Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 14796 City of Palo Alto (ID # 14796) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 10/17/2022 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 3400 El Camino Real: Prescreening for 382 Rental Units Title: 3400 El CAMINO REAL [22PLN-00227]: Request for Prescreening of the Applicant's Proposal to Rezone the Subject Site From Various Zoning Districts to Planned Housing Zone (PHZ) to Allow Construction of 382 Residential Rental Units (44 studios, 243 one-bedroom, 86 two-bedroom and 9 three- bedroom units) in two Buildings. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Zoning District: CS, CS(H), RM-20 (Service Commercial, Hotel, Multi-Family Residential). From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council conduct a prescreening and provide informal comments regarding the applicant’s request to rezone five parcels located at 3398, 3400, 3490, 3460 El Camino Real, and 556 Matadero Avenue from Service Commercial (CS), Service Commercial with a Hotel Overlay (CS)(H), and Residential Multi-family (RM-20) to a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ).1 Comments provided during the prescreening process are not binding on the City or the applicant. Executive Summary This prescreening is a request by the applicant to rezone the subject properties, which are currently zoned Service Commercial (CS), Service Commercial with a Hotel Overlay (CS)(H), and Residential Multi-family (RM-20) to “Planned Home Zoning (PHZ).”1 The project site consists of five parcels totaling 3.6 acres. The project includes the demolition of 55,155 square feet (sf) of hotel facilities and 8,735 sf of eating and drinking facilities; the applicant proposes the construction of one mixed-use building with 316 residential rental units with approximately 1 Referred to in this report as "Planned Home Zoning" to emphasize the focus on housing as the benefit to the community. PAMC Section 18.38, which outlines the requirement and process for Planned Community (PC) Zoning, remains the underlying code supporting application of this policy. City of Palo Alto Page 2 4,000 sf of retail space (Building A) and a second building which would provide 66 residential units (Building B). The project is located along El Camino Real within 500 feet of bus transit stops and roughly one mile from the California Avenue Caltrain Station. It is also within the vicinity of office and retail uses as well as within walking distance (0.12 to 0.5 mile) from the Boulware Park and Mayfield Soccer Complex, respectively. This prescreening application responds to the City Council’s expressed interest in learning from home builders what it takes to create more housing opportunities in Palo Alto. Utilizing the Planned Community (PC) zoning process, a PHZ application must meet two initial qualifying criteria established by the City Council: 1) provide 20% of the total units as affordable housing selected from a prescribed menu of options, and 2) provide housing units that meet or exceed the demand generated by any net new jobs. The project would require a formal rezoning application consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), Zoning Regulations, Chapter 18.38. The rezoning would allow for a Development Plan with increased height, increased floor area ratio (FAR), and reduced setbacks on El Camino Real in comparison to the CS district regulations as well as increased density compared to the RM-20 requirements. The applicant is also requesting Council to consider reducing the impact fees the applicant would be required to pay. Background On February 3, 2020, Council unanimously endorsed using Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) for housing and mixed-use housing projects to help spur housing production. In exchange for deviation from certain standards as allowed under the rezoning, if approved by Council, the project must include at least 20% of the housing units as deed restricted for lower-income households. Moreover, the number of housing units must offset the number of net new commercial jobs that are generated by the project. In accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.79.030(A), a prescreening review is required for legislative changes, including rezoning, prior to the submittal of a formal application. Pre-screenings are intended to solicit early feedback on proposed projects and, like all study sessions, cannot result in any formal action. Since this proposal may return to the City Council as a formal application, Councilmembers should refrain from forming firm opinions supporting or opposing the project. Project Description A location map of the proposed site is included in Attachment A. The preliminary schematic drawings, included in Attachment C, are conceptual, as is appropriate at this stage of project City of Palo Alto Page 3 consideration. As shown in these schematic drawings, the applicant is proposing one mixed-use structure and one exclusively residential structure, which would replace the Driftwood Deli, Cibo Restaurant, and the Creekside Inn. The 392,178 sf proposed development would include approximately 4,000 sf of retail on the ground floor of Building A and 382 residential rental units between Building A and B. Both buildings would be six stories tall and have a total height of 61 feet (64 feet to the top of the mechanical roof screen). The project site consists of five parcels totaling 156,849 sf (3.6 acres). As part of the project, the parcels would be merged. Access to the pedestrian entrances to the retail and residential uses would be provided from El Camino Real. The building would include two levels of below-grade parking and surface parking resulting in 507 parking stalls. Access to the parking garage would be provided along El Camino Real from a single entrance/exit and from Matadero Avenue at the rear of the site. The site currently has curb cuts along El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue providing a separate entrance and exit along both streets to the site; the curb cut along Matadero Avenue would be moved further West towards 568 Matadero Avenue while the other would remain in the same location. The below-grade parking structure would include 400 parking stalls for both retail and residential uses with the remaining 107 stalls provided at grade. The parking spaces provided would exceed the required 502 spaces, per the current code requirements, by five spaces. Surrounding Uses Adjacent zoning and uses include Research Park (RP) zoned parcels to the North (Rivian and CPI), Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoned parcels to the East (Dumpling City, CC Restaurant Supply), Commercial Service (CS) and Residential Multi-family (RM-30) zoned parcels to the South (4 Less Smog Check), and Single Family Residential (R-1) zoned parcels to the West. Adjacent buildings vary from one to two stories tall. There is a proposed planning application on file for 3300 El Camino Real (21PLN-00028) to build a new two-story approximately 50,000 sf office building. The site is bisected by Matadero Creek which is a non-channelized creek. Development near the streamside protection area of Matadero Creek requires a geotechnical report to demonstrate that the proposed development would not threaten the stability of the stream bank slope. Nearby Commercial Properties The project site is located adjacent to 607 Hansen Way and in close proximity to 811 Hansen Way. These two properties previously constituted the CPI site, which contains Tier 1 and Tier 2 hazardous materials. Rivian recently occupied the property at 607 Hansen Way. Rivian removed Building 1B from the property and removed the hazardous materials in Building 1A. There was an amortization agreement, per Ordinance 5831, to remove these materials by December 31, 2052. Tier 2 materials are still contained within Building 2 on Parcel 2 (811 Hansen Way) of the site. PAMC 18.20.040(C)(2) and 18.42.200 prohibits the construction of new residential uses within 300 feet of a building containing Tier 2 hazardous materials. Building B, which would be the closer of the two proposed residential buildings, is more than 500 feet from the multi- City of Palo Alto Page 4 family residential use; therefore, the concept plan complies with this requirement. Discussion Staff will prepare a thorough analysis of the zoning and Comprehensive Plan compliance upon submittal of a formal application, if filed. A review of the conceptual plans, however, highlights key concessions that the applicant is requesting. Comprehensive Plan Compliance The Comprehensive Plan designations for these parcels are Multiple-Family Residential (MF) and Service Commercial (CS). In the Comprehensive Plan, Multiple-Family Residential designations are intended for housing development, especially in areas serviced by high-quality transit corridors. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single-family residential areas. However, densities higher than what is permitted may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect could still be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Service Commercial areas are typically considered to be commercial corridors where vehicle access is the primary means to access a site. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may be appropriate in this land use category given the site’s proximity to transit centers and services. The project will abut single-family home properties but will comply with the daylight plane requirements for the R-1 zone district with the proposed design. El Camino Real is considered to be a high-quality transit corridor and two existing VTA bus stops are less than a half-mile walking distance from the property. Palo Alto has received a housing unit allocation responsibility from the County and State of nearly 6,600 units for the next Housing Element Update. To try and achieve that goal, the City Council has encouraged developers to provide prospective developments through the Prescreening and PHZ processes. These applications provide data points to help the City understand where both large and small housing projects can be placed throughout the City. As a part of the PHZ process, the City has required that any project approved under a PHZ needs to provide at least 20% affordable housing which this project will satisfy if a formal application is submitted. Looking at current maps, the site appears to be adjacent to the California-Olive-Emerson Plume underground contamination areas. During a formal project review, staff would evaluate whether the site is affected by the COE Plume (that is, whether underground contamination exists on site). In the event contamination exists, the site will need to be cleaned up prior to occupation by any residents on site. Staff would prepare a thorough analysis of the zoning and comprehensive plan compliance following the submittal of a formal application if an application is filed. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Zoning Compliance For projects rezoning to a PHZ, Council has the authority to set the parameters for most development standards, which would be reflected in the tailored ordinance for the new PHZ District. However, for informational purposes, Attachment B compares the development standards under the current CS and RM-20 zone districts with the proposed project. The project is located adjacent to single-family residential uses and would be subject to the special standards outlined in PAMC Section 18.38.150. The elevation drawings show that Building A is set back from the single-family properties by 60 feet while Building B is set back by 45 feet six inches. The elevation drawings also show that both buildings are designed to meet the R-1 daylight plane requirements2. However, both buildings would exceed the requirements under PAMC 18.38.150(b) which states that a building is limited to 35 feet if it is within 150 feet of an RE, R-1, R-2, RMD, RM, or applicable PC district. In comparison to the existing zoning, the applicant is requesting that the new PHZ allow for increases in floor area and height. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a floor area ratio of 2.49:1 where the code allows up to 0.5:1 for RM-20 and 0.6:1 for CS zone districts. The project would exceed the 50-foot height limit by 11 feet. The CS zoning regulations do not set a maximum density for sites along El Camino Real, however, the RM-20 zoning regulations set a maximum density of 20 units per acre. If the more restrictive RM-20 standards determined the maximum density over the 3.6 acres, then only 72 units could be developed on this site. The applicant is proposing 106 units per acre. The applicant is also proposing a zero foot setback to the property line along El Camino Real where residential units are required to have a 15-foot setback from the property line; though other facilities (e.g. the lobby or other common facilities) may be located closer to the property line provided that a 12-foot effective sidewalk width is maintained. Therefore, the ground floor residential area for this project could be set closer to the property line. If Council supports this reduced setback for the residential units on El Camino Real, then the design could be modified to increase the distance from the single-family residential properties abutting the rear of the parcel. The proposed mixed-use project provides for two of the most desirable uses along this corridor in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan (retail and housing). This use would replace a commercial development that includes retail and retail-like (retail and restaurant) and hotel uses. Retail Preservation 2 R-1 Daylight Plane requirements are established at the interior-side property line and rear setback line as shown in Table 2 of PAMC 18.12.040: https://bit.ly/3cKXNri City of Palo Alto Page 6 The current 8,735 sf of retail-like uses (Driftwood Deli and Cibo Restaurant) at the site is subject to the retail preservation requirements outlined in PAMC 18.40.180. However, as outlined in PAMC Section 18.40.180(c)(4)(C), a high density (30 or more dwelling units per acre) project located within the CS Zone District, but not within the ground floor (GF) or retail (R) combining district, shall only be required to replace 1,500 sf of existing retail or retail-like use. The project qualifies for this partial exemption. The project would provide 4,000 sf of retail, exceeding the minimum requirement. Housing Inventory Site The project site is located on five parcels, one of which (3400 El Camino Real) is identified as a housing inventory site. 3400 El Camino Real is identified as having a realistic capacity of 19 units. The project would add 382 housing units on a larger combined parcel, exceeding the identified realistic capacity of the site Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project is located close to high-frequency transit, including the Valley Transit Authority bus line (with stops at El Camino and Matadero as well as El Camino and Margarita). However, the site is located one mile from the California Avenue Caltrain station. Further information is needed regarding the on-site circulation and vehicle trips to determine whether the project is consistent with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and other transportation policies such as Council’s Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy adopted on June 15, 2019 (CMR 11256). Matadero Avenue is one of the Safe Routes to School and the impact of an increase in vehicle trips to and from the site would require an evaluation of the safety issues that may arise from this project. This information would be required as part of any formal application. The proposed project would maintain the existing number of vehicular curb cuts along El Camino Real but would provide two entrance points and one exit point instead of one-way driveways. If a formal project is filed, a permit would be required from Caltrans for any modifications to the existing curb cuts. The design includes on-site space for trash pick-up; therefore, it is assumed that the applicant intends for the City’s waste hauler to drive on-site to collect trash from bins instead of bringing the bins out to the curb to be serviced on El Camino Real Parking As noted, the project would include 507 vehicle parking spaces (25 for retail use and 482 for residential use) within two levels of an underground parking garage as well as at grade. Although a loading space is not required for residential uses, staff notes that one loading zone has been provided in this design near the proposed retail space. Short-term bicycle parking is shown throughout the site at grade while long-term spaces are shown on the first and second City of Palo Alto Page 7 levels of the garage. This should be considered as part of any formal application. Inclusionary Requirement and Jobs Housing Imbalance The site is currently zoned to allow commercial or mixed-uses at the site and there are 10 existing buildings on these properties which are currently being used for hotel, retail, and restaurant uses. These existing buildings would be demolished and replaced with the proposed mixed-use development. This would lead to a 59,890 sf decrease in commercial space. The project would result in a net reduction in jobs (approximately 15 fewer jobs) along with a net increase in housing units (382 housing units). The project would provide 20%3 of the units at Below Market Rate in accordance with Council’s requirements for projects seeking to rezone using the PHZ process. The proposal would improve the jobs-housing imbalance by providing housing units in an amount that surpasses the jobs created in the retail use at the site. Policy Implications Pre-screenings are intended to solicit early feedback on proposed projects and, like all study sessions, cannot result in any formal action. Therefore, informal comments from Councilmembers would not impart policy. That said, there is interest among other home builders and property owners to learn of the Council’s initial reaction to the subject request, which may influence the filing of future prescreening requests. In addition, Council’s feedback on key requests such as the height limit, floor area, setback, and density requests will help to inform whether there is interest in pursuing a rezoning of the subject property and the development standards that may be reflected in that ordinance. A PHZ Ordinance, if approved, may have policy implications that would encourage similar developments of this size. Resource Impact The prescreening and processing of a formal application, if filed, are services paid for by fees from the applicant. Additionally, impact fees are charged on the project to account for the impacts the project would have on public services and infrastructure. If the Council were to waive some or all impact fees for the project, as requested by the applicant, then the City would lose those resources to offset the impacts on public services and infrastructure caused by the project. The project, as proposed, would impact local tax revenues due to the removal of the retail and 3 The applicant has chosen to proceed with Option 1: 5% of the units will be provided at Very Low Income, 5% at Low Income, 5% at Moderate Income, and 5% at the Workforce Housing levels of affordability. City of Palo Alto Page 8 hotel uses at the site. The current commercial uses generate local sales tax revenue and transit occupancy tax revenue for the City. The loss of these uses would result in an annual loss of revenue on the order of $300,000 to $1.3 million. In comparison, total sales tax revenue for the City in fiscal year (FY) 2022 was $32.6 million and transit occupancy tax was $16.9 million. Offsetting the above loss is the expectation the new development will result in increased property tax assessed valuation (AV) though the magnitude of this increase is unknown. The added AV will have a one percent additional property tax assessment. The City would receive approximately 9.4% of that additional property tax. Timeline Following the prescreening review, the applicant will consider Council’s comments and determine how they want to proceed. Any formal application to rezone the property to a PHZ would be subject to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), Architectural Review Board, and Council’s purview. A Tentative Map and Final Map would also be required and would be subject to review by and recommendation from the Planning and Transportation Commission prior to Council action. Stakeholder Engagement The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on September 9, 2022, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on September 6, 2022, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Staff met with residents about the application and attended the Barron Park Association board meeting in on August 16. At the meeting, staff received feedback from the attending residents. Written comments received are provided as Attachments D and E. A list of comments/concerns received during the 8/16 meeting is below: 1. Potential Presence of Underground Contaminants from COE Plume 2. Traffic Impact from new Units onto Matadero Avenue and El Camino Real 3. Safety Impact from new Traffic on Safe Routes to School path along Matadero Avenue 4. Significant Density with Proposed Project that Appears out of Context with Surrounding uses 5. Height Request Exceeds 50-foot PHZ Height Limit 6. City Council Should Not Waive Development Impact Fees 7. Privacy Impacts from new Units 8. Potential Impacts on Matadero Creek from new Development and Below-Grade Parking Garage City of Palo Alto Page 9 9. Loss of Hotel Space, Transit Occupancy Tax, and Retail – Uncertainty if Existing Retail will Survive Displacement 10. Lack of Existing Grocery and Recreational Spaces near Barron Park 11. Support for Housing at a Lower Density than Proposed Environmental Review The prescreening is a preliminary review process in which Councilmembers may provide comments, but no formal action will be taken. Therefore, no review under the California Environmental Quality Action (CEQA) is required at this time. A full review in accordance with CEQA would be initiated with the formal filing of a development application. Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment C: Project Plans (DOCX) Attachment D: Public Comments (PDF) 137-09-069 137-09-071 137-09-068 137-10-122 137-10-052 137-10-054 137-10-130 137-09-004 137-10-129 137-08-049 137-08-050 137-08-044 137-08-076 09-013 137-09-012 137-09-011 137-09-067 137-09-066 137-09-001 137-09-002 137-09-009 137-09-008 137-09-007 137-09-006 137-10-053 137-08-085 137-08-053 137-08-054 137-09-003 137-08-095 137-08-096 137-09-072 137-09-005 137-08-014 137-08-013 137-08-064 137-08-010 137-08-052 137-08-089 137-08-029 137-08-077 137-08-070 137-08-069 137-08-090 132-38-018 132-38-022 132-38-019 132-38-020 132-38-021 132-39-059 132-39-074 132-39-005 132-39-071 132-39-088 137-08-058 137-08-059 137-08-060 137-08-055137-08-062 142-20-046 137-08-057 137-08-086137-08-061 132-39-087 132-39-080 137-08-084 137-08-006 132-40-019 132-40-056 132-40-060 132-40-063 132-39-078 132-39-077 132-39-079 137-08-007 137-08-080 137-08-079 137-08-016 137-08-092 137-08-091 132-39-055 137-08-083 132-40-061 137-08-072 137-08-088 132-39-083 132-39-049 132-39-048 132-39-047 132-39-042 132-39-041 132-39-040 132-39-039 132-39-038 132-39-037 132-39-035 132-39-036 132-39-050 132-39-051 132-39-052 132-39-053 132-39-034 132-39-033 132-39-031 132-39-024 132-39-025 132-39-026 132-39-081 132-39-082 132-39-084 132-39-030 132-39-054 132-39-065 132-39-075 132-39-032 132-40-058 13 132-39-089 137-08-098 137-08-100 132-39-069 M ARGARITA A VEN EL CA MINO REAL FERNANDO AVENUE KE M ATADE RO AVENUE EL CA MINO REAL LA MBER EL CA MINO REAL CHIM ALUS DRIVE M ATADE RO AVENUE W HITSELL A VENUE LAN E 66 TIPPA WIN G O S T R E E T 3440 3440 3445 3445 633 633 649 649 615 615 604 604 35603550 3540 3540 612 6 530 530 3643 643 3300 3300 607 570 570 602 602 550 550 447 447 568 568 3606 3606 3516 3516 3508 3508 525 525 3450 3450 3505 3505 450 450 3401 3401 3457 3457 452 452- 460 460 448 448 418 418 440 440 434 434 420 420 3375 3375 3345 3345 480 478 476 474 474-480 429 439 439 575 575 3632 455 3585 465 471 471- 481 0 425 5 441 441 445 445 454 456 458 556 556 690 690690A 3491 3491 3500 3500 3628 3628 3275 3275 3327 3327 3399 3399 410 475 475 3630 3483 3483 3333 3333 3490 3490 3533 3533 3535 3535 3265 3265 611 668 650 632 632 695 3470 3470 686 686 588 588 601 601 3530 3530 625 625 605 605 601 601 3475 3475 580 580 559 559 565 565 595 595 527 527 529 529 3553 3553 3557 3557 3561 3561 3565 3565 580 3685 562 562 524 524 3255 3255 3295 3295 455 455 3305 3305 3337 3337 3339 3339 592 592 572 572 582 582 593593 606 606 604 604 610 610 3400 3400 3481 3481 3487 3487 3489 3489 3527 3527 3545 3545 476 476 415 415 409 409 416 416 424 424 432 432 421 421 435 435 441 441 447 447 455 455 442 442 472 470 468 466 466-472 469 467 465 465-469 458 458 417 415 560 568 568 3626 3565 3565 3567 3567 486 488 482 484 478 480 481 479 477 475 473 405 405 397 397 391 390 400 4 3420 528 528 523 523 3398 3398A 3398 567 567 524 524 3485 3485 460 460 3569 3569 3460 3460 3470 3470 630 630 419 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Outside Palo Alto abc Road Centerline Small Text (TC) Curb Face (RF) Pavement Edge (RF) abc Address Label (AP) Highlighted Features 0' 111' 3400 El Camino Real CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gsauls, 2022-07-28 15:19:26Parcel Report (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3400 El Camino Real, 22PLN-00227 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 3.6 acres 3.6 acres Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 8 feet 0 feet (see Build-to- Line) Rear Yard 10 feet for residential; none for commercial 7-10 feet 60 ft, 10 in at Bldg A 45 ft, 6 in at Bldg B Interior Side Yard None 30-60 feet 45 ft, 6 in at Bldg B Street Side Yard 5 feet 21-47 feet 14 ft, 5 in Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) 7-10 feet 60 ft, 10 in at Bldg A 45 ft, 6 in at Bldg B Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback (7) Special Setback None Not Applicable Not Applicable Max. Site Coverage 50% 42% (66,451.98 sf) 39% (61,244 sf) Max. Building Height 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) 46 61 feet to height of sixth floor Additional 3 feet for mechanical screening Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6) 45 degrees at 10 feet in the air at rear property line 45 degrees at 10 feet in the air at rear property line Residential Density 20 Units/Acre except CS sites on El Camino Real have no maximum Not Applicable (currently exclusively commercial) 106 Units/AC Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.6:1 residential (XXXX sf); 0.4:1 non- residential (total of 1.0:1) 18.18.060(e) 2.0:1 for hotels 18.18.060(d) 2.5:1.0 (392,178 sf) 2.49:1.0 (390,771 sf) Minimum Mixed-use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 1,500 sf of retail 4,000 sf (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage (10) In the CC(2) zone and on CN and CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, there shall be no minimum mixed use ground floor commercial FAR for a residential project, except to the extent that the retail preservation requirements of Section 18.40.180 or the retail shopping (R) combining district (Chapter 18.30(A)) applies. Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property Unknown Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.060 (h)) (3) … incidental to permitted eating and drinking services shall be permitted subject to the following regulations: (A) Outdoor sales and display shall not occupy a total site area exceeding the gross building floor area on the site, except as authorized by a conditional use permit. (B) Areas used for outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, boats, campers, camp trailers, trailers, trailer coaches, house cars, or similar conveyances shall meet the minimum design standards applicable to off street parking facilities with respect to paving, grading, drainage, access to public streets and alleys, safety and protective features, lighting, landscaping, and screening. (C) Exterior storage shall be prohibited, unless screened by a solid wall or fence of between 5 and 8 feet in height. Complies Refuse Disposal Areas (18.40.240) (a) Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or covered exterior enclosures for the storage of refuse in appropriate containers with storage capacity for a maximum of one week, and that refuse disposal structures and enclosures are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. Unknown Employee Showers (18.16.060 (j)) Retail - 0-24,999, none required None Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. None 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.40 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 18.24 Objective Design Standards. All projects are encouraged to adhere to the City’s Objective Design Standards (18.24). Housing Development Projects may qualify for a streamlined process (18.77.073). Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Eating and Drinking and Hotel Uses* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 space for each 60 gross sq. ft. of public service area, plus 1 space for each 200 gross sq. ft. for all other areas. 138 spaces (Eating and Drinking and Hotel uses) 25 (Eating and Drinking only) Bicycle Parking 1 per 600 sf of public service area, plus 1 per 2,000 sf for other areas 32 short term spaces for site 3 spaces (Eating and Drinking only) Loading Space 0 loading spaces for 0- 4,999 sf 0 1 * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Residential Use* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 per micro unit 1 per studio unit 1 per 1-bedroom unit 2 per 2-bedroom or larger unit At least one space per unit must be covered Residential uses do not exist 503 Bicycle Parking 1 per unit (100% LT); 1 space for each 10 units of guest bike parking (100% ST) Residential uses do not exist 383 spaces (LT); 39 Guest spaces Loading Space 0 loading space required for multi- family use 0 1 Attachment C Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “3400 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Events-Directory/Planning-and-Development-Services/3400-El- Camino-Real-22PLN-00227?transfer=786aa7b6-7300-4fbe-8d2e-f26eee002571 From:Mircea To:Council, City Cc:Gerhardt, Jodie; Sauls, Garrett Subject:3400 El Camino Real -- Sept 19th 2022 City Council Work Study session-Public Comments Date:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 8:37:27 PM Attachments:BPA_Letter_to_City_Council_9_07_22.docx.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from mircea27v@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable City Council Members, My name is Mircea Voskerician and I am the property owner residing at 572 Chimalus Dr. Palo Alto which is sharing property line (rear side) with Creekside Inn. I am also a real estate developer and supporting housing developments, affordable housing but nothing this Extreme. I am in full agreement with all items addressed in the BPA letter. A couple of things that the city council should discuss for this site: 1. We cannot have a 5 story 50 ft tall building 45 ft from the R1 residential property line as proposed - Show stopper 2. To ensure a "transition" from a 5 story building to 1/2 story single family homes (R1 residential), building B in the rear should be replaced by 3-level townhomes or row homes (Height: 35 ft max) 3. To ensure that future residents have a place to relax/open space the development should grant the city a 1 AC park buffering R1 residential and get credits towards multi family park in lieu fees or other concessions. 4. To ensure privacy towards R1 residential is protected, under the new development, no parking can be allowed "against" the current property line, that entire rear side strip running from the green belt/CPI to Matadero should be dedicated open space/playground and a curtain of dense mature trees (Height: 30 ft as planted) must be planted against the property line as COA's 5. Building must be "massed" on ECR and CPI sides not against R1 residential, all parking must be underground including commercial, residential and guest-residential parking must be properly accounted and calculated so our neighborhood streets are not flooded with cars This project, if developed, must be a win-win-win, developer/city/Barron Park, currently as designed it is a win-win-lose for Barron Park and residents of Barron Park must be heard. Hopefully the city and developer will listen well and address all neighborhood concerns, so city council approval will not have to be reversed by Barron Park residents like Maybell development, while run by the same project manager (Ted O'Hanlon). Regards, Mircea Voskerician 572 Chimalus Dr. Palo Alto From:Tanya To:Sauls, Garrett Subject:Apartment Complex Proposal in Barron Park Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 1:26:41 PM You don't often get email from tagupta2014@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Garrett, Thanks for attending the Barron Park Association Board Meeting last month. As you know from the Barron Park Association meeting that you attended, our neighbors are passionately in opposition of this proposal. In advance of the September 19 City Council meeting, I wanted to also formally express my strong opposition to the proposal. My husband and I purchased a home and moved to Barron Park last year. We specifically sought out the Barron Park neighborhood given that it is a quiet and peaceful close-knit community, with minimal congestion. We were very surprised and dismayed to learn of the massive apartment complex proposal. We have spoken extensively with many of our neighbors, who have also felt shocked and upset about this proposal. I am in agreement with concerns outlined in the letter that the Barron Park Association Board has submitted to the City Council. Barron Park has two primary entrances, and this proposal will severely increase congestion and wait lines at one of the main entrances into the neighborhood. Matadero Avenue is a designated "Safe Route to School" for children who attend the nearby schools. I worry greatly about the safety of the many children who take this path if there were to be an increase in traffic at this location. The large complex would also pose a major privacy issue for homeowners and renters along Matadero and Chimalus. Such a proposal would also markedly change the character of this neighborhood. While City Council explores increasing housing in Palo Alto, it is also important to preserve some of the intangible qualities that make Palo Alto special and desirable including quiet/peaceful neighborhoods. Massive apartment complexes, such as the one proposed, in quiet residential neighborhoods would completely deteriorate many of the qualities that make Barron Park beloved. Finally, I hope this is not a strategy of the developer to begin with an outlandish proposal, which they anticipate would be rejected, and to then follow with another proposal that may still be inappropriate but less extensive as a means to try to get it approved. Such tactics and strategies are not appropriate and should be viewed very unfavorably. In summary, I am in strong opposition of the proposed apartment complex. This complex would unquestionably have a negative impact on the parks, nearby streets, traffic, and safety of cyclists/pedestrians. The location is not suitable for a project/development of this magnitude and it would entirely disrupt the character of this quiet community. Sincerely, Tanya Gupta From:John King To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Sauls, Garrett; Nose, Kiely; City Mgr; Lait, Jonathan; McRee, Sarah; BPA-Board Subject:Barron Park Association letter re: Creekside Inn Development Pre-Screening Date:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 4:34:40 PM Attachments:BPA_Letter_to_City_Council_9_07_22.docx.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from johnwadeking@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council: Please find attached a letter from the Board of Directors of the Barron Park Association incollaboration with numerous concerned residents of Barron Park regarding the Development Proposal of the Creekside Inn property which is scheduled for a Pre-Screening by the CityCouncil during the September 19th City Council Meeting. The Barron Park Board met through Zoom on August 21st with numerous neighbors for our regular board meeting and were joined by Garrett Sauls from the City Planning Departmentfor a presentation and question and answer session regarding the proposal to develop the Creekside Inn property. This meeting was recorded and posted athttps://bpapaloalto.org/2022/08/21/creekside-inn-project/ should you be interested in viewing it. The Barron Park Board in collaboration with a number of concerned residents of Barron Parkhas approved the attached letter for your consideration prior to the September 19th meeting. Thank you for your review of these concerns. Respectfully Submitted, John W. King President of the Barron Park Associationjohnwadeking@gmail.com 650-483-2710 cc: Ed Shikada, City ManagerKiely Nose, Interim Assistant City Manager Jonathan Lait, Director of PlanningSarah McRee, Planning Department Senior Management Analyst Garrett Sauls, Planning Department StaffBarron Park Association Board From:Dan Farley To:Council, City Subject:Barron Park Hotel Proposal Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 7:51:15 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from dancfarley@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello City Council Members, I would urge you to significantly downsize the Barron Park hotel proposal to the current limits of allowed units. Two concerns I have are traffic and community. The El Camino/Matadero intersection cannot handle the traffic increase that the proposed developmentwould bring. And the preservation of a place for Driftwood Market and Cibo restaurant is important to keep communitybusinesses that serve Barron Park residents via walking. Thank you,Dan Farley 717 Chimalus Drive.Palo Alto 1 September 7, 2022 To:The Mayor and City Council, City of Palo Alto From:Board of Directors of the Barron Park Association and concerned residents Re:Reaction to the proposed development of the Creekside Inn, Cibo Restaurant and Driftwood Deli and Market property, 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 *** The Barron Park community supports and looks forward to the addition of new housing, especially for “workforce” residents, throughout the City, as suitable sites are designated. However, the present Oxford Capital Group proposal to redevelop the Creekside Inn complex is not feasible in many ways. As proposed, it is massively out of scale and, if implemented, would present a host of density-related, environmental and traffic problems to this area. We have compiled our reactions to the developer’s proposal from statements and contributions by attendees at neighborhood meetings sponsored by the BPA Board of Directors during the month of August 2022. We provide them below in outline form. 1.Natural Matadero Creek, mature trees, wildlife corridor, water usage, groundwater a.With a two-level underground garage excavated immediately adjacent to it, how will the City ensure that the developer will preserve and maintain the health and vitality of Matadero Creek and its wildlife, both in the short and the long term? Will this include maintenance and restoration of the existing natural riparian habitat? b.This 3.6-acre property currently benefits from many mature trees that ensure privacy, shading and stabilization of the creek banks. These trees must be protected per City ordinance. c.Will the developer be required to retain the green belt between the property and the Rivian site, and its other privacy screening? 2 d.Because of possible toxic plumes from CPI and other pre-existing industries in the Stanford Research Park, groundwater pollution will have to be monitored on a continuous basis and mitigations applied. 2.Environmental Impact Report (EIR) In the course of establishing the EIR, the City must demand that the consultant hired complete a Management Transportation Analysis (MTA) and a Sewer Capacity Analysis. Other reports — Arborist Report, Wildlife Report, Historical Report (if the structure is over 50 years old), Phase 2 Report, and Soils/Geotech Report — will also be required for this EIR. 3.Small retail business protection a.Current businesses on this site employ approximately 50 people. All these workers will lose their jobs if this project goes forward. b.Only one of two retail businesses has been offered a site in the new development, as a smaller Driftwood Deli and Market. Its square footage would be reduced from its current 4,500 sq. ft., with no outdoor seating. c.The developer has offered no plan for this thriving business to survive the years of construction, so its offer is hollow. Driftwood Deli and Market and Cibo Restaurant would not recover even if offered a location at the developed site. The time lag is too great. This is not protection of ground floor retail in a Commercial Neighborhood/Commercial Service (CN/CS) zone. d.The City will lose the 14% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for the 136-room Creekside Inn. 4.Location of the project a.Only two vehicle entrances to the entire property are proposed. This will massively increase congestion and wait lines, both on El Camino Real and on Matadero Avenue. Traffic will increase on neighborhood streets (Whitsell, Josina, Kendall, Barron . . .) as drivers seek alternate routes to avoid the signal at Matadero. 3 b.Matadero and Margarita Avenues are designated Bike Boulevards as well as “Safe Routes to Schools” for students at Barron Park Elementary School, Fletcher Middle School and Gunn High School. c.Bikers and walkers to and from the VA and the Stanford Research Park, as well as Stanford employees and students, use these streets to access bike and pedestrian paths to destinations west of Bol Park. Several hundred additional vehicles entering and exiting the proposed two-level underground garage from and onto 17-foot wide Matadero Avenue (with no sidewalks) would seriously exacerbate the situation. d.Even without the proposed additional traffic, the signal at El Camino and Matadero currently often takes two to three cycles to cross during higher traffic times. This intersection needs to be modernized in any event, by improving the median and the signal timing. 5.Unit sizes The total number of proposed units is 382: i.e., 44 studios; 243 one-bedroom units; 86 two-bedroom units; and 9 three-bedroom units. This is an unbalanced configuration if the development is to support families. 6.Vehicle parking a.Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) would need to be instituted for Barron Park streets, to include, but not be limited to: Matadero Ave., Chimalus Dr., Tippawingo St., Josina Ave., Whitsell Ave., Kendall Ave., Barron Ave. and, east of El Camino in Ventura, Margarita Ave. and adjacent streets. b.Along with the RPP, a Transportation Management Program, with an agreed upon monitoring schedule, would be required. Due to developer’s unbundled parking plan, tenants will park a second car on the streets to avoid paying for a second parking space in addition to their rent. c.The total number of proposed units is 382: 287 studio or one-bedroom units and 95 two- or three-bedroom units. For both market rate and affordable housing, the City mandates one parking space per studio or one-bedroom unit (287 spaces) and 4 two parking spaces per two-bedroom or larger unit (190 spaces) for a total of 477. The proposal calls for 503 spaces. Setting aside 24 spaces for retail leaves 479 spaces for residents. This is 2 more than the City mandates for the apartment residents. Where will employee, disabled, EV and guest parking be located? 7.Residential privacy a.This property is zoned CN/CS. The two proposed buildings are 64 feet high, including mechanical equipment. The building cannot reach 50 feet in height until it is at a 150-foot distance from R1 Residential, that is, from existing fences shared with the present Creekside Inn. b.Per Garrett Sauls, at the August 16 neighborhood meeting: For Planned Home Zoning (PHZ), buildings at the height of the proposed project must be 150 feet from R1 homes. c.There will be major privacy issues for all homeowners and renters along Matadero Ave. and Chimalus Dr. Apartments in the proposed complex, from the second to the sixth floors, would see into the backyards and interiors of nearby homes and apartments. d.Any windows, balconies and rooftop terraces facing neighbors’ homes, whether R1 or apartment buildings, must be evaluated for privacy and eliminated if invasive. e.Tree privacy screening for neighbors must be a priority. 8.Open space a.All the areas where plans show surface parking would need to be reevaluated for “usable open space” building design. b.The proposal offers no usable ground-level open space and no area for children to play, safe from El Camino traffic. The proposed “rooftop terraces” cannot be counted toward the open space requirement. c.No amenities (gym, clubhouse, picnic area, bike parking, playground, dog park) have been proposed for the residents of this apartment complex. 5 9.Mechanical equipment The installation of solar panels would be essential. These should be sited to protect the privacy of nearby residents. While we understand the City of Palo Alto is under immense pressure to provide housing, the City should NOT agree to ANY reduction of Impact Fees as requested by the applicant. The negative impacts on the Barron Park and Ventura neighborhoods — on parks, streets, traffic, vehicle parking, Safe Routes to School, as well as to pedestrians and the environment — are exactly what Impact Fees are meant to mitigate. If built as proposed, this project will eliminate two local businesses that the surrounding neighborhood relies on, as well as a 136-room hotel that supports business travelers and other visitors to Palo Alto and Stanford and provides revenue to the City and state. The profound impact on the area’s water usage, waste management, parking, environment (with potential toxic damage to Matadero Creek), and privacy will disrupt lives, bring unnecessary stressors to the neighborhood and increase traffic tenfold. Respectfully submitted, The Board of the Barron Park Association and concerned residents of the community Palo Alto, California From:Satish Katpally To:Council, City; Sauls, Garrett Cc:Marina Illich Ph.D. NVW Subject:Concerns about the proposed development of the Creekside Inn, Cibo Restaurant and Driftwood Deli and Marketproperty, 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 7:18:38 PM Attachments:BPA_Letter_to_City_Council_9_07_22.docx.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from satish.katpally@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, As a resident of Barron Park, we (my wife and I) are opposed to this proposed development. We agree with the concerns raised by the Barron Park Association in the attached letter. In particular, we are very concerned about: increasing congestion/traffic at one of the main entrances to Barron Park, increasing traffic on a route that is a designated "Safe Route to School" for children going to the local schools when we already don't have sidewalks on Matadero, the massive size of the development with 382 units, change in the character of the neighborhood which is quiet/peaceful, and loss of the beloved Creekside Inn. We urge you to reject this proposal. Sincerely, Satish Katpally Marina Illich Barron Park residents From:Patricia Steck To:Sauls, Garrett Subject:Creekside Hotel project comments Date:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 2:32:22 PM You don't often get email from patsteck@att.net. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I appreciate your presentation on zoom,hosted by the B.P. A. I have lived in Palo Alto for ninety years and Barron Park, on Chimalus, for over sixty years.I agreed with many of the concerns Barron Park residents expressed-The projectpresented would change our area negatively forever. I am not against appropriately (trulyaffordable housing-that blends with the character of the neighborhood -no aspect of thisproject reflects that mind set.) Pat Steck From:carol chun To:Sauls, Garrett Subject:Creekside Inn apt building in Barton Park Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 5:03:51 PM You don't often get email from cchunpharmd@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello,I would like to express my deep concern and opposition for the massive apartment complex being planned at the Creekside Inn.I am very concerned about increase in traffic along Matadero, environmental impact on Matafeto Creek and also changes in our neighborhood from a quiet residential area to a busyarea. Thank you for your time. Carol Chun 3798 Laguna AvePalo Alto From:carol chun To:Council, City Subject:Creekside Inn at Barron Park Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 5:00:38 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from cchunpharmd@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello,I would like to express my deep concern and opposition for the massive apartment complex being planned at the Creekside Inn.I am very concerned about increase in traffic along Matadero, environmental impact on Matafeto Creek and also changes in our neighborhood from a quiet residential area to a busyarea. Thank you for your time. Carol Chun 3798 Laguna Ave From:Molly O"Connor To:Sauls, Garrett; Council, City; Burt, Patrick Subject:Creekside Inn Housing Development Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 5:18:48 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from oconnormollyc@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I am writing to you as a former (and future again in the upcoming years, I'm sure) Palo Alto(renting) resident with a currently large amount of family still there (having had my family live in Barron Park for 70-odd years now) regarding the proposed development at theCreekside Inn site. I generally consider myself a YIMBY - I was fairly offended when Palo Alto opted not to allow new housing development at the former Fry's location and at severallocations close to the Caltrain, especially as the evidence suggests that any new housing (including at market rate) will generally lower rents for everyone - while affordable housing isdesperately needed, I can no longer reasonably afford to pay rent in Palo Alto on a $100k salary. For this proposal, however, I would like to ask you to proceed with caution (and notjust because of my lifelong devotion to Driftwood) - allowing massive amounts of housing without appropriate parking will not encourage people to use public transit, but will insteadcause people to park in every available spot in Barron Park, which is currently quiet, safe, and easy for visitors to find parking in. It would make a large quality of life difference foreveryone in the neighborhood, especially the large population of less mobile retirees and the large number of families with young children, if the car density situation were to becomeunnecessarily competitive and unsafe. I ask that you will please consider moving forward in your considerations with a responsibility to the current residents of Barron Park with regards to cars and parking in mind, as well asbeing more generous in allowing housing development in more industrial and still transit- convenient areas along Park Blvd and elsewhere in Palo Alto. Sincerely yours,Molly O'Connor From:Rob O"Connor To:Council, City Subject:Creekside Inn Housing Proposal Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 4:58:56 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email fromroboconnor1@googlemail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council I would like to bring to your attention three aspects of the housing proposal at the current siteof Creekside Inn at the intersection of El Camino and Matadero. Traffic Hazard Matadero is a bicycle thoroughfare that channels extensive elementary school traffic. It isalready subject to long waits at the signal with gridlock at commute times with traffic emerging onto Matadero from the Creekside. Adding greater than 350 residents and their carsinto this mix is not feasible or safe. Parking The current plan does not provide parking for all the resident automobiles, which would causea significant overspill of parking into the residential neighborhood, both changing the nature of the residential area and narrowing the streets - making Matadero even more hazardous forbicyclists and auto traffic. Food Desert Driftwood market is the last remaining market that can be reached on foot by Barron Parkresidents, in addition to being a truly great locally owned business. The removal of Driftwood would fully cement Barron Park as a food desert where residents need a car to get any foodsupplies. In closing, the proposed development includes several multiples of the number of units that would normally be considered acceptable on this site and will cause significant detriment tothe local community as proposed. We ask that the council ask the developer to withdraw the current proposal. Best RegardsRob O’Connor 788 Josina Ave From:Robert Cool To:Council, City Subject:Creekside Inn Property Development Date:Saturday, September 10, 2022 7:35:18 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from bcoolkicks@icloud.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Council Members As a long time resident of Barron Park I welcome the addition of new housing for the working class that contribute so much to our community. I am pleased with the affordable housing about to come on line along El Camino Real, and hope it is but a beginning for more such housing. Yet, I have grave concerns about the massive housing development proposed for the current Creekside Inn site, and ask you to proceed with extreme caution in assessing the proposal from an outside developer. My concerns include: The Creekside Inn is an upscale lodging facility beckoning to professional travelers while offering value to Palo Alto in the form of hotel taxes. Careful consideration should be given to removing it. Driftwood Market is a bustling family owned business which enjoys local support by providing goods and services not found elsewhere in Barron Park. We should not displace such businesses without careful consideration. The massive scale of the proposed project threatens the preservation of Matadero Creek and its riparian right away. No project on this site will garner my support unless there is absolute assurance for the preservation of and continued vitality of Matadero Creek. Respectfully Bob Cool Sent from my iPad From:Romola Georgia To:Council, City Subject:Creekside Inn Proposal Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 8:45:06 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rgeorgia@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. September 9, 2022 To Palo Alto City Council Members: Although I am a great proponent of low and moderate income housing for Palo Alto, I am verydubious about the current proposal. I have read and largely concur with the Barron Park Association letter addressing this issue. Additionally: 1. As a Master Gardener and California Native Plant advocate, I am concerned about preservingMatadero Creek as a wildlife corridor and increasing native plantings in the corridor and throughout Barron Park. 2. For over 40 years my family and many neighbors have depended on the existing businesses.The Creekside Inn has hosted many important community meetings and is a useful voting site as well as housing my parents and many visitors. The Driftwood Market supports the Barron ParkAssociation, most recently providing lunches for the Senior group. Friends and neighbors have worked there, while nearly everyone counts on them for sandwiches and other necessities. 3. It is important to remember that Barron Park has no sidewalks. The entire neighborhood haspreserved a "country" (not suburban) feel. Children and the elderly as well as runners and athletes are walking adjacent to traffic which is often too fast. This huge development is not consistentwith maintaining our rural environment. Thank you for your attention, Romola GeorgiaTippawingo St. 1 September 9, 2022 Dear Garrett and City Council, We have seen several positive, well-planned projects along El Camino Real and the adjacent area within the last few years. Redevelopment at Barron Park’s Creekside site has the potential to be a great asset for the area and our neighborhood, but the current proposal shows no consideration for the surrounding neighborhood and safety of our Barron Park community. 1. The proposed project with massive structures built to the edge of El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue makes no attempt in either architecture or in landscaping to fit in with the character of Barron Park. For decades, the Barron Park community has dedicated their efforts to protect the natural creek habitat, promote greenery, create native gardens, house a donkey pasture and establish neighborhood parks and parklets. The current Creekside Inn structure achieves a balance of nature and function with a 5-story building that is properly set back from the property line and surrounded by greenery. The proposed project completely fails in both characteristics. Any project on this site must incorporate heavy greenery and trees along El Camino and Matadero Avenue as well as within the site. A larger structure needs to be set back further from the street to avoid towering over the site and surroundings. The current proposal treats the creek flowing through the property as an unfortunate obstacle. This is a stark contrast to the current site plan that incorporates the natural creek & greenery as a unique asset that enhances the existing development. 2. Barron Park has many narrow streets feeding off El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue. The streets cannot absorb increased traffic that will certainly come from this proposed project. Many nearby streets have no sidewalks, no lane dividers and, with cars parked on both sides, have essentially become single-lane roads. Walking, biking and driving are already difficult and dangerous on these small streets. Increased traffic will greatly exacerbate traffic issues and safety problems. The proposal plans exit and entry primarily on Matadero Avenue with only one egress on El Camino Real. This will push traffic from the proposed development to detour through the already saturated neighborhood routes. Traffic flow from the proposed project must exit and enter exclusively on El Camino, not Matadero Avenue. A new traffic lane, taken from the footprint of the site, must be added to El Camino and a new lane must be added to Matadero Avenue so cars can merge, enter and exit safely. A protected bike lane should also be added along Matadero Avenue. 2 3. Barron Park is not a walkable commercial area. Our neighborhood has no public facilities (libraries, community centers, swimming pools, etc …) and few functional retail shops, doctor’s offices, or grocery stores along this stretch of El Camino. Our neighborhood is constantly labeled a commercial/retail/walkable/transit-oriented center as a primary reason for why it should be the target for this type of massive development. But those characteristics are being greatly diminished by developers using them for their benefit. Developers demand the up-zoning that comes with being in a retail corridor but fight to minimize retail in their own developments as it cuts into their project profits. Developers demand up-zoning that comes with a ‘walkable area’ label but do not want to set back their building from the streets so people can have space to walk. Neighbors are bearing the costs of the overdevelopment of a “walkable commercial center”, but there is no effort on the city’s part for improving our neighborhood to meet those labels. Since Barron Park lacks public amenities and community facilities, project developers should incorporate a Barron Park Community Center in this project – a legitimate, active community center not a closet-sized room where residents are forced to rent space for $30/hour as with Palo Alto’s recent Alma Plaza Project. 4. The area cannot absorb overflow parking resulting from the overly optimistic parking requirement assumptions outlined in the development proposal. Cars are a necessary part of life in this area and parking for the development needs to be based on this fact. Public transit in Barron Park is limited to El Camino bus routes and is woefully inadequate and inefficient. Availability of alternate forms of transportation does not eliminate the need for cars or parking. A person can bike to work, take a bus to the mall and still keep a car for weekend travel, occasional emergencies or rainy days. If a car exists at all in a person’s life, used daily or otherwise, it needs a parking space on the project site and not left on neighborhood streets. High rents increase the likelihood that even the studio apartments will be occupied by at least two working and driving individuals. The development needs to provide residents with two free parking spaces per unit. This neighborhood does not have the capacity to absorb overflow from optimistic underestimation of car ownership and parking needs. The Barron Park neighborhood has already been negatively affected by the City’s underestimate of needed parking at our neighborhood residential complexes. The stretch of Los Robles near Buena Vista has essentially become an overflow parking lot with a large section of the street perpetually parked full of cars that the City’s Planning Department assured everyone Buena Vista’s residents would not have. While this Creekside site has potential to host a positive community asset, this massively over scale proposal is a poorly planned, thoughtless wreck. The plans are a mess and the City needs to address these issues before moving forward with redevelopment at this site. Lisa Landers, Barron Park Resident From:Lisa Landers To:Sauls, Garrett Subject:creekside project concerns Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 12:11:10 PM Attachments:creekside letter v1.4.pdf You don't often get email from lisa.landers@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Garrett, Thanks for taking the time to meet with the BPA. Attached is a letter outlining some of my concerns. Regards, Lisa LandersBarron Park Resident & BPA Board Member From:Kellie Stafford To:Burt, Patrick; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; Stone, Greer; Filseth, Eric (Internal);supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Sauls, Garrett Subject:Creekside/Oxford Group development project Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 4:24:17 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from kkstafford72@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To all it concerns. My name is Kellie Stafford. I live at 625 Matadero Avenue in Barron Park. I am on the 2nd block down from El Camino and will be directly affected by the Creekside Apartment development. While I am for housing being built, the proposed project by the Oxford Group will not only NOT supply Palo Alto with the affordable housing it needs, but it will also cause numerous issues that will directly affect the Barron Park neighborhood and its residents. 1. An average teacher in Palo Alto makes approximately $67,000.00/year. An average "blue collar worker" makes an average of $57,000.00/year. The development caters to "moderate income" persons making $80,000.00- $120,000.00 a year. The persons who need housing the most, will not be able to afford even a studio at the complex. 2. This is not catering to families. Approximately 3/4 of the units are Studio and 1 bedroom apartments. How are we supposed to house people like the ones living in RV's on the side of El Camino? Isn't increasing housing in Palo Alto and California supposed to help those who need it most? This complex will not do that. 3. Parking on ALL Barron Park (BOTH sides of El Camino Real) streets must become residential permit parking only. The complex will offer 1 parking space to each unit and they will have to pay a fee for it. This is quite absurd considering the residents will park on Matadero, Margarita and El Camino. El Camino, although a highway, must have restrictions put on how long a car can be parked along it. All this will cause congestion along El Camino and all the adjoining streets. 4. Safety is a huge concern when it comes to only two entrances and exits from the property. It will cause congestion on both El Camino and Matadero. Matadero is a bike friendly street. Even today with just the hotel, I see near- miss accidents between bikers and cars at least a couple of times a week. 5. There are over 50 old trees on the corner that are over 21" in diameter. The Oxford Group plans to tear down all those trees. This is not allowable and needt to not be overlooked. 6. The City needs to protect the employees that work for Driftwood Market, Cibo and the hotel. While we look to build housing, how did it become ok to destroy small businesses and put 50 people out of work??? I am the 4th generation of my family from Palo Alto. My great grandmother was born on Stanford Avenue. I was born at Stanford Hospital. I attended Barron Park Elementary School, Juana Briones, St. Elizabeth Seton and Gunn High School. If you approve this project you are going against everything that makes Barron Park, Palo Alto a community. You are going against the Comp Plan for Palo Alto; to preserve the neighborhood. Please preserve our neighborhood, your city. Please do not approve this project and if and when the Oxford Group redo their plans to actually be a part of our neighborhood and truly help our neighbors, do not allow them any tax breaks. Thank you for your time. Kellie Stafford From:AMY SILVER To:Burt, Patrick; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; Stone, Greer; Filseth, Eric (Internal);supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Sauls, Garrett Subject:Creekside/Oxford Group Development Project Date:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 2:42:40 PM You don't often get email from sak2silver@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To all it concerns, While I am for housing being built, the proposed project by the Oxford Group will not only NOT supply Palo Alto with the affordable housing it needs, but it will also cause numerous issues that will directly affect the Barron Park neighborhood and its residents. 1. An average teacher in Palo Alto makes approximately $67,000.00/year. An average "blue collar worker" makes an average of $57,000.00/year. The development caters to "moderate income" persons making $80,000.00- $120,000.00 a year. The persons who need housing the most, will not be able to afford even a studio at the complex. 2. This is not catering to families. Approximately 3/4 of the units are Studio and 1 bedroom apartments. How are we supposed to house people like the ones living in RV's on the side of El Camino? Isn't increasing housing in Palo Alto and California supposed to help those who need it most? This complex will not do that. 3. Parking on ALL Barron Park (BOTH sides of El Camino Real) streets must become residential permit parking only. The complex will offer 1 parking space to each unit and they will have to pay a fee for it. This is quite absurd considering the residents will park on Matadero, Margarita and El Camino. El Camino, although a highway, must have restrictions put on how long a car can be parked along it. All this will cause congestion along El Camino and all the adjoining streets. 4. Safety is a huge concern when it comes to only two entrances and exits from the property. It will cause congestion on both El Camino and Matadero. Matadero is a bike friendly street. Even today with just the hotel, I see near- miss accidents between bikers and cars at least a couple of times a week. 5. There are over 50 old trees on the corner that are over 21" in diameter. The Oxford Group plans to tear down all those trees. This is not allowable and needt to not be overlooked. 6. The City needs to protect the employees that work for Driftwood Market, Cibo and the hotel. While we look to build housing, how did it become ok to destroy small businesses and put 50 people out of work??? I grew up in Palo Alto. My mom and brother still live in Palo Alto. I was born at Stanford Hospital. I attended Juana Briones and Gunn High School. If you approve this project you are going against everything that makes Barron Park, Palo Alto a community. You are going against the Comp Plan for Palo Alto; to preserve the neighborhood. Please preserve our neighborhood, your city. Please do not approve this project and if and when the Oxford Group redo their plans to actually be a part of our neighborhood and truly help our neighbors, do not allow them any tax breaks. Thank you for your time. Amy Silver From:Star Teachout To:Sauls, Garrett Subject:Input on 3400 ECR/Creekside DevelopmentDate:Friday, September 9, 2022 2:53:13 PM Attachments:PaloAlto-Draft-RHNA-1.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks for including this in the packet Garrett! I didn’t realize the due date was today so I’m afraid I rambled a bit! Dear City Council,Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 3400 el Camino Real/Creekside project being proposed to help meet our RHNA goals. This site could be avery useful addition to our housing resources—especially for very low to low income residents (<50% up to 80% of local median incomes)—but thisproposed development is far too large for this site, resulting in probable creek/tree degradation, severe traffic impacts, reduction in neighborhood quality oflife, and reduced safety due to its proximity to a busy intersection and the arterial traffic that would flow through neighborhoods and the bicycle boulevard(Safe Routes to School) which does not have bike lanes. There isn’t time to delve into all the assumptions and population projections that HCD/ABAG used as the basis for allocating 441,176 additional housingunits to our Bay Area, nor whether the consequences of COVID should prompt a re-evaluation of those assumptions, so below are some brief (but expanded)details about why this proposed project needs to be redesigned, reduced, and resubmitted. 1. Infrastructure: lacking essential services near enough to promote walking/cycling; lacking an adequate road/transit system.[FYI: I cycle everywhere within a 3+ mile radius and know the habits of people who live nearby and still drive to Cal Ave.] Services: This locale is not close enough for (non-car) typical daily services—food markets, banking, medical, CalTrain, libraries, etc. without some majorconnectivity improvements to our bus system, and although our elementary schools have lowered enrollment, our high schools are near or surpassing thecapacity for promoting a healthy, connected student body (they are already too large and anonymous). The collection of garbage alone would seem veryproblematic since the waste vehicles come very early and would have to travel through the narrow meandering path onsite. Noise from the ground levelcommercial sites should also be closely evaluated. This project scale would be more appropriate for areas not car-dependent or those with multiple car lanes, public transit, and bike lanes offering saferalternate routes for cycling to services. Examples: the Fry’s site, the Varian site on Page Mill (easy access to Foothill/280, or biking down to Cal Ave), orthe San Antonio x Middlefield (to Charleston) being discussed. If the state is serious about providing housing, why are they not putting in place theappropriate transportation infrastrucure—getting a bicycle lane on ECR and a light rail down the middle! Traffic at Matadero x ECR: It is highly unlikely the on-site circulation and vehicle trips will be consistent with the City’s Bicycle and PedestrianTransportation Plan and the Council’s Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy. The current proposal of 382 units keeps the existing driveway on ECR(@Cibo’s) with an immediate traffic light followed by a second one a block away (x Matadero). This would be a severe bottleneck, but even worse is theproposed driveway on Matadero. Currently, just the few cars attempting to get out of the Driftwood Market create havoc with this intersection where carsare quickly turning off ECR often to be faced with a queue of cars attempting to get out onto Matadero and/or onto ECR. Anyone traveling south from thisproposed project will avoid this difficult intersection—a current danger to cyclists/peds*—and drive through the shoulder-less streets of Barron Park,endangering both peds and cyclists. The position of the buildings being built both on ECR and Matadero block the site lines which also makes it moredangerous. It would be much better for the development to purchase an egress on the northside and route traffic onto Hansen Way. *According to the Comprehensive Plan, a bicycle boulevard is a low volume through street where bicycles have priority over automobiles, conflictsbetween bicycles and automobiles are minimized and bicycle travel time is reduced by the removal of stop signs and other impediments to bicycle travel.The removal of STOP signs is especially important in Palo Alto due to the large number of stop signs on local and collector streets. Palo Alto is already lacking an effective transportation plan, particularly for cross-town travel. Please put some energy and finances into making/promotinga stellar bus/bike system that would serve our city well. This is critical for quality of life and reducing GHGs from car trips, but also for the safety ofresidents. AND, this provides the infrastructure we need to increase density within our city. 2. Comprehensive Transportation Plan: We need a comprehensive plan which includes projected car-trips and new transportation resources to addressadditional traffic from recent projects, those underway, and those imminent. What with many development projects adding to our city limits, it is reasonable to ask for our city’s thoughts on how traffic will flow and be managed in ascontrolled a way as possible. Just in the Barron Park area these are some of the ones I know about—there are probably more!:- in process (3225 ECR x Portage 3700 ECR opposite Barron Ave, former 3800 ECR Compadre’s site)- imminent (Fry’s, Ventura)- on your radar (3585 ECR x Matadero, 3600 ECR opposite the 3400 project, the empty lot 4146 ECR, 3903 ECR Star 1 Bank site, Hansen Way, Olive St.,Lambert,etc.). 3. BMR: The project states that BMR will be between 80-120% of the local income. This is really targeting residents in the moderate to above moderateincome brackets rather than the 2,452 in the very low to low brackets. Palo Alto Draft RHNA 4. Environmental: We are attempting to improve the health of our local ecosystems and humans too. But the request to rezone to allow for increasednumber of residents, greater building heights, removal of trees, creek impacts from excavation, and even the increase in noise and lights are all problematicwith this project. If commercial businesses include restaurants and bars where will they park? I look forward to reading more of the analysis that would beneeded for a thorough impact report. 5. Other: Community rooms and ADUs I’m sad that we aren’t considering the addition of a local youth center/community gathering (indoor) rooms as part of this/any large-scale developmentprojects. We can endure high density if we have the opportunities to come together as a community. From the rare times my knitting group has been able tomeet in the Mitchell Park Library study rooms it is apparent how valuable these things are. Please consider ways to include resources to local residents thatnot only eliminate car trips, but also help us feel part of a community and not simply part of a large residential project. A recent idea I heard proposed is to grandfather all existing undocumented ADUs and include them in the count. There could be minimal code upgradesrequired (eg, only electrical, emergency exits), which the city could even subsidize if we are that desperate for adding to the 6000+ goal. Thanks for considering, and please continue to reach out to residents to build some consensus on these large-scale projects,Star Teachout3550 Whitsell AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94306teachout@sonic.net From:Shiv Shanker Sharma To:Council, City; Sauls, Garrett Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 2:40:15 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from theshivsharma@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I am writing in regard to the proposal for an enormous apartment complex in Barron Park. I’m writing to express my discontent with the project and, alongside so many in Palo Alto,am expressing strong opposition to it. I agree with the concerns outlined in the Barron Park Association Board letter submitted to City Council. Some specific concerns that I wish to highlight include:- This project would be at one of the main entrances into Barron Park. This nearly 400 unit complex will cause major congestion and cause danger to the many children biking/walkingto school along this path - The construction will take considerable time, and there are families and children in theneighborhood who will be very negatively impacted during the construction - This will create an influx of students on the local schools and create a resource scarcity- This will alter the nature of the Barron Park community and make it more crowded/congested/busy/loud Kindly consider my and others' concerns and reject this proposal immediately. There aremany other reasons for why this project should not move forward and I’m happy to walk you through them one by one over a zoom or phone call. Others in our neighborhood alsofeel very passionately against this proposal and the handling of this matter will absolutely be considered when election time comes around. Sincerely,Shiv Sharma From:Kari H To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Creekside Inn development Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:11:56 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from karihodgson@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I strongly disagree with the City for considering this development. Obviously, none of you live close to that area or you too would understand the burden this development places onthose who own houses in barron park. I guess since the 2 homes I own in Palo Alto are inGreenmeadow I too should ignore why this proposal hurts so many of our communitymembers. Please do not agree to these ridiculous terms. The parking nightmare alone youare condemning these people should weigh heavily on your conscience. Imagine everydaycoming home to all the spill over cars, who have no garage space, parked bumper tobumper on your street. Please do not do this to our neighbors. Thanks,Kari Hodgson From:joe stafford To:Council, City Cc:Tomforcouncil@gmail.com Subject:Proposed development of the property at 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 12:15:14 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from joehstafford@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links.________________________________ Ladies & Gentlemen; I am a 45 year resident living at the corner of Matadero and Josina in Palo Alto. The proposed development referenced above is “not feasible” to quote the attached September 7 letter to the CityCouncil from the board of the Barron Park Association (BPA). In fact, the proposal conforms to the “New York Realtor-Trump school” which advises:“If you want to negotiate to end with your opponent’s “nearly unacceptable” position - Start with “Outrageous”. I commend the effort of the BPA Board for a thorough review of the numerous, serious failings of the OxfordCapital Group’s proposal. However, from the standpoint of a resident who would be directly affected, I view the proposal as simplyOutrageous. One which should be declined without further discussion. RespectfullyJonas Stafford655 Josina AvePalo Alto, Ca650 493 3289 From:Bill Kelly To:Sauls, Garrett; Council, City Cc:Lisa Kelly Subject:Proposed project at the Creekside Inn Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 7:31:30 AM [You don't often get email from bill@kellys.org. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links.________________________________ Dear City Council and Planning Commission, We are very concerned about the scale of the project proposed for the Creekside Inn. As a 30 year resident ofChimalus Drive, we have deep concerns over the height of the project as it will impact the privacy of our neighborson Chimalus, on the overall size of the project as it will severely impact our egress from Barron Park, finally we’revery concerned about bike safety on Madadero avenue. The sightlines for the upper stories of this project would overlook our backyards. This seems an overly intrusive forthe city to approve this project. Could a tree buffer between the project and Chimalus be devised? Or some otherremediation of the view? Currently, visitors exiting the Creekside Inn in their vehicles often don’t understand that they are entering a street,and they pull out without looking. Several years ago, this street was declared a bike superhighway for childrentransiting to Gunn and Barron Park School. This was done, despite making no changes to the narrow road. Vehicles on Matadero road often travel at speeds 15-20 miles over the speed limit, even with speed bumps. Whenthe speed bumps were installed, they were effective, however, a few weeks after they were installed, the bumps werelowered, and we have seen modern cars like Tesla’s take the new bumps at 40 miles per hour without impact. Adding possibly hundreds of cars to the morning commute would at the Matadero interchange would make thisegress unusable for existing residence and dangerous to school children on bikes. We are committed to increasing housing in Palo Alto, and if a project could adhere to current zoning requirementsthat would be beneficial for Palo Alto, but this project is way out of scale. Bill & Lisa Kelly632 Chimalus Dr.Palo Alto CA 94306 You don't often get email from john@jhsconsult.com. Learn why this is important From:John SchwarzTo:Sauls, Garrett Subject:Re: 3400 ECR - Email List? Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 8:43:00 AMAttachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngimage010.pngimage011.pngimage012.pngimage013.png Hi Garrett, OK, that is very helpful, thanks again! John From: "Sauls, Garrett" <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org> Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:40 AM To: John Schwarz <John@jhsconsult.com> Subject: RE: 3400 ECR - Email List? Hi John, We have not had a meeting for 3400 El Camino Real yet, but we plan to target the September 19 City Council meeting. At that meeting, we will learn whether the Council is supportive of this design approach or not which will inform the applicant to pursue the application or drop it. My colleague Emily Foley is reviewing the application at 70 Encina Avenue: Emily.Foley@CityofPaloAlto.org. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped From: John Schwarz <John@jhsconsult.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 8:27 AM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: 3400 ECR - Email List? Hi Garrett, OK, thank you. I was thinking there might be an email list for future hearing updates, etc., but I will just check the web pages periodically. I did visit the project pages and was wondering what had transpired at the July 14 meeting for 3400 ECR. Is there anything you can tell me about the feedback received or next steps for that one? I will reach out to Claire too. Is the 70 Encina Ave. project assigned to someone else? Thanks very much for the help. Have a nice day. John Schwarz (408) 623-1595 john@jhsconsult.com From: "Sauls, Garrett" <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org> Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:03 AM To: John Schwarz <John@jhsconsult.com> Subject: RE: 3400 ECR - Email List? Hi John, I don’t believe that there are emails lists created for each individual project. Instead, there are project webpages that are periodically updated. You don't often get email from john@jhsconsult.com. Learn why this is important https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Events-Directory/Planning-and-Development-Services/3400-El-Camino-Real-22PLN-00227?transfer=786aa7b6-7300-4fbe-8d2e- f26eee002571 If you are interested in contacting the project planner for 3001 El Camino Real’s project, their contact information is here: Claire Raybould – Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org. She can give you updates on the project timeline. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped From: John Schwarz <John@jhsconsult.com> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 4:25 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 3400 ECR - Email List? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Garrett, My name is John Schwarz, and I am a planning/env. consultant in the area. I am just tracking some of the pending PHZ-type projects in Palo Alto, and I wanted to ask if you could please add me to the email list for any updates re: the 3400 El Camino Real Project. Also, I am not sure if you are the planner involved with either the 3001-3017 El Camino Real or 70 Encina Ave. projects, but if you could also add me to the update list (or pass this along to the relevant planners) for those, that would be great. Thank you! John Schwarz JHS Consulting (408) 623-1595 john@jhsconsult.com From:Winter DellenbachTo:Sauls, GarrettSubject:Re: 3400 El Camino - CreeksideDate:Monday, July 25, 2022 3:43:36 PMAttachments:image011.pngimage012.pngimage014.pngimage005.pngimage015.pngimage008.png These are 2020 maps that are sent out periodically to interested residents and a couple very we informed on this subject. Glad this was helpful, Garrett. I am sure not any kind of expert on this. I do know that developer have been caught by surprise more than once - facebook site that College Park residents uncovered (I think) and now the Foot Locker site. I really don’t want this one to be a 3rd and don’t want BP residents to have to hire its own expert. As I said in our meeting, a reasonable size proposal, respectful of the Creek, recognizing the actual constraints of the site could be good. But by adding that many people/units and the height/density/underground garage needed to achieve it just blows out one of two main entryways (also Los Robles) to Barron Park. If the developer shows actual understanding and respect for legitimate community needs and uses, housing there could be a welcome addition to BP and Ventura neighborhoods. But it is far from that now. Wiinter On Jul 25, 2022, at 9:28 AM, Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi Winter, I’m happy that I was able to see you again and answer your questions. It looks like our data layer was last updated in 2004 so the maps you share below would be more recent. If this application becomes a formal project, I’ll be sure to have our environmental consultant evaluate this issue thoroughly. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped From: Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 6:38 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 3400 El Camino - Creekside CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Here’s the map I meant to bring to our meeting. Maybe it’s the same as you showed us - or not? Let me know if it’s different, please. It’s so close to site! You were very generous with your time today, Garrett. And patient. Thank you for all the many questions of ours we you answered. Winter Dellenbach 650 269-1917 You don't often get email from angesdeux@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this is important From:Sauls, GarrettTo:Chris SteckSubject:RE: 3400 El Camino Real project commentsDate:Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:20:40 PMAttachments:image016.pngimage017.pngimage019.pngimage027.pngimage002.pngimage004.pngimage008.pngimage009.pngimage011.pngimage020.pngimage021.png Hi Chris, Thanks for your understanding. I agree that a meeting between the applicant and community would be important if a formal project comes forward. All comments I receive will be added to the packet for the item which should be published 11 days in advance of the City Council meeting. That will be September 8 assuming the item isn’t pushed to a later date or the packet is delayed for staff to finish some items. I haven’t seen anything from what you are talking about. Feel free to share it so I can look into it more. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped From: Chris Steck <angesdeux@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 2:23 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: 3400 El Camino Real project comments Thanks for your response Garrett. I understand your reasoning for the developer not being at the last BPA meeting. It’s obviously a subject all the neighbors who attended and many more who weren’t at the meeting who didn’t know about it are very passionate about. I retired after thirty years with Mountain View and I was involved in a lot of those kinds of meetings where things went south quickly when you got passionate residents together with determined developers. But at some point, in my mind the earlier the better in the process, the two sides have to meet to get both sides out if a process is going to proceed more smoothly than if they never meet. Am I correct in assuming that all of the neighbor comments you receive before the council meeting next month will be in the “packet” that council and the developer will receive prior to the meeting? How do I go about finding that packet online prior to the meeting? Did you say it’s available ten days before the meeting? On a related subject, have you seen the stories in the paper about the large proposed development on Winchester in San Jose? From those accounts it sounds like a case of how not to proceed if you’re trying to get buy in from all parties. Thanks again, Chris Sent from my iPhone On Aug 23, 2022, at 12:58 PM, Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Hi Chris, Thank you for following up and being involved in the discussion. You are correct that I spoke with one of the Transportation managers about comments I received for the neighboring site at 3300 El Camino Real. The Santa Clara Valley Water District did not want hardscaping to be located along the easement area that buffers the Research Park and Barron Park properties in that application. However, I am uncertain if they would be open to some other means to create a pathway (such as decomposed granite) that might provide equal maintenance access for them and bike/pedestrian access for City residents or Research Park tenants. The transportation manager did indicate that the potential pathway is not formally recognized in our Bike Master Plan but that they don’t want to rule out the possibility that it could eventually become something at some point in the future. The reason that the applicant wasn’t in attendance was my fault. I didn’t pass along the information to them as I wanted to give the residents an opportunity to learn about the project from City staff. I wasn’t sure if the meeting would devolve with the applicant being present and given that it was not a meeting the City set up themselves, I also felt it would be weird to try and co-opt the meeting for ourselves to act as an intermediary between the residents and the applicant given it was Barron Park’s HOA meeting and we were just guests. I hope you can understand, but there was no ill-will from the applicant to attend, they simply weren’t aware in this case. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org You don't often get email from angesdeux@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this is important NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped From: Chris Steck <angesdeux@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 1:35 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 3400 El Camino Real project comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Garrett: First wanted to thank you for a very clear, easy to understand presentation for the Barron Park Association meeting this past Tuesday. Prior to the meeting I wasinformed that the notice of the meeting hadn't been posted as usual on the BPA website so many residents weren't aware of the fact the project was going to bediscussed. Many more neighbors I've spoken to since said they would have attended if they'd been made aware. I also wanted to clarify your response when I asked youabout the possibility of a bike path being installed in the green belt behind the homes on Chimalus down to El Camino. Based on your explanation, we came away withthe thought that a paved path wouldn't be permitted in the area. You also indicated you'd informed the City Transportation department of those restrictions. Can youconfirm I got that information straight and who in the Transportation department was informed of that information? With regard to comments about the proposed project. I thought it was interesting that no one from Oxford chose to attend the meeting. Has anyone from Oxford met withyou/other City representatives yet to talk about any requirements/issues associated with the site? This is another example at this stage of a project being brought forwardwithout any interaction with the neighborhood group that stands to be most impacted by the project and the developer proposing the project. Of the more than dozenresidents that spoke at the meeting, only a couple seemed to voice any support at all for the project. Everyone else voiced concern(s). I shared a number of the concernsthat were voiced. In no particular order of importance, I'd be concerned about the status of the creek during the project, how the creek would be maintained after theproject and what would happen to any groundwater encountered during the construction of the project. Undoubtedly the traffic study will show impacts to traffic onMatadero that can't be mitigated. Already there are traffic issues in the area. Mornings at times, traffic on Matadero is backed up enough it takes two or more signalcycles to get onto El Camino. Guests at that time coming out of Creekside Inn frequently pull out onto Matadero blocking traffic trying to get into the neighborhood untilthe signal turns green and they can pull into the line for El Camino. The "pedestrian beacons" on El Camino as one of the neighbors called them aren't tied into the timingof the traffic lights. As a result, rush hour traffic frequently backs all the way into the Matadero/El Camino intersection when the beacon turns red preventing any trafficfrom Matadero the ability to pull onto El Camino even though their light is green. Parking of extra tenant vehicles would surely be an issue. Much like the current problemwith Buena Vista vehicles, their solution is to park in the retail lot out front, along El Camino, up Los Robles and onto the side streets into the neighborhood. Undoubtedlythe same issue would happen here. El Camino, up Matadero and onto the neighborhood side streets. Can the current utility infrastructure accommodate a project of thissize? Can the schools? Set back requirements aren't being met. Height limitations are being exceeded. New buffers would have to be created between the project andexisting neighbors that would take time to establish. Loss of the existing retail (Driftwood Market). Where would they go during construction? Would they be able to affordto come back? These are just a variety of the concerns I had at this time with the preliminary understanding I have of the project at this time. Appreciate hearing backfrom you soon on the bike path issue/question.Chris Steck878 Chimalus Drive From:John KingTo:Sauls, GarrettCc:Winter DellenbachSubject:Re: Creekside Development Proposal Date:Wednesday, July 13, 2022 11:17:43 AMAttachments:image001.pngimage005.pngimage017.pngimage002.pngimage004.pngimage020.pngimage006.pngimage044.pngimage033.pngimage043.pngimage012.pngimage032.png Just to confirm we are meeting next Wednesday July 20th at 1:30pm correct? On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 11:13 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: See you both then next Wednesday. Have a good weekend! Garrett Sauls Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped From: Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 11:03 AMTo: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: John King <johnwadeking@gmail.com>Subject: Re: Creekside Development Proposal OK Garret - John has confirmed - we can meet with you at 1:30 on the 24th at the Dev. Center. I reserved the time slot. See you then - thanks so much. Winter On Jul 13, 2022, at 10:38 AM, Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi Winter, Whether in person or virtual we can review the plans. We do not keep any physical plans anymore after we transitioned to digital submittals. I am on thecounter next Wednesday from 1:30pm-4:30pm so you are welcome to see if there are any available in-person appointments at theDC: https://outlook.office365.com/owa/calendar/DevelopmentCenterInPersonAppointmentA@cityofpaloalto.org/bookings/. We are not doing in personappointments other than these at the moment. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped You don't often get email from johnwadeking@gmail.com. Learn why this is important From: Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 10:32 AMTo: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: John King <johnwadeking@gmail.com>Subject: Re: Creekside Development Proposal Hi Garret - may I butt in here - we would really like to review the actually plans with you - flip the pages so to speak. Make sure we understand the details.May we have an in-person meeting? Are you doing those? Winter On Jul 13, 2022, at 10:27 AM, Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi John, I am available virtually anytime after 1:00pm on Tuesday. The other times I am in meetings. If you would like, I can also see if I’m available toattend your board meeting to talk about the project and answer questions. Let me know what works for you. I can send a meeting invite for next Tuesday if you have a specific time after 1:00pm you are looking for. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped From: John King <johnwadeking@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 10:05 AMTo: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net>Subject: Creekside Development Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking onlinks. Hi Garrett- Thank you for sharing the link to the proposed development at the Creekside Inn location at 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto. I am the current President of the Barron Park Association. Our board will be meeting early next month to review the development proposal and inadvance of that meeting, I would like to meet with you to review the proposal so I can be prepared to have a solid discussion on this proposal withour board. I would also be having Winter Dellenbach,cc'ed on this email, who has advocated on behalf of the Barron Park Association with me at thatmeeting. Would you be able to meet sometime next week? Some available times are below: July 18 after 2:30 July 19 after 1PM July 20 after 2:30 I would appreciate your time on this as it's a very important issue for the neighborhood. Thank you! -- -- John W. KingKeller Williams Realty Palo Alto505 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 100Palo Alto, CA. 94301johnwadeking@gmail.com650-483-2710DRE# 00868208 From:Kellie Stafford To:Burt, Patrick; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; Stone, Greer; Filseth, Eric (Internal);supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Sauls, Garrett Subject:Re: Creekside/Oxford Group development project - with addendum Date:Saturday, September 10, 2022 7:58:12 AM Attachments:BPA_Letter_to_City_Council_9_07_22.docx.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from kkstafford72@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. My apologies for not including the Barron Park Association's original letter for those who may not have received it on Friday. Our formal review of the property development at the Creekside Inn is attached. Have a nice weekend. Kellie Stafford 625 Matadero Ave.Barron Park, Palo Alto On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 4:23 PM Kellie Stafford <kkstafford72@gmail.com> wrote: To all it concerns. My name is Kellie Stafford. I live at 625 Matadero Avenue in Barron Park. I am on the 2nd block down from El Camino and will be directly affected by the Creekside Apartment development. While I am for housing being built, the proposed project by the Oxford Group will notonly NOT supply Palo Alto with the affordable housing it needs, but it will also cause numerous issues that will directly affect the Barron Park neighborhood and its residents. 1. An average teacher in Palo Alto makes approximately $67,000.00/year. An average "blue collar worker" makes an average of $57,000.00/year. The development caters to "moderate income" persons making $80,000.00- $120,000.00 a year. The persons who need housing the most, will not be able toafford even a studio at the complex. 2. This is not catering to families. Approximately 3/4 of the units are Studio and 1 bedroom apartments. How are we supposed to house people like the ones living inRV's on the side of El Camino? Isn't increasing housing in Palo Alto and California supposed to help those who need it most? This complex will not do that. 3. Parking on ALL Barron Park (BOTH sides of El Camino Real) streets mustbecome residential permit parking only. The complex will offer 1 parking space to each unit and they will have to pay a fee for it. This is quite absurd considering the residents will park on Matadero, Margarita and El Camino. El Camino, although a highway, must have restrictions put on how long a car can be parked along it. All this will cause congestion along El Camino and all the adjoining streets. 4. Safety is a huge concern when it comes to only two entrances and exits from the property. It will cause congestion on both El Camino and Matadero. Matadero is a bike friendly street. Even today with just the hotel, I see near-miss accidents between bikers and cars at least a couple of times a week. 5. There are over 50 old trees on the corner that are over 21" in diameter. The Oxford Group plans to tear down all those trees. This is not allowable and needt tonot be overlooked. 6. The City needs to protect the employees that work for Driftwood Market, Cibo and the hotel. While we look to build housing, how did it become ok to destroy smallbusinesses and put 50 people out of work??? I am the 4th generation of my family from Palo Alto. My great grandmother was born on Stanford Avenue. I was born at Stanford Hospital. I attended Barron ParkElementary School, Juana Briones, St. Elizabeth Seton and Gunn High School. If you approve this project you are going against everything that makes Barron Park, Palo Alto a community. You are going against the Comp Plan for Palo Alto; to preserve the neighborhood. Please preserve our neighborhood, your city. Please do not approve this project and if and when the Oxford Group redo their plans to actually be a part of our neighborhood and truly help our neighbors, do not allow them any tax breaks. Thank you for your time. Kellie Stafford From:Art LibermanTo:Sauls, GarrettCc:Star-Lack, Sylvia; Arce, Ozzy; Ellson, PennySubject:Re: Information on the Matadero Bypass channelDate:Thursday, August 25, 2022 7:14:46 PM Attachments:image009.pngimage010.pngimage012.pngimage002.pngimage004.pngimage008.pngimage011.png Thank you Garret. I offered the schematic images of the of the underground bypass culvert for your interest; presumably you have full engineering drawings from thewater district. I was really inquiring about whether the Planning review of 3300 El Camino includes the possibility of a future bicycle connection. As you must beaware, it is only when developers propose new projects does the City have any leverage to insist on new bicycle access thorough or to the property. With theexplosion of bicycling and growing popularity of e-bikes and the other new micro-mobility systems (e-skateboards, e-scooters) in our area, this is an increasinglyimportant aspect of new proposed office and residential developments in the Research Park and elsewhere in the City. Facilitating bicycle access and insuring that theplans incentivize their use is something that Planners, like you, need to insist upon. This may not be a factor in your review of the 3300 El Camino project, but must bekept in mind for other projects. About future bikeway plans. Will there be a bikeway route in the Water District easement (the greenbelt)? There's a lot of uncertainty now (and the Water Districtrequirement of no hardscape over the buried channel reduces the chances). I am aware of the uncertainties of new bikeway plans from PABAC meetings and fromcommunication with Office of Transportation staff. I know there will be a new Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP), though there is uncertainty as towhen we will have that in hand. As I mentioned, PABAC participated in advising the City staff on the elements of the new BPTP. A consultant, who is not yet on board,will fill in the details of the plan with specific suggestions for improvements to current bikeways and for some new routes, and that could take a year or two. There willbe community meetings once the consultant has completed the plan and Commissions and Council review. That adds additional time and additional layers ofuncertainty. Thank you again for your consideration and for your time in responding to my inquiry. Art Liberman On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 12:36:51 PM PDT, Sauls, Garrett <garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Art, Thanks for sharing this information. I spoke with Sylvia about this and she indicated that the pathway from the images you shared is not currently on the Master Bike Plan for the City. It sounds like there wasa site visit that occurred between some managers from the City, SCVWD, and one of the city’s mayors some time ago where there was support expressed behind this potential route. I can’t speak toTransportation staff’s ability to take on this work but my recent involvement was mostly related to my project at 3300 El Camino Real (ECR). As I mentioned last week, through their review of the 3300 ECRproject, staff from SCVWD indicated that they did not want hardscape over the area where their underground RCB culvert was located for maintenance purposes where the applicant had proposed a smallpatio. If that desire is shared for the “greenbelt” area, then it may be that a decomposed granite path is acceptable. That discussion will need to continue with the Office of Transportation and SCVWD. There is no bike path proposed as a part of the 3300 ECR project along the shared parcel line to 3400 ECR. If you have any questions, please let me know. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Planning ApplicationsMapped From: Art Liberman <art_liberman@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 1:36 PMTo: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org>Subject: Information on the Matadero Bypass channel CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Garrett As part of your work analyzing the planning application for 3300 El Camino, I understand that you are examining the issues with a bike path in the Water DistrictEasement on Stanford land behind homes on Chimalus. Let me inform you about my interest. I live on Chimalus, but on the opposite side of the street from the homes that back up to the Research Park. I am interested inbiking and the bike path connections as I am the Vice-Chair of PABAC, the citizen advisory Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), though I want to emphasize that I am writing here as an individual private citizen I heard you say last night, at the BPA meeting discussion on the Creekside apartment project, that the buried concrete Bypass channel in the easement would preventhardscape should a path along that easement be decided upon by the City. I would like to know whether you can say publicly whether the planning for 3300 El Camino involves a bicycle connection to a proposed path in the easement andwhether the City is requiring other bicycle connections. I have found some information that may be useful to you about the Bypass channel in the Water District Archive, a 1988 report a Planning Study, Engineer's Reportand Final Negative Declaration. https://archive.org/details/csjvwd_000816/mode/2up The report is a series of images. What the Chimalus residents call the 'Greenbelt, the land between their homes that back up to the Research Park, is called theStanford Channel Easement in this report. Here are the links to pages from this report that mention the section of the Matadero Channel bypass from El Camino to the bike path (the section that goes betweenMatadero and Hanover). https://ia803105.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/9/items/csjvwd_000816/csjvwd_000816_access_jp2.zip&file=csjvwd_000816_access_jp2/csjvwd_000816_access_0105.jp2&id=csjvwd_000816&scale=4&rotate=0 https://ia803105.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/9/items/csjvwd_000816/csjvwd_000816_access_jp2.zip&file=csjvwd_000816_access_jp2/csjvwd_000816_access_0106.jp2&id=csjvwd_000816&scale=4&rotate=0 https://ia803105.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/9/items/csjvwd_000816/csjvwd_000816_access_jp2.zip&file=csjvwd_000816_access_jp2/csjvwd_000816_access_0107.jp2&id=csjvwd_000816&scale=4&rotate=0 https://ia803105.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/9/items/csjvwd_000816/csjvwd_000816_access_jp2.zip&file=csjvwd_000816_access_jp2/csjvwd_000816_access_0108.jp2&id=csjvwd_000816&scale=4&rotate=0 The top figure in the last image gives a cross sectional view of the location buried bypass channel. I hope this information is useful to you. PABAC has worked with Office of Transportation staff members Ozzy Arce and Sylvia Star-Lack to produce a framework andstatement of work for the update to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan that will soon be issued as an RFP, seeking a consultant to create the plan. Thework by the consultant to create the plan is estimated to take 12 to 18 mos. Hopefully that plan will include improved network for bicycle and pedestrian connections inthe Research Park. PABAC members are always interested in improved bicycle and pedestrian connections within and to the properties in the Research Park. Art Liberman 751 Chimalus From:Cheryl Lilienstein To:Sauls, Garrett; Council, City Subject:RE: Proposal for The Creekside Inn property on El Camino Date:Friday, August 26, 2022 8:33:19 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from chnlilienstein@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members and Garrett Sauls, Regarding the proposed project on the Creekside Inn property on El Camino and Matadero. You should reject it outright, and refuse to waste your time entertaining developers who are“testing the waters” with massive development proposals such as this. The present zoning would allow 150 units, and that’s way more than enough for a site of that size. Do not rezone this property. This project has no workforce housing, which is one of thegoals of Palo Alto, isn’t it? Packing nearly 400 units, 6 stories, and building 2 levels of underground parking—on THAT corner, on THIS property with mature trees and a creek running through it !!— is truly awaste of planning staff time and tax dollars. LIkely, mitigations will be so expensive the apartments could not possibly pencil out to be affordable. Everyone I know is disgusted by the scale of this proposal, the destruction of a beautiful site,and the developer’s maximalist plan and lack of caring about the inappropriateness of this site for a project of this scale. Does the council care about our environment, or not? Does thecouncil care about anyone’s privacy rights and property rights, or not? I hope the council will quash this proposal and tell the developer to stick to the rules. Consider the similarities to Mr O’Hanlon's Maybell proposal: many children biking to school,no sidewalks, bottleneck traffic, and THIS property has the added risk of underground VOC chemical issues, the creek, and adding 500 cars exiting onto Matadero, one of the few bicycleroute/exit streets from the neighborhood and spillover parking as a recipe for kids getting hit by cars. And no workforce housing? Why waste your time? Council: Rather than permitting the destruction of the hotel, deli, and restaurant that addsvalue to our neighborhood, maybe the city could be more proactive in improving the affordable housing stock by purchasing this property and using it with minor modifications forworkforce housing, and open the existing pool as recreation/public space for the Barron Park neighborhood. It’s a pleasant environment, a nice property. And if Governor Newsom cancommandeer motels to house the homeless, why can’t Palo Alto use EXISTING buildings to solve some housing problems? You DO have some funds for this, no? Although this is an adjacent — but connected— issue, please recall: There are NO LONGERANY public recreational options or services for people living west of Alma. Adding nearly 400 apartments to what is already a food and public services desert is WRONG. Consider which public groups will oppose development or be adversely impacted by adding400 units to this site… Along with voters and taxpayers… 1. Santa Clara Water District 2. Low income housing advocates3. Parents whose kids bike to school 4. Neighbors whose privacy will be eliminated5. People trying to get to work or home who live in the neighborhood 6. Canopy7. Bike safety advocates 8. Fire safety/ emergency response9. VOC watchdogs 10. Public utilities: water, sewage11. Schools Please, reject the zoning change request. Use this property for workforce housing. Scale it back, save the trees, protect the safety of the streets, the privacy of the neighbors, and thesafety of kids on bikes. Sincerely, Cheryl Lilienstein From:Ken Bencala To:Council, City Cc:sally.oneil@gmail.com; johnwadeking@gmail.com Subject:Resident Comment Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 2:14:54 PM Attachments:Resident Comment 09 09 22 Creekside Height and Profile.docxResident Comment 09 09 22 Creekside Riparian Preservation and Protection.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from kenbnc@hotmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Attached please find 2 files with 'Reaction to the proposed development of the Creekside Inn property, 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306'. Ken Bencala Sally O'NeilBarron Park Residents From:Annette Glanckopf To:Council, City Cc:Sauls, Garrett; Clerk, City Subject:Send back to drawing board - Replacement of Creekside Inn with Apartments Date:Sunday, September 11, 2022 2:03:00 PM You don't often get email from annette_g@att.net. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I wanted to comment on the proposed development of the Creekside Inn site. I don't want to lose the driftwood market and the Creekside Inn, I realize we do need more housing. However, this project needs to go back to the drawing board. The Barron Park Association has made numerous cogent points against this development for you to consider. Some significant points include 1) the 64 foot height exceeds the city height limit. The buildings will overlook surrounding residential homes destroying privacy.2) increased traffic in an area that already is congested 3) lack of parking for residents (at 1 space per unit which is est $150/mo). People will park on Matadero etc, exasperating traffic issues and cause increasing issues in pedestrian and bike safety4) destruction of the beautiful habitat and mature heritage trees so close to the creek. I am also concerned about the impact on wildlife. 5) loss of 2 important retail businesses, so important to Barron Park. The hotel is where I have my guests stay when they visit Palo Alto I totally support the conclusion to the Barron Park letter to council: "The profound impact on the area’s water usage, waste management, parking, environment (with potential toxicdamage to Matadero Creek), and privacy will disrupt lives, bring unnecessary stressors to the neighborhood and increase traffic tenfold." This project should be rejected for a re-write. Do not allow the proposed exceptions. Do not re-zone, Do not waive fees. respectfully submitted, Annette Glanckopf