE8 EYE CONTAGT: SKZN CONTACT= - Remove grossly oontam~na~od oZoth~ng| lno~ud~ng shooaj and Zaundor before ~euse. ZNHALAT~ON: v~ctlm Trom exposure. Administer ar~flcla~ respiration if breathing ZNGESTXON: ~ swallowed,. DO NOT induce vomiting. Keep a~ PeSt. Ge~ prompt medloal SECTZON 5 FZRE-FZGHTZNG MEAaURE~ FLASH POINT:147 Deg F. METHOD: TCC ASTM D56 NOTE: Typ~oel FLAMMABLE LIMITS:LEL: 1.3 UEL: 8.8 ¯ 77 Dog F.NOTE: AUTOIGN~T~ON TEMP.=840 Dog F. NOTE: Approx~mto GENERAL HAZARD Combustible Liquid, oan ~orm oombustlb~e mixtures at temperatures or above ~he ~ashpo~nt. "Empty" oontaknors ro~akn produo~ residue (liquid ~nd/or vapor) and oan be dangerous. DO NOT prossurtzo~ out~ weZd~ brazo~ soldor~ dr~11, grind~ or otho, souse08 o~ ~gnltlon;.THEY MAY EXPLODE AND CAUSE ZNJURY OR DEATH. Empty drums ehouZd be oomplotely drained, properly bunged and promptly re- turned ~0 a drum reoond~210nor~ or propor~y disposed oT. F~RE F~GHTZNG Use w~ter spray to oo01~lrs exposed sur~aOOl and ~0 protoot personnol~ Use ~oam~ dry ohemtoal~ or water spray to extinguish ~tre. Avo~ spraying water dlreotly.ln~o storage oontalners due to danger bollovor. Thks 11quld ks volatlle end glves o~ lnvls~bZe vapors. Elther the liquid or vapormay so~t~o in low Ireal’or trlvel some dlstanoe along the ground or surfaoe to ignition souroes where they may ~gnkte or explode. continues on page 3 ¯,o EXHIBIT MATERZ~L SAFETY DATA SHEET ExxonMobtl Chemtoal Company A Dlvlslo~ of Exxon Mobil Corporation PAGE: 3 DATE PREPARED: JUL 30~ 1~99 MSDS NO.: 92842583 DF-2000 FLUID DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS UNDER FZRE CONDITIONS No unusual SECTION 8 ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES LAND SPILL E~m~nate souraes of ~gntt~on. Provent additional dksoha~gs ~ possible to do so w~thou~ hazard. For sm~ ~p~s tmp~om~nt o~oanup p~ooedures; for large sp~lls £mplement olaanup ppooedu~ee and~ £f pubZ£o ~roa, koop pub~o away.mnd advise luthor~t~s. Also| kf produot ~s sub, eat to CERCLA rsport£ng (see Ssot~on 15 REGULATORY INFORMATION) notlfy the Nat~on~l Response Canter. ¯ Prevent ~kqu~d f~om entering epwers| wateroou~ses~ oP lowa~eas. ep~l~od ~kqu~d with sand or oarth. Do not usa oombustlb~e materials suoh Re~ove.r b~ pumplng (use an explosion proof or hand pump) or w~h euAtable absorbent. Consult a, expoP~ on dkopasa~ o~ rooQvorod mator~aZ and ensure WATER SP~LL EZlmlnate souroes of ~gnttlon. Warn.oooupants and shlpplng ln-surround/ng and downwind areas of ~kre and axp~oskon hazard and request all to stay o~ear. Remove f~om surpass by ek~mmlng or w~th suitable adsorbents. ~f by 1goal authorities and environmental agenoles~ sln~lng and/or d~spersants may be used ~n non-=on~kned waters. Consul~ an expert on dleposal of recovered mate~al and ensure to lo~al dlsposal regulations. SECTION 7 STORAGE AND HANDLING ELECTROSTATIC ACCUMULATION HAZARD= Yes~ use proper bonding and/or g~oundLng .procedure. Add~t~ona~ ~nforma~on regarding s~fe h~nd~ng of produots wlth etatlo eooumulst~on potent~a~ san be ordered by oontaat~no the Amer~o~n Petroleum Institute (API) for APZ Reoommended Practkoe 2003~ entitled "Proteot~on Against Zgn~ttone Ar~sLng Out of Sta~o~ .LLghtLng~ and Stray Currents" (AmeriCan Petroleum Znst~tute~ 1220 L Street Northwest, Washington, OG 20005), or the Nat~onaZ F~re Proteotton Association (NFPA) for NFPA 77. 1Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101~ Qutn~y~ MA 02269-9101). STORAGE TEMPERATURE| Deg F: Ambient LOADING/UNLOADING TEMPERATURE~ Deg F: AmbLen~ Continues on page 4 k~TERZAL SAFETY DATA SHEET ExxonMob~l Chemical Company A D~vts~on of Exxon Mobil Corpora~kon PAGE:4 DATE PREPARED; JUL 30, 1998 MSDS NO.: 82842583 DFo2000 FLUID 8TORAGE/TI:,aJ~SPORT PRE~URE, mmHg= Atmospheric LOADING/UNLOaDING VTSCOSZTYI oS~ : STORAGE AND" H~NDLING : Keep oontatner oloeed. Handle a~d open oonta~nere wl~h oool, well ventilated plaoo away ~rom ~noompa~b~e ma~orka~. D~ NOT. hand~o or s~oro ~oar an open ~amo, hea~ or o~her sources o~ ~gn~on. Pro~oo~ m~orla~ ~rom dlroo~ sunlight. ~torlal w~11 sooumulste s~a~/o ohsrges whkoh may oause ~n oloo~rloa~ spark (tgnl~kon souroe). Use proper bond~g and/or grounding prooedurem. DQ NQT proslurkze, ou~ ho~, or wold Qon~m~nor:. Empty produo~ oontalners may son,sin produot residue. Do NOT reuse empty wlthou~ oo~eroksl olesntng or reoondttlonk~g. SECTION 8 EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION EXPOSURE CDNTRDLS The use. ~f meohantca~’dllutlon vent~Zatlen le rose,mended whenever produc~ ~s used kn a confined spaoe~ is heated above amb£ent temper~tures~ PERSONAL PROTECTION For open systems whore oontac~ t8 likelyI wear safety glasses w~th sh/old8~ long 81eoves: and ohemtoal rests~an~ gloves. Whore contact mary ooour, wear safety glasses wkth ekdo shields. Where oonoontratlons in alr may exoeod ~ho llm~s glven ~n this.Section and engkneer~ng, work practise or other means o~ exposure reduotlon.~re no~ adoqua~o,NIOSHIMSHA approved respirators may be noooesary to. pr~ven~ overexposure by inhalation. WORKPLACE EXPOSURE GUIDELINES ExxonMob~l RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS: 300 ppm ~o~aZ hydrocarbon based on oompos£tton. SECTION O PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES SPEOIFIC GRAVITY at DoG Fz VAPOR PRESSURE, mmHg ~t Dog F: SOLUBILITY IN WATER~ ~rt. ~ ~ Dog F= VISCOSIT~ OF LIQUID, oSt at Dog F: SP. GRAV. OF VAPOR, at 1 arm (Akr-1): FREEZING/MELTING POINT, Dog F: EVAPORATION R~TE~ n-Bu BOILING POINT~ Dog F: 0.77 e~ 60 1 a~ 68 Approximate Loss ~han 0.01 a~ 77 2.1 e~ ’77 Approximate Lose ~han -70 ¯ Lees ~han 0.1 376 ~o 401 Continues on page DF-2000 FLUID ’MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET ExxonMobll Chemical Company A D1vlston of Exxon Mobil Corporation PAGE:5 DATE PREPARED:JUL 30~ 1000 MSOS NO.:82842583 SECTION 10 STABILITY AND REACTIVITY STABILITY: S~able CONDITIONS TO ~VOID INSTABILITY: Not HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION; Will not occur CONDITIONS TO AVOID. HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: Not MATERIALS AND CONDITIONS TO AVOID INCOMPATIBILITY: Strong oxLd~zLng agents. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: None SECTrON 11 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION SECTION 12 ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION Section 6 for regulatory reporting, knformat~on. SECTION 13 DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS Please refer toSections 5,. 6 and 15 ~or d~sposal and regulatory SECTION 14 TRANSPORT INFORMATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT): DOT SHIPPING DESCRIPTION: PETROLEUM DISTILLATE~ N.O.8. ¯ COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID, UN 1268~ III Note: In containers o~ 119 gallons oapmo~ty o~ ~oas this product :Ls not regulated by DOT. SECTION 15 REGULATORY INFORMATION TSCA t ThLs product ~s l~sted on the TSCA Inventory at CAS Registry Number 64742 - 48 - S Continues on page EXHIBIT MATERZAL SAFET~ OATA SHEET ExxonMob~l Chem~oel Company A Division of Exxon Mob~l Corporation PAGE: DATE PREPARED: JUL 30~ 1999 MSDS NO.: 92842583 DF-2000 FLUZD Cloa~ W’a~or Ao~1011 Pollution Thls product ks ~lasslflod as =n o~1 Under Soc1:lon 311 W~1:or Ao1:(40 CFR 1t0) and 1:he 0tl PolZu1:lon Ao1: of 1890. Dlsoharge or spllls wh/ch produce a vlslble sheen on ell:her surfloe water, or the Na1:/onel Response Cent:st it .800~424-8802. CERC~A: ~f this produ~l: ks a~denl:ally spilled, :L1: :Ls no1: sub, eel: 1:~ ~ny epe~:Lal repor~kng under 1:he requ£rements of 1:he Comprehensive Env:Lronmsntal Response, Componsa1:lon and Llabllll:y A=I:. We rooommond you gent:lois lo=al lul:hor11:£es to do~ermkne if there may be other ~ooal roporl:kn9 roqukromonts. SARA TZTLE ZZ~: Under 1:he provisions of T11:19 zzz, ~oo1:lons 311/312 of 1:he Superfund Amendments and Reau1:hortzatlon Aot, 1:h/s produot ks ollsstfled into 1:he following hazard oategorles: F1re. Thls informal:ion nl~y be sub~ec1: ~o the provisions of 1:he Gommun11:y R/oh1:-1:o-Know Rspor1:£ng Requkremen1:s (40 CFR 370) ~ ~hreshold quan~t~y orltor~i Ire mo~. SECTZON 18 OTHER ZNFORMATZON NOTES: Ca~s must be taken to ensure garments gleaned w11:h solvents are oomp~etely dry. beforebelng worn,DryoleantnG solven~ no1: 1:o~aJ.~y-~emovsd from idsorbent olo1:hkng (e.g., shoulder pads, waist: bands, .e~o,) 1:hit rem~lns In ~ontlc~ w~1:h 1:he skin ~or prolonged periods may ~luso skkn lrr~1:l~/on ¯ . £ncludlng redness, swelllng and possibly blls1:orlng. / Con1:llns Ipproxlma1:ely qual~1:y. HAZARD R~TZNG SYSTEMS.: This ~nforml1:lon ks for people trelned ln: NIt£ona~ Piln1: &.Coa1:lngs Assootatlon’s (NPCA) N~1:~onal Fire Pro~eo1:kon Assoc/a1:~on (NFPA 704) Identlfloatlon o~ the Fire Hazards of Mat:steals NPCA-HMZS NFPA 704 HEALTH 1 1 FLAMMABILITY 2 2 REACTIVITY’0 0 10 ppm BHT as an an1:1oxldan~ 1:o pro1:oot produo1: 4 - Severe 3 - Sel-tous 2 - Moderll:e 1 - Sl:Lghl: 0 - Mlnlmal Con1:lnues on page 7 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET ExxonMob~l Chem~oal Company A D~v±s~on of Exxon Mobil Corporation PAGE : ":- 7 DATE PREPARE.D: JUL 3.0, 1991) MSDS NO. : " .: 928-42583 DF-2000 FLUZD :;’o ~, REVISION SUMMARY: 1 S~nce February 25, ~899-this M~DS has been pevtsed Ln Section(s): -I 1 / REFERENCE NUMBER: SUPERSEDES ISSUE DATE: HDHA-C-25233 February 25~ 1999 Th±s ±nformat~on relates to the speokfLo material designated and may not be valid for suoh material used in. oombinttion with any other mater~aZs or ~n any prooess, Suoh information ks to the belt of our knowledge and bel&ef, aoourate and reliable as of the date oomplled. However, no representation, warranty or guarantee ks made as to ~ts aoouraoy, re,lability or oompleteness. It is the users responsibility to eat~sfy himself as to the suitability and. ~ompleteness of suoh information for his own particular use. We do not aocept lLab~Zlty for any lo88 or damage that may occur from the use of th£s information nor do We o~fer warranty against patent infringement. h LAST PAGE US 0000853 0401000518 FLRPRKVM CMDEWZT EXH!BIT ¯ - EXXON CHEMICAL ’ /(onMobil Chernica, l Sales 5peciflcalion Rev, 4:3/99 Drycleaning Fluid 2000 DF-2000tm Fluid properties Appearance Aromatlcs Contem, (wt%) Bulk Odor co~. (sa~ Flash P~ "C Sp~ ~. ~ lS.~S.6 "C Test Methods Visual AM.S 140.31 BTQAL - 018 ASTM D 156 ASTM D 5S ASTM D 4052 5al~ Sneclficatiomi Pass 0.02 max Pass 30 rain em rain 0.760 - 0.776 !./ / ~/To~ I)eta to Dlem~e P.,~ionname wi~ SpedticalJom." : ~TE FIND PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION Busines.s or F~cility Name Address, Suite.or Bldg.# .Hazardous Materials are such itenm ~s following: fuels, v~in or waste oil, solvents, paints, and liquefied pe.trolet~m gases (I.,PG). There mi hazardous material lassifi~ions such Explosives ’¯7." ’ Highly Toxle~oxic CompreSsed Gases 8... Radioab-tives .Flammable & Combustible Liquid~.9. C.orro~ivas’ . " Flammable Solids 10, Cryogenics¯Oxidizers/Organic peroxides 11. Water Reactive~ .Pyrophorics ¯¯ ":":-12, Other Health Hsza~ ¯ ."Does the operation of this facility involve hazm~dous mate~ais? NO ¯ .Doe~ this ~aciEty cur~endy lmve a Hazard.ous M~erials Storage .pcrm.it?.’ ¯ WILL THIS ¯ -’involve a Closure .ofprescn.t Hazardous Materials Storage Facilities7 ¯ . -involve’.he ~toragc/use ofh~irdous mat’eri~ls?~ -genera.tea hazardous materials waste atrcam to the air, sewer, stonndrain, or a waste facility? -ili~volvethe¯aggrcgile q.~ntit~ ofan. Y g~eater.thau: 200cult., 558al, 5001b?".’ ¯-involve BPA lisied Extremely Hazardous Substances7 .. ,~equ. ke the installation or removal ofaboveg~0tmd or underground storage tanks or sumps? -involve hazmat r~lat~d improvmnents (ho.ods, cabinets)? I he~’eby certify under penalty of perjury that the information pre~ented .is true and correct io the best of my knowledge and belief, lntcnti .ona! exclusion ofanyre.levant infommtion nmy be punhlab .1! u~der provisions’sc~, forth in PaloAlto Municipal Coda, Title 17,Clmpter 17.48.. Ifypu have any ¯ questions please .call the Palo Alto Fk© Dept. at # 1-329-2"184 for further assistance, White: Routing Yellow:. File ;: Pink: Apllli~nlf. -°’EXHIBIT Attachment C Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date:March 15, 2001 To: From: Subject: Architectural Review Board Steven Turner, Associate Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 2685 Middlefield Road [00-ARB-158]: Application by K&K Builders and Holiday Cleaners on behalf of Kathleen E. Haley, Trustee (property owner) and Babaki Kahrobaic (business owner) for minor facade improvements, to include one new pedestrian entry door at the front of the building~ two new service entry doors at the rear of the building, rooftop mechanical equipment, and a refaced non-illuminated roof sign. This application was reviewed by staff as allowed by the Palo Alto Municipal Code section ! 6.48.060(h). The application was approved by staff on behalf of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on February 15, 2001. Pursuant to PAMC 16.48.060(h)(2), this item has been requested to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board recommend approval of the minor facade modifications, based upon the findings in Attachment A and subject to the suggested Conditions of Approval set forth in Attachment B. PROJECT BACKGROUND Summary On November 6, 2000 Jerry Kolodzik of K&K Construction submitted an application for architectural review of minor facade changes to an existing commercial building in the Midtown shopping district. The changes were proposed in order to accommodate Holiday Cleaners, a new tenant in the building. The minor facade changes included: ¯Installation of a new customer entry door at the front of the building.. - ¯Installation of two service do6rs at the rear of the building. ¯Replacement of an existing sign, located on the roof of the covered walkway. 2685 Middlefield Road: Holiday Cleaners Page 1 ¯Installation of new roof-top equipment; After an initial review of the application, staff deemed the application incomplete for the following reasons: ¯Incomplete Roof Plan. Details of the mechanical equipment and roof screen were required. ¯Incomplete Project Description Letter. A detailed description of the business’s scope of services was requested. ¯Bay Area Air Quality Management District review of the proposed cleaning process was required. ¯Dry Cleaning Equipment information was requested by staff to evaluate the type of cleaning to be done on the site. During the period the application remained incomplete, staff received requests for clarification from the Midtown Resident’s Association regarding the proposed use of the facility and potential environmental impacts that might.affect the neighborhood. Staff determined that a limited amount Of dry cleaning activity was a permitted use within the Neighborhood Commercial Zone district. After consulting with the City of Palo Alto Fire Department and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Planning Division Staff concluded that the dry cleaning process that was proposed, using the solvent DF-2000, was an environmentally sensitive alternative to the commonly used perehloroethelene (PERC) cleaning process found in locations throughout Palo Alto. The applicant assisted by Joe Bishop of Holiday Cleaners, provided the information requested by staff. A copy of the applicant’s revised project description letter is contained in Attachment D. Acting on behalf of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, the Current Planning Manager approved the application, with conditions, on February 15,2001. The approval letter is contained in Attachment E. On February 21, 2001 the Planning Division received a request to have this item heard at an Architectural Review Board meeting, pursuant to PAMC 16.48.060(h)(2). The letter requesting ARB review is contained in Attachment F. This letter does not discuss concerns related to the architectural review or requesting a full review by the ARB. Existing Conditions The project site is located in the Midtown commercial shopping district, located on Middlefield Road near Moreno Avenue, adjacent to the Long’s Drugs store.- Surrounding land uses-include retail and commercial sites to the north, west and south and residential sites to the east. A community garden is directly adjacent to the northern property line. Victoria Emmons Catering is the only other tenant in this building.. ’ The existing building is a one story, stucco building, with vertical wood siding¯ at the front facade. Distinguishing features of the building include large, plate glass windows, aluminum doors, a red brick plinth along the front exterior walls and covered walkways with shed roofs composed of wood shingles. This building is nearly identical to the building located directly northwest, 2685 Middlefleld Road: Holiday Cleaners Page 2 although it is on a separate parcel. Signage for both buildings have traditionally consisted of simple box or painted board signs attached to the roof structures above the walkways. Proposed Project The Kahrobaic family currently owns Gate Cleaners, a dry cleaning agency, located at 2678 Middlefield Road, which is adjacent to a vacant commercial space at 2685 Middelfield Road. In order to provide additional services to their customers, the Kahrobaic’s would like move their operations to this vacant space and establish the business as Holiday Cleaners. This new business Will operate in much the same way as Gate Cleaners. Patrons~Will drop off clothing and other articles at the new Holiday Cleaner’s location with the expectation that the items will be cleaned ar)d returned to the patron in an agreed time frame. The business will have a trade classification of "dry cleaning plant" rather than "dry cleaning agency." A "dry cleaning agency" is a business with a storefront that accepts clothing and other articles from customers, but does not actually clean the clothes on site. A "dry cleaning plant" contains a similar storefront, accepts clothing and articles from customers, and accomplishes the cleaning on-site. The Kahrobaic family has proposed to lease the space most recently occupied by Larry Wells Hair Salon. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing space into two separate units. "Space A", consisting of 1,958 square feet, will house Holiday Cleaners. "Space B", consisting of 985 square feet, will be sub-leased by the Holiday Cleaner owners to another tenant. To accomplish the subdivision of space, a new aluminum pedestrian entry door will be installed at the front of the building, which will service "Space B". At the rear of the building, a new service entry door will service "Space B". For "Space A", a new double service door is proposed. All existing plate glass windows Will remain. The applicant has proposed a new sign, identical in size and location of the existing sign. The sign as proposed will be a non-illuminated box sign With an acrylic face and vinyl lettering. To accommodate the dry cleaning equipment, new rooftop equipment will be installed, The equipment will consist of one cooling tower 5’5" in height above the roof surface, two evaporative coolers 5’3" in height above the roof surface and two exhaust fans, 3’4" in height above the roof surface. After the staff approval was granted, the-applicant satisfied a condition of approval, which requires roof screens to be installed around the equipment. The attached plan set contains the construction details for the screens. In addition, the applicant has proposed to screen the existing, equipment located above the Victoria Emmons catering company. REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests the Board to review and recommend to the Director approval of the minor architectural fa9ade improvements, new signage, and rooftop equipment and related screening. Recommendations regarding the issues raised by the community, including use classification and potential environmental impacts, do not fall under the purview of the Architectural Review 2685 Middlefield Road: Holiday Cleaners Page 3 Board. The City has determined that a limited amount of dry cleaning plant activity that complies with City of Palo Alto Hazardous Materials Division and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations is a permitted use within the zone district where the proposed business will be located. Lisa G-rote, Chief P.lanning Official for the City of Palo Alto, in her letter to the Midtown Steering Committee on December 5, 2000 stated that a limited amount of dry cleaning equipment and activity is a permitted use within the Neighborhood Commercial District. This letter is contained in Attachment 13. Ms. Kristen M. Powell of Logan & Powell Attorney’s at Law, representing Ms. Johanna Santer of 732 Rosewood Drive Palo Alto, has submitted a letter dated March 8, 2001. A copy of this letter is contained in Attachment H. In her letter, Ms. Powell outlines the concerns of her client in ¯ regard to the use and environmental issues raised by this application. She also argues that the Board may claim purview over these issues. In applying the Architectural Review guidelines,.the Board may review the proposed changes in terms of smoke, fumes, noise, fire safety, life safety, fire access, compatibility with neighboring properties and uses, visibility, and site development characteristics, among others. All of these have beeri addressed through City code and BAQMD air quality requirements, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. staff does not concur with the statement made regarding views from neighboring property and traffic in this letter, many of the statements raised in this letter are addressed in the following sections of this report. Also, Ms. Powell asserts that the process for Fire Department review of hazardous materials for the proposed cleaners was not followed or completed. In fact, the Fire Department has received all necessary information required for review of the project, and has granted approval with specific conditions that relate to fire safety, life safety, and storage of hazardous materials. In terms of parking and circulation on the site, staff believes that this use will improve the parking and circulation within this shopping center. The former Larry Wells Hair Salon serviced customers throughout the business day. Because of the nature of this type of business, the clientele of the salon would remain within the business for a much longer time than would customers who are simply-picking-up or dropping off clothes. In addition, the ability to clean garments on the site will effectively eliminate the need for multiple, daily trips from delivery vans that currently pick-up and drop-off large amounts of garments for the existing. Gate Cleaners. Furthermore, as previous explained and further detailed in this repoi’t, a dry cleaning plant would be a permitted use in this zone district, when in compliance with PAMC 18.04.030(114)(C). The only process to remedy the concerns regarding the use as a "dry cleaning plant" in the letter is tO amend the Zoning Ordinance. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Members of the community have raised two questions regarding this proposal, generally expressed as the following: ¯Is a dry cleaning plant a permitted use within the CN zonedistrict? 2685 Middlefleld Road: Holiday Cleaners Page 4 What level of environmental risk is associated with a dry cleaning plant located in Midtown? Planning. Division staff addressed these questions during the review of the application and has conditioned the approval to mitigate these concerns. A brief discussion of each question is included in this report, for your information. Is a dry cleaning plant a permitted use within the CN zone district? The use category, "Personal Service" is a permitted use within the CN zone district. According to PAMC 18.04.030(114), the def’mition of "Personal Service" includes "self-service laundry and cleaning services; laundry and cleaning pick-up stations where all cleaning or servicing for the particular station is done elsewhere; and laundry and cleaning stations where the cleaning or servicing for the particular, station is done on site, utilizing equipment meeting any applicable Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) requirements, so long as no cleaning for any other station is done on the same site, provided that the amount of hazardous materials stored does not at any time exceed the threshold which would require a permit under Title 17 (Hazardous Materials Storage) of this code." The applicants project description letter describes the business’s scope of services. A Copy of this letter is included as Attachment D. Based upon this description, staff believes that the proposed dry cleaning plant complies with the definition of a "Personal Service" and is thus a permitted use within the CN zone district. The approval, as conditioned, states that any change to the scope of services of the business, which differs from the scope of services as outlined in the revised project description submitted on January 10, 2001, shall require additional Planning Division review. At a community meeting on February 17, 2001, Mr. Kahrobaic stated that the proposed Holiday Cleaners would accept garments and other items, on a temporary basis, from a dry cleaning agency that is owned by his family in Saratoga. The City has informed Mr. Kahrobaic that this would be in violation of Palo Alto Municipal Code, sectionl 8.04.040(114)(C). Code enforcement action would result if Mr. Kahrobaie were found be violating this code section. Mr. Kahrobaic has stated that at no time will Holiday Cleaners accept clothing, garments, or other items to be cleaned at the proposed Palo Alto location. What level of environmental risk is associated with a dry cleaning plant located in Midtown? To assess the potential environmental impacts of this proposed use, Planning Division staff required the applicant to submit detailed information. This information includes a Hazardous Materials Disclosure List, a Building Occupancy Classification Inventory (listing the cleaning products to be used on site), and a letter from the BAAQMD regarding the permitting requirements for this project. This information has been received as part of the application package, including a description of the dry cleaning process to be used at the site. Staff has concluded that this application is exempt from environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15, Class 3, which exempts new 2685 Middlefield Road: Holiday Cleaners Page 5 construction, of limited small new facilities; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and conversion of the use of small existing structures. The owners of Holiday Cleaners propose to use a hydrocarbon based cleaning system. This system, using the Exxon DF-2000 product, has been found to be a safer system when compared to an alternative system, using the perchloroethelene (PERC) process. In its review of the project, Scott Lutz of the BAAQMD determined that the dry cleaning plant is not subject to BAAQMD permitting regulations because the solvent (DF-2000) does not contain applicable amounts of Toxic Air Contaminants or Hazardous Substances. A copy of this letter is contained in Attachment G. In addition, Mr. Lutz addressed the use and safety of the solvent in a letter to Donald Rhodes, the director of Building Safety Servic~es/Code’Enfo~cement for the Cityof San Ramon. The City of San Rarnon had a similar question regarding the use of DF-2000 in a local dry cleaning plant. In his letter, Mr. Lutz briefly described the solvent and the equipment, which are typically used in the hydrocarbon cleaning process. Mr. Lutz also comments on the PERC cleaning process and the potential affects of its use. A copy of this letter is contained in Attachment J. The project shall meet the requirements of the BAAQMD for air quality permits, as per the letter from the District, dated January 2, 2001. Any modification to the project or scope of business will require additional review by the BAAQMD. The project is required to meet all other BAAQMD regulations in addition to the regulations of other regulatory agencies. In addition, the City’s Hazardous Materials Division of the Fire Department has reviewed the application, and has granted approval for the project, subject to specific conditions. The project shall conform to the Fire Department’s Fire Code Plan Review conditions of approval, as per the. letter addressed January 16, 2001. This letter is contained in Attachment K. Any modification to the project or scope of business shall require additional review by the Fire Department. Staff is confident that the use, as proposed by the applicant and conditioned, is a permitted use. Furthermore, the significant environmental concerns have been addressed and mitigated by the business owner, the BAAQMD and the City of Palo Alto. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Findings for Approval/Architectural Review Board Standards for Review Attachment B: Suggested Conditions of Approval Attachment C: (ARB members only) Plan set Attachment D: Applicant’s Project Description Letter Attachment E: Architectural Review Approval Letter, February 15, 2001 Attachment F: Letter from Johanna Santer, requesting ARB review of the application Attachment G: Letter from Lisa Grote to Midtown Steering Committee Attachment H: Letter from Kristen Powell, Logan and Powell Attorney at Law Attachment I: BAAQMD Review Letter for 2685 Middlefield Road Attachment J: BAAQMD Letter to the City of San Ramon, describing the solvent DFr2000 2685 Middlefield Road: Holiday Cleaners Page 6 Attachment K: City of Palo Alto Hazardous Materials Approval Letter, January 16, 2001. COURTESY COPIES Applicant: Jerry Kolodzik, K&K Construction, 818 N. Delaware, #408, San Mateo, CA 94401 Owner: Kathleen E. Haley, 1473 Dana Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Others: Babaki Kahrobaic, 7279 Via Vico, San Jose, CA 95129 Joseph Bishop, Holiday Cleaners, 2701 Monarch Street, Suite 150, Alameda, CA 94501 Jeff Deaton, Allhouse-Deaton Property Management, 2600 E1 Camino Real, Suite 100, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Midtown Residence Association, c/o Annette Ashton, 2747 Bryant-Stme~Palo Alto, CA 94306 Johanna Santer, 732 Rosewood Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Debra Webb, 2579 Greer Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Frank Benesk, City Manager Ed Gawf, Director of Planning and Community Environment Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official Dan Hie~er, Fire Marshall Gordon Simpkinson, Hazardous Materials Specialist Prepared by: Manager Review: Steven Turner, Associate Planner John Lf~,~Planning Manager 2685 Middlefield Road: Holiday Cleaners Page 7 ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW 2685 Middlefield Road: Holiday Cleaners Address/File No. 00-ARB- 158 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 Architectural Review as required in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC. (1)The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan, including Policy L-37: Maintain the scale and local serving focus of Palo Alto’s four Neighborhood Centers. Support their continued improvement and vitality; Policy L-40: Revitalize Midtown as an attractive, compact Neighborhood Center with diverse local serving uses, a mix of one- and two- story buildings, adequate parking, and a network of pedestrian oriented streets, ways gatherings places. Encourage retention of Midtown’s grocery stores and encourage a variety of neighborhood shops and services. (2)The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the proposed facade improvements will reflect the existing conditions of the building. Furthermore, the overall appearance of the building will not significantly change as a result of these minor improvements. (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the pedestrian entry door atthe front will allow for access into the new retail space, and the addition of service doors at the rear of the building will allow for delivery of equipment and supplies through the rear of the building. The addition of equipment screening onthe roof will reduce the visual impacts of the equipment to the neighboring residential property. The replacement sign will provide visibility for the business and will be located in the traditional location for signs belonging to other businesses in the area. ; Standards (4) thorough (15) are not applicable to this project. 2685 Middlefleld Road: Holiday Cleaners Page 8 ATTACHMENT B SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2685 Middlefield Road: Holiday Cleaners Address / File No.00-ARB-158 Planning 1. A copy of this approval letter shall be incorporated into the building permit set of plans. Equipment screening shall be installed on the roof to screen mechanical units and related equipment that are used by each tenant of the building, including the new dry cleaning establishment and the existing Victoria Emmon’s Catering business. Plans for the location and construction of the screen shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of any building permits. Mechanical units shall be installed in accordance with the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division on March 8~ 2001 o The existing roof sign (for the former Larry Wells Hair Salon) shall be refaced, rather than replaced, to identify the new dry cleaning establishment (Holiday Cleaners) as per the plans submitted to the Planning Division on March 8, 2001. The sign Shall not be illuminated. o All exposed wiring at the rear of the building shall be removed and relocated in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code and the City of Palo Alto’s Building Division. o The project shall conform to the Fire Department’s Fire Code Plan Review conditions of approval, as per the letter addressed January 16, 2001. Any modification to the project or scope of business shall require additional review by the Fire Department. The project shall meet the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for air quality permits, as per the letter from the District, dated January 2, 2001. Any modification to the project or scope of business will require additional review by the BAAQMD. The project is required to meet all other BAAQMD regulations in addition to the regulations of other regulatory agencies. Any change to the scope of servicesof the business, which differs from the scope of services as outlined in the revised project description submitted on January 10, 2001, shall require Planning Division review and approval. 2685 Middlefleld Road: Holiday Cleaners Page 9 ATTACHMENT C PLAN SET Project Title Address / File No. -ARB- Plan set (for ARB members and project file only) 2685 Middlefield Road: Holiday Cleaners Page 10 Attachment D ..DESCRIFFION.OF-PROPOSED BUSINESS OR FACILITY PROJECT DESCRIPTION ¯ The project.proposed is to located at °2685 Middlefield.Road, Palo Alto, CA. This is a commercialproperty located in the midtown shopping area. Currently there ~ an existing hair salon (Larry Wells Salon)¯ of approximately 3~000 square feet. at this address, : We propose to remove the existing,equipment and fixtures.at the ha~. salon and relocate and upgrade-the existing, utilities and toilet facilities.. We also.propose to subdivide-the space..into two .facilities; space."A" to be.approximately .1,960-square feet and, space ’~B’, to be approximately 985.square feet. - ¯ ¯ - ............ ; On the exterior of the.building we will: For space."B’.wewill: 1).add a-new glass doorat the front, this door will be similar to the existing glass doors on the building,, and 2) add a new 3-’-0"- steel- rear door in the same location.as one of the existing windows. For space :’A’: we.will: 1)enlarge.the existing, 3,’-0’: steel rear-door, to a double door consisting.of two (2) 3’-0~’ steel doors, and.2) replace the existing 15." x 12’ sign with a 24" x 12’ sign. The colors, on the new, sign will be.white, Process Blue and PMS 37.5... (green). On the roof there are existing cooling.units as shown.on the photos. W.e ~ install: 1) one (.1) five foot.cooling tower, 2) two (2) three foot tall evaporative coolers, and 3) two (2) 33-1/2" exhaust fans. The :materials and.construction methods to be used ,Hill, be according, to code and are shown on .the attached drawings.. The existing building. color scheme will be continued and the new rear doors Hill be painted to match.the.existing colors. We then.plan to .install. in space ’.’A" .a Holiday Cleaners of America, a neighborhood, -full service- dry cleaning, and shirt laundry, TheNew Holiday.Cleaners of America,."I’he Environmentally Friendly Responsible Dry Cleaning Store,." compiles with.all state and federal ~regulations. The pollution-free .stores area result of the company:s.proven .systems. and state-of-the-art equipment. The property owner is Kathieen F. I-Ialey of Palo Alto, CA, her phone number is 650-323-6326. The owner of the New Holiday Cleaners of America has owned the "Gate Cleaners" next to this site at ~2675 Middlefield-road for over.three years.¯ When -this-new facility is opened he Hill close the Gate Cleaners and incorporate those customers .into the.new establishment. The Gate ¯ Cleaners is a neighborhood store and the new establishment Hill.also be a neighborhood store. The new store will provide faster and better servicesto their existing customers..The hours of. operation will be the same as at Gate Cleaners, that is 7:00AM to 7:00PM, Monday through ¯. Saturday. There is no general pick and.delivery service. The business’-target customers are those persons.living in the neighborhood who. are looking, for quality servi~s from a business ....that uses an environmentally fi-iendly dry cleaning process~ : Dry Cleaning Process ¯ The ~ustomer brings the clothes into the store, where they are.marked-in and sorted. A load of .clothes is then loaded into the cleaning machine tumbler. The clothes are "washed~’, rinsed and . dried.. All this is accomplished automatically in a closed machine.. The clothes are then ¯removed, pressed and packaged.for the customer. ¯ ...... 2 Attachment E February 15, 2001 Joe Bishop Holiday Cleaners 2701 Monarch Street, Suite 150 Alameda, CA 94501 Department of Planning and Community Environment ¯ Subject:2685 Middlefield Road, 00-ARB-158 Dear Mr. Bishop: Harming Division On Thursday, February 15, 2001, the Architectural Review Board application 00-ARB-158 for the project referenced below was conditionally approved by planning staff pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 16.48.050(h)(1), as follows: PROJECT: Application by K&K Builders and Holiday Cleaners on behalf of Katb.leen E. Haley, Trustee (property owner) and Babaki Korobi (business owner) for minor facade improvements, to include one new pedestrian entry door at the front of the building, two new service entry doors at the rear of the building, rooftop mechanical equipment, and a refaced non-illuminated roof sign. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The approval is based upon the f’mding that the project is consistent with design guidelines adopted by the Architectural Review Board. 2.The approval of this project shall be subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A copy of this approval letter shall be incorporated into the building permit set of plans. 2.Equipment screening shall be installed on the roof to Screen mechanical units and related equipment that are used by each tenant of the building, including the new dry cleaning establishment and the existing Victoria Emmon’s Catering business. Plans for the location and construction of the screen shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of any building permits. Mechanical~units shall be installed in accordance with the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division on January 10, 2001. 3.The existing roof sign (for the former Larry Wells Hair Salon) shall be refaced, rather than replaced, to identify the new dry cleaning establishment (Holiday Cleaners) as per the plans submitted to the Planning Division on November 6, 2000. The sign shall not be illuminated. 4.All exposed wiring at the rear of the building shall be removed and relocated in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code and the City ofPalo Alto’s Building Division. " 250 Hamilton Avenue EO. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 fax The project shall conform to the Fire Department’s Fire Code Plan Review conditions of approval, as per the letter addressed January 16, 2001. Any. modification to the project or scope of business shall require additional review by the Fire Department. The project s .hall meet the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for air quality permits, as per the letter from the District, dated January 2, 2001. Any modification to thd project or scope of business will require additional review by the BAAQMD. The project is required to meet all other BAAQMD regulations in addition to the regulations of other re .g~latory agencies. Any change to the scope of services of the business, which differs from the scope of services as outlined in the revised project description submitted on January 10, 2001, shall require Plauning Division review and approval. Any person aggrieved by the staff architectural review decision on this project may file a request for review of the project by the Board, within four working days of the date of the decision. The Board shall review the design of the project and make a recommendation in the same manner as it reviews other projects under Pal, Alto Municipal Code section 16.48. If no request is filed, Building Penuits may be issued on the fifth working day. Should you have any questions regarding this architectural review decision, please do not hesitate to call the Planning Division at (550) 329-2155. Sincerely, ¯ . Jfihn’Lusardi / ¯~-/ Current Plain’ring Manager " Attachment F johanna santer John Lusardi Current Planning Manager City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 February 20, 2001 Dear Mr. Lusardi; Subject: 2685 Middlefield Road, 00-ARB-158 I am writing to request a review of project 2685 Middlefield Road, 00-ARB-158 by the Board. I am also requesting this. review on behalf of Midtown residents attending a meeting on Saturday, February17, 2001, where presentations were made by Gate cleaners, Holiday cleaners, the Fire Department, City Planning staff, the ¯ Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and local residents. According to city staff approximately 80 people attended the event during which 77 signatures were obtained to request ARB review. They are attached here. Full documentation of the basis for the request for review will be forwarded to the Board prior to the hearing date. Sincerely, Johanna Santer Cc:Palo Alto City Council Midtown Residents Association Palo Alto Weekly Palo Alto Daily News Neighbors in Support of the Review of project 00-ARB-158:2865 Middlefield Road. Printed Name Signature Address EMail 16. Printed Name Signature Address EMail 21. ~~V}o¢~~ Neighbors in Support of the (" Review-o.._ f project 00-ARB-158:2865 Middlefield Road. Printed Name Signature Address EMail 13, 15.I\ Printed Name Signature Address EMail Neighbors in Support of the Review of project 00-ARB’158:2865 Middlefield Road. Printed Name Signature Address EMail Printed Name Signature Address EMail 20. ~ 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Attachment G - City.of PaloAlto Department of Planning and Community Environment December 5, 2000 Planning Division Midtown Steering Committee 824 Moreno Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Midtown Steering Committee: Thank you for your letter regarding the proposed dry cleaning plant on Middlefield Road. I have received both the e-mail copy and the follow-up hard copy. I definitely understand your concerns regarding the proposed use. An application was made On November 6, 2000 for architectural review of exterior fagade modifications at 2685 Middlefield Road - the site of Larry Wells Salon. K & K Construction on behalf of Holiday Cleaners of America made the application. The project description is very general, but basically says that the applicants want to remove the existing equipment and fixtures at the salon and divide the storefront into two spaces, "A" and "B". In site "A", they want to install a f-ull service dry cleaning and shirt laundry facility. They do not say what-they want to do in site "B". They mentioned in a conversation with the Planner that accepted the application that they wanted to put in a cleaning "plant", but did not provide any information in the application itself about that plant. .We will not be able to process this application until the.project description is clear and includes a description of all the activities the applicants are proposing. We will be sending a letter to the applicants early next week letting them know that we do not have enough information to process their application and that they need to give us the additional information before any review can begin or architectural review board meetings can be seheduled.. I do need to let all of you know that the current Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zone does allow a limited amount of dry cleaning plant activity. Section 18.41.030, lists Personal Services a~ a permitted use (18.41.030(h)). The definition of personal services includes laundry and cleaning stations where the cleaning or servicing for the particular station is done on site, utilizing equipment meeting any applicable Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) requirements and provided that the amount of hazardous material stored does not at any time exceed the threshold which would require a permit under Title 17 (Hazardous Materials Storage)of the Municipal Code (section 18.04.030(114). In other words, if the plant only services its own customers and not 250 Hamilton Avenue RO. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 fax Midtown Steering Committee December 5, 2000 Page 2 those of another facility or those that have a contract with another business, and it meets all BA.AQMD and Hazardous Materials requirements, it can locate in a CN zone such as Midtown. I will confer with our City Attorney’s office about this section of the zoning ordinance to make sure that there is no other way to applyit, but it appears that the City has allowed limited dry cleaning plants in CN zones over the years. We have a call into the BAAQMD to fmd out what ki~. ds.of permits they require for such a facility. We visited the BAAQMD website and have obtained some of the forrris BAAQMD requires to be completed. I assume a permit from BAAQMD is required prior tooperating a dry cleaning plant, but we will confirm that next week. We are also consulting with our Hazardous Materials division of the Fire Department to see if they have special requirements or permits for this type of facility. ’ Again, I definitely understand your concerns about this type of facility and will continue to keep you posted about any new information we receive about the proposed use, BAAQMD requirements or Fire Department requirements. We will not process this application until we have full information from the applicant, BAAQMD and ~e Fire - Department. Thank you very much for your letter and please do not hesitate to contact me again about this matter. Sincerely, Lisa Grote Chief Planning Official cc City Council ’ Planning Commission Frank Benest, City Manager Ed Gawf, Director of Planning and Community Environment Steven Turner, Associate Planner Herbert Fischgrund, 750 Torreya Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303 A~achment H LOGAN & POWELL March 8, 200t Honorable Chairperson and Board Members Amhitectural Review Board City of Pale Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Pale -Alto, CA 94301 RE: 2685 Middlefleld Road- 00-ARB.158 Dear. Honorable Chairperson and Commissioners: This office represents Ms. Johanna Santer in her opposition to the Holiday Cleaners to be located= 2685 Middlefield Road (the =Pmje~"), Ms, Santer’s opposition is based on the Project’s incompatibility with the neighborhood and the impacts it will have on the residents and visitors to the neighborhood. Additionally, approval .of the Project as designed is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and duties of the Architectural Review Board (the "E+oard"). The Project as proposed is a dry cleaning plantwhich will use e chemical procedure to clean clothing on slte, This process involves the use of DF-2000, a hydrocarbon solvent, This iS entirely different from the operation at Gate Cleaners currently owned by the applicants. Gate Cleaners is merely.a drop,off location. NO chemicals are used on site, The Project involves facade improvements, a new pedestrian entry door, 2 new service entry doors, rooftop mechanical equipment and a resuffaced non-illuminated sign all necessary for the conversion from a hair salon to a dry cleaning plant, When reviewing a project, the Board has specific standards by which to determine the appropriateness of a project. The standards used include compatibility of design and harmonious transition in scale between the proje~ site, adjacent sites, natural features, land uses, on-site improvements, adjacent, improvements, and any historically significant buildings or features and the amount and arrangement of open space, access, an,~illary functions and oimulation areas. (ARB Board Guidelines). Using these standards, the Project is not compatible with the surrounding area. There are several areas of the Project that are within the Authority of the Board pursuant to the ARE+ Guidelines that warrant denial of the Project:. .................. N0.3~-- mp.3/1B -- ~- IJ~ OFFICE RoERT 3"-LOGRN Honorable Chairperson and Board Members RE: 00-ARB-158 March 8, 2001 Page 2 1. Environmental FaGtor= including but not limited to noise, emission of smoke; fumes, odor=, fire safety, life safety and fire access...ARB Guidelines. Fire Safety "A major hazard associated with the hydrocarbon solvents is their potential flammability." Cleaner T_echnQ!.oaies Substitutes Assessment fo~ Professional Fabricate ~, Environmental Protection Agenw, June 1998. In order to assure that proper ¯ fire suppression measures are taken at the Project due to its use of hydrocarbon solvents, the Fire Department w~ld need to be informed of the types and amounts of hazardous materials at the Project and the manner in which they will be used and stored, The applicants provided a list of chemicals used and quantities but did not describe the storage or disposal of the ~emicals or the manner in which the chemicals will be used at the Project as requested by the Fire Department, DF-2000 poses a significant fire safety issue. "itwas not possible to quantify the risk of fire in this CTSA. However, the risk for fire is an important concern for the HC solvents and would be a greater risk for the HC solvents that for PCE based on their higher flammability rating." The dsk from this chemical is repeatedly outlined in the Material " Safety Data sheet supplied by Exxon, manufacturers of DF.2000, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A’. [’F]his product is combustible .................. combustible liquid, can form combustible mixtures at or above the flashpoint [440 degrees Fahrenheight], Matedal can accumulate statiooharge which can cause an incendiary electrical discharge., ................... empty containers retain product residue [liquid and/or vapor] and can be dangerous. Do not pressurize, cut or expose such containers to heat, flame ,s parks, static eiectri~ity or other sources of ignition; THEY MAY EXPLODE AND CAUSE INJURY OR DEATH, Empty drums should be completely drained, propedy bunged and promptly returned to a drum reconditioned or properly disposed of, ....... This liquid is invisible and gives off invisible vapors. Either the liquid or vapor may settle in low areas or travel some distance along the ground or surface to ignition surfaces where they may ignite or explode, [note: from ignition of cars in back for example]. Such is the likelihood of ignition with this chemical that Exxon emphasizes that extreme care should be taken to "protect stored mateda! from direct sunlight," This chemical is combustible and is then heated in a clothesdryer which is an inherently dangerous thing to do - so much so that these machines have an ’explosion kit’ which pumps out oxygen Honorable Chairperson and Board Members RE: 00-ARB-158 Mamh 8, 2001 Page 3 to redu,~-e the fire dsk. Some agencies believe that a stray cigarette lighter could potentially spark a fire in the machine, Special measures are needed to ensure safety. Despite the dear warnings from the manufacturer of DF-2000, the Fire Department has not requested specific fire suppression measures for the Project. Hazardous Materials The conditions of approval issued for the Project required the Project to comply with the Fire Department’s Fire Code Plan Review conditions of approval, dated Janua~ 16, 200t. As part of its application for the Project, the owners completed a Hazardous Materials Disclosure Checklist. (A copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B’). The Checklist submitted by the owners is incomplete and ~ntains misleading information. Based on the deficiencies .of the Checklist, it. is impossible to determine whether or not the design and transition of the Project are compatible with adjacent sites, land uses and adjacent improvements, Will the chemicals be stored in close proximity to any heat sources on-site or at adjacent sites? Will used materials be stored near heat sources or be disposed of in the same manner as typical waste? Until the details of the storage and disposal of hazardous materials are disclosed, compatibility cannot be determined. " As seen on the checklist, the owners faitedto disclose whether or not the Project will involve the storage/use of hazardous materials. As Gordon Simpkinson requested in an small to Anna Camaraota, dated November 21, 2000, "Applicant shall provide a list of all hazardous materials to be used or stored on site along with a brief description of the manner of use or storage for each," This information was never provided. Therefore, the City isoperating under false and in~mplete information, The Project does Involve the use and storage of hazardous materials. DF 2000 and at least four (4) other chemicals used on-site are classified as hazardous materials under the definition in the Fire Department Hazardous Materials Disclosure Checklist. (See Exhibit B). DF-2000 is also defined as a hazardous product by the manufacturer and federal agencies. In the Matedal Safety Data sheet supplied by Exxon, manufacturers of DF.2000 say"this product is hazardous as defined in 29 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1910.1200. DF-2000 is also listed as an "OSHA hazard" and a "health hazard" by the Environmental Protection Agency. By not disclosing this information, theFire Department was unable to propedy analyze the impacts the Project will have on the surrounding community and was unable .........’ ....- "~0.3@6- --P.5/18-- L~ OFFICE ROB~J~T...... ~M~. 8.~I 1: 85PM Honorable Chairperson and Board Members RE; 00-ARB-158 Mamh 8, 2001 Page 4 to impose necessary conditions relative to the storage and use of those hazardous materials, The applioants also provided false information when they stated that the Project would not generate hazardous materials waste stream to the air, sewer, storm drain or waste facility. Once hazardous materials are used at the Project, they will need to be disposed of in some manner. This manner should be disclosed in Order to determine whether or not it will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding community, Another issue whioh was not addressed, most likely because inadequate and inaccurate information was provided, is the potential impa= the use and disposal of these hazardous materials will have on the Bay Area A~on Organic Garden. The garden is located directly behind the Project. As can be seen on the photograph attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C", water acuumulates near the garden, How wilt that garden be protected from the hazardous materials used and disposed of for the Project? Can the hazardous materials seep into the organio garden? Can the run-off which accumulates near the garden and the Project be contaminated by the hazardous materials stored and used on the site? Wi, the Project produce run-off which can impact the garden? Additional information is essential to determining the impacts from this use and to determining if the Project design is compatible with the neighborhood. 2. Compatibility, visibllily and effect upon view of neighboring properties and uses. ARB Guidelines. View from Neighboring Properties The Project is located in an area adjacent to residential development, Ms, Santer’s property is contiguous to the property on which the Project is located. The view from her home, as well as from some of her neighbor’s homes, will be detrimentally impacted by the Project. The Project calls for the installation of an exhaust pan with a total height of 39 3/4", an evaporating cooler with a total height of 63 1/4", and a cooling tower which a total height of 65 1/4", The cooler tewer will dee approximately 4’ above the roof line of the Project. ~though screening has been required to cover these units, the height and mass of the screening wil! similarly impact the view. This structure will be incompatible with the surrounding retail and residential uses. Adding approximately 4’ to the building will not create a harmonious transition in scale between the Project site and other uses in the Midtown shoppingcenter. This will not enhance the desirability of residence in the Midtown neighborhood. This will not enhance the desirability of living conditions in Midtown. MAR. B. 2001 1: 05PM -N0.306- -P,6/18 LAW OFFICE ROBE]~T J LOGAN Hone.ruble Chairperson and Board Members RE: 00~ARB-158 March 8, 2001Page 5 3. Site development characteristics including but not limited to ...pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle circulation. ARB Guidelines, Parking/Circulation As many of you know, parking and vehicular circulation in Midtown has become a growing concern. The concentration of retail business in Midtown has created considerable circulation problems, Steven Turner admitted in a letter to the Midtown Steering Committee on February 15, 2001, .that the parking lot is "a congested shopping center parking lot." The Project is proposed to be located next to Victoria Emmon’s catering at the back of the Midtown shopping center, As can be seen in the photos attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "D," the current uses in the shopping center utilize the majority of the parking, A large portion of the parking spaces surrounding the Project site are taken by delivery trucks for the catering company. These pl~otographs were taken on Friday, March 2, 2001, at approximately t 1:00 a.mo The parking situation is.even worse on the weekends. Now imagine the impact a larger dry cleaners and the additional retail space proposed for the Project will have on the already limited parking and traffi~ congestion, The construction of an additional pedestrian entrance evidences the intent to increase the clientele of the Project, The increased size of the dry cleaners will draw additional clients to this area and exacerbate an existing parking and circulation problem, The additional retail space will similarly draw additional patrons, require more parking and intensify the traffic problems in the area. Without adequate parking, droulation problems will result in the parking lot as well as on neighboring streets, Some measures must be taken to assure that the parking and traffic problems in Midtown does not deteriorate further, All of those issues are within the jurisdiction of the Board and should be remedied to meet the goals and objectives of this Board. One additional issue relating to the Project is the appropriateness of the use under the current zoning, Pursuant tO Pale Alto Municipal Code section 18.41.030(h), personal services are permitted in the CN Neighborhood Commercial District. Personal service means .,,a use providing services of a personal convenience nature and cleaning, repair or sales incidental thereto, including: (C) self-service laundry and cleaning services; laundry and cleaning pick-up stations where all cleaning or Honorable Chairperson and Board Members RE: 00-ARBd58 Mamh 8, 2001 . Page 6 servicing for the particular station is done elsewhere; and laundry and oleaning stations where the cleaning or servicing for the particular station is done on site, utilizing equipment meeting any applicable Bay Area Air Quality Management Distdct requirements, so long asno cleaning for any other station is done on the same site, provided that the amount of hazardous materials stored does not at anytime exceed the threshold which would require a permit underTitle 17 (Hazardous Mateflals Storage) of this code, Pale Alto Municipal Code se~on 18.41.030(114). The owners public.ally admitted at the public meeting on February i7, 2001, that they would be processing.~lothing from their Saratoga operation. This is a clear violation of the municipal code and eliminates the Project as a permitted use in the CN Neighborhood Commen~ial District. If this use is allowed, the. Project will not promote ordedy and harmonioUS development in the City; it will not enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the City; it will not encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; it will not enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the Immediate site or adjacent areas. See ARB Guidelines. The Project will be in direct violation of the City’s code and your ARB Guidelines. The Project is not compatible with the surrounding area. The cleaning plant will use hazardous materials on site that =an pose a threat to the surrounding residents and users of the Midtown shopping center. The Project will pose an increased fire risk that has not been propedy addressed. The Project is inconsistent with the current zoning of the property. The Project will detrimentally impa~the value of neighboring properties because of the tall equipment installed on the roof of the Project, The Project will increase the i ’already inadequate parking and cimulation in the shopping center by br nging in additional clientele and an additional retail use. For all of these masons, we respectfully request that you deny the application for the Project. Ver~Ltruly yours, Kirsten M. Powell KMP:kl attachments cc: Santer P.8/18 ’PRODUCT NAME: DF.~OOOFLU~D OHEMZOAL ~HEMZCAL FAMZLY; AZ~pha~o HyqroearbO~ PRODUCT DES~RZPT¢ON; O~e~r colorless Z~qu£d. 64742-4B-8 ExxonMobil c~emicai Company P.D, Box 32~2, Houston, TeXaS "" EM~RG~NOY’TEL~PHONE NUMBER8~ (~4 Hours) ....*" " **CHEMTRE~(800~ 4~4-9300 *" **ExxonMob~Z Chem±oa~ company {80D~ 725-201~** NON EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS : (e~m.Spm FOR HEALTH AND 6AFETY ZNFORMAT~ON CALL : (~81) FOR GENERAL PRODU~Y .ZNFORMAT~ON ~ALL = (2B1) 870-6000 SECTION 2 COMPOSIT£ON~FORMAT~ON ON INGREDIENT8 T~s pro~hJOt ~ hazaPdou~ ~s d~lned in 2~ CFR1~t0.1200. OsH~ H~ZARD SECTZON 3 HAZARDS ~D~NTZF~CATZON POTENTZAL H~L~H EFPECTS EYE CONTACT: SKiN CONTACT¢ Low order o~ ~ox~o~ty. " Skin contact m~y ~ggrav~te an exLst~ng dePm~t£t~s o~ndit±on,, ~NHALATION: H~gn v~porlaerosol oonoentr~tt~s (greater than approximately t000 ppm) are ir.~Lt~ting ~o ~he eyes and the respiratory ~Paat~ m~y o~use he~daohes~ nervous system et~ec~s~ £n~udlng ~NGESTZO~: ~nges~on, or v~mt~ng may o~use mi~d ~o severe ~on~nues ~n page 2 DATE PREPARED; JUL 30, 1880 OF-2000 FLUZD progressing ~o SECTION 4 ~ZRET AZD MEABURES EYE ~ONTAGT: 8KZN ~NT~T= ~H ~O~NTv !4~ De~ F. ~flOO: TC~ AE~ OS5 NO~x Typ~a~ AUTOZ~N~T~ON TEMP.= 640 GENERAL ~D Combustible ~qu~d~ o~n ¯ uPned ~o a drum reoond~oner~ ~ prop~,~y d~Eposed ~. FZRE FIGHTING Use w~er spray ~o o0o~ ~r~ exposed sur~e8 and ~o pro~o~ personnel. bG~over. or surf~oe ~o ~gn~on souPoes where they m~ ~gn~e or expZode. cont:.1,nues on page EXHIBIT OATE PREPARED: JUL 30~ 1ee~ MSDS NO.: ~B42583DF-2000 FLUID DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS UNDER FXRE OONDZTZD~S LAND SP(LL product = sub, eat to OERC~ reporting (sos Seot~on 15 REGU~TORY ZNF~TZON) notify th~ Nat/opal Response Center. Recover by pumping (Use ~n expZos~on proo~ or hand pump) or w~th . Consult ~n~xp~P~ on disposal o~ reoov~red~tepi~ a~d ensure WATER SPILL Siim~n=te s=~rce= of ~gn~tlon. W~rn o~oupant= and sh~pplng ~n surrounding d~spersEnts may be used ~n non-oon~ned w~ters. consult a~ export on d~spos~ sT reooveped ma~eP~al and ensure oonform~ty ~LSCTRO5TATZ~ A~CUM~TZON ~RD= Y~s, use p~opeP bo.dkng and/or, grou.d~g procedure. A~ona~ ~n~orma~o~ regard~g sl~e hsnd~ng o~ pPodu~= w~th sta~o Institute (APZ) ~ar API Reoommonded Pr=ot~oe ~OO3, entitled ~Proteotion (American PetroZsum Z~et&tute, 1220 L Street Northwest, W~shingto~= OC 20005)~ or t~e Na~o.a~ Fkre Protoot~on Aseookat~on (NFPA~ ~or NFPA 77 entitled "S~22~ E~ectPk~ty", (National F2re Protection Association= 1Bat~epym~pch P~Pk~ P,O. Box 9101~ Ou~ney~ ~ 02~69-9101). STOOGE TEMPERATURE~ Dog F: ~bient LO~ZNS/UN~ZNG ~EMPE~RE, Dog F= ~b~en~ continues ,on page 4 N0,306~ p,11/18 LAW OFFICE ROBERT J LO~qH ¯ PAGE ; DATE PREPARED : JUL SO ~ 1899 M~DS NO 0 DF-2000 FLUZD ~.0 &TO~ AND’ HANDLZNG: DQ NOT hsn~e ~r 8~Ora ~ an ope~ ~e~ he~ or o~her 8our¢~8 ¯ gnl~lon. Pro~eo~ m~er~ ~rom dxreo~ sunlight, spark (ignition sourer). Us~ proper Dond~ng and/or grounding procedures. DQ NOT presa~r~Zb~ QU~ he~ ~r weld ~on~ners. Smp~y p~du~ Qon~ners m~y ¢on~ln produo~ ros~due. Do NOT Pause e~p~y w~hout ~ommorcl~Z oZe~£no or recondk~on~ng. ~EOT~ON B E~URE ~N~OLSIPERSO~L PROTECTION ~P~URE or ~ PERSQ~ PRDTECTZON Fop open systems where oo~ta~t ~s Z£k~Zy~ wea~ ea~ety gl~sses w~th std~ W~ere ~o~¢en~r~tons ~n ~r ~y ex=eed ~he Ztm~s g~ven ~n ¯ ,d eng~neeP~g~ wor~ pr~o~o~ or o~he~mesfle o~ ~xposure reduo~ ape noC ~dequa~e, N~H/MS~ ~pprov~d ~esptr~ors may be ne=~ss~ry ~o pr~ven~ overexposure by WDR~CE EXPOSURE GUZDELZNES ExxonMo~Z RECOMMENDS THE FOLL~NG OC~PATZO~L ~P~URE LZMZTS: ~00 Ppm ~ot~Z ~ydPoaarb~n b~sed on compos~tk0n. SECTZON 9 P~I~L A~ ~E~Z~L PR~ERTZES I I I DAT~ PREPAR~O: JUL aO~ MSDS NO.; B2842553 .OF-2000 FLUID SECTION 10 STABILITY AND REACTIVITY CONDXTZON,S TO AVOID ZNSTAI~ZL~TY; Not Appl~oa~e HAZARDOUS POlYMERiZATION= w~zno~ CONDITIONS TO AVOID HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION; MATERIALS AND CONDITIONS TO AVOID ZNGOMPATZBILZTYi B~rong ox~dkzLno HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTSI None ~E@T~ON 1~E@OLOGI~AL INFORMATION No 8peo~f~ e~og~al d~ aFo ava£~b~e for ~htS produ~. P~oase refor ~o SECTION 13 DX&POSAL CONSIDERATIONS SECTION 14 TRANSPORT £NFORMATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT): DOT SHIPPING DESGR~PTZON; PETROLEUM DZ~TZLLATE~ N.O,S,, COMBUSTIBLE LIGUZD, ¯ s not regulated by DOT. SECT~OM 16 REGULATORY ZNFORMATZDt~ TSCA: Th~s pPod~=~ ±s Z~sted on the TSCA ZnvontoPy at CASReg~t~y Numbe~ ~742-4~-~ LFI4 OFFICE ROBERT J LOGP~ N0.386 P. l~/IS DF-2000 FLUZD JUL 3o~ 198~ Th:Ls produ=l: :LI o~ass:l,l":Lld ~s in o:~.~ unde’r so=l:lon -~11 of ~he c:%san W~t:er- A~I: (40 OF’~ !10) ~ftd l=h~ 0:11 Pel~ul:~en A~I: elf lo . D~SOllarlZe CER~: ’""" iI, Rmgh~e-Kn~ RopertA~g RequAPemon~s (40 ~FR 370) or~r~m ~re ~et, i’, ¯8E~ON 1~ OT~R ~OR~TZON Oontai~s approx~m~e:Ly ~o ppm liHT as ~n a,~Zkoxld~n~ ~o pro~o~ produ~ ~ZARD ~TZNG SYSTEMS: " Na~on~ F~re P~e2~t~on ~so=~=t&oR (NFP~ 704) NP~, ~ZS NFPA 704 H~LTH 1 1 R~CTZVZ~0 o _-~ = == = - = . - _-= _"_ = == _- _- = , _- = Oon~inue~ ~:p p~ge 7 EXHIBIT PAGE OF PAG~ : ’ 7 DATE PREPARE~ I JUL DF-;~O00 FLU;ED M~D~ NO. :..’ ’ , REVZ~ZON 6UMMARY~ ’ February 25t 1~9 ~h~ MSD8 has ~ perused R~FER~NCE NUMB~R~""’ ~UP-F-R~EDE:~ Z~$UE DATE: HDHA-C-252~~Feb~u~P~ 25w aceuP~te ~n~ PeiL~b~e ~s o~ ~e da~e oomptl~. However~ ~o represe~on~ 11ab~Zlty ?or ~ny lo~s oP dsm~ge ~h~t ~ay o~¢.P ~Pom ~he use of¯ ~oPm~o~ noP do we offeP warranty ~g~n~ I, EXHIBIT ~ .. PAGE ~ OF ~- i EXXON CHEMICAL 1’40.3136 "-P, 15/18" Sales Speciflca~n Rev, 4,’3/99 Drycleaning Fluid 2000 DF-2OOOtm Fluid v’euat AM-S 14O31 BTO.AL - 018 ca~r, (say~l~ Sales S~lr~atie~ ’ Pass 0.02 ntax 0.7~0 - 0,77E EXHIBIT_ "r,~ e,= PAGE ~ OF ~"".._~ EXHIBIT PAGE _.,J__-OF Attachment I BAY AP.EA AIR O~ALITY MANAGEMENT DISTKICT ALAMEDA COUI(TVRobe~a Cooper Man/King Shells Young New Holiday Cleaners of Palo Alto 2685 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA January 2, 2001 Plant #TO BE DETERMINED .Appfication #TO BE DETERMINED Site Address: Same as Abow~, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Mark DeSaulnter ¯ M~k Ree~ Gayle Ugkema WIN COUNIY Harold C. Brown, Jr. NAPA COUNTYBrad Wagenknecht ,. Amos Bn~vn Michael Yski " SAI, ITA G~,,A~A ~lcrY Dear We have completed o~ evaluation of your letter reqt~esting a certificate of exemption for the ¯ following equipment .for New Holiday Cleaners located at 2685 Middlefield Road in Palo ¯Alto.~CA: ..... _ .. , .... S-I Superstar Firbimafic Hydropro $5; $5 pound Petroleum dosed loop machine We have determin..ed..t~..at. th!s So ~urce is exempt fmm .perm~ i ~tfing l~.r the foll0win~ ’ 2~1~120 Exemption Dry’ CleamingEquipmeut: Any dry cleaner Which uses less than 700 .gallons ,of- petroleum solvents or any other non-halogenated solvent -in any single year is exempt .from the requirements of Sections 2-1-301 and 302, provided that the equipment .is not subject .to any of the requirements of Section 2= 1 ;316 through 318. ".Equipment that. uses perehl0rocthylene or .any other .halogenated solvent. is not exempt ........................... Your equipment is. n0t.subject to, Section. 316, and 318 because the solvent does. not. contain... (Vk:s-Chaiq~mon) .DoBG~Ju~ Mgler t:~ns Mossar ...... William Tim Smilh Pamela TodiaR -,. applicable .amounts of-Toxic Air.Contaminants.or Hazardous ,Substances.. Section 317- per~aius to Cases of Public Nui~ce; th~efore,.if y0u~ s~ure~ create ~ public-nuisance~ a lbs~ of permit exemption i~ po~. ~le..Note ~t .th© .tennl ."u~es.’, gen .e.rally means gross..us~g, e.while -"emission~" means net usage.in District Regulations, This exemption appliess01ely to. permits. .Th~ equipment must be. operated in. Compliance ¯ with any appliud~le Distri~ regulations (e.g. your equipment is likely to be-in compliance.with Regulation 8, Rule 17, Petroleum Dry Cleaning Operations) and with other regulatory agency requirements. Note that this exemption is not permanent. Any change in your operation or in District regulations may require you to obtain permits in the future. Ellen Garvey EXECUTIVE OFFICER/AIR POLLUTIONCONTROL OFRCER Please retain this letter as a record of your exempt status.’ If you have any questions, please call, Scott Lutz, Supervising Air Quality Engineer at (415) 749-4676. Very truly yours, SBL: Co: Joseph T. Bishop Ellen Oarvey Air Pollution Control Officer Permit Service~,-~ivision 939 ELLIS STREET ¯ SAN FI~.AN(’Ix(’(~ CAt trORNIA 94109 ¯ 415.771.6000 ¯ n’n’n’.bat~qmd.gor BI/31/2BBI 10:2B BAY AP, EA 494~ Attachment J AIR O.~.A L[TY MANAGEM£NT DISTRICT Julia MillerDo~ Moe~ar W’dllam Carroll Tim Smith P~rn~l~ TodI~R Eflen Ganmy February 2, 2000 Donald P.hode~, Director . ~m’ldlag mad Safety ~lente.es/Cede Enforcement City of San Ramon 2222 (:amino Ramon ~ San Ramon, CA 94S83-13S0 Dear Mr. ghodes; I am writing to respond to your inquiry concerning a la, oposed aew petroleum dry cleaning’ machine (teplar.ement of existing Perohloroethylene maohine) at Vonnie’s Cleaners, 2217 J San Raroon Valley Blvd. and the dry cleaning solvent Exxon DF2000. Exxon D.IP2000 is a highly refilled petroleum distillate tlmt is considered to be of very low toxletty, The District typically exempts petroleum dry olesoing machines from permit requirements! Replatiba 2, Rule 1, Section 120 Exemption Dry Clennlag Equipment: Any dry ©lopper which uses less than 700 gallons o.f petroleum solveots or a~y other non-halogenat~ solvent in any single year is exempt from the ceqttirementi of Seotions 2-1-301 and 302, provided that the equipment is not subject to soy of the requirements of Section 2-1-316 through 318o Equipment that uses perchloroethylene or any other halogenated solvent is not exempt. Petroleum dry cleane~ are not subject to Section’316 & 318 becattae the solvent does not contain applicable mounts of Toxic Air Contaminants 0 Hazardous Substartces~ Section 317 pertains to eases of Public ]quisance; however, tiffs is very tmlikelyfor this source. New petroteum dry cleaning machines are typically closed-loop units with vaouU~ or ~©rt- gas protective systems (to prevent ombustible mixtu .~a. ). These machines are O~idm~d state-of-the-art and have been aceepted by a number of fire departments in the Bay Area; they easily omply with the District’s Petroleum Dry Cleaning .regulation (Reg. 8, Rule 17). These machines typically emit small amounts (about 50 gallons ’per year) of the DF2000 petroleum soIvent to the air. The use of Exxon DF2000 and timlla~ materMb is encouraged by the Dish-let as an alternative to Perchloroethylene (identified as a Toxic Air Contaminant by the California Air Resources ]Board and a IL~zardous Air ]PollataJ~t by U.S.EPA). Percldoroethylene is an smima! carcinogen and is considered to be a probable hunmn car~|nogen.-The Distrlet reeomm©uda tlmtyour department approve the new D~0O0 macShte to reduce toxic expmure to PeoPle of your fine elty. We also recommend a secondary.spill containment pan to prevent potenffid sell and vmter eontamlnafioa. Please call me (415/749-4676), if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Supervising Air Quality Engineer Toxic EvaluatioR S¢otion Mr. John Jee~ Vo.nnie’s Cleaacn Dan CuLverwelJ, ET[ Attachment K January 16, 2001 Holiday Cleaners Attn: Joseph Bishop 1191 Buckingham Dr., Suite 408 Los Altos, CA 94024 Fire Department Office Use Only FDID# 002321 FP ProjYHlVI~ Bldg. Permit # 00~03424 Plans: Revl Dat~: Spe~: Rev.Date: Submittals ’ Da~a Entry: Date: ~ Dur.~. Fire Code Plan Cheek for - Building Permit # 00-03424 Project Title: Holiday Cleaners, Tenant Improvements Project Location: 2685 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA A Fire Code Plan review has been done for the project and facility listed above. Comments are cited from the 1998 California Building Code (98CBC), 1998 California Fire Code (98CFC) and Title 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Muni. Code (PAMC i 5, PAMC 17). Palo Alto Fire Department - Fire Prevention Plan Check: 1"7"]. The plans are approved. The plans are approved with the following conditions. The plans have not been approved. The items listed below indicated with "X" are required to be addressed prior to fire department approval. Please Note: Plans cannot be routed to the building department until fire department approval (i.e., items with "X" have been addressed). 1"-1 A new set of plans addressing the ~tems listed below is required. All items listed below shall be addressed prior to final inspection. A. Fire Prevention: Hold Item Bldg/Room u_~ issue Comment Extinguishers 2.Door Hardware Provide not less than one 2A: 10B:C rated extinguisher within 75 feet of gavel distance of any point in the occupancy. Fire extinguisher placement shall be verified by a Fire Inspector. (98CFC1002) Exit door latches shall be lever type. The unlatching of any leaf shall not require more than one operation. (98CBC1003.3)Exception: key-locking hardware may be used on the main exit if there is a readily visible durable sign On or adjacent to the ’ door stating "THIS DOOR MUST REMAIN UNLOCKED DURING BUSINESS HOURS." Note: Thumb-latch type deadbolts are not allowed unless released by the door lever. P.O.Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2184 650.327.6951 Building Permit 00-03424 - Page 2 B. Hazardous Materials: Hold Item Bldg/Room ~ Comment 1.Dry Clean Unit A manual shutoff switch shall be provided on or near the unit. (98CFC3603.9.1) The Dry Clean Unit shall be anchored securely. (98CFC3603.9.1) Warning signs prohibiting change of solvent and opening doors until rotating cylinder has stopped shall be provided near the unit. (98CFC3603.9.4) 2.HMBP The Hazardous Materials Business Plan shall be submitted/updated and approved prior to final inspection.. (PAMC 17.16.010) Contact the Hazardous Materials Bureau at 329-2184 for details. C. Required inspections (appointment required): 1.Site verification/testing of installation of dry cl~aning unit, shutoff switch and warning signs per design.- Haz Mat Bureau (98CFC 103.1. I) 2.Final site inspection - Haz Mat Bureau (98CFC105.4). If you have any questions please contact me at (650) 329-2135. The Palo Alto Fire Prevention Bureau fax number is (650)327-6951. To schedule inspection appointments, please contact the Hazardous Materials Bureau at (650)329-2184. Thank_You~ .- Gordoff Simpkinson Fire Protection Plan Checker cc Dan Heiser - Fire Marshal 00-03424.doc ATTACHMENT D ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MARCH 15, 2001 VERBATIM MINUTES DRAFT EXCERPT Item No: 2:2685 MIDDLEFIELD] Joe Bellomo: Motion passes 4, 0 thank you very much. We’ll now move to new business. To item 2. 2685 Middlefield Road, 00-ARB-158, application by K&K builders and Holiday Cleaners on b.ehalf of Kathleen E. Haley, Trustee (property owner) and Babaki Korobi (business owner).for minor facade improvements to include one new pedestrian entry door at the front of the building, two new service entry doors at the rear of the building, rooftop mechanical equipment and a refaced non-illuminated roof sign. ¯ This application was reviewed by staff as allowed by the Pato Alto Municipal code section 16.48.00(h). The application was approved by staff on behalf of Director of Plarming and Community Environment on February 15, 2001. Pursuant to.PAMC 16.48.00(h)2, this item has been requested to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. Steven Turner: Staff. Excuse me. Staff’s recommendations. Steven Turner: Good morning. Staffreeommends that he board recommend approval of the minor fagade modifications based upon the findings in attachment A and subject to the suggested conditions of approval set forth in attachment B. Good morning. I wanted to start off first by introducing a few people whose faces may not be familiar with.you. The gentleman in the blue sweater is Gordon [Simpkinson], he’s a hazardous materials specialist with the Palo Alto Fire Department, who is responsible for reviewing this application through the Fire Department process. And the gentleman to his left is Scott [Lutz] Air Quality Engineer at the Bay Area Air Quality and Management District. Scott gets the gold star this morning for coming all the way from Concord, a little over a two hour drive, I’m sure to get to this meeting. So we really appreciate his presence here. I’ll just direct your attention up to the PowerPoint presentation. First of all we wanted to answer the question about why the board is hearing this item. And it’s a question I’ve been asking myself a lot over this past week, but there’s an easy answer and it’s a good answer. This project was reviewed at a staff level and according to the Palo Alto Municipal Code that deals with architectural review, any person who is aggrieved by the director’s decision which in this case was made by staff, under the director’s 1 authority, to ask to have the item heard in front of the architectural review board. You’d have to ..make that request no later than four working days after the date of the director’s decision~md that took place approximately two days after and so that’s why you’re seeing this project this morning. In terms of why this project was reviewed at staff, the same Municipal Code section talks about projects, minor projects that the director has the authority to review without taking it directly to the board. Examples of the types of projects which can be reviewed at a staff level as it’s commonly called, are equipment, the addition of equipment, fences or walls, changes to doors, and windows, skylights, landscaping upgrades, those are typically minor projects that can be reviewed at a staff level. When this project was, came in for the first time, staff went to that code, determined that this project would meet the requirements of a minor project that did not have to go directly to the board, and we processed it as a staff-level review. A staff-level review does not mean that it’s a rubber-stamp approval, we have to use the same tools that you are able to use when you’re viewing projects. And that’s an important point to consider. Just want to go over a little bit of the history of this application and a bit of the process. It’s kind of broken down into three different sections. Planning first received this application on November 6th of 2000, we deemed it a minor project under the code section that I just talked about. After 30 days we found the application to be incomplete, the reason for the incompleteness is indicated in the staff report. Amongst other things we were looking for a more complete project description from the applicant to better describe not only the changes that are proposed to the building, but also the proposed use in the site~ We also needed to see some changes on the plans and some review from the Bay Area Air Quality Management district, but that letter was sent out on December 6th. The applicant provided the information that was requested, and the application was deemed complete on January 12th. On January 15th, the staff-level review was completed and the project was approved with conditions, and pursuant to that same Municipal Code section, we received the request from the public to have this item heard at the Architecture Review. Board on February 20th. In terms of the Fire Department, their initial review actually began much earlier than the time that we received the application in the planning division. They had an initial inspection with the applicant on August 9th of 2000 and plans were routed to the Fire Department when planning division received this application in our offices. We received comments back from the fire department on the 21 st of November and based upon the review that the fire department did, when they received the building permit application, they approved the project on January 16th. As you probably know, there is a way for an applicant to submit a planning division application and also submit concurrently for building permits, and that’s what they were able to do. They have not been approved for a building permit, but fire department did complete their review. As well, Bay Area Air Quality Management District reviewed the application and we received a letter on January 10th, indicating their review and their feelings on the 2 application, the requirements that would be subject, that the applicant would be subject tO. In terms of communication with the public, we received two letters from the Mid- ’ Town Residents Association, one was on November 29th. That was specifically to address the use issues and whether or not this use will be a permitted use. Lisa [Gret] the chief planning official responded on Decembe~ 5th. After that date, as planning division staff wanted to get a better idea from the community about the specific concerns to this project, they submitted a letter outlining those concerns On January 12th, and we responded to them on the 15th. Staff also attended a community meeting on February 17th, the Saturday after the project was approved. Planning division and myself attended, Gordon was there, Scott Lutz from the Air Quality District was there with the applicant and the property owner. And it was a very informational meeting. There are two issues to this project that have been challenged by the applicant. Those two issues are number one, site and design issues, and number two, use issues. We’re going to look at site and design first. With regards to this application, there are just three elements to the application that we reviewed the design of. It’s the service and pedestrian entry doors, there are two service doors at the rear of the building and one new door that is proposed at the front of the building. There is a new sign advertising the Holiday Cleaners business and there is the roof top screening. The rooftop screening is a standard mitigation measure on all projects that have rooftop equipment. It’s a standard condition of approval and in your plan sets, the applicant has responded with a proposed rooftop screen. And the board has the ability to review that and recommend any changes or modifications to that screening in this meeting. As far as site issues, staff looked at parking and circulation and found there not to be an impact with the addition ofthis use. The existing conditions on this site are that the family that’s proposing Holiday Cleaners currently owns Gate Cleaners, which is right across the way from the proposed site. What they are looking to do is move their operation from Gate Cleaners to the new Holiday Cleaners. This is the site that was o~cupied by the formerLarry Wells hair salon. They wanted to add more services for their customers, and have proposed to add .the dry cleaning plans. To do that, they would occupy the former hair salon, subdivide the space to create one space which is space A for the dry cleaning and space B would be sub-leased by the " Holiday Cleaner folks to another permitted use in the area. That newly divided space ¯ does require that pedestrian entry door and that’s part of this application. Because of the nature of the business, staff believes that parking and circulation could improve in the area. In terms of a hair salon, the types of customers there are there tend to go on site, they park in the parking lot for a length of time and then leave. For a drop-off dry cleaners, you have people that are coming to the site, dropping off clothes and leaving and spending actually a lot less time, we feel, in the parking lot area. The second issue is that currently Gate Cleaners operates as a dry-cleaning agency which means that they accept clothes and other articles from people, from their customers then at various times during the day, there is a delivery or a pickup truck that comes and picks up clothes and drops off clean clothes that were cleaned in another city. And that happens throughout the day. That would effectively go away with the addition of Holiday Cleaning. Sothe potential for improved parking, improved circulation is a possibility with this project. The second challenge is in terms of the use. And in order to determine whether or not this use is appropriate, we go to a number.of different resources. The first resource that we go to is the zoning ordinance, and the zoning ordinance as fully described in the staff report, shows that this is a permitted use under the personal service category. That personal service category is a permitted use within this zone district. However, just calling it a permitted use does not stop the architecture review board or from staff reviewing this project for its design issues that directly relate to the use. And the board and staff have three tools that we use in order to review projects. One of those rules is the standards for review. Those are the 15 standards that all projects are required to meet the applicable standards, and not every, project, not every standard is applicable to every project, bm staff and the board have. to find that each project meets the standards. The standards are similar to findings that you might find in a variance or a use permit or public benefit findings. These are things that we have to know. The second tool is guidelines for review, and the guidelines are used, there’s about 22 of them and they’re used when applying the standards and the board may use them to relate to directly to the standards of review. They’re used to kind of judge and evaluate the projects. Let’s first look at the standards of review. The one that is challenged the most is number 2, which is whether or not the design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. And the staffhas found that it does. Number 1, that the proposed improvements really reflect the existing style of the building. And number 2, that the addition of a door, pedestrian entry door at the froM, the service doors at the rear, and the sign, they’re really modifying existing conditions. And number 3, staff and the board is required to address the site and design features and we feel that we have done that. And those have been addressed in the staff and early on in this presemation. The guidelines for review talk about things like scale, character, open space, visibility and they’re used to judge whether or not this project has met the standards. And for this particular project, there are about four or five guidelines that are held in contention. One is noise, the second is smoke, fumes and odors, third fire safety, life safety, fire access and then hazardous chemicals. Well staff is not particularly, well at least planning-division staff, maybe I should just say me, are not particularly experienced in addressing all of these issues. So we have to go to sources to determine if these guidelines are going to be met. So for the noise issue, we go to the city’s noise ordinance, and we get direction from that documentation. For smoke, fumes and odors and other air-borne risks, we look to the Air Quality Management District and their requiremems. For firesafety, life safety, fire access and hazardous chemicals we look directly to the fire departmem and their experience in revieWing these projects. And after consulting 4 with all of these, including the zoning ordinance, we’re concluding that this project has met the standards for reviewing. I mentioned that there’s three tools that can be used. The third tool, are recommendations for additional requirements that can be placed on the project. And I’m just going to read through this because this is pretty important, actually. Subsection C says, "The architectural review board may recommend requirements which are more restrictive than the maximum regulation set forth in title 16,".which is the building code, "’and/or title 18," which is the zoning code, "when it concludes that such requirements are necessary to number 1, promote the internal integrity of the design of the project, number 2, to ensure compatibility of the proposed projects designed with it’s site and surroundings, and then number 3, in order to minimize the environmental effects of the proposed project, provided however, that the ARB sole responsibility with respect to the storage of hazardous materials shall be required in compliance with title 17 of this code." And number 3 is a pretty important one because it relates to a lot of the challenges and a lot of the questions thathave been raised regarding as to materials on this site. To that end, we’re happy to have Gordon [Simpkinson] to answer your questions regarding hazardous materials for this project. And just to wrap up, one of the board members asked for a map or a listing of existing perk sites in Palo Alto. And, here we go. A-little bit hard to see on here, but. currently there are seven dry cleaning plants in Palo Alto. They’re located in various neighborhoods throughout the city and this map just indicates where those existing plants are. Thank you very much. Joe Bellomo: You can use this [inaudible] these are similar types of cleaning facilities? When you say perks, they’re using this process? Gordon Simpkinson Well they are dry-cleaning plants, however they do use the per- chlorol-ethylene process and I think Scott and Gordon can speak a.little bit more to this, however it’s the existing process that has been around for many years. The proposed Holiday Cleaners, as you read in your staff report, is proposing to use a hydrocarbon solvent called DF2000 tha(has been found by many sources to be a safe alternative to the perk cleaning process. Gordon: Maybe we can proceed with staff members (inaudible) John Lusardi: ’ Mr. Chair they are here to answer questions if the board has specific questions relative to the use. At this time, Mr. Chair, members of the board, please allow me a couple of minutes to help frame the issues that are before you today and make a recommendation to the board to consider during your review of this item. First let me express on behalf of the city staff, our appreciation of the apparent complexity of the issues that the architectural review board is being asked to address to judicate today. You are in essence being presented with a public hearing consisting of [bifurcated] issues that Steven presented to you. First the staff is directing your review to the site and design alterations in the existing commercial building, something not .5 extraordinary that this board has provided recommendation on numerous projects in the past. Doorway signs, rooftop equipment, etc. This is your specific charge as the city’s architecture review board. Secondly, through the ARB guidelines, the board may consider such matters as noise, order and fire hazards that this site and design review has now created the burden to determine whether a permitted use through the zoning ordinance is appropriate, given its specific location. Staff strongly feels that these guidelines shall be considered in the context of complying with adopted regulations and professional technical review, which is the standard that the Planning Department used when it approved this minor ARB application. From my perspective it was rather revealing when staffpointed out that the use proposed here is the same use as one that is located less than 500 feet from this chamber and directly across the street from the development center. If the board is struggling with the issues presented to this hearing, then staff would like to make the following recommendations to guide your review. First, regarding, the site, the specific context of this ARB permit, exterior changes in rooftop equipment, [that/let?] the board address this as all other board review of similar project proposals, and recommend approval of these site and design changes to this project. Secondly, regarding the appropriate nature of the [use], a dry-cleaning plant in this type of neighborhood location, let the board direct staffto take overall, this overall issue of this permitted land use, not this project, to the City Council for review and direction. Thank you. Joe Bellomo: Thank you, John. I’ll speak just briefly regarding this board process. We. will hear a 10-minute presentation from the applicant. We will then go to questions from the board to the applicant, developer for this process. We will then go to public testimony which will be limited to three minutes per speaker and for the interest of time, we hope that if there is a repetitive suggestions and testimony, .that you simply state that you are in support of the last speaker’s comments. We will then return to the board for discussion. So at this time we’d like to hear from the applicant. John Lusardi: Mr. Chair, just a clarification. For the item that is here today, the applicant is the person that has requested this hearing. And that the applicant will then have 10 minutes to make a presentation. After that,.the developer who is opposing this changing, will have 10 minutes to make a presentation and then questions of the board and public testimony. Kenneth Kornberg: We have questions of staff. Do you want us to ask them now or wait until the presentations [inaudible]. ¯[inaudible] 6 Kenneth K0mberg : I have a couple questions for you or Gordon. I don’t know if you can hear me? Thank you. Steve thank you for the presentation. I had several questions that were in,-that came to mind in the [appeal] that was sent to us. One of them was that there was contention that the cleaners were going to handle off-site laundry brought to the site and that I thought would constitute increased traffic and also a violation of the ordinance as I read it. And you indicated to me that there was a letter produced by the applicant indicating that that would not be the case. Is that correct? Steven Turner: What happened was the applicant at the committee meeting on February 17th, indicated that there might be a temporary use of the facility to clean and process articles from other sites at the proposed Palo Alto facility. In response, the city drafted a letter and sent it off to the proposed property owner indicating that that type of operation would be in violation of the Municipal Code and could resort in code enforcement action. And that letter is in the file. Kenneth Kornberg : In regards to the first speaker today, who was a resident o,fthe town, concerned that violations have occurred, or corrections in previously approved applications, how is something like this policed or enforced? Steven Turner : In terms of the use, how is an appropriate use enforced on the site? Kenneth Komberg : How do you monitor that the laundry, in this case, did not start accepting laundry of their [station brought to this]? Steven Turner : Well I could camp out in front of the store and determine that, but that’s unfortunately not a resource that we can, that we have in front of us. A lot of times we rely on the neighborhood to inform us about any code violations or any activity that is taking place that does not comply with the Palo Alto Municipal Code. That happens all throughout Palo Alto and our code enforcement team is quite busy in following up on those. That would be a similar process for this site. Kenneth Kornberg : What I was wondering is, is there precedent when there’s a concern like this that the applicant provide a conditions of approval? Some wouldn’t be a bond, but some sort of guarantee that they wouldn’t embark in this direction? Steven Turner : Oh, John might have an answer for that. John Lusardi : Actually what it would be is he would be in violation of his permit and if he was in violation of his permit, and continued to be in violation of the permit, code enforcement and the city would take action on that. And we would have the ability to close his business and that would be [and most of you are out standing the case]. 7 Kenneth Komberg: Thank you. Gordon I had a question about the DF2000 which is being proposed. Is that used anywhere else in Palo.Alto or in any other dry-cleaning establishments that you’re familiar with? Gordon Simpkinson: This would be the first installation in Palo Alto. I’m familiar with another location in Los Altos where they, I believe about two years ago installed this equipment. And then several installations in southern California that I’m also familiar with through contact with other fire departments and other hazardous materials regulators. Kenneth Komberg : Has there been any complaints about the use of that material with these other that you’re aware of?. Gordon Simpkinson: The only problems that I’m aware of that have ever occurred with DF2000, and I’m not even sure if it was DF2000 was when this type of solvent was first introduced, there were some dry cleaners that tried to convert existing perchlorethylene machines to use a combustible solvent and the incompatible equipment with the solvent created some fire problems. In this case the machine is specifically designed for use with DF2000. It’s a listed product, in other words it’s gone through a 3rd-party safety evaluation and contains all the interlocks and safety features that are necessary to [mitigate the hazard] of the combustability. Kenneth Komberg : Do you have any personal concerns about DF2000 in this site? Gordon Simpkinson : No, we’ve done a thorough review of the safety, from a hazardous materials and a fire-safety standpoint. Both we found that it meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the fire code and the hazardous materials storage ordinence. Kenneth Komberg : Compared to the storage of gasoline and the vehicles surrounding the project, do you think it constitutes a hazard that’s more or less than that material? Gordon Simpkinson : It constitutes a far lesser degree of hazard for a few reasons. Number one, the material itself has a much higher flash point. It would have to be heated significantly in order for it to be able to be ignited, whereas fuel in an automobile gas tank is already at a temperature at which it can burn. The second reason is that the equipment [as we said] is a stationary installation that is separated from the sources of ignition is designed to mitigate the combustibility to a much greater extent than an automobile’s gas tank is. Kenneth Komberg : Mr. Lutz, do you have any installations that you’re familiar with in the Bay Area that are under your jurisdiction that utilize the DF2000? 8 Scott: Yes. We have permitted over the last say five years or so, approximately 80 of them. Actually we don’t require permits, we just register that so we could collect the information. We have received reports from the users that they’re very satisfied [with machines, have not received any reports of problems. Very comfortable thatit’s a, actually we encourage the use of this as a preferred alternative to the more caustic, . perchlorethylene. Perehlorethylene is a suspected human carcinogen. It’s a known animal carcinogen and this material is relatively very low toxicity in comparison. So we feel that the use of this will mitigate the use of [per ethylene] and offset the use in some. of the other neighboring facilities. So again we would encourage the board to accept our assessment of the environmental impact as being negligible. Judith Wasserman: I have a question for Gordon. You seem to be familiar with the equipment that’s used here. Is that correct? Gordon Simpkinson : Yes, ma’am. The applicant or the Holiday Cleaners provided us with all of the documentation of the design and.safeguards of the machine as part of the building permit application process, which we reviewed in parallel with the architectural review [inaudible]. Judith Wasserman: I see. Is there at any point in the use of this equipment, is there DF2000 exposed? I mean is this all a self-contained unit so that what, it’s not clear to me how this works. If it’s, the material gets used up eventually so it needs to be delivered? It’d be delivered, how is it delivered? How is this transferred into the equipment and then what happens after this? Gordon Simpkinson : The material is delivered in small containers, approximately 20 to 30 gallons, I don’t have the specific size. The material is transferred through a closed pumping process into the equipment when replenishment is necessary. The equipment itself is fairly self-contained. In other words, the clothes go in dry and they come out dry. Alter the clothes are in the equipment and the doors are closed, then the machine operates in similar fashion to a combination washer/dryer machine set. The clothes are tumbled and the solvent is applied to the clothes to dissolve any stains. And then at the completion of that cleaning cycle, it goes through a pump down cycle where the solvent is removed under vacuum. And by the time that the door is opened alter the tumbler has stopped and the clothes are clean, at that point there’s no further action requiredto remove the solvent. The solvent has been reclaimed back to the machine and only a small amount of solvent during that process actually leaves, and that’s what results in over time, the need for replenishment. Judith Wasserman ¯ And it leaves as a gas or a liquid? Gordon Simpkinson ¯ It would leave as a vapor. 9 Judith Wasserman : There was a letter in our packet, with respect to a similar plant in San Ramon in which a secondary containment pen was recommended. Did you recommend it for similar equipment? Gordon Simpkinson : I’m not familiar with the San Ramon installation. The requirement that we have is that secondary containment be provided and in this case, it’s integral to the machine. Judith Wasserman : Okay, thank you very much. Lee Lippert:,. A couple of questions. With regards to the perk vs. the patrolium based solvent, in th presentation Steve said that it was safer,- In what ways is the patrolium based solvent safer? Gordon Simpkinson : Well the dry cleaning industry has a couple of concerns that they have to balance. They have to balance the flammability or combustability of the solvent they used vs. the health and environmental hazards. The combustible solvents tend to be much safer in terms of environmental hazard, they’re readily broken down if they are released into the environment. Bacteria will shortly digest the material and render it to the point where it’s no longer a concern. Perchlorethylene on the other hand is a chlorinated solvent, it does not break down readily. It tends to travel rapidly to ground water and cause ground,water contamination if it’s released into the environment. It tends to volatilize to a much greater degree and causes concems with ozone depletion and other atmospheric effects. So the term safer when applied to DF2000 indicates that from a health standpoint, as Scott mentioned, it’s a suspected human carcinogen and from an environmental aspect, the DF2000 is considered to be safer. From a fire standpoint, the material is combustible, it does represent an increase fire risk, however the measures that are mitigated create roughly an equivalence in terms of the hazard, the safety hazard of the machine from a physical hazard standpoint. Lee Lippert: The handling of toxic and hazardous materials, there’s some [signage to be taken here ... inaudible] has this material. And you see it around town on [prock stules], you see it on [inaudible] businesses use multi-colored, primary-colored flags and numbers on them. In this case the sign it wouldn’t have to be applied to the building. What would meet the designation that it would have to appear on the outside of the . building7 Gordon Simpkinson : Typically with this type of installation, you would have the requirement for an NF-, what’s called an [NFDA] placard. It’s the diamond that has four colors in it. The red indicates fire hazard, in this case I believe that would be a 2, which indicates ’a moderate fire hazard from the material that’s within the building. The health in blue, that would be most likely a 1. I would have to verify that. And the reactivity -which is yellow, would be a 0. And no additional special hazards which are indicated in the white portion of it. 10 Lee Lippert: And if perk was used on a facility like this, what would the designation have to be? it Gordon Simpkinson : The designation for perk is 0 for flammability, since it’s not a fire risk, it would be a 2 rather than a 1 for the health risk and it would be a 0 for the reactivity. So that, it essentially reflects what I stated earlier which is a slight increase in health risk, with the perchlorethylene and there’s an increase in fire risk with the DF2000. Lee Lippert: In terms of, say that the material did catch on fire, what sort of precautions would the fire fighters have to take in terms of fighting this minor outbreak? Gordon Simpkinson : The material if it’s inside of a structure requirements that we have for any structure fire would apply which is wear special fire-fighting equipment with a self-contained breathing apparatus. Just as. a note, we would actually have a much greater concern for the health risk that fire fighters in the event of a fire involving a perchlorethylene dry cleaner vs. a DF2000. The reason for that is that the byproducts of perchlorethylene exposed to a fire are much, much greater by several orders of magnitude than those of DF2000 or any other hydrocarbon.product that’s involved in a fire. So we would actually have a much more involved emergency response to a dry cleaner involved in a fire that uses the perchlorethylene solvent than we would for the DF2000. Lee Lippert: And in terms of, there was battle with fire with water, because of any, the runoff from this, from the fire. Would there be any danger or hazard of ground-water contamination or anything like that? Gordon Simpkinson : With hydrocarbon products they tend to float on water, so what we would most likely do would be to float [looms] on any of the runoff streams to capture the hydrocarbon product before it entered the storm drain system, for example. It’s relatively easy to accomplish, hence, as I said, the earlier, the DF2000 machine is actually designed to prevent it from being involved in a fire. It would actually take a Very deliberate act or an incredibly complex series Of coincidences to result in the material as stored at this facility, be involved in a fire. Lee Lippert : One last question for you. California State Law also requires that a sign be posted with regards to chemicals that are hazardous to pregnant women. Gordon Simpkinson: That requirement is under proposition 65 which was passed several years ago. The fire department is not actively involved in the enforcement of that state law. I’m not sure, maybe Scott could speak to the, specific jurisdiction there. Scott: Generally that enforcement is in the Attorney General’s office, i believe that this chemical would not be considered, would not be on the prop 65 list and almost positive about that. Perchlorethylene is, however there are certain exceptions or exemptions from 11 warnings and a small business, I think it’s 10 employees or less, may not be subject to the warning. But perk definitely is a higher hazard and would be subject to that warning for those facilities that use it. Lee Lippert ¯ Well most gas stations have less than ten people but they post a sign anyway. Scott: Yes, I think they do it as a legal precaution or they maybe affiliated with a larger company. Lee Lippert ¯ This facility could be safer to pregnant women. Gordon Simpkinson ¯ Pardon me? Lee Lippert ¯ This facility could be safer to pregnant women Gordon. Simpkinson ¯ Oh absolutely. Lee Lippert: I have a question for John. Recently the city met with city council enacted an emergency ordinance on zoning in midtown. Do any of provisions of the emergency ordinance provide, apply to this project? John Lusardi ¯ Actually this project conforms to that ordinance and that is it supports the ground-floor retail purpose of that particular ordinance and then [inaudible].. Lee Lippert ¯ So in other words, this is, this project is in compliance with that ordinance? John Lusardi L: That is correct. Lee Lippert ¯ I don’t have any further questions. Joe Bellomo: Just one question for Gordon. If in fact they were proposing the perk solvent, would you have, would this be approvable by the fire department? Gordon Simpkinson ¯ Yes. The perchlorethylene is not banned under any local ordinance or state law so as a fire agency, we’re required only to enforce the safety standards that apply to any given material, not to ban a material because they don’t like it or feel that it’s, there are safer alternatives. Joe Bellomo: So there is no direction to safer alternatives incurred? Gordon Simpkinson ¯ No, that type of encouragement normally would come from the environmental protection agency or from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 12 Joe Bellomo: Or could be mandated by City Council or Gordon Simpkinson : Certainly that would also be an option would be for an authority that, an elected body to make those decisions. Fire department has somewhat more defined scope of authority, Joe Bell0mo : Thank you. Joe Bellomo :. Any further questions? Judith Wasserman : I have one for the Air Quality gentleman. When you said that if any of this material escaped, it would be in the form of a vapor. If that, do you know how much of that stuff is escaping in a year or week? Scott: Yeah, the method it escapes is if there’s any leaks in gaskets, things like that. For a well maintained machine would have a lower likelihood of emission. Also they open the door to remove the clothing, very small amounts, you don’t get absolutely 100% recovery, so very small amounts do generally get emitted through load and unload of clothing. So there’s maybe 5-10 batches of clothing per day and over a period of time, you do get some losses. And then there is a small amount of residual in the clothing. You don’t get it perfectly [dry] clothing Generally, these machines are more efficient than the perk machine. This material is less volatile, but perk-tends to evaporate more readily. The use is typically between 10 and 50 gallons for this type of machine Perk averaged, these machines average about 60 gallons to 100 gallons per year, I’m sorry. So it’s hard to determine on a day-to-day basis, but at least if there, the machines do occasionally spring leaks. Not only the perk machines. It’s been our experience, have been more prone to leaks than the patrolium machine Because of the fire hazard, I think these are constructed a little better. Depending on the amount of clothing cleaned, is probably the biggest variable. But it’s between 10 and 50 gallons typically for a neighborhood facility. " Judith Wasserman : Between 10 to 15 or 10 to 50? Scott: Five zero. Judith Wasserman : Five zero. And so if it’s delivered in 10 to 30 gallon containers, you get a delivery that’s maybe twice a year? Scott: Right. Some facilities it’s every other year. The reservoirs in the bottom of the machines typically hold 150 gallons. Judith Wasserman : And I read in one of the letters or somebody told me that there was some sludge remaining at the bottom of the machine. Does that have to be disposed of and how is that done? 13 Scott: The machines inherently are designed to remove soils, greases and things from clothing. So when they recover the solvent after the wash, it’s got those contaminants in them. It’s purified and reused by using filters and distillation processes integral to the machine. That, the filters, when they get saturated with contaminants, have to be replaced. They get drained and then put in, removed and put-into hazardous waste containment barrels. The spill, once you boil the solvent out and recover it with a condenser, the remaining residual does contain dirt, oil, things like that, could possibly contain things that are considered to be hazardous. It’s, I think, our information that we received indicates that the actual pure solvents, the fresh solvent is not considered hazardous waste, but after used, it possibly is. So we have always recommended that people dispose of it with a licensed recycler. Judith Wasserman ¯ You said that’s both the so-called sludge and the used filters? Scott: Correct. Judith Wasserman ¯ Scott: Correct. Two separate things that go out in haz mat containers? Judith Wasserman ¯ Thanks. Lee Lippert ¯ A couple of questions for Gordon with regard to, believe it or not, the sign. The city ordinance does not allow for roof mounted signs regarding hazardous matter, how does that apply in this case? Steven Turner The location where the sign is proposed to be located is in an area where signs for other businesses are .located in the same [area and state] so covered walkway portion, has the most defining feature of the building, kind of a [shake] roof [inaudible] where signs for this business and for the building, directly adjacent to this building have their signs. What we’re, will be the proved was a re-facing of the existing sign that is there.¯So we have to remove it to replace the sign, but it would actually be the same size and location as the existing sign that’s there. And all of the signs for all of the other businesses then are located in the same location. Lee Lippert ¯ In other words, this location is [inaudible] sort of grandfather to Steven Turner ¯ That’s correct. Lee. Lippert ¯ Okay. And one other question with regards to the planning. In my report I have .gone through and there was a tag line associated with the [inaudible]. 14 Steven Turner : The code states that there can beno other advertising on signage other than to show that the name of the business. So if that tag line was not a part of the company name, or fictional trademark of a company logo, then they would not be able to have that tag line, exactly. Lee Lippert : One last question with regard to our purview with regards to the storage of hazardous materials as outlined. Most important part of your report tends to be [inaudible]. In reading through that, what you’re really talking aboutis maybe exterior storage, shall we say locker or closet for this storage material. If it was stored inside the building, we wouldn’t have any jurisdiction? Steven Turner : Well I believe the guidelines that you and staff are able to use to evaluate and judge the standards, you can use that to, use those guidelines to judge just about any part of this project. And so you would be able to address then as the larger use issues, however, you would be limited to reckon or requiring the compliance of title 17 occurs. John Lusardi: I think following in response to that question also is if this storage of the materials was on an exterior structure, you would have review of that structure, the how that structure is built to contain those chemicals would be subject to the fire department’s review and you would need, you would be looking to their review. With respect to the storage of the chemicals inside, that is a fire department issue or a code issue and is not necessarily the purview of the board to review how those chemicals are stored inside a building. Lee Lippert : Right, so if somebody were to say just put a storage shed outside, that would be our purview to say, "Wow, this is a storage shed and it doesn’t look particularly well and it’s not compatible with the surrounding buildings or structures, architecturally." John Lusardi : That’s correct, you could then~also ask the question, does this meet the code for storage of those chemicals. But your review would be the exterior structure or the exterior whatever that storage is. Lee Lippert : Thank you very much. Joe Bellomo : We can now ask the applicant for their presentation, and that would be limited to 10 minutes. John Lusardi : Joe Bellomo : The applicant is the person who has requested this hearing. Okay, thank you, John. 15 Joe Bellomo : So do we, who, the applicant is K&K builders. Application by ?: Well, yeah, I guess that’s it. Joe Bellomo : I just want a clarification. Holiday Cleaners? Who am I requesting for this presentation? It’s ?: The applicant here is Johanna [inaudible]. They are the ones that are requesting your [name] so they are the applicant. Joe Bellorno : Okay,.is Johanna preserit? Johanna Santer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and board members. There was some confusion there, wondering whether, it was [us to with that potench] or Holiday Cleaners. Let me just preface by saying that at the neighborhood meeting, I presented an opposition to the dry cleaners and [I’ve defined through the EPA] for a number of years working on global warming issues. I felt that I had some experience in doing some research on the chemicals and the use. But today we’re specifically talking about appealing this project based on things that pertain to your authority and I think things that we,re discussing are very important. Let me just first start by asking how many in the room actually oppose this project, some people’ don’t want to speak so, if you could just raise your hand. Thank you. And I believe, thank youvery much. I believe that the board have also received a lot of e-mails and written communications from residents who can’t be heretoday. I think, let me first start offby saying that.this, when we’re looking at this usage, our position is based on the impacts to the neighborhood. And I believe that all of our consideration are within the purview of the board. And it’s important to remember this project [calls not] for the intensification of use, at this site, it’s not only project being considered, but two. That is the dry cleaners and the space which they are sub-leasing. So there’s going to be an intensification of use in this particular building and in the mid-town shopping center. We can see that in the application for two new service door at the rear of the building and one new service door, entry door at the front, and also of resurfacing or reorganization of the front door currently being used. The parking and circulation in this area have already been admitted by staff to be congested and anyone who lives around the area can qualify that and both in terms of traffic and circulation is incredible problem. I live immediately behind the project at 732 Rosewood Drive and I have a gate~ access to the parking area. So I have the ability to look at the site many times during the day, and I believe that photographs were given to you from Friday at 11 o’clock in the morning. And there were no parking spaces available for people trying to park in and around this proposed site. I would also ask you to look at the fact that the hair salon, which previously occupied this area was predominantly a walk-in business whereas the cleaners is more of a drop-in kind of business. So you’re looking at increased traffic. The two van loads per 16 da~rthat are going to be eliminated by the applicant by-virtue of the fact that they’re gong to be processing on site, are more than overwhelmed by thb number of people who are going to be using this new dry cleaners. And I think the increased space that the applicant’s asking for is one measure of looking at how much the traffic is going to increase in this area. Also take into consideration that they are going to be sub-leasing the space so that another use with more traffic being added. I believe that it’s very important for theboard to look at the firehazard. I’m glad Gordon Simpkinson is here this morning. I believe that the cleaners have not adequately filled out their disclosure checklists. If the board could look at the hazardous materials disclosure checklist that the applicant’s filled out, four separate items were either incorrectly filled out or mistakenly filled out. Either negligently or purposefully. The very first questions, does the operation of this facility involve hazardous materials? That is an answer yes by the definition above. Hazardous materials are items such as following: solvents, this is a hydrocarbon solvent and it does qualify as a hazardous material. Does this facility currently have a hazardous material stored permit? There is nothing checked in that box either. Will this project involve the storage/use of hazardous materials? That is also left blank. And yes it will. And then the next one, does this project generate a hazardous materials waste stream to the air, sewer, storm drain or a waste facility? No is checked in their instance, and in fact it does, as we’ve heard. The filters and the muck at the bottom are disposed of as hazardous waste. So I believe that.this was not adequately filled out and does not give the city enough information to make their approval. I also have a memo from Gordon Simfinson, asking for applicant shall provide a list of hazardous materials to be used or stored on the site, along with a brief description of the manner or use of storage of each. They have not, according to the file, provided that and they have provided what’s called a building occupation inventory list, which just lists some of the chemicals. It actually doesn’t list how they’re stored or how they’re used, and we should look at the fact that DF2000 is not the only chemical used onthe site. 110 gallons of it are being stored there, but we-should also look at the fact that spotting compounds and water-proofing compounds being used at the site, are in fact many times more dangerous than this one chemical. And that is what collects in the bottom of the machines, and that’s why the filters and the muck is still hazardous, because those compounds collect together with the DF2000. So I think that that should be provided before approval is given. I also, I live immediately behind the proposed project, less than 25 feet from my property line to this building. My view to the hills, to the west, is going to be significantly impacted, I feel, by the addition of three new units, cooling towers and ventilation units to be stored on the roof. You don’t have photographs of that, but I will, I’ll gladly give those to you. Also, there is a decibel limit of 8 decibels at my property line which is in the noise ordinance of the city. And I feel that the addition of vehicles delivering and using that parking space behind would add significantly to the noise level of my property. 17 Lastly, I would say when reviewing this project, that it’s important when you’re looking at it, not to be confused. This is not a dry cleaner that is being replaced. It’s an addition to the neighborhood. It is not a facility that currently uses perchlorethylene. Perchlorethylene would not be suggested to be used here because the owner would never agree to it. If you look at past sites of dry cleaners, the owners of those sites are, they’re being hit with massive liability in a similar manner to the asbestos that was used before because of the carcinogenic quality of that chemical. And so property that has had dry cleaners on it, has incredible environmental liability associated with it, so no new dry cleaner that uses perchlorethylene, I suggest, would be allowed anyway here. This is not the most environmentally-friendly technology out there. If you look at EPA materials, there are two processes called wet cleaning and carbon dioxide cleaning, that are environmentally preferable and that just use basically household detergents or carbon dioxide. This is a petrochemical, it is not benign, the EPA says that it does cause a health hazard to workers and co-located residents. So when you look at this project, it’s very important to know that this is not a safe chemical. And this a new use, it’s not replacing an existing use.. Thank you very much. Joe Beliomo : We can now have a presentation by the developer. And that would be Holiday Cleaning. You also have 10 minutes for your presentation. Babaki Korobi: Good morning,, my name is Babaki Korobi, I’m the owner of Gate Cleaners with my family. I don’t think I can talk 10 minutes but I try to tell you as much as possible on my background and if you have any questions. Number 1 we are a small business owner. We are running this business with my parents and we will be serving the community. If we had a plan to go and open a site to do farming out, or doing other sites, we would go someplace and pay much more reasonable rent. We wouldn’t come to Palo Alto and pay premium rent and to start doing other places.. Friends we are paying this premium so, and we had the Gate Cleaners for the past four years and we feel that we’ve been serving the immediate community of the mid- town and we feel that we have a good reputation. Number 2, is traffic would be less because [libelt] had number of full-time employees that people would stay there for much longer. We feel that.the traffic would be much less and be moving. People don’t spend as much time in the dry cleaners than they spend in the hair salon. What else I can tell you? Before we started this project, we knew that cities like Palo Alto are very conservative, so we tried to do our studies as much as possible. We went to the fire department, we went to the city planning before we had put a penny down, because I knew it was a challenge, it wasn’t going to be easy. And we realized that the zoning was right, for dry cleaning inside. And the fire department gave us oral approval of the chemical, they said, you.know, as far as they’re concerned, this is apparently hazardous material or [apparently] chemical. One of the things I can tell you, if this was a really hazardous waste and a hazardous to my health, I wouldn’t subject myself day and night, or 10 hours a day to this material if I felt that this was a hazard to my health. And there are a couple of other dry 18 cleaners, very close to this site, one of them is 0.4 miles away from this site and I feel that if there was any serious problem was going to be arised, it would have been rose by those plans by now and there would have been complaints. When this thing start, came out, the accused us of all kinds of things. They accused us that we’re going to bring the value of the houses down, they accused us that you are putting your [prac tily] out there. They accused us that you’re increasing the traffic and you hre running [the dig] as a corporation. There’s a Starbucks, you don’t see Mr. Starbucks in there, but you will see Mr. Holiday Cleaners in there every time you come to a Holiday Cleaners. It will be myself and myfamily. And what else I can tell you? The value of the houses, ifI can bring the value of the houses down in Palo Alto, I tell you. There’s this [plant] up the road 0.3 miles or 0.4 miles up the road and nobody complained about the smell, nobody complained about the noise, nobody complained about any mist or cloud coming out of this thing and they’re using perk. And I’m proposing I’m using something more friendlier. I am paying $10,000 a month for the rent and for the payment, and by delaying me, you’re putting tremendous pressure, financial pressure on myself and my family. And I keep hearing that the City of Palo Alto is encouraging to have, it would like to have more small businesses, and would like to have more moms and pops businesses. But when the time comes to put your money where your mouth is, you throw stones on our way every single day. The amount of papers we gave the city, the amount of documents we gave the city, it’s unbelievable. And now the city’s approved us, now we have to, I was not supposed to have a publichearing, because the zoning [worked right]. Now I’m having the first one now. There should be a law and either you follow the law or you don’t follow the law. We felt that we followed the law by the letter. We felt that we provided the city every single document they asked us. And we still can’t get their approval for the building. And the financial, I am not Mr. Starbucks, I am not Mr. MacDonalds, you cannot run me around forever. I will go out of business. I know some people couldn’t care less for that, couldn’t care less for, about that. But I have been serving the community of mid-town residents for the past four years. And the steering committee came out very strong in the beginning against us. Now they are not taking any POsition. And a couple of the members spoke very out-, loudly in support of us in that meeting you had. You had a very, we had an unofficial meeting to just inform the residents. We started with 80 people and then towards the middle of the meeting some people started leaving because they felt comfortable. A certain lady had to remind them please stay in the meeting, I haven’t spoken yet. In that meeting, everybody talked for this document. For this plan., And we’ve tried to inform the community that this is a plus, we feel that we would be an asset to the community. I don’t know what else I can tell. Joe Bellomo : Thank you. 19 Babaki Korobi: I have some papers, I’m sorry. I have some papers, I have papers about our background and what we are proposing to do and I have a letter from the businesses around us. Every single businesses around us signed this petition that they are for us to move in there. And I have a petition of 200 people of our customers. And it,s specifically [right/write?] what we are planning to do and they signed it without any problem. Joe Bellomo : Thank you. [inaudible] Babaki Korobi : Thank you very much. Joe Bellomo : I’ve been, we’re going to take a 5-minute break before we ask questions. And we’ll beright back. Thank you. Joe Bellomo : We can now retum to the board for questions, as we will continue this hearing. Ken would you like to start with some questions? Kenneth Kornberg : I had one other question, I’m not sure who on the staffwould be able to best answer this question but in the concern about traffic and pollution and hazardous nature of this operation, can any of you give me your opinion as to whether the addition of this cleaner would in any way increase, even through exhaust, through the storage of more vehicles that have gas tanks with faulty caps, trucks that have to sit outside and service different businesses there. Whether this is at all likely to increase the danger to either the garden or to the residents nearby? I know that’s asking a lot, but in my own assessment is that I was there on Monday to review the site, and I saw two [Victory emens] trucks being hosed out and their mats, detergent and all the effluent from that process going into the garden. And I saw trucks parked there not related to the cleaners but other businesses. The noise from those trucks, the exhaust from those trucks and other cars seems to me that if this cleaner is going to reduce the amount of traffic and reduce the amount of trucks coming onsite, that it’s not, that’s more important than whether or not a contained piece of apparatus with relatively innocuous material is going to be on this site. I mean that’s my own assessment from what I’ve heard so far. And I was wondering what your opinions were. John Lusardi : Mr. Chair, I think the developer has said it bestis that I .don’t think they would anticipate locating in an area like this with the rents if they thought that their customers were going to be coming from far away. So I think they’re expecting to serve the area. I don’t think there is anticipation of an increase in traffic from their existing operations. What there will be as we have stated, is the reduction in trucks. That is the delivery trucks that pick up their garments and take them to another plant. So there will be elimination of those trucks. The only change might be is the occasional delivery of the supplies and the materials for the plant operations. 2O Kenneth Kornberg : Thank you and one other question. In regards to a large number of passionate letters that I’ve received by e-mail and from staff as well, there’s been a concern that the garden itself might be detrimentally effect¢.d., It seems to me already, just in a quick review of the site, that the garden is subject to.a.lot of stress from things that could be easily taken care of, but it’s been happening for quite a period of time. Has therebeen any request by the community to staff or to the city that you’re aware of, asking that curbs or anything, has there been any effort by the .people managing this garden to take care of these things in the past, that you’re aware of? John Lusardi : Staffhas not received any requests for advice .for development of that garden area. But we’dbe willing to provide that advice if it ~came to us. Kenneth Komberg : Thank you. That’s all the questions I have, John. John Lusardi : Thank you, Ken. Judith? Judith Wasserman : I have a question for Mr. Korobi. How often do your trucks now pick up and deliver clothing? How many times a day? How many? 4 times. Babaki Korobi: 3. Judith Wasserman : Three, three times a day? And where do you now take your clothes to be cleaned? Babaki Korobi: I’m sorry, ma’am. Judith Wasserman : Where do you take them to be cleaned now? Babaki Korobi: There’s a plant in Redwood City at this time. Judith Wasserman : So you drive Babaki Korobi: I don’t. Judith Wasserman : Somebody drives the truck to Redwood City three times a day Babaki Korobi: Yes, ma’am. Judith Wasserman : ...at this time? Babaki Korobi: Yes. Judith Wasserman : Thank you very much. 21 Babaki Korobi: You’re welcome~ John Lusardi ¯ I have a question for, first of all, I just want to clarify something. In this case, the applicant v~ really an appellate: They’re appealing the decision that staff made and asked it to be brought before the board. John Lusardi: Technically it’s not an appeal.~ What the applicant is asking for is that the board hear this item, for a public hearing on this item. It’s not necessarily an appeal of the application, it is a request for a public hearing. And that’s what this board is being asked to do, is conduct a public hearing and then make a recornm~dation to the-director. Lee Lippert : I have a question for the applicant in this case. Johanna Santer: Yes? Lee Lippert : First of all, I received, a correspondence from a law. firm, Logan and Pal, I guess the were retained on, you retained them on your behalf?. Johanna Santer: Yeah, I retained them on my behalf and on thebehalf of 77 signatories of the petition which I got on, at the neighborhood meeting in February. Lee Lippert : And what is the reason for y6u to retain a law firm in this case? What appears to be the urgency? Johanna Santer: Well I had. felt that although I’d done a lot of research on the chemical nature of the dry cleaners and talked to an incredible number of dry cleaner folks myself, that I didn’t understand city process very wel!. And I didn’t understand specifically how . our concerns might relate to specifically items which board members might be looking at. And we had a lot of different issues relating to use. And that was not what I felt was going to be the primary underlying reason why we might get this turned down. Because use in and of itself, we might complain about but the fact is that this project isn’t, what shall I say, it isn’t a project that is harmonious with the neighborhood as we see it. And so specifically, I have no experience at all in dealing with city, and I didn’t understand specifically what your authority was and how that related to some of the issues, that we had. So I wanted to be very clear about what those were. ~ Lee Lippert : A question I have here is this firm that you retained here, are they experts in working with public policy or are they experts in environmental issues? What is their area of practice? Johanna Santer: They workwith municipalities. I know that they had one case I was aware of that they’d been working with a community that was opposing a crematorium in their neighborhood. And that was brought, I went to a preliminary meeting with the 22 associate there and talked about that and specifically about how they might help us in this regard, understand how our issues related to approval or denial of this project. Lee Lippert : Okay, very quickly, either yourself or I guess the attorney is here, I received this correspondence at my office. In it is attached to some several exhibits here. Could you just very briefly or have the attorney describe what it is that you’re trying to point out here, because the transmittal it says replace these photos with the previous photos, and I wasn’t made party of those previous photos. Johanna Santer: Oh. Lee Lippert : So. Johanna Santer: Yeah, I think those photos, I have them over there. I thinkthey pertain mostly to the issues of drainage as, gentleman has spoken to earlier about impact on the organic garden. They also pertain to the parking situation and the congested nature of the parking situation and the fact that there are no parking spaces available at that time, Friday, 1 i AM when the photographs were taken. Lee Lippert : Why is drainage an issue in this case, if the building isn,t changing or any of the landscaping in this case? Johanna Santer: I think because of the nature of the chemicals that are stored within the building, and the opportunity for them to be mishandled, EPA said that for example with the chemical DF2000 does vaporize, but it can collect in small pockets and be a source of ignition. If you have a source of ignition, it can ignite and be extremely flammable. So it would collect in drainage areas such as that, and be a potential fire hazard. That’s .the main issue with regard to drainage that their chemicals are stored onsite. Also we don’t know specifically where the dumpsters are going to be and there is the DF2000 chemicals and the despotting chemicals do reside on materials. They’re in your clothing when you take them back home, for instance. So materials put in the dumpstbr, could have some rainwater discharging through them and that would go into the garden. Lee Lippert : Let me ask I guess staff, or Gordon, is this chemical soluble by water? Gordon Simpkinson : No, it would actually not be soluble in water. The path of release to the environment would have to be specifically a spill during delivery or other handling of the material. The applicant or in this case, the operator of the business is required to submit complete and maintain a hazardous materials business plan that addresses proper handling and prompt cleanup and mitigation of any spills that occur. Lee Lippert : Let me ask you a question with regards to parking. I know you reviewed for us and said that there would be an increase in the traffic there. It’s prescribed by ordinance, but are your aware that it’s prescribed by city ordinance that a building 23 footprint dictates the parking or traffic load for a particular use? Johanna Santer : Um hmm. And I know that there will be spaces allocated for example to the dry cleaner. But we all know.that people park in areas where theyrre not supposed to and so I think there’s an overflow situation that’s already happening, where there are not enough parking situations for the current businesses, there even without Gate/Holiday Cleaners increasing their business and its other additional use. Lee Lippert : Well let me ask Steve. Steve, will there, I’m asking you again, I think you said this earlier. Would there be an increase in parkin~ load for this use? Steven Turner : Well the Municipal Code gives specific regulations for the amount of parking spaces that are required for each individual use. The former Larry Wells Hair Salon took up the entire space that Holiday Cleaners is proposing to take. They’re classified as a personal service. Holiday Cleaners is also classified as a personal service, so the ratio hasn’t changed. The parking requirements have neither intensified, nor decreased in this case. So the parking requirements would remain the same for the this [zone]. Lee Lippert : Hm. So according to the city ordinance, I guess it’s the same as if Larry Wells was still occupying the building. Johanna Santer: But when you look at the fact that Larry Wells was a walk-in type. facility where people go and get their hair cut, they’re not taking tremendous armloads of clothes in to be dry-cleaned. I suggest that the usage of that facility would be different under the circumstance. Plus the addition of a yet unknown additional facility within that sub-leased space. Lee Lippert : I have another question for staff. I terms of height limitation in mid-town, is there a height limitation? Steven Turner : There is a height limitation. The building height itself is measured to the parapet of the roof and equipment is allowed to stand beyond. Lee Lippert : And how far is the equipment allowed to Steven Turner : I’d have to check to make sure. I don’t think actually the code has a specific maximum amount for equipment. Lee Lippert ¯ But it’s well within the, what’s allowable for say a building envelope of its size? Steven Turner : That’s correct. 24 Lee Lippert : I don’t have any further questions. Thank you. Joe Bellomo : Thank you, Lee. Drew, questions? Drew Maran: Can stay there I think. What’s been your contact with the cleaner’s Mr. Korobi? Johanna Santer: Yes."We had quite a-lengthy conversation at the resident’s meeting in February. I was also due to be, due to [meeting as] part of the Mid-Town Residents Association meeting with them on that day and due to unforeseen circumstances was not able to make it. Drew Maran: And I would ask the same question ofMr~ Korobi. What’s the, is that the. extent of your contact with people in the neighborhood in terms of meetings? B.abaki Korobi: Yes sir. We had one meeting with two member of the steering committee and Mid-Town Steering Committee first. And I believe Mrs. Sander couldn’t make it that day. And then we had another meeting with the community at that unofficial meeting on Saturday. Drew Maran: Do either of you feel that more meetings could have helped to work out some of this stuff?. Is anybody resistant to more meetings, off-line? Babaki Korobi: Sir, I have no problem with having meeting or having, but I felt in that, at that meeting and in this meeting, meetings like this, all the experts are talking, all the experts are putting your mind at ease as much as possible. And I tried to explain my part of it that this is not a factory, this is not run by the employees, this is going to berun by the owners itself. And but still if you are not clear about this thing, there are 70, I believe that you cannot please everybody. You cannot please everybody and you cannot satisfy everybody in certain areas. And we’ve tried to inform the residents at the meeting that we had on Saturday. We didn’t have to have that meeting, but we felt that it’s a good way to reach the community. We felt that and we put the petition in front of our shop and in the shop and we informed the people that we are planning to do something like that. If you have any problems: people signed. Johanna Santer : I would like to speak to that briefly, lthink that additional meetings with the public would be valuable. The meeting on Saturday in February, was only given three days notice for the community and it was over President’s Day week end. And so although we did get a good turnout, we got 80 people, when I spoke again at the Mid- Town Residents Association meeting, on around about the mid community, very briefly at the end, a lot of people weren’t aware of the issue. I think it would be extremely valuable for the community to look at where the chemicals are going to be stored, both inside the building, where dumpsters are going to 25 be located, how the material is going to be transferred into a machine to be cleaned. And I think that would put residents’ minds at ease. When we last had the meeting in the Larry Wells salon, there were a lot of things about the site that made residents very uncomfortable. There was a lot of exposed wiring at the time which was very dangerous and a couple of residents pointed that out. And people simply didn’t understand how the process would work. We did at that time, despite the fact that we had five officials talking, and myself and Bay-Area Action talking against the project, still have 77 out of the 80 oppose it. So I think that extra step would be valuable to help address certain concerns. ?: Mr. Chair, might I also point out that this is a public hearing that was dutifully notified and published in the paper. And that cards were sent out to residents within 300 feet of the site, so this also is a public hearing. Drew Maran: Who owns the garden, the organic garden? Or anybody who knows the answer. Johanna Santer : Who owns the organic garden? We have a representative fi’om Bay- Area Action who manages the garden. I’m not sure. David Houston: My name is David Houston, I work for the New Bay Area [Acto cons] and the Conservation Center. I’m the urban agricultural project lead. Do you have a question for me? Drew Maran: Who owns the garden? David Houston: We have an agreement with the owner and I’m not sure who that owner is to be honest. We have had Drew Maran: It’s not city owned and itis privately owned property? David Houston:. Right. Drew Maran: And is it, is that the use that it’s zoned for? David Houston: Well maybe these people here can tell us whatthe zoning is. The garden’s been there for several years, it’s a oasis amongst an amount of pavement and concrete that’s continuing to increase in Palo Alto, and it provides food for many residents in the area and it also provides habitats for animals. It’s a wonderful little spot. Drew Maran: I don’t mean to question the proper use of that land or whether the garden is a good thing, I certainly think it is. I just wanted to get some more background on that. Youhad mentioned the EPA rating on the DF2000. Can you tell me a little more about that and how it is that they disproved this product but it’s still in use? 26 Johanna Santer :. Well, they didn’t disprove it. Basically they did an assessment of all the technologies available for cleaning garments in the dry-cleaning industry. This was back in June of 1998. And they assessed, the various health hazards and other hazards associated with each of the chemicals used and the processes used, and the trade offs there and even went down as far as looking at different costs of running a business using these different chemicals. And the time, there was evidence to suggest that perchlorethylene was a carcinogen and that people were going to be going back to using hydrocarbon solvents that had been used prior to the introduction ofperchlorethylene. Because there’s a-fire hazard associated with hydrocarbon solvents, perchlorethylene was actually developed for the dry-cleaning industry to combat that risk. So as people move back to hydrocarbon solvents, the EPA basically looked at everything that was available and said what do you like, what don’t you like. The fact was that they said that DF2000 and other hydrocarbon solvents are health hazards. They had to classify the risk of a DF2000 and in the absence Of a lot of material from Exxon, for example on carcinogenic information and other testing information, Exxon still has not supplied them with that data. So they had to make extrapolations on- the risk, based on what they knew from other hydrocarbon solvents. And stated that it was a health risk to those workers and co-located residents. And was a suspected neuro- toxin. But in the absence of data, that’s all that they could say. And their conclusion was that wet cleaning was the environmental, environment’s new preferable technology. And unfortunately for some, there are some significant barriers to entry for that technology. Training is the most important on and [inaudible] about that, and training of workers is one of his chief concerns in using that environmentally superior technology. Because you have to sort the garments before you wash them. 90% of garments can be cleaned in that way, but still it’s a [inaudible]and has to be very carefully handled. And so why the costs associated with wet cleaning are very minimal compared to perchlorethylene and DF2000, that’s offset by the increased salaries of your workers. Drew Maran: Would you be receptive to this [replacement] of the cleaners if they used the wet cleaning [inaudible]? Johanna Santer :. Absolutely. Absolutely. Drew Maran: Is there any, [inaudible]. Johanna Santer : It would be hard for me to say that, but I would suggest that it was, that the problem is I think most residents feel the chemical nature of this business. Drew Maran: Question for the fire department. In terms of the hazardous materials handling, in your experience, what’s the enforcement practice, people really handle it properly and what’s the likelihood of an accident? So which direction are you heading in this in general with hazardous material being handled in small shops? 27 Gordon Simpkinson : We have an annual inspection program for all dry cleaners where a hazardous materihls inspector with specific training in chemical handling and safety visits each site on.an annual basis and notes the condition of the facility, the records on how materials are being essentially [stealth] handled. In other words, how the, how frequently vi ;~ilant monitoring of the secondary containment, condition of equipment, records of the hay, riling and disposal of hazardous waste. So City of Palo Alto has a proactive program for making sure that each business that handles hazardous materials is doing so in a proper fashion. Drew Maran: And how’s it with you. How does it seem we are doing with that?" Gordon Simpkinson : Well we have obviously with dry cleaners, we have a variety of operations. You’ll have some that are satellite operations where the owner may not necessarily be present on a day-to-day basis and there are hired employees that are handling the materials. Those tend to be less well maintained than the types of operation that the developer here is looking at where you have the owner is going to be onsite and taking care of the equipment himself. So it tends to be much better managed when you have the morn and pop type operations, provided that they’re able to understand the process and how they should be handling the materials. Drew Maran: Again I’m asking for sort of professional and personal opinions. Sometimes our regulations are minimum regulations that we then look back onyears later and find they’re not, weren’t adequate. Is it your view, I assume you’ve got more experience and knowledge than I do. Is it your view that we’re doing okay for future generations with hazardous materials or are we going to see a lot stricter regulations coming up, effect our health? Gordon Simpkinson : In this particular case, I think,. I would say that in some cases, there are certainly regulations that we’ll probably look back on and say that, especially in the area of transportation of hazardous materials, that perhaps the safeguards that are in place currently need to be tightened. But in the area of hazardous material storage, the local ordinances, for example, treat the storage ofperchlorethylene or DF2000 the same as they treat cyanides, in terms of the degree of safeguard that’s necessary to prevent the leaks of the material into the environment. So the types of controls to prevent spills that are in place, are the same for this material as they would be for materials that have 100,000 to a million times the toxicity. So in the case of dry cleaners, some might argue that the level of protection is much more stringent than the hazard warrants. But for the simplicity of enforcement and the understandability to the people in the chemical community, you have a single standard that says this is the level of control that you provide to prevent spills. And that way everybody’s playing by the same rules and they know what those rules are. ?: [inaudible] put you on the spot.. [inaudible]. 28 Joe Bellomo : I have just a couple of, in the interests of time, couple quick questions for the developer, Mr..Korobi. There was a question asked regarding wet, Babaki Korobi : Yes sir. Joe Bellomo : ...and I think you wanted to answer that question. Babaki Korobi : Yes sir. Joe Bellomo : Your viewpoint of the usability of the wet [inaudible]. Babaki Korobi : Yes sir. I can tell you a little bit about wet cleaning and then I can ask my contractor Joe Bishop, Mr. Joe Bishop to talk to you about the cleaning mode in general. Two quick points.. There were thr.ee plans of,I have looked into it and I have gone to the site of the wet cleaning and I looked at wet cleaning and I disconsider wet cleaning. That was about four years ago and there were two plants, one in Saratoga, one in someplace [else]. They both went out of business simply because they’ve been damaging the clothes too much. Wet cleaning is very specialized and you need tremendous amounts of experience and specialty and by the time they train somebody, if that person leaves, by the time somebody else takes over, you will be damaging the clothes so much because it’s really [with water]. That cleaning is basically water, there is nothing else. There is water and [heat], and unfortunately, or fortunately, or however you want, there are certain pieces of material that cannot be put into the water. You will ruin that. And both plants, one plant that was in Saratoga they put their loyalty of all the Northern California they had the right to open the plant and they were giving you all kinds of advantages to open a plant. But they couldn’t stay in business it was a nightmare. I had one of their workers work for me and Joe Bellomo : So in your opinion it’s a tremendous business risk to Babaki Korobi : I know I will not stay [in business]. Joe Bellomo : Okay, thank you. Babaki Korobi : Would you like to know more about this cleaning, would you like Joe Bishop to talk to you about Joe Bellomo : I think that was, if there’s something to add, that would be fine, but in, again in the interests of time, I think I understand’ your point of view. I have.just one other question for you, regarding the rooftop equipment, if, had you look at any other materials besides the lattice, the redwood lattice material around the equipment? And I’ve noticed and I just want clarification, is there additional equipment over the top of the 29 victoria emmen side? It seems like there’s three specific locations new. How many rooftop areas will there be placed on the roof?. Babaki Korobi : I’m not sure about that. Maybe Joe Bishop can answer that question. Joe Bellomo : Just quick clarification. On the rooftop equipment, please. Steven Turner : I might be able to provide some clarification there that I believe that there are three units to how the cleaners is proposing to add over the business, the site. There is existing rooftop equipment at Victoria Emmens, staff conditioned the approval by saying that screening had to take place around the new equipment and the existing Victoria Emmens equipment.that had not previously been screened. Joe Bellomo : I see, so there are three separate locations, two new, one existing over the top of Victoria Emmens. Steven Turner : I think there’s going to be three new pieces of equipment for the cleaners, and I believe there is either an air-conditioning or a chimney for that Victoria Emmens. Joe Bellomo :. So three enclosures. Did staff look at the possibility of enclosing them with one enclosure, basically creating a parapet inside to enclose the three or is the creation of these, they’re a bit irregular in form [inaudible]. Steven Turner : I don’t think staff [needs to look at it done] Joe Bellomo : Okay and the redwood lattice is a type of screening that is [throughout] on some of the other buildings on this site? Steven Turner : I’m not too sure about that. The screening came in after the approval of this and if you are able to take a look at the screening and recommend anything else, [that would be helpful]. Joe Bellomo : Okay. Babaki Korobi : Can I just add one thing to that? We went to the roof with [Steven Turner] and my contractor and there is, I_ believ( there is two air conditioning, exigting air conditioning units belong to Larry Wells, that we will not be operating because they are not suited for the dry cleaning. We would just close them down; and there are numerous number of machinery, air conditioning and exhaust and or whatever from the site of Victoria Emmens and we are adding I believe three new machinery, two [bompulas] and one [full encoun]. 30 Joe Bellomo : Steven in your review on the roof, how high will the top portion of the equipment enclosures be from the top of the existing parapet? Steven Turner : I believe there’s a one-foot parapet and the maximum height of the equipment is five feet [inaudible] so it would be four feet above. Joe Bellomo : Four feet above. I see some dimensions here that are 65, 66 inches to the top of the equipment, andthat’s, 5 feet, 4 feet above the parapet. And the redwood lattice we would want some comment or maybe some of our comments regarding the redwood lattice and enclosure. Because I don’t see a section, the other thing I don’t see, I don’t know if it’s available, is an overall site plan of the site where the refuge is existing and shall be maintained and/or just general circulation patterns: Is there any, I see there is a modification to the ADA space, is that correct? Steven Turner : Not in this application. This application again was mainly toward sign, the doors, and the rooftop equipment. Joe Bellomo : So the parking configuration has been approved and is not part of this submittal? Steven Turner : Well the parking hasn’t changed. The parking requirements haven’t changed because it’s a personal service use going to a personal service. Joe Bellomo : I understand but I do see a new van accessible HC state on the site plan and I’m just wondering is that new? Steven Turner : Oh, that might be for the building permit, I’m not sure if that is new. Joe Bellomo : Okay so Steven Turner : That wasn’t part of the initial staff [reading] Joe Bellomo : But it is on our application? It is on the Steven Turner : It might, it’s on your newest application, that was submitted after the staff [inaudible] Joe Bellomo : Are we looking at that? Are we making a recommendation to this parking layout? I question maybe John. John Lusardi : You could make that recommendation. The business has to reach building code and I think what Steven is saying is that the building code is [trickling/struggling?] [inaudible] [back stage]. 31 Joe Bellomo : I see. Okay, I’m noticing that the new accessible state projects out past the existing line of the parking, and I was just, my question is does it impact in any way vehicular circulation patterns? It is unclear to me. John Lusardi : Yes, Joe Bellomo : We can make that part of a review of some issues. And there is one sign propose?. Steven Turner : Just one sign. Joe Bellomo : Just One sign. Excellent. Thank you. We will, any other questions? Lee Lippert : I have a couple questions for Mr. Korobi. Is that how you pronounce your last name? " Babaki Korobi : [Carobai]. Lee Lippert : [Carobai]. Are there any licenses or certification that you need to operate this equipment? Babaki Korobi : I believe this is just [heard] so that doesn’t have any business licenses. Lee Lippert : No, no, no. How Babaki Korobi : For operating the machines? Lee Lippert : Yeah, is there a license required for this kind of equipment? Babaki Korobi : No licenses. There might be, there were permits that’s required by two agencies. When I was having the first in plants. One was by Bay Area Air Quality Control and one was the county of Santa Clara. And I believe this plant is exempt from the Bay Area Air Quality Management, there is no permit required for this plant. And I am not sure from Santa Clara County if they require any permits or anything. Lee Lippert :So in other words, a lay person could operate this equipment? : I’m sorry? Lee Lippert : A lay person? Babaki Korobi : Yes sir. 32 Lee Lippert : Okay. And with regards to how long have you been in the dry-cleaning business? Babaki Korobi : Nine years, ’93 1 bought a plant in-Saratoga and I don~t~ave the plant at this time. ,.c:, Lee Lippert : Thank you very much. Judith Wasserman : I have a question for Ms. Santer. Could you come and look at these photographs and tell me if this is your house? It’s a little hard for me to find out where you actually live. ~ ~,~ Johanna Santer : Is that two-story house there. Joe Bellomo : We can proceed to the public hearing. Do we have a timing, working [inaudible ...] Joe Bellomo : Do we have a time limit working. Joe Bellomo : Again in the interests of time, we ask for, to limit your discussion and your presentation and your [petitions] to three minutes and if in fact you are, there is repetitive comments, that you state that you are in support of the previous person speaking to this matter. The first public speaker would be Pamela Webster, 2599 Louis Road. Pamela Webster: First of all I’d like to Say in all my almost ~30 years of living in Palo Alto, I have never come to any hearing of any sort in this building and so my concern about this are very sincere and very genuine. I would first of all like to compliment the Architectural Review Board on their wisdom and perspicacity of their questions to all. I’m incredibly impressed with this process as I have seen it. And as a citizenI regret that I have not participated more actively in this kind of just observation of what you people do. I would like to thank you. I recognize that review of the overall changes in mid’town do not seem to fall within the purview of this board. But I would remind the ARB that a considerable number of changes to mid town have occurred recently and are Continuing to occur. I feel that the diminished, the previous existence of mid town as a user-friendly consumer- oriented primarily retail facility. I am particularly concerned that the increased use of this proposed plant for cleaning, rather than to service retail needs, that this will not be monitored and that the events that take place there will not be seen as within the purview of any monitoring group. I think that the increased square footage implied for cleaning activities will definitely impact the area in ways that right now we can’t really see. I can’t believe that a facility of this size is not going to service other retail dry cleaning facilities. It really does concern me a lot. I’d heartily endorse the comments of Johanna Santer whom I 33 think has operated in an incredibly scientifically accurate way of looking at this detail by detail in ways that I haven’t. But I would say to you that my concern for mid town as a viable area within the city of Palo Alto, are very well developed, very extreme and heartfelt. Thank you. Joe Bellomo ¯ The next speaker will be Margaret Peterson. And the next speaker would be Floura Natebi. Margaret Peterson: Speaking for my husband and myself, we are opposed to the dry cleaning plant. It sounds like something I would also have to watch to be sure that they aren’t bringing in clothes from other places too. I have asthma, so I am concerned about the air quality. And I also, there are so many questions involved here, and there’s always potential for risk that I say to myself why invite this into my neighborhood. And also if we were selling a home, we do have to specify on a form that there is this plant that has hazardous material near by Thank you. Joe Bellomo ¯ Thank you. [Gordon. Tippy] followed by Lori Shapiro. Flora Nayebi: I [inaudible]. And I had [inaudible]. [speaker unintelligible]. Jo.e Bellomo ¯ Use the microphone please. Flora Nayebi: Yeah, lot of streets are coming from the middle school [inaudible] to there and I have been living for 12 years there and I see so many accidents especially even I want to. report it to the police that they have to do something, especially when the [inaudible] Middlefield and then they left. Boom, you see so many accidents there and there are a lot of kids coming and going and for the dry cleaner because there are a lot of people coming, constantly to put their clothing there, so we are going to have lot of traffic of the car that are just passing that area and then coming to the dry cleaners. But we feel add to the traffic just coming and going of the traffic. And the other thing that I’m concerned is just I don’t like to have in the residential environment, industrial plant. And the reason is that on [inaudible ...] and we have in here [notify] [as the stated man said] that we notify the people, we haven’t been [inaudible] plan that to be [newed] before hand so it just comes to these and it goes this much further down and we didn’t know that. And we pay the housing, the reason we came to Palo Alto is because we have rules and they care about the kids and schooling and everything and we pay lot of money for the taxes. And it’s very expensive to live around here and we need your consideration a lot. Thank you. Joe Bellomo ¯ Thank you. Lori Shapiro, followed by Karen Bobonicb. Lori Shapiro: Okay; There are many points I want to remind the group again. This is a major hazard associated with hydrocarbon solvents and the potential for flammability. We have many children center located at that specific site of mid town, a karate center, a drawing for children and [score] and we are concerned about the flammability issues. DF2000 poses a significant fire safety issue. Other sources of ignition, it can, may cause explosion, can cause injury or death, such as containers exposed to heat, flames, sparks, static electricity. Some agencies believe that a stray cigarette lighter can potentially spark a fire in the machine. Special measures are needed to ensure safety. Despite the clear warnings from the manufacturer of DF2000, the fire department has not requested specific fire suppressant measures for this project. There is a lack.of sprinklers, there are no fire walls in this building, we are dealing with hazardous materials. The checklist submitted by the owners is incomplete and contains misleading information. Based on the deficiencies Of the checklist, [possible] to determine whether or not the design and transition of this project are compatible with adjacent sites, land uses and adjacent improvements. Will the chemicals be stored in close proximity to any heat sources onsite or at adjacent sites? Will used materials be stored near heat sources or be disposed of in the same manner as typical waste? Until all these details of storage and disposal of hazardous materials are disclosed, compatibility cannot be determined. As seen on the checklist, the owners failed to disclose whether ornot the project will involve the storage or use of hazardous materials. And applicants should provide a list of all these hazardous materials to be used or stored onsite along with a description of the manner of use or storage of each. That information was never provide. Therefore the city is operating under false and incomplete information. The applicants also provided false information when they stated the project would not generate hazardous material, waste stream to the air, the-sewers, the storm drain or waste facilities. Once’hazardous materials are used at the project, they will need to be disposed of in some manner. This manner was never disclosed in order to determine whether or not it will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding community, including the water going out to the garden, or if this affects at all, all the other centers, food areas, adjoining the dry cleaning site and children’s centers. Joe Bellomo : If you.could finish up? ¯ Lori Shapiro: Oh okay. So we have here a failure here to disclose relevant information to the fire department, a lack of sprinklers, fire walls in the building. We do not know where the drums are to be located or how they’ll be located or kept from sun exposure or sparks or cars or even a Lited cigarette. __" Thank you. Karen Bobonich followed by Wei Wang. Karen Bobonich: Hello my name is Karen. I’m the manager of the organic garden, it’s a volunteer position, I’ve been doing it for a little over a year. And no, I also don’t know the name of the owner of the property, although it would be easy enough to find out I suppose. It wouldn’t really be in the spirit, so I haven’t found out and I also don’t know the zoning for that particular set of ground. 35 Our concerns are of course vapors and drainage whi~la I thinkpeople have pretty much addressed already. And yes, I agree that the garden is under other stresses. I’m out there three or four days a week for three or four hours each time and I deal with the other .stresses the garden is under. A lot of managing the garden [consistence] picking up trash and I don’t really know to deal with other things, other problems there because I don’t want to complain about our neighbors. I feel actually very bad being here because they’re obviously nice people and so for the past year I’ve been trying to think of ways to address the other problems that the other stresses the garden is under. But this is the only opportunity that I’ll have to come and address this particular problem which is why I’m here now~ So, I would like to say that if there were a wet, I don’t use dry cleaners myself, but if there were a wet cleaner there, I would be absolutely certain to patronize it. Thank you. Joe Bellomo : Thank you, Karen. Wei Wang followed by Johanna [Sadis]. Wei Wang: I oppose this project because it’s not compatible with the surrounding area as said by all the previous speakers. But I’d like to emphasize the noise issue for this project. This center’s property is immediately contiguous to the east side of the property which would contain the proposed Holiday Cleaners. The project will add one [clean] tower to evaporated coolers and the two exhaust fans, allto be located on the roof of the building, next to the center’s property. This equipment can be expected to be noisy, recycling on and off during operation. No information is given in the staff report about hours of operation for this equipment. Whether it will run at night or week ends or how noisy it is at some standard distance. Without attention to hours of operation and noise emissions, the project may well exceed the code. The noise issue must be addressed before operation begins; [inaudible]. I ask you to ask the applicant to hire a noise consultant to estimate and if necessary eliminate any illegal noise of the section of the noise limits at the proposed site, is covered by section 9.10.40. A commercial and industrial property noise limits is stated no person should [zhal] produce, suffer or.allow to be produced by any machine or device or any combination of the same. On commercial or industrial property. The noise level more than 8 decibels above the local ambient and any point outside of the property plan. Thanks. Joe Bellomo : Thank you. Johanna, I have a card for you but you might have already have spoken? Johanna Santer : [inaudible] Joe Bellomo : Okay. Herb [Borak], followed by Lynn Chiapella. 36 Herb Borock: My name’s Herb Borok, good morning. The approvals you usually have before you include an environmental finding as well. Typically you have either a mitigate, mega- declaration or a negative~d_eclaration. Sometimes staff terms a projects are categorically exempt from the categor4i California Environmental Quality Act. There are a list of possibilities that make something categorically exempt. However those are just necessary Conditions, they’re not sufficient to make something categorically exempt, because there’s another section of the public resources code, [fasequa] that overrides that, depending upon the particular circumstances of a project. I would say that this project needs a mitigating negative declaration, that it can’t be categorically exempt because of the particular situation with the properties involved here and with the mid-town shopping center as a whole. Specifically I’m referring to the two spaces that will be vacated. The one that’s vacated where the cleaners currently is and the second is the .space, the sub-leased space that’s being created. The City Council in two urgency ordinances have made findings of the Crisis in the mid-town shopping center with the loss of retail and personal services. And I believe without knowing what these vacant spaces are going to be, things can have an adverse environmental effect and that you should condition the project as a mitigating negative declaration to require that those two vacant spaces be ei-ther retail or personal service. As a project, they were all one project under the California Environmental Quality Act, and they all owned by the same property owner. I can show you that on the overhead projector and I’ll provide this for the file. While we’re waiting for this to warm up, the parcels, parcel 2 is where the current cleaners is. Ituses parking on parcel 1 and I believe that the building itself actually is also partially on parcel 1. The proposed project is on parcel 62, again it uses parking on parcel 1 and the building was also partially on parcel 1. And all three parcels are owned by the same owner. The particular conditions based upon those urgency ordinances passed justice within the past two months, by the City Council, indicate that it’s important to mitigate the negative effect that would have of those vacant spaces that are being, becoming vacant because of this particular application. And the way to do that is to condition any approval you might make on what kind, what type of use goes into those spaces. And consistent with the policy direction council gave staff last year regarding this, and the types of uses described in the findings, in those urgency ordinances, it seems to me the appropriate thing to do is to condition any approval that both those vacant spaces be either retail or personal service. Thank you. Joe Bellomo ~: Thank you, Herb. And if you wouldn’t mind, state for the record, your address. Herb Borock: Yeah, it’s on the card, did I not fill out on the card? Joe Bellomo : Yes. Herb Borock: That’s [all described]. 37 Joe Bellomo : Lynn Chiapella? ’" Lynn Chiapella: I’m very disappointed in the staff report and the materials that were submitted for this project for the reasons that I stated earlier. The things I find in error in this project are related to signage, parking, noise from rooftop equipment especially in the evenings and nights, loading and delivery, garbage and recycling and security lights. The staff should have handled all of these prior to submitting this to you and prior to staff approval. In relation to the signage, nothe signage is not approved. It’s a rooftop sign, . specifically an ARB prior to you, disapproved the rooftop signs. Mr. Turner should have noted that, rather than telling you it’s [grand colored] in. This is the second time this has happened that I’ve been here where it said [grand poppered] in when it was specifically disapproved. Number two with parking. You are now missing at least eight or nine parking places that originally were somewhere on that site in order to allow that building. Where did those parking places go? They’re not on any of theplans. However, if one were to visit this site, you might be able to figure that out and find them. You are now short the original parking that was for that site. I believe that should be addressed prior to any approval. Number three, security lighting should be addressed because the Victoria Emmens and other businesses in that area have just stuck up lights and they’re now under code enforcement. Nothing has changed, we just keep asking for code enforcement over and over. On the rooftop equipment I’ve covered. On the garbage if you look at your own pictures that are submitted on the wall, you’ll see that the garbage is located in the parking spaces currently. Where will the garbage go when there’s no place on site for the garbage? One could go and find out how Larry Wells did it. It was a very clean machine. But this is all changed. We’re going to have two different occupants with no place for garbage and recycling and no indication of how that will be handled. That was handled in the prior approvals for that building. The, well I have one more thing but I have too many things and my three minutes are over. But I think you get the gist that the details are truly completely missing and the drawings and the representation of parking are inaccurate and the signage is illegal and no rooftop signs are allowed unless you have a qualified shopping center kind of situation where they get coordinated signage approval which this does not have and none of the signs are legal in that area. Joe Bellomo : Thank you. The next speaker is Theresa Bognar, followed by Wayne [Maran]. Theresa C. Bognar: I’m Theresa Bognar and live about 250 feet downwind of this proposed industrial plant. Please note that the city has referred to this as a personal service use. However the fire chief refers to it as a dry-cleaning industry. Everyone continues calling it a plant. So I therefore will call it an industrial plant. This industrial 38 plant will be where all, there are numerous children in this area, mostly on foot, some on bikes, some on skate boards. We are opposed to the emissions that will be coming from this plant. By the way. there are no emissions at this time, but therewill be when it’s established. And furthermore apparently the applicant has taken this as a personal thing againsthis family. This is not, we just don’t want the plant, this industrial plant that uses Exxon products. Thank you. .- Joe Bellomo ¯ Thank you. Wayne [Marow] I think I’m reading it. Wayne Morin: I live, my name’s Wayne Martin, 3.687 Bryant in Palo Alto. I actually don’t have much of a dog in this fight. I don’t go to midtown much and kind of got interested in the newspaper article worried about dangerous chemicals in the facility. I’d never heard of any of these things and so I dug up [inaudible] I got to digging on the Net and found that there was quite a bit of information to be had and I just wanted to let you all know that this kind of stuff is available to you. The EPA has published a really nice thing called a whole bunch of area sector notebooks and there’s one on the dry-cleaning plants. It’s about 98 pages and before you all do too much reading or just judging on a project like this, I’d encourage you to get this paper, it’s on the Net and I’ve got links on it, little stuff that I just left, and read it. There’s a couple of papers that I found by a guy named Eugene Garfield on the industry itself done in about 1985, and they’re pretty interesting. I was interested in toxicology information and the more the dug into this, I found that perchlorethylene turns out to be a hob-goblin in the industry or at least in the governmental side and there’s tons and tons of Web sites out there talking about perchlorethylene as it turns out. So a lot of the information that you will find about the industry is really about perchlorethylene and if you were interested in getting rid of something it would be perchlorethylene. On the other hand, the general trend seems to be that youcan’t seem to find a lot of deaths associated with perchlorethylene. You do find for instance that various and sundry government forces tell you that 400,000 people a year die from cigarette smoke, but none from perchlorethylene, and DF2000 seems to be safer than perchlorethylene. So by relation it would seem that we’re dealing with something that’s in the positive trend even though it may be a chemical. I was interested in toxicology data so I did call Exxon. They related or sent me off to a company called RR Street that sent me some Exxon materials wtiich I will [simply tell] the next City Council. And one of the things, most of the stuff is really gobeldy- gook if you’re not a chemist or a toxicologist and so ultimately when you get down to the bottom line, you want to know what does this mean to me? And so you can find material safety data sheets. And I got these from an Australian Web site but I noticed in your packets that there’s a sort of a text version of this that came from Exxon. And if you dig through these, you’ll find that perchlorethylene has got a fair number of restrictions and constraints and warnings. When you get to the DF2000 side, there are far fewer of those. 39 And then if you go to OSHA, you’ll find this nice document about perchlorethylene and there’s not much on DF2000. So at any rate, on the toxic materials side, perchlorethylene seems to be the bad guy except no one seems to be dying from it and it is approved. And DF2000 because it seems to have, it’s a totally different chemical base, they’re both hydrocarbons, but one of them tends to be, one of them has chlorine in it which is the basic problem. But perchlorethylene has a half-life once its escaped of about 100 days, and does seem to biodegraded into things like [fosting] gas. On the other hand, the perk is, if it does get loose, it degrades in about a day to something I’ve forgotten for the moment, but it’s far less scary. Joe Bellomo ¯ Thank you. The next speaker will be Annette Ashton, followed~t~y our last speaker David HoUston. Annette Ashton, Bryant Street and this is going to be a little different level than Wayne’s. Ihave three general comments that I’d like to make. The first as the chair of the Mid-Town Group for Ground Floor Retail, I’d like to ask you to vote on the recommendation presented by John Lusardi, which is if you’re concerned at all about ¯ this, thatyou look at the zoning ordinance specifically. We’ve been concerned about the p~rmitted uses as well as general business services and asked the Council to make this a priority item in the Ground Floor Ordinance that is coming up for the final vote, specifically FI1 submit from the code the personal services item and ask you to omit the piece that is in the parentheses. The second comment is a more personal comment. As a resident of the city, I ask you to ask staff to prepare some incentives to for the seven perk plants to convert to a safer process much like the utilities incentive to get us to have better utility uses in our houses. The final recommendation which I’d like to see you present and move forward on, is as the new chair of the Mid Town Residents Association, in order to protect our close residents to our neighborhood commercial center, we would like to ask for neighborhood notification for any minor projects, both to the surrounding neighbors and codify this as well as the Residents Association. A preferable thing to do would be for any modifications made to the center, not to have staff review but take it directly to the appropriate commission. Thank you. Joe Bellomo : Thank you. David Houston. David Houston: Hi there. As the Urban Agricultural Project lead I’m opposed to this dry cleaning plant right next to an organic garden. Several people including myself harvest food from this garden and depend on it to sustain ourselves. One of the big problems facing us is global warming. Most food is transported approximately 1500 miles from where it’s grown to where it’s eaten. This organic garden allows people to grow food right there in their neighborhood. They can walk to the garden, and not burn any fossil fuels to eat and it’s a great thing. 0 The DF2000 is a fossil fuel, it’s a product of Exxon. It’s going to be no doubt in my mind polluting that garden and the air stream when the vapors come out and I can’t say that’s a good thing. I hope that the ARB does the right thing and denies the application as it. exists and works with the dry cleaners to get a more safer process in the plant. Thank you. Joe Bellomo : Thank you. I see no further cards. See no further speakers that would like to speak to this item. We will return to the board for general discussion and comment. Lee Lippert : And I have a question for the dry cleaner in this case. The equipment that you’re planning to use, what’s the size of it and do yo~l~ave any information Babaki Korobi : About 2 to 3 [inaudible]. About the size of two refrigerators. Lee Lippert : And what sort of noise or decibels does this equipment generate? Babaki Korobi : I don’t know much decimals it’s generating. Joe do you know any decimals, how much decimals? Joe Bellomo: [inaudible] Babaki Korobi : I do not know how much decimals it’s, but we are working in that plant all the time and it’s not, we don’t need to require any safety for our ears or anything to put over our ears while we ate operating this. It’s kind of like a big washing machine noise. It is in the size of two refrigerators and I don’t Lee Lippert : Is. that similar to operating a washing machine, except it’s processing solvent instead of water? Babaki Korobi : Yes sir. Lee Lippert : Steven, I have a question for you. If the board were to make a recommendation to send this on to council, what would be the timeline for this? Steven Turner: The timeline would be that we would attempt to get it on the next available council agenda and I believe that’s the board has, the council has to hear the item within 31 working days of the director’s, or of 31 working days from the appeal of the decisions. Lee Lippert : And in this case, since the applicant is really the opposed party, if we were to make a recommendation, whatever our recommendation, they could, well any person could appeal that decision and would it be the same timeline? 41 Steven Turner: That’s correct. It would work just like any other architecture review board application. The director makes the decision and as this is a minor project, there is an appeal period of four working days in which anybody can appeal the director’s decision. Lee Lippert : With regard to comments that Lynn Chiapella made, .with regards to the signage, is this an, is there an enforcement in the file forthe existing signage on the adjacent, on that building and the adjacent building? Steven Turner: I know of no enforcement action that is currently in process for the signs. As well, during the processing of the application, we looked for historical, records regarding any aspect of that building, approvals and such. Found none that relate specifically to the signs. Lee Lippert : And John, I have a question for you. With regards to sequel, why is the project exempt from [Sequa]? John Lusardi : Project is exempt from sequa because it is a minor modification to an existing building. The fact that there are hazardous chemicals involved or any kind of chemical operation, they need local and state regulations are not a trigger for necessarily for a negative declaration. The trigger for the Sequa review is the physical project itself. If a negative declaration were issued on this project per se, it would meet the same requirements as the project does right now with an exemption. Joe Bellomo : Thank you very much. Ken, would you like to start with discussion comments? Kenneth Komberg : Thank you. When I applied to this board, I applied with the full understanding that the issues that face architectural community right now, community of Palo Alto are those of impaction of conflict of people trying to enjoy properties that are becoming more and more difficult because of the density of people and the density of activities and the different opposing issues that people have as far as conjoined their properties. And I think this is a good example wherever you have mixed use, where you have residents and commercial zones that border each other, you’re bound to have issues that come up. I have reviewed .the information provided to us and the questions of the staff, list of your comments and I see that my own personal assessment that I find that it’s probably impossible to know exactly what the future is going to show, but I think that it is a minor application. In my mind I think that the benefit that personal services provides the community are essential to the operations and I think that the developer has done what can be considered reasonable to try to provide this service within the confines of this particular location. The deficiencies that I find, I find not by the developer, but by the owner of the property and I don’t think the developer themselves or their resources are, can be reasonably applied to those, whether it’s signage, trash, parking. But those things I think 42 are not the purview of this review at this point. And I find that I don’t really see that the danger included in this effort to conduct this business areas serious as the dangers that the community is subjected to just by all the other activities that occur concurrently and I think that the cleaner itself won’t significantly impact the residents nearby or the garden itself in ways that can be addressed by this board. Thank you. Joe Bellomo ¯ Thank you, Ken. Judith? Judith Wasserman ¯ I basically agree with Ken’s assessment. I think that there is a cleaners already there that receives cleaning by car or not by car, however it comes in that, I don’t see how that would actually change. The change in the size of the facility has to do with installing the dry cleaning equipment and operating the equipment there and that seems to fall into all the legal requirements. I was greatly reassured by Gordon’s description of the self-contained equipment. I’ve worked with hazardous materials and previously liquid hydrogen to be specific, in contained conditions and I know how it works and it works very well. I think I need to disclose the fact actually that i spoke, I’m sorry this is out of turn with Johanna, previously in a phone conversation I received e-mails from Catharine and Marco Maggie, Jan Burstein, Shirley Crok, Joanne Hattner, Ratica Sekoff, Nancy and Vince Sumpter and David Houston and Andy and Maily Hogio, all on the e-mail. I just wanted to disclose that in case there was some issues. I would like to condition the approval on studying the acoustics, and looking at the roof screen again. I think the roof screen could be cleaned up into a more orderly form. I have a picture of what the exist.ing equipment looks like from the parking lot next to Johanna’s house, because I didn’t want to walk in her yard to take the picture. The existing equipment on the Victoria Emmen’s site is barely visible and I actually wondered whether roof screen might makeit worse. So I think one might look at that. I’m very concerned about the exterior lighting and I think that should come back to us on consent and at least somebody ought to look at the cutoffs as required by the code, I believe it’s required by the code. If it’s not it should be. And I don’t know how we can condition the uses of the two vacated spaces to be retail. It’s already mandated that they should be and I would imagine that the staff would see to it that it was. ButI know that there’s a concern with traffic in mid-town and there’s also a concern with retail vitality. And the two things often come in conflict and in some Ways it would be nice if that place were quiet and serene, but that is not compatible with a retail shopping center. So I think that there’s going to be liveliness and activity there all the time, and some of us have been working very hard to achieve that. Joe Bellomo ¯ Lee? Lee Lippert : First of all I’d like to thank the applicant as well as the members of the public and the operators of the dry cleaner’s family for coming forward and speaking on this item. It’s particularly important that we hear your voice on this board. So many project come before us in which an application makes a presentation, and we listen to the 43 applicant and we make our conditions of finding. It really is important that it be a dialog in which we hear from everybody, .members of the community, the applicant, people that are opposed, people that support the project and I personally look at everything before rendering a decision or a direction of which how I feel about a particular project. So I thank you very much for taking the time, this has been a very long process, for coming before us. I think that the authority of this board is, the way I see it is very, very limited as to what we have the authority to rule on here. We don’t write the city ordinances, we don’t - go in there and apply the rules just randomly, and subjectively. We really have to take a very firm approach in terms of how we apply the city ordinances. And we have to rely on staffto assure us, these are the [things] that work for us, that what is brought before us in fact is representative of the project. And so from that point of view, I think that staff has done.really a very credible job here, we really appreciate your thoroughness in terms of the staff report, Steven, I think you did a really great job. Gordon, I really appreciate you coming here and I’m sorry I’ve forgot your name. Scott, I really want to thank you for driving all the way down from Concord this morning to. give us your testimony. I think it’s all very important and very illuminating in terms of us being able to reach a decision here. I’m very much in support of the staff recommendations and ratifying them with the conditions that I’ve stated. Also I’m very much in support of what she has said. This is a project which is I think both desirable and necessary, we don’t have in the purview of the ARB to really, our board is charged with quality and character issues, not necessarily use issues. So from that point of view, I have difficulty in terms of coming in and saying, "Well the use doesn’t apply, I can’t do that." Or the use doesn’t work for the neighborhood. I can’t really do that. I do want to say a couple of things with regard to the neighbors here however. I understand your concerns on the project,.there is a process in place with, if you disagree with any decision that the board takes, there is an appeal process by which you can then go to the next higher level which is City Council it’s been controversial some of the projects in the mid-town area. Starbucks to use an example was very, very controversial. Buy you know something? People in the community really use the Starbucks now, they go and they get their coffee. Everybody’s very happy with the Starbucks, and if they weren’t, people wouldn’t go there, they wouldn’t use the facility. But they do. So with that, those are my .comments. Again I reaffirm what staffhas to say. Joe Bellomo : Thank you, Lee. Drew? Drew Maran: Boy this is a tough one. I want to als0 compliment everybody involved, especially Gordon and Scott and the planning departments and I also want to thank everybody from the community and the business owners. In my year and a half plus on. the board, I’ve received I think five e-mails in advance of any hearing. Up until this one, I think I got 25 regarding that and I think I want to say that I think this is a good thing. That so many people are involved and that it, unfortunately it’s a source of tension but I also think it’s a very, it’s a good tension and the tension seems to be based on heightened 44 awareness of our, the future of our community in terms of the environment, in terms of health. And I think these are good topics to be hammering out. I’m not sure what the best resolution is for this one but it seems like a very good direction for our community to be moving in that we pay so much attention to what amounts to a relatively small item. In fact it keeps being referred to, it is referred to as minor, so. That’s a good thing. I think it’s not such a good thing or it’s sort of a sad commentary that we have first of all that we had to involve a legal firm to present this issue. I’m sorry that that happened. I don’t blame the applicant for doing that, I understand why it’s happened, but I think it also should be noted as a statement of what our community needs to do to get attention or to bring its concerns to the forefront,which is to hire legal professionals to talk for us. And that’s not a good sign, ! don’t think. I also want to say that in this case, I support small local business, I have one, I support local services, especially within what I would consider to be the villages of Palo Alto which mid town is and I think that that’s a good thing to provide those local services within those villages, so that we’re not driving to shopping malls or forcing our services out of our community. And again I want to repeat I think it’s a good thing when the community’s involved. What I find extremely frustrating about this topic is that we’re being asked to on the one hand confirm that there are rules and regulations in place and that the Architecture Review Board is only supposed to be commenting oia those rules and regulations, and yet I also find myself asking myself if in five years there’s a disaster here, if there’s a major fire or if there’s a major release of pollutant or if we learn something new about this chemical that we’re talking about, will we look back on this board hearing and say, "Gee, we had an opportunity to head that off." And whereas that’s always an option for every single review we do, we’ll always have the advantage of hindsight at some point if we survive. In this case it seems especially pronounced and for that reason I’m opposed to or I’m not in approval of this project. I feel like there could be more information. I think there could be better information. I’m concerned about what we’ve pointed out on the application to the fire department. That doesn’t appear to me to be as complete as it couldbe and I think that the business owners could present better alternatives to this DF2000. I’m also, again very perplexed, it’s very difficult to ask us to be critics of scientific information and that’s what it seems that we’re being asked to do and I appreciate again Steven has taken on a tremendous burden here to try to present it in a way that makes us capable of analyzing scientific information. I would like to really encourage the business owner and the community people, the neighbors who are opposed to their business, to sit down and work out some solutions. And I would suggest that the solutions could be found simply within the business itself. Considering different use, different materials, different chemicals, wet cleaning doesn’t seem to be the solution from the business- owner standpoint, from Johanna’s standpoint it seems to be a good solution. Is there a compromise that can be worked out? I’m hoping that the tension, the conflict that seems to be at the heart of this, between the people who are opposed to the business and the business owners, can be resolved outside of this process, because obviously the process itself is slightly flawed. 45 So I would encourage more dialog, encourage more discussion and perhaps make that discussion available as a review or as a summary of that discussion available for other people to analyze how do we accept the growth of our communities and encourage local services while also acknowledging that some of those services present potential dangers. Thank you. Joe Bellomo : Thank yoU, thank you Drew: I have just a few follow-up comments. I appreciate all the comments made by the board and I think you’ve heard some very good ones. Just to synthesize some of the things that I appreciate all of the work that went into this minor project and the review and the community concerns, the owner’s concern to go to business to get into a business. The Municipal Code does allow property, laundry service utilizing and meeting the applicable Bay Area Quality Management District requirements. And the cleaning services done onsite. I think the, my review is going to be concerns for the use of the chemical. We have the concems. The concerns were states. The concerns have been addressed. We, as a board have been looking beyond environmental issues such as operable windows on buildings. How do we reduce and encourage environmental quality in our neighborhoods and our industrial commercial areas? We are trying to dig in deeper, trying to go beyond what we thought was correct and hopefully having a vision into the future. That is our drive, I, for me that is the reason I’ve been on the board for four years. And I will encourage staff and all authorities to look, continue to look beyond what we think is correct but I feel there’s been a proper review on this and I will encourage staff to continue to look at the concerns of cleaning facilities using the perk or the DF2000. These chemicals onsite, and where in fact these facilities are developed, maybe in fact as Palo Alto is always a driving force; maybe this can, we can start looking at this in the bigger picture. Is this, what about these facilities? And the owner I’m sure is also lookingat it and will continue to look at these uses and these chemicals. But having said that, I want to go through some of the concems I do have on this application. That is I would request and like to see a complete site plan addressing if in fact there are new parking spaces and the basic circulation vehicular patterning around the building, if in fact there are new additional parking spaces. When we have these minor applications with exterior modification doors, we would like, I would like to see a lighting plan and how in fact lighting is developed with zero cutoff and how it effects the parking lot and your entry door’s emplacements. The rooRop screening, I think an alternative is a solid metal screening, something that would terrace from the stucco facade and reduce acoustic levels and transmission in the planes of the residential to the rear and basically a simple study, acoustic study of how the mechanical screening does mitigate acoustical volume. I would also like to seehow trash is handled onsite.. It’s at the site, it is a little vague .on if we can maybe encourage the owner, the owner of the property to address the trash and recycle areas, thus creating more of a general [store/storm?] management policy for drainage. 46 The, I’d like to see if in fact the checklist after review of the checklist for hazardous materials and other checklists are not complete in their entirety, that in fact that that be done. I am in support of the general supportr I think there’s a little work to do on the application and I’d like to see some of those concerns come back to us for our review. Those are my comments and I would be open to someone scripting a motion [inaudible]. Lee Lippert : I move that we affirm the staff report and conditions of approval and findings with additional items to return to us on consent, specifically the roof screening, study of acoustics with regard to decibel levels, complete site~l~aa, that shov~l~rking and trash enclosures, and a lighting plan, site lighting plan. Kenneth Kornberg : Second. Joe Bellomo : A motion, a second, all those in favor? Joe Bellomo: Aye. Judith Wasserman: Aye. Kenneth Kornberg Aye. Joe Bellomo [Question] Opposed? Drew Maran Nay.¯ Joe Bellomo : We, that motion passes four to one. Thank you: Judith Wasserman : There was some larger procedural questions that were raised and how do we address the issue of notification and changing, 47 Attachment E PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE I 16.48.120 Standards for review. (a) In addition to the goals and purposes of this chapter as set forth in Section 16.48.010, the following standards shall be used by the architectural review board in reviewing projects within its jurisdiction: (1) Whether the design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’sComprehensive Plan; (2)Whether the design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site; (3)Whether the design is appropriate to the function of the project; . (4)In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, whether the design is compatible with such character; (5) Whether the design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; (6) Whether the design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site; (7)Whether 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; (8) Whether the amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures; (9) Whether sufficient ancillary functions are provided .to support the main functions of the project and whether the same are compatible with the project’s design concept; (10) Whether access tO the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; (11) Whether natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project; (12) . Whether the materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; (13) Whether the landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; (14) Whether plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance; (15) Whether the design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to: (A)Exterior energy design ~lements, (B)Internal lighting service and climatic control systems, and (C)" Building siting and landscape elements. (b)In applying the standards set forth in subsection (a) of this section, the architectural review board may review each of the following items of the proposed project: (1)Uses and functions as they relate to the design of the project and adjacent uses; (2)Compatibility with neighboring properties and uses; (3)Visibility and effect upon view at all site lines; (4)Aesthetics; (5)Quality of design; (Shadow) Palo Alto Municipal Code 1 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (6)(7)(8) (9) (10) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (11) (B)(C)(D)(E) (12)(A) Character; Scale; Building materials; Color; and Site development characteristics including, but not limited to: Lot size, Building coverage, Setbacks, Building height, Location upon the site, Open space, and Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle circulation; Environmental factors including, but not limited to: Noise, Emission of smoke, fumes and odors, Fire safety, life safety and fire access, Disturbance of existing topography, trees, shrubs, and other natural features, Water percolation, grading and drainage~ and impermeability of soils; Building and building components including, but not limited to: Stairs, ramps, escalators, moving sidewalks, elevators or downspouts.on the exterior buildings, (B) Flues, chimneys, exhaust fans, air-conditioning equipment, elevator equipment, fans, cooling towers, antennae orsimilar structures placed upon the. roof or the exterior of the building, (C) Sun shades, awnings, louvers or any visible device for deflecting, filtering or shielding the structure or interior from the. elements, (D) Balconies, penthouses, loading docks or similar special purpose appendages or accessory structures; (13). Accessory structures, including garages, sheds, utility facilities and waste receptacles; (14)(A)(B)(C) (E) (15) limited to: (A)(B)(c). (16) determined by (c) Other on-site improvements including, but not limited to: Parking and other paved areas, Landscaping, Lighting, Signs and graphics, and Artwork, sculpture, fountains and other artistic features;. Energy efficiency and renewable energy design elements including, but not Exterior energy design elements, Internal lighting service and climatic control systems, and ’ Building siting and landscaped elements; Such other features as affect the design and ultimate appearance of the work, as the architectural review board. The architectural review board may recommend requirements which are more restrictive than the maximum regulations set forth in Title 16 and/or Title 18 of this code, when it Concludes such requirements are necessary: (1)To promote the internal integrity of the design of the project; (2)To assure compatibility of the proposed project’s design with its site and surroundings; (Shadow) Palo Alto Municipal Code 2 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (3) To minimize the environmemal effects of the proposed project; provided, however, that the architectural review board’s sole responsibility with respect to the storage of hazardous materials shall be to require compliance with Title 17 of this code. (Ord. 4066 § 12, 1992: Ord. 3796 § 9, 1988: Ord. 3486 § 1, 1983: Ord. 3416 § 1 (part), 1983) (Shadow) Palo Alto Municipal Code Existing Perchloroethylene (PERC) Dry Cleaning Plants in Palo Alto Attachment F The City of Pa lo A1 to OTown and Country Cleaners, 855 El Camino O Norge Village Laundry, 240 California Ave. OStanford Cleaners, 2875 El Camino Real O AJ’s Quick Cleaners, 3175 Middlefield Rd. O Holiday Cleaners, 595 Bryant St. O Charleston Cleaners, 3900 Middlefield Rd. O Mike’s One Hour Cleaner, 3886 El Camino This document is a graphic represen~atJ0~l ~’~ly of best available sources. This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Attachment G March 12, 2001 City Council, Architectural Review Board, Director, Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 RE: Kahrobaie Family Holiday Cleaners at Midtown Shopping Center Ladies and Gentlemen, We are writing to encourage the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to approve the Kahrobaie family’s application for a new Holiday Cleaners, which will be heard by the ARB on March 15t~. We are each owners and operators of.other businesses in the Midtown Shopping Center and are eager for the new Holiday Cleaners operated by the Kahrobaie family to open as soon as possible. The Kahrobaie’s existing cleaning service (under the name "Gate Cleaners") has been an important part of the success of the Midtown Shopping Center over the years. The cleaning service provides an important amenity for nearby residents of the neighborhood and will enhance the. Shopping Center. ~ We are aware that cleaning services are an allowed use in the shopping center because they are a "neighborhood-serving business" and understand the Kahrobaie family has met all city permitting requirements for its facility. We believe the architectural aspects of the project have been appropriately addressed and should not be the cause of further delays in allowing the Kahrobaie family to move forward. As neighbors and merchants, we are pleased the Kahrobaie family intends to use state-of-art cleaning equipment and products in its business operations. We understand that the City’s Fire Department and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District have already approved the cleaning service’s proposed operation, which means this is a safe and appropriate use for the Shopping Center. Thank you in advance for considering these comments and our support for the Kahrobaie family’s Holiday Cleaners. We hope the City will once again demonstrate its support for small businesses by quickly approving this application. Sincerely, MIDTOWN SHOPPING CENTER BUSINESS OWNERS Gray Cary\PA\ 10131340. I 2101580-900200 City Council, Architectural Review Board, Director, Department of Planning and Community Environment March 12, 2001 Page 2 (Print Business Name) (Print Business Name) (Si.anature) (Print Name) (Si.anature) (Print Name) 51-,; (Print Business Name) (Print Business Name)(Si.(:lnature) (Print Name) (Print Business Name) (Print Name) 0 Gray Cary\PA\l 013 i 340.1 2101580-900200 Babak Kahrobaie clo Gate Cleaners 2675 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 March 14, 2001 Hon. Chairperson Bellamo and Board Members of the Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Ca 94301 RE: 2685 Middlefield Road [00-ARB-158]- Holiday Cleaners Dear Chairperson Bellamo and Board Members, We are writing to urge the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to approve the Department of Planning and Community Environment’s recommendation regarding the above-referenced application which we have submitted. Background As you may know, my family owns and operates Gate Cleaners in the Midtown shopping center. We have proudly served nearby residents of the Midtown neighborhood and have contributed to the success of the shopping center for many years. We are now seeking to improve our business by moving to a larger space in the shopping center and associating with Holiday Cleaners of America in order to provide a full service dry cleaning and shirt laundry with state-of-the art equipment and products and provide additional services to our large base of local customers. Our new Holiday Cleaners will be a much more desirable amenity for the neighbors and should serve as a model throughout the city for other dry cleaning establishments. Project’s Architectural Aspects While appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of this application is allowed under the City’s ordinances, we believe the architectural aspects of our project that are subject to the ARB’s review are extremely limited. The fa(;:ade modifications are relatively minor and are limited to a new front door, new back doors, replacement signage and roof equipment with related screening. The project will not generate any smoke, fumes or noise. Our project fulfills each of the goals and Gray CaryWA\l 0 ! 32579.1 2101580-900200 purposes of the ARB, the modifications m~t the, ARB’s standards for review, and the project is no doubt.consistent with numero=~s other approvals given by the ARB for projects of similar type and scope. Our proiect is clearly compatible with the shopping center and nearby residential areas and wii ~~rovide additional benefits as well such as screening for existing roof equipment unrel~ed to the new dry cleaning service. We are confident you will agree that our project should enhance the immediate area and greater community. Compliance with Permitting Requirements We have diligently followed the City’s permitting process for the project and have adhered to the letter and spirit of all permitting requ!rements, including all building code requirements. The project is consistent with the applicable zoning district and meets all requirements for parking and traffic under City ordinances. Holiday Cleaners will not provide dry cleaning and laundry service for other dry cleaners, but rather the equipment will only be used to clean garments from on-site customers. Finally, we have eagerly participated in numerous meetings and discussions with community members to address questions about the project.. Issues Beyond the Purview of the Board We urge the ARB not to consider certain objections made by project opponents concerning fire safety and hazardous materials as they are unrelated to the architectural aspects of the proposal. These issues have been properly addressed through the permitting process and should not have been included in the appeal to the ARB because the City’s Fire Department and the Bay Area. Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) have approved the project as noted below. No one could be more concerned about claims that the equipment and products we intend to use at Holiday Cleaners may be potentially dangerous. We are a family run business and have no intention of putting family members, friends or the community in harm’s way. We take safety concerns very seriously, but feel many claims made by opponents have been unfairly presented and have created unnecessary concerns about the project. It is important to note that many of the claims made about the potential flammability or hazardous nature of certain equipment and products on site can also be made about numerous household cleaning products under anyone’s kitchen sink. We are confident every aspect of this project is safe and will not pose a danger to those of us operating the business, our customers or neighbors. As noted below, governmental permitting authorities support this position The BAAQMD which is responsible for regulating businesses that use certain hazardous substances and air contaminates has determined that our project does not require a permit. Further, the BAAQMD has encouraged the use of equipment and products we intend to utilize in our project as better alternatives to those commonly used in the dry cleaning industry today. Gray CaryLnA\I0132579. ! 2101580-900200 The project meets all fire and safety requirements. We have fully and accurately disclosed all information required by the Fire Department, and the Fire Chief has made an informed decision to approve the project without additional ~ermits, subject to certain common conditions including the preparation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan which we understand is appropriately prepared through the construction process. The ARB’s own guidelines provide that the body’s sole responsibility with respect to hazardous materials is to require compliance with Title 17 (Hazardous Materials Storage) and the project complies with these requirements. Conclusion In conclusion, we respectfully request that the ARB recommend approval of the project’s minor fagade modifications, subject to the suggested conditions of approval made by the staff, and also adopt staff’s proposed findings for this project. We look forward to meeting with the ARB to discuss this project. Sincerely, Babak Kahrobaie Gray Cary\PA\10132579.1 2101580-900200 MAR 1 5 2001 BAA+PCCF BAY AREA ACTION 4" PENINSULA CONSERVATION CENylSR FOUNDATION www, BAActlon.org ~ www.PCCF.org I www, EcoCalendar.org 39~1 East Bayshore Road, Pa]o Alto CA 94303-4303 tel 65o.96z.9876 ~ fax 6So.96~.8~34 March 15, 2001 Honorable Chairperson and Board Members, Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 2685 Middlefield Road- 00-ARB-158 Dear Honorable Chairperson and Commissioners: As the Urban Agriculture project leader for Bay Area Action+Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation I am opposed to the Holiday Cleaners to be located at 2685 Middlefield Road (the "Project"). My opposition is based on the Project’s impact on the organic garden located next to the proposed site for the project. Many members of the commtmity, including myself harvest vegetables from this garden. We also host gardening events to teach children and adults about organic gardening at this oasis amongst the pavement. I am extremely concerned about the negative impact this proposed dry cleaning plant will have on the organic garden and the rest of the Mid-town community. Please do the right thing and deny the application for. the Project. David Houston Page 1 of 1 Re: 2685 Middlefield Road 00~ ~-d~13- 158 , _ ~, Lusardi, John From:Gawf, Ed Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2001 4:24 PM To:Grote, Lisa; Lusardi, John Subject:FW: 2685 Middlefield Road 00-ARB-158 ..... Original Message ..... From: Vince Sumpter @ Home [mailto:vsumpter@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 12:53 AM ¯ To: job@bellomoarchitects.com; ken@kornberg.com; drew@drewmaran.com; llippert@compuserve.com; JWarqiteq@aol.com; joharmasan@hotmail.com; ed_gawf@city.palo-alto.ca.us; city_couneil@eity.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: 2685 Middlefield Road 00-ARB-158 Folks- Frankly, I’m amazed you have to endure this flurry of email in Order to realize that a Dry Cleaning plant is not a desirable mid-town tenant. I’m not an expert in all the issues raised by some Of the letters I’ve seen; rather my opposition to the plant is based on the simple observation that midtown does not need any more commercial van or vehicle traffic. The city missed a chance when Long’s renovated part of the area to .ensure an intelligent traffic flow within Hid-town. I dare each and every one of you to navigate that parking lot during peak traffic periods...please don’t compound a bad situation further. And’ bottom line, ask yourself if you’d want such a plant, with such chemicals in high concentration, anywhere near your children and your home. I’ll bet not. Please put the plant in an industrial area where it belongs (where environmental and traffic Controls can be put in place). I welcome your thoughts and responses, -Vince Sumpter 943 Clara Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303-4002 3115101 March ~,5, £00~ Hearing on the Proposed Holidag C~eaners 2685 Middlefield road, O0--ARB- 15,~; Noise issues at the Proposed Holiday Cleaners by John K. Abraham, I"larch 14, 2001. Ms. Santer’~ property is immediately contiguous to the east side of tile prupe[ty Which would contain the proposed Holiday [:lea~e~. l I-~e~-~ is an alley behind the building separating her property from the building. The building is about 15 orso feet tall and acts partially as a barrier for noise coming from Middlefield Road to the West and also for traffic in the parking lots South of the proposed site. The project will add one 5’ cooling to:,.’t~.~.r, [Y,.’o 3’ evaporative coolers and two 33.5" exhaust fans all to be located on the roof of the building next to Ms. Santer’s property. This equipment can be expected to be noisy when cycling on and off during operation. In orde[ to .determine whether a noise ordinance violation is occurring, police must go to the point just inside Ms. Santer’s property plane nearest the subject ~,quipment. An ambient noise reading is taken at this point, when the equipment is not cycled on. This ambient is essentiaIly a minimum noise level under the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, taken over a 6 minute time period, on slow setting, under the A scale reading. The ambient reading is compared to another noise mete~- reading taken when the equipment is cycled on and producing it’s maximum noise. If the difference between these two readings is 8 dBA or more then the noise ordinance is being violated unde|- the Palo Alto Code. One ,~uuid i~ui~n~IIy expect Lhe a~nbie~-iI..to be lowest e~i ly ii~ ~I~e morning and late at night. No information is given in the staff ~e.po~t about hours of operation for this equipment, whether it will run at night, on weekends, or how noisy it is at some standard distance. Note that the Palo Alto Code noise measurement in this case does not depend on a set distance such as 25 feet, as on public property. It is referenced.at the source property plane, and must hold throughout the entire plane, at all heights. Of course, the practical place to measure will be about 4 or 5’ above ground. I have found no discussion at all of noise issues in the staff report. While the building blocks some of the loud noises for the residents near the proposed plant, it is not helpful to have noisy pieces of machinery placed on top of the building. A screen about the machinery might help in appearances but will do little to cut noise, particularly for low frequencies, which are underestimated using the standard A-scale required under the code. An acoustically effective sound barrier should be at least 3 Ibs per square foot and air tight, perhaps too heavy for this -rooftop. Without atl-’~tion to location, hours of oper-Lion and noise emissions, the project may well exceed the code. The nolse issue must be addressed before operations begin or risk exceedances. I urge you to ask the applicant to hire a noise consultant to estimate and if necessary eliminate any illegal noise. The section of the noise limits at the proposed site is covered by Section 9.10.040. Commercial and industrial property noise limits: "No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device~ or any combination of same° on commercial or industrial property,.a noise level more than eight dB above the loc~P ambient at any point outside of the property plane." Di~agram of the Property and Noise Sources Architectural Review Board 250 Hamil ton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 March 6, 2001 Concerning the Proposed Holiday Cleaners Project at 2685 Middlefield Road, O0-ARB- 158: Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board: I live about a block away from the proI~S~L-~I~Nday Cleaner’s site but I shop at Midtown almost every day. I am not reassured about the safety of the proposed c!_eaning agent DF-2000. Using a hypothetical usage level of I O gallons pear,year, this computes to about 3.5 ounces of fluid lost per day. I have talked to the Fire Department Representative at the recent site meeting and understand that he rates DF-2000 as no more toxic than motor oil, and that he would have no problem working at the proposed plant should that be his line of work. There are some nagging and unanswered questions however. Not enough time has passed to compile a "rap" sheet on long term effect of this compound. Does it cause or contribute to other diseases, respiratory problems such as asthma or cardiological problems? Nearly a half cup of motor oil lost somewhere in my.neighbor’s property every day would not be acceptable. How does the I0 gallons escape? Is it trapped in filters, does it go into the clothes and back to people°s homes, does it escape into the atmosphere, in mini-spills? Nobody seems to know. How and where are the filters disposed of? The regulatory agencies assured us that MTBE was safe,.and it turned out to be a nightmare. Broad assurances sound different when you are the guinea pig. We have no idea what to expect for long-term effects, particularly for youngchildren nearby. The estimate, that it is safer than perc does not answer the questions about how bad DF-2000 is. As a neighbor I do not want chemicals used in commercial doses a few feet from me or other people, young and old under variable ¯ conditions. Do we need to discover the bad effects? We have but one local environment and I hope you will see fit to protect it. I do not want to take a chance on I/2, or 1.5 cups or whatever measure of daily toxic exposure there will be (I0 gallons may be too low an esI.imat~). Pl~a~;e do not allow use of this chemical .in this location. John K Abraham 736 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto, California 94306 Welcome, wmartin45 (.wmartin45 ¯ wmartin45 @ yahoo.com) palo_alto_issues Groups Home - Yahoo! - Account Info - He~ Shop Webvan Today! Start a Group - My Group_s - My Preferences - ~_L.ig_n Out ~Messages Re_9_~_y I Forward I View Source Unwrap Lines I .Delete Home Group Member [ Delivery Options ] I Message 876 of 878 I Previous I Next [ Up Thread ] From: Wayne Martin <wma~tin45 @y...> ,Messages Post Message Index Ms Date: Wed Mar 14, 2001 9:36pm Subject: Results of Dry Cleaners Investigation -- Part II: What is Exxon DF2000? Chat Files Bookmarks Database Polls Members Calendar Promote "~" = Owner The solvent which has been identified by the "Midtowners" as something about which they were concerned is called "Exxon DF2000", which.like Perchloroethlyene, is a petroleum-based.solvent. However, DF2000 (as specified in its documentation) is quite different in its composition and physical characteristics. Both PERC and DF2000 seems to be "alaphitic hydrocarbons" (carbon molecules in which the carbon is aligned in "chains" as opposed to ?rings". The following WEB-sites provide some insight into the definitions of "Aliphatic Hydrocarbons" (no need to read if not interested): Aliphatic Hydrocarbons/Definition: http : //www. exxon, com/exxon_productdata/lube_encyclopedia/aliphatic tml http : //www. exxon, com/exxon~roductdata/lube~ncTclopedia/hydrocarbo http : //www. encyclopedia, com/articles / 06196. html (Slides) http : //www. chem. utoronto, caicoursenotes ~CHM240Y/temp/lect4 / sld001, h http: //www. ilpi. com/msds/ref/aliphatic, him1 These WEB-sites deal with this topic in more depth (can skip if not interested): Aiiphatic Hydrocarbons/Chemistry: http://msds.pdc.cOrnell.edu/msds/siri/msds/h/q167/q484.html http://www.newpiq.com/tech/chemcompat/chmsump.html http://www..qwdq.de/~olauens/reas.html http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/O,5716,120229+2+110804, (Review) http://www.ecolink.com/products/msdspdfs/ecc.pdf However, in terms of those of us here on the ground, what really is DF2000? According to the manufacturer: DF-2000 is classified in NFPA 32 as a Class IIIA solvent Note -- These codes are the product of this national Organization: National Fire Protection Code: bttp://buildin~code.nfpa.org/ The main point here is that DF-2000 is different from PERC in that DF-2000 is flammable, whereas PERC is not. So, different fire codes relative to the storage and use of DF-2000 emerge, which are different from those regulating materials which happen to be dangerous by virtue of~their toxicity. Exxon Corporation maintains a WEB-site which provides information about DF2000: Technical Data: http://www.exxon.mobil.com/chemical/customer/products/families/df20 html Stoddard Solvent Replacement: http://www.exxon.mobil.com/chemical/customer/products~families/df20 sr.html Recommendations for Safe Handling: httD://www.exxon.mobil.com/chemical/customer/products/families/df20 shs.html Odor Detection: http://www.exxon.mobil.com/chemical/customer/products/families/df20 odp.html Product Attributes: httD://www.exxon.mobil.com/chemical/customer/products/families/df20 .html Equipment Modification: http://www.exxon.mobil.com/chemical/customer/products/families/df20 em.html Case Histories: http://www.exxon.mobil.com/chemical/customer/products/ ies.html Compatible Equipment: http:.//www.exxon.mobil.com/qhemical/customer/products html The following is detailed Exxon DF2000 product literature, and some data on the toXicity of the product : ~ . ’ | Exxon DF2000/Product Literature: Page #i httD : //.qrouDs. yahoo, com/.qrouD/Dalo alto issues i/messa,~e/39 Exxon DF2000/Product Literature: Page #2 ~ http: //.~rou~s .yahoo.com/.qroup/Dalo alto issues i/messa~/4~0 Exxon DF2000/Regulatory Data Sheet: Page #i _~ htt~://.~roups.yahoo.com/qrouD!Dalo_alto ’issues i/messa /41_ Exxon DF2000/Regulatory Data Sheet: Page #i httD://~roups.¥ahoo.com/group/Dalo alto issues_i/messaqe/42 Exxo~ DF2000/Regulatory Data Sheet: Page #i htt~://~rouDs.¥ahoo.com/qroup/palo alto issues i/messaqe/43 Exxon DF2000/Regulatory Data Sheet: Page #i httD://qroups.¥ahoo.com~rouD/Dalo_alto issues__i/messa~e/45 Exxon DF2000/Regulatory Data Sheet: Page #i httD://~rouDs.vahoo.com/~rouD/Dalo_alto_issues, i/message/46 Exxon DF2000/Regulatory Data Sheet: Page #I httD://~rouDs.¥ahoo.com/~rouD/Dalo_alto_issues_ i/message/47 This product information was acquired by calling a national distributor of DF2000. For the most part, most of the material above is a walk in a sophomore/junior university-level course in organic chemistry. It is unlikely that most people would have taken these courses, and so, most of this information mightseem unhelpful. However, there are clearly written "data sheets" available, which are published by the vendor/distributors which tend to provide most of the information that anyone might be interest in about a product. Not only can one determine the safety issues associated with a given product, but can frequently compare the product with another: Material Safety Data Sheets: DF-2000:- http://www.solvents.net.au/MSDS/DF2000.htm PERC: http://www solvents.net.au/MSDS/Dowper.htm By comparing these two data sheets, one will see that DF2000 represents a decrease in number of safety issues associated with an industrial chemical/solvent, as compared to PERC. I also called a petroleum-based dry cleaning machine manufacturer, and learnedthat the market is beginning to shift towards the petroleum-based machines. The fellow with whom I spoke pointed out that dry cleaning is not a very large "market", and that with the lifetime of the machines being in excess of 15 years, that very few new machines are sold every year. He also noted that the industry was working on every more environmentally "friend" petroleum-based solvents, although he provided no more information than that. There is not nearly as much informati’on on the NET about Exxon DF2000 as there is PERC. What there is does not seem to be as "hostile" as the volumes of anti-PERC information, and generally tends to be supportive of this class of products. One point that the "Midtowners" made about a lack of environmental tests is answered by the manufacturers in that DF2000 is a member of a "class" of well known and well tested petroleum-based solvents, and therefore does not need additional testing. Not being in.the "industry", I will simply report this without comment. yhs, wem Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.¥ahoo.com/ Message 876 of 878 I Previous I Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index ~ I Forward I View Source I Unwrap Lines I Delete Ms Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All dghts reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Sewlce - ~ - etd~ Groups Home - Yahoo! - Account Info - ~ Oranges Bananas Welcome, wmartin45 (yvmartin45 ¯ wmartin45@yahoo.com) palo_alto_issues webven ShopWebvan Today! Start a Group - M__y Gro_____9_up_s - My Preferences - Sign Out Group Member [ Delivery Options ] ~Messages ’, ,~!~;_Messages Hell Re_9_~_~ I Forward I I I ~View Source I Unwrap Lines I Message Home Message 864 of 878 I Previous t Next [ Up Thread ] In__.dex ¯ Messages Post Chat Files Bookmarks Database Polls Members Calendar Promote From: Wayne Martin <wmartin45 @y...> Date: Mon Mar 12, 2001 2:14am Subject: Results of Investigations into Dry Cleaning -- Part I There are some ."issues" which should not exist, I think. One such "issue" that a governmental agency has had to deal with recently occurred within the last three years and involved NASA, the Navajo Nation and the ashes of Gene Shoemaker, one of the two scientists who discovered the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet who was killed in a car accident in 1997. A former student suggested that NASA transport his ashes to the surface of the moon on one of their missions -- which would . become his final resting place. ~" = Owner "~t = Moderator ~= Oi le On a subsequent "moon shoot", NASA was able to deliver his remains to the moon, and Shoemaker became the first human to be "buried" somewhere other than earth. Shortly thereafter, members of the American Navajo Nation complained to NASA that this was an inappropriate governmental action: "It is one thing to prove, to study, to examine and even for men to walk upon the moon," Hale said in a statement issued Sunday. "But it is sacrilege, a gross- insensitivity to the beliefs of many Native Americans, to place human re[;~ains on the moon." and as a result: "NASA will consult with American Indians before it rockets any more human ashes to the moon, a spokeswoman for the space agency pledged yesterday." Sources: The Arizona Daily Star, 13 January 1998 -http://www.jpl.nasa.qov/s19/news82.html http://www.jpl.nasa.qov/slg/news81.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_405000/405944.stm Something remotely along the same lines seems to be happening in Palo Alto, relative to a Midtown Dry. Cleaning establishment’s wanting to move location and to convert from one form of dry cleaning solvent to another. An article published in the PA.Weekly reported on a meeting attended by some eighty Midtown residents, concerned about the shift in chemical composition of the dry cleaning solution of a local dry cleaners: httD://qrouDs.¥ahoo.com/~roup/palo, alto_issues/message/816 I’ve spent quite a few hours trying to determine what the issues were about which this group of "Midtowners" might be concerned, relative to Dry Cleaning. As I mentioned previously, this area turns out to be "confusing", in that there seems to be a lot of government regulation and control over the.dry cleaning industry of late. This regulation turns out to be along the following lines~ Federal: State: Regional: County: City: EPA, OSHA Hazardous Materials Handling Bay Area Air Resources Board Hazardous Fire, Hazardous, Planning I’m sure there are other agencies in the picture, but these are the main bureaucratic "layerings" which I’ve come across. I’ve lived in cities where I’ve watched lumber yards, banks, whole blocks go up in flames during the riots of the late ’60s. Gas mains will (from time-to-time) blow up and demolish hundreds of homes and businesses (Mexico City/1984). But I’ve really never given too much thought to any "danger" in the local dry cleaning shop. I might have been concerned as to whether they will find and return anything in the pockets of garments that I leave in their care (like a roll of hundreds), or whether they will "lose" something, and ~_ try to claim I never left it .. but I’ve never had any concern for my well being based on the shop’s being close to my home. Should I (and you) be concerned about dry cleaners in the neighborhood? DRY CLEANING -- WHAT IS IT? Among other hhings which I’ve found about the industry, dry cleaning started about 150 years ago in France, although information scientist Eugene Garfiel~ (see below) notes that some form of dry cleaning probably existed at least 1000 BC in the Middle East: In 1849, it is said that dry-cleaning was accidentally discovered when M. Jolly-Bellin, a tailor, upsets a lamp containing turpentine and oil on his clothing and noticed it had a cleaning effect. Eugene Garfield Essays on Dry Cleaning: Part I: (Technology) httD://www.qarfield.li~vary.uDenn.edu/essays/v8p213¥1985.pdf Part II: (Environmental) httD://www.qarfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v8p223¥1985.pdf (These are interesting papers, written by a scientist, not associated with the industry, who decided to investigate "dry cleaning" because he claims to be naturally curious. They download a little slowly, but I think they are worth the wait.) Having read these papers, we once again at the problem at hand: so just what is the problem? THE PROBLEM I’ve collected so much information on this topic that I can not organize it in terms of 5-10 WEB-sites that have-been so well organized by their authors that just by scanning them -~ all becomes clear. There seem to be "zones" of influence/power/terf which characterize dry cleaning regulation and environmental control/cleanup. I’m going to break up my report on this topic to try to reflect the sources of information, since these "zones" so clearly exist.The following outlines these "zones": Dry Cleaning a) The Technology i) Perchloroethlyene 2) Petroleoum-based - DF2000 3) Green - Chemical Free b) The Environmental Issues c) The Regulatory/CleanUp d) The Risks/Hazards e) Litigation As with most things that are being researched, one sometimes finds that the story turns from one point to another as you dig into the problem. The following two paragraphs are thecrux of the Midtowner’s complaint (I think): The assurances (about DF2000) did not placate residents. (One resident), who said she has worked as a scientist in the environmental field, said DF2000 is "toxic, not benign," and that there have been no studies to evaluate its toxic effects. "There is food Preparation next door, the karate studio for kids, the organic~garden and the juice place nearby," she said. She urged the owners to investigate "wet cleaning," a water-and-detergent process she said she used when it first was introduced in Chicago. So, using these thoughts as a starting point to’ c~racterize local concern, I have scoured the WEB t~ing to loca~e information with which to help me understand all~6f the "issues’! that are associated with running a dry cleaners and how that activity can be hazardous to a community’s health. TERMS/VOCABULARY There are more new terms, here than anyone wants to know. But a couple are important, since they keep popping up:. VOCs - Volatile Organic Compounds PERC - Perchloroethlyene (Tetrachloroethlyene) A dry cleaning solvent used by almost every dry cleaners in America. Pathways - Any path or way that a solvent (or compound) can employ to exit from a point of containment to the environment. Fugitive- Solvent that has escaped ,containment. DRY CLEANING TECHNOLOGY There are so many WEB-sites which do a reasonably.good job with this describing the Dry Cleaning Industry/Problem: EPA SectorHandbook: (89 pages -- Excellent) httD://es.epa.qov/oeca/sector/sectornote/pdf/drycln~.pdf OSHA: (Excellent Collection of Papers) http://www.osha-slc.qov/SLTC/drycleaninq/ (Pictures of Laundry Equipment) http://www.laundry-e~ui~ment-b~.com/ (How Stuff Works -- Dry Cleaning) http://www.howstuffworks.com/dry-cleaninq.htm Typical Dry Cleaning Machines: (Press "Suprema Perc Machines") httD://www.ramsons-veit.com/products.html (Real Star Equipment) http://www.realstar.at/body.htm (Mito Equipment) http://www.duval-uk.com/mito22ranqe.htm SHORT VERSION OF STORY Well, the short version of this story is that a chemical solvent called Perchloroethlyene used primarily by Dry Cleaners (first formulated in 1821), which is very effective a£ cleaning clothes, but not easily contained, can easily evaporate or permeate concrete floors, and will escape into the air above, or the water below, given the slightest opportunity. Like many chemicals, it is toxic to human beings -- although not as toxic as many other chemicals it would seem. HOW DOES A DRY CLEANINGMACHINE WORK If you’ve skipped reading the papers above, then the following diagram will bring you up to speed about how Dry Cleaning works: Block Diagram of a Dry Cleaning Machine: httD://qrouDs.vahoo.com/qrouD/Dalo_alto issues i/message/48 So, before one can begin to evaluate DF2000 (the Midtowner’s concern) we need to examine ’Perchloroethlyene -- commonly called PERC). PERCHLOROETHLYENE The following WEB-sites contain information about the chemical nature of the solvent Perchloroethlyene: Chemistry: http://www.epa.qov/opDtintr/chemfact/s_perchl.txt httD://www.turi.orq/community/PDF/PCE.pdf http://www.iet.msu.edu/journalists/chemfacts/perc.htm http:!/www, sdnbd.org/sdi/issues/water/factsc.htm#trichloroethylene Risks/Harards: The EPA has characterized PERC as a potential case of cancer; however, most of the results of such testing have not been conclusive enough to result in PERC’s being banned fromuse in this country: http://www.qreenpeace.or~/~toxics/repQrts/dtk/dtk.html Exposure to perc is also suspected as the cause of a myriad of reproductive disorders. Studies in Scandinavia have shown an association between occupational exposure to perc and higher rates of miscarriage in dry cleaning workers. Infertility in both men and women and menstrual disorders have been linked to perc as well. PERC TOXICITY: The following characterizes the toxicity of Perchloroethlyene: Perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene) (CAS: 127-18-4) Chronic exposure to perchloroethylene (PCE) has been linked to damage to the central nervous system and to a lesser extent, the lungs, liver, and kidneys. Exposure to PCE is irritating to the eyes, skin, and respiratory system Volume 8 Number 1 1997 How Clean is Dry Cleaning? - The Risks of Perchloroethylene by Jonathan H. Adler Dry cleaners are one of the most ubiquitous of small businesses. In some communities there is a .dry cleaner on nearly everycorner, where consumers can receive one-day - or even one-hour - cleaning services. Although most shops are very small - the average dry cleaner has only five employees - nationwide the industry employs nearly 175,000 people. Yet, if some consumer and environmental activists have their way,. dry cleaning will become a thing of the past. Dry cleaning is not truly a "dry" process. Liquid chemical solvents are usedto remove stains and soil from clothing in washing.machines, and the solvent-cleaned garments are then dried. The primary dry-cleaning solvent used today is perchloroethylene, also known as tetrachloroethylene and commonly referred to as "perc" or PCE. First used in the 1930s, perc is now used, alone or in combination, by almost 90 percent of dry cleaners in the United States. It is the use of perc that has Greenpeace, Consumers union and othergroups up in arms. A 1992 opinion piece in The New York Times labeled perc as "highly toxic" and called upon New York’s city government to "remove all the city’s cleaners from apartment buildings." That same year Consumer Reports claimed that "You’re likely to be exposed to some level of perc simply by wearing recently dry-cleaned clothes or storing them in your’house." "The consequences of perc’s wanderings can range from general ill health to cancer and birth defects for workers, consumers and people who live near dry cleaners," according to Greenpeace, which has also cited claims that dry-cleaned clothing "placed in a closed car next to a bag of groceries has contaminated food in less than one hour." Greenpeace has called for a complete elimination of perc usage as part of its campaign to phase out the use of chlorine in all of its applications. IS PERC REALLY SO BAD9 ¯ http://www.acsh.orq/publications/priorities/O8Ol/dryclean.html DOES PERC CAUSE CANCER? The Environmentai Protection Agency (EPA) classifies perc as an animal carcinogen and places it on the continuum between possible and probable human carcinogens. The initial claims that perc might be a human carcinogen were based upon animal tests~ A 1977 bioassay conducted by the National Cancer Institute indicated that perchloroethylene could induce liver cancer in mice, but not in rats. A 1985 study on rats and mice of both sexes conducted by the National Toxicology Program also concluded that there was "clear evidence" of the rodent carcinogenicity of perchloroethylene. Yet, .while positive results in animal tests can provide some indication of whether a compound is potentially carcinogenic to humans, such tests are never conclusive. So, if you’ve been able to wade through most of this material, it’s clear that there is a lot of government interest in regulating (andcontrolling) the use of PERC since the early nineties -- although there does not seem to be much direct evidence that PERC is a "killer", such as it’s clear that cigarette smoke is. Since I am not an organic chemist, it’s a little difficult to totally assess thetesting issues associated with determining what is safe (or not). I have managed to find some civil litigation claiming that PERC was hazardous to human life, and maybe an example of a small number of deaths which might be associated with PERC, but nothing that should drive a neighborhood to hysteria -- such as being downwind from an atomic explosion might. I don’t want to be dismissive of any possible hazard to life/health either, since I am simply interpreting chemical and biological data from the point-of-view of ¯ a non-pract$cing "inorganic chemist" -~ whereas all of the solvents under discussion are clearly in the realm of "organic chemist". I have, however, asked every one with whom I have sought information: "are you aware of any specific damage which can be associated with PERC contamination in your area?" -- and so far~ none has answered "yes" In other words -- the solvent’s damage to the "environment" in "real terms" is hard to quantify (other than~he cost to mitigate). It does produce phosgene gas (among other byproducts) during its decay phase, which is poisonous to humans and animals, however. PERC TOXICITY DATA: The following is a toxicity report on the chemical Perchloroethlyene (PERC), and is found on: The Web Server is part of the Toxicology and Risk Analysis Section, in the Life Sciences Division, at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a U.S. Department of Energy multiprogram laboratory managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research (LMER) COrporation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This is more than enough for the first posting. ~ hope that readers download some of these papers and educate themselves with the background history and issues of d~y cleaning and the use of the chemical Perchloroethlyene. In closing, we need to remind readers that this cleaning solvent is what the cleaners want to stop using -- not start using. yhs, wem Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.¥ahoo.com/ MessageMessage 864 of 878 [ Previous [ Nex~t [ Up Thread ] Index --R~-Y I Forward I View Source I Unwrap Lines I Delete Copyright © 2001 Yahool Inc. All rights reserved, Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - ~ - ~ Maroh 16, 2001 Lynn Chiapella 631 Colorado Ave.une Palo Alto, CA 94306 Architecture Review Board City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: ARB item #2 heard 3/i5/01, 2685 Middiefield Road Dear Planning Staff and ARB memebers; This is followup for.the file of 2685 Middle, field Road concerning my comments at the ARB meeting of 3/15/01..The ARB hearing was requested by neighbors who were unhappy with the approval. I do not believe that the file was complete or accurate that was presented to the ARB in respect to the following details: signage, parking, shielded security fighting, rooftop equipment, and garbage and recycling. SIGNAGE When an ARB member asked if the signage had to remain in the current location, he was informedby staff that the roottop signage was grandfathered in that location. This is a relatively new sign placed on top of the building in violation of the PANIC signage ordinances and without approvals. I do not believe that illegal signage can or should be gr_aadfathered. This is a ma~er that the Zoning Administer needs to deal with since this is the third ARB meeting I have attended concerning Midtown projects where unapproved or ARB rejected signage has be~n presented as grandfathered signage over which ARB does not have jurisdiction even when it is an application for 2 new businesses where one formerly existed. It is unclear whether the second business would also be allowed to add a new rooftop sign in violation of PAMC. None of the signs on the rooftops of Midiown businesses are approved signs. None were approved for. all night lights. The first applicant in the shopping center to request this partioular type of sign(in violation of PAMC~)was info.rm~that the sign was not allowed, according to Planning Division records. The size of this building was allowed because the site had adequate parking of 3132 spaces. The aerials plus a p.hysic, al co.tmt show there are still at least 31 spaces. The plans submitted show 23 p~dng s~.. "ces~" The cky cleaner and unspecified second business need 15 spaces. This leaves ~.n~y 8 ~ for the other h~ of the building, Vi~..,~.0a Emmons which is a .!~ger ~spa~e and needs 16-18 Spa~s. If the missing parking s~ses!~ at the rear of the I~c[ing ~ ~p longer~" eluded., as. part_ of tt~" site or have .~.~ ~t~.~ " ..~ ~ ~" tbers, then the buik~tg c~onger n~mea as sucn. u~renuy many ~o most of the spaces on me stue ~tna rear ottlns ousmess are being used by other basinesses in the shopping center. Wlien an applicant submits an application in Midtown, i beliove that he should be required to enumerate his parking spaces on the application~ The enumerated parking spaces should match the number of spaces of the previous business. Tacky spotlights have popped up throughout Midtownat heights well above what is allowed by code and in disregard for nearby residents.~ ,I mentioned at the meeting that I had asked for code enforcement on the night lights tacked onto this building by Victoria Emmons. Security fights for all commercial businesses in Midiown should b¢ automatically included in the application and appr...o.v~..!..__~_~forcemeut in these matters is slow and cumSersome and it takes many years to get illegally installed spot lights to be removed. Many Midtov~ .Imsiness.es q~ located next to residences. Some have installed large or indmtrial siz.e equipment, such as latin’and air conditioners, on .the rooRg,p without providing shielding for home. Much of the equipment ~ all night long when the ambient noise level is low. All rooftop equipment located ~ea~ residences should be shielded for noise. Neither the ¯ Planning or Building Division are diligent when applications come in for new or replacement equipment. Where do the two businesses put their garbage and recycling? The photos on ~,e wall at th.e ARB diagram of the parking lots and show the location for garbage bins and recyclitig. Please tf~ke sure that the garbage tracks can actually access the area. ’" Midiown has had a severe problem with litter, overflowing trash and garbage. At least 3 businesses us~ I~.h.’ ~ .,a~, d former .1~. dscapo areas for their garbage and recycling because applicants were not required to Slx~if’y the location as port of the remodel. Enforcement has,been costly and time consuming. S~re~, . . ;11 .’! Lynn Chiapella ’ ’ ’ , I Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote Steven Turner