(RLUA) to - City of Palo Alto

City of Palo Alto

(ID # 5757)

City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items

Meeting Date: 6/1/2015

Summary Title: 2555 Park Blvd ROLUA and EIR Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 10,800 sq. ft. Two-Story Mid-Century Modern Office Building and Construction of a New 24,466 sq. ft. Three-Story Office Building for an Increase of 13,666 Net New sq. ft. The New Building would Have One Level of Below Grade Parking and a Roof Terrace and is Located in the Community Commercial (CC(2)) Zone District at 2555 Park Boulevard. The Requested Action Includes Approval of Architectural Review and Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception Request to Allow Two Stair Towers and a Roof Top Canopy Structure to Exceed the Height Limit by Ten and Thirteen Feet Respectively; Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Planning and Transportation Commission Has Recommended Approval of the EIR. Environmental Impact Assessment: Certification of an Environmental Impact Report and Statement of Overriding Considerations. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment RECOMMENDED MOTION Staff recommends that City Council: 1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopt the Resolution of Statement of Overriding Considerations a project specific Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachments C and D); and, 2. Adopt a Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) approving an Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception applications for a new office building for the property located at 2555 Park Boulevard.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of Palo Alto

Page 1

Proposed is a new three-story office development of 24,466 new square feet (13,666 net new square feet) with subterranean parking (92 spaces) at the subject property. The project results in the demolition of an existing two story office building (10,800 square feet) that staff and the ity’s environmental consultant have concluded is a significant historic resource pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There is no feasible mitigation measure to protect this resource and its removal requires the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOC) to approve the project. An SOC documents the ity’s conclusion that the benefits of the project outweigh the loss of the historic building. Prior to making a decision to approve the discretionary applications, the EIR must be certified. Pursuant to the ity’s local EQ! Guidelines and historical practice, only the City Council has the authority to certify EIRs. For this reason, the subject project is being considered by the City Council instead of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, which would otherwise be the typical process for Architectural Review projects not requiring an EIR. The subject discretionary applications include an Architectural Review (AR) and Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). The DEE is requested to allow rooftop stair towers and canopy structure to extend beyond the 37 foot building height limit up to 50 feet. The Architectural Review Board has reviewed and recommends approval of the project, including the DEE. The Historic Resources Board has reviewed the historic resource proposed for demolition and provided comment. Some Board members spoke in favor of the building’s retention and others questioned its ability to be listed as an historic resource. The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the Final EIR (FEIR) and recommends certification. The record reflects public comments from individuals opposed to the project due to traffic, parking and solar access impacts. Some have expressed particular objection to the DEE stating that the findings cannot be met to grant this request. A proposed Record of Land Use Action is included as Attachment A and documents proposed application findings and conditions to approve the project. Attachment D includes the CEQA Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

BACKGROUND The project site is a trapezoidal-shaped property on the northeast side of Park Boulevard, between Sherman and Grant Avenues. The attached location map shows the property, and surrounding properties (Attachment B). The total area of the site is 12,518 square feet (sf). The property is currently occupied by a two-story office building with at-grade parking. The existing “H”-shaped building was built in 1964 in the Mid-Century Modern style of architecture. It displays numerous character defining features of the style, including cantilevered overhangs, a flat roof, an articulated primary façade, stucco cladding, stacked concrete block, strong right angles and cubic forms, large aluminum framed windows, a painted finish in earth tones, a City of Palo Alto

Page 2

projecting box that frames the upper story, a glassed-in lobby that opens to a small courtyard, sunshades, spandrel glass, integrated planters, and mounted signage. With all these elements, the building embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction. The inclusion of so many character-defining features of the Mid-Century Modern style make the building eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 3 (Architecture). The building is 50 years old and does not appear to have been altered since its construction. Under CEQA, this qualifies the structure as a historic resource. The property is zoned Community Commercial (CC (2)). Site Context The site’s omprehensive Plan land use designation is Regional ommunity ommercial. The property’s primary street frontage is located on Park oulevard opposite the four-story County Courthouse Building. Typical uses in the immediate vicinity include multifamily residential and office uses. Slightly further to the north west of the site is the California Avenue Business District with a multitude of restaurants and retail businesses. The site is also located approximately 800 feet from the California Avenue Cal Train station. Adjacent uses to the northwest include a two-story, single-family residence and a two-story, professional office building. Adjacent uses to the northeast include office and other commercial uses in a single story structure. To the southwest, across Park Boulevard, is the four-story County Courthouse building surrounded by at-grade parking. To the southeast, across Grant Avenue, are a single-story office building and three-story, multifamily residential buildings. To the south, diagonally across from the intersection of Grant and Park Boulevard, is a surface level parking lot. Project Description The project includes the demolition of the existing two-story office building and the construction of a new 24,466 sf, three-story office building for an increase of 13,666 square feet. Project plans are provided as Attachment M. A total of 92 parking spaces would be provided on site in both at-grade and below grade areas beneath the new building. Most of the parking spaces would be provided within mechanical lift systems, to improve the efficiency of the garage space. Vehicle access to the parking areas would be provided from Grant Avenue. The curb cut along Park Boulevard would be removed to improve bicycle safety. The proposed building is a modern design with two horizontal board-form concrete finished stair towers, designed to anchor the building at each end of the site. The two-story glass office block would float between the open balconies. Three of the four balconies would have cable railings, while the fourth balcony above the main entry would have a vertical painted metal picket. Each of the four balconies would be exposed concrete. The building walls would be stucco plaster with a curtain wall system using clear double glazed windows with aluminum frames. The south and east facing facades would have double height, vertical sun shade mullion fins, to reduce heat gain. The glass office block would float over a green wall with vines

City of Palo Alto

Page 3

at the first level that would screen the at-grade parking. A concrete planter with a wood plank bench, adjacent to the public sidewalk, would be placed in front of the green wall. The building design also features a rooftop tensile structure, for which a DEE has been requested, to allow greater usage of the roof deck and to assist in keeping the building cooler in the hot summer months. The rooftop deck would provide an amenity space for building occupants to use during normal business hours. All noise ordnance requirements would apply. EIR Scoping To initiate the EIR process, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) to solicit agency and public comments on the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the EIR. On April 17, 2014 a scoping meeting was held at the ARB hearing to inform the public that the City was beginning preparation of the DEIR for the redevelopment of the property known as 2555 Park Boulevard. The existing building on the site has been identified as being eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. Impacts, such as demolition, are potentially significant and therefore an EIR must be prepared. ARB Review The ARB conducted a preliminary review of the conceptual project design on June 5, 2014. The ARB provided comments related to building massing, interior setback, traffic/parking, the rooftop tensile structure, and the second floor balcony railing. The ARB conducted a single, formal hearing of the project on October 16, 2014 and recommended approval of the project, including conditional approval of the DEE to allow the rooftop tensile structure and stair towers to exceed the 37 foot height limit. The verbatim minutes of the ARB hearing are provided as Attachment H. Planning and Transportation Commission On October 29, 2014, the P&TC reviewed the DEIR and provided comments. Those comments and responses are provided in the attached FEIR. The P&TC reviewed the FEIR on April 29, 2014, and recommended Council approval of the FEIR. The P&TC staff report and the verbatim minutes are provided as Attachments F and G. There were seven public speakers and the major topics of discussion were traffic, parking, solar impact to the neighbor, and the DEE for exceeding the height limit. The P&TC noted that they supported the version of the proposal that includes a request for a parking exception; this version includes a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program offering CalTrain Go Passes, described further in the Discussion section of this report. The P&TC recommended that the applicant present to the Council additional information about the proposed building’s shading impact upon the residential neighbor. Historic Resources Board On November 19, 2014, the HRB reviewed the DEIR and provided comments. While the HRB review was not a required step in the Architectural Review process, the HR’s input was sought City of Palo Alto

Page 4

in conjunction with the Environmental document, since the only issue that cannot be mitigated is the demolition of a historic resource. The HR’s comments and the environmental consultant’s responses are provided in the FEIR. Some members of the HRB questioned if the existing building would even qualify as an historic resource while others wanted to go on record to state their preference for the preservation of the existing building. The HRB was not asked to provide a recommendation, but their comments are provided in the attached verbatim minutes (Attachment I). There was discussion regarding the need for Palo Alto to establish a contextual reference document. The reference document would establish a City-specific context for modern architecture, specifically mid-century modernism. This would allow the City to evaluate properties comparatively, not just in a vacuum. If we had such a document, this property could have been evaluated against a bank of other properties that were understood and categorized to get a better understanding of the significance and what might be potentially lost if the building is removed. It would also assist to create an inventory for this type of building and help to then track whether there's clusters of these buildings that might be potential districts or whether we're just looking at a change in building stock over time.

DISCUSSION The project conforms to all Palo Alto zoning regulations with the exception of the 37 foot building height standard. Approval of the requested DEE would allow two stair towers and the tensile roof structure to exceed the height limit. The purpose of a DEE is to allow exceptions when doing so will enhance the design. In this case, the request is to exceed the height limit by approximately ten feet for two stair towers, and by 13 feet for the tensile structure. The stair towers would anchor each end of the building and add visual interest. The tensile roof structure would add a visual element to the building. It would be set back from the edges of the building, to avoid adding to the perceived height and massing and to protect privacy. Some public comments have suggested that the findings for the DEE cannot be met, stating that the DEE requested is not minor, as is required by the findings within the Municipal Code and that the requested features result in negative impacts to the community. They describe the impacts as being a violation of privacy and concerns over noise from rooftop activities. Staff and the ARB disagree and believe the DEE features are minor in nature and would not have the negative impacts that are feared. It is true that the canopy would enable use of the outdoor roof deck area as an employee amenity space, but it would also shade the roof of the building, reducing the energy usage to cool the building. Also, conditions of approval would limit the use of the roof top deck to normal business hours and not allow amplified music. The roof deck is set away from the edges of the building such that it is not possible to view the adjacent neighbors from the roof deck. The multifamily residential windows of the Palo Alto Central project are quite limited relative to the proposed roof deck. There are few windows and none with direct lines of site. They are also not located in close proximity to the project and there are intervening trees that obscure possible views. The DEE findings are provided in the RLUA (Attachment A). The zoning conformance table is provided as Attachment J. Comprehensive Plan Conformance City of Palo Alto

Page 5

The proposed use is consistent with the site’s Regional/ommunity ommercial land use designation in the ity’s omprehensive Plan. This land use designation allows office uses. The project’s overall relationship with the Comprehensive Plan is discussed within Attachment K. Public Comments At many of the hearings, the ARB and neighbors expressed concern over the proposed building’s relationship with the neighboring office building and single family residential home to the west of the proposed project. The office and residential neighbors felt the building was too tall and too close to their properties. The residential neighbor felt the design needed to be more sensitive to his existing condition and expressed concerns about privacy, solar shading and construction related disturbances. Please see the project revision section below for details about how the design was altered to address these concerns. Other members of the public voiced concerns about traffic, parking, pedestrian safety and the lack of guest parking spaces proposed within the building. With all the vehicle access being located off of Grant Avenue, the public also raised concerns over the potential increase in traffic volume that could occur on that street as well as concerns about vehicles queuing onto Grant Avenue. The Parking Alternative section below discusses how the guest parking issue could be resolved. Project Revisions During the ARB review process, the project was revised to reduce the building height and proximity relative to the two adjacent neighboring properties. One affected neighboring property is an office building and the other neighboring property is a single family home in an area zoned for office. The single family home is characterized as a legal nonconforming use. The elevator tower was shifted over to reduce the wall height relative to the office neighbor as well as allowing that portion of the building to move six and half feet further away from the office neighbor. The stair towers were also modified to appear less massive. Other changes were made to reduce the building relative the residential neighbor. The parapet at the rear corner was removed, reducing the height of the building by four feet. The closest portion of the rear wall facing the residential neighbor was reduced by four feet nine inches and the recessed portion of the wall was set back an additional two feet three inches. These changes reduced the wall heights and moved the building further from the two neighboring properties. This was done in an effort to improve solar access and reduce the mass and scale of the new building. In response to the public and P&TC comments on solar impact to the adjacent residential neighbor, the applicant conducted additional solar shading analysis to clarify how much shadow is created by the new project versus existing conditions. For CEQA purposes, shade and shadow impacts are only “significant” if the impact public spaces. The EIR examined the impact to public spaces and found no significant impact. However the Zoning Code requires new projects to minimize shade and shadow impacts to existing neighboring buildings. The applicant looked at the project with and without the stair tower and canopy structures for which the DEE was requested. The P&TC asked that the study show Council how the shadow would impact the City of Palo Alto

Page 6

wall face of the neighbor’s building, not just how the shadow would fall over the property. The applicant studied shadow impacts at nine times of the day and year. The study shows that the structures for which the DEE is requested would result in a minimal shade impact on the residential neighbor’s home. The applicant has provided additional images within the project plans showing the shadow impact at the nine separate times that were studied. The images provided show before and after shots of the residential neighbor’s home. The images demonstrate the existing and new shadows on the neighbors building face created by the canopy structure would not shade the adjacent neighbor at any time. The study indicates that the rooftop mechanical equipment screen would shade the building at 123 Sherman, at noon on the Equinox and Winter Solstice. The roof top mechanical screens are not the subject of the DEE for height; they are compliant with zoning standards and do not need a DEE approval. The stair/elevator tower would cast a shadow on the building at 123 Sherman at 3pm on the Winter Solstice. This shadow is responsible for roughly 5% of the facade (at the left upper corner) and has no effect on the windows at this time. As can been seen in the shadow exhibits, the existing conditions including the seven foot tall solid fence with additional lattice top, existing awning at first floor windows, Silver Dollar Eucalyptus tree, and 15'-8" high wall of the neighboring office building at 2501 Park Boulevard, cast significant shadow on the building at 123 Sherman during the studied times. The DEE elements do not shadow windows at any of the times studied. The shadow cast by the stair/elevator tower, which is part of the requested DEE, on the building at 123 Sherman is minimal at its most extreme condition. Another change to the plans was the addition of cross walks on Grant Avenue and Park Boulevard to improve pedestrian safety. There are no other pedestrian crossings to get across Park Boulevard within close proximity to the project so it was determined appropriate to add one at this location Parking Alternative While the proposed project would provide the required number of parking spaces per the code, nearly all the parking spaces would be provided within mechanized lifts. The ity’s Municipal Code is silent on the use of lifts, but the City has accepted their use on other projects, and one nearby project was approved with a similar “puzzle” lift system. In this instance, the lifts could be pre-programed for each individual car that will be using the lift. With the building’s close proximity to transit, the !R suggested that the applicant request a parking reduction to eliminate some of the mechanized lifts and provide additional at grade spaces within the project that could be used by visitors. The code compliant parking proposal remains the same (92 spaces), but an alternative parking solution has been proposed and was considered in the EIR as an option. This is referred to as ’the parking exemption’ option. This would include a 9.2% parking reduction along with a City of Palo Alto

Page 7

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The TDM plan would include provision of annual CalTrain Go Passes for all eligible employees in the building, and would be implemented for the life of the building.1 This proposal would reduce the total number of parking spaces by 10. This would be accomplished by eliminating the machine stackers in the at-grade portion of the parking garage. The removal of the parking lifts would free up 13 ground floor parking spaces for guest parking. Having fewer parking spaces within the building may also have the added benefit of reducing the traffic volumes on Grant Avenue, by reducing the number of cars entering and exiting the project. The free Go Passes are also likely to reduce the number of vehicles that would travel to the site. Because the building is within such close proximity to the train station, the Go Passes are likely to be widely used. Many of the Commissioners expressed that the parking alternative option with the Caltrain Go Passes was their preferred option. Staff also favors the parking reduction option as it would free up 13 spaces for guest parking, reduce the number of vehicles traveling to the building, and potentially reduce traffic volumes in the area.

TIMELINE Application submitted EIR scoping meeting before the ARB Preliminary ARB meeting Release of the DEIR for the 45 day public comment period ARB meeting recommendation on AR and DEE P&TC meeting on DEIR HRB meeting P&TC meeting on FEIR Final EIR Certification by City Council Final Decision on the Proposed Project by City Council

September 9, 2013 April 17, 2014 June 5, 2014 September 5, 2014 October 16, 2014 October 29, 2014 November 19, 2014 April 29, 2015 June 1, 2015 June 1, 2015

RESOURCE IMPACT One-time revenues would include development impact fees of approximately $396,291.00. This total includes $64,882 for Parks, $3,489 for libraries, $3,662 for Community Centers, $60,366 for Citywide Traffic Fees and $263,890 for the Comercial housing fee. The additional demand created by this project for general City services, such as public safety, will be absorbed within current service levels.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS 1

The alTrain Go Pass allows companies, educational institutions and residential complexes (“Participants”) to purchase annual unlimited-ride passes for all eligible employees, residents or students (“Users”). The Go Pass is good for travel on Caltrans between all zones, seven days a week, for one low annual cost per user. The Go Pass is not available for purchase by individuals and does not cover parking at Caltrain stations or travel on other transit systems. City of Palo Alto

Page 8

Many of the Context-Based Design Criteria and Comprehensive Plan policies are implemented by this proposal. Attachment K includes a summary of the Comprehensive Plan policies that are applicable to the project. The project realizes the elements of the various City Policy documents and Guidelines such as the Comprehensive Plan, The draft California Avenue Concept Plan, The Context Based Design Criteria and the South El Camino Real Guidelines. While the project is not located on El Camino Real, many of the design principles put forth in those guidelines for urban infill development are followed here. The building would provide a strong street edge along Park Boulevard, while providing an eight to ten foot sidewalk, new street trees, and various other pedestrian amenities including a recessed entry and a long bench for seating at the sidewalk. The building façade would be well articulated with ample fenestration, vertical sunshades, and multiple transitions in building materials with numerous colors and textures. There are multiple balconies that relate to the street and break down the massing of the building. The project would eliminate surface parking lots and includes at grade and below grade parking facilities that would be hidden from public view. The proposal would replace an existing office building with a new one in the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use Area, a location specified in the Comprehensive plan as a mixed use district where a mix of various landuses use are encouraged. Additional project elements have been added that work together to improve pedestrian saftey. These include the new croswalks at Park Boulevard and Grant Avenue as well as the larger bulbouts at the Park and Grant intersection. One of the most significant policy implications relates to the ity’s determination to require the preservation of the existing building versus allowing the building’s replacement in favor of the benefits associated with that. The existing building lacks seismic integrity that could result in a negative outcome in the event of an earthquake. There are also hazardous materials within the building such as asbestos and lead. These issues would be eliminated with the replacement of the building in favor of a building that is structuraly sound, meets ADA requirements, and has no hazardous materials. Unlike the existing building, the new building would be more water and energy efficient, would provide wider sidewalks with pedestrian amenities, and would provide ample off street parking hidden from view. Another policy question raised by the Planning and Trnasportation Commission is the use of the parking lift machines within projects. There is concern that people would not use the lift spaces in the same way as standard parking spaces and that they would be reluctant to use them. Some members of the public have cited other projects where they say the lifts are not used because of their constraints. The parking lifts greatly increase how efficiently the space within the parking garage is used. The puzzle lifts in this project create five levels of parking within two structural levels of garage. We currently don’t have any working examples of this particular type of parking lift in Palo Alto, but there are many example in the bay area and throughout the world. They are different than the parking lift systems that we may be familiar with in other built projects in town. The puzzle lifts allow vehicles to move in and out of the parking spaces whithout being dependant on other vehicles needing to first move out of the way.

City of Palo Alto

Page 9

A final policy question to consider is the approval of the Design Enhancment Exception (DEE). The approval findings for the DEE are detailed in the RLUA but the primary justification is that the three features seeking the height exception represent a visual improvement to the building while at the same time have not been found to result in a negative impact to neighboring properties.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City has prepared a FEIR to provide the public and responsible agencies information about potential adverse effects on the local and regional environment associated with the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project. The FEIR is provided as Attachment C. The initial 45 day public comment period on the DEIR began on September 5, 2014 and ran through October 20, 2014. The public comment period was extended to November 19, 2014. The FEIR was prepared after input was received during public hearings of the ARB, the HRB, and the P&TC. The FEIR contains the comments prided during the comment period and the responses to those coments. The P&TC staff resport of April 29, 2014, provided as Attachemnt F, contains a discussion section that sumarizes the five master responses to comments within the FEIR. The City began the environmental analysis with an Initial Study. The Initial Study determined that the project could have a significant impact on the environment, which triggered the requirement to prepare an EIR, and indicated that the EIR would need to discuss three environmental topics: Cultural and Historic Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Transportation and Traffic. For each of the three topics, the DEIR describes the existing environmental and regulatory conditions, presents the criteria used to determine whether an impact would be significant, analyses significant impacts identifies mitigation measures for each significant impact, and discusses the significance of impacts after mitigation has been applied. Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are all considered. Cultural and Historic Resources Two possible impacts were identified under the Cultural and Historic Resources section. One impact was identified as being significant and unavoidable. This impact is the demolition of the existing mid-century modern building that has been identified as being eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. The loss of the historic resources would be considered a Significant and Unavoidable impact under CEQA. Mitigation measures are proposed, but these measures cannot reduce the level of significance to a less than significant level, therefore the City would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the proposed project. (See below for more information.) This is contained within the CEQA Findings included as Attachment D. The other impact identified was the possible disturbance of archeological remains during excavation, which can be mitigated to a less than significant impact. Hazards and Hazardous Materials City of Palo Alto

Page 10

There were five areas of this section that were identified as being potentially significant. These are related to construction debris, the handling of existing hazardous materials within the building, disturbance of contaminated soils, the release of VOC from the contaminated ground water, and vapor intrusion from the contaminated ground water. Mitigation measures have been included that reduce the level of significance to a less than significant level. Transportation and Traffic A traffic anlysis was conduted that looked at the potential traffic impacts, including cumulative impacts. The environmental analysis found no significant impacts related to traffic, and no mitigation measures are needed. However, it should be noted that the proposed project would provide ample parking, is a short distance from CalTrain, and an option has been analyzed that would provide a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program with CalTrain Go Passes as an incentive for transit use. Due to the concerns voiced over the potential for vehicle queuing onto Grant Avenue, a queuing analysis was conducted and found that a backup of cars onto the street was unlikley to occur. The FEIR contains the DEIR, the comments received during the public review period, responses to the comments, and any revisions to the DEIR needed as a result of public agency and public comments. Statement of Overriding Considerations The primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public as to the environmental effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance. CEQA recognizes and authorizes the approval of such projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or avoided. Before such a project can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a “statement of overriding considerations” pursuant to EQ! Guidelines §§15043 and 15093. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines §15093(b) requires that when a public agency approves a project that will result in the occurrence of significant and unavoidable impacts, the agency must “state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record.” The agency’s statement of overriding considerations must explain and justify the agency’s conclusion to approve such a project, setting forth the proposed project’s general social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the agency’s informed conclusion to approve the project. The following items are listed in the attached CEQA Findings, Attachment D. These items identify why, in the ity ouncil’s judgment, the benefits of the project as approved would outweigh the project’s unavoidable significant effects. The unavoidable impact in this case is the demolition of the historic resource. The preservation of that resource would not allow the City to enjoy the benefits listed below. Implementation of the 2555 Park Boulevard project will provide for the following:

City of Palo Alto

Page 11

 Replacement of the existing office building at the 2555 Park Boulevard site with a modern building that meets current standards for structural design, site and building accessibility, and hazardous materials.  Replacement of the existing office building at the 2555 Park Boulevard site with an energy and water efficient office building.  Doubling the usable square footage of a transit-accessible site by increasing the building height to three stories and providing parking at grade and underground.  Creating a pedestrian and bicycle friendly street frontage with wide sidewalks, amenities, and street trees.  Development of a new office building on the site that supports the vision of the ity’s Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan, specifically Goal CACP-3 which calls for promoting Park Boulevard as a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship for small new companies; and supports related planning initiatives such as the Pedestrian TransitOriented Development overlay and Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.  Increasing onsite parking to reduce off-site parking demands associated with the office use at the site. Attachments:  Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (DOCX)

 Attachment B: Site Location Map (PDF)

 Attachment C: Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) - Note Only (DOCX)

 Attachment D: Reso Certifying Final EIR and Adopting Statement of Overriding

Considerations (PDF)  Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (PDF)  Attachment F: Planning and Transportation CommissionStaff Report, April 29, 2015 (PDF)  Attachment G: Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes, April 29, 2015 (DOC)  Attachment H: Architectural Review Board Verbatim Minutes, October 16, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment I: Historic Resources Board Verbatim Minutes, November 19, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment J: Zoning Compliance Table (DOC)  Attachment K: Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table (DOC)  Attachment L: Public Correspondence (PDF)  Attachment M: Project Plans (TXT)

City of Palo Alto

Page 12

Attachment A ACTION NO. 2015-03

RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO

LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 2555 PARK BOULEVARD:

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, CERTIFICATION OF FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND DESIGN

ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTIONS

(13PLN-00381)

On June 1, 2015, the Council of the City of Palo Alto certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approved the Architectural Review and approved the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for a three story office building in the Community Commercial (CC(2)) zone district, making the following findings, determinations and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Fergus Garber Young Architects, on behalf of Campbell Avenue Portfolio, LLC has requested the City’s adoption and approval for the following items: (1) An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); (2) Architectural Review application for a new 24,466 s.f. office building on a 12,518 s.f. site with structured parking facilities (at grade and underground) providing 92 parking spaces including a Design Enhancement Exception, one to allow eleven feet in additional height for two stair towers and 13 feet in additional height for a rooftop canopy structure. The property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Regional Community Commercial, and is located within the Community Commercial (CC(2)) zone district. B. The Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on October 29, 2014, and the Final Environmental Impact report (FEIR) on April 29.2015 and recommended approval. C. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the application, the DEIR, and Design Enhancement Exception on October 16, 2014, and recommended approval. D. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) reviewed the application and DEIR on November 19, 2014 and provided comment. 1

SECTION 2.

Environmental Review.

The City, as the lead agency for the Project, has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be required for the project subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Public Notice period for the EIR began on September 5 2014, and concluded on November 19, 2014. SECTION 3. ARB Findings The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76. (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project complies with the policies of the Comprehensive plan as outlined in Attachment K and proposes a new office building in a location where office uses are allowed. (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is designed to make the most efficient use of the available site area. The parking is designed with mechanical lifts allowing the project to limit the depth of excavation to one level below grade. The lifts allow vehicles to be stacked, making more efficient use of the space and the two parking levels. The design is also responsive to the various external constraints of the site such as the neighboring residential property. While the zoning would allow the new building to be three stories tall at the property line, the proposed design sets the building away from the residential neighbor at the second and third floors. It also has obscure windows to preserve the privacy of the adjacent residential neighbor. (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building has been designed to serve the future office tenants. Ample outdoor spaces have been created for the enjoyment of the future building occupants. There are four balconies and a roof top deck with a large shade canopy. The building would provide bike parking and shower facilities to encourage alternative modes of transportation such as biking to work or using the nearby train. The design provides opportunities for natural 2

daylighting into the building and trash and recycling facilities are provided within the building to ensure these issues are handled internally and do not impact adjacent properties. (4)

In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character. This finding is not applicable to this project in that this area does not have a unified design or historic character. The existing building is considered to be a historic resource under CEQA but the area is a very eclectic mix of architectural styles.

(5)

The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the office building project would be built in a location that is surrounded by commercially zoned properties. The adjacent commercial properties all have similar office and commercial uses except for one. There is an adjacent single family residence that shares a portion of the rear lot line with the proposed project. This home is somewhat of an anomaly in this location. There are no other single-family structures in the direct vicinity of the project. The neighboring residential structure has an industrial appearance with its corrugated metal siding exterior and zero lot line design at the front and side lot lines. The residential property has two structures, a detached garage/accessory structure and the main residence. These two structures are separated by an interior courtyard. The primary residence is two stories and has as shallow yard space that separates the residence form the rear lot line of the proposed building. The proposed building has been designed to consider this adjacency by setting the upper two floors of the building away from the rear lot line at this corner, providing a landscape buffer element, and proving privacy windows.

(6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project’s design has thoughtfully considered its surroundings. It is respectful of the residential neighbor condition as described in finding #5. It is responsive to the Park Boulevard bike route by eliminating the existing curb cut to reduce the interaction between bikes and cars along the projects 3

street frontage. It is designed to improve the pedestrian experience by hiding the vehicle parking, providing public amenities such as bike parking and seating, and activates the street with a recessed building entry. (7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the new building is designed to have multiple outdoor spaces for the enjoyment of the future building occupants, bike parking at the entry for the convenience of building visitors, seating at the sidewalk for the enjoyment of any passerby, and a pleasing aesthetic appearance for the general public. (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposal provides four balconies, and a roof deck to meet the outdoor space needs of the building’s users. (9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project’s design concept. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that a new trash enclosure is proposed to serve the needs of the new building. (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposal provides ample sidewalks to facilitate pedestrian movement around the building and the entrance to the below grade parking structure is located off of the main street frontage to enhance vehicle and pedestrian safety. (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. This finding can be made in that the exiting street tree on the Grant Avenue elevation will be preserved. There are other minor trees and shrubs on the property that will be removed. Four new street trees would also be added, one on the Grant Avenue elevation and three along the Park Boulevard frontage. (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression 4

to the design and function. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that proposal includes a multitude of materials common to current architectural building design that would fit in with the eclectic nature of the district. New street trees are also added to the project frontage. (13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposal includes landscape materials that are used to screen and soften the appearance of the building. There is a green wall at the first level facing Park Boulevard that hides the at-grade parking behind and plant material used at the rear elevation to soften the wall relative to the adjacent neighbors. (14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed landscape materials are well suited for the proposed environment. Most all of the landscape material proposed is known to be drought tolerant and the plan species require little maintenance. (15)

The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design:  Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation;  Design landscaping to create comfortable microclimates and reduce heat island effects;  Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access;  Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving;  Use sustainable building materials;  Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use;

 Create healthy indoor environments; and

5



Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project would comply with the City’s green building ordinance. The proposed office building will be a LEED Silver building with several green building design elements. The site is an infill site which is being redeveloped for better density near a transportation hub. The building utilizes passive cooling though the use of deep overhangs created by balconies, vertical fins on curtain wall glass, thermal mass walls and roof as well as a tensile structure canopy to protect the roof surface from the sun's heat. The building design uses fewer materials than a typical office building through the raw expression of the structure and highly efficient use of volume allocated to parking through the use of parking machines which stack 5 high to save roughly 25 additional feet of basement depth. Where ever possible, the project also incorporates energy and water savings as well as recycled materials such as recycled steel, and fly ash and slag in the concrete mix. (16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection 18.76.020(a). This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project design promotes visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety. Section 4.

Design Enhancement Exception Findings

DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION FINDINGS (DEE): The requested Design Enhancement Exception is consistent with the following findings as stated in PAMC 18.76.050 (c). Note: Exception is requested for building height (10 feet over the 37 foot code limitation for the two stair towers and 13 feet over the 37 foot code limitation for the tensile structure.) (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district. This Finding can be made in the affirmative. The project site and the adjacent property to the north are the only two properties along this stretch of Park Boulevard that are not permitted to reach 50 feet in height. This is due to the fact that properties adjacent to the RM-40 zoning are permitted to build up to the 50 foot height limit. The subject property is one parcel away from the RM-40 zone district which limits its ability to reach the height that 6

the other parcels along Park Avenue can. There are also other taller buildings in the direct vicinity of the project along Park Boulevard such as the County Courthouse building and the multifamily building at the corner of Park Boulevard and Sheridan Avenue. (2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d). This Finding can be made in the affirmative. The additional height would provide the stair tower elements the ability to break the roof plane, adding architectural interest to the building as well as providing strong anchoring elements at each end of the structure. The existing 37 foot height limit provides little if any ability for such architectural expression. The proposed tensile structure would allow for the comfortable use of the roof deck, providing shade while adding architectural interest to the top of the building. The structure would add a softening aspect to the building that is visually playful and functionally useful. This exception for height does not contribute to additional office space within the building. (3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. This Finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed height exception is for the stair towers and the tensile structure and would provide architectural interest without impacting adjacent properties. The areas for additional height are limited to the towers and the tensile structure such that the majority of the building is within the required height limits. This would limit shading and other visual impacts that may be perceived by adjacent properties. Section 5.

Context Based Design Considerations and Findings In addition to Zoning Compliance and Architectural Review approval findings, Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings found in PAMC Chapter 18.18 are applicable to the project. 7

1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment: The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements. The proposal is bike friendly, in that it would provide at-grade bike racks at the main building entry as well as secured parking within the below grade parking garage. Showers would also be provided within the building, to promote bicycle ridership. There are aspects of the proposal that meet the Context Based Design Considerations relative to the pedestrian experience at the street level, in that the building has been set back to provide a minimum 10’-5” wide sidewalk. There is a raised planter with a seat wall and a recessed entry. Three new street trees would be planted along Park Boulevard in new bulb outs. An existing curb cut on Park Boulevard would be removed to improve bicycle safety. 2. Street Building Facades: Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. The building’s massing does provide a three story presence on a street that contains other tall buildings. The long street façade on Park Boulevard has been broken into three separate elements to reduce the scale and massing of the building, and to provide human scale. There is the stair tower element, the recessed entry and upper floor balconies, and the floating glass box above the green wall at the street level. The entry at the street level is well defined with a deep recess, and provides weather protection as well as bike parking, encouraging pedestrian activity. While there is parking at grade level, the parking area has been hidden behind a green wall with a long seat wall for pedestrians. 3. Massing and Setbacks: Buildings shall be minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks.

designed

to

The proposal has employed a number of design strategies to break up the massing of the building at each façade. The two street facing facades have solid stair towers that anchor the elevations and deep recessed balconies that allow the glass box of the office space to float at the corner. The Park elevation has a deep recessed entry and a green wall to hide the parking. Recesses have also been provided on the two property line elevations to provide greater sensitivity to a residential neighbor and to provide opportunities for additional daylight into the building. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions: Where new projects are built abutting existing lower-scale residential development, 8

care shall be taken to neighboring properties.

respect

the

scale

and

privacy

of

While the project is within a commercial zone, the proposed building does share a property boundary with a single-family residence. The zoning would permit the building to be placed on the property line, but the project has been designed to set the building back, relative to the residence, to reduce the new building’s impact upon it. The two-story residence has a small outdoor yard space adjacent to the property line it shares with the project. To create a greater sense of openness and to create a greater distance away from the residence, the new building has been set back two feet at the ground floor and more than 12 additional feet at the second and third floors. The height at the first level has been reduced to eight feet six inches, to reduce the amount of solid wall in close proximity to the residential yard. This is a four foot reduction from the previous iteration of the plans. At this level, a planter is provided to enable landscape material to buffer the views of the building. The windows at the second and third floors have been frosted at the lower levels, such that office building employees would have no view into the residential yard or the residential windows. 5. Project Open Space: Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents, visitors, and/or employees of a site. The roof-top outdoor space for the office tenants would be a functional space. The proposed tensile structure would provide shade and weather protection for building occupants to enable comfortable use of the space. The roof top location allows for nice views of the area while still maintaining privacy by keeping the useable area of the roof deck away from the edges of the building. The building also includes four recessed and covered balcony spaces that provide additional outdoor areas for the building occupants. 6. Parking Design: Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. Consistent with the Guidelines, the parking for the project has been located below grade such that the parked cars are hidden from view. The at-grade parking spaces are also hidden behind a green wall that includes a long bench for convenient seating along the public sidewalk. The entry to the garage has been located on Grant Avenue to avoid impacting the faster moving traffic on Park Boulevard and to improve bicycle safety by eliminating the interaction between cars and bikes. 8.

Sustainability and Green Building Design: 9

Project design

and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. The project is required to meet the Cal Green requirements. The proposed office building would be a LEED Silver building with several green building design elements. The site is an infill site which is being redeveloped for better density near a transportation hub. The building utilizes passive cooling though the use of deep overhangs created by balconies, vertical fins on curtain wall glass, thermal mass walls and roof as well as a tensile structure canopy to protect the roof surface from the sun's heat. The building design uses fewer materials than a typical office building through the raw expression of the structure and highly efficient use of volume allocated to parking through the use of parking machines which stack 5 high to save roughly 25 additional feet of basement depth. Where ever possible, the project also incorporates energy and water savings as well as recycled materials such as recycled steel, and fly ash and slag in the concrete mix. SECTION 6.

Environmental Impact Report Certified

The Environmental Impact Report is Certified and the Statement of Overriding considerations are hereby adopted by the City Council.

SECTION 7.

Plan Approval.

The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Fergus Garber Young Architects, consisting of 33 pages, dated October 16, 2014, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section Eight. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment. This document, including the conditions of approval in Section eight, shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application.

SECTION 8.

Conditions of Approval.

Department of Planning and Community Environment 1.

The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans received on October 16, 2014, except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of approval and any additional conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission, Architectural 10

Review Board, or City Council. The following conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. 2.

All noise producing equipment shall not exceed the allowances specified in Section 9.10 Noise of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.

Planning Division 1.

The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the project plans dated on October 16, 2014 except as modified by these conditions of approval.

2.

The ARB approval letter shall be printed on the plans

submitted for building permit.

3. All noise producing equipment shall not exceed the allowances specified in Section 9.10 Noise of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 4. Any existing city street trees shall be maintained and protected during construction per City of Palo Alto standard requirements. 5. All landscape material replaced if it fails.

shall

be

well

maintained

and

6. Any exterior modifications to the building or property shall require Architectural Review. This includes any new signs. 7. The roof top patio space shall only be used during normal business hours (between 8:00am - 6:00 pm) and no amplified music or other forms of amplification shall be permitted. 8. The applicant must notify the Public Art Office of their intent to fulfill the public art requirement by payment of the in-lieu fee instead of commissioning art on site. The applicant is required to submit the amount equal to 1% of the estimated construction valuation into the public art fund account prior to their application for a building permit and provide a copy of the receipt to the Public Art office. According to the original Public Art application form, the estimated art budget is $160,000. At the time of their building permit application, the estimated construction valuation will be confirmed. If the estimated construction valuation has increased at that time, the applicant will have 11

to submit 1% of the new estimated construction prior to the issuance of a building permit.

valuation

9. Automatic night shades shall be provided for the elevation of the building facing the residential neighbor to ensure any lighting associated with the new office building will not impact the adjacent residential neighbor. 10. The project shall be subject to the mandatory Green Building Ordinance. 11. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods to prevent visible dust from leaving the site; active areas adjacent to windy periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times, or shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives. 12. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard; 13. Pave, apply water at least three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. 14. Sweep daily (or more often if necessary) to prevent visible dust from leaving the site (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; water sweepers shall vacuum up excess water to avoid runoff-related impacts to water quality. 15. Sweep streets daily, or more often if necessary (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. 16. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 17. In the event that human skeletal remains are encountered, the applicant is required by County Ordinance No. B6-18 to immediately notify the County Coroner and the Director of 12

Planning and Community Environment. Upon determination by the County Coroner that the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. No further disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs in accordance with the provisions of State law and the Health and Safety Code. 18. A sub-slab vapor barrier shall be installed to prevent contaminated soil vapors from migrating into the building. The vapor barrier shall be designed by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California. The design shall be submitted to the RWQCB and the City of Palo Alto for review and approval. 19. Any impacted (contaminated) soil shall be off-hauled to a Class 2 landfill for disposal. 20. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall pay all Development Impact Fees. 21. The Applicant shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated into a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. The SWPPP shall include both temporary BMP’s to be implemented during demolition and construction. 22. Construction hours shall be limited to 8:00am to 6:00pm Monday through Friday and 9:00am to 6:00pm on Saturdays. No construction is allowed on Sundays or Holidays as specified in Title 9 of the Municipal Code. 23. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding one hundred ten dBA at a distance of twentyfive feet. 24. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dBA. 25. Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this permit, along with the name and telephone number of a developer appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site. 26. The applicant shall work with the Public Works Department to create a logistics plan to manage construction activities prior to building permit issuance.

13

27. MM-CUL-1: In the event that subsurface cultural resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity shall be stopped and the City of Palo Alto contacted. A qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Palo Alto, shall be retained to evaluate the archaeological discovery for its eligibility for local and state listing. The discovery or disturbance of any identified cultural resource shall be reported as appropriate to the City of Palo Alto and the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation form 523 (archaeological sites). Measures prescribed by these groups and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City of Palo Alto’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. 28. MM-CUL-2: The project proponent shall document the existing building at 2555 Park Boulevard and its setting. Generally, this documentation shall be in accordance with Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II, which includes: 1. Drawings: select existing drawings, where available; should be photographed with large-format negatives or photographically reproduced

on Mylar.

2. Photographs: photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and interior views, or historic views, where available. 3. Written data: history and description in narrative or outline format. HABS material standards regarding reproducibility, durability, and size shall be met. Copies of the photographs and report shall be presented to repositories such 14

as the Palo Alto Historical Association Archives at the Palo Alto Public Library, the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University, and/or the California State Library. 29. MM-HAZ-1: Hazardous materials shall not be disposed of or released onto the ground, the underlying groundwater, or any surface water. Totally enclosed containment shall be provided for all trash. All construction waste, including trash and litter, garbage, other solid waste, petroleum products and other potentially hazardous materials, shall be removed to a waste facility permitted to treat, store, or dispose of such materials. 30. MM-HAZ-2: A project-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and Site Mitigation Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by the project applicant and approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to issuance of grading or building permits from the City of Palo Alto. The HASP and SMP shall be implemented during construction activities. The SMP shall outline strategies for managing contaminated soil and groundwater encountered during project construction and shall discuss the following: s of previous environmental investigations at the site

excavation plan and contaminants of concerns identified, if any ewatering contingency options

The SMP shall include provisions for hazardous substance management, handling, storage, disposal, and emergency response. Hazardous materials spill kits shall be maintained on site for small spills. Copies of the HASP and SMP shall be maintained on site during demolition, excavation, and construction of the proposed project. All workers on the project site shall be familiarized with these documents. 31. MM-HAZ-3: A scope of work for asbestos abatement and guidelines for proper asbestos removal shall be prepared following local, state, and federal regulations for any necessary removal of asbestos in accordance with the ProTech survey. The Bay Area Air Quality 15

Management District (BAAQMD) shall be notified at least 10 working days prior to any asbestos removal. Monitoring during abatement shall be conducted to ensure regulatory compliance. Following asbestos abatement and removal, a final visual inspection and clearance air monitoring should be performed to certify that industry clearance standards are met. 32. MM-HAZ-4: Every contractor/employer who performs work at project site shall assess California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) worker protection rules, California Department of Public Health certification requirements, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, and state and federal disposal requirements. Any demolition activities likely to disturb lead-based paint/coatings or lead containing materials (LCMs) shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead-related construction work, and all lead-related work shall be performed in accordance with the U.S. Office of Housing and Urban Development guidelines (ProTech 2013). Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) must be disposed of in accordance with the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and LCMs must be handled in accordance with the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1) and disposed of in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for hazardous waste. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures required under these guidelines and regulations. 33. MM-HAZ-5: A qualified environmental specialist shall inspect the site buildings for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and other hazardous building materials prior to demolition. If found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resource, Section 42160–42185), particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling for the removal of mercury switches, PCB containing ballasts, and refrigerants.

34. MM-HAZ-6: Soil samples shall be collected at discrete depth intervals to characterize impacted areas. Impacted soils identified by this sampling shall be segregated and managed per BAAQMD Rule 8-40, which regulates aeration of contaminated soil, as applicable, and in accordance with state and federal 16

waste regulations. Excavated soil, particularly in the vicinity of the former dry cleaner, shall be screened during excavation using a field photoionization detector. Soil thought to be potentially contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) shall be segregated and characterized. This soil may potentially be profiled as listed dry cleaner wastes for the purposes of proper disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. 35. MM-HAZ-7: A dewatering plan and detailed groundwater extraction design shall be prepared for the proposed project. The dewatering plan shall outline procedures that will be used to lower groundwater levels during excavation and specify the number of groundwater dewatering wells with dedicated pumps that will be installed around the site perimeter throughout project duration. Extracted groundwater can go to a Publically Owned Treatment Work (POTW) or to the storm drain network in accordance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A plan for groundwater discharge pre­ treatment shall be developed and kept on-hand should implementation be necessary. The detailed groundwater extraction design shall outline chemical testing and thresholds as required by the POTW or NPDES permit. It shall also provide the dewatering systems layout and well construction information, including depths, screened intervals, and pump settings. 36. MM-HAZ-8: The building plans shall include installation of a Certco Corflex or similar waterproofing/vapor barrier membrane to prevent the migration of vapor from groundwater into the indoor air of the basement parking garage. The building plans shall also demonstrate that garage ventilation equipment is sufficient to meet the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2011 Standard for Parking Structures (NFPA 88A) to continuously provide a minimum of 2 air changes per hour. The applicant shall monitor indoor air quality in the basement garage to confirm that the waterproofing/vapor barrier membrane and garage ventilation effectively maintain indoor air VOC concentrations at levels not harmful to health (i.e., below appropriate environmental screen levels). An initial round of sampling shall be conducted upon construction completion and quarterly for the first year of operation. For each sampling event, a minimum of two 24-hour integrated indoor air samples shall be collected from the basement garage along with one 24-hour integrated air sample from an exterior location representative of ambient/background conditions. Sampling and analytical procedures shall be conducted in accordance with the Department of Toxic Substance Control Vapor Intrusion Guidance (DTSC 2011). Results from the indoor air sampling shall be compared to established regulatory indoor air thresholds for residential and commercial use. The 17

data shall be evaluated following the 1-year monitoring

period.

Water Quality Control Plant 37. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater The project is located in an area of suspected or known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering: Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598. Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain system or creeks. If the concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system must be free of sediment. 38. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system (e.g. any uncovered ramp area must drain to storm drain). 39. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking If any, drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system 40. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. 41. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on 18

any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 37. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks (i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. 38. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 39. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 40. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas,

Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers

It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 19

41. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent. 42. PAMC 16.09 Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the food service establishment (FSE) requirements must be met. Fire Department 43. Fire sprinklers, fire standpipe and fire alarm systems required in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA14, NFPA 24, NFPA 72 and State and local standards. Sprinkler, standpipe, fire alarm and underground fire supply installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 44. Sprinkler main drain must be coordinated with plumbing design so that the 200 gpm can be flowed for annual main drain testing for 90 seconds without overflowing the collection sump, and the Utilities Department approved ejector pumps will be the maximum flow rate to sanitary sewer. 45. Applicant shall work with Utilities Department provide acceptable backflow prevention configuration.

to

46. Low-E glass and underground parking areas can interfere with portable radios used by emergency responders. Please provide an RF Engineering analysis to determine if additional devices or equipment will be needed to maintain operability of emergency responder portable radios throughout 97% of the building in accordance with the Fire Code Appendix J as adopted by the City of Palo Alto. 47. All floor levels must be served by an elevator capable of accommodating a 24 x 84 inch gurney without lifting or manipulating the gurney. Elevator configuration shown will not likely meet this requirement. This can be addressed during the Building Permit application process. 48. A phase II environmental assessment and complete closure of any hazardous materials on site shall be required, under the oversight of the Palo Alto Fire Department’s Hazardous Materials Bureau. Water Gas Waste Water 49. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water meter sizes with CPA 20

numbers to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 50. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 51. The applicant shall submit completed water-gas­ wastewater service connection applications - load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities for each unit or place of business. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 52. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The new services shall be from Park Blvd. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 53. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, 21

(i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 54. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 55. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 56. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of public water, gas and wastewater utilities improvement plans (the portion to be owned and maintained by the City) in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of­ way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until 22

the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures (see last condition). For projects that take more than one month to complete, the applicant shall provide progress record drawings of work completed on a monthly basis. 57. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead

free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans.

58. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 59. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 60. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 61. Existing water services (including fire services) that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 62. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility 23

service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 63. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 64. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape for landscaping areas in excess of 1,500 SF (including tree canopies). Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 65. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For water meters 4” and larger the applicant's contractor must provide and install an 4’ by 8’ meter vault with meter reading lid covers and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail WD-05. Water meters 4” and larger shall be in a PUE on private property, water meters 2” and smaller shall be located in the public right of way per the CPA WGW Utilities Standards. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 66. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 67. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter(s) location on the plans. The gas meter(s) location must meet the WGW Utility Standards. The City of Palo Alto normal service pressure is 7” WC (.25 PSI). Increased pressure must be 24

requested in writing and is only provided if the houseline size calculates out at greater than 2” diameter for domestic (note: domestic can only be increased to 14” WC max.) and greater than 4” diameter for commercial at standard houseline pressure (7” WC) or the appliance requires increased pressure at the inlet. Further, due to meter limitations there must a minimum of 800 CFH demand for pressures greater than 14” WC. The only available pressure increments above 7” WC are 14” WC (1/2 psi), 1#, 2# and 5# after approval. Pressures in excess of 14” WC, will require testing the house piping at not less than 60 psig for not less than 30 minutes per the California Plumbing Code section 1204.3.2, witnessed by Palo Alto Building Inspection. The City of Palo Alto will not provide increased pressure just to save contractor money on the houseline construction. Requests to increase the pressure will be evaluated with the following submittals: The manufacturer’s literature for the equipment requiring increased pressure; the specific pressure you are requesting; the gas load; and the length of house gas piping from the gas meter to where the gas houseline starts branching off. 68. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 69. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer. 70. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: 1. The pump(s) shall be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity and 2. The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least 20’ from the City clean out. 3. The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. 71. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to

existing utilities as found in the

25

field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater

services/mains/meters.

72. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 73. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. Green Waste General Comments: • Service Levels: 2-yard garbage, a 3-yard recycling, and a 1.5­ yard compost. 74. PAMC 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling (A) Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. (B) Requirements: (i) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the property. (ii) Recycling facilities shall be located, sized, and designed to encourage and facilitate convenient use. (iii) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be screened from public view by masonry or other opaque and durable material, and shall be enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided where feasible. Chain link enclosures are strongly discouraged. (iv) Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be architecturally compatible with the design of the project. (v) The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. 75. PAMC 5.20.120 Recycling storage design requirements 26

The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or expanded building or other facility shall provide for proper storage, handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the solid waste and recyclable materials loading anticipated and which will allow for the efficient and safe collection. The design shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 18.22.100, 18.24.100, 18.26.100, 18.32.080, 18.37.080, 18.41.080, 18.43.080, 18.45.080, 18.49.140, 18.55.080, 18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code. All Services: 1. Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance, street width and turnaround space) and street parking are common issues pertaining to new developments. Adequate space must be provided for vehicle access. 2. Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed by the solid waste vehicles (roads, driveways, pads) must be rated to 60,000 lbs. This includes areas where permeable pavement is used. 3. Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or charges will apply. 4. Carts and bins must be able to roll without obstacles or curbs to reach service areas "no jumping curbs" Garbage, Recycling, and Yard Waste/Compostables cart/bin location and sizing Office Building The proposed commercial development must follow the requirements for recycling container space . Project plans must show the placement of recycling containers, for example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection space should be provided for built-in recycling containers/storage on each floor/office or alcoves for the placement of recycling containers. • Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams – garbage, recycling, and compostables. • Collection cannot be performed in underground. Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77” of vertical clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the property owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible location for collection. • All service areas must have a clearance height of 20’ for bin service. 27

• New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce ware and tear on walls. For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493­ 4894. 76. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a bin/dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams (garbage, recycling, and yard waste/compostables) and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2) 1. Newly constructed and remodeled Food Service Establishments (FSEs) shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. 2. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. 3. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a Grease Control Device (GCD). 4. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. 5. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement. It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal). The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects. 28

77. PAMC 5.24.030 Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) Covered projects shall comply with construction and demolition debris diversion rates and other requirements established in Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building Code). In addition, all debris generated by a covered project must haul 100 percent of the debris not salvaged for reuse to an approved facility as set forth in this chapter. Contact the City of Palo Alto’s Green Building Coordinator for assistance on how to recycle construction and demolition debris from the project, including information on where to conveniently recycle the material. Public Works Engineering 78. ADJACENT NEIGHBORS: For any improvements that extend beyond the property lines such as tie-backs provide signed copies of the original agreements with the adjacent property owners. The agreements shall indicate that the adjacent property owners have reviewed and approved the proposed improvements (such as soldier beams, tiebacks) that extend into their respective properties. 79. TITLE REPORT: Provide a title report to verify that there are no existing easements to be abandoned within the existing 3 parcels 80. PROPERTY LINE & 11-FOOT CONDEMNATION: Provide a copy of the recorded documents that show the 11-foot condemnation. If the condemnation was recorded, the property line should be behind the sidewalk? PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING OR GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT 81. PRELIMINARY GRADING AND EXCAVATION: A preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, prepared by a licensed engineer shall include the property boundary, existing grades, proposed ground elevations, daylight lines, foundation elevation, top and toe of banks, setback from adjacent properties, shoring for existing structures (if any) and public improvements to remain, earthwork quantities, existing grades along the conforms. Plan shall also indicate limit of work, grading is to be phased, staging and storage areas. Note staging and storage area shall be located not encroach into the public road right-of-way. Refer to PAMC Section 16.28.110 Site Plan and Grading Plan. 82. FINAL GRADING AND EXCAVATION: A Final Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a licensed engineer shall include property boundary, existing and proposed spot elevations, high and low point elevations, contours. Plan shall not modify existing drainage patterns. 29

83. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 84. STORM DRAIN: The existing municipal storm drain system in the area is unable to convey the peak runoff from the project site. The applicant will be required to provide storm water detention on-site to lessen the project’s impact on the City’s storm drains. The applicant’s engineer shall provide storm drain flow and detention calculations, including pre-project and post-project conditions. The calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. 85. DEWATERING: Add a note on the plans to indicate dewatering is only allowed between April and October. If the applicant intends to proceed with a grading permit that would extend beyond October 31, applicant shall provide a preliminary logistics plans to indicate how substantial grading will be completed. 86. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website. 87. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the building permit review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention 30

measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to approval of the building permit by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 88. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently a $350 C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. 89. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Add a note on the plans to indicate the Contractor is responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit from Public Works in accordance with PAMC 12.12.010. A building permit or grading permit will not serve in lieu of an encroachment permit and a permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of a building or grading permit. 90. PARKING: Provide a turning template for the 2nd accessible stall to demonstrate a vehicle will be able to exit the stall without backing up into upcoming traffic exiting from the garage. Provide a turning template for the vehicles parked in Machine B to demonstrate how a vehicle will turn around within the drive aisle and not back up directly onto Grant Avenue. [PAMC 18.54.020 (5)] 91. MAILBOX: Will the mailbox on Grant Avenue be relocated during the construction? Applicant shall coordinate directly with the Post Office directly. Provide a letter that has been signed and approved by Post Office that indicates how the mail box location will be coordinated during construction. 92. PEDESTRIAN & STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS: Streetscape design elements and amenities such as bike racks, trash cans, shall be placed in the public sidewalk. In addition, the City would be interested in extending the landscape bulb-outs along the project frontage. The off-site improvement plan shall include 31

the landscape bulb-outs and exact locations shall be coordinated with staff and shall identify any existing utility or sign relocation. 93. PAVEMENT RESTORATION: Park Boulevard was recently resurfacing therefore full pavement width restoration would be required throughout the project frontage. 94. SOILS REPORT: A detailed site-specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technical engineer must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement construction issues. This report shall identify the current groundwater level, if encountered, and by using this and other available information, as well as professional experience, the engineer shall estimate the highest projected ground-water level likely to be encountered in the future. If the proposed basement is reasonably above the projected highest water level, then the basement can be constructed in a conventional manner with a subsurface perimeter drainage system to relieve hydrostatic pressure. If not, measures must be undertaken to render the basement waterproof and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No pumping of ground water is allowed. In general, however, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels. The following items shall be provided PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 95. STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS: Note 9 on sheet A1.1 indicate storm water will be collected internally and ultimately hard piped into the existing system. Note that this project is required to comply with C3 and therefore shall retain or reduce the overall surface runoff. The City storm drain system was originally sized to handle the street runoff a direct connection from the roof downspouts is not allowed. 96. NO DUMPING/FLOWS TO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to San Francisquito Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all on-site storm drain inlets or a medallion for off-site storm drain inlet. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. 97. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing 32

sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. The new ramp (s) shall include a detectable warning surface in compliance with City standards and State and Federal Requirements. Contractor shall contact the City to determine the color of the detectable warning surface prior to ordering the material. Any existing driveway to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb & gutter. This work must be included within a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from the Public Works Department. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan. 98. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: provisions for pedestrian and bicyclist, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work permit. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck and Truck Route per PAMC 10.48. DURING CONTRUCTION The contractor shall contact Public Works Inspector at 650-496­ 6929 prior to any work performed in the public road right-of­ way. The following items shall be provided PRIOR TO FINALIZATION OF BUILDING PERMIT INSPECTION Contractor shall contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit. The inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the Park Boulevard and Grant Avenue. Add statement as a note on the plans. Additional Conditions 99. The approved use and/or construction are subject to, and shall comply with, all applicable City ordinances and laws and regulations of other governmental agencies. 100. The development impact fees for this project are estimated to be $396,291.00, California Government Code Section 66020 33

provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. 101. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 102. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. SECTION 9.

Term of Approval.

Project Approval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within one year of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section18.77.090(a). SECTION 10. plan,

A. floor

Standard Conditions

Except as expressly specified herein, the site plans, building elevations and any additional 34

information or representations, submitted by the Applicant during the Staff review and public hearing process leading to the approval of this entitlement, whether oral or written, which indicated the proposed structure or manner of operation, are deemed conditions of approval. B. The approved use and/or construction are subject to, and shall comply with, all applicable City ordinances and laws and regulations of other governmental agencies. C. The development impact fees for this project are estimated to be $396,291, itemized as follows: Park Fee $67,882.81, Community Center Fee $3,662.04, Library Fee $3,489.71, Commercial Housing Fee $263,890.46, and the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee $60,366.00. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. D. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. E. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 35

PASSED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

ATTEST:

APPROVED:

_________________________ City Clerk

____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment

APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by Fergus Garber Young Architects consisting of 33 pages, dated October 16, 2014, and received on May 13, 2014.

36

Attachment C

Final Environmental Impact Report 2555 Park Blvd.

Hardcopies have been initially distributed to the Planning & Transportation Commission, City Libraries, 5th Floor City Hall and Development Services Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue

Can also be found online at:

http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=2440&TargetID=319

Attachment D NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No _____

Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the

Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for 2555 Park

Boulevard Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act

and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the

Statement of Overriding Considerations

I. OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION This Statement of Findings is made with respect to approval of a Major Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception for the 2555 Park Boulevard project and states the findings of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) relating to the potentially significant environmental effects of the project. The project applicant, Tarlton Properties, has requested that the City take the following actions: 1. Certification of an Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. 2. Approval of Major Architectural Review. 3. Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception. Approval of the Major Architectural Review and other requested entitlements constitutes the project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section (§) 21000 et seq.) (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines § 15378, and these determinations of the City Council. RECITALS A. The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designates land for Community Commercial Development. B. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and construct a new 24,466 square foot office building and onsite parking at 2555 Park Boulevard. C. The City prepared an Initial Study and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) on April 4, 2014; prepared a Draft EIR and released it for public comment in August 2014; received public comments on the Draft EIR until November 19, 2014, including at a public hearing held before the Architectural Review Board on October 16, 2014, a public hearing held before the Planning and Transportation Commission on October 29, 2014, and a public hearing held before the Historic Resources Board on November 19, 2014. D. The Planning and Transportation Commission gave notice of a public hearing to consider and provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Final EIR and the

150515 jb 0131441

1

NOT YET APPROVED

2555 Park Boulevard project, and a public hearing was held before the Planning and Transportation Commission on April 29, 2015. E. The City Council gave notice of a public hearing to consider and act upon the Final EIR for the 2555 Park Boulevard project, and a public hearing was held before the City Council on June 1, 2015. F. After holding public hearings, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR as prepared for the project (which includes the NOP and Initial Study dated April 4, 2014, the Draft EIR dated August 2014, the Final EIR dated April 2015), the comments of the public, both oral and written, and all written materials in the record connected therewith. G. At the conclusion of the public process described above for the project, the City Council certified the Final EIR and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program, findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations, and approved the requested entitlements. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Environmental Impact Ordinance, codified in Title 11 of the City’s Municipal Code. SECTION 2. The Final EIR was presented to and reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Final EIR was prepared under the supervision of the City and reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council has reviewed the Final EIR, and bases the findings stated below on such review and other substantial evidence in the record. SECTION 3. The City finds that the Final EIR considers a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, sufficient to foster informed decision making, public participation and a reasoned choice. Thus, the alternatives analysis in the EIR is sufficient to carry out the purposes of such analysis under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as complete, adequate and in full compliance with CEQA and as providing an adequate basis for considering and acting upon the 2555 Park Boulevard project and makes the following specific findings with respect thereto. SECTION 5. The City Council agrees with the characterization of the Final EIR with respect to all impacts initially identified as “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the Final EIR. This finding does not apply to impacts identified as significant and unavoidable or significant or potentially significant that are reduced to a less than significant level by mitigation measures included in the Final EIR. The disposition of each of those impacts and the mitigation measures adopted to reduce them are addressed specifically in the findings below.

150515 jb 0131441

2

NOT YET APPROVED

SECTION 6. All mitigation measures in the Final EIR are adopted and incorporated into the 2555 Park Boulevard project. SECTION 7. The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) includes all mitigation measures adopted with respect to the project and explains how and by whom they will be implemented and enforced. SECTION 8. The mitigation measures and the MMP have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the Major Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception and have thus become part of and limitations upon the entitlements conferred by the Major Architectural Review, Design Enhancement Exception and other project approvals. SECTION 9. The descriptions of the impacts in these findings are summary statements. Reference should be made to the Final EIR for a more complete description. SECTION 10. The Planning Division is directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk within five (5) working days in accordance with CEQA §21152(a) and CEQA Guidelines §15094. III. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS This Statement of Findings addresses the environmental effects associated with the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project, located in the City of Palo Alto on APN 124-29-011 located at 2555 Park Boulevard. This Statement of Findings is made pursuant to CEQA §§21081 and 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines §15091. Significant effects of the 2555 Park Boulevard project were identified in the Draft EIR. CEQA §21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091 require that the Lead Agency prepare written findings for identified significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. Less than significant effects (without mitigation) of the project were also identified in the Draft EIR and Initial Study. CEQA does not require that the Lead Agency prepare written findings for less than significant effects. CEQA requires that the Lead Agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur with implementation of the project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required, however, where substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with another agency. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines §15091 states: 4. No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 150515 jb 0131441

3

NOT YET APPROVED

• Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. • Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. • Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. 5. The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. The “changes or alterations” referred to in §15091(a)(1) above, that are required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of the project, may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines §15370, including: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.

150515 jb 0131441

4

NOT YET APPROVED

(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Legal Effects of Findings To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City of Palo Alto hereby binds itself to implementing or ensuring the project applicant implements these measures. These findings, in other words, constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City Council formally approves the 2555 Park Boulevard project. CEQA requires that when a public agency has made the findings under CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1) relative to an EIR, the public agency must also adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions and mitigation measures that will avoid significant impacts. The mitigation measures required of the 2555 Park Boulevard project are identified in the MMP. The MMP is adopted concurrently with these findings as required by CEQA §21081.6(a)(1), and will be implemented throughout construction and operation of the project. The Planning and Community Environment Department will use the MMP to track and enforce compliance with all mitigation measures. The MMP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. IV.

DEFINITIONS

The following definitions apply where the subject words or acronyms are used in these findings: “ARB” means the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. “ACM” means asbestos-containing material. “BAAQMD” means the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. “Cal-OSHA” means California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. “City Council” means the City of Palo Alto City Council. “CEQA” means the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.). “Comprehensive Plan” means the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as adopted in 2007 with subsequent amendments. “Condition” means a Condition of Approval adopted by the City in connection with approval of the project. “City” means the City of Palo Alto. “Draft EIR” means the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated August 2014 for the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project.

150515 jb 0131441

5

NOT YET APPROVED

“DTSC” means the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

“EIR” means environmental impact report.

“Environmental Impact Ordinance” means the City of Palo Alto Environmental Impact

Ordinance, as codified in Title 11 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. “EPA” means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Final EIR” means the Final EIR as prepared for the project (which includes the NOP and Initial Study dated April 4, 2014, the Draft EIR dated August 2014, the Final EIR dated April 2015).

“HASP” means Health and Safety Plan.

“HRB” means the City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board.

“LCM” means lead-containing material. “MMP” means the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. “NOP” means Notice of Preparation of an EIR. “P&TC” means the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission. “PCE” means the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department. “Project” means the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project.

“PTOD” means Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development.

“RWQCB” means the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

“SMP” means Site Mitigation Plan.

“Zoning Ordinance” means the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, including all amendments thereto. V.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The project would demolish the existing 10,800-square-foot building at 2555 Park Boulevard and construct a new 24,466 square foot office building and onsite parking. The existing building was constructed in 1964 and appears eligible for inclusion in the California Register under Criteria 3. The existing and proposed office use is consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site. VI.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION

Project Objectives As reported in the Draft EIR, the applicant’s stated objectives of the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project include: 1. Redevelop the 2555 Park Boulevard site with a safe, healthy, and energy-efficient

building that meets current standards for structural design, site and building accessibility, and hazardous materials. 150515 jb 0131441 6

NOT YET APPROVED

2. Develop a new office building on the site that generates increased rental income and

supports the vision of the City’s Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan, specifically Goal CACP-3, which calls for promoting Park Boulevard as a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship for small new companies and supports related planning initiatives such as the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development overlay and Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.

3. Increase the usable square footage of a transit-accessible site by increasing the

building height and providing parking at grade and underground.

4. Create a pedestrian and bicycle friendly street frontage with wide sidewalks, amenities,

and street trees.

5. Provide adequate parking to ensure the project is fully parked on site.

Project Description The proposed project would involve the demolition of an existing two-story, 10,800-square-foot general office building and 28 surface parking spaces, and the construction of a new three-story, 24,466-square-foot office building with a roof deck and 92 parking spaces. A conceptual site plan of the proposed project is shown in Draft EIR Figure 2.4, and conceptual renderings are shown in Draft EIR Figure 2.5. A complete description of the project as proposed by the project applicant is provided in Section 2.4 of the Draft EIR, as modified in the Final EIR. VII.

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

In accordance with CEQA §21167.6(e), the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the 2555 Park Boulevard project includes, without limitation, the following documents: ♦ The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the

project;

♦ All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment

period on the NOP (provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR);

♦ The Draft EIR (August 2014) for the project; ♦ All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment

period on the Draft EIR;

♦ All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the Project,

in addition to timely comments on the Draft EIR;

♦ The Final EIR (April 2015) for the project, including comments received on the Draft

EIR and responses to those comments;

♦ Documents cited or referenced in the Draft and Final EIRs; ♦ The project MMP; ♦ All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the project and all

documents cited or referred to therein;

150515 jb 0131441

7

NOT YET APPROVED

♦ All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents

relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the project;

♦ All documents submitted to the City (including the P&TCand City Council) by other

public agencies or members of the public in connection with the project;

♦ Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings,

and public hearings held by the City in connection with the project;

♦ Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information

sessions, public meetings and public hearings;

♦ The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and all environmental documents prepared

in connection with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan;

♦ The City of Palo Alto Environmental Impact Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance (City of

Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 11 and Title 18), and all other City Code provisions cited in materials prepared by or submitted to the City;

♦ Any and all resolutions and/or ordinances adopted by the City regarding the project,

and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions;

♦ Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state,

and local laws and regulations;

♦ Any documents cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and ♦ Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by CEQA §21167.6(e).

The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the project, even if not every document was formally presented to the City Council, P&TC or City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the project. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City Council was aware in approving the 2555 Park Boulevard project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.) Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to City staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council’s decisions relating to approval of the 2555 Park Boulevard project. (See Public Resources Code §21167.6(e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries c. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155.) The official custodian of the record is the Planning and Community Environment Director, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. VIII. GENERAL FINDINGS 150515 jb 0131441

8

NOT YET APPROVED

Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all impacts identified as “no impact” or “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the Final EIR. This finding applies to the following impacts determined to be “less than significant” based on the analysis in the Initial Study (circulated with the NOP and provided in Appendix A to the Draft EIR) or in the Draft EIR. Some impacts that were identified in the Initial Study as being “potentially significant” were later determined through the analysis in the Draft EIR to be “less than significant.” Aesthetics Substantially Damage Scenic Resources along a Scenic Highway Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and Its Surroundings Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Public View or View Corridor Violate Existing Comprehensive Plan Policies Regarding Visual Resources Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Which Would Adversely Affect Day or Nighttime Views in the Area Substantially Shadow Public Open Space (Other Than Public Streets and Adjacent Sidewalks) Between 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. from September 21 to March 21 Agriculture and Forestry Convert Prime, Unique, or Important Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use Conflict with Agricultural Zoning or a Williamson Act Contract Conflict with Forest Land or Timberland Zoning Result in Loss or Conversion of Forest Land Cause Other Changes to the Existing Environment Which Could Result in Conversion of Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use Air Quality Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation Contribute to Direct or Indirect Operational Emissions Exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Criteria Air Pollutants of 80 Pounds Per Day and/or 15 Tons Per Year for Nitrogen Oxides, Reactive Organic Gases, and Fine Particulate Matter

150515 jb 0131441

9

NOT YET APPROVED

Contribute to Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Levels of Toxic Air Contaminants Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People Fail to Implement Applicable Construction Emission Control Measures Recommended in Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines Biological Resources Adversely Affect Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species Adversely Affect Riparian Habitat, Federally Protected Wetlands, or Other Sensitive Natural Community Conflict with Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources, Including the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance Interfere Substantially with Wildlife Movement or Native Wildlife Nursery Sites Cultural and Historic Resources Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Local Cultural Resource Recognized by City Council Resolution Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Geologic Feature Disturb Human Remains, Including Those Interred Outside Formal Cemeteries Geology and Soils Exposure to Rupture of an Earthquake Fault, Seismic Ground Shaking, Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Liquefaction, or Landslides Create Substantial Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Cause Substantial Siltation Exposure to Unstable Earth Conditions or Changes in Geologic Substructures Located on Expansive Soils Exposure to Geologic and Geomorphological Hazards Located on Soils Incapable of Adequately Supporting the Use of Septic Tanks or Alternative Waste Water Disposal Systems, If Sewers Are Not Available Hazards and Hazardous Materials Create Hazardous Emissions or Waste or Use Hazardous Substances Within OneQuarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School Construct a School on a Property Subject to Hazards Located on a Site Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 150515 jb 0131441 10

NOT YET APPROVED

Expose Residents or Workers to Risks Associated with Public or Private Airport/Airstrip Expose People or Structures to Risks Involving Wildland Fires Interfere with an Emergency Response Plan Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or Environment through Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials During Project Operation Hydrology and Water Quality Expose People or Structures to Flood Risks from a Levee or Dam Failure Adversely Affect Groundwater Supplies, Recharge, and Existing Flow Patterns Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Alter the Existing Onsite Drainage Pattern in a Manner Which Would Result in Substantial Erosion or Siltation On- or Off Site Alter the Existing Onsite Drainage Pattern in a Manner Which Would Substantially Increase Surface Runoff or Result in Flooding On- or Off Site Create or Contribute Runoff Water Which Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff Place Structures within a 100-year Flood Hazard Area

Expose People or Structures to Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow

Cause Stream Bank Instability

Land Use and Planning Physical Division or Disruption of an Established Community Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect Conflict with Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Type or Intensity of Existing or Planned Land Use in the Area Create a Land Use Incompatibility Conflict with Established Residential, Recreational, Educational, Religious, or Scientific Uses of an Area

Convert Prime, Unique, or Important Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use

Mineral Resources Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource Valuable to the Region or State Result in the Loss of Availability of a Locally-Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site 150515 jb 0131441

11

NOT YET APPROVED

Noise Expose Residents to Noise Levels in Excess of Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance Standards Cause a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Above Levels Existing without the Project Expose People to Excessive Noise Associated with a Public Airport or Public Use Airport Expose People to Excessive Noise Associated with a Private Airstrip Cause the Average 24 Hour Noise Level to Increase by 5.0 dB or More in an Existing Residential Area Cause the Average 24 Hour Noise Level to Increase by 3.0 dB or More in an Existing Residential Area where the Average 24 Hour Noise Level Currently Exceeds 60 dB Result in Indoor Noise Levels for Residential Development to Exceed an Average 24 Hour Noise Level of 45 dB Result in Instantaneous Noise Levels of Great than 50 dB in Bedrooms or 55 dB in Other Rooms in Areas with an Exterior Average 24 Hour Noise Level of 60 dB or Greater Generate Construction Noise Exceeding the Daytime Background Ambient Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors by 10 dBA or More Population and Housing Induce Substantial Population Growth, Directly or Indirectly Displace Housing or People Create a Substantial Imbalance between Employed Residents and Jobs Public Services Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New or Physically Altered Governmental Facilities or Interfere with the Service Ratios or Performance Objectives of Local Fire Protection, Police Protection, School, Park, or Other Public Facilities Recreation Contribute to the Substantial Physical Deterioration of Existing Recreational Facilities Create an Adverse Physical Effect on the Environment Due to the Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities Transportation and Circulation Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Design Feature or Incompatible Uses Result in a Change in Air Traffic Patterns Exceed the Capacity of the Existing Circulation System, Including Intersections, Streets, Highways and Freeways, Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths, and Mass Transit 150515 jb 0131441

12

NOT YET APPROVED

Conflict with an Applicable Congestion Management Program Result in Inadequate Emergency Access Result in Inadequate Parking Capacity that Impacts Traffic Circulation and Air Quality Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Supporting Alternative Transportation Cause a Local Intersection to Deteriorate Below LOS D and Cause an Increase in the Average Stopped Delay for Critical Movements by Four Seconds or More and the Critical Volume/Capacity Ratio Value to Increase by 0.01 or More Cause a Local Intersection Already Operating at LOS E or F to Deteriorate in the Average Stopped Delay for the Critical Movements by Four Seconds or More Cause a Regional Intersection to Deteriorate from LOS E or Better to LOS F or Cause Critical Movement Delay at an Intersection Operating at LOS F to Increase by Four Seconds or More and the Critical Volume/Capacity Ratio Value to Increase by 0.01 or More Cause a Freeway Segment to Operate at LOS F or Contribute Traffic in Excess of 1% of Segment Capacity to Freeway Segment Operating at LOS F Cause any Change in Traffic that Would Increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment Index by 0.1 or More Cause Queuing Impacts Based on a Comparative Analysis between Design Queue Length and Available Queue Storage Capacity Impede Development or Function of Planned Pedestrian or Bicycle Facilities Impede Operation of Transit System as Result of Congestion Utilities and Service Systems Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements of the Applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Require or Result in the Construction of New or Expansion of Existing Water or Wastewater Treatment Facilities Require or Result in the Construction of New or Expansion of Existing Storm Water Drainage Facilities Require New or Expanded Entitlements to Provide Water Service to the Project Result in a Determination by the Applicable Wastewater Treatment Provider that It Has Inadequate Capacity to Serve the Project’s Demand in Addition to the Provider’s Existing Commitments Generate an Amount of Solid Waste that Would Exceed the Permitted Capacity of the Applicable Landfill Violate Federal, State, and Local Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste Result in the Substantial Physical Deterioration of a Public Facility Due to Increased Use as a Result of the Project 150515 jb 0131441

13

NOT YET APPROVED

Cumulative Impacts Generate Noise Levels in Excess of General Plan and Community Plan Standards or Cause a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Pollutant for Which the Project Region is Non-Attainment Generate Substantial Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Directly or Indirectly Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Contribute to a Cumulative Excess of Population Beyond Local or Regional Projections Contribute to Cumulative Loss of Cultural and Historic Resources Listed or Eligible for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources Contribute to Cumulative Increase in Exposure to Hazards and Hazardous Materials Cause an Increase in Delay or the Volume/Capacity Ratio that Would Exceed Local Traffic Standards in the Cumulative Traffic Scenario Significant and Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant With Implementation of Mitigation Measures The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all impacts initially identified as “significant” or “potentially significant” that are reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15091(a), a specific finding is made for each impact and its associated mitigation measures in the discussions below. This section includes impacts that were evaluated in the Initial Study and determined to be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study as well as impacts evaluated in the EIR. Cultural and Historic Resources Impact CUL-1: Given the site’s location in an area identified as having “moderate” archaeological sensitivity, there is limited potential for inadvertent impact to presently unknown subsurface encountered archaeological deposits that may be encountered during earth moving activities onsite. Such deposits may be important examples of a major period of California pre-history. Therefore, impacts would be significant. Mitigation Measure: MM-CUL-1: In the event that subsurface cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity shall be stopped and the City of Palo Alto contacted. A qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Palo Alto, shall be retained to evaluate the archaeological discovery for its eligibility for local and state 150515 jb 0131441

14

NOT YET APPROVED

listing. The discovery or disturbance of any identified cultural resource shall be reported as appropriate to the City of Palo Alto and the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation form 523 (archaeological sites). Measures prescribed by these groups and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City of Palo Alto’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included in the MMP will ensure that the potential for the project to adversely impact archaeological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. Explanation: This mitigation measure will ensure that in the event cultural resources are discovered, proper evaluation, handling, and treatment measures as dictated by federal, State, and local regulations are implemented, and the potential for identification and listing are evaluated by qualified individuals. Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: Due to the use of potentially hazardous substances during construction of the proposed project, the project could expose people or the environment to a release of hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Hazardous materials shall not be disposed of or released onto the ground, the underlying groundwater, or any surface water. Totally enclosed containment shall be provided for all trash. All construction waste, including trash and litter, garbage, other solid waste, petroleum products and other potentially hazardous materials, shall be removed to a waste facility permitted to treat, store, or dispose of such materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: A project-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and Site Mitigation Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by the project applicant and approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to issuance of grading or building permits from the City of Palo Alto. The HASP and SMP shall be implemented during construction activities. The SMP shall outline strategies for managing contaminated soil and groundwater encountered during project construction and shall discuss the following: • Results of previous environmental investigations at the site • Anticipated contaminants of concern to be encountered • The procedures and protocols of determining of the extent of the impact of 150515 jb 0131441

soil gas from the former dry cleaner 15

NOT YET APPROVED

• Development plans • Likely disposal fate of excavated material based on excavation plan and

contaminants of concerns identified, if any

• Dewatering contingency options • Stormwater management options • Monitoring and soil management procedures • Regulatory considerations • Planned procedures and notifications.

The SMP shall include provisions for hazardous substance management, handling, storage, disposal, and emergency response. Hazardous materials spill kits shall be maintained on site for small spills. Copies of the HASP and SMP shall be maintained on site during demolition, excavation, and construction of the proposed project. All workers on the project site shall be familiarized with these documents. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified above and included in the MMP will ensure that the potential for the project to result in hazardous material exposure during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that hazardous materials are controlled and disposed of properly during construction. Hazardous material handling and disposal protocol will be listed in a HSP and a SMP, which will be available to construction workers. These mitigation measures will reduce the potential for people or the environment to be exposed to hazardous construction materials on- or offsite to less than significant levels. Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant. Impact HAZ-2: Due to the potential for the existing building to contain asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint/coatings, demolition of the building could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment, which would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: A scope of work for asbestos abatement and guidelines for proper asbestos removal shall be prepared following local, state, and federal regulations for any necessary removal of asbestos in accordance with the ProTech survey. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) shall be notified at least 10 working days prior to any asbestos removal. Monitoring during abatement shall be conducted to ensure regulatory compliance. Construction teams working with ACMs must possess a handling license and a certificate of registration issued by the California Department of 150515 jb 0131441

16

NOT YET APPROVED

Industrial Relations-Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). All abatement workers shall have annual Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) training. The minimum level of training that construction workers must complete also includes annual EPA Asbestos Operations and Maintenance training. Only particular types of equipment and methods of demolition are permitted under State and Federal regulations. ACMs and LCMs are wetted down to prevent the formation of dust within (and outside of) the project site, or they are vacuumed up with a high-efficiency particulate absorption (HEPA) machine to ensure the containment of 95% of particles 0.3 microns (10-6 meters) or larger in diameter (HEPA Corporation 2004). Prior to permitting demolition workers and other construction workers to enter the site, the hazardous waste construction team shall inspect the site for final clean-up. Final clean-up of ACMs shall be conducted by visual inspection and phase contrast microscopy or transmission electron microscopy. Final clean-up of LCMs shall be conducted by visual inspection and HEPA vacuuming of suspect dust and debris (SCA Environmental 2012). Demolition shall not commence until the removal of ACMs and LCMs from the site has been confirmed by a certified contractor. Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Every contractor/employer who performs work at project site shall assess California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) worker protection rules, California Department of Public Health certification requirements, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, and state and federal disposal requirements. Any demolition activities likely to disturb lead-based paint/coatings or lead containing materials (LCMs) shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead-related construction work, and all lead-related work shall be performed in accordance with the U.S. Office of Housing and Urban Development guidelines (ProTech 2013). Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) must be disposed of in accordance with the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and LCMs must be handled in accordance with the CalOSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1) and disposed of in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for hazardous waste. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures required under these guidelines and regulations. Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: A qualified environmental specialist shall inspect the site buildings for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and other hazardous building materials prior to demolition. If found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resource, Section 42160–42185), particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling for the removal of mercury switches, PCBcontaining ballasts, and refrigerants. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included 150515 jb 0131441 17

NOT YET APPROVED

in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to the release of ACMs and LCMs into the environment would be reduced to a less than significant level. Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that ACMs, LCMs, and related hazardous materials are removed from the project site in compliance with federal, state, and local standards which prescribe handling protocols to ensure ACMs and LCMs are not released to the air. Project construction will not be permitted to commence until registered professionals have confirmed the removal of ACMs and LCMs from the project site. Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant. Impact HAZ-3: Due to the potential for contaminated soils to be encountered, disposed of during excavation, construction activities could expose individuals or the environment to hazardous materials should contaminated soils be handled improperly. Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Soil samples shall be collected at discrete depth intervals to characterize impacted areas. Impacted soils identified by this sampling shall be segregated and managed per BAAQMD Rule 8-40, which regulates aeration of contaminated soil, as applicable, and in accordance with state and federal waste regulations. Excavated soil, particularly in the vicinity of the former dry cleaner, shall be screened during excavation using a field photoionization detector. Soil thought to be potentially contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) shall be segregated and characterized. This soil may potentially be profiled as listed dry cleaner wastes for the purposes of proper disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Mitigation Measure HAZ-7: A dewatering plan and detailed groundwater extraction design shall be prepared for the proposed project. The dewatering plan shall outline procedures that will be used to lower groundwater levels during excavation and specify the number of groundwater dewatering wells with dedicated pumps that will be installed around the site perimeter throughout project duration. Extracted groundwater can go to a Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW) or to the storm drain network in accordance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A plan for groundwater discharge pre-treatment shall be developed and kept on-hand should implementation be necessary. The detailed groundwater extraction design shall outline chemical testing and thresholds as required by the POTW or NPDES permit. It shall also provide the dewatering systems layout and well construction information, including depths, screened intervals, and pump settings. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to contaminated soils would be reduced to a less than significant level.

150515 jb 0131441

18

NOT YET APPROVED

Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that contaminated soils and groundwater are removed from the project site and disposed of in an appropriate treatment facility. Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant. Impact HAZ-4: Groundwater contaminated with VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons may be encountered during excavation and could be released into the environment, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Soil samples shall be collected at discrete depth intervals to characterize impacted areas. Impacted soils identified by this sampling shall be segregated and managed per BAAQMD Rule 8-40, which regulates aeration of contaminated soil, as applicable, and in accordance with state and federal waste regulations. Excavated soil, particularly in the vicinity of the former dry cleaner, shall be screened during excavation using a field photoionization detector. Soil thought to be potentially contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) shall be segregated and characterized. This soil may potentially be profiled as listed dry cleaner wastes for the purposes of proper disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Mitigation Measure HAZ-7: A dewatering plan and detailed groundwater extraction design shall be prepared for the proposed project. The dewatering plan shall outline procedures that will be used to lower groundwater levels during excavation and specify the number of groundwater dewatering wells with dedicated pumps that will be installed around the site perimeter throughout project duration. Extracted groundwater can go to a Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW) or to the storm drain network in accordance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A plan for groundwater discharge pre-treatment shall be developed and kept on-hand should implementation be necessary. The detailed groundwater extraction design shall outline chemical testing and thresholds as required by the POTW or NPDES permit. It shall also provide the dewatering systems layout and well construction information, including depths, screened intervals, and pump settings. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified above and included in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to contaminated groundwater would be reduced to a less than significant level. Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that contaminated soils and groundwater are removed from the project site and disposed of in an appropriate treatment facility. Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant. Impact HAZ-5: Although it is unlikely that vapor intrusion from contaminated groundwater would create a significant hazard, there is the potential for the release of hazardous 150515 jb 0131441

19

NOT YET APPROVED

materials during operation of the proposed project. Therefore, the impact would be significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ-8: The building plans shall include installation of a Certco Corflex or similar waterproofing/vapor barrier membrane to prevent the migration of vapor from groundwater into the indoor air of the basement parking garage. The building plans shall also demonstrate that garage ventilation equipment is sufficient to meet the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2011 Standard for Parking Structures (NFPA 88A) to continuously provide a minimum of two air changes per hour. The applicant shall monitor indoor air quality in the basement garage to confirm that the waterproofing/vapor barrier membrane and garage ventilation effectively maintain indoor air VOC concentrations at levels not harmful to health (i.e., below appropriate environmental screen levels). An initial round of sampling shall be conducted upon construction completion and quarterly for the first year of operation. For each sampling event, a minimum of two 24-hour integrated indoor air samples shall be collected from the basement garage along with one 24-hour integrated air sample from an exterior location representative of ambient/background conditions. Sampling and analyticalprocedures shall be conducted in accordance with the Department of Toxic Substance Control Vapor Intrusion Guidance (DTSC 2011). Results from the indoor air sampling shall be compared to established regulatory indoor air thresholds for residential and commercial use. The data shall be evaluated following the 1-year monitoring period. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to vapor intrusion during project operation would be reduced to a less than significant level. Explanation: This mitigation measure will limit migration of hazardous vapor into the basement parking garage and ensure concentrations of hazardous vapors in the parking garage and office building remain below applicable standards and do not pose a health risk. Air quality monitoring will ensure that vapor levels are compatible with existing regulations. Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all Impacts initially identified as “significant” or “potentially significant” that are not reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and are therefore determined to be “significant and unavoidable” impacts of the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15091(a), a specific finding is made for each impact and its associated mitigation measures in the discussions below. Cultural and Historic Resources 150515 jb 0131441

20

NOT YET APPROVED

Impact CUL-2: Demolition of the existing building at 2555 Park Boulevard, which is considered eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, would cause a significant impact to a historic resource and would eliminate an example of a major period of California history. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: The project proponent shall document the affected historical resource and its setting. Generally, this documentation shall be in accordance with Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II, which includes: 1. Drawings: select existing drawings, where available; should be photographed with large-format negatives or photographically reproduced on Mylar. 2. Photographs: photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and interior views, or historic views, where available. 3. Written data: history and description in narrative or outline format. HABS material standards regarding reproducibility, durability, and size shall be met. Copies of the photographs and report shall be presented to repositories such as the Palo Alto Historical Association Archives at the Palo Alto Public Library, the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University, and/or the California State Library. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which reduce the severity of a significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. However, implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included in the MMP will not reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact remains Significant and Unavoidable as discussed in Section XII of these findings. Explanation: This mitigation measure will create records of existing drawings, the current condition of the building, and the current condition of any historic views. The mitigation measure will create a written record of the history of the existing building to be submitted to the appropriate repositories for historical records, thereby ensuring that this impact is mitigated to the extent feasible. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. IX.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES FINDINGS

Feasibility of Project Alternatives Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such project[s].” Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. 150515 jb 0131441

21

NOT YET APPROVED

Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an agency decision-making body may ultimately conclude that a potentially feasible alternative is actually infeasible. (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001-1002.) CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(1) provides that among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are “site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.” Grounds for a conclusion of infeasibility might be the failure of an alternative to fully satisfy project objectives deemed to be important by decision-makers, or the fact that an alternative fails to promote policy objectives of concern to such decision-makers. (Id. at pp. 992, 1000-1003.) It is well established under CEQA that an agency may reject alternatives based on economic infeasibility. (Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage v. City and County of San Francisco (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 893, 913-914; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 774; Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1399-1400; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1510.) In addition, the definition of feasibility encompasses “desirability” to the extent that an agency’s determination of infeasibility represents a reasonable balancing of competing economic, environmental, social, and technological factors supported by substantial evidence. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410; 417.) Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of a proposed project as mitigated, the decision-makers may reject the alternative for such reasons. CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f) states that the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Further, CEQA Guidelines §15126(a) requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives that would “feasibly obtain most of the basic project objectives” but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. CEQA case law has further indicated that the lead agency has the discretion to determine how many alternatives constitute the requisite “reasonable range” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 566), and that an EIR need not present alternatives that are incompatible with fundamental project objectives (Save San Francisco Bay Association vs. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 908). Thus, the project objectives described above in section VI of these findings provided the framework for defining the possible alternatives. Based upon guidance contained in the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law as well as the project objectives, the Draft EIR considered two project alternatives to the 2555 Park Boulevard project: the Building Preservation Alternative and the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Alternative. The Draft EIR also considered the no project alternative as required by CEQA. The City Council finds that that a good-faith effort was made to evaluate a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the project and could feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the project, even when the alternatives might impede the attainment of the project’s objectives and might be more costly. 150515 jb 0131441 22

NOT YET APPROVED

Alternatives were considered that would result in a substantial reduction or elimination of identified significant cultural resources and hazards and hazardous materials impacts. However, mitigation measures would continue to be required for each of these impacts under either of the two project alternatives. The Building Preservation Alternative studied in the EIR would also reduce, but not to a level of less than significant or entirely avoid, the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources. No Project Alternative CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(1) provides the following direction relative to the No Project Alternative: The specific alternative of “no project” shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project would not be constructed and that the existing 10,800-square-foot general office building and surface parking for 28 cars would remain. No demolition would occur, and there would be no change in use or increase in office space. The EIR concluded that this alternative would avoid the Cultural and historic resource and hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project. No impacts to transportation and traffic would occur. The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the proposed project objectives. Feasibility of the No Project Alternative: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it meets none of the project objectives. Specifically, it does not support the project objectives of increasing the usable square footage and associated rental income of the site, enhancing the street frontage to create a pedestrian and bike-friendly environment, or meeting current building standards. For all of the foregoing reasons, and for any of them individually, the City Council determines that the No Project Alternative is infeasible and is hereby rejected. Building Preservation Alternative The Building Preservation Alternative assumes that the existing building is retrofitted rather than demolished and no new building is constructed. This alternative was considered and analyzed for the possibility that maintaining and improving the existing building could potentially reduce the proposed project’s significant impacts. In order to bring the existing building up to current codes, several improvements would be necessary, while others would not be feasible due to site constraints. For example, 15 additional parking spaces would be needed to meet the City’s code; however, the site cannot accommodate additional parking spaces within its current limits. Some of the improvements to the existing building that would be necessary under this alternative include seismic retrofitting, restroom upgrades, addition of an elevator, replacement of the interior 150515 jb 0131441

23

NOT YET APPROVED

stairway, lead-based paint and asbestos removal, mechanical and electrical system upgrades, and installation of interior fire safety sprinklers and building insulation. In order to maximize preservation of the building’s historic features and reduce impacts to Cultural and historic resources, all retrofitting activities would need to reflect consideration of the historic character and quality of the building, including preservation of historic materials and visual compatibility of improvements. The Building Preservation Alternative would meet some of the project objectives by achieving compliance with many code requirements. However, it would not be feasible to comply with all code requirements. This alternative would not meet the project objectives of increasing the usable square footage onsite, reducing the need for offsite parking, or improving the bicycle and pedestrian environment. Because this alternative does not propose to demolish the existing historic building, the Building Preservation Alternative would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact on the historic resource relative to the proposed project. However, because this alternative would require extensive building repairs and retrofitting, the building’s historic character may be diminished and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. This alternative does not propose demolition or a subterranean parking lot, both of which would result in impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under the proposed project. The project would implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-8 to reduce all hazards and hazardous materials impacts to less-than-significant levels. The Building Preservation Alternative would further reduce these impacts and eliminate the need for implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-6 through HAZ-8. The Building Preservation Alternative would result in similar impacts to traffic and transportation as the proposed project but, unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not provide for adequate onsite parking. The EIR concluded that the Building Preservation Alternative is Environmentally Superior to the proposed project because it avoids or reduces some of the project’s significant effects. Feasibility of the Building Preservation Alternative: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible for the reasons that it does not substantially reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. The Building Preservation Alternative results in the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the proposed project and would not provide the potential project benefit of reducing the demand for off-site parking. Further this alternative would not support the project objectives of increasing the usable square footage and associated rental income of the site, enhancing the street frontage to create a pedestrian and bike-friendly environment. For all of the foregoing reasons, and for any of them individually, the City Council determines that the Building Preservation Alternative is infeasible and is hereby rejected. PTOD Alternative The PTOD Alternative assumes requires that the project site would be rezoned as part of the California Avenue PTOD Combining District, which allows for higher density residential uses within walking distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. The project site would be 150515 jb 0131441

24

NOT YET APPROVED

redeveloped as a mixed-use development with both multifamily residential and commercial uses. This alternative was considered and analyzed as an alternative that would meet the stated objective of generating increased rental income and supporting the vision of the City’s Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan, including the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development overlay and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The EIR concluded that the PTOD Alternative meets most of the project objectives by redeveloping the site with a building that meets current standards and increasing the usable square footage of the site. This alternative would also meet the objectives related to pedestrian and bicycle friendly features and the provision of adequate onsite parking. Under the PTOD Alternative, the impacts to Cultural and historic resources, hazardous materials, and traffic would be generally the same as under the proposed project. Impacts to the historic resource onsite would remain significant and unavoidable, and impacts related to traffic and hazardous materials would remain less than significant or significant but mitigable. Feasibility of Alternative C: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible for the reasons that it does not substantially reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. The PTOD Alternative results in the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the proposed project and would require the same mitigation measures as would be required under the proposed project. For all of the foregoing reasons, and for any of them individually, the City Council determines that the PTOD Alternative is infeasible and is hereby rejected. X.

GROWTH INDUCEMENT FINDINGS

As required by CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d), an EIR must discuss ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also, the EIR must discuss the characteristics of the project that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. Growth can be induced in a number of ways, such as through the elimination of obstacles to growth, through the stimulation of economic activity within the region, or through the establishment of policies or other precedents that directly or indirectly encourage additional growth. Induced growth would be considered a significant impact if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth would directly or indirectly have a significant effect on the environment. Residential development can induce growth by increasing the local population, which may lead to increased commercial activity, which may increase the local supply of jobs. Extension of public infrastructure or services can accommodate growth by removing constraints to development. A growth-inducing project directly or indirectly: ♦ Fosters economic or population growth or additional housing; ♦ Removes obstacles to growth; 150515 jb 0131441

25

NOT YET APPROVED

♦ Taxes community services or facilities to such an extent that new services or facilities

would be necessary; or

♦ Encourages or facilitates other activities that cause significant environmental effects.

The 2555 Park Boulevard project would provide additional office space in the City by increasing the usable office space by approximately 12,469 square feet. This increase in office space would accommodate additional employees and could indirectly induce a small amount of growth because some employees would seek housing and purchase foods and services in the area. Finding: The 2555 Park Boulevard project would not induce substantial growth in the project area or region. Explanation: The potential for growth inducement due to the increase in office space is not considered substantial. The increase in employment opportunities the project would provide would be insufficient to trigger noticeable changes in the housing market or demand for local goods and services. In addition, construction of the proposed project would be temporary and these short-term construction jobs are anticipated to be filled by workers who, for the most part, reside in the surrounding areas. XI.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FINDINGS

The City Council finds that the methodology used in the EIR to determine cumulative impacts complies with CEQA in that it assumed growth in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as well as considering other known development projects in the region, and it provides an analysis of potential for the 2555 Park Boulevard project to contribute to cumulative impacts in the project area. Finding: The City Council finds that the project would result in a less than considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts in the project area. Cultural and Historic Resources: Cumulative impacts to cultural resources may jeopardize the eligibility of one or more cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Other than the existing building onsite, the project would not impact other listed buildings or buildings with the potential to be listed in the project vicinity. Other examples of Mid-Century Modern architectural style are in the vicinity of the project. While it is not anticipated that a past, present, or reasonably foreseeable project would adversely impact these buildings, the City’s development history suggests that other buildings constructed in the early 1960s may be proposed for alteration or demolition. Many of these buildings have already been altered and may not be eligible for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR. The 2555 Park Boulevard project would not increase the likelihood of other projects to be proposed that would affect historic resources. As required for the 2555 Park Boulevard project and may be required during the City’s review of other projects with the potential to 150515 jb 0131441

26

NOT YET APPROVED

adversely affect historic resources, requirements to record historic features and information would preserve the knowledge of historic structures in the area. The proposed project’s contribution to potentially ongoing impacts to cultural and historic resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the proposed project have the potential to result in similar impacts related to hazardous materials as the proposed project, including the presence of contaminated groundwater and hazardous materials that could be released during demolition and remodeling. Other projects in the vicinity could also use hazardous materials. However, the majority of hazardous materials issues related to contaminated groundwater or hazardous building materials are sitespecific. Releases of trichloroethylene (TCE) from groundwater or air contaminants from demolished buildings would not result in a local or regional increase in air contaminants that could lead to health hazards. The established land use designations in the project vicinity do not indicate that use, transport, or exposure of hazardous materials would increase as the planning area is developed. The project would not contribute to cumulative increases in impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. Transportation and Traffic: In the cumulative condition, it is expected that some local roadways and intersections in the project vicinity would operate at unacceptable levels of service. However, addition of traffic generated by the 2555 Park Boulevard project would not significantly increase the average delay or volume/capacity ratios for any intersection. The proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative traffic scenario is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Explanation: The potential impacts of project activities are limited to site specific conditions and would not result in any cumulatively considerable contributions to cumulative impacts in the project vicinity or region. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The 2555 Park Boulevard EIR concluded that even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures and project alternatives, the project will cause the following significant unavoidable impact: Impact CUL-2: Demolition of the existing building at 2555 Park Boulevard, which is considered eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, would cause a significant impact to a historic resource and would eliminate an example of a major period of California history. The City of Palo Alto has considered and adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to this impact, which lessens the impact but does not entirely avoid or reduce it below a level of significance, as discussed in Section VIII of these Findings. 150515 jb 0131441

27

NOT YET APPROVED

The environmentally superior alternative (Building Preservation Alternative) would lessen some impacts of the proposed project, but would not avoid the Significant and Unavoidable impact of the project. Further, as described above in Section IX, the environmentally superior alternative is not feasible. The primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public as to the environmental effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance. CEQA recognizes and authorizes the approval of such projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or avoided. Before such a project can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a “statement of overriding considerations” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§15043 and 15093. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines §15093(b) requires that when a public agency approves a project that will result in the occurrence of significant and unavoidable impacts, the agency must “state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record.” The agency’s statement of overriding considerations must explain and justify the agency’s conclusion to approve such a project, setting forth the proposed project’s general social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the agency’s informed conclusion to approve the project. The following statement identifies why, in the City Council’s judgment, the benefits of the project as approved outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents included in the Record of Proceedings. The City Council finds that the significant and unavoidable impact previously identified and briefly explained above is acceptable because mitigation measures have been required to reduce this impact to the extent feasible, and on balancing the benefits to be realized by approval of the proposed project against the remaining environmental risks, the following economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the impacts and support approval of the proposed project. Accordingly the City Council recognizes that a significant and unavoidable impact would result from implementation of the proposed project. Having (1) adopted all feasible mitigation measures; (2) rejected the alternatives to the project as infeasible, as discussed above; (3) recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts; and (4) balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the significant and unavoidable effect, the City Council finds that the benefits outweigh and override the significant unavoidable effect for the reasons stated below. The City Council finds that the 2555 Park Boulevard project meets the following stated project objectives – which have substantial social, economic, policy and other public 150515 jb 0131441

28

NOT YET APPROVED

benefits – justifying its approval and implementation, notwithstanding the fact that not all environmental impacts were fully reduced below a level of significance: Implementation of the 2555 Park Boulevard project will provide for the following: ♦

Development of a new office building on the site that generates increased rental income and supports the vision of the City’s Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan, specifically Goal CACP-3 which calls for promoting Park Boulevard as a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship for small new companies; and supports related planning initiatives such as the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development overlay and Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.

♦

Replacement of the existing office building at the 2555 Park Boulevard site with a modern building that meets current standards for structural design, site and building accessibility, and hazardous materials.

♦

Replacement of the existing office building at the 2555 Park Boulevard site with an energy and water efficient office building.

♦

Doubling the usable square footage of a transit-accessible site by increasing the building height to three stories and providing parking at grade and underground.

♦

Creating a pedestrian and bicycle friendly street frontage with wide sidewalks, amenities, and street trees.

♦

Increasing onsite parking to reduce off-site parking demands associated with the office use at the site.

Balancing Competing Goals The City Council further finds that it is necessary to balance competing goals in approving the 2555 Park Boulevard project and the environmental documentation for the project. Not every environmental concern has been fully satisfied due to infeasibility and there is a need to satisfy competing concerns to some extent. The City Council has chosen to accept the significant and unavoidable environmental impact resulting from the 2555 Park Boulevard project because complete avoidance or reduction of the impact to a less than significant level is infeasible and not approving the project would unduly compromise other important economic, social, or other goal. The City Council finds and determines that the 2555 Park Boulevard project, the supporting environmental documentation, and the evidence in the administrative record as a whole provide for a positive balance of the competing goals and that the economic, fiscal, social, environmental, land-use and other benefits to be obtained by the project outweigh any remaining environmental and related potential significant impacts of the project.

150515 jb 0131441

29

NOT YET APPROVED

XIII.

CONCLUSION

The mitigation measures listed in conjunction with each of the findings set forth above, as implemented through the MMP, will eliminate or reduce to a less than significant level most adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project, except for the significant and unavoidable impact listed in Section XII above. Taken together, the Final EIR, the mitigation measures, and the MMP provide an adequate basis for approval of the 2555 Park Boulevard project. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

ATTEST:

APPROVED:

______________________________ City Clerk

_________________________________ Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________________ City Manager

_______________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney

150515 jb 0131441

_________________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment

30

ATTACHMENT E

2555 Park Boulevard Project Mitigation Monitoring Program INTRODUCTION Section 15097 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented. This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is intended to satisfy this requirement of the CEQA Guidelines as it relates to the 2555 Park Boulevard project (proposed project). This MMP would be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMP were developed in the EIR prepared for the proposed project, State Clearinghouse #2014042050. As noted above, the intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMP will provide for monitoring of mitigation measure implementation through the plan check process, construction monitoring and inspections, post-construction building inspections, and in the field identification and resolution of environmental concerns.

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The City of Palo Alto will coordinate monitoring activities and ensure appropriate documentation of mitigation measure implementation. The table below identifies each mitigation measure for the proposed project and the associated implementation, monitoring, timing and performance requirements. The MMP table presented on the following pages identifies: 1. the full text of each applicable mitigation measure; 2. the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure; 3. the timing of implementation of each mitigation measure including any ongoing

monitoring requirements; and

4. performance criteria by which to ensure mitigation requirements have been met. Following completion of the monitoring and documentation process, the final monitoring results will recorded and incorporated into the project file maintained by the City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment. It is noted that the mitigation measure numbering reflects the numbering used in EIR prepared for the project (Dudek 2014).

2555 Park Boulevard Project Mitigation Monitoring Program

Page 1 December 2014

2555 Park Boulevard Project

Mitigation Monitoring Program

2555 Park Boulevard Project Mitigation Monitoring Program

Page 12

December 2014

2555 Park Boulevard Project

Mitigation Monitoring Program

Intentionally Left Blank

2555 Park Boulevard Project Mitigation Monitoring Program

Page 13 December 2014

Attachment F ­

City of Palo Alto

(ID # 5749) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type:

Meeting Date: 4/29/2015

Summary Title: 2555 Park Boulevard Title: Request for Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Review of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Recommendation for EIR Certification for a Proposal by FGY Architects on Behalf of Campbell Avenue Portfolio LLC to Demolish an Existing 10,800 sq. ft. Two-story Mid-century Modern Office Building and Construct a new 24,466 sq. ft. Three-story Office Building with One Level of Below Grade Parking and a Roof Terrace in the Community Commercial (CC(2)) Zone District. The Architectural Review Board has Recommended Approval of the Application, Which Includes a Design Enhancement Exception Request to Allow Two Stair Towers and a Roof Top Canopy Structure to Exceed the Height Limit by 10 and 13 Feet Respectively. From: Russ Reich, Interim Planning Manager Lead Department: Planning & Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend City Council approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed project at 2555 Park Boulevard.

Executive Summary The P&TC is requested to review and recommend approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for a new 24,466 square foot (sf), three story office building on a 12,518 sf site. The Draft Environmental Impact report (DEIR) was reviewed by the P&TC on October 29, 2014. The P&TC comments, along with the comments of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Historic Resources Board (HRB), have been summarized in the attached FEIR (Attachment A). Responses to each of the comments have also been provided within the document. The discussion section of this staff report summarizes the commonly raised comments and the responses to those comments. The proposed project includes one level of below grade parking for 92 vehicles to meet the City of Palo Alto

Page 1

P&TC Packet page 1 of 59

parking demand for the new building, which would replace a 10,800 sf, two-story, mid-century modern office building. The existing building is over 50 years old and has been unaltered since its original construction. A historic analysis supports that the existing building is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. As the structure is proposed to be demolished, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to inform the public and responsible agencies of the potential adverse effects. P&TC Purview The project outlined above is subject to ARB review and Director Decision. However, because the FEIR must be certified by the City Council prior to any final decision whether to approve the project, the Council will also make the final decision on the Architectural Review application. The P&TC’s role is to review and consider recommending certification of the FEIR and provide its recommendation to the City Council. The ARB has recommended approval of the ARB application and DEE request, and its recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for a final decision on the project, along with the P&TC’s recommendation on the FEIR.

Background To initiate the EIR process, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) to solicit agency and public comments on the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the EIR. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building, which is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources; therefore, the project would result in a significant impact and an EIR has been prepared. Architectural Review Board The EIR scoping meeting was held during the April 17, 2014 ARB hearing, to provide the public an early opportunity to provide input and learn about the DEIR process. The ARB then conducted a preliminary review of the conceptual project on June 5, 2014, providing comments related to building massing, interior setback, traffic/parking, the tensile structure, and the second floor balcony railing. On October 16, 2014 the ARB reviewed and unanimously recommended the formal project and the DEIR, and asked for specific details to return to the ARB subcommittee to satisfy approval conditions (and this review will take place prior to the City Council action on the project). Planning and Transportation Commission On October 29, 2014 the P&TC reviewed the DEIR and provided comments. Those comments and responses are provided in the attached FEIR. The commonly raised issues, and responses to those issues, are summarized in the discussion section below. Historic Resources Board On November 19, 2014 the HRB reviewed the DEIR and provided comments. While the HRB review was not a required step in the Architectural Review process, the HRB’s input was sought City of Palo Alto

Page 2

P&TC Packet page 2 of 59

in conjunction with the Environmental document, since the only issue that cannot be mitigated is the demolition of an historic resource. The HRB’s comments and the environmental consultant’s responses are provided in the FEIR. Site Information The project site is a trapezoidal-shaped property on the northeast side of Park Boulevard, between Sherman and Grant Avenues. A location map showing the property, and surrounding properties, is attached (Attachment B). The total area of the site is 12,518 sf. The property is currently occupied by a two-story office building with at-grade parking. The existing “H”shaped building was built in 1964 in the Mid-Century Modern style of architecture. Since the building is 50 years old and does not appear to have been altered since its construction, it has been determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 3 (architecture). Under CEQA, this qualifies the structure as a historic resource. The property is zoned Community Commercial (CC(2)). Context The site’s Comprehensive Plan land use designation is Regional Community Commercial. The property’s primary street frontage is located on Park Boulevard. Typical uses in the immediate vicinity include multifamily residential and office uses. Slightly further to the north west of the site is the California Avenue Business District with a multitude of restaurants and retail businesses. The site is also located about 800 feet from the California Avenue Cal Train station. Adjacent uses to the northwest include a two-story, single-family residence and a two-story, professional office building. Adjacent uses to the northeast include office and other commercial uses in a single story structure. To the southwest, across Park Boulevard, is the four-story County Courthouse building surrounded by at-grade parking. To the southeast, across Grant Avenue, are a single-story office building and three-story, multifamily residential buildings. To the south, diagonally across from the intersection of Grant and Park Boulevard, is a surface level parking lot. Project Description The project includes the demolition of the existing two-story office building and the construction of a new 24,466 sf, three-story office building. A total of 92 parking spaces would be provided on site in both at grade and below grade facilities beneath the new building. Most of the parking spaces would be provided within mechanical lift systems to improve the efficiency of the garage space. Vehicle access to the parking areas would be provided from Grant Avenue. The curb cut along Park Boulevard would be removed to improve bicycle safety. The proposed building is a modern design with two horizontal board-form concrete finished stair towers, designed to anchor the building at each end of the site. The two-story glass office block would float between the open balconies. Three of the four balconies would have cable railings, while the fourth balcony above the main entry would have a vertical painted metal picket. Each of the four balconies would be exposed concrete. The building walls would be City of Palo Alto

Page 3

P&TC Packet page 3 of 59

stucco plaster with a curtain wall system using clear double glazed windows with aluminum frames. The south and east facing facades would have double height, vertical sun shade mullion fins, to reduce heat gain. The glass office block would float over a green wall with vines at the first level that would screen the at-grade parking. In front of the green wall would be a concrete planter with a wood plank bench adjacent to the public sidewalk. The building design also features a rooftop tensile structure to allow greater usage of the roof deck and to assist in keeping the building cooler in the hot summer months. This structure is the subject of the requested Design Enhancement Exception (DEE).

Discussion During the comment period on the DEIR the City received a total of 10 comment letters and multiple verbal comments during three public hearings. The FEIR includes master responses to commonly raised comments; five master responses provide a detailed discussion of particular project issues and environmental effects. These issues include concerns over the Function of the Grant-Park Intersection, Queuing onto Grant Avenue, the Design Enhancement Exceptions, Visitor and Guest Parking, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety. Grant-Park Intersection Function Some commenters raised concerns regarding the intersection of Grant Avenue and Park Boulevard; specifically, the concerns were about the difficulty for vehicles exiting Grant and circulating onto Park. Some neighbors felt the lack of visibility at the busy intersection would be exacerbated by the new project. Others asked that the City install a new stop sign at the intersection. This intersection was analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis, which found the intersection currently operates at acceptable levels, and the existing and proposed volume of traffic would not warrant a new stop sign at this location. Staff identified measures to improve visibility and pedestrian safety at this intersection. The project includes a new cross walk, signs and pavement striping in conjunction with the new project. The project also includes a new curb extension or “bulb-out” at the north-west corner of Grant and Park. This would ensure greater visibility by moving parked cars further from the intersection and providing protection for vehicles exiting Grant, allowing drivers to pull farther forward into the street within the width of the bulb-out. The applicant is also required to paint the bike lane through the intersection to assist drivers to pull forward to check for oncoming traffic. Queuing onto Grant Avenue Some commenters voiced concern about vehicle back-ups, or queuing, onto Grant Avenue as a result of drivers trying to park within the proposed project. Since the parking is provided within mechanical lift systems, there was concern that the time it may take to park a vehicle within the lift may cause cars to back up onto Grant Avenue and onto Park Boulevard. The question is understandable, considering most people are not familiar with mechanical parking lift systems. The traffic consultant prepared a supplemental analysis to study this concern and has City of Palo Alto

Page 4

P&TC Packet page 4 of 59

determined that backups onto Grant are highly unlikely. The lifts are designed to operate very quickly, taking only a minute or two to load a vehicle. The statistical analysis looked at the time it takes to load a vehicle at the busiest part of the day based on the anticipated peak demand. The resulting determination is that backups are not likely to occur. Design Enhancement Exception Some of the commenters expressed concern over the requested Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for height. The proposed DEE would allow two stair towers and a roof top canopy structure to exceed the allowable height by 11 feet and 13 feet respectively. The ARB has recommended approval of the DEE with the condition that the canopy structure be reduced in size. The Board had no objection to the aesthetics of the features. Privacy and shading were also listed as concerns. The roof top patio would be located away from the edges of the building such that people on the rooftop patio would not be able to stand at the edges of the building and be able to look down onto the neighboring properties. A shadow analysis was conducted to review existing and proposed shading of the neighboring single-family residence. The study found that the neighboring residence was already impacted to some degree by the existing privacy fence between the properties and the existing office building on the adjacent property. While the proposed project will cast additional shadow, design changes in the project have reduced the shadow impact to the adjacent residential neighbor from the shadow impact of the initial submittal. The revised design reduced the building height and increased the building setback. Visitor and Guest Parking Several commenters raised the concern over the availability of guest parking within the project. The proposed project meets the parking requirements of the code by providing all 92 required parking spaces on site. These are provided within mechanical lift systems to make the most efficient use of a limited amount of space. The mechanical lift systems require individual remotes for access to the spaces making the parking spaces within the building only accessible to building occupants. This scenario does not accommodate parking for guests, visitors, or nonbuilding occupants. This concern was raised early in the process and the EIR considered a parking exemption option that would eliminate some of the parking lifts and free up some of the machine parking lift spaces with regular parking spaces that could be used by guests and visitors. Elimination of these parking machine lifts would reduce the number of overall parking spaces within the building by ten spaces. To offset this reduction in parking spaces, the parking exemption scenario would be coupled with a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that would provide Go Passes for the building occupants. With close proximity to Cal-Train and VTA buses, the Go Pass strategy would likely reduce the overall number of vehicles traveling to and from the site. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Some respondents commented that the new vehicle trips generated by the project would lead to increased safety issues for cyclists and pedestrians. The concern is that there would be an increase in the bicycle-car interactions and that the cumulative increase in vehicle and bicycle City of Palo Alto

Page 5

P&TC Packet page 5 of 59

trips would lead to unsafe interactions with pedestrians. The desire for a stop sign at the Grant and Park intersection was again suggested. The traffic analysis determined that the project would not substantially increase the traffic on Park, and would therefore not substantially increase the potential for conflicts to occur. By eliminating the driveway into the project from Park, the number of locations in which a vehicle could cross over the bicycle lane on Park would be reduced thus improving bicycle safety. The project would also add a cross walk at this intersection improving pedestrian safety as well.

Timeline Application submitted EIR scoping meeting before the ARB Preliminary ARB meeting Release of the DEIR for the 45 day public comment period ARB meeting recommendation on AR and DEE P&TC meeting on DEIR P&TC meeting on FEIR Final EIR Certification by City Council Final Decision on the Proposed Project by City Council

September 9, 2013 April 17, 2014 June 5, 2014 September 5, 2014 October 16, 2014 October 29, 2014 April 29, 2015 June 1, 2015 June 1, 2015

Environmental Review The City has prepared a FEIR to provide the public and responsible agencies information about potential adverse effects on the local and regional environment associated with the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project. The FEIR is provided as Attachment A. The initial 45 day public comment period on the DEIR began on September 5, 2014 and ran through October 20, 2014. The public comment period was extended to November 19, 2014. The FEIR was prepared after input was received during public hearings of the ARB, the HRB, and the P&TC. The City began the environmental analysis with an Initial Study. The Initial Study determined that the project could have a significant impact on the environment, which triggered the requirement to prepare an EIR, and indicated that the EIR would need to discuss three environmental topics: Cultural and Historic Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Transportation and Traffic. For each of the three topics, the DEIR describes the existing environmental and regulatory conditions, presents the criteria used to determine whether an impact would be significant, analyses significant impacts identifies mitigation measures for each significant impact, and discusses the significance of impacts after mitigation has been applied. Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are all considered. Cultural and Historic Resources Two possible impacts were identified under the Cultural and Historic Resources section. One impact was identified as being significant and unavoidable. This impact is the demolition of the existing mid-century modern building that has been identified as being eligible for listing on the City of Palo Alto

Page 6

P&TC Packet page 6 of 59

California Register of Historic Resources. The loss of the historic resources would be considered a Significant and Unavoidable impact under CEQA. Mitigation measures are proposed, but these measures cannot reduce the level of significance to a less than significant level, therefore the City would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the proposed project. The other impact identified was the possible disturbance of archeological remains during excavation. With mitigation, this impact was less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials There were five areas of this section that were identified as being potentially significant. These are related to construction debris, the handling of existing hazardous materials within the building, disturbance of contaminated soils, the release of VOC from the contaminated ground water, and vapor intrusion from the contaminated ground water. Mitigation measures have been included that reduce the level of significance to a less than significant level. Transportation and Traffic The environmental analysis found no significant impacts related to traffic, and no mitigation measures are needed. However, it should be noted that the proposed project would provide ample parking, is a short distance from CalTrain, and an option is being analyzed that would provide a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program with CalTrain Go Passes as an incentive for transit use. The FEIR contains the DEIR, the comments received during the public review period, responses to the comments, and any revisions to the DEIR needed as a result of public agency and public comments. Attachments:  Attachment A: Final EIR (PDF)  Attachment B: Site Location Map (PDF)  Attachment C: CEQA Findings(PDF)  Attachment D: Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) (PDF)  Attachment E: 2555 Park Blvd. Project Plans (PDF)

City of Palo Alto

Page 7

P&TC Packet page 7 of 59

P&TC Packet page 8 of 59

Attachment A

Final EIR

2555 Park Blvd.

Hard copies to Planning & Transportation Commissioners, staff, libraries and Development Services Center Can be found on-line at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=46951

P&TC Packet page 9 of 59

P&TC Packet page 10 of 59

P&TC Packet page 11 of 59

P&TC Packet page 12 of 59

ATTACHMENT C ­

2555 Park Boulevard Project Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

SCH # 2014042050

April 2015

P&TC Packet page 13 of 59

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... 1   I. 

Overview and Introduction......................................................................................................... 1  

II. 

Procedural History........................................................................................................................ 1  

III.  

Statutory Requirements for Findings ......................................................................................... 3   Legal Effects of Findings................................................................................................. 4  

IV. 

Definitions...................................................................................................................................... 5  

V. 

Project Background....................................................................................................................... 6  

VI.  

Project Objectives and Description............................................................................................. 6   Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. 6   Project Description........................................................................................................... 6  

VII. 

Record of Proceedings.................................................................................................................. 7  

VIII.  

General Findings ........................................................................................................................... 8   Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant ........................................................ 8   Significant and Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant

With Implementation of Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 14   Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ......................................................................... 20  

IX.  

Project Alternatives Findings .................................................................................................... 21   Feasibility of Project Alternatives ................................................................................ 21  

X. 

Growth Inducement Findings ................................................................................................... 25  

XI. 

Cumulative Impacts Findings ................................................................................................... 26  

XII.  

Statement of Overriding Considerations ................................................................................. 27   Balancing Competing Goals ......................................................................................... 29  

XIII. 

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 29  

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

i

P&TC Packet page 14 of 59

April 2015

I.

OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION

This Statement of Findings is made with respect to approval of a Major Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception for the 2555 Park Boulevard project and states the findings of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) relating to the potentially significant environmental effects of the project. The project applicant, Tarlton Properties, has requested that the City take the following actions: 1. Certification of an Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. 2. Approval of Major Architectural Review. 3. Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception. Approval of the Major Architectural Review and other requested entitlements constitutes the project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section (§) 21000 et seq.) (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines § 15378, and these determinations of the City Council.

II.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designates land for Community Commercial development; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and construct a new 24,466 square foot office building and onsite parking at 2555 Park Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) on April 4, 2014; prepared a Draft EIR and released it for public comment in August 2014; received public comments on the Draft EIR until November 19, 2014, including at a public hearing held before the Architectural Review Board on October 16, 2014, a public hearing held before the Planning and Transportation Commission on October 29, 2014, and a public hearing held before the Historic Resources Board on November 19, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission gave notice of a public hearing to consider and provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Final EIR and the 2555 Park Boulevard project, and a public hearing was held before the Planning and Transportation Commission on April 29, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City Council gave notice of a public hearing to consider and act upon the Final EIR for the 2555 Park Boulevard project, and a public hearing was held before the City Council on DATE, 2015; and WHEREAS, after holding public hearings, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR as prepared for the project (which includes the NOP and Initial Study dated April 4, 2014, the Draft EIR dated August 2014, the Final EIR dated April 2015), the

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

1

P&TC Packet page 15 of 59

April 2015

comments of the public, both oral and written, and all written materials in the record connected therewith; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public process described above for the project, the City Council certified the Final EIR and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program, findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations, and approved the requested entitlements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council as follows: 1. The foregoing statements of procedural history are correct and accurate. 2. The Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Environmental Impact Ordinance, codified in Title 11 of the City’s Municipal Code. 3. The Final EIR was presented to and reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Final EIR was prepared under the supervision of the City and reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council has reviewed the Final EIR, and bases the findings stated below on such review and other substantial evidence in the record. 4. The City finds that the Final EIR considers a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, sufficient to foster informed decision making, public participation and a reasoned choice. Thus, the alternatives analysis in the EIR is sufficient to carry out the purposes of such analysis under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 5. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as complete, adequate and in full compliance with CEQA and as providing an adequate basis for considering and acting upon the 2555 Park Boulevard project and makes the following specific findings with respect thereto. 6. The City Council agrees with the characterization of the Final EIR with respect to all impacts initially identified as “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the Final EIR. This finding does not apply to impacts identified as significant and unavoidable or significant or potentially significant that are reduced to a less than significant level by mitigation measures included in the Final EIR. The disposition of each of those impacts and the mitigation measures adopted to reduce them are addressed specifically in the findings below. 7. All mitigation measures in the Final EIR are adopted and incorporated into the 2555 Park Boulevard project. 8. The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) includes all mitigation measures adopted with respect to the project and explains how and by whom they will be implemented and enforced. 9. The mitigation measures and the MMP have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the Major Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception and have thus become part of and limitations upon the entitlements conferred by the Major Architectural Review, Design Enhancement Exception and other project approvals. 2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

2

P&TC Packet page 16 of 59

April 2015

10. The descriptions of the impacts in these findings are summary statements. Reference should be made to the Final EIR for a more complete description. 11. The Planning Division is directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk within five (5) working days in accordance with CEQA §21152(a) and CEQA Guidelines §15094.

III.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS

This Statement of Findings addresses the environmental effects associated with the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project, located in the City of Palo Alto on APN 124-29-011 located at 2555 Park Boulevard. This Statement of Findings is made pursuant to CEQA §§21081 and 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines §15091. Significant effects of the 2555 Park Boulevard project were identified in the Draft EIR. CEQA §21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091 require that the Lead Agency prepare written findings for identified significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. Less than significant effects (without mitigation) of the project were also identified in the Draft EIR and Initial Study. CEQA does not require that the Lead Agency prepare written findings for less than significant effects. CEQA requires that the Lead Agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur with implementation of the project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required, however, where substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with another agency. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines §15091 states: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

3

P&TC Packet page 17 of 59

April 2015

(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. The “changes or alterations” referred to in §15091(a)(1) above, that are required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of the project, may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines §15370, including: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Legal Effects of Findings To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City of Palo Alto hereby binds itself to implementing or ensuring the project applicant implements these measures. These findings, in other words, constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City Council formally approves the 2555 Park Boulevard project. CEQA requires that when a public agency has made the findings under CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1) relative to an EIR, the public agency must also adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions and mitigation measures that will avoid significant impacts. The mitigation measures required of the 2555 Park Boulevard project are identified in the MMP. The MMP is adopted concurrently with these findings as required by CEQA §21081.6(a)(1), and will be implemented throughout construction and operation of the project. The Planning and 2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

4

P&TC Packet page 18 of 59

April 2015

Community Environment Department will use the MMP to track and enforce compliance with all mitigation measures. The MMP will remain available for public review during the compliance period.

IV.

DEFINITIONS

The following definitions apply where the subject words or acronyms are used in these findings: “ARB” means the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. “ACM” means asbestos-containing material. “BAAQMD” means the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. “Cal-OSHA” means California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. “City Council” means the City of Palo Alto City Council. “CEQA” means the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.). “Comprehensive Plan” means the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as adopted in 2007 with subsequent amendments. “Condition” means a Condition of Approval adopted by the City in connection with approval of the project. “City” means the City of Palo Alto. “Draft EIR” means the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated August 2014 for the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project. “DTSC” means the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “EIR” means environmental impact report. “Environmental Impact Ordinance” means the City of Palo Alto Environmental Impact Ordinance, as codified in Title 11 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. “EPA” means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Final EIR” means the Final EIR as prepared for the project (which includes the NOP and Initial Study dated April 4, 2014, the Draft EIR dated August 2014, the Final EIR dated April 2015). “HASP” means Health and Safety Plan.

“HRB” means the City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board.

“LCM” means lead-containing material.

“MMP” means the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. “NOP” means Notice of Preparation of an EIR. “P&TC” means the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission. “PCE” means the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department. 2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

5

P&TC Packet page 19 of 59

April 2015

“Project” means the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project.

“PTOD” means Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development.

“RWQCB” means the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

“SMP” means Site Mitigation Plan.

“Zoning Ordinance” means the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, including all amendments thereto.

V.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The project would demolish the existing 10,800-square-foot building at 2555 Park Boulevard and construct a new 24,466 square foot office building and onsite parking. The existing building was constructed in 1964 and appears eligible for inclusion in the California Register under Criteria 3. The existing and proposed office use is consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site.

VI.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION

Project Objectives As reported in the Draft EIR, the applicant’s stated objectives of the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project include: 1. Redevelop the 2555 Park Boulevard site with a safe, healthy, and energy-efficient building that meets current standards for structural design, site and building accessibility, and hazardous materials. 2. Develop a new office building on the site that generates increased rental income and supports the vision of the City’s Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan, specifically Goal CACP-3, which calls for promoting Park Boulevard as a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship for small new companies and supports related planning initiatives such as the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development overlay and Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. 3. Increase the usable square footage of a transit-accessible site by increasing the building height and providing parking at grade and underground. 4. Create a pedestrian and bicycle friendly street frontage with wide sidewalks, amenities, and street trees. 5. Provide adequate parking to ensure the project is fully parked on site.

Project Description The proposed project would involve the demolition of an existing two-story, 10,800-square-foot general office building and 28 surface parking spaces, and the construction of a new three-story, 24,466-square-foot office building with a roof deck and 92 parking spaces. A conceptual site plan of the proposed project is shown in Draft EIR Figure 2.4, and conceptual renderings are shown in Draft EIR Figure 2.5. 2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

6

P&TC Packet page 20 of 59

April 2015

A complete description of the project as proposed by the project applicant is provided in Section 2.4 of the Draft EIR, as modified in the Final EIR.

VII.

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

In accordance with CEQA §21167.6(e), the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the 2555 Park Boulevard project includes, without limitation, the following documents:  The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the project;  All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the NOP (provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR);  The Draft EIR (August 2014) for the project;  All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the Draft EIR;  All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the Project, in addition to timely comments on the Draft EIR;  The Final EIR (April 2015) for the project, including comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments;  Documents cited or referenced in the Draft and Final EIRs;  The project MMP;  All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the project and all documents cited or referred to therein;  All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the project;  All documents submitted to the City (including the P&TCand City Council) by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the project;  Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the project;  Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings and public hearings;  The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and all environmental documents prepared in connection with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan;  The City of Palo Alto Environmental Impact Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance (City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 11 and Title 18), and all other City Code provisions cited in materials prepared by or submitted to the City;

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

7

P&TC Packet page 21 of 59

April 2015

 Any and all resolutions and/or ordinances adopted by the City regarding the project, and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions;  Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations;  Any documents cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and  Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by CEQA §21167.6(e). The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the project, even if not every document was formally presented to the City Council, P&TC or City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the project. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City Council was aware in approving the 2555 Park Boulevard project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.) Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to City staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council’s decisions relating to approval of the 2555 Park Boulevard project. (See Public Resources Code §21167.6(e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries c. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155.) The official custodian of the record is the Planning and Community Environment Director, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301.

VIII. GENERAL FINDINGS Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all impacts identified as “no impact” or “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the Final EIR. This finding applies to the following impacts determined to be “less than significant” based on the analysis in the Initial Study (circulated with the NOP and provided in Appendix A to the Draft EIR) or in the Draft EIR. Some impacts that were identified in the Initial Study as being “potentially significant” were later determined through the analysis in the Draft EIR to be “less than significant.” Aesthetics Substantially Damage Scenic Resources along a Scenic Highway Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and Its Surroundings Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Public View or View Corridor

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

8

P&TC Packet page 22 of 59

April 2015

Violate Existing Comprehensive Plan Policies Regarding Visual Resources Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Which Would Adversely Affect Day or Nighttime Views in the Area Substantially Shadow Public Open Space (Other Than Public Streets and Adjacent Sidewalks) Between 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. from September 21 to March 21 Agriculture and Forestry Convert Prime, Unique, or Important Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use Conflict with Agricultural Zoning or a Williamson Act Contract Conflict with Forest Land or Timberland Zoning Result in Loss or Conversion of Forest Land Cause Other Changes to the Existing Environment Which Could Result in Conversion of Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use Air Quality Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation Contribute to Direct or Indirect Operational Emissions Exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Criteria Air Pollutants of 80 Pounds Per Day and/or 15 Tons Per Year for Nitrogen Oxides, Reactive Organic Gases, and Fine Particulate Matter Contribute to Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Levels of Toxic Air Contaminants Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People Fail to Implement Applicable Construction Emission Control Measures Recommended in Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines Biological Resources Adversely Affect Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species Adversely Affect Riparian Habitat, Federally Protected Wetlands, or Other Sensitive Natural Community Conflict with Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources, Including the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance Interfere Substantially with Wildlife Movement or Native Wildlife Nursery Sites

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

9

P&TC Packet page 23 of 59

April 2015

Cultural and Historic Resources Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Local Cultural Resource Recognized by City Council Resolution Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Geologic Feature Disturb Human Remains, Including Those Interred Outside Formal Cemeteries Geology and Soils Exposure to Rupture of an Earthquake Fault, Seismic Ground Shaking, Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Liquefaction, or Landslides Create Substantial Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Cause Substantial Siltation Exposure to Unstable Earth Conditions or Changes in Geologic Substructures Located on Expansive Soils Exposure to Geologic and Geomorphological Hazards Located on Soils Incapable of Adequately Supporting the Use of Septic Tanks or Alternative Waste Water Disposal Systems, If Sewers Are Not Available Hazards and Hazardous Materials Create Hazardous Emissions or Waste or Use Hazardous Substances Within OneQuarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School Construct a School on a Property Subject to Hazards Located on a Site Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 Expose Residents or Workers to Risks Associated with Public or Private

Airport/Airstrip

Expose People or Structures to Risks Involving Wildland Fires Interfere with an Emergency Response Plan Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or Environment through Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials During Project Operation Hydrology and Water Quality Expose People or Structures to Flood Risks from a Levee or Dam Failure Adversely Affect Groundwater Supplies, Recharge, and Existing Flow Patterns Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Alter the Existing Onsite Drainage Pattern in a Manner Which Would Result in Substantial Erosion or Siltation On- or Off Site Alter the Existing Onsite Drainage Pattern in a Manner Which Would Substantially Increase Surface Runoff or Result in Flooding On- or Off Site

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

10

P&TC Packet page 24 of 59

April 2015

Create or Contribute Runoff Water Which Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff Place Structures within a 100-year Flood Hazard Area Expose People or Structures to Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow Cause Stream Bank Instability Land Use and Planning Physical Division or Disruption of an Established Community Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect Conflict with Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Type or Intensity of Existing or Planned Land Use in the Area Create a Land Use Incompatibility Conflict with Established Residential, Recreational, Educational, Religious, or Scientific Uses of an Area

Convert Prime, Unique, or Important Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use

Mineral Resources Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource Valuable to the Region or State Result in the Loss of Availability of a Locally-Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site Noise Expose Residents to Noise Levels in Excess of Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance Standards Cause a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Above Levels Existing without the Project Expose People to Excessive Noise Associated with a Public Airport or Public Use Airport Expose People to Excessive Noise Associated with a Private Airstrip Cause the Average 24 Hour Noise Level to Increase by 5.0 dB or More in an Existing Residential Area Cause the Average 24 Hour Noise Level to Increase by 3.0 dB or More in an Existing Residential Area where the Average 24 Hour Noise Level Currently Exceeds 60 dB Result in Indoor Noise Levels for Residential Development to Exceed an Average 24 Hour Noise Level of 45 dB

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

11

P&TC Packet page 25 of 59

April 2015

Result in Instantaneous Noise Levels of Great than 50 dB in Bedrooms or 55 dB in Other Rooms in Areas with an Exterior Average 24 Hour Noise Level of 60 dB or Greater Generate Construction Noise Exceeding the Daytime Background Ambient Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors by 10 dBA or More Population and Housing Induce Substantial Population Growth, Directly or Indirectly Displace Housing or People Create a Substantial Imbalance between Employed Residents and Jobs Public Services Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New or Physically Altered Governmental Facilities or Interfere with the Service Ratios or Performance Objectives of Local Fire Protection, Police Protection, School, Park, or Other Public Facilities Recreation Contribute to the Substantial Physical Deterioration of Existing Recreational Facilities Create an Adverse Physical Effect on the Environment Due to the Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities Transportation and Circulation Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Design Feature or Incompatible Uses Result in a Change in Air Traffic Patterns Exceed the Capacity of the Existing Circulation System, Including Intersections, Streets, Highways and Freeways, Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths, and Mass Transit Conflict with an Applicable Congestion Management Program Result in Inadequate Emergency Access Result in Inadequate Parking Capacity that Impacts Traffic Circulation and Air Quality Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Supporting Alternative Transportation Cause a Local Intersection to Deteriorate Below LOS D and Cause an Increase in the Average Stopped Delay for Critical Movements by Four Seconds or More and the Critical Volume/Capacity Ratio Value to Increase by 0.01 or More Cause a Local Intersection Already Operating at LOS E or F to Deteriorate in the Average Stopped Delay for the Critical Movements by Four Seconds or More Cause a Regional Intersection to Deteriorate from LOS E or Better to LOS F or Cause Critical Movement Delay at an Intersection Operating at LOS F to Increase by Four Seconds or More and the Critical Volume/Capacity Ratio Value to Increase by 0.01 or More

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

12

P&TC Packet page 26 of 59

April 2015

Cause a Freeway Segment to Operate at LOS F or Contribute Traffic in Excess of 1% of Segment Capacity to Freeway Segment Operating at LOS F Cause any Change in Traffic that Would Increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment Index by 0.1 or More Cause Queuing Impacts Based on a Comparative Analysis between Design Queue Length and Available Queue Storage Capacity Impede Development or Function of Planned Pedestrian or Bicycle Facilities Impede Operation of Transit System as Result of Congestion Utilities and Service Systems Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements of the Applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Require or Result in the Construction of New or Expansion of Existing Water or Wastewater Treatment Facilities Require or Result in the Construction of New or Expansion of Existing Storm Water Drainage Facilities Require New or Expanded Entitlements to Provide Water Service to the Project Result in a Determination by the Applicable Wastewater Treatment Provider that It Has Inadequate Capacity to Serve the Project’s Demand in Addition to the Provider’s Existing Commitments Generate an Amount of Solid Waste that Would Exceed the Permitted Capacity of the Applicable Landfill Violate Federal, State, and Local Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste Result in the Substantial Physical Deterioration of a Public Facility Due to Increased Use as a Result of the Project Cumulative Impacts Generate Noise Levels in Excess of General Plan and Community Plan Standards or Cause a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Pollutant for Which the Project Region is Non-Attainment Generate Substantial Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Directly or Indirectly Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Contribute to a Cumulative Excess of Population Beyond Local or Regional Projections Contribute to Cumulative Loss of Cultural and Historic Resources Listed or Eligible for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources Contribute to Cumulative Increase in Exposure to Hazards and Hazardous Materials

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

13

P&TC Packet page 27 of 59

April 2015

Cause an Increase in Delay or the Volume/Capacity Ratio that Would Exceed Local Traffic Standards in the Cumulative Traffic Scenario

Significant and Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant With Implementation of Mitigation Measures The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all impacts initially identified as “significant” or “potentially significant” that are reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15091(a), a specific finding is made for each impact and its associated mitigation measures in the discussions below. This section includes impacts that were evaluated in the Initial Study and determined to be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study as well as impacts evaluated in the EIR. Cultural and Historic Resources Impact CUL-1: Given the site’s location in an area identified as having “moderate” archaeological sensitivity, there is limited potential for inadvertent impact to presently unknown subsurface encountered archaeological deposits that may be encountered during earth moving activities onsite. Such deposits may be important examples of a major period of California pre-history. Therefore, impacts would be significant. Mitigation Measure: MM-CUL-1: In the event that subsurface cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity shall be stopped and the City of Palo Alto contacted. A qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Palo Alto, shall be retained to evaluate the archaeological discovery for its eligibility for local and state listing. The discovery or disturbance of any identified cultural resource shall be reported as appropriate to the City of Palo Alto and the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation form 523 (archaeological sites). Measures prescribed by these groups and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City of Palo Alto’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included in the MMP will ensure that the potential for the project to adversely impact archaeological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. Explanation: This mitigation measure will ensure that in the event cultural resources are discovered, proper evaluation, handling, and treatment measures as dictated by

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

14

P&TC Packet page 28 of 59

April 2015

federal, State, and local regulations are implemented, and the potential for identification and listing are evaluated by qualified individuals. Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: Due to the use of potentially hazardous substances during construction of the proposed project, the project could expose people or the environment to a release of hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Hazardous materials shall not be disposed of or released onto the ground, the underlying groundwater, or any surface water. Totally enclosed containment shall be provided for all trash. All construction waste, including trash and litter, garbage, other solid waste, petroleum products and other potentially hazardous materials, shall be removed to a waste facility permitted to treat, store, or dispose of such materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: A project-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and Site Mitigation Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by the project applicant and approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to issuance of grading or building permits from the City of Palo Alto. The HASP and SMP shall be implemented during construction activities. The SMP shall outline strategies for managing contaminated soil and groundwater encountered during project construction and shall discuss the following:  Results of previous environmental investigations at the site  Anticipated contaminants of concern to be encountered  The procedures and protocols of determining of the extent of the impact of soil gas from the former dry cleaner  Development plans  Likely disposal fate of excavated material based on excavation plan and contaminants of concerns identified, if any  Dewatering contingency options  Stormwater management options  Monitoring and soil management procedures  Regulatory considerations  Planned procedures and notifications. The SMP shall include provisions for hazardous substance management, handling, storage, disposal, and emergency response. Hazardous materials spill kits shall be maintained on site for small spills.

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

15

P&TC Packet page 29 of 59

April 2015

Copies of the HASP and SMP shall be maintained on site during demolition, excavation, and construction of the proposed project. All workers on the project site shall be familiarized with these documents. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified above and included in the MMP will ensure that the potential for the project to result in hazardous material exposure during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that hazardous materials are controlled and disposed of properly during construction. Hazardous material handling and disposal protocol will be listed in a HSP and a SMP, which will be available to construction workers. These mitigation measures will reduce the potential for people or the environment to be exposed to hazardous construction materials on- or offsite to less than significant levels. Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant. Impact HAZ-2: Due to the potential for the existing building to contain asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint/coatings, demolition of the building could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment, which would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: A scope of work for asbestos abatement and guidelines for proper asbestos removal shall be prepared following local, state, and federal regulations for any necessary removal of asbestos in accordance with the ProTech survey. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) shall be notified at least 10 working days prior to any asbestos removal. Monitoring during abatement shall be conducted to ensure regulatory compliance. Construction teams working with ACMs must possess a handling license and a certificate of registration issued by the California Department of Industrial Relations-Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). All abatement workers shall have annual Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) training. The minimum level of training that construction workers must complete also includes annual EPA Asbestos Operations and Maintenance training. Only particular types of equipment and methods of demolition are permitted under State and Federal regulations. ACMs and LCMs are wetted down to prevent the formation of dust within (and outside of) the project site, or they are vacuumed up with a high-efficiency particulate absorption (HEPA) machine to ensure the containment of 95% of particles 0.3 microns (10-6 meters) or larger in diameter (HEPA Corporation 2004). Prior to permitting demolition workers and other construction workers to enter the site, the hazardous waste construction team shall inspect the site for final clean-up. Final clean-up of ACMs shall be conducted by visual inspection and phase contrast microscopy or transmission electron microscopy. Final clean-up of LCMs shall be conducted by visual inspection and HEPA vacuuming of suspect dust and debris (SCA

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

16

P&TC Packet page 30 of 59

April 2015

Environmental 2012). Demolition shall not commence until the removal of ACMs and LCMs from the site has been confirmed by a certified contractor. Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Every contractor/employer who performs work at project site shall assess California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) worker protection rules, California Department of Public Health certification requirements, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, and state and federal disposal requirements. Any demolition activities likely to disturb lead-based paint/coatings or lead containing materials (LCMs) shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead-related construction work, and all lead-related work shall be performed in accordance with the U.S. Office of Housing and Urban Development guidelines (ProTech 2013). Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) must be disposed of in accordance with the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and LCMs must be handled in accordance with the CalOSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1) and disposed of in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for hazardous waste. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures required under these guidelines and regulations. Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: A qualified environmental specialist shall inspect the site buildings for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and other hazardous building materials prior to demolition. If found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resource, Section 42160–42185), particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling for the removal of mercury switches, PCBcontaining ballasts, and refrigerants. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to the release of ACMs and LCMs into the environment would be reduced to a less than significant level. Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that ACMs, LCMs, and related hazardous materials are removed from the project site in compliance with federal, state, and local standards which prescribe handling protocols to ensure ACMs and LCMs are not released to the air. Project construction will not be permitted to commence until registered professionals have confirmed the removal of ACMs and LCMs from the project site. Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant. Impact HAZ-3: Due to the potential for contaminated soils to be encountered, disposed of during excavation, construction activities could expose individuals or the 2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

17

P&TC Packet page 31 of 59

April 2015

environment to hazardous materials should contaminated soils be handled improperly. Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Soil samples shall be collected at discrete depth intervals to characterize impacted areas. Impacted soils identified by this sampling shall be segregated and managed per BAAQMD Rule 8-40, which regulates aeration of contaminated soil, as applicable, and in accordance with state and federal waste regulations. Excavated soil, particularly in the vicinity of the former dry cleaner, shall be screened during excavation using a field photoionization detector. Soil thought to be potentially contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) shall be segregated and characterized. This soil may potentially be profiled as listed dry cleaner wastes for the purposes of proper disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Mitigation Measure HAZ-7: A dewatering plan and detailed groundwater extraction design shall be prepared for the proposed project. The dewatering plan shall outline procedures that will be used to lower groundwater levels during excavation and specify the number of groundwater dewatering wells with dedicated pumps that will be installed around the site perimeter throughout project duration. Extracted groundwater can go to a Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW) or to the storm drain network in accordance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A plan for groundwater discharge pre-treatment shall be developed and kept on-hand should implementation be necessary. The detailed groundwater extraction design shall outline chemical testing and thresholds as required by the POTW or NPDES permit. It shall also provide the dewatering systems layout and well construction information, including depths, screened intervals, and pump settings. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to contaminated soils would be reduced to a less than significant level. Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that contaminated soils and groundwater are removed from the project site and disposed of in an appropriate treatment facility. Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant. Impact HAZ-4: Groundwater contaminated with VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons may be encountered during excavation and could be released into the environment, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Soil samples shall be collected at discrete depth intervals to characterize impacted areas. Impacted soils identified by this sampling shall be segregated and managed per BAAQMD Rule 8-40, which regulates aeration of contaminated soil, as applicable, and in accordance with state and federal waste regulations. Excavated soil, particularly in the vicinity of the former dry cleaner, shall be screened during excavation using a field photoionization detector. Soil thought to be 2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

18

P&TC Packet page 32 of 59

April 2015

potentially contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) shall be segregated and characterized. This soil may potentially be profiled as listed dry cleaner wastes for the purposes of proper disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Mitigation Measure HAZ-7: A dewatering plan and detailed groundwater extraction design shall be prepared for the proposed project. The dewatering plan shall outline procedures that will be used to lower groundwater levels during excavation and specify the number of groundwater dewatering wells with dedicated pumps that will be installed around the site perimeter throughout project duration. Extracted groundwater can go to a Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW) or to the storm drain network in accordance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A plan for groundwater discharge pre-treatment shall be developed and kept on-hand should implementation be necessary. The detailed groundwater extraction design shall outline chemical testing and thresholds as required by the POTW or NPDES permit. It shall also provide the dewatering systems layout and well construction information, including depths, screened intervals, and pump settings. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified above and included in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to contaminated groundwater would be reduced to a less than significant level. Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that contaminated soils and groundwater are removed from the project site and disposed of in an appropriate treatment facility. Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant. Impact HAZ-5: Although it is unlikely that vapor intrusion from contaminated groundwater would create a significant hazard, there is the potential for the release of hazardous materials during operation of the proposed project. Therefore, the impact would be significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ-8: The building plans shall include installation of a Certco Corflex or similar waterproofing/vapor barrier membrane to prevent the migration of vapor from groundwater into the indoor air of the basement parking garage. The building plans shall also demonstrate that garage ventilation equipment is sufficient to meet the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2011 Standard for Parking Structures (NFPA 88A) to continuously provide a minimum of two air changes per hour. The applicant shall monitor indoor air quality in the basement garage to confirm that the waterproofing/vapor barrier membrane and garage ventilation effectively maintain indoor air VOC concentrations at levels not harmful to health (i.e., below appropriate environmental screen levels). An initial round of sampling shall be conducted upon construction completion and quarterly for the first year of operation. For each sampling event, a minimum of two 24-hour integrated indoor air samples shall be collected from the basement garage along with one 24-hour integrated air sample from an exterior location representative of ambient/background conditions. Sampling and analytical 2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

19

P&TC Packet page 33 of 59

April 2015

procedures shall be conducted in accordance with the Department of Toxic Substance Control Vapor Intrusion Guidance (DTSC 2011). Results from the indoor air sampling shall be compared to established regulatory indoor air thresholds for residential and commercial use. The data shall be evaluated following the 1-year monitoring period. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to vapor intrusion during project operation would be reduced to a less than significant level. Explanation: This mitigation measure will limit migration of hazardous vapor into basement parking garage and ensure concentrations of hazardous vapors in parking garage and office building remain below applicable standards and do pose a health risk. Air quality monitoring will ensure that vapor levels compatible with existing regulations.

the the not are

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all Impacts initially identified as “significant” or “potentially significant” that are not reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and are therefore determined to be “significant and unavoidable” impacts of the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15091(a), a specific finding is made for each impact and its associated mitigation measures in the discussions below. Cultural and Historic Resources Impact CUL-2: Demolition of the existing building at 2555 Park Boulevard, which is considered eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, would cause a significant impact to a historic resource and would eliminate an example of a major period of California history. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: The project proponent shall document the affected historical resource and its setting. Generally, this documentation shall be in accordance with Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II, which includes: 1. Drawings: select existing drawings, where available; should be photographed with large-format negatives or photographically reproduced on Mylar. 2. Photographs: photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and interior views, or historic views, where available. 3. Written data: history and description in narrative or outline format. HABS material standards regarding reproducibility, durability, and size shall be met. Copies of the photographs and report shall be presented to repositories such as the Palo Alto Historical Association Archives at the Palo Alto Public Library, the

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

20

P&TC Packet page 34 of 59

April 2015

Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University, and/or the California State Library. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which reduce the severity of a significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. However, implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included in the MMP will not reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact remains Significant and Unavoidable as discussed in Section XII of these findings. Explanation: This mitigation measure will create records of existing drawings, the current condition of the building, and the current condition of any historic views. The mitigation measure will create a written record of the history of the existing building to be submitted to the appropriate repositories for historical records, thereby ensuring that this impact is mitigated to the extent feasible. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.

IX.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES FINDINGS

Feasibility of Project Alternatives Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such project[s].” Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an agency decision-making body may ultimately conclude that a potentially feasible alternative is actually infeasible. (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001-1002.) CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(1) provides that among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are “site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.” Grounds for a conclusion of infeasibility might be the failure of an alternative to fully satisfy project objectives deemed to be important by decision-makers, or the fact that an alternative fails to promote policy objectives of concern to such decision-makers. (Id. at pp. 992, 1000-1003.) It is well established under CEQA that an agency may reject alternatives based on economic infeasibility. (Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage v. City and County of San Francisco (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 893, 913-914; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 774; Association of Irritated Residents 2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

21

P&TC Packet page 35 of 59

April 2015

v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1399-1400; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1510.) In addition, the definition of feasibility encompasses “desirability” to the extent that an agency’s determination of infeasibility represents a reasonable balancing of competing economic, environmental, social, and technological factors supported by substantial evidence. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410; 417.) Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of a proposed project as mitigated, the decision-makers may reject the alternative for such reasons. CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f) states that the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Further, CEQA Guidelines §15126(a) requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives that would “feasibly obtain most of the basic project objectives” but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. CEQA case law has further indicated that the lead agency has the discretion to determine how many alternatives constitute the requisite “reasonable range” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 566), and that an EIR need not present alternatives that are incompatible with fundamental project objectives (Save San Francisco Bay Association vs. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 908). Thus, the project objectives described above in section VI of these findings provided the framework for defining the possible alternatives. Based upon guidance contained in the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law as well as the project objectives, the Draft EIR considered two project alternatives to the 2555 Park Boulevard project: the Building Preservation Alternative and the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Alternative. The Draft EIR also considered the no project alternative as required by CEQA. The City Council finds that that a good-faith effort was made to evaluate a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the project and could feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the project, even when the alternatives might impede the attainment of the project’s objectives and might be more costly. Alternatives were considered that would result in a substantial reduction or elimination of identified significant cultural resources and hazards and hazardous materials impacts. However, mitigation measures would continue to be required for each of these impacts under either of the two project alternatives. The Building Preservation Alternative studied in the EIR would also reduce, but not to a level of less than significant or entirely avoid, the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources. No Project Alternative CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(1) provides the following direction relative to the No Project Alternative: The specific alternative of “no project” shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project.

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

22

P&TC Packet page 36 of 59

April 2015

The No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project would not be constructed and that the existing 10,800-square-foot general office building and surface parking for 28 cars would remain. No demolition would occur, and there would be no change in use or increase in office space. The EIR concluded that this alternative would avoid the Cultural and historic resource and hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project. No impacts to transportation and traffic would occur. The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the proposed project objectives. Feasibility of the No Project Alternative: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it meets none of the project objectives. Specifically, it does not support the project objectives of increasing the usable square footage and associated rental income of the site, enhancing the street frontage to create a pedestrian and bike-friendly environment, or meeting current building standards. For all of the foregoing reasons, and for any of them individually, the City Council determines that the No Project Alternative is infeasible and is hereby rejected. Building Preservation Alternative The Building Preservation Alternative assumes that the existing building is retrofitted rather than demolished and no new building is constructed. This alternative was considered and analyzed for the possibility that maintaining and improving the existing building could potentially reduce the proposed project’s significant impacts.

In order to bring the existing building up to current codes, several improvements would be necessary, while others would not be feasible due to site constraints. For example, 15 additional parking spaces would be needed to meet the City’s code; however, the site cannot accommodate additional parking spaces within its current limits. Some of the improvements to the existing building that would be necessary under this alternative include seismic retrofitting, restroom upgrades, addition of an elevator, replacement of the interior stairway, lead-based paint and asbestos removal, mechanical and electrical system upgrades, and installation of interior fire safety sprinklers and building insulation. In order to maximize preservation of the building’s historic features and reduce impacts to Cultural and historic resources, all retrofitting activities would need to reflect consideration of the historic character and quality of the building, including preservation of historic materials and visual compatibility of improvements. The Building Preservation Alternative would meet some of the project objectives by achieving compliance with many code requirements. However, it would not be feasible to comply with all code requirements. This alternative would not meet the project objectives of increasing the usable square footage onsite, reducing the need for offsite parking, or improving the bicycle and pedestrian environment. Because this alternative does not propose to demolish the existing historic building, the Building Preservation Alternative would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact on the historic resource relative to the proposed project. However, because this alternative would require extensive building repairs and retrofitting, the building’s historic character may be diminished and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

23

P&TC Packet page 37 of 59

April 2015

This alternative does not propose demolition or a subterranean parking lot, both of which would result in impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under the proposed project. The project would implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-8 to reduce all hazards and hazardous materials impacts to less-than-significant levels. The Building Preservation Alternative would further reduce these impacts and eliminate the need for implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-6 through HAZ-8. The Building Preservation Alternative would result in similar impacts to traffic and transportation as the proposed project but, unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not provide for adequate onsite parking. The EIR concluded that the Building Preservation Alternative is Environmentally Superior to the proposed project because it avoids or reduces some of the project’s significant effects. Feasibility of the Building Preservation Alternative: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible for the reasons that it does not substantially reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. The Building Preservation Alternative results in the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the proposed project and would not provide the potential project benefit of reducing the demand for off-site parking. Further this alternative would not support the project objectives of increasing the usable square footage and associated rental income of the site, enhancing the street frontage to create a pedestrian and bike-friendly environment. For all of the foregoing reasons, and for any of them individually, the City Council determines that the Building Preservation Alternative is infeasible and is hereby rejected. PTOD Alternative The PTOD Alternative assumes requires that the project site would be rezoned as part of the California Avenue PTOD Combining District, which allows for higher density residential uses within walking distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. The project site would be redeveloped as a mixed-use development with both multifamily residential and commercial uses. This alternative was considered and analyzed as an alternative that would meet the stated objective of generating increased rental income and supporting the vision of the City’s Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan, including the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development overlay and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The EIR concluded that the PTOD Alternative meets most of the project objectives by redeveloping the site with a building that meets current standards and increasing the usable square footage of the site. This alternative would also meet the objectives related to pedestrian and bicycle friendly features and the provision of adequate onsite parking. Under the PTOD Alternative, the impacts to Cultural and historic resources, hazardous materials, and traffic would be generally the same as under the proposed project. Impacts to the historic resource onsite would remain significant and unavoidable, and impacts related to traffic and hazardous materials would remain less than significant or significant but mitigable. Feasibility of Alternative C: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible for the reasons that it does not substantially reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. The PTOD Alternative results in the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the proposed

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

24

P&TC Packet page 38 of 59

April 2015

project and would require the same mitigation measures as would be required under the proposed project. For all of the foregoing reasons, and for any of them individually, the City Council determines that the PTOD Alternative is infeasible and is hereby rejected.

X.

GROWTH INDUCEMENT FINDINGS

As required by CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d), an EIR must discuss ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also, the EIR must discuss the characteristics of the project that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. Growth can be induced in a number of ways, such as through the elimination of obstacles to growth, through the stimulation of economic activity within the region, or through the establishment of policies or other precedents that directly or indirectly encourage additional growth. Induced growth would be considered a significant impact if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth would directly or indirectly have a significant effect on the environment. Residential development can induce growth by increasing the local population, which may lead to increased commercial activity, which may increase the local supply of jobs. Extension of public infrastructure or services can accommodate growth by removing constraints to development. A growth-inducing project directly or indirectly:  Fosters economic or population growth or additional housing;  Removes obstacles to growth;  Taxes community services or facilities to such an extent that new services or facilities would be necessary; or  Encourages or facilitates other activities that cause significant environmental effects. The 2555 Park Boulevard project would provide additional office space in the City by increasing the usable office space by approximately 12,469 square feet. This increase in office space would accommodate additional employees and could indirectly induce a small amount of growth because some employees would seek housing and purchase foods and services in the area. Finding: The 2555 Park Boulevard project would not induce substantial growth in the project area or region. Explanation: The potential for growth inducement due to the increase in office space is not considered substantial. The increase in employment opportunities the project would provide would be insufficient to trigger noticeable changes in the housing market or demand for local goods and services. In addition, construction of the proposed project would be temporary and these short-term construction jobs are anticipated to be filled by workers who, for the most part, reside in the surrounding areas. 2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

25

P&TC Packet page 39 of 59

April 2015

XI.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FINDINGS

The City Council finds that the methodology used in the EIR to determine cumulative impacts complies with CEQA in that it assumed growth in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as well as considering other known development projects in the region, and it provides an analysis of potential for the 2555 Park Boulevard project to contribute to cumulative impacts in the project area. Finding: The City Council finds that the project would result in a less than considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts in the project area. Cultural and Historic Resources: Cumulative impacts to cultural resources may jeopardize the eligibility of one or more cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Other than the existing building onsite, the project would not impact other listed buildings or buildings with the potential to be listed in the project vicinity. Other examples of Mid-Century Modern architectural style are in the vicinity of the project. While it is not anticipated that a past, present, or reasonably foreseeable project would adversely impact these buildings, the City’s development history suggests that other buildings constructed in the early 1960s may be proposed for alteration or demolition. Many of these buildings have already been altered and may not be eligible for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR. The 2555 Park Boulevard project would not increase the likelihood of other projects to be proposed that would affect historic resources. As required for the 2555 Park Boulevard project and may be required during the City’s review of other projects with the potential to adversely affect historic resources, requirements to record historic features and information would preserve the knowledge of historic structures in the area. The proposed project’s contribution to potentially ongoing impacts to cultural and historic resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the proposed project have the potential to result in similar impacts related to hazardous materials as the proposed project, including the presence of contaminated groundwater and hazardous materials that could be released during demolition and remodeling. Other projects in the vicinity could also use hazardous materials. However, the majority of hazardous materials issues related to contaminated groundwater or hazardous building materials are sitespecific. Releases of trichloroethylene (TCE) from groundwater or air contaminants from demolished buildings would not result in a local or regional increase in air contaminants that could lead to health hazards. The established land use designations in the project vicinity do not indicate that use, transport, or exposure of hazardous materials would increase as the planning area is developed. The project would not contribute to cumulative increases in impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. Transportation and Traffic: In the cumulative condition, it is expected that some local roadways and intersections in the project vicinity would operate at unacceptable levels of service. However, addition of traffic generated b ythe 2555 2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

26

P&TC Packet page 40 of 59

April 2015

Park Boulevard project would not significantly increase the average delay or volume/capacity ratios for any intersection. The proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative traffic scenario is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Explanation: The potential impacts of project activities are limited to site specific conditions and would not result in any cumulatively considerable contributions to cumulative impacts in the project vicinity or region. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.

XII.

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

The 2555 Park Boulevard EIR concluded that even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures and project alternatives, the project will cause the following significant unavoidable impact: Impact CUL-2: Demolition of the existing building at 2555 Park Boulevard, which is considered eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, would cause a significant impact to a historic resource and would eliminate an example of a major period of California history. The City of Palo Alto has considered and adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to this impact, which lessens the impact but does not entirely avoid or reduce it below a level of significance, as discussed in Section VIII of these Findings. The environmentally superior alternative (Building Preservation Alternative) would lessen some impacts of the proposed project, but would not avoid the Significant and Unavoidable impact of the project. Further, as described above in Section IX, the environmentally superior alternative is not feasible. The primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public as to the environmental effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance. CEQA recognizes and authorizes the approval of such projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or avoided. Before such a project can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a “statement of overriding considerations” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§15043 and 15093. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines §15093(b) requires that when a public agency approves a project that will result in the occurrence of significant and unavoidable impacts, the agency must “state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record.” The agency’s statement of overriding considerations must explain and justify the agency’s conclusion to approve such a project, setting forth the proposed project’s general social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the agency’s informed conclusion to approve the project. The following statement identifies why, in the City Council’s judgment, the benefits of the project as approved outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its determination 2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

27

P&TC Packet page 41 of 59

April 2015

that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents included in the Record of Proceedings. The City Council finds that the significant and unavoidable impact previously identified and briefly explained above is acceptable because mitigation measures have been required to reduce this impact to the extent feasible, and on balancing the benefits to be realized by approval of the proposed project against the remaining environmental risks, the following economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the impacts and support approval of the proposed project. Accordingly the City Council recognizes that a significant and unavoidable impact would result from implementation of the proposed project. Having (1) adopted all feasible mitigation measures; (2) rejected the alternatives to the project as infeasible, as discussed above; (3) recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts; and (4) balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the significant and unavoidable effect, the City Council finds that the benefits outweigh and override the significant unavoidable effect for the reasons stated below. The City Council finds that the 2555 Park Boulevard project meets the following stated project objectives – which have substantial social, economic, policy and other public benefits – justifying its approval and implementation, notwithstanding the fact that not all environmental impacts were fully reduced below a level of significance: Implementation of the 2555 Park Boulevard project will provide for the following:  Development of a new office building on the site that generates increased rental income and supports the vision of the City’s Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan, specifically Goal CACP-3 which calls for promoting Park Boulevard as a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship for small new companies; and supports related planning initiatives such as the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development overlay and Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.  Replacement of the existing office building at the 2555 Park Boulevard site with a modern building that meets current standards for structural design, site and building accessibility, and hazardous materials.  Replacement of the existing office building at the 2555 Park Boulevard site with an energy and water efficient office building.  Doubling the usable square footage of a transit-accessible site by increasing the building height to three stories and providing parking at grade and underground.  Creating a pedestrian and bicycle friendly street frontage with wide sidewalks, amenities, and street trees.  Increasing onsite parking to reduce off-site parking demands associated with the office use at the site.

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

28

P&TC Packet page 42 of 59

April 2015

Balancing Competing Goals The City Council further finds that it is necessary to balance competing goals in approving the 2555 Park Boulevard project and the environmental documentation for the project. Not every environmental concern has been fully satisfied due to infeasibility and there is a need to satisfy competing concerns to some extent. The City Council has chosen to accept the significant and unavoidable environmental impact resulting from the 2555 Park Boulevard project because complete avoidance or reduction of the impact to a less than significant level is infeasible and not approving the project would unduly compromise other important economic, social, or other goal. The City Council finds and determines that the 2555 Park Boulevard project, the supporting environmental documentation, and the evidence in the administrative record as a whole provide for a positive balance of the competing goals and that the economic, fiscal, social, environmental, land-use and other benefits to be obtained by the project outweigh any remaining environmental and related potential significant impacts of the project.

XIII. CONCLUSION The mitigation measures listed in conjunction with each of the findings set forth above, as implemented through the MMP, will eliminate or reduce to a less than significant level most adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project, except for the significant and unavoidable impact listed in Section XII above. Taken together, the Final EIR, the mitigation measures, and the MMP provide an adequate basis for approval of the 2555 Park Boulevard project.

2555 Park Boulevard Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations

29

P&TC Packet page 43 of 59

April 2015

P&TC Packet page 44 of 59

ATTACHMENT D

2555 Park Boulevard Project Mitigation Monitoring Program INTRODUCTION Section 15097 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented. This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is intended to satisfy this requirement of the CEQA Guidelines as it relates to the 2555 Park Boulevard project (proposed project). This MMP would be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMP were developed in the EIR prepared for the proposed project, State Clearinghouse #2014042050. As noted above, the intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMP will provide for monitoring of mitigation measure implementation through the plan check process, construction monitoring and inspections, post-construction building inspections, and in the field identification and resolution of environmental concerns.

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The City of Palo Alto will coordinate monitoring activities and ensure appropriate documentation of mitigation measure implementation. The table below identifies each mitigation measure for the proposed project and the associated implementation, monitoring, timing and performance requirements. The MMP table presented on the following pages identifies: 1. the full text of each applicable mitigation measure; 2. the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure; 3. the timing of implementation of each mitigation measure including any ongoing

monitoring requirements; and

4. performance criteria by which to ensure mitigation requirements have been met. Following completion of the monitoring and documentation process, the final monitoring results will recorded and incorporated into the project file maintained by the City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment. It is noted that the mitigation measure numbering reflects the numbering used in EIR prepared for the project (Dudek 2014).

2555 Park Boulevard Project Mitigation Monitoring Program

P&TC Packet page 45 of 59

Page 1 December 2014

2555 Park Boulevard Project

Mitigation Monitoring Program

2555 Park Boulevard Project Mitigation Monitoring Program

P&TC Packet page 56 of 59

Page 12

December 2014

2555 Park Boulevard Project

Mitigation Monitoring Program

Intentionally Left Blank

2555 Park Boulevard Project Mitigation Monitoring Program

P&TC Packet page 57 of 59

Page 13 December 2014

P&TC Packet page 58 of 59

Attachment E

Project Plans https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=43778 (Hard copies to Planning & Transportation Commission, staff, libraries and Development Center)

P&TC Packet page 59 of 59

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Attachment G

Planning and Transportation Commission

Draft Verbatim Minutes

April 29, 2015

EXCERPT

2. 2555 Park Boulevard [13PLN-00381]: **Quasi-Judicial Request for Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and recommendation for EIR Certification for a proposal by FGY Architects on behalf of Campbell Avenue Portfolio LLC to demolish an existing 10,800 sq. ft. two-story mid-century modern office building and construct a new 24,466 sq. ft. three-story office building with one level of below grade parking and a roof terrace in the Community Commercial (CC(2)) zone district. Environmental Assessment: The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was published on September 5, 2014 for a 45 day public comment period and the initial comment period was extended through November 19, 2014 for input by the PTC and Historic Resources Board. The PTC discussed the DEIR on October 29, 2014. The FEIR will be available Friday April 17, 2015 on the City’s webpage for this project. For more information contact Russ Reich at [email protected] Chair Tanaka: We are going to continue with the next item. Can Commissioners please return to the Dais? So we now begin the 2555 Park Boulevard item. This item is quasi-judicial so before we begin does any Commissioner have disclosures they wish to make? If so, hit the lights. Commissioner Downing. Commissioner Downing: I don’t have a disclosure per se to make, but I do want to confirm with our attorney that I am not conflicted out of this one. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Let’s see, Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. refresh my memory, your lease is less than a year?

So

Commissioner Downing: It’s a year and I’m on Pepper Avenue. Ms. Silver: Ok. So the lease is one year? You know I think in an abundance of caution you probably should recuse yourself on this. Commissioner Downing: Ok. That’s fine. Should I get out of here? Ms. Silver: Yes, we have one more matter. I can contact you when (interrupted) Commissioner Downing; Ok, if someone could text me or email me when you’re done with this matter, I’ll come back. Chair Tanaka: Ok, one other thing is Commissioner Alcheck has told me that he has a hard stop at 9:45. He’s catching a flight. So that will be four of us and that’s still ok, correct? Ms. Silver: Yes, that’s fine. Chair Tanaka: Ok, great. So let’s begin then. Does staff have a presentation they wish to review? Russ Reich, Interim Planning Manager: Yes, good evening. Thank you, Chair Tanaka and Commissioners. This evening you’re being asked to review the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the mixeduse project at 2555 Park Avenue. You had the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact City of Palo Alto

Page 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Report (DEIR) back in October 29th of last year. At that time you provided comments which are included in the FEIR along with responses to those comments. In addition to your comments included are also comments from the Historic Resources Board (HRB) as well as the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and comments from the public. So the FEIR does respond to each of those and you’re asked to review and provide a recommendation to the City Council on the environmental document. With me tonight is Kathryn Waugh. She prepared the environmental document that’s before you this evening so she will do a presentation. Also with us this evening is Rafael Ruiz our Transportation Traffic Engineer as well as the applicant’s traffic consultant that prepared the traffic analysis for the project. So with that I will turn it over to Kathryn. Kathryn Waugh, Consultant, Dudek: Thanks, Russ. As Russ said I’m Kathryn Waugh. I’m a Senior Project Manager with Dudek. And I am, also Russ indicated we were here in October to present the DEIR to you and tonight you’re asked to consider the FEIR and whether it adequately addresses the issues as required under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the California Environmental Quality Act. So my presentation will be fairly brief. I’m just going to go over the highlights of the topics that were addressed in that FEIR. First I’ll start with a quick project overview. The project would demolish an existing two-story office building that contains about 10,800 square feet and construct a new three-story building. I apologize I have a typo on this slide. The proposed building would be 24,466 square feet and would provide 92 parking spaces. Those parking spaces would be in the at grade and below grade mechanized parking garage and all vehicle access to the site is proposed to be from Grant Avenue. That’s the base project proposal. There’s also a parking exemption alternative that is considered in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that would implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM), a Transportation Demand Management plan and thereby reduce the overall parking that’s required for the building. That would free up some of the spaces to not be parking machines. Couple other project highlights, the project requires a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) due to the height of this, the proposed stair towers and then the canopy, the tensile structure that would be a canopy over the proposed rooftop patio. The project or the building would be set back from Park Boulevard to create a 10 foot wide sidewalk. There would be planters, a seat wall, and street trees. And then the project is proposed to be built and certified to the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standards. This slide just gives you a quick overview of the key steps in the CEQA environmental review process for an EIR. And we have brought the documents to the public for public review at each of these steps. So with the notice of preparation there was a scoping meeting. We brought the DEIR out for public review and had three separate public hearings to receive comments including the one here at the Planning Commission in October. And then as I said tonight we have brought the FEIR to you for your review and consideration. As Russ noted the Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council as to whether or not to certify the EIR. And so I wanted to remind you of the key goals and legislative intent behind the CEQA. Primarily a CEQA document is intended to be an informational document that provides the decision makers and the public with a good understanding of what the environmental effects of that project would be and where those effects may be a significant impact CEQA requires that we provide ways to mitigate those impacts either through mitigation or project alternatives to avoid or lessen or reduce or compensate for the impacts. So again in terms of the FEIR the specific content requirements under CEQA are listed on this slide. Primarily that the intent of the FEIR is to provide a record of all the public comments that were received on the DEIR and provide responses to those comments. At times when we’re responding to a comment we find that it would be helpful to revise the text of the DEIR itself, so you’ll see that in this FEIR there was some informational, information added to the DEIR as well as a few revisions to mitigation measures. City of Palo Alto

Page 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

When we reviewed the comments on the DEIR we found that there were generally five key themes that were addressed in a lot of those comments and so we addressed those in master responses. Those come towards the front of the FEIR to give us a good comprehensive summary of those key issues. So that’s where I’m going to focus my, the rest of my presentation. The first of the master responses relates to the operation of the intersection at Grant and Park. Primarily or particularly folks were concerned about the ability to turn from Grant Avenue onto Park Boulevard. The DEIR found that the project would increase traffic in the area, but that that increase would be less than significant in terms of its effect on the intersection Level of Service (LOS) and the amount of delay that individual vehicles experience at that intersection. Comments on the DEIR specifically suggested that a stop sign at this intersection on Park Boulevard at this intersection would be helpful. The analysis in the DEIR though evaluates the traffic volumes through that intersection and finds that they do not meet the warrants for a traffic, for a stop sign. And really what that would, the effect of a stop sign would be to slow down traffic on Park, which could reduce the LOS that’s experienced generally at that intersection. So while in the EIR we did not find that there was a significant impact here requiring mitigation the project applicant has added a few intersection improvements to their proposal. The project proposes to do a bulb out or curb extension at that intersection, to paint crosswalks through the intersection, and also to extend the striping for the bike lane through the intersection. All of those measures would help increase visibility both of oncoming cars as well as bicycles and pedestrians to address those concerns that people had at that intersection. The second master response was related to queuing of cars that are waiting to use the parking machines in the garage; whether or not so many cars could stack up there that they would spill out onto Grant Avenue and cause delays on Grant Avenue. So in the FEIR we presented some additional analysis done on specifically on that queuing, queuing question based on how the parking lifts operate, how long it takes for a car to get parked, and the pattern at which cars would arrive at the project site to be parked. And that analysis found that there was a less than three percent probability assuming that each car requires 2 minutes to be parked that there would be a queue that would spill out onto Grant Avenue. So again we found that that would have a less than significant impact on the physical environment of traffic circulation in the area. But also note that the analysis there was done based on a two minute loading time. The way that this parking machine is proposed to operate is that each space would be assigned to a specific individual, a specific car and that parking lift manufacturer has indicated that that actually speeds up the time that it requires to park. So instead of a two minute parking time it would be closer to a one minute parking time. So that probably that, three percent probability that the queues could extend onto Grant Avenue would be even lower if the analysis had been based on that 1 minute or slightly over 1 minute. The third master response is related to the requirement for the project to have, to need a DEE and within the context of the CEQA that the DEE is required for the building’s height or the height of some of those elements on the rooftop. And so in terms of an environmental affect the issues that we look at they are aesthetics, privacy, and shadow and shade that might be cast on neighboring properties. So with respect to privacy we did find that the roof deck the way that it’s set back from the building edge helps to limit the amount of visibility that could occur between existing residences in the area and that rooftop deck as well as intervening vegetation and just the orientation of various windows in the area. So we found that that would be a less than significant impact. And then with respect to shadow the applicant prepared an analysis of the shadowing effects of the building on the adjacent property, the adjacent residential property at 123 Sherman. And that shadowing analysis found that while the building would cast some shadows onto the neighboring property there have been design modifications made to the project compared to the original proposal that would reduce that so that the project does comply with the City’s municipal code requirement to limit the amount of shading on a neighboring property. And so the analysis showed that particularly or increasing the setback between the two buildings and bringing down the height of the building just in that corner that’s closest to 123 Sherman positively affected the amount of shadow that would be cast on that neighboring property. City of Palo Alto

Page 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

The fourth master response related to visitor and guest parking. so as I explained the way that that parking lift is proposed to operate is that each space within the parking garage would be assigned to a specific user and so that obviously limits the ability for visitors or guests to park in the garage so there was concern raised in public comments regarding where the, where visitors and guests could park. So the EIR identifies that there are other parking facilities in the area. There’s on street parking as well as a few parking lots in the vicinity. And then as I mentioned earlier the project that’s evaluated in the EIR we’ve evaluated two versions; one that is as proposed with the 92 parking spaces all being in parking machines and the other is the parking exemption requirement as I said by implementing a TDM plan the project could lower their total parking, total amount of parking that’s required onsite. And that would allow them a little more flex, the applicant a little more flexibility to get some of those parking spaces into a standard parking space instead of a machine parked space. Under either option we found that there is sufficient parking in the vicinity that the, that parking demand from visitors and guests would not cause a significant environmental affect. So it would not adversely affect traffic circulation patterns to a way that would reduce LOS and it wouldn’t put so many cars out circulating that it would cause air quality problems. The final master response is regarding bicycle and pedestrian safety and there’s a lot of similarities between this response and the first response just in terms of the general operation of the intersection at Grant and Park. And so again the analysis found that there is the traffic volumes there would not meet the warrants to convert the intersection to a four way stop. And instead we talked about the intersection improvements: the bulb out, the crosswalks, painting the bike lane though the intersection that those would increase visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists and thereby ensuring that the safety impacts would not be significant as a result of this project. Again the project, the traffic volumes that were evaluated in the EIR we found that the proposed project would not substantially increase traffic in the vicinity and so pedestrians and bicyclists would basically be exposed to very similar conditions to what is currently experienced. So then I just have a couple more slides to review some of the other text changes that were made within the DEIR as, in response to comments. So I will go through those quickly. In terms of hazards and hazardous materials there were two additions made to the mitigation measures. So the site formally supported a dry cleaning establishment and so we added some language to the mitigation measure related to the soil that might have been contaminated as a result of that prior use of the site. And then the building that is proposed to be demolished is known to contain some asbestos and lead based materials and so we added some language to the mitigation measure to clarify how that, what the requirements are for demolishing a building with those substances to ensure that there aren’t safety hazards for nearby residents. In the transportation and traffic chapter as well as in the project description we added a mention to the DEIR that five of the proposed parking spaces would have Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations and then we provided a little more explanation of how the mechanized parking operation works. Again the amount of time it takes to park and some of those other features. In the noise chapter or in the noise discussion, we didn’t have a chapter on noise, but we did add text to clarify the amount of noise that could be generated by the mechanized parking lifts and how much of that noise could be audible from outside the building. And just in general terms it’s about the equivalent to the noise that a standard residential garage door opening would make. So finally I just wanted to reiterate the key conclusions of the DEIR in terms of the significant environmental impacts of the project and none, and note that none of the comments in the, on the DEIR that have been evaluated in the FEIR, none of those comments or our responses to them required us to change any of the conclusions reached in the DEIR. So this slide lists for you some of the key, the significant impacts that would require mitigation as described in the EIR and the only significant and unavoidable impact that was identified is the impact to historic resources because the building is considered potentially eligible for listing as a historic resource demolition of that building would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact. There is mitigation identified to do a recordation City of Palo Alto

Page 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

process to preserve some of the history of that building, but there’s really nothing that you can do to mitigate fully for demolishing a building that’s considered a potential historic resource. The other impacts that we found were potential disturbance to cultural resources that might be present below the ground surface, health and safety risks primarily onsite due to exposures to contaminated, vapor from the contaminated groundwater, but also as I mentioned concerns for adjacent neighbors during the construction process. And then whether or not the traffic increases would be significant. So in each of those cases we either found that the impact was less than significant or could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of the mitigation measures. So that concludes my presentation. As I said I just wanted to kind of focus on the highlights and I’m happy to answer any questions you might have. Chair Tanaka: Ok, thank you. So before we get into the questions for the Commission I think we have eight speaker cards. So we’ll go through each one each at a time. We’ll give two minutes each. So can the Vice-Chair, Acting Vice-Chair please read off the names? Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. So Peter Brewer comes first followed by Terry Holzemer. Peter Brewer: Hi, I’m Peter Brewer. I own the, own and occupy the building that’s immediately to the left of the subject property and abuts the properties. My concern is that the project does not meet the criteria for a DEE, a Design Enhancement Exception, and in the rush to approve this project nobody has looked at that, nobody’s questioning it, nobody’s challenging it and the EIR totally sidesteps that. My letter or my comments are as Exhibit C to the EIR their Comment C, C2 in my letter says that the project exceeds the allowable height, the 37 feet that’s allowed by Zoning CC2 and it explains the DEE is for minor exceptions to zoning when doing so will enhance the design without altering the function or use of the site or its impact on the surrounding properties. You cannot sit there with a straight face and tell me that putting an observation deck on what’s essentially a permanently covered fourth story that takes the building height to 50 feet that that does not have any impact on the surrounding properties. Of course it does. To say otherwise would be nonsense. The municipal code goes on to say neither the Director nor the City Council on appeal shall grant a DEE unless it is found that and please note these are in the conjunctive unless it is found that there’s exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions unique to the property or site unless it is found that it will enhance the appearance of the site or structure or improve the neighborhood character or preserve and existing or proposed architectural style and that the exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements. Is that the total of my time? I’d like you to read my letter. It’s C. I’d like you to examine whether or not you think it actually meets the municipal code. It does not and nobody’s challenging that and I don’t want the City to invite a CEQA lawsuit. That’s just nonsense. Somebody has to look at this. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. Terry Holzemer followed by (interrupted) Ms. Silver: Excuse me, Chair Tanaka, since this is a quasi-judicial matter we typically allow the applicant to go first and then have public comment and a rebuttal. But… Chair Tanaka: Oh, ok. I forgot about that. Ms. Silver: But I actually I was just informed by staff that there is no applicant presentation, so… Chair Tanaka: Ok, would the applicant like to have a rebuttal? Ms. Silver: Yes, the rebuttal would come at the end. Chair Tanaka: Ok. City of Palo Alto

Page 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Ok, so we’re coming back to the speaker cards. So Terry Holzemer followed by I believe it’s Elizabeth Zitale if I’m reading this correctly. Terry Holzemer: Holzemer, yes. Very quickly I’m going to mention some things. I’d like to mention a lot of things that are wrong with this project, but I’m going to focus in on the FEIR. On Page 1 there is a section called the CEQA requirements. On Page 2 if you turn to the very next page the most important segment of this is the very last sentence. It says the lead agency, which in this case the City must provide each agency, I guess that means us, the parties that commented on the DEIR with a copy of the lead agency’s response to such comments in a minimum of 10 days before certifying the FEIR. This did not happen. This is a violation of CEQA. And if you want proof of that I can give it to you tonight. I’d like to talk about also some other issues. In the EIR there were several claims by the writer of this document with no data or evidence to support these conclusions. Among these was a claim that there were few windows “few windows from our complex facing the proposed building.” A few usually means two or three. As a member of our homeowner’s board I can guarantee you that there are over 25 windows facing this project. In addition there’s also a claim made in this document that there’s adequate parking on the streets and parking lots available to the building tenant’s visitors. I’d like to ask what dream world does this writer live in? I live in this area and some of you have visited the area at 12:00 noon. Have you ever tried to find a parking place in the California area at 12:00 noon? It’s impossible. It’s very hard to find one. Next the EIR claims that our residents of Palo Alto Central will all go to work at the same time every day. It says before 8:00 a.m. most of the residents will be gone. This is a fabrication. I don’t know why they would even make that claim. They don’t even know our complex. They’ve never talked to us. They’ve never talked to our association. No one has ever approached us, including this body. Lastly, but not least, it’s clearly stated that the EIR does not cover the DEE; however, adding this exception to this project does not meet the standard as Peter said earlier of a minor architectural feature unless you want to change the word minor. There is nothing minor about adding a really a fourth floor with a canopy roof that’s 13 feet above the design limit. In addition, there are two massive concrete towers at either end of the building and these, these are not that exceed the limits as well. I think this needs to be looked at in much closer terms especially what’s happened with the CEQA. Thank you. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. Do we have [unintelligible Vitale] on the floor? She left and she wrote on her speaker card that she would yield her time to Bill Ross. So you may come next and I don’t know does he get double time because of this? Ms. Silver: We typically don’t do that, but it would be at the discretion of the Chair to allow it. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Ok. Bill Ross: I’m sorry. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Yes, please go ahead. Mr. Ross: Ok, thank you. My name’s Bill Ross, I’m a resident and taxpayer. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding. I would respectfully suggest there isn’t substantial evidence to support the proposed findings of overriding consideration presented to you. Any environmental document has to be evaluated at the time that it comes before you. I would suggest that the environmental setting and the cumulative analysis portions of this document as to traffic and water supply are inadequate, not supported by substantial evidence. First of all with respect to the issue of traffic this is just another case where it is a standalone analysis of the traffic generated by this project. I would respectfully suggest that the following projects need to be cumulatively analyzed with this project for there to be full compliance with CEQA: 2180 El Camino Real, City of Palo Alto

Page 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

2209 El Camino Real, 2259 El Camino Real, 260 South California, 385 Sherman, the upper and lower California/Stanford projects, I believe one of them is 2780 El Camino Real, 1050 Page Mill, 380 Cambridge, and 2650 Birch among others. The same cumulative analysis is also applicable to the water supply with respect to each of those developments. I would also add in to the current analysis the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) lane reduction for purposes of traffic. First let’s go to water. Yesterday, yesterday emergency regulations were issued by the State Water Quality Control Board implementing the Governor’s emergency order of April 1, 2015. The City is already deficient for the prior water year in its voluntary conservation efforts to achieve a reduction consistent with the state standards. You’re going to go ahead and approve another development while the rest of us have to engage in mandatory water restrictions? That’s the policy question. The evidentiary question is: is that analyzed in the cumulative section of this EIR? And the answer is no. I would respectfully submit that that is a basis in and of itself to refer this back for further environmental review. The same is true with respect to traffic. And one more thing, if we had a cumulative number of 500 units or 5,000 square feet of development there would have to be a water supply analysis under applicable law, which would have to say these are our guaranteed supply providers and these are the projected consumption that would be associated with this. That’s a standard. That’s another reason why the cumulative analysis for water is inadequate. I assume I have about two more minutes? The same would be applicable with respect to traffic. So quite respectfully I would suggest that on that basis alone the EIR is inadequate and the findings for overriding considerations are inadequate. I would also respectfully reference for Council and your own consideration the recent case of Woody’s Group versus the City of Newport Beach which deals with many procedural and substantive due process issues associated with a quasi-judicial hearing. I would suggest the restriction to two minutes is one of those even though I’m getting four. I would also suggest that two of your members have annunciated continually the position that you are in favor of high density development. That you want to implement new urbanism provisions in the City. I’m doing this quite respectfully. I suggest that that disqualifies you from participating in this hearing. Finally I would go back to the water issue a moment and say a residual for some jurisdictions is to fall back on the Urban Water Management Plan (interrupted) Chair Tanaka: Excuse me, your time is up. Mr. Ross: Let me finish this concept please, Mr. Chairman. To say that this development was contemplated in that Urban Water Management Plan. First of all, that Urban Water Management Plan is in the year in which it should be revised, but I would respectfully suggest that the existing environment is not described in this document for either traffic or water, water supply. Thank you. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. Doria Summa is next and followed by Jeff Levinsky. Doria Summa: Good evening, Chair and Planning Commissioners. As a resident of College Terrace California Avenue is my downtown and I’m very familiar with the area around it. I would urge you not to approve this recommendation to Council tonight based on the EIR. The project doubles the square footage of office space, nearly triples the parking spaces, and adds no housing despite its proximity to fixed transit and the fact that it’s in the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD). It further contributes to an already huge jobs/housing imbalance in Palo Alto and the problems that that creates. To say it will have no impacts on traffic and congestion around the project or intersections of regional importance nearby that are already very congested doesn’t make sense. Even more difficult to understand is how the claim can be made of no negative traffic impacts without considering the many projects already started, those in the pipeline, and those anticipated for the Cal Avenue Concept Area. That’s even more incredible.

City of Palo Alto

Page 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Among other problems there’s the issue of the DEE. There’s no basis for considering the height violation requested here as a design exception from City code. City codes 1876050, DEE, the purpose of a DEE is to permit a minor exception, minor, to zoning regulations when doing so will enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of a site or impact its surrounding properties or enable the preservation of an architectural style already existing of already existing improvements on the site. And unfortunately since this is could be considered a historic building and it’s being torn down instead of added to in a way that is aesthetic, you can’t really say it’s a DEE. Whoops. Guess my time is up. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Jeff Levinsky followed by Jared Jacobs. Jeff Levinsky: Good evening, Commissioners. First of all I’d like to read from what appear to be the rules for this Commission. It says the presiding officer may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes if necessary to accommodate a large number of speakers. I would ask the City Attorney representative here to address that to the Commission because frankly it appears that these are the current rules that you are not operating legally on this item nor on the prior item that you voted on. Secondly, if you look at the rules in the municipal code for DEE’s among the things other speakers have mentioned it says it requires that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district. I think you should identify what is unique about this build and its site that enables it to have this upper roof deck. There are roof decks in other buildings around town. As far as I know they meet the height restrictions. If you’re going to allow one for this building it should meet the height restrictions unless you find what’s extraordinary. Third, the whole notion that there’s no significant impact on traffic from this building is absurd. And I think it’s almost become offensive to many including on the City Council that staff has not realized that we have a huge traffic problem in this City. We have a huge parking problem in parts of the City as well. This building will increase its size by 226 percent. If every building you approve did that can you imagine the traffic nightmares we would have in the City? You are the Planning and Traffic Commission. You are supposed to take the big picture. You are not supposed to look at each building one at a time you’re supposed to also think about how this policy will impact us overall. The logic of this EIR is that it’s ok to smoke because each cigarette only adds an insignificant amount of harm to your health. So according to our EIR smoke away, no problems, no one will ever die according to this logic. I ask you to restore sanity and restore the law to our City. Thank you. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. Jared Jacobs followed Rainer Pitthay, if I’m reading this correct. Jared Jacobs: I guess I’ll get started, but it would be great if you could show… I have some data to show. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jared Jacobs. I live at 123 Sherman Ave. next to the proposed project. I’ve lived in Palo Alto 13 years and in this house coming on three years with my family. So tonight I’m going to focus on two of the master responses in the FEIR. First the queuing issue. There’s a statistical analysis done to say that it’s an insignificant and that that’s very remote probability that queuing will affect Grant Avenue and Park Boulevard. There is a couple of flawed assumptions in that analysis. I have them on my slides. First, there’s an assumption that a fixed percentage of inbound vehicles will be delayed and in reality how many vehicles get delayed is entirely determined by when the vehicles arrive and where they need to park and how long the parking takes. So that should have been an output of the model rather than an input of the model. And this artificial limit makes the model underestimate the severity of queuing in the worst case scenarios. Secondly, it assumes uniformly random arrivals, which is a fine assumption in some cases. There’s a unique geography here where there’s some major intersections that are gating the traffic into this area. All the incoming traffic goes through El Camino and Page Mill and as a result there’s bursty traffic coming in. I measured for an hour this morning, I measured the traffic coming to the Courthouse, which is right across the street and I have charts to show you that using the model that they use what the distribution would look like and then City of Palo Alto

Page 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

what I actually measured it to be and there’s much more it show that there’s bursty traffic arrivals and that will make this problem much worse. Secondly I’d like to address the shading issue. The EIR justifies the severe shading of my house by pretending that my house doesn’t exist. The entire analysis there is the shading of the parcel as if there were no house on the property and if you look in the Palo Alto municipal code it shows that the shading and the other requirements for abutting properties all have to do with the structures on the properties, not just the empty parcels. So asked it before and I’m asking again I would like them to study how much light is going to the house. I say it’s 85 percent reduction for half of the year and they have no figures to counter my claims here. Thank you for your time. I would urge you not to recommend this project. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. And the final speaker is Rainer Pitthay. Rainer Pitthay: The Japanese pronunciation makes Pitthay. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Sorry for this. Mr. Pitthay: It’s ok. Other people traffic in this location because my sometimes impossible to get out deliveries and people coming and absurd.

have trouble with it. My name is Rainer Pitthay and I’m an expert in car is parked in the underground garage at Grant. It is already now because at any time of the day there’s FedEx and UPS and other going [unintelligible] to say there won’t be any further impact this is

I studied Pages 1 through 59 of the package which was available and it became clear to me that whoever wrote it thinks that building of office space is the highest and best use of land in Palo Alto because they rejected any other alternative. They went [unintelligible] and then there was one sentence which says a good faith effort was made to evaluate a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives in the EIR. I have been on all kinds of committees in Germany, France, Japan, and the United States. I was a professional committeer that sets all alarm bells off. So there was no good faith effort and we will see about this especially to reject the alternative of a PTOD overlay out of that, I doubt that will sit well with the new City Council and we had an election about this which was quite clear. If you don’t know what I’m talking that PTOD that requires or enables to have more residence units and that’s what we need in the town. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. Chair Tanaka: So that will conclude our public hearing for this item unless anyone else has any other cards. So now I’d like to give the applicant a chance and actually I did want to ask the City Attorney about one of the comments in terms of the time. So can you speak on that item? Ms. Silver: Yes, Chair. Excuse me. Your procedural rules specify that on agenda items, quasi-judicial items that speakers are given five minutes but that the Chair can reduce that time to three minutes if there are a large number of speakers. Chair Tanaka: Ok, so it looks like we should have given more time. So what should we do now to correct that? Ms. Silver: Well you did give some of the speaker’s additional time and if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to speak for another minute you certainly should offer that. Chair Tanaka: Ok, so before we offer, we have the applicant speaker rebuttal does anyone who spoke want to speak for another minute? Ok. So let’s… ok so, ok. We’ll give you three minutes. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: I’m going to call the names along the same sequence so Terry you’re first. We’re going to give you three minutes, right?

City of Palo Alto

Page 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Mr. Holzemer: I’m probably not going to take that long, but ok. Actually he was. Actually Peter was first. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Ok, my apologies. Mr. Brewer: I’m not comfortable with my presentation having been broken in half like this, so I will attempt to begin where I left off, but if I go over one additional minute I’m going to continue talking until I’m finished. The as I was explaining this, the DEE is not within any of the criteria for allowing it and the response that was given in the EIR was refer to master comment, refer to master response three. Master response three deals with no significant impacts to visual resources protected by state or City regulations. The roof deck is designed to be set back, it won’t cast a shadow. That does not even come close to addressing the fact that this fourth story does not meet any of the criteria for the DEE. My comment C3 says the requested variance is not minor, it does not impact the surrounding properties, and it does not overcome any site infirmity. Their response to that is only part of the structure would be 47 foot monolithic wall and they intend vining vegetation, most of the building would be 37 feet. Well that’s most of the building if you don’t count the fact that they’re talking about a permanent roofed fourth floor on this thing, which is not 37 feet. And my C4 comment C4 was there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that make a DEE applicable. Their response to that is we don’t give a response that’s outside the scope of the EIR. My comment C5 was it does not enhance the site or neighborhood, only the developer’s financial interest. Their response to that is again refer to master response three. The observation deck would be set back, few windows as was mentioned here, few windows of the surrounding residences directly face the deck, the vegetation would mitigate it, few views would be impacted. That doesn’t address the point. These, this thing was written with a broom sweeping everything under the rug, not with a pen. You all have to consider the municipal code and study what is allowable for a design exception and tell me if you can justify this one. I assert you cannot. Thank you for the additional time. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. Terry Holzemer next. Mr. Holzemer: I’d just like to make two additional quick points. On Page I guess its 3-25 in the EIR clearly at the top it says a few parking spaces on the ground floor would be used, would not be used by the parking machines. No one understands what that means. What does that mean, two? Five? Ten? Very unclear. Also on the same page it goes on and it says, it says “However, it is expected that the time of peak travel, traffic associated with the proposed project using Grant Avenue would be the 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. hour.” Well I, my wife works at a high tech company. Most people don’t arrive until much later, 10:00 or 11:00 and they work to 7:00 or 8:00. This is the normal working hours for high tech workers today. And I don’t understand this. And then it goes on and says the residents using Grant Avenue would occur before 8:00 a.m. How do they justify these times? They know nothing about our complex. They know nothing about the people that live there, nothing. Ok, another page… 3-30 under G Number 4. It says, it says the parking machines are designed to be safe in an earthquake. It talks about earthquake preparations and stuff, but it doesn’t explain how they’re making them safe. There’s no specific data and this is a major concern to our residents that live right across the street. If there’s a major quake in this area and 12 cars fall on 12 more cars there’s bound to be an explosion. Gasoline will spill out, hazardous waste will occur. How will that be handled? Is the Fire Department been alerted that this type of operation is being planned for this area? How will they, how will that operate, how will it deal with these type of hazards? It’s not explained at all. And this is an environmental report. It should be explained. These are just two examples of after reading this report how frustrated our residents are. Thank you. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you very much. Doria Summa would you like to speak? Ms. Summa: Just briefly because I touched on the traffic and parking issues and the lack of cumulative consideration in the DEE I’d further like to say that I think that the single family home on Grant Avenue has been sort of ignored in this process, which is pretty sad. If any one of us lived there we wouldn’t want to be so lightly considered. And I don’t specifically see where it says in the code that a DEE in fact City of Palo Alto

Page 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

is allowed to shade a building. There’s discussion of daylight planes, etcetera, but not with regard to a DEE. In fact, in the code it says Number 3 under the findings that will not, the DEE, the exception will not be detrimental to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. So it’s pretty hard to make that argument. And I do feel that the loss of historic architecture rather than the creative repurposing of it and indeed even to get a bigger building has become a little all too common in Palo Alto to the detriment of the character of our City. Thank you very much. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. We have Bill Ross, Mr. Ross? No? Ok. Jeff Levinsky. Mr. Levinsky: Thank you, I appreciate the extra moment and I appreciate Commissioner Tanaka and Ms. Silver for clarifying the issue. I think another issue though to be looked at is the other half of the question, which is given that you just had a session tonight where you did not provide the speakers with the time allowed under the law, was your vote on that legal? And in fact have there been other prior votes by this Commission that are not legal for that same reason? I would also, I mean your bylaws aren’t that long and I would urge you all to read your own bylaws so that these issues would not come up in the future. Thank you. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. And we have two more possible options; Jared Jacobs would you like to return to the floor? Mr. Jacobs: Ok, if you wouldn’t mind opening the file that would be very helpful. Thanks. There’s only one. It’s the .pdf file 2555. And if you could full screen or presentation mode, that would be great. Next page, you can skip a couple of pages here. These are the assumptions in the traffic. So this is using the written the assumption of uniformly random arrivals. Thanks, great, thank you. This is what the distribution would have looked like in time between arrivals. I used the next building across the street this morning and measured 39 arrivals over 50 minutes over the peak a.m. hours 7:50 to 8:40 and the actual arrivals looked like this, which you can see they’re clustered more toward short, short times between arrivals so there’s bursty arrivals because of the traffic signals that regulate the flow into the area. So because of that the analysis it has flawed assumptions, it should take this into account, people shouldn’t make assumptions when they can actually measure things like this. So the conclusions are not, are not, they don’t hold. So secondly the shading issue. I have sections here from the Palo Alto municipal code showing basically this entire section shows the effect on neighboring properties with the structures there and actually pointing to windows. It’s indicating that you need to take into account the structures that exist on the properties and not just the empty lots. And the architects have a model that shows my windows because they used it for the line of sight analysis, but they didn’t use it for the shading analysis. And if you come stand in my home you’ll see very clearly what a new building much closer and much taller will do. It’ll block all the light during the fall and winter that comes into the first floor and most of it that comes into the second floor, all of it. And I mean this little tactic of saying well hey this is smaller than we originally proposed that’s, that’s like a sales tactic like and I don’t think we should fall for that. Thank you for your time. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you, and Rainer Pitthay if you would like to return. Mr. Pitthay: You should have heard the Mayor mishandle my name, then you would feel good. I would recommend that you really take serious what is it before that the alternatives which are brushed over here and quite illogically negated. They really should get a better look from the staff. I think this is an extremely well in a logic and English class I would give it a D. It’s really bad. You should go back and look at it and maybe get some advice from outside circles, independent people, and do it over. Thank you. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you.

City of Palo Alto

Page 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Chair Tanaka: Ok, I’d like to ask just so I don’t get it wrong the City Attorney. So how much time does the applicant get to speak? In the rebuttal. Ms. Silver: Well, the opening is 15 minutes. I’d have to look up to see what the rebuttal is. It’s three? Ok, three. Chair Tanaka: Three minutes. Ok. So the applicant, you have three minutes. Heather Young, FGY: Good evening Commissioners. I’m Heather Young, I’m representing the applicant. And first off I’d like to thank all of the community members who came tonight to speak on this issue. I don’t have answers to all of the points that were brought up. I’ll need to defer to Cara, Assistant City Attorney for some of them, to Kathryn Waugh the writer and preparer of the FEIR for some of them, to Rafael Ruiz, City Transportation for the definition of some of the standards, and also our consultant Luke Schwartz from Kimley-Horn on some of the traffic. The things I can I hope shed a little light on are one, Mr. Ross had a question about water consumption for the building? Sorry, water consumption for the building. And as you probably know this building and many of the new buildings are required to meet California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Tier 2 standards. Because the building is going for LEED Silver it actually surpasses the state mandated requirement by a 40 percent additional reduction in water consumption. I hope that that helps to satisfy your concerns about this particular project’s water consumption. The DEE I think Cara will address as far as the PTC’s role in reviewing that. And I think Kathryn can refresh all of you on how the EIR and the FEIR are intertwined with the DEE. The traffic standards by which the project is judged I believe are adopted and established by the City and Rafael may not have it all with him, but he should be able to tell you which of the additional sites that were routed off, the different addresses are in fact included in the projects traffic analysis. And sorry, I need my glasses. And Kimley-Horn can address when the traffic report original data was taken on the site to help address Jared’s concerns about the potential discrepancies between his personal observations and those that were used for the project. The queuing question also I believe Matt has some information. An additional study was prepared to support Kathryn’s responses to the DEIR public comments on the queuing. There is in your packet and sorry I’m trying to go very quickly. There was sorry, could I? I’ll just run very quickly. Page 28 in your packet has a brief shadow study on the peak winter solstice and summer solstice and vernal and the spring and fall dates for the peak shadows at 9:00 a.m., noon, and 3:00 p.m. The PTOD option was studied and is discussed in the FEIR. It results in a significantly smaller project and was not deemed by the applicant as a feasible project. The… it’s true. The question about the number of parking spaces there are 92 spaces in the base case analysis including four accessible spaces which are surface parking. The TDM alternate included 10, a reduction of 10 parking spaces and the remaining 82 spaces 4 were surface accessible, 13 would become surface open to any visitor or guest to the building, and then the remainder of them would be in the parking machines. The hazmat mitigated measures I believe are detailed in the full EIR, which was not part of the 59 pages that were included in the report this evening. And I believe, we believe the FEIR and the DEIR actually had a great deal of depth and research in their review. And we all take this very seriously so I thank you very much. Chair Tanaka: So I’d like to bring this back to the Commission. And the basic format I’d like to use is kind of similar where we’ll go for some question and answers (Q&A) from the staff or applicant or even members of the public. And also I think it would be good for us to [unintelligible] issues that we want to deliberate as well and I’ll write them down and itemize them and then we can go through them. So if anyone has questions about this please hit your lights. Commissioner Alcheck. Commissioner Alcheck: In light of the discussion or the comments from our community members, I’m wondering if staff could do one of two things: first is address which of the comments are within the purview of our review tonight, to what extent are we reviewing the design exception legality or its whether or not it was proper or improper at this time. And then the second question is and this came up last time too because I remember that the applicant’s neighbor had a home and we were talking about it City of Palo Alto

Page 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

then too about whether or not the analysis required discussion or of shading the same way that it would in a residential neighborhood. I think I can’t remember clearly particularly because I think this home is not, is, doesn’t really comply with R-1 setbacks. It’s much closer to its rear fence if I recall? I just remember it being a very uniquely placed home that wouldn’t necessarily compare well with a normal R-1 sort of establishment. So I guess without going into every single comment I’m wondering if you can narrow down the items that we should be reviewing tonight and maybe take off our plate the items that are not supposed to be covered by our discussion? Ms. Silver: Sure. I’m happy to, to do that. So under the City’s local CEQA guidelines the Commission is required to review all EIR’s and to conduct a public hearing on EIR’s and to recommend certification to the City Council. And so that’s what you’re doing today and your purview is over the EIR itself. This particular project did not require an entitlement that goes to you for a recommendation or on appeal and so you’re not reviewing the entitlement aspects of the project. The entitlements will go to the City Council. So basically your review is the same as your, as the review that you conducted earlier this year on the EIR. With respect to the single family home it’s my understanding that it’s a legal nonconforming use. It’s a commercially zoned piece of property I believe and but there’s a residence there. So it is a unique situation. With respect to shade and shadows the way we look at those impacts in an EIR is we look at impacts to public spaces like parks and publicly accessible courtyards and that type of thing. For, from an environmental standpoint EIR’s don’t typically look at impacts to personal private property. That being said there was a shade and shadow analysis done on this property and it appears you know the applicant has a different way of preforming that analysis and that’s a fair issue and all of that was discussed in the EIR. Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so just for extra just to clarify here, the compliance with the municipal codes from the Planning Department’s perspective that this is the sort of building that would be entitled in this lot is not on the table. We’re really discussing the EIR and the impacts and the analysis of those impacts? Ms. Silver: Exactly. Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you. There were a lot of points raised. I think the ones that concern me most there are a few that I think are interesting and justified, but I don’t think are in the scope so the question around cumulative effects, the example of every incremental cigarette perhaps is not found to be deadly, but there’s a cumulative effect to smoking which I think is the purpose of the Comp Plan and specific plans to look at cumulative effects. We also have implemented a building cap, which is obviously looking at cumulative effects. I think the purpose of this is around an individual project. I am troubled by some of the comments about the DEE. I looked at the ARB findings and they found that the shading size would have to be reduced, which the applicant agreed to. Looking at the picture of the initial rendering itself it does appear to be a shade on a top floor. It is a 37 foot building I believe. It doesn’t appear to be, this is not a permanent structure even in the original application, but post ARB review I think that that has been addressed. In terms of the other piece that troubles me is the impact on light for the single family home which is noncomplying. I remember this last round through this did disturb me because it does, it is a significant degradation of quality for that individual. I actually accept that the way the shade study should be interpreted is with the way the commenter expressed, which is we should be looking at his dwelling not just the theoretical lot. But to the point of if the point of the EIR is to check for shade in public spaces and not impact on private property then I’m not sure why we’re doing that analysis to begin with. If you are doing that analysis and you find it as a legal matter that it’s an important part of the analysis then I City of Palo Alto

Page 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

would agree with, with the complaint that we need to look at the impact on the building itself and his windows and not just a theoretical empty lot. So that is the one piece remaining that if that does seem like a decisive issue for some reason then we should do it properly. If it’s not and it’s not part of an EIR scope then it should have been excluded. Other than that I found the responses, the master responses to be satisfying. The only piece and I would like guidance from Cara perhaps on this one, which is I do like the option of potentially reducing the parking spaces in exchange for Caltrain passes for everyone in the building. I think that would be a valuable thing to do. I think that the economics would work. I think it would reduce traffic. I don’t know how that’s done. There are parking requirements, you can’t go below them. Is this something that Council if I were to recommend that or PTC were to recommend that that Council could consider making an exception or procedurally how that even works. Ms. Silver: So again the entitlements really aren’t part of your purview. That would typically come up through the entitlement process. If you can tie it to the environmental process it would be within your purview. So if there were perhaps again in the environmental process what we’re looking at is an impact and different ways to mitigate that impact. So you would have to tie it in that way. Commissioner Rosenblum: I see. Ok. Those were, those were all my questions. So to summarize the complaint about cumulative effects I don’t think belongs here. The DEE I do think is an issue. It doesn’t seem like the argument about this shade is legitimate in this case or at least in my view, so I’m less troubled actually after reading through the ARB report. And then finally around the parking issue I would have preferred to have less parking in exchange for TDM measures, but I don’t have, I don’t think that I meet the standard that Cara has just set forward. But let me think about it while others, while others smarter than I am talk. Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. Commissioner Michael: So my overall impression is there’s a lot to like about the project. I think that the applicant has put together a fairly innovative design and it’s got a very impressive team of architects and experts and so forth. At the same time I’m troubled by a number of issues and I think that I’m perhaps unclear as to exactly what our purview is under CEQA, but I will just identify what concerns I have. I think that and this is in no particular order of importance. On the EIR discussion relative to the issues potentially around parking and the conclusion that their solution about using lifts I don’t really find that satisfying or persuasive. I think that it may be a different situation entirely, but the City parking lots where you have permits and you have a lot of empty spaces on the top floor I think a lot of the because the lifts would be dedicated to a single user I’m concerned that you’re going to have an underutilization in a sort of a new innovative parking technology and just intuitively I’m not persuaded that this is going to be ideal and I share Commissioner Rosenblum’s yearning for a TDM plan as part of this. I don’t think that the mitigation proposed in parking kind of passes my, my good housekeeping test. I’m not clear whether tonight we get to weigh in on the DEE standard. I think that there was some impassioned arguments by people that may have been improper, but I’ll maybe leave that to the Council or if there’s a lawsuit filed. But it seem to be something that if we were to continue this to a date uncertain perhaps that would be an area that further work should be done and then that might persuade me to vote differently. I think although again it’s probably outside our scope tonight I think that every major project and this is certainly a significant project is going to have a cumulative impact. The California Avenue area is got a lot of projects going and I think that maybe jumping ahead I’m not, I’m beginning to despair that the City is ever going to update the Comprehensive Plan. When they do update the Comprehensive Plan there will be potentially the what’s now the Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan and a lot of work has been done on that and a lot of discussion and other than possibly this fits in with the proposed ideas about having a technology corridor it doesn’t necessarily reflect kind of the aspirations that I underst00d of the Draft Area Concept Plan and so it’s sort of a preemptive move into a, in a different direction.

City of Palo Alto

Page 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

I think the shading on the non-conforming legal use of the personal home is really unfortunate. I would it just seems wrong to me that this is going to block all that light. Perhaps this home should be demolished and you should build a 50 foot multi-million dollar townhouse there and then you wouldn’t have a shading problem because you could go up to the 4 th floor and have your own deck, but that may not be an option for this, this resident. And I think the, there’s nothing wrong with building an office building. I think this area is sort of an opportunity for mixed-use. This whole issue of the ratio of jobs and housing in the area is something where there are other mixed-use buildings in this general area going in which I think are very, very exciting. This is sort of a lost opportunity, but I would probably favor continuing this to a date uncertain or possibly voting against our approval this evening based on my concerns. Chair Tanaka: Let’s see, Commissioner Alcheck. Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I share Commissioner Rosenblum’s perspective that the responses are sufficient. I don’t want to suggest that our, that my review of this project tonight reviewed whether or not the project is compliant with the zoning codes requirements, but I don’t think that’s in the purview. I actually think that talking about whether or not a commercial building is a good idea is muddying the water here. This site is zoned commercial. The Planning Department’s review of municipally compliant projects is not part of our review and so there is a different body that will review whether this, there’s a different hearing where discussing the proposals compliance with our code should take place where individuals can articulate different interpretations of the code that differ with our staff’s interpretation and that’s not tonight. If that was tonight I would respectfully ask Mr. Reich to explain to us why in their view the DEE is a proper, is proper here. But I actually think that would be a mistake because we would be asking them to do something that we actually are not; it’s not under our purview to review whether or not this is in compliance with the height of our municipal code. This is not a Planned Community (PC). We’re not reviewing the project’s municipal compliance and I want to stress again this is not also a debate about whether or not commercial buildings should be here. And I think we really need to respect that division of review because it’s one thing for us to discuss PC’s and projects that are seeking all sorts of variances or exceptions when they come before us, but at this stage as an EIR we have to respect that there’s a different hearing for that. So I there are I think that there are I think some of the comments that have been raised could theoretically be addressed more completely in the packet and I think it would be worthwhile to add to the analysis that I think is actually very good the specifics about potentially the impact of the most recent regulations regarding water particularly because of the recent I guess changes. I’m not entirely sure that this project is any less compliant than it was 15 days ago or 24 days ago, but I just think that one of the commenters mentioned that we should be evaluating the EIR as in the current environment and so if I guess theoretically the regulations may have changed in the last 20 days or if there is a new order we should at least acknowledge that in our packet and maybe that would be a good piece to include as it makes its way to Council. Before we even entertain the idea of pushing this to a meeting at an unknown date I think we should determine whether or not there is consensus here that the issues identified in the EIR weren’t addressed properly or addressed in our Commissioner’s view sufficiently by the let me use the right term here, by the staff report and its findings. So I’ll stop it there. Chair Tanaka: Ok. So what we’re going to do also because it’s almost 10:00 is we’re going to start using the timer again. So let’s, let’s make it three minutes for each (interrupted) Ms. Silver: Excuse me, Chair Tanaka can I just (interrupted) Chair Tanaka: Yeah. Ms. Silver: Correct two things for the record. Chair Tanaka: Sure.

City of Palo Alto

Page 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Ms. Silver: So with respect to the water supply assessment and the water impacts that was I thought a very good comment from Mr. Ross. The CEQA analysis is based on the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is filed. And so of course conditions are constantly changing and so the law says that it’s frozen in time at the day that the notice of preparation. So that’s why the new regulations that were adopted a few weeks ago were not applied. Also in this case CEQA sets forth certain triggers for when water supply assessments should be prepared and this particular project was not big enough to implement that trigger. And then one other comment I wanted to correct on cumulative impacts. So EIR’s and Negative Declarations are required to examine cumulative impacts that are triggered by the project. So it recognizes that maybe one project might not trigger an impact, but if there are other projects in the area cumulatively there could be an environmental impact. And so the EIR did look at cumulative impacts and so that is also within your purview. With respect to the projects that Mr. Ross specified the way our traffic analysis works is that those projects are factored in in the background model or by using a growth rate projection to incorporate those projects. So there was a cumulative traffic analysis done for this project. Chair Tanaka: Ok. I want to call on Vice-Chair and you have three minutes. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. So going back to shading, Page 28, this analysis are not a proof that there is no impact on the light rights of the abutting properties. So my request is to provide appropriate drawings that would prove that there is no shade on the adjacent properties because from this plan as you may see, there is, I mean there is no property that would be, that’s not shown here and there is no cross section that would prove to us that there’s no impact. Sure. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: So, you want us to respond to these Chair or how do you want us to? Chair Tanaka: No, please respond to the questions. Mr. Lait: Ok and I’ll look to others to fill in where I may need some help here, but when we’re doing our CEQA analysis the City actually has adopted its own local thresholds of significance and that’s what we look to when we are evaluating a proposal. And particularly with respect to shade and shadow impacts that falls under the aesthetics section of, of our local criteria. And I’ll read the bullet that is pertinent to the shadows and it says, “A visual impact is considered significant if the project will substantially shadow public open space other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21.” It, there’s no criteria for or criterion for shading, causing shadows on private development, private properties. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: I understand this, but then since the structure goes above the height limit with the umbrella that’s on the roof that pretty much creates impact on the neighborhood by pretty much just taking away something that these people enjoy today. So I understand that the pronouncement of this letter, but pretty much there is no law that would allow, that would just restrict us from, from looking into this if we’re just pretty much encroaching into the height limit. Mr. Lait: Ok, thank you, and I guess what I would offer then in response to that is for the purposes of your review this evening you’re looking at the FEIR and so we need to be mindful of the criteria that this document evaluates the project on or against. There is an opportunity for those who are concerned about that aspect of the project to express those concerns to the City Council to talk about the DEE and how that might affect the neighbor specifically and the general vicinity as it relates to the findings that the ARB reviewed when considering the project. So there continues to be an opportunity to voice and express those concerns, but I would suggest that the Commission’s review this evening that is not that forum. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Right, I understand. I mean I spoke because of this reason, right, that this drawings they don’t, they don’t reveal that entire shading, shaded areas. And then for this reason may remove from consideration some impact on adjacent buildings that would be, that would be looked at at City of Palo Alto

Page 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

ARB meetings. Do you understand this? And then for this reason the other Commission may pretty much overlooked that aspect because they may just look at this, say ok well this is within the purview of this Commission, there is nothing for us to do. So it’s pretty much closing the gap between these two commissions. That’s what it is. Mr. Lait: So thank you. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Sure. Mr. Lait: So it’s the Chair’s, excuse me, it’s the Chair’s call to decide if there’s more commentary, but I will offer this if I can still conclude my remarks. Thank you for those comments and what we can do is speak to the applicant and see what kind of additional materials we can get in preparation for the City Council’s hearing when that is scheduled. Chair Tanaka: Ok, why don’t you go? Ms. Young: Thank you. Just to clarify the drawing that you have that Sheet 28 was part of the ARB submittal so the ARB did have a chance to review that. Also the purpose of that document was not to claim that the building had no impact on the adjacent sites, it was to document the existing building’s impact, which is the little red dash line versus the impact of the new structure. Does that help you to understand the intent of that drawing? Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Yes, I understand, but the intent of this what I was alluding to was that, that the other Commission could have overlooked the impact of the structure on the roof because there is no sufficient documentation to show the impacts on the other properties from the architectural perspective. Ms. Young: Sure, the structures on the roof were included in the shadow model. So if they’re not showing up on that diagram then there is no impact. The, in fact, pardon me, one of the primary purposes for the tensile structure was to shade the roof of the building itself. So the majority of it, its shadows stay on the building. Does that make sense? Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: No, sorry. I disagree. I mean this, I think that this is not complete, but I was hoping for understanding. I understand this is not within our purview, but pretty much if there is, there could be a gap between one and the other Commission if certain materials are not shown, right? Chair Tanaka: So here’s what I suggest, I’ve been listening to all the Commissioner’s comments and I’ve made a list of the issues that we want to deliberate and it’s been pretty clear to us that our purview tonight is only the EIR, not the entitlement, right? We’re not doing a PC. We’re reviewing an EIR. And so let me read each of these issues and if I missed one that you guys mentioned that I didn’t have on here we could add it, but I think I got a pretty good list here. And what I’d like the City Attorney to say is whether the item is in the purview or not and if it’s not we’ll cross it off and not talk about it more because it means there’s no point for us to do it. So shadows? Ms. Silver: That’s within your purview if you applied the criterion that Mr. Lait (interrupted) Chair Tanaka: Ok, ok, ok. One issue that came up is the EIR legal aspects, like notice and all that kind of stuff. Ms. Silver: That’s within your purview. Chair Tanaka: Ok. Circulation? Ms. Silver: That’s within your purview under parking impacts I guess. Chair Tanaka: Cumulative traffic, I think you already said yes. Ok. DEE?

City of Palo Alto

Page 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Ms. Silver: That’s not within your purview. Chair Tanaka: Ok, so we don’t have to talk about that. Height? Ms. Silver: To the extent it has an aesthetic impact.

Chair Tanaka: Ok. Water?

Ms. Silver: That’s analyzed in the EIR, yes. Chair Tanaka: Ok. Well we kind of talked about parking, yes?

Ms. Silver: Parking, yes.

Chair Tanaka: Ok. Including reduction of parking spaces as suggested by Commissioner Rosenblum?

Ms. Silver: Including the what?

Chair Tanaka: The possible reduction of parking.

Ms. Silver: Yeah, as I outlined to him if it’s (interrupted)

Chair Tanaka: Ok, ok.

Ms. Silver: EIR issue.

Chair Tanaka: And then the structures on the roof, which is somewhat related to the height.

Ms. Silver: Height.

Chair Tanaka: Ok. Is this looking at my fellow Commissioners did I miss something here? Is there

anything that’s on this list, is there anything that’s not on this list that should be on this list that we should talk about? Commissioner Alcheck: I guess I’m curious because you mentioned water. I’m satisfied with the response that our staff has given me with respect to the issue with water that I raised. And so I think the list it would be more helpful if there were any items on the list that Commissioners feel are still unresolved. Chair Tanaka: Ok, that’s actually a good comment. So ok before I get to the… Commissioner Rosenblum. Commissioner Rosenblum: I was going to just answer that question for myself, but I don’t know if you want to get to that later. I, I made a statement that I think is erroneous earlier, which is that we’re not

looking at the cumulative traffic impact here and reread through the report. Indeed we are and I don’t think it’s resolved on the way they’ve stated it in the report. I think they are looking at the incremental and not the cumulative. But I’m not sure if that’s the question you were just asking.

Chair Tanaka: Ok, so here’s what I think we should do. Ok so there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. There are eight possible issues and it’s 10:09 right now. So we have a couple of choices here, right? First thing is we have to see whether which one of these have been resolved or not resolved. Like for instance I think water I think we all kind of are good on. So I could go through each one of these, we could all nod and say yeah, we’re good or no, no, we have an issue. Ok, we could do that. The second thing we have to do is we would have to determine whether the report is sufficient because maybe for some of these items the report is not sufficient and if that’s the case then it might be City of Palo Alto

Page 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

worthwhile for us to be very clear to staff why it’s not sufficient so that staff and the applicant can do more work if necessary. And then basically if the items are sufficient as a body we should look at that, deliberate, and say yeah or nay. Ok? So… how’s that? Whether this meets the EIR or not, whether this is sufficient or not. Commissioner Alcheck: Can I just ask a question? In the process of determining insufficiency can we I just feel like it’ll be nice to hear staff respond to the concerns of insufficiency. So I’m not sure what they are yet because I don’t know if they’ve been articulated exactly. I think we just heard one that there is a noncumulative analysis maybe we could give at least staff a chance to respond to the concerns before we conclude. Chair Tanaka: Ok, what I think we should do I think the first order of business is I think this list is actually longer than it needs to be because I think some of these items have already been addressed. So here’s what we’ll do, I’ll read each one of these items and you raise your hand up if you think that we still need to talk about it. Ok? That sound good to everyone? Commissioner Alcheck: One person is enough? Chair Tanaka: One person is enough. Ok. Shadows. Ok, we can talk about shadows. EIR the legal aspect, the notice, all that stuff. Ok. Circulation. Ok. Cumulative traffic. Height. Water. Parking. Structures on the roof, structures on the roof. Ok. So we’re left with four: shadows, circulation, cumulative traffic, and parking. Those are the four. So maybe what we should do is walk though and I think if any one of these ok, here’s what I think we should do. I think we should go through because if any one of these we think is there’s not sufficient information in the report or cannot be satisfactorily answered by the applicant or staff this is almost means that more homework needs to be done before it comes back to us. Ok? So maybe before we dive into any one of these items we should talk (interrupted) Commissioner Alcheck: Just to be clear the decision that it’s not satisfied by staff though that decision is not made by just one Commissioner alone. Chair Tanaka: No. We can talk about that. Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. Chair Tanaka: Ok, so let’s start with that first. Shadows; ok, so as a body do we feel that there’s sufficient information in the report or from what we heard from the testimony today to consider this item thoroughly? Do we feel that or is there something missing? If there’s something missing we should say something. Ok, so we’ll talk about… sure. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: So I want to reiterate the point, right, from perspective of PTC I don’t think that I’m comfortable that we covered shadow aspect. But from perspective of bridging the gap between these two commissions, ARB and our Commission I believe that there should be a disclosure of the structure and its shadow that it creates on the adjacent properties because the drawings they simply don’t show it. Mr. Lait: Ok, so the ARB has already evaluated the project and made its recommendation to the City Council. The, I hear what you’re saying with respect to the documents that you’re looking at today. We’ll continue to take a look at that. We believe it’s addressed, but we’ll look at that and we’ll ask the applicant to provide some additional plans to effectuate the illustration that you’re seeking for and we’ll present that, ask that to be presented to the City Council so the City Council has that information available to them because they’re the ones who are actually going to be acting on the project. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Yes, and (interrupted) Mr. Lait: Is that fair? City of Palo Alto

Page 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: It will be fair (interrupted) Mr. Lait: Thank you. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. Mr. Lait: Thank you. Chair Tanaka: Ok, so Commissioner Alcheck. Commissioner Alcheck: Just really quickly because I think it might be informative is it, my impression is that the, that the municipal code does actually discuss potentially shading on adjacent structures and that that would have been reviewed at some level in the Planning Department. The fact that it’s not presented here is because our review doesn’t cover adjacent structures. Is that a safe assumption? Just to make sure that I don’t want there to be this assumption, I feel like we’re fishing for a failure and I don’t know if there was one so I’m just curious. Mr. Reich: It is noted in the environmental document that within the zoning ordinance 18.16 under the context based design criteria there is one line that says that a project shall limit its impact on sun and shadow to adjacent properties. There’s no threshold or criteria given and so the, you look at the environmental document it does, it does state that. Chair Tanaka: Ok, so it sounds like shadows (interrupted) Mr. Lait: And I’m sorry, so and that is a, that is an affirmative finding that needs to be made by the ARB. Chair Tanaka: So it looks like for shadows we have sufficient information. Ok. Circulation; does anyone feel that in terms of circulation we didn’t, there’s not sufficient information in the report or from what we heard from either the public or the applicant to discuss this item? Ok. Cumulative traffic. Ok. Commissioner Rosenblum do you want to talk about that? What’s insufficient? Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, so looking at the cumulative traffic analysis it seems to me that it’s simply an incremental traffic analysis. So it’s hard for me, so first I was erroneously under the impression that that wasn’t even part of the EIR. So that’s my, that’s my fault and it’s clearly part of the EIR. The wording that you have is in the cumulative condition it is expected that some local roadways, intersections will operate at unacceptable LOS; however, the addition of traffic generated by this project would not significantly increase the average delay or volume capacity ratios for any intersection. The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative traffic scenarios considered less than cumulatively considerable. And the language I think makes it clear that it’s an incremental analysis. So I just don’t understand how it’s a cumulative analysis meaning that you would have to include all of the pipeline projects together and the current level of traffic in concurrence with this otherwise you’re simply just doing incremental analysis followed by another incremental analysis. And so it’s possible that I don’t understand, well it’s clear I don’t understand the standard for cumulative analysis and how that differs from simply an incremental analysis of the number of seconds added by this project. So it’s possible I misunderstand the standard, but it seems to me that’s just another incremental analysis. Ms. Waugh: So I can try and give you a little context for how we approach the cumulative traffic analysis. So we first start by evaluating the cumulative impacts so the impacts in a future year, which this year or this EIR uses 2035, so we look at all of the projects that are included in the City’s traffic model, which are based on the designations that are in the Comprehensive Plan as well as other reasonably foreseeable projects and calculate what the LOS would be without the proposed project. That allows us to determine where in the study area there would be a significant impact in the cumulative condition. Then what CEQA requires is that we figure out which, to what degree the proposed project contributes to that impact and that the language I know it’s cumbersome whether or not the project makes a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact. I did not write the CEQA, those are the words that City of Palo Alto

Page 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

we, that’s what’s in the statute itself. So it’s a little bit confusing, but it is, it is basically what we’re concerned about is the increment that the project would add, but we first have established what the conditions would be in the cumulative scenario. So that lets us know if there’s a lot of development going on say there’s an intersection today that’s operating unacceptably, but in the future it would be right at the edge of being on the, on a unacceptable level that’s the most common time when you’ll see a project that might individually have less than significant impacts, but in the cumulative condition could contribute to a significant impact. Commissioner Rosenblum: So I think I understand this. So on the incremental basis your standard is number of seconds added? So if it’s over four seconds then it’s considered significant. Below it’s considered minimally significant or something. And then the cumulative concept is that if an intersections LOS is downgraded or becomes unacceptable as a result of this project that’s the cumulative impact standard? Ms. Waugh: The standards for whether or not an impact is significant are the standards that the City has adopted so they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But the way that the City of Palo Alto’s standards work is a combination of both. So there’s a bright line that if an intersection falls below a certain LOS then that would be a significant impact, but there is also the consideration of how many seconds does the project add to the overall delay and is that a substantial change. And both of those thresholds can be used in the individual project analysis as well as in the cumulative. Commissioner Rosenblum: Alright, thank you. Chair Tanaka: Ok. So yeah I’m just looking for if folks feel that or disagree with Commissioner Rosenblum in terms of sufficiency of information. Commissioner Michael. Commissioner Michael: Yeah, so if someone could clarify my understanding on the existing situation at the City’s worst intersection which is at Page Mill, Oregon, and El Camino which is close to this project, to what extend do you have sort of the straw that broke the camel’s back with respect to any project is adding 100 cars a day or whatnot to the neighborhood in which you have the City’s worst intersection LOS F? Because it occurred to me in the past that if we really are sensitive about this we would I mean the word moratorium isn’t my favorite, but if you definitely slow down on development in the area where you’ve got this unresolved the City’s worst intersection. So for example there was a, I think the stock of Yelp went down 18 percent today. The reason is because they missed their revenues by $5 million. It swung them from a penny profit to a penny loss. So it was like a 200 percent impact. So anyway you have these situations where you’ve got sort of a vulnerable condition and traffic in the California Avenue area strikes me as one of an area of big concern in the City. So how do we deal with it? Ms. Waugh: I would refer you to Page 3.3-8 of the DEIR, which is included in your FEIR. It’s towards the end. The, that page lists out the significance criteria that are used. These are the criteria that have been adopted by the City as well as influenced by the standards of the County for intersections that the County controls. And so the applicable ones for this LOS and how intersection operations are changed by a project are H, I, and J. So these specifically set out that the LOS requirement, the number of seconds of delay, and the increase in the volume to capacity ratio. So for any, any intersection the worst one in town or the best one in town these are the standards that are applied. And so even at the worst intersection if you also refer to the cumulative impact analysis here there’s a table on Page 4-5 that shows you specifically the number of seconds of delay that would be experienced at that intersection that you mentioned without the project and with the project in that cumulative condition. And you can see that the increase of delay is less than one second for both a.m. and p.m. peak hour and so that is, these are the standards that have been adopted by the City to determine whether an impact is significant or not and those are the standards that are used for the EIR. Commissioner Michael: Thank you. Chair Tanaka: Ok, so (interrupted)

City of Palo Alto

Page 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Ms. Silver: If I could just perhaps ask Kathryn a question on that. So and then so this was for 2035 and it takes into account roadway improvements that are anticipated for that particular intersection. And so that’s why it is not showing an impact perhaps for this particular project. Ms. Waugh: I think it’s also due to the size of the project and how many trips the project would generate relative to background traffic volumes. This project wouldn’t add very many trips. I don’t know what the total number of trips are that go through that intersection on a daily basis, but the proposed project would add such a small amount as to not noticeably or significantly affect the amount of delay that each individual vehicle experiences and the overall LOS. Commissioner Michael: So again it’s an excellent answer and I really appreciate that you understand this at this level. I’m very impressed, but on this chart that you reference the condition of the LOS in the p.m. peak hour for if F and it stays F and so you wonder as a policy matter the City if it’s F do you have to like, like stop already. But I guess not tonight. Chair Tanaka: Ok, so it sounds like both concerns about sufficiency of information for cumulative traffic is ok. What about parking? Do we feel that there’s sufficient information in the report about parking? Ok, so maybe let’s take each item one by one. So the good news is that we should have sufficient information to talk about these last four issues. So the first one is shadows, right? Now this is, this is in context of the EIR. Does anyone feel that based on the information that we have at hand that the issue about shadows is not sufficiently dealt with? Commissioner Michael. Commissioner Michael: So I’m persuaded that it’s not our purview to come in after the ARB and have and re-litigate their issue nor is it our view to sort of update the language of the municipal code, but I think that Commissioner Gardias’ suggestion that you have the clarification with additional disclosure to the Council about the shadow on the adjacent property is important and with that I think we will have done our job. Chair Tanaka: Ok, seeing no other lights I assume that we think at least on this topic we’re good. Ok, circulation. Does anyone have issues about the circulation in terms of the sufficiency’s in context of only the EIR? Ok. I see no lights. Ok, cumulative traffic. Commissioner Rosenblum. Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, I’ll just I’ll finish this [unintelligible]. I think the information, the explanation given makes sense and I think that the definition and standard are odd, but that’s not again the discussion for tonight. So just to note I’ll try to take this up at another time, but the information that you have supplied I think was very helpful and it’s clear. I understand the standard by which you were, by which you were measuring this. Chair Tanaka: Any other comments on cumulative traffic? Ok, last one, parking. And one of the kind of sub issues of this is Commissioner Rosenblum’s proposal for a reduction in parking spaces. Does anyone have any comments on this one in terms of is it not sufficient? Otherwise does Commissioner Rosenblum want to talk about your proposal? Commissioner Rosenblum: Well the proposal was proposed by the applicant initially saying that there could be an option to reduce the number of spaces by I think 10 in exchange for that there would be a supply of Caltrain Go Passes for all the users of the building for I believe 30 years. Is that something, it was a… for the length of the project. I love that idea. I think it’s excellent. I think it would reduce the number of trips; it would reduce the number of cars. I think that it’s the right thing to do in that area. I don’t know how to do it from just procedurally that doesn’t it means the project doesn’t meet the minimum parking standards. I think it’s something that if it could be entered in the record that if other Commissioners agree with this that PTC would like Council to consider this. I think it would be a great thing to do, but and I think the logic that of the 10, of all the people in that building getting free Caltrain that it would displace 10 cars I think that seems like a fairly good bet and it’s the, and I think it’s the right thing to do. Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. City of Palo Alto

Page 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Commissioner Alcheck: I think actually I don’t even think we need to vote on that or if you will because I think I my hope is that City Council will hear Commissioner Rosenblum’s view and I also think, I don’t, I’m curious to know what the procedural process for that, but I assume that it’s, I assume the City Council has to make the decision that they would allow a site to be under parked in exchange for that concession if you will. But I think, I think that’s tremendous, let me just put it that way. Especially considering that the life of this building is probably going to be in excess of 30 years and in light of the fact that in the next 10 years we may see the most dramatic change in transportation vehicle use. So that doesn’t even seem like a fair, a fair trade from the perspective of the amount of value that would be returned to users of that building from the community I guess because the users of that building would be have such enhanced access to public transportation. So I echo that and I don’t know if we need to vote on it, but I hope City Council discusses that or at least maybe Planning staff can discuss that with them. Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. Commissioner Michael: Yeah so tonight we’ve had a meeting that’s going on four and a half hours already and counting. It’s unlikely that all of the members of the Council are going to wade through our verbatim minutes in their final glory so I think this would be a situation where if staff could undertake to include an explicit mention in your report about this aspect of the PTC discussion and/or the Chair could provide an executive summary that highlights any issues that we ultimately have that would be great. Chair Tanaka: I guess I’d like to speak on this item. In principle I think the proposal from Commissioner Rosenblum makes a lot of sense, but the only issue is I think is that in the Cal Ave. area especially it’s there aren’t that many parking structure and it’s relatively there’s certainly a big need of parking in that area so while I like that idea I do know that parking is kind of scarce in that area and so I’m a bit reluctant to reduce the parking space just because parking is so precious in that area, but at the same time I do like the Go Passes. That’s also good. So you kind of want both, but I, I think parking is actually very important there. Ok so we’ve come to the end of the list and now is the time for us to make a decision in terms of what we want to do. So I would like to see if any Commissioners would like to make a Motion. If so hit your lights. Commissioner Alcheck. MOTION Commissioner Alcheck: At this time I would like to make a Motion that this Commission recommend City Council approval of the FEIR for 2555 Park Boulevard. Chair Tanaka: Does anyone want to second? SECOND Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: I will second. Chair Tanaka: Ok. Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: I will second it. Chair Tanaka: Does the maker of the Motion wish to speak on about the Motion? Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I want to reiterate that there are clearly impassioned opinions about the interpretation of our code as it relates to the design of this project and as a land use attorney I know that, I know, I’m confident that there are opportunities to pursue some of these issues in a different forum. And I want to I just I want to the only comment I want to make is that your confidence in your Planning Commission shouldn’t be shaken because tonight wasn’t that forum. And we take this role very City of Palo Alto

Page 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

seriously. And I think that I hope that every individual in our community that wants to address an issue will find the forum to do that successfully. And I’m glad that we were able to sort of work through these complicated items tonight while still being very professional and I want to just articulate how impressed I was with staff’s knowledge and presentation of the issues. Chair Tanaka: Does the seconder of the Motion wish to speak? Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Yeah, just briefly a couple of other items that we didn’t, we didn’t discuss. I believe that the applicant made a significant gestures toward the neighbors at our prior meeting so certain concerns that were to the nonconforming residential property were addressed and I think that from this perspective the applicant went beyond the requirement just by setting building back and providing balcony with a tree so that’s good. The only thing that I would like to understand but this would be probably for the, for some other conversations after we hopefully approve this project would be to understand at what point of time our overlay district kicks in and becomes profitable for developers to, to have services in the ground floor as opposed to just takes this area for the parking structure which may not be very attractive for the City. So that’s maybe something that staff would just keep in mind when we going to work on the Comprehensive Plan because we would like to understand it ourself and as opposed to using this valuable space for parking how to just deal with it so it just becomes a service floor. Thank you. VOTE Chair Tanaka: Ok, so it’s now time for deliberation on this Motion so hit your lights if you have any comments or if you have any amendments that you would like to make to this Motion otherwise we will take it to a vote. Ok, let’s take a vote. So everyone that’s in favor raise your hand. Ok, so we have four and all opposed raise your hand. Ok, one abstain, four in favor. Thank you, this item is closed. MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2, Commissioner Michael abstained, Vice-Chair Fine absent, Commissioner Downing recused)

City of Palo Alto

Page 24

Attachment H ­

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES EXCERPT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

Thursday, October 16, 2014, Meeting 8:30 A.M., Council Chambers New Business 1. 2555 Park Boulevard [13PLN-00381]: Request by FGY Architects on behalf of Campbell Avenue Portfolio, LLC for Architectural Review of the construction of a new three story, 24,466 square foot office building replacing a 10,800 sq. ft. mid-century modern office building in the Community Commercial (CC(2)) zone district. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared and circulated for public review and the comment period runs from September 5, 2014 through October 20, 2014. Chair Lippert: If you have any comments on the Draft EIR, get those in. If staff would like to introduce the item. Okay, we're ready to go, staff. Russ Reich, Senior Planner: All right, thank you for waiting. We are here today to review a proposal for a new three-story office building to replace an existing two-story mid-century modern office building. The fact that the existing building is over 50 years old and the fact that the building has been found to be historic requires that we have done a EIR for the project. We have Katherine Waugh of Dudek, who did the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and she will be providing a presentation on that to you. This is the first of two public hearings where we will be taking public comment on the Draft EIR. You have seen this proposal twice before, once in a scoping session for the environmental document and once in a preliminary review application. The applicant has made a number of revisions to the project. I'll let them go into details about that. One of the primary changes that they've made is the two stair towers that kind of anchor the building at each end. The Board had felt that they were kind of too large and too massive, and they have reduced those in height and dimension in response to your comments. They've also reduced the overall height of the building around the back side. Staff had commented that they were concerned about the parapet height for the hiding of the equipment on the rooftop was too extensive, you know, wrapping around the whole part of the back building. They've reduced that and eliminated it and pulled the equipment enclosure in such that it doesn't add to the perceived height of the building. With that, I will introduce Katherine Waugh of Dudek to do the presentation on the environmental review. Katherine Waugh: Okay, thank you, Russ. Good morning. It's nice to be here again. As Russ said, I'm Katherine Waugh with Dudek, and I have a short presentation to go over the findings of the Draft EIR, and then it would be appropriate to open it up for public comment. Do I just click to advance the slides? Oh, roll it. There we go, all right. As I mentioned, the goal of the hearing today would be to receive comments on the adequacy of the EIR, to what degree the EIR addresses the environmental impacts that the project might have, and whether the public have concerns about how that analysis was presented. My presentation overview is listed here. Quickly review the purpose of CEQA and talk about the proposed project; a real brief project description; and then review the key findings of the EIR. Sorry, also talk about the next steps in the process. As you're aware, the project proposes to demolish an existing two-story office building which contains a little over 10,000 square feet and 28 parking spaces, to replace that with a three-story structure that would provide 24,466 square feet and 92 parking spaces, one level of at-grade parking and one level below grade. The parking would be accommodated with 1|2555 Park Blvd

48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102

mechanized parking machines. There was also a second project option that is evaluated in the EIR, called a parking exemption option. This contemplates the project using a transportation demand management program to reduce their total parking requirement. By doing that, they would be able to eliminate some of those parking machines and, therefore, some of those onsite parking spaces could be available for guests and visitors. Both options have vehicle access entirely from Grant Avenue as opposed to the current office building has access from Grant as well as from Park. The slide here shows a site plan. The project requires a Design Enhancement Exception for the height of some of the elements on the roof. The project would provide a wider sidewalk than is currently there. It would effectively provide a 10-foot wide sidewalk. The building would be certified at the LEED Silver level. The purpose of CEQA is to describe the existing conditions in the project's setting; provide a detailed description of the proposed project; and then evaluate whether that proposed project would have a significant adverse effect on the environmental conditions that are described as the existing conditions. Where significant impacts are identified, the Environmental Impact Report must identify feasible mitigation measures that could effectively reduce or avoid those impacts, sometimes provide compensation for those impacts. Then reach a determination as to what is the residual level of significance. Were those mitigation measures effective at bringing the impacts down to a less than significant level or do any significant impacts remain? The primary goal of CEQA is to provide all of this information for the public and decision makers, you know, to inform the decision making process and ensure that, where there are significant impacts, those are fully understood before a project might reach the approval. The environmental review process is outlined on this slide. We started with the Notice of Preparation, which was supported by a detailed Initial Study. That Initial Study analysis allowed us to focus in on the topics where there was a potential for a significant environmental impact. We also held a public scoping meeting here with your Board in April of this year and used the comments that were provided by the public and by the Board Members at that time to make sure that we covered those issues in the Environmental Impact Report. We've released the Environmental Impact Report for public review. There's actually two different end dates floating around. I think you mentioned October 20th. That's the date that the document's made it to the State clearing house allows for the October 20th end date. Actually I believe that based on the date that the newspaper notice was published, the comment period is actually open until October 23rd, only a couple of extra days there. Once the comment period has ended, we will prepare a Final EIR. That entails that I would prepare responses to all of the comments that are received, just either providing additional information where necessary or providing clarifying edits if required to ensure that any environmental issues raised in comments are adequately addressed. There would also be a hearing at the Planning and Transportation Commission for their recommendation on the EIR similar to what you're being asked to provide today. Then the City must certify the EIR before any decision is made on whether to approve the project or not. Now I'll go over the key findings in the EIR. We focused the EIR on three different topics: cultural and historic resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and transportation and traffic. I'll quickly go over what we found relative to those three topics. The building was originally constructed in 1964 and has been determined to be an example of the mid-century modern architectural style. Because relatively little improvements or modifications have been made to the building, it has been determined that it's eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Places, which makes it a historic resource under CEQA. The project would propose to demolish that building and under CEQA it's determined that anytime you demolish a historically significant building, there is no way to adequately mitigate that to a less than significant level. The EIR does require as mitigation that photo documentation would be completed for the existing building, but remains with a significant and unavoidable impact as our conclusion there. We also found that there's a slim chance that cultural resources might be encountered during the site work. It's considered to be a very low potential, but we have identified a standard mitigation measure stipulating what actions need to be taken should that occur. With respect to hazards and hazardous materials, there are issues related to the age of the building and the materials that may be contained in that building that most likely do contain asbestosiscontaining materials, lead-based paints, and other substances that need to be controlled appropriately during the demolition procedure to ensure that that doesn't result in health impacts for anyone surrounding the site. Then there's also the contaminated groundwater plume in the area that this project sits on top of. As excavation occurs to create the below-grade level of parking, we've identified mitigation measures that need to be implemented to ensure that that construction process itself doesn't release hazardous materials into the environment. Then also building construction requirements such as 2|2555 Park Blvd

103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156

a water vapor barrier and garage ventilation to ensure that any of the contaminants in the groundwater don't build up an unhealthy concentration within the building. The final topic that we looked at was transportation and traffic. A detailed traffic impacts analysis was performed and evaluated the degree to which the proposed project could increase traffic in the area. We found that there was a total of 246 total daily new trips that would be added as a result of the project with about 35—sorry, I had to make sure I got my numbers right—35 of those would occur during the A.M. peak hour and 18 during the P.M. peak hour. The traffic analysis found that these trips, once they're distributed through the City's road network, would not add significant delays to any intersection. All intersections would continue to operate at the acceptable levels of service as defined by the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Transportation Authority's standards. There was no mitigation measures that are required under the traffic section. I should note, we also found that the parking exemption option would have slightly reduced impacts relative to traffic and transportation. With that TDM program in place, you would assume that some percentage of the workers would be using public transit to commute to and from work and, therefore, there'd be slightly fewer trips. That same conclusions holds that the impacts would be less than significant. I also intended to mention during the discussion of cultural and hazardous materials that the exact same mitigation measures would apply to either of the project options. This slide is about next steps, but I realized in looking through the materials this morning that I had left out an important slide regarding project alternatives. That's another key component of CEQA, is that you look at project alternatives that may be capable of reducing or avoiding some of the project's significant impacts while still being feasible to attain most of the project's basic objectives. There were three project alternatives that we evaluated in this EIR. The no project alternative assumes that the proposal is not approved and the existing building is retained in place. We did find that this wouldn't meet the objectives of the project applicant though. Although, of course, it would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact of demolishing that building. We also looked at a building preservation alternative. This would contemplate are there things that can be done to the building to improve the, you know, life and safety standards or to meet current standards while still retaining the historic components or historic elements of the existing structure. We did find that, you know, there are some options in there that could be some improvements made to the building. However, they would, you know, materially affect the integrity of those historic elements of the building. We did find that the impact would be slightly reduced, but it would still remain as a significant and unavoidable impact. Any time you contemplate modifying a historic resource, it's very difficult to avoid altering those components that make it historic. The final alternative that we looked at was the PTOD—I'm sorry—the pedestrian transit overlay district, I believe is what that would be. That would envision a product that might include some residential units as well as a lesser amount of commercial space than what's proposed. We found that that alternative again would still have the same significant and unavoidable impact of demolishing a historic resource, would have the same types of impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, and might slightly reduce the trip generation relative to what's proposed. It would slightly reduce some of the traffic effects but, as all of those effects were determined to be less than significant, CEQA doesn't require that you adopt this alternative based on that reduction in vehicle trips. Now, I'll continue with the scheduled presentation of next steps. As I mentioned, at the end of the public comment period we will review all of the comments that are received and prepare responses to them. That would include written comments that are received as well as the comments received today verbally and at the Planning Commission hearing. The Final EIR is then prepared. It would include any revisions to the Draft EIR that might be necessary as a result of those comments. Then that is the document that would be considered by the City for certification, and then it could be used to support any actions taken on the project. If the City determines to approve the project, we would also support the City in filing a Notice of Determination which begins a 30-day statute of limitations for anyone who wants to appeal or challenge that decision. As I mentioned earlier, the close of the comment period is actually October 23 which I believe is next Thursday. Comments that are received during the comment period will be included in the final EIR. The address to submit comments is shown on this slide. That wraps up my presentation. I have one last slide that just has, you know, comments, question mark, but I think maybe we'll leave up the address for now until there's another. Chair Lippert: I have one quick question for you, and then we'll go to the other Board Members for questions and then the public hearing. With regard to the public comment period on the Draft EIR, 3|2555 Park Blvd

157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

people can speak to that today in the public hearing. Next week there is a Planning and Transportation Commission meeting. Can people speak—is there one? Mr. Reich: No. We anticipated October 29th for a Planning and Transportation Commission meeting. Chair Lippert: Okay, so this is the only time. Mr. Reich: That's a tentative date. Chair Lippert: Okay. People may speak to the Draft EIR today or they may submit their comments in writing. After a week from today, next Thursday, the public comment period is closed on the Draft EIR. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Which means the initial comment period is closed and the responses to those comments in writing, you know, after that date public comments are still welcome. In fact, at the Planning Commission after the close of the initial period, those comments can still come in. It's just that our obligation to respond in detailed comments falls off after that initial public comment period. Chair Lippert: Okay. When we go to the public hearing, it would be great if people could identify whether they're speaking to the Draft EIR or whether they're speaking to the proposal. I just want to clarify that, because there's two things going on here. Mr. Reich: I just wanted to add one item that I forgot to mention. At places you should have comments from one of the neighbors. He could not attend today, Mr. Peter Brewer. Hopefully you received at places comments from him. If not, then I can make sure we run off copies. I had left instruction to make sure that that happens. If you don't have that, please let me know and I'll make sure that you get it. Thanks. Chair Lippert: I don't think any of us have it. If you could get those comments, that'd be great. Okay, I'm going to return to the Board for any questions. We'll do a round of questions and then we will open the public. Oh, we have to have the presentation by the applicant. That would be good. That's what happens when you sit in the back row. I'm sorry about that, Ms. Young. Heather Young: No worries. Good morning. Oh, sorry. Good morning, Board Members. I'm Heather Young from Fergus Garber Young Architects. Thank you, Russ and Katherine, for the introduction. Because Katherine's done such a great job in talking about the EIR and I think you're all familiar with the site, I'll just jump directly to the revisions and changes from the last presentation to where we are today, if that makes sense. Chair Lippert: Actually, you know, this is the first real presentation of the formal proposal. The last one was a prelim. Ms. Young: Okay. Chair Lippert: Prior to that, it was a scoping sessions for the Draft EIR. For the members of the public, if you could make a full presentation and do it, that'd be great. Ms. Young: Absolutely. That's fine. The subject site is on the corner of Park and Grant Boulevards. It's a little bit southeast of the California Avenue Shopping District. Here's Cal. Ave., El Camino, Alma and the rail line, and our site is here. The site is highlighted in yellow. It is a corner site. Adjacent to it is one of the members that you just spoke to. One of the neighbors is a office. There's a single-family residence, and then the through lot here is another owner for commercial activity. There's a condominium project here, and then you've got a mix of residential and commercial. There's the County Courthouse across the street. It's a very diverse neighborhood. The design proposes that the existing structure be replaced with a new three-story office building. The building has a below-grade parking level as well as partially covered parking on-grade. It also proposes a tensile roof structure at the top. 4|2555 Park Blvd

212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266

The project, as you can see from the site plan, is proposing to reinforce the bike boulevard along Park. The existing curb cut has been removed on Park. Then the curb cut off of Grant has been relocated. Vehicular traffic is now focused on the Grant side. The Park façade now has new trees and bulb-outs and parallel parking and a bicycle parking area that we will look at a little bit more as we move forward. You're also seeing a light and tree well on the project's north side. Another light and tree well on the northwest corner, and additional trees on the Grant side. The elevations--I apologize to members of the audience because they're fairly washed out here, but it should be a fairly good graphic in the Board Members packet. These are the two primary elevations on Park and on Grant. What they show is the proposed design and then there's an orange-shaded zone adjacent to, above many locations where the building has been shortened or pulled inboard either from a property line or a reduction of mass. That's in direct response to some of the comments that we received not only from the Board but from the neighbors to look at finding ways to reduce the height and the apparent mass of the building. We've worked with our co-consultant and with the mechanical engineers to be able to in many locations reduce the height by 2 feet; in other locations to move the elevator tower away from the property line about 6plus feet. As you know the elevator overrun is allowed to extend beyond the roofline. It's a physical requirement, and we've been able to move that mass inboard. Another item that you'll see here is the primary design of the project which is the concrete poured-form stair tower with the feature window on the left side of Park. An open, covered balcony area with setback glazing at the main entrance. The ground-level parking is behind a landscaped green wall at street level, and then there are two floors of open office on the corner and the tensile structure above. On Grant, you see the wrap-around of that two-levels of open office. The setback terraces and again the second stair tower anchoring the other corner. We've also modified the railing at the second-floor balcony in response to some earlier comments. It's now an open, more transparent picket system that adds warmth and visual transparency to that area of the building. We've relocated the building address which was at the corner over to the front entry. As we move forward with the presentation, you'll see that there's also a new planter area and a small monument sign proposed to further reinforce the entry to the building as this area. The two interior facades—again I apologize. The graphic is not as strong as what you see in your package. At the rear façade, there had been a mechanical screen on both sides. That has been reduced 4 feet and the mechanical area has been pulled much further away from the property line. Now this is literally the most minimal parapet that we can do by Building Code. Also you're seeing the planter in the northwest corner has been reduced another, I believe, 4-plus feet. it's very faint here, but this façade in elevation has been pulled back another 2-foot-6, so now that facade sits back from the residence which is here 12­ feet-6 from the property line. I'm sure I don't need to remind you, but other members may not know the building is zoned to allow for a zero lot line setback on both of the interior facades. We've actually, I think, worked pretty hard to pull back in those areas to bring light and air into the surrounding neighbors as well as into the building. This is a further graphic of that area I was just describing. With the residence, there's an existing fence that the residence has. The new proposed height of the planter there is, I would say, less than 1 1/2 feet above the existing fence. This orange area that you see is the reduction in planter height, the pushback of the wall and the reduction of parapet height. It's a much greater sun and light window to come into that adjacent residence. This section is cut closer to Grant where the elevator has been moved inboard and the wall has been reduced to, again, help to open up and reduce the mass on that side of the building. Here's another graphic where again you're seeing the parapet walls coming down, the elevator reducing in width and in height, and the stair tower reducing in height and then the planter reducing in height more sections similarly. This is actually a good section to demonstrate the overall building design, grade being here. You come in off of Grant and there are carstacking machines on the ground-floor level two high. You go down the ramp and, in the below-grade, there are three-level car stacking machines. You're parking at the middle level and there's a pit below. The alternative that was mentioned in Katherine's presentation would remove 10 cars from the project as part of a TDM, a traffic demand management, program. In that scenario, the ground level would have no stackers. It would just be surface spaces, and then you would have the stackers in the basement. The other elements that you see in the design are the entry lobby and the second and third floor open office plan which extends over to Grant. The stair tower that goes from the basement up to the roof and then the tensile structure. There's a new tensile structure over here, which is a companion to the main one. I'll get there in just a moment. Another item that the Board asked us to look at was perhaps brightening and enlivening the proposed color palette. What has been done is the more neutral, 5|2555 Park Blvd

267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320

chocolaty-brown tones have been replaced with a golden rod stucco color. The green wall color at the base of the building that wrapped around the areas has been replaced with a taupe. I mentioned the semi-transparent picket-railing here which is painted a brown tone to reinforce the wood epee seating along the pedestrian way. There's also this—sorry. Chair Lippert: If you could just wrap it up. Ms. Young: Sure. You can see the tensile structure here. Unfortunately, we could not change the color of the tensile structure. We had several meetings with the Fire Department and the Building Department. They were very clear that the product we needed to use had to be this particular rated product. We did talk with them about using this colored product here, because we have wall-mounted fire sprinklers. They were understanding that that particular one could have a lesser rating to it. There's an accent color, a pop of accent color. The side elevation on Grant with the new feature window which was also requested revised elevations to show this as a perspective view. The elevator tower now being set further back, the mass being reduced. The Board had asked for additional perspectives from the end of Grant where you're seeing the inset with the stucco and the taupe rear wall. Oops, one too many. Also from the other end of the adjacent neighbor's property where you're seeing the setback wall, the lowered planter, and the inset here. There is a little ... Chair Lippert: Thank you. Ms. Young: ... fly through if you want—I'll sit down. Chair Lippert: Okay. We'll return to the Board for just clarifying questions here, and then we'll open the public hearing. Board Member Gooyer. Board Member Gooyer: I don't have anything at the moment. Chair Lipper: Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: Yes. A question for staff. Thank you for getting the copies of the letter from Mr. Brewer. Right. And Mr. Jacobs. I mean they're saying that they didn’t get proper notification. For the Brown Act we have to have 72-hours notice, and they're saying that they got less than 48 hours. Can we even be having this meeting today? I would make just a comment that there was a holiday on Monday. Like the mail schedule, I think you probably sort of anticipated the regular schedule, but there was a holiday. I think everything could have been delayed. Ms. French: First of all, our requirement is newspaper notification of the meeting, which we did. That was done in a timely manner. We do send out courtesy notices to a radius. We do have evidence that Mr.—is it Mr. Brewer—by email did know that the meeting was today. That was nine days in advance. Russ might have more detail on that. Mr. Reich: Just the detail on that. The applicant actually reached out to a few of the interested parties that had been kind of in communication with us throughout this process. As we noted earlier, it's already been to two prior hearings before this Board. I believe it was nine days prior to the hearing they had mentioned that this hearing was upcoming. They even gave them the date, mentioned the availability of the Draft EIR. I'd also like to mention, you know, that all that information has also been on our website, letting people know when the ARB hearing date would be. That was posted over a month ago. The information has been out there. Board Member Lew: Okay. Do you have any other thoughts about this? I mean I think we tried to be accommodating to them. Also too, how does it factor in that the EIR has not been finalized? Sometimes with environmental review we postpone a decision until after all of the EIR issues have been finalized.

6|2555 Park Blvd

321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374

Ms. French: The nature of EIRs, right, is that there's a draft EIR and then that's going through an extended process in this case. I mean this is an architectural review level application, but you know there's a couple of aspects of it that go into other venues, one of them being the HRB that is, you know, tasked with, you know, looking at the demolition delay of 60 days and making a recommendation to Council. The Council isn't going to be involved in the EIR and that demolition delay determination. This is not the last opportunity for public speaking on this matter, on the EIR or the project. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you. Chair Lippert: Vice Chair Popp, any clarifying questions? Vice Chair Popp: I just have a quick question for staff in regard to the property that's adjacent to this, if there's information available to us about 123 Sherman. I looked online briefly and it looked to me like that changed hands in and around 2012. Do we know, has the zoning for that property been CC(2) for a period of time, a long period of time? Mr. Reich: In my time here, I'm not aware of that having changed, but that's not something we've researched. Vice Chair Popp: The residential use that's there has been on a CC(2) parcel for ... Ms. French: Over 16 years. Vice Chair Popp: More than 16 years. Okay. Thank you very much. I think that was the only question I had for staff at this time. Thank you. Chair Lippert: My clarifying question was similar to Board Member Lew's. I think you've answered that adequately. Okay, so this is the time when we'll open the public hearing. I have several speaker cards here. Each of you will have three minutes apiece. The first speaker will be Judith Fields followed by Jarrod Jacobs. If you'd be so kind as to introduce yourself, just your name, and then indicate whether you're speaking to the Draft EIR or the design proposal. Judith Field: My name is Judith Fields, and I live at 2581 Park Boulevard. I'm in one of the condominium units behind the project. I'm speaking to the EIR. Something has not been included in the EIR that I think is important. I guess I'm speaking to the project in the sense that the added traffic on Grant Street is going to exacerbate an already bad, dangerous problem. That problem is when you go to the stop sign on Grant and Park, you cannot see literally because there is parking on three sides of the corners up to the end of the, I guess, to the corner. You can't see, so what you start doing is creeping out into the road, which is what everyone does. Sometimes it feels like you're beyond the bike lane and you are in the middle of the street before you can really see. It's a frustrating situation. I know there's been some fender-benders. I don't know if there's been anything more dramatic. I see in the future with more traffic from this project as well as more traffic on Park Street, as it develops it's going to become a much worse problem. Park is not pedestrian friendly at all, partly because people are picking up speed as they go to the freeway entrances and partly because there's really no place to stop. There's no stop signs of any kind. You just have to depend most of the time on the good graces of the drivers. I think there needs to be some mitigation for the dangerousness of this. We need to consider safety for everybody, and I think that a four-way stop or some other kind of traffic controls can go a long way to mitigate the present and future traffic. Thank you much. Chair Lipper: Thank you, Ms. Fields. Jarrod Jacobs followed by Alice Jacobs. Jarrod Jacobs: Hi. I'm the owner and I live in the residence behind the proposed project. My wife had to leave; she won't be able to speak today. I had some slides. Are those available?

7|2555 Park Blvd

375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429

Chair Lippert: If you wouldn't just mind indicating when you're speaking to the Draft EIR and then also the architectural design. Mr. Jacobs: I intended to speak more broadly to the project in general. I did review through the draft EIR. It was very carefully written, I can tell. Yeah, it was very thorough. Chair Lippert: It's fine. We just wanted to make sure that we capture all of the public comment so that they can be addressed in the final Draft EIR. Mr. Jacobs: Sure. Chair Lippert: Take your time. Mr. Jacobs: I guess I could begin without the slides. This is just another photograph that I took from, I guess, the report that came from the architects. This is just showing the proposed project—sorry—the existing building today and then this here's our residence behind the law firm. I'm just showing kind of the nature of the spacing that exists today. The main concern I brought up the last time we were here is just that we feel that the new proposed building is very large for the site, for the nature of the neighborhood. This is also taken from the latest proposal. Now, I'd like to acknowledge that they've made some efforts to reduce the massing, you know, 2 feet here and 4 feet there. It's great. I appreciate that they're hearing us and they're making some changes. However, I'd just like to say that we still feel that this is an inadequate spacing in that anybody who sees this, not just me, I feel like an impartial observer would look at this situation here and say, "Wow. I feel sorry for the person who lives there." They must, I mean, this looks, I mean, it's not, it looks like it was done—maybe you could say it's almost kind of like an architectural slap in the face. I don't know if there's a term for this. I mean I'm glad that there's a notch taken out of here, out of the building so it's not just a stark wall. This isn't even as wide as our house. You know, from part of the house, you'll still be looking at this wall. I appreciate that they're doing some studies to see what it looks like. I've modified one of their drawings from the report here. This is what they had, showing that you could see a tree. I've added here where the actual wall is past the notch, because part of the house will be looking at that. I've added the first floor observer. You can see that on both floors of our windows, we have, you know, all these windows facing southeast toward the sun. I mean they're looking into walls here. Whether it's this surface or this surface, there's very little sky. I know I need to wrap this up. I know. This is also from their report. I just wanted to highlight that the backyard area and those walls are in 100 percent shadow for three seasons of the year. I'm happy to answer any questions. We moved into the place 2 1/2 years ago. We bought it from the original owner. We were told from the City that the house was allowed to be there and it's allowed to be rebuilt if there's a fire. We feel like we're there legitimately. Thanks. Chair Lippert: Thank you. Please let your wife know that there'll be other opportunities for her to speak to this item. Thank you. Peter Lockhart followed by Mark Weiss. Mark is my last speaker. If any other members of the public wish to speak, please get in a speaker card. Peter Lockhart: Good morning. I'm Peter Lockhart, and I'm speaking in support of this—nope. Am I on here? Chair Lippert: If you might just wait for a second. Could somebody please ask the ... Everybody got that? Okay. Mr. Lockhart: Okay, am I on? Okay. I'm Peter Lockhart and I'm speaking in support of the project at 2555 Park. I've either lived there or worked on Olive Avenue, just a few blocks south, since 1973. Actually I've known the building since the mid '60s when Alfred Leon was the gardener, and he was one of my first employers in the landscape contracting business. He took care of that building and I've known that personally for years. Anyway, oh, at that time El Camino had telephone poles, gravel sidewalks. Sundance Mine Company was a Stanford U malt shop. I've know the place a long time. The building was built with low cost in mind, and it served its purpose well for years. It is a disaster waiting 8|2555 Park Blvd

430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484

to happen, though if you look at it structurally at this point, it's time to move on. The proposal is cutting edge for Palo Alto and for Silicon Valley. To me, it really speaks of what we're all about now. Times are different than they were in the '60s whether we like it or not. I'm having to adjust as well. It's an architectural clean up. The project, to me it's fun, it's friendly, and it's functional. How FGY was able to make the modifications and concessions they have is architecturally beyond belief. I think it's incredible what they've been able to do in response. Now John Tarleton seems to have a wonderful track record. I know him personally. I can see what he's done. I think he wants to do a quality project, and I think he's put together a tremendous team. FGY's done an amazing job from what I've seen. I've looked at the drawings in detail and gone over them. They look, like I said, I think it's excellent. I think it's a vast improvement for the area. As far as traffic, there are other projects that are going to bring far more traffic than this. This is almost a drop in the bucket compared to what's happening at (inaudible) just down south. We don't have to like traffic, but it's going to be here for a while. Anyway, I think it's a good team they put together. I think it's a good project. I've looked at it thoroughly. It's exciting, and I wanted to support it. Chair Lippert: Thank you, Mr. Lockhart. Mark Weiss, and Mark is our last speaker. If I don't get any other cards, I'm going to close the public hearing after Mr. Weiss speaks. Mark Weiss: Good afternoon. Mark Weiss, 1788 Oak Creek Drive. I lived briefly on Pepper. I know the area. I don't know Mr. Lockhart, but I remember the Spilettas who lived on Olive, Argentinean immigrants would host charreadas in the backyard, barbeques. It's an interesting neighborhood. For whatever reason, my heart goes out to Ventura. It's an interesting part of town. I haven't studied this thoroughly. I'm a little bit of a knee jerk reaction here. Predictably, you'll guess what I'm going to say, and I'll have an opportunity to open my mind even farther at further proceedings, if necessary. I'll go by today on my way to the PO Box or Molly Stone's or whatnot to walk around it. I happen to meet, I don't know them personally; I happened to meet the Jacobs earlier today, the young mother with the babe in arms and the two well-behaved kids who waited three hours to have their say and then decided enough was enough. I guess I would simply put, like many residentialists in Palo Alto, we would rather invest in 5 1/2 month old Dash Jacobs than invest with John Tarleton. Chair Lippert: Thank you, Mr. Weiss. Okay. We will close the public hearing and return to the Board for questions and any comments they have. We'll begin with Board Member Gooyer. Board Member Gooyer: I think this is a great improvement over the last time we saw the building. A couple of things. The front, the balcony where the signage is now, which I think is a better location. I'm still not happy with the fact that I think that that treatment should then turn the corner and hit the building, so you don't see that sort of phony façade concept. If you look at it from the angle or whatever—this one, that little couple of feet there. It ... Mr. Reich: Doesn't wrap around. Board Member Gooyer: Right, right. I don't like where it looks like it's applied to it. I'd rather just see the whole—yeah, that one. I'd like to see it wrap around and actually hit the wall again. Also, I'm just really not a fan of, at least at this elevation, floor to ceiling glass in the office spaces. It's the proverbial you see all the junk and everything else. What I'd like to see, and I think it would help the design somewhat, is that if the—I like the yellow banding much more than this sort of chocolate brown or copper color. I'd like to see that made a little stronger. In other words, the bands a little deeper. I think that would also go a long ways toward adding a couple of feet at the bottom or a foot and a half at the bottom to get rid of a lot of the clutter that invariably you see crammed up against the window walls, the cabling and the wiring and that sort of thing. I think it would help the horizontality, because it's sort of a fight now whether it's sort of a vertical building or a horizontal building. I think adding those three bands to the two yellow ones and the silver one in the middle and making them a little larger, I think, would help. The treatment of the corner elements, I think, is great. I would be able to support this building the way it is now with a couple of, like I said, minor modifications. 9|2555 Park Blvd

485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539

Chair Lipper: Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: Thank you, Heather, for the changes. You know, I'm on the fence with regard to this project. The basic design I like. Really I've been struggling with the DEE and I've been sort of rereading like the staff draft findings for the DEE. I spent a lot of time looking at the zoning map and rereading like the Zoning Ordinance. My inclination now is to go against the DEE. In past projects, we've sort of said that these roof decks on top of the offices were okay because the neighboring buildings were taller, the existing buildings were taller than the proposed projects. Now, we're saying theoretically the zoning on the neighboring sites could allow for a bigger building, but the buildings are smaller. To me, that seems like the logic isn't following through from, you know, our previous approvals. The Comp Plan, right, is pretty clear on maintaining the scale of California Avenue, and that's generally 37 feet high. Some of the RM-40s can be higher. I think the staff report says that they could be 50 feet on the parcel in back of the proposed project. That's only true for mixed use, and that's not true for a pure commercial project like this project is. If you have a mixed-use project, you get the extra height, but you also have a setback from the RM-40 property. Generally, mixed-use projects have to have a lot more windows and balconies for the residential uses. This is a different shape building. I'm trying to interpret the Zoning Code, that there's no difference in floor area between mixed use and all commercial. It's 2.0 floor area. Really the difference is in the height. I'm interpreting it as saying that if you have a mixed-use building, you have to have setbacks for the residential use and then we'll let you go taller because you're building for the setbacks. To me this doesn't quite settle on my mind, saying that because the project in the back could be 50 feet then, therefore, I get to build the elevator and the stair towers and the roof canopy. I generally support like roof decks and all that. This one doesn't have any planting. The tensile structure is 45 or 40 feet by 85 feet, which is really big. I mean I don't know what plant needs to go there, but that's not like an employee break area or whatnot. I mean this is really very substantial size. I think that the impact of it in terms of massing isn't that big, because it's located in the center of the building. The language of the DEE is minor, like cornices, trellises, stairs, and whatnot. To me, I think it's kind of hard to justify something that big as saying it's minor. I mean I like the project, but it doesn't quite seem to me to meet the language of the Zoning Code. I think, as we all know, we have like lots of people in public who are scrutinizing every word in the Zoning Code. I think I'm going to tip my hat and sort of err on the side of being conservative and say that it doesn't meet the DEE findings. Chair Lippert: We'll come back to you. Vice Chair Popp. Vice Chair Popp: Board Member Gooyer stole my thunder with the two comments that he brought up. I agree very much with what he has said in regard to the wood paneling wrapping around the edge. I think that that would improve the look of that. The drum that I often beat is the floor to ceiling glass is really problematic for me. There's just no way to control what goes on inside the building. My recent experience walking around, driving around is all of the buildings that have that are less attractive than I would hope they would be. I don't mind the glass going full height if you can incorporate a frit pattern or some other aspect of vision control into the building at the lower edge. I think there's a whole series of concerns about this. He's brought up a couple with the wiring and people loading boxes or furniture and things up against it, you know, modesty issues and all sorts of things. I just think it's appropriate to consider some type of a visual alternative to the full height glass at that area. In regard to the DEE, I very much appreciate Alex's comments, Board Member Lew's comments. Excuse me. I was struggling with this as well. I think that we have a building that is in an unusual location and has some unusual circumstances. The logic that he's applied, I think, is absolutely valid. I had come to a different conclusion. I think that this building is a transition between the lower buildings that are around it and the 50-foot buildings that are near it. I like the idea that there is a very soft transition by the use of this roof deck between the areas that are more dense and the areas that are less dense in terms of height. The one comment that I would have, again aligned with Board Member Lew, is that I just think that the canopy is too large. I think it could even be a little bit smaller than it is. It would be very nice to be able to get up there onto the roof. I think it would be great to utilize that area for employee breaks, etc. Contrary to what I had described for the Borders book space, the Varsity Theater space where I was saying we need more shade, we need more shade. I think that in this case having a little bit less would be nice. Getting up there and having some space where you can get out into the sun and have some 10 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d

540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593

chairs out there that would give people the choice of being in the shade or in the direct sunlight would be great. The way it's pulled back from the edges and the character of the canopy structure itself, I think, is very appropriate to the architecture, very considerate of the neighbors. I'm more inclined to support the DEE at this point. I think that, you know, the question of why do you have to go up on the roof is a fair question. But I think that there's so much benefit of going up on the roof that I don't really need to have the answer to that for me. It's pretty clear to me. I did want to just ask briefly, as we're talking about that though, why not the PTOD alternate that the EIR is proposing, this mixed-use concept? Yeah, if you don't mind. Could I just get you to weigh in on, you know, it's clear that the no building alternative has a certain implication to it. It's clear that the preserve, upgrade, improve has a series of implications as well. You have chosen to go with the project as proposed, but there is this third alternative, the PTOD alternative, that would be for a mixed used building. That is certainly something that would be possible at this site, and I'm just wondering what the thought process was behind purely commercial versus something that might have been mixed use and go higher, bigger, other constraints. Ms. Young: We actually did study the mixed use scenario very early on. I'm trying to recall. Did we have the same 37-foot height limit or did ... Yeah, that was the rub, is that we had the setback and the same 37-foot height limit. It became a nonviable project. At that point we focused on the purely commercial. (inaudible) No, it's the same, I think it's the same 2.0 for the CC(2). We'll have to go back and double check, but my recollection was that we had the same height limit for this particular site for a mixed use, because of its relationships around it. Yet, we still had the setbacks. You couldn't actually develop it in the same way. Frankly, that's one of the reasons why we were very excited about the TDM option to reduce parking on the site, because that was a way to reduce vehicle trips to the area and also to address some of the neighbors' concerns about traffic on Grant. Vice Chair Popp: Thank you. I have more, but I can wait until the next round. Chair Lippert: First of all I want to say thank you for coming back with the formal proposal. My comments are very much in line with Vice Chair Popp's. I'm in agreement with him on the canopy and the DEE. That's not a problem at all. Where I think the building is very successful is in that in so many office buildings today where we have obscured windows, we have buildings that are not connecting with the street. This building has a variety of indoor and outdoor spaces that communicate and connect with the street really well. I really like what you're doing with regard to the windows on the Park Boulevard side of the building. I really like the notion of these terraces. I think that that is particularly important to connecting to the street. It also allows for a tiered, you know, terraced-type connection, because you have the first floor, second floor and then you have the roof garden. The roof with the canopies, I think, begins to become a very exciting dynamic space. I'm not terribly concerned about the roof structures in relationship to the residential properties that are around it, because generally, you know, offices are during the day time. The residences are mainly at night. Weekends, yeah, people are home in their houses or their apartments. Not a lot of activity generally goes on on the weekends. If it does, people are there for a very brief time. They're in the office; they're not generally out on the roof. Even if they were, I mean, what are we talking about? A couple of people maybe? I don't know. However, I think where I have difficulty is on the back side of the building. I don't think the backside of the building is as successful as the front side of the building. Where I have the sort of rub, so to speak, is why not push the building out, the front terraces out towards the street and have that enclosed and begin to pull the back side of the building away from the property line so that you could have terraces on the back side of the building. It's a push-pull type of thing. I know that it's a very dynamic element to the building. Can you just talk a little bit more about how we might be able to get more interest and visibility on the back side of the building? You know, I guess where the difficulty is—we recently reviewed a project, the 240 Hamilton building, it has sort of the same issues Ms. Young: Yeah. You've actually hit on one of the big challenges. It's wanting very much ... Chair Lippert: Could you pull the microphone a little closer? Thank you.

11 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d

594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648

Ms. Young: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Wanting very much to enliven the property line facades and trying to find ways to bring light and air and views deeper into the floor plates. The challenge of occupiable space outboard is actually pretty severe. In order to have occupiable space, we've got required setbacks and fire separations, and then even if you do that, in order for you to be able to occupy it, the occupancy has to be a minimum of 10 feet away from the opening on the property line. I think this is 11 feet setback here and it's 12-foot-6 setback there. We would have to set this wall back at least another 10 feet in order to begin to get people out there. Even then they still couldn't come to the edge. They couldn't come any further than the wall actually is right now. We've tried to find ways to increase that engagement. You can see—sorry—there are more of those floor to ceiling windows that are not very well received by everyone on the two sides. It's an attempt to open up views and get more light and visual connectivity there. Having people occupy that interior property line is actually a much— well, you all know. It's actually a pretty intense challenge. Chair Lippert: We'll go for another round of questions and comments. Board Member Gooyer. Board Member Gooyer. Actually I'm okay. Most of the other comments that I had thought about have already come out. Chair Lippert: Board Member Lew, if you want to continue with your questioning and comments. Board Member Lew: I don't have anything else at this time. Chair Lippert: Vice Chair Popp: Vice Chair Popp: Wow, okay. I do have a couple of other things. First, in terms of your site plan and I really appreciate the choice to remove the driveway and maintain the driveway that's on Grant. I think that the stop sign that's there helps to control the traffic flow in and out of Park, and it's a very smart way to do that. I'm appreciative of that move. I also wanted to just note my appreciation for your choice to create setbacks on walls where actually you don't have a setback requirement to do that in ways that is considerate of the buildings that are around you. I think, you know, for Mr. Jacobs the challenge here is really that you have a very unusual use in the midst of what would otherwise be a very commercial property. I think that the applicant has done a respectable job here of trying to accommodate the concerns that you are raising in respect to your site lines and lights and shade shadow. The separation between your building wall and their building wall is now 32 feet, or something like that. I mean it's pretty significant. I'm having a hard time coming to some request for more than that. I think they've done an appropriate job. The presentation that you gave today describing the notch in the corner and the placement of that, it all seems very appropriate to me in terms of the architecture and the way that they're siting their building and drawing away from yours. I hear very clearly what you're saying, and I think that to the degree that we can ask the applicant to be thoughtful about color and reflectivity and the planting that goes on there, perhaps even encouraging a discussion and a dialog between you and Mr. Jacobs in regard to those items, that the species of trees that might occur in those planters, all of those things, I think it would be very appropriate and nice for you to interact with him about that as much as possible, he and his family. The details that you provided on Sheets 22 and 23 were very helpful for me. I did have a question for you in regard to the spandrel material at the window box along the edge. It's not clear to me what that material is. Is that an aluminum panel? Is it ... Ms. Young: That's correct. It's an aluminum panel that's inset from glass, so you're seeing through the glass to a shadowbox surface. Vice Chair Popp: Okay, that's great. Thank you. It's the same glass that would be ... Ms. Young: That's correct. Vice Chair Popp: ... on the face. Okay. I do want to just raise a concern about the horizontal members at the guardrails, the roof deck, and at the balconies. That immediately just becomes a ladder. Anybody 12 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d

649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703

that's out there that's young, not as careful, you know, still a low center of gravity but they go right over those things. I wanted to encourage you to think about potentially a different guardrail design for that area. I'm talking about the ... Ms. Young: For the office building? Vice Chair Popp: The office building, right. I'm talking about the railing that's at the roof level and the railing that's at the balconies. You're showing a horizontal design for those railings ... Ms. Young: That's correct. Vice Chair Popp: ... that would be very climbable. Ms. Young: Yes, that is correct. Vice Chair Popp: I'm very concerned about that. I'd like to suggest that perhaps you come forward with some alternates for that. Ms. Young: For the young children who are in the office building? Vice Chair Popp: I get your point but, you know, people have parties. They have events. That's a nice roof deck that's up there and I imagine that people will bring their children to the office with them occasionally. I'm not telling you that you have to change. I'm just suggesting that you should consider some other type of railing system potentially. I think this is a comment that I've heard raised at the Architectural Review Board a number of times in the past. I think it's valid. I just wanted to raise that concern. Let's see. Painted middle balcony, glazing, sections. I think that's everything that I had. I'm pretty comfortable moving this project forward at this point. I'll wait to hear what the Chair has to say here. Thank you. Chair Lipper: We do see the age of programmers coming down. They're now in preschool, I think. Okay. There are just a couple of things here. On the back side of the building, I'm sort of in variance with Board Member Gooyer. I think that those windows along the back are fine having them come down to the floor. In fact, you know, the other flip side of the comments that I was going to have is on the back side where you've got this whole wall. It can in some ways be mitigated by where you've got the high clerestory windows, maybe having those come down even further. Let me ... Ms. Young: May I? Chair Lippert: Please. Ms. Young: Sorry. Those two right here? Chair Lippert: No. The ones ... Ms. Young: Oh, those. Chair Lippert: Those. Ms. Young: Oh, okay. Chair Lippert: Let me explain where I'm going. Federal regulations now are trying to get more and more light into buildings, more natural light. I believe that this is on the north side or the northeast facing side of the building. It's rather benign. It's not heat-generated sort of light. There is an opportunity to get more daylight into the building; thereby, not having the necessity of using office lights. Also, I know that there may be some issues with the views, but I think that because of the blank nature of this wall, you 13 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d

704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758

know, the back side of the building, that this really begins to add interest as well as light on the back side of the building. I would entertain that. One other comment I had is with regard to the other set of windows that you have on the corner that's facing the Jacobs' unit. You know, I think that having a colored wall finish on an outside corner is always problematic where you have a change of material or a change of color. I always, you know, think that having it return around the wall and finish on the interior corner is a much better way to go. It's not an egregious sort of eye sore here, but it's something that I think is problematic. Ms. Young: Thank you. I agree with you 100 percent, except that in this condition we have a cast concrete wall which is 10 inches think. The infill wall here is stucco. The cast concrete wall will be in place probably a few months prior to the construction of the stucco wall and its finish. We're anticipating that it's actually a very clean condition. I don't know if we (inaudible). Yeah, there's an offset of, I believe, 4 inches that the concrete will project and then the stucco comes in. We're very concerned about that exact same issue, because it's a constructability issue. It's a durability and a waterproofing issue. We want to make sure that that's a good, clean connection. Thank you. If I might go back to this. These are actually already at their maximum allowed percentage of opening on that wall. Are you proposing that the windows be lowered? Chair Lippert: Correct. Ms. Young: Lower them? Chair Lippert: Not widened, but lowered. Ms. Young: Sorry. Not increased in depth, but physically the whole thing lower. Chair Lippert: Correct. Ms. Young: Oh, okay. We tend to put windows close to the ceiling because the ceiling acts as a reflective plane, and it increases its perception on the interior. Otherwise, you get more of a contrast in the sort of a dark corner when you lower a window. (inaudible) Deeper into the space, that's true. We can look at it. As you know, we're applying for LEED Silver certification. I think one of our points is also the daylight and the exterior views. We thought this was the preferred approach to achieve that. I may be out of the loop. I think there's a section that he may have seen. Do you have a different experience where a lowered window is better? Chair Lippert: My take on it is that if you have a full height piece of glass, you know, like a curtain wall, it's not problematic because what happens is there's usually a recess or a return where the ceiling is a dropped ceiling or a soffit of some kind, maybe even pocketed where you have some sort of mechanical shade, you know, up there. However, with a window like this, you know, it could in fact be problematic and you may in fact be reducing the amount of light if there's a dropped ceiling in the space. Why not just avoid that all to begin with and drop the window down. Also, I don't necessarily think that the window pattern has to be the way you've got it arranged. I want to create more of a visual interest and connection, you know, using those windows. How that's achieved, you know, is up to you. I mean they could be, you know, a window is a pierced opening. Ms. Young: We hadn't thought about shades on this wall. It's sort of the northeast wall, but you're right. Somebody could put in shades and they could also come in with a dropped ceiling. We could look at that. Chair Lippert: Okay. Those are basically my comments. Oh, and one other thing. I just want to say that this is really a high quality project in terms of your material palette. There's a real authenticity to the materials, and I think that's particularly important. Any other comments here or do I have a motion? Board Member Lew. 14 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d

759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813

Board Member Lew: I was looking for things in the set. Do you have transformer locations, location meters, final land—I think you have like an illustrative landscape plan, but I don't see any hardscape and all that kind of stuff. Tim Shockey: Tim Shockey with Fergus Garber Young. The transformer is going into an existing vault in Park, and we're upgrading the existing one that's there. The fire backflow is down in the basement behind the accessible stall, not in the path of travel, but in an area that's not being used for anything. We've got the irrigation and domestic backflows behind the monument sign in the entry area there. I think that covers all the utilities. Board Member Lew: Great. Hardscape. Like I think the sidewalk is wider, right, you have the 10-foot sidewalk, effective sidewalk. What is that? Is that just regular city gray? Mr. Shockey: Yes, it's the lamp black city sidewalk. I think we have a 10-foot-5 setback at the planter, and then we have 11-foot-9 setback at the Park stair tower. Board Member Lew: Okay, thank you. I think for staff too, I think normally we have a standard like boilerplate condition of approval that the final planting and hardscape get submitted. I didn't see it here. I didn't look very carefully, but I just checked quickly. I think that's normal, right, and I didn't see that. They haven't really submitted a final in the set. Ms. French: I think not all plans need that condition, or projects. Certainly if it's not there, we should add it. Board Member Lew: I just have—on my page 33, it's just a tree protection plan. Mr. Reich: 28, 29, and 30. Excuse me, it's 29 and 30. Board Member Lew: Oh, I see. I was just looking at the pictures on 29, and I didn't see the schedule on 30. Like hardscape in your entry plaza, is that just, that's the same as the sidewalk? Ms. Young: It's actually a pedestal paver system similar to the one that'll be used on the roof terrace for drainage. At that entry terrace, we're above the garage, so we're working on a waterproofing detail so that, again, you know the water has to be treated. Board Member Lew: Right. Okay. I think my last question is how do you maintain the trees in the second floor planters. Ms. Young: Great question. We didn't show you the floor plans, but there are wall mounted ladders off of the flat top-part of the ramp so that you can get up. Board Member Lew: Oh, I see. You go through those openings? Ms. Young: Yes, that's correct. Board Member Lew: Okay, interesting. Thank you. Chair Lippert: Anyone wish to make a motion or do I have other discussion here? Vice Chair Popp: Yeah, I'll make a motion. I'd like to move that we approve the project as conditioned and in accordance with the staff report with a more detailed landscape plan to return to subcommittee along with a concept for reduction of the canopy structure, a reduced area plan. I don't know. I don't know how to say that exactly, but make it smaller. I thought that was part of the package, but I should say it specifically, okay. As part of that approval, we would be approving the DEE, recommending approval of the DEE as proposed. Pardon me? 15 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d

814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867

Ms. French: Am I hearing that your motion includes recommendation for approval of the DEE with a reduced ... Vice Chair Popp: Of the DEE with a reduced canopy. Sorry. That's a big mess, but yeah. Chair Lippert: Do I have a second on that? Board Member Gooyer: Could I suggest a ... Chair Lippert: We need a second. Board Member Gooyer: Okay, I'll second. Chair Lippert: Okay. Do you wish to speak to your motion? Okay. Do you want to speak ... Board Member Gooyer: Yeah. I wanted to recommend the wrapping back of the balcony. Chair Lippert: Is that a friendly amendment? Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, a friendly amendment. Vice Chair Popp: I'm happy to accept that. I think we had given the applicant some comments about that and the glass and some other things that I'm anticipating that they'll incorporate into the project (crosstalk). Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Chair Lippert: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Board Member Lew: Would the maker of the motion clarify how much smaller you were thinking for the roof canopy? I mean like half or 20, I don't know. I'm just trying to—because it makes a difference in how I might vote for the project. Vice Chair Popp: I would suggest it be about a third smaller than it is. About a 30 percent, 33 percent reduction, something like that. Chair Lippert: So you're amending your motion? Vice Chair Popp: I'm just clarifying for Alex what my expectation is. Chair Lippert: It should be in the motion. We're reducing it by a third? Vice Chair Popp: I'll amend my motion to include an approximate reduction in scale of the canopy structure by a third. Chair Lippert: Is that okay with the seconder? Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, that's fine. Chair Lippert: Okay, good. Any other comments? Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: Question for the applicant. Is there a photometric?

16 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d

868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921

Ms. Young: Excellent question. Our electrical consultant promised us that it would be ready today, and it was not. I'm sorry. Board Member Lew: Can I add a friendly amendment that the photometrics go to the subcommittee as well? Chair Lippert: You may. Vice Chair Popp: I'll accept that. Ms. Young: We do have the light fixtures as you saw on the elevations. Board Member Lew: They're very nice, very expensive fixtures. Very nice. Thank you. Ms. Young: Quality. Chair Lippert: Is that acceptable to the seconder? Board Member Gooyer: Yes. Chair Lippert: Great. We have a motion with several minor amendments, that the wood—is that what it is? Vice Chair Popp: Right. Chair Lippert: Wood continue around the corner on the lower balcony, that the canopies be reduced by a third, approximately a third, and that photometrics return to the subcommittee. Anything else? Okay, with that ... Board Member Lew: The floor to ceiling glass? Chair Lippert: Oh, the floor to ceiling glass. Board Member Lew: It seemed to me that a majority of the Board was—or maybe it was me. It seemed like a couple of members of the Board were concerned about the floor to ceiling glass. I would echo that. Chair Lippert: amendment?

But there was not motion, there was no amendment for that.

Do you have an

Vice Chair Popp: I'll amend the motion to include a reconsideration of the floor to ceiling glass with either some type of a pattern or some other methodology to control visual access into the building at the lower portion of the glass. Chair Lippert: Is that acceptable to the seconder? Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I'm fine with that with the thought that, as you said, it could be a variety of ways it's done. Just something in that sense. That's fine. Chair Lippert: And landscaping details to return to subcommittee. Okay. We have a motion and several amendments. Have you caught all those, Russ? Mr. Reich: Yes.

17 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d

922 923 924 925

Chair Lippert: Okay, great. With that, we'll vote on the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. That passes 4-0-0-1. Great. Thank you very much for your time. Ms. Young: Thank you.

18 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d

Attachment I

HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD

EXCERPT OF MINUTES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Wednesday, November 19, 2014, Meeting 8:00 A.M., Council Chambers 1. 2555 Park Boulevard [13PLN-00381]: Request for Historic Resources Board review of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared regarding a request by FGY Architects on behalf of Campbell Avenue Portfolio LLC for Architectural Review of a proposal to demolish an existing 10,800 sq. ft. two-story mid-century modern office building and construct a new 24,466 sq. ft. three-story office building with one level of below grade parking and a roof terrace in the Community Commercial (CC(2)) zone district. The Architectural Review Board has recommended approval of the application, which includes a Design Enhancement Exception request to allow two stair towers and a roof top canopy structure to exceed the height limit by 10 feet and 13 feet respectively. Environmental Assessment: The Initial Study and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) were published on September 5, 2014 for a 45 day initial public comment period. The initial comment period on the DEIR has been extended through November 19, 2014, to allow input by the PTC and Historic Resources Board. Chair Kohler: Staff, would you like to fill us in on this? Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Good morning. Thank you, Chair Kohler and Board Members. The purpose of today's meeting is to take additional public comment on the Draft EIR for the preparation of the Final EIR. The Board is not required to comment on the environmental document, but your comments are welcome as are additional comments from the public. Today is the final day to provide oral or written comments on the draft environmental document to be included in the Final EIR. There will be other public hearing opportunities to comment on the project, but this will be the final opportunity to get comments that will be incorporated into the Final EIR. I'd like to introduce Katherine Waugh of Dudek. She's the environmental consultant who has prepared the Draft EIR, and she will give you a presentation. Thank you. Katherine Waugh: Thanks Russ. Good morning. My name is Katherine Waugh. I'm a senior project manager with Dudek. As Russ stated, I'll be giving you a presentation to give you a quick overview of the project and the findings of the Environmental Impact Report. As Russ indicated, the intent here is to provide an opportunity for public and the Board Members to make any comments on the Draft EIR to ensure that the EIR adequately addresses the environmental effects of the project. My presentation will give you, as I said, a quick overview 1|2555 Park Blvd

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

of the project, the background on the California Environmental Quality Act and the process of preparing a Draft and Final EIR, the key findings that we reached in the EIR, and then what the next steps in the process will be. As is summarized in the meeting agenda, the project proposes to demolish an existing building that's 10,800 square feet and 28 surface parking spaces at that site and replace the building with a 24,000—sorry, I always forget these numbers—24,466 square foot building with parking incorporated at the ground level and one level below ground to provide 92 parking spaces. The project site is designated Community Commercial and there are a mix of uses surrounding the site including offices and residential. This slide shows an overview of the building floor plan at the ground level. You can see that the parking is incorporated in a garage, an enclosed structure with office space on the ground level as well as on the two upper stories. The project would provide a wider sidewalk by setting the building back and provide some planters and benches to help activate the street and would provide a couple of new street trees as well. There are two project options that are considered in the EIR. One is the proposed project which is designed to be compliant with the City's parking requirements and provide the 92 parking spaces. The way those parking spaces are provided is in a mechanized parking machine that is fitted to each car that's going to be parked in that structure. Each employee at the building would have a designated parking space. The applicant also provided a parking exemption option which would incorporate a transportation demand management program that allows the project to reduce their parking requirement. By doing that, the project would be able to eliminate some of the parking machines, making those parking spaces a little bit more flexible and able to be used by multiple people rather than being assigned to a specific employee. The project requires a Design Enhancement Exception for building height. It proposes to construct the third floor roof deck, and there are a couple of roof elements that would exceed the height limit in the zone district. The project is proposed to be LEED Silver certified. This slide gives you an overview of the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA. The primary intent is to disclose to the public and to the decision makers the environmental effects that would result from a proposed project. We also look at ways to mitigate those effects by either avoiding or reducing the environmental effects or providing compensation for them. We evaluate those impacts based on thresholds of significance that are explained in the Environmental Impact Report and, as I said, implement feasible mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to levels that are less than the thresholds identified. We also look at project alternatives to see if there's a different way to design the project or a different project that might fit better in the location and avoid environmental impacts. The public review process is key to the Environmental Quality Act, to CEQA. The document has been available since September 5th for people to review and to provide public comments on. As Russ indicated, today is the final day for submitting either verbal or written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Those comments are then incorporated into a Final EIR where we provide direct responses to each comment that's provided. This slide outlines kind of the key steps in the process. We started with a Notice of Preparation that gave the public notice that we would be preparing this Environmental Impact Report and solicited comments from the public at that time as to what topics need to be addressed in the EIR. We then prepared the Draft EIR and are now in the public review period for that process. As I said, we'll be preparing a Final EIR that provides responses to any comments that have been received. The Final EIR then will be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission for their review and then, before the City can determine whether or not to approve the project, 2|2555 Park Blvd

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129

the City would need to certify the EIR stating that it has been prepared and adequately evaluates the environmental impacts as is required under CEQA. The next few slides will review the key findings of the EIR. There were three topics that we looked at in detail, the first being cultural and historic resources. The building was originally constructed in 1964 and is an example of the mid-century modern architectural style. It is not currently listed as a historic resource either on the City's Inventory or the National or State Registries. The analysis prepared by Turnbull, or Page & Turnbull, I believe—thank you—found that it is potentially eligible for listing on the California Register. The building embodies the mid-century modern architectural style and has a number of contributing features and design elements that make it a good representation of that style and eligible for listing on the California Register. Because the project would demolish the building, that is considered to be a significant impact under CEQA. The mitigation measure that's recommended in the EIR is to prepare the photo documentation and recordation of this building, so that the records of it can be preserved. Under CEQA, there is no way, if you're going to demolish a historic building or a building that's potentially eligible for listing, there really is no way to mitigate that impact to a less than significant level. The EIR concludes that this would be a significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project. Another issue that we looked at in the EIR is the hazards and hazardous materials. Due to the age of the building, it does contain asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint. During demolition, there are mitigation measures that explain that the procedures that need to be followed to ensure that demolition of the building doesn't release those materials into the air and cause any health hazards. The project site is also above the contaminated groundwater plume, and there was a former drycleaner operation on the project site; so there are contaminants in the soil and in the groundwater. Again the EIR includes mitigation measures that explain the procedures and regulations that need to be followed to ensure that all of those materials are handled appropriately. There's also mitigation measures that describe requirements for building construction, such as a vapor barrier and waterproof membrane, to ensure that contaminants in the groundwater plume don't build up in the air within the proposed building. With implementation of all those mitigation measures, the EIR finds that the impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. The final issue that we looked at in the EIR is transportation and traffic. We found that the existing intersections operate at acceptable levels of service and that with the proposed project, should it be constructed, that that would remain to be true. The project would not generate enough additional traffic to cause any intersection to fall below an acceptable level of service. Those levels of service are based on the City's Codes and requirements as well as the County VTA's standards for intersections that they have jurisdiction over. We found that the project would generate a total of 246 new daily vehicle trips with about 35 of those occurring in the A.M. peak hour and 18 in the P.M. peak hour. We found, as I said, all of that additional traffic would not trigger any new significant impacts and, therefore, there's no mitigation required with respect to parking. As I mentioned earlier, the EIR looks at two different project options. For each of these impact areas, we considered both project options and found that impacts would be relatively the same. Under transportation and traffic, use of the transportation demand management program under the parking exemption option is expected to slightly reduce the number of vehicle trips that would be coming in and out of the building. Even though the impacts with the proposed project, the parking compliant option are less than significant and they would be slightly under the parking exemption option. Go ahead. 3|2555 Park Blvd

130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173

Chair Kohler: No. I was going to ask if, you know, so open for questions or comments or ... Ms. Waugh: I do have a few more slides. I don't know if we should finish that first and then ... Okay. The project alternatives that we looked at. CEQA requires that you consider a no project alternative. That would assume that nothing happens at the site; the existing building remains. Obviously that would avoid the impact of demolishing a historic resource. We also looked at a building preservation alternative that would make some improvements to the building to bring it closer or up to Code with respect to some of the life and safety requirements. We found that, while that would reduce the impact because the building would be preserved in place, it could result in changes to the building that would reduce the integrity of the historic qualities of that building. However, we did find that that impact would be reduced with the building preservation project alternative. The final alternative we looked at is a pedestrian transit overlay concept to develop a mixed-use building there that would include some commercial and retail as well as eight dwelling units. We found that that project alternative would actually reduce traffic compared to the proposed project. Again, those impacts under the proposed project are less than significant, but they would be slightly reduced under the mixed-use scenario. Again, that project would result in demolition of the historic resource, so it would not reduce or avoid that impact. As I mentioned, the next steps in the process are to prepare a Final EIR where we will document all of the comments that are received and provide responses to those comments. Sometimes that requires just more explanation of the analysis that has already been provided, and sometimes that requires a few edits to the text of the Draft EIR. All of that will be presented in a Final EIR which will be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission and then, as I mentioned, the City would need to certify that the EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA before determining whether to approve the project. Once a determination has been, if the City certifies the EIR and approves the project, the City would file a Notice of Determination, and that starts a 30-day period of review to allow for any appeals on the approvals. This slide provides the address where comments can be submitted. Obviously we're here this morning to accept any comments that the public wants to make verbally, and then folks are still welcome to email comments to Russ throughout today. That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Chair Kohler: You want to start, Beth? Board Member Bunnenberg: Just for the benefit of the public to get a picture again, the actual height of this building, that has become a real issue in the City. Can you state in very brief terms how tall the building is and what the electrical and all the things on top are? Ms. Waugh: Mm-hmm. I want to make sure I get the numbers correct. Board Member Bunnenberg: Okay. Ms. Waugh: I believe that the height limit in the district is 35.

4|2555 Park Blvd

174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218

Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yeah, it's 37 feet. Just to note, since I'm jumping in, the applicant is here for the project to answer other questions about the project if need be. Mr. Reich: Just following up on that, Commissioner Bunnenberg. Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes. Mr. Reich: The 37 feet is the height of the building. There are three elements that exceed that height and going up to 13 feet. There is a roof canopy structure which the Architectural Review Board required to be reduced in size by a third of what you saw on that elevation image at the beginning of the hearing. Then the two stair towers, they also exceed the height limit. I believe that's by 10 feet. Board Member Bunnenberg: What's the total after you've taken it off? Mr. Reich: It's 47 feet for the stair towers and then 50 feet for the canopy. Board Member Bunnenberg: (inaudible) 50 feet for the canopy, okay. Board Member Wimmer: Can I just, can you restate what the maximum height is? Mr. Reich: 37 feet. Board Member Wimmer: 37 is the maximum height, okay. Chair Kohler: But clarify, the canopy goes up to 40-something feet. Mr. Reich: It's 13 feet higher than the 37-foot building, so it's 50 feet. Chair Kohler: That doesn't count as building because it's a canopy? Mr. Reich: It asked for a Design Enhancement Exception in order to exceed the 37-foot height limit. Chair Kohler: The building height with the canopy is what? Mr. Reich: 50 feet, but the building itself is not 50 feet. It is a ... Chair Kohler: What is the canopy then? Isn't that part of the building? Mr. Reich: It is attached to the building, yes. Chair Kohler: So it's the building. It's like a roof. Mr. Reich: There is no argument as to whether it's part of the building. 5|2555 Park Blvd

219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263

Chair Kohler: Yeah. So I mean, it seems kind of, it seems kind of ... Mr. Reich: But we would not categorize the building as being 50 feet. Chair Kohler: It seems a little fuzzy. The building is 50 feet high. It's not 37 feet high. Mr. Reich: As I said, we would not categorize the building as 50 feet high, but the canopy does reach a 50-foot height. Chair Kohler: Well, I don't quite understand. I mean I'm looking at it. The canopy is visible. It's part of the height. I mean you should put a little asterisk then by it's 37 feet plus 13-foot high canopy, or whatever it is, I would think. Mr. Reich: It's thoroughly explained in the ad, in the description as to what's happening in terms of the 37-foot height building and then the exceptions for the additional height of the canopy and stair towers. Board Member Bunnenberg: Okay. Let's look at it again. Chair Kohler: David. Board Member Bower: Russ, why was this exception granted? I mean if we have a height limit of 37 feet, why are we allowing the entire structure, you know, to go another 13 feet higher? I understand that you've stepped it back. I don't think you actually can see it from the ground. You probably can see it from the courthouse. I don't understand what the benefit to the community is by allowing this. Mr. Reich: I'm a little confused by the question, in terms of what the benefit to the community is. The intention isn't necessarily to provide a community benefit. There's no requirement to do that. The applicant has requested a Design Enhancement Exception to improve the architecture of the building. They think that the canopy structure helps to enliven the architecture. The ability to use the roof of the building as an employee amenity necessitates the stair towers which exceed the height limit. The Architectural Review Board, which has purview over the DEE, felt that the three requested exceptions were reasonable and did not create a negative impact to off-site properties and approved the recommended DEE. Ms. French: I would follow on to say the ARB recommended approval of the DEE. This entire project is going to the, this is going higher than the Director. Oh, okay. Board Member Bower: Meaning it's going to the Council? Ms. French: Regardless, there has not been a determination that the DEE is approved. It's a recommendation by the Architectural Review Board. 6|2555 Park Blvd

264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308

Board Member Bower: Russ, my feeling is that the, to elaborate on my questions. The planning and zoning ordinances are for the public benefit. I mean they're not there for anybody else's benefit. We as residents have through our Council enacted these ordinances for the purpose of making the buildings that we allow to be erected in the City accommodating and attractive. What I would think the developer could do, if they want that roof space, is simply not develop the second floor. What this does is basically add an entire level of occupied space that otherwise would not be occupiable. I think that's a really significant expansion of the project. It is what we just had an election about, I think, in this City. I'm wondering, again, I just am a little confused by why the height limit should be exceeded so that the developer, property owner can have another floor of habitable space at the expense of a limit that was established just to keep these structures smaller. Mr. Reich: Thank you, Commissioner Bower. Your comments assume that there is a cost to someone for allowing the developer to take advantage of this roof space. The findings would suggest otherwise, that there isn't an impact as a result of that. It is a request that a developer has made, and it is up to the City to determine. The purpose of today's hearing is to just take comments. We can certainly note that you don't feel that the exception should be approved. That will be taken into consideration in the decision making on the project. Board Member Bower: Just to clarify, I actually think the building is more attractive with the canopy. I just don't think it needed to exceed the height limit. That's why we have limits. If we're going to keep granting these exceptions, you know, we just keep getting bigger and bigger buildings, and I don't think that's a benefit to us. Board Member Bunnenberg: May I ask whether our comments will be as a Board or will they be as individuals? Mr. Reich: In this instance, you represent the Board, so any comments that you make here today would be as a Board Member. You can certainly follow up with any personal comments outside of your purview as a Board Member later today. Board Member Bunnenberg: Well then, just as a Board Member, there was a wooly mammoth bone discovered under the Oregon Expressway when they went down deep. If there is a way— this is way past history—but if there is a way to caution the digging operation that they might be looking for that kind of thing. That I would see as a good kind of caution to make. I know it says the overall thing that you should look for antiquities any time you dig, but this may be a fairly sensitive area. Also as a Board Member, I feel that we have not truly looked carefully at many of our mid-century modern buildings. This building has some real merit as a mid-century modern building. I would like to express some wish that it could be retained. Board Member Wimmer: I wanted to comment on the height issue. I'm sure that there are a lot of other people who are speaking in response to that. I think in terms of the City and how the City handles it, it seems like if you make exceptions for one person, you have to make exceptions for everyone who lines up thereafter, because you've set a precedent. I'm sure that you know that. I just think that once you grant exceptions for this building—I mean it's 7|2555 Park Blvd

309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353

beautiful. I think there are a lot of really exciting features about it. I just think that that justifies the next person to say, "Well, they got 13 feet. Can I have 15 feet more?" Also, I wanted to get back to the significant and unavoidable impact of removing the existing building. I was able to drive by the building last night, and I've driven by it many times but never really studied it closely. It's just a cute little building. It's very simple. In driving around it, I saw some things that made me a little nervous, like two whole second-story masses that are being supported by a single steel pole. That made me a little bit nervous. I see that there's a challenge in assessing the value of the existing structure and possible Code issues and things. I did; I thought it was just a nice little example of that mid-century architecture. I kind of see some similar elements being threaded through this new building. I don't know. I just wanted to maybe hear a little bit more about that significant impact and what that means. Ms. Waugh: As you're, you know, aware especially in a city that has a lot of historic architecture, you know, as projects come forward and propose to demolish some of those buildings, you know, it can affect the overall historic character of the community. That is kind of the main issue that we look at when we think about demolition of a historic building or a building that's potentially eligible for listing as a historic resource. CEQA, you know, is an issue that certainly comes up frequently in communities across the state. There are some specific guidelines in CEQA that really prioritize treating, you know, considering the historic nature of a building. As I said, under CEQA there is no mitigation for demolition of a historic resource. CEQA makes that very clear, that that's always going to be a significant and unavoidable impact if you do determine to demolish a building that's historic or potentially eligible for listing. Board Member Bunnenberg: Roger, do you want to make a comment? It also brings up the aspect of cumulative impacts. Is there a way that the City keeps up with these? What do we do about the fact that we have expressed concern that it will happen again and again? Ms. French: This is a great question. I think it's one of those topics that when I think about a retreat, I think that this would be a great topic, the mid-century buildings. It's definitely ripe for discussion here. We have Matt Weintraub here now that is going to be helping with looking at our program and, you know, where we go from here. We do have data about buildings that have been demolished. Some of them before the 50 year, you know, and some after or, you know, modified significantly. If you would like data such as that, certainly we can look towards getting that data as part of a look at what's happening in the City. I'll see if Matt has anything to add. Matthew Weintraub, Planner: Sure, thank you. As Board Members Bunnenberg and Wimmer noted, there is some interest in and increasingly more interest in mid-century modern architecture. What the City of Palo Alto lacks, that some communities have, is a well-developed historic context statement for that period of time and for those types of properties. You might note that in the evaluation that was done for this property, context statements for other communities were referenced, because those were the ones that were available. What we really do need for this City is a City-specific context for modern architecture, mid-century modernism. That would do a couple of things. It would allow us to evaluate properties comparatively, not just in a vacuum. For instance, this property could have been evaluated 8|2555 Park Blvd

354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398

against a bank of other properties that were understood and categorized to get a better understanding of the significance and what might be potentially lost if the building is removed, which was kind of one of the questions that was asked. It would also give us a sense of at least starting to create an inventory for this type of building and being able to then track, you know, whether there's clusters of these buildings that might be potential districts or whether we're just looking at, you know, a certain change in building stock over time, but having a sense of the change to that building stock over time. In a long-range sense, those are some of the initiatives that we can start looking at. Lacking that specific information for Palo Alto, we do have the evaluation that we have for this building today essentially. If that helps in terms of framing this particular evaluation. Chair Kohler: I've been sitting here thinking and looking at the photograph. Today, I have two meetings with the consulting architect and homeowners to do, single-family homes today in the room next door. I'm trying to see the relationship. I know it's just single-family homes, but the requirements for the design of a single-family home are very precise. They have limits, height limits, setback limits. You're required to go through and get a design approval with staff and the consulting architect, Arnold Mammarella. I'm looking at this building and my first thought is, "Oh, it's three buildings. They went to the local store and bought the yellow portion of the project and decided, well, that's too much to do the whole building, so we'll buy the middle section, which is the gray and totally different from the yellow portion. Oh, we need stairs, so we bought this stairway section." Kind of an assemblage of shapes. It's not really a building. It's three different shapes and buildings. To me it's pretty random. If you take away the canopy, then it looks like three different buildings, like they each ought to have their own address. With the canopy, it kind of ties it altogether, and of course you can't see the canopy from the street. From an overall view, I like the old building better. I think it could have been remodeled and added onto and have a better assemblage. I know this is the style that's in vogue right now. When you look at it, each one should have its own number. I don't know what we're supposed to say today. I mean I would prefer the old building to stay and be remodeled and enhanced. I don't think this is much of an improvement. It's going to look big. You know, it's just these things that we're seeing. I think it ought to be a requirement in the way of ARB, and they sort of seemed to chime in in this new look. So some of the new buildings that are going up are, I don't get it in a way. Our goal here is to say what? Are we supposed to say this building's okay, it complies or it conforms to the historic rules of Palo Alto? I'm not sure what we're supposed to do. Can someone explain to me what our role is today? Ms. Waugh: In terms of the California Environmental Quality Act process, the main intent in that context is to receive public comments on the Draft EIR. Your comments in terms of, you know, do you think that the analysis in the EIR adequately addresses the environmental effects of the project, including the discussion of historic resources? Have we adequately captured what's important about the building and how that would change as a result of the project? It would also be an opportunity for members of the public to make their comments as well, if anyone's interested. Chair Kohler: How does a whole new building not have an impact on the old building which is being torn down? That's sort of what you just said. We're tearing the old building down. 9|2555 Park Blvd

399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443

Ms. Waugh: Right. That is what the conclusion. Chair Kohler: That's a pretty big impact (crosstalk). Ms. Waugh: Sure. That is the conclusion in the EIR, is that it would be a significant and unavoidable impact. As far as I understand, the Board does not need to take any formal action or make any recommendation. It's simply an opportunity for you to offer your comments. I know it's difficult to separate, you know, your comments on the project from your comments on the Environmental Impact Report. I'm taking notes and I'll review the comments that are made and make sure that I elaborate on issues in the Final EIR to the extent. Chair Kohler: I would say tearing the building down is a pretty significant impact on the building, right? Ms. Waugh: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Chair Kohler: Once you say that, then there's not much discussion. Why even do an EIR? Basically you're destroying a potentially historic property. Beyond that, what's to talk about? I don't get it. This is what we do all the time, and I still don't get it, because we're tearing the building down. Does the environmental report make us feel better because we have a report and yet the building's gone? We ought to be stating here, "No, you can't tear it down." It's an historic building. You need to refurbish it and reuse it. Recycle it. That's the way to do it. Board Member Bunnenberg: Isn't that one of the options listed as something that can be. Ms. Waugh: Mm-hmm. Chair Kohler: Well, good. Yeah. Board Member Bunnenberg: Let's find where that is in the report. Ms. Waugh: It's in the alternative section. We talked about the building. Board Member Bunnenberg: Okay. That can be altered (crosstalk). Ms. Waugh: The no project alternative would just be to leave everything the way it is. The building preservation alternative would provide for some of the updates that would be needed to, you know, improve the life and safety conditions as Board Member Wimmer (crosstalk). Chair Kohler: Is there any? Board Member Bunnenberg: It's 5.3 at the very back of this booklet. The options are no project alternative, building preservation alternative, or the pedestrian transit oriented development alternative which is what you're presenting to us today. Is that correct? 10 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d

444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488

Ms. Waugh: That third alternative would be different than what's proposed. Board Member Bunnenberg: It's also different. Ms. Waugh: The pedestrian transit overlay alternative is that would develop a different product here. It would develop a mixed-use building that would include some commercial and some residential. That alternative was suggested by one of the ARB members as something we should evaluate in the EIR. Chair Kohler: What we're approving is the demolition of the building. Is that what we're doing? Mr. Reich: Chair Kohler, I'd like to clarify. We're not asking for the HRB to make a recommendation today. We're solely here to take public comment on the environmental document. As I said originally, the Board is also welcome to provide comment on the environmental document, but we are not asking for the Board to make a decision or make a recommendation. It is a bit unusual for the HRB to be seeing an environmental document. The only reason that we had to prepare an environmental document or the EIR—we would have done some form of environmental documentation. It is the demolition of the historic structure that State law requires and necessitates and qualifies as a significant impact under CEQA. When you have a significant impact that cannot be mitigated as is the case here, you have to do an EIR versus a Mitigated Negative Declaration or a Negative Declaration. It is the demolition of the structure that necessitates us having to do the Draft EIR under State law. That's the reason that we're here. Because this historic structure would be demolished, we wanted to have the HRB have the opportunity to weigh in to see how you feel about that. We're not asking for your approval or recommendation as to whether you think it's appropriate to remove the building or not. If you do have feelings or comments about that then, you know, it's good to enter that into the record. Board Member Bunnenberg: Does that preclude our voting on the building preservation alternative? Mr. Reich: There's not going to be a vote today. Board Member Bunnenberg: There's not a vote. Mr. Reich: Again, it's an opportunity for you to provide comment. Board Member Bunnenberg: Can we do that each individually? Mr. Reich: Certainly. Again, there wouldn't be a Board consensus. Board Member Bunnenberg: Okay. I would like to be on record as much preferring the building preservation alternative. 11 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d

489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533

Board Member Wimmer: I just wanted to—maybe this is a back step. I don't know. I was reading the Page & Turnbull report, which is the Historic Resource Evaluation. It makes an interesting comment here. It says, "2555 Park Boulevard is not listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory nor was it surveyed as part of the Palo Alto Historic Survey Update by Dames & Moore in 2000. Page & Turnbull understands that the City of Palo Alto Planning Staff have recently stated to the property owner that they do not believe that 2555 Park Boulevard would meet the criteria for listing in any category of the Palo Alto Historic Inventory." They are professionals who have done an historic analysis. I was reading that and I thought, "Hmm, maybe it's not a historic resource." But then the Draft Environmental Impact Report is addressing that it is a historic resource. Maybe that's the duty of maybe our Board. I don't know. I know that when I was recently re-interviewed for this position, someone was giving me a hard time about not putting Eichlers on the Historic Inventory. I thought, "Didn't think that was my job to do that." Apparently it is. Maybe that's our job as a Board, to reach out to some of these buildings that are, you know, unfortunately—or the City. I don't know. I'm the new person on the Board. I guess what I'm saying is that one report says it's not on the Inventory; one report says that it is historic. Maybe the City or we need to establish what buildings we think are historic, because we're sad that this building might be torn down and saying, "Oh, no, we can't do that." It's not on our list of things that are historic. It's a little confusing. Mr. Weintraub: If I may, Board Members. One of the aspects of the analysis of the EIR is to determine whether or not there's a historical resource present. Yes, that is within the purview of the Board Members to comment on. I did notice that when I read through the report as well, in addition to what Board Member Wimmer noted about a lack of designation or previous evaluation, it was also noted to be not the work of a master architect. It was also not known to have any important historical association, whether related to the occupants or the uses or to the development of the area around it. It was really seen as really just an example of the architectural period. Then I would come back to the question of whether or not that really rises to the level of a significant example. Again, lacking a local historic context, I think the evaluation was to assume that it is a representative of that period. If we were to have, I think, greater analytical tools and more comparative tools, we might be able to come to a different determination. Again, I think that is one of the questions that Board Members can comment on, is the actual evaluation of the property as a resource. Also just to clarify, I think a topic that came up, the Board Members can agree or disagree with the findings of the EIR, and that's different than agreeing with whether or not the project should proceed. Really the EIR is stating that there is an impact to a resource, so the Board could agree with that and still feel differently and provide comments that are different on the actual approval of the project itself. Thank you. Board Member Bower: When I went over the materials that were provided for us to review for this meeting, my first review or first pass was whether this building would rise to the level of being a protected building for historic reasons. Of course, as the reports note and you have just pointed out, it doesn't have a significant architect. By significant I mean an architect that we would recognize as significant enough to meet that requirement. It doesn't have an owner that was significant in terms of Palo Alto's development. It wasn't developed at a time that was particularly significant; although, that's questionable because the '60s saw a huge increase in 12 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d

534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577

Palo Alto's population and development. If this project were brought to the Board for historic designation, I don't think it would meet the requirements. From that standpoint, even though it might be eligible and that's why CEQA captures this building in the CEQA review, you know, I don't think that the Board could justifiably stop the demolition. Now, that said, this type of building, I think, is significant to Palo Alto's development. I remember when the California Avenue area was significantly changed in character, which also is noted in this report. This type of building, this '60s modernist style, was very popular in Palo Alto. The old Palo Alto Medical Foundation building which was demolished—thank God, because I didn't much like the architecture. It was another example of that modernist architecture that has not survived. My concern as a Board Member is that these smaller buildings are one by one being lost because of the economic pressures to develop the underlying land, which is so valuable, to the maximum extent. We as a City have not made a commitment to save buildings. We have made a commitment to think about saving some. We have established Professorville and—there's another Eichler—Green Meadow as protected or at least semi-protected. I don't see that this building or any of the buildings like this that we could actually move to protect, because we just don't have the tools yet. That ought to be something we could recommend to the Council. As I read the EIR, obviously demolition, as Roger has pointed out, is significant in the extreme. Photographic records are not serious mitigation, because those records go some place and who knows if anyone will ever see them. That's what they teach us at the CEQA seminars when you are evaluating a project. It is the only thing we can do in this circumstance, but it's not really mitigation. The other impacts that this project have that are significant, there's a parking impact, there's a hazardous waste exposure impact, more traffic. I mean, you know, in today's community here, these are really significant impacts. They're noted. I'm assuming that this will all go into the record. I kind of see this as a sort of a done deal and we're just going through the motions so that this can move on. I think we could have spent our time better. I know why it's here. I'm not criticizing anybody. I think we should just move on. Chair Kohler: One last comment. When I look at the photo here on page 4 of the Page & Turnbull, you can see the existing foliage and how the existing building kind of floats above the sidewalk. I used to go there. There was somebody I had to go see there. I don't remember. It was a lawyer I think. It's kind of fun. You look at that, then you get the view from Park. It says on—I don't know what page. It's not a page, but it's the rendering. It's a solid wall. In fact, the doors there are solid doors like they're back doors. There's no reference that this is a pedestrian walkway. This is the view you see when you drive down the street. At that eye level, it's a blank wall. I mean how is that neighborhood friendly? For one thing, if I was on the ARB, I would have tossed it out right away. Yeah, right there on the far right side. That's all wall. According to this drawing, it's a blank wall which it is there, I guess. I don't know what those are. I can't quite tell. Mr. Reich: Those are vines. It's a green wall. Chair Kohler: Oh, I see. The drawing here doesn't have the vines yet. They haven't grown out yet. You get a wall of ivy. All right.

13 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d

578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622

Mr. Reich: There's also a pedestrian bench along that hedge. That whole edge has a planter (crosstalk). Chair Kohler: I think it's a pretty crummy building. Well, I guess we have not much else to talk about. We don't make a vote or a statement or anything. We just discuss. Okay. Board Member Bunnenberg: Suddenly I lost my thought. We still have some, I think, real responsibility to think about these buildings. Even though we don't have the context statement, I think there's some responsibility at least as individuals for us to make some statement about whether we prefer the current building. Ms. French: If I could jump in before you get to a statement. Can we open the public hearing and hear if there's anyone in the audience that wishes ... Board Member Bunnenberg: We didn't close the public hearing (crosstalk). Ms. French: Oh, okay. But call for speakers. Chair Kohler: We never opened it or closed it. Board Member Bunnenberg: Well, they may not have been here. Chair Kohler: I have no cards (crosstalk). Ms. French: Oh, there's no cards, okay. Chair Kohler: I guess this just goes to City Council eventually, is that correct? Or not? Mr. Reich: It's undetermined at this point as to whether it'll be City Council or Director level approval. Board Member Bower: It does not go back. Mr. Reich: No. It does go to the Planning Commission, the Final EIR will go to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. Beyond that, it's unclear as to whether the Council will see it or if it'll be a Director level decision. Chair Kohler: Will that happen this year? I mean will it go before the end of the year? Mr. Reich: No, it will not happen this year. Chair Kohler: There will be new Planning Commissioners and new Council Members as of January, right? Mr. Reich: Yeah. It's likely to go to the Commission in January. 14 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d

623

624 625 626

627 628

629 630

Board Member Bunnenberg: Do we have some responsibility to allow if there are people in the

audience who want to .speak.

Chair Kohler: We just did.

Chair Kohler: We've made our comments. That's all you're asking for, right?

15 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d

ATTACHMENT J

ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE

2555 Park Boulevard / File No. 13PLN-00381 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CC(2) ZONE DISTRICT Minimum Building setback

ZONE DISTRICT STANDARD

PROPOSED PROJECT

CONFORMANCE

Front Yard (Grant Avenue)

0-10’ to create a 812’effective sidewalk width

1”-9” setback for a 13 Foot effective sidewalk width

conforms

Rear Yard

No setback required

2 feet

conforms

Interior Side Yard (right)

No setback required

1 foot

conforms

Street Side Yard (left) (Park Boulevard)

No setback required

3 feet setback for a 10’-5” effective sidewalk width

conforms

Maximum Site Coverage

No requirement

94% 11,840 sq. ft.

conforms

Maximum Height

37 feet

37 feet

conforms

Stair towers exceeds by 10 feet.

DEE requested

Tensile structure exceeds by 13 feet 1.98:1 (24,466) sq ft. 92 spaces provided

DEE requested

Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Parking Requirement

(The parking requirement may be reduced by 10 spaces with a TDM plan approved by the Director)

2.0:1 (25,036) sq ft Office 1 per 250 = 92 spaces 1,346 sq. ft. for break room space is exempt from parking calculation

conforms conforms

ATTACHMENT K

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE

2555 Park Boulevard / File No. 13PLN-00381

Policy L-28: Maintain the existing scale, character, and function of the California Avenue business district as a shopping, service, and office center intermediate in function and scale between Downtown and the smaller business areas. Policy L-31: Develop the Cal-Ventura area as a well-designed mixed use district with diverse land uses, two- to three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian oriented streets providing links to California Avenue. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.

The three-story height of the proposed project is consistent with the height of other buildings in the immediate area. The proposed office and use fits within this mixed use area just outside the California Avenue business district.

Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing.

The project is consistent with this policy in that the new building would improve this location with architectural interest at the street level. The building would provide a pronounced building entry point on Park Boulevard along with multiple balconies and a large bench at the sidewalk for pedestrian seating. Blank and solid wells are avoided for the street facing elevations with the exception of the ground floor wall that hides the at-grade parking. This wall would be planted with vines to soften the wall’s appearance.

Policy L-66:

The proposal is a three-story office building with setbacks providing wide sidewalks for pedestrian access. The design of the new building fits well with the pedestrian environment of the California Avenue commercial district by creating a pleasant pedestrian experience along Park Boulevard. While the building is of a contemporary architectural style, the district is eclectic with a multitude of architectural styles that coexist together. High quality materials are proposed throughout the project. Site planning included consideration for the adjacent single-family residence by stepping back the upper floors adjacent to the residential property. While the project does meet the required setback adjacent to the residential neighbor, concerns have been raised by the neighbor regarding the building’s proposed proximity to their property.

Maintain an aesthetically The proposal provides wider sidewalks for greater

pleasing street network that helps frame and define the community while meeting the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Policy L-70: Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system. Policy L-73: Consider public art and cultural facilities as a public benefit in connection with new development projects. Consider incentives for including public art in large development projects.

pedestrian access that include new street trees, landscaping, bike racks, and seating.

The proposal does preserve the existing street tree on Grant Avenue and will add four new street trees, one on grant Avenue and three new trees on Park Boulevard. The project does not currently include public art as a component of the design. The applicant must pay an in-lieu fee as part of the City’s 1% for art program. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant may still have the opportunity to incorporate art into the design. Policy L-75: Minimize the negative The proposal provides the parking at grade and physical impacts of parking lots. Locate underground. The parking would be hidden from parking behind buildings or underground view behind a solid wall planted with vines. wherever possible. Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that The proposal places new office space in close encourage walking, bicycling, and public proximity to transit facilities. Bicycle usage is transit use. encouraged with ample bike parking and shower facilities. Bike safety is also improved with the removal of the curb cut on Park boulevard. Policy T-19: Improve and add attractive, The project will add new bicycle parking at grade secure, bicycle parking at both public and and below grade within the parking garage. private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, in private development, and at other community destinations. Policy N-15: Require new commercial, The project is required to plant and irrigate new multi-unit, and single family housing street trees. projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems.

City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/20/2015 7:46 AM

Attachment L

Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Rainer Pitthan Tuesday, May 19, 2015 6:27 PM Reich, Russ Gitelman, Hillary; Council, City; Jared Jacobs 2555 Park Traffic: establishing a realistic baseline for # of trips Table1.pdf; CommonTripGenerationRatesITE.pdf

Dear Russ,   I have questions wrt to Attachment G  in Attachment A, also called  AttachmentA_FinalEIRCombined.pdf  Can you explain to me the  scientific/engineering reasoning  behind the different equations in Table  1 of the subject report, which I have  attached a Table 1. 

City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/20/2015 7:46 AM

Day                                                        Ln(T rips) = 0.76 x Ln(Size) + 3.68  AM  Peak                                                Ln(Trip s) = 0.80 x Ln(Size) + 1.57  PM  Peak                                                Trips =  1.12 x Size + 78.45    I assume Ln is not the logarithm with  the basis e?  Or? What is it? And why  3.68, 1.57, 78.45, except that is  minimizes the additional PM trips  which you wanted.    But in contrast to the equations you 

City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/20/2015 7:46 AM

used, the in determining reasonable  trip estimates, the Institute of Traffic  Engineers, (as do other organizations)  except in very special circumstances,  which then require a lot of explaining,  only goes by square footage and units.    Since the ratio of sqft for 2555 Park is  2.3, the "Total" has to be in the same  ratio    Daily                                                     from       206  ==>  474 (and not 434)  AM                                                        fro m        27 ==>    62 (and not 60)    PM                                                        fro

City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/20/2015 7:46 AM

m       88 ==>   202 (and not 105)    This is a total of Tarlton Project  originated  737 for the stub of Grant.  I will explain further down why you  have to take the total, not the  incremental.    And then there is the inconvenient fact  of the 90 cars parked at the end of the  stub, which belong to 90 different unit  owners..    According to ITE and the Community Guide to Development Impact Analysis, Condominiums build as separate town houses with several bedrooms with separate garages create 1 daily peak hour trip per

City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/20/2015 7:46 AM

unit. That makes 90 peak hour trips. I have not not researched if this is one AM and 1 PM trip 90 Units also create 940 daily trips. Let's assume this includes the peak trips. 

That adds up to 1677 cars entering and leaving Grant Ave stub,  Plus FEDEX,  UPS, USPS, other deliveries, visitors, etc. etc.    In the PTC hearing 2 weeks ago I hear to my surprise that PTC proudly only  looks at each project by self.  No look at accumulative effect needed, or  desired.  OK, that is up to the City Council to deal with, as they  should.  http://bit.ly/1Bgp1WG  The often falsely invoked common sense fails most spectacularly in non-linear systems. So maybe not common sense, but at least Continuing Education and Study as a Planner should have told you that in a system which is known to be non-linear, as in traffic, you have to work with the absolute numbers, and not just increments, because an increase of 10% may have an effect of 100% or more, and not 10%. In City Council sessions I have heard more than once the Palo Alto traffic situation compared to the straw and the camels back, even so it is more like the famous drop and the bucket. Any city planner should know in his sleep, for example, that for traffic flow up to about 30 cars distributed per mile on the road, for one additional car you have one more car t go through a given point, but then the curve turns over and at 60 cars stacked up per mile , the flow may drop more than half. These numbers are known to be very independent of country, lets say they more less give good guidance in Portugal and in Switzerland. And at 150 - 200 cars stacked per mile (in the unstable region) any hard braking car or an impudent lane changer can get the system to collapse. to So disregard my traffic observations for now, and tell me how you calculated the trips in Table 1, or accepted the calculation , you understood, by somebody else.

Best Regards Rainer

City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/20/2015 7:46 AM

I am out of town from Wednesday noon to Saturday noon. Since time is of the essence, please copy Jared Jacobs at Mailto:[email protected] -Rainer Pitthan (650)327-9497 157 S. California Ave Palo Alto CA 094306 The #1 enemy of the United States is AutoComplete

Council Members Only

13899.txt

Page 1