HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-04 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet
City of Palo Alto Page 1
=================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26======================
Thursday April 4, 2013
REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ROLL CALL:
Board members: Staff Liaison:
Clare Malone Prichard (Chair Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Lee Lippert (Vice Chair)
Alexander Lew Staff:
Randy Popp Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate
Naseem Alizadeh Tim Wong, Senior Planner
Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows:
Announce agenda item
Open public hearing
Staff recommendation
Applicant presentation – Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board.
Public comment – Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3)
minutes depending on large number of speakers per item.
Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff, and comments
Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes
Close public hearing
Motions/recommendations by the Board
Final vote
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the
agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must
complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural
Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
March 21, 2013
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA
City of Palo Alto Page 2
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
CONTINUED BUSINESS:
Major Review:
50 El Camino Real [11PLN-00388]: Request by Huiwen Hsiao on behalf of The Board of Trustees of
the Leland Stanford Junior University for Site and Design Review of the construction of a 70-room,
three story, 51,948 square foot building on a 1.57-acre site, to house an expanded Ronald McDonald
House program. The project includes a rezoning to Public Facility with a Site and Design Combining
District (PF(D)) zone, and Comprehensive Plan re-designation (from Streamside Open Space to Major
Institution/Special Facilities), and a Conditional Use Permit amendment. Zone District: Community
Commercial with a Landscape Combining District (CC(L)). Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA.
NEW BUSINESS:
Major Review:
567-595 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453]: Request by Candice Gonzalez on behalf of Palo Alto
Housing Corporation, for Architectural Review of a housing project that includes 15 single-family
detached homes and a 60-unit multiple-family residential building providing affordable rental units for
seniors. The project includes off-street parking, landscaping and other site improvements. A zone
district change from Low-Density Residential (R-2) and Multiple-Family Residential (RM-15) to a
Planned Community (PC) has also been requested. Environmental Assessment: a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared for public review.
BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS.
Subcommittee Members: Naseem Alizadeth and Randy Popp
SUBCOMMITTEE: None.
STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW:
Project Description: Removal of two Palm trees
Applicant: Kathleen Beckman
Address: 237 Homer Avenue [13PLN-00107]
Approval Date: 3/13/13
Request for hearing deadline: 3/25/13
Project Description: Second floor addition of a 370sq. ft. and façade improvements
Applicant: Dan Rhoads
Address: 210-216 Bryant Street [12PLN-00493]
Approval Date: 3/13/13
Request for hearing deadline: 3/25/13
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Project Description: One new internally illuminated wall sign and one new internally illuminated free
standing sign
Applicant: Steve Peterson
Address: 3944 El Camino Real [13PLN-00053]
Approval Date: 3/19/13
Request for hearing deadline: 4/1/13
Project Description: Single story & two story additions to the existing three unit apartment building
Applicant: Cornelia Harber
Address: 400 Ventura Street [12PLN-00512]
Approval Date: 3/20/13
Request for hearing deadline: 4/2/13
Project Description: Installation of (3) new steel garage doors, new paint and new trim to an exsiting
six-unit multi-family building
Applicant: Naville Batliwalla
Address: 260 College Avenue [13PLN-0047]
Approval Date: 3/20/13
Request for hearing deadline: 4/2/13
Project Description: Modification to an existing wireless communication facility
Applicant: Modus Inc., for Sprint
Address: 2701 Middlefield Road [13PLN-00031]
Approval Date: 3/21/13
Request for hearing deadline: 4/3/13
Project Description: Review for one new internally illuminated wall sign & one new internally
illuminated awning sign
Applicant: Tommy Yoon
Address: 3990 El Camino Real [13PLN-00195]
Approval Date: 3/25/13
Request for hearing deadline: 4/8/13
Project Description: Relocation of existing cellular antenna equipment and addition of 12 foot tall
screen wall to the an existing three story building
Applicant: Paul Ferro
Address: 900 Arastradero Road [13PLN-113]
Approval Date: 3/27/13
Request for hearing deadline: 4/10/13
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to
access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City’s compliance
with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice)
or by e-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section
54956.Recordings. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (650)
329-2571.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Architectural Review Board after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community
Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during normal
business hours.
CITY 0 F
PALO
A TO
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
1
April 4, 2013
Architectural Review Board
Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
50 El Camino Real [IIPLN-00388]: Request by Huiwen Hsiao on behalf
of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University for Site
and Design Review of the construction of a 69-room, three story, 51,948
square foot building on a 1.57 -acre site, to house an expanded Ronald
McDonald House progranl. The project includes a rezoning to Public
Facility with a Site and Design Conlbining District (PF(D)) zone, and
Conlprehensive Plan re-designation (from Streamside Open Space to Major
Institution/Special Facilities), and a Conditional Use Permit amendment.
Zone District: Community Commercial with a Landscape Combining
District (CC(L)). Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) recommend that the City Council approve the Site and Design Review application
for the construction of a 69-room, three story, 52,278 square foot building on a 1.57-acre site, to
house an expanded Ronald McDonald House program.
BACKGROUND
Site information, a detailed project description, and the project history are provided in the
previous ARB staff report (Attachment I). On January 24, 2013 the project was reviewed by the
ARB and they continued the item to a date uncertain asking that the applicant consider the
following items:
1. Reconsider location of generator or concept of meditation garden;
2. Review the gate at the tot lot fence;
3. Review the balance of trees on both sides of the entry;
4. Provide lighting at garage entry ramp;
5. Provide bike parking cut sheet;
File Number IlPLN-00388 Page 1 of 4
6. Provide trash enclosure details;
7. Reconsider the shed roof at the entry;
8. Reconsider the dormer window design;
9. Review the window pattern and placement;
10. Consider having the proposed building color match the existing building color;
11. Resolve the roof and gutter details between the plan view and the elevation images;
12. Consider adding a building base;
13. Study the overall surface of the building;
14. Review the expansion joints;
15. Explore the possibility of adding character and detail elements currently associated with
the existing building;
16. Add ARB findings to the Record of Land Use Action, and;
17. Summary of the parking rational.
DISCUSSION
The applicant has attempted to address all of the comments provided by the ARB at the January
24, 2013 hearing. The changes made by the applicant are numbered below to correspond to the
ARB's comments above:
1. Plan has been amended to eliminate the term "meditation" from the garden area with the
existing emergency generator. The generator will remain in place and greenscreen with
vine planting would be added to reduce its visibility.
2. Two gates have been added to the rear fence to provide access to the open space beyond.
3. The four crape myrtle trees, originally proposed to the right of the entry, have been
replaced with a single coast live oak tree. Due to the required handicapped parking spaces
to the left of the entry, there is no room for trees in this location.
4. Lighting has been added to the garage entry ramp.
5. The bike parking cut sheet has been provided on sheet A 1.2.
6. The elevation of the proposed trash enclosure is provided on sheet A3.2.
7. The previously proposed shed roof at the entry has been revised into a gable roof, relating
better to the gables on the new and the existing bUilding.
8. Some of the dormers have been eliminated and the others have been modified into wall
dormers to better relate to the wall dormers of the existing RMH.
9. The window pattern and placement have been modified. The windows on the second and
third floor have been modified to align with each other and the ground floor windows have
been deeply recessed to add greater depth and articulation to the building. A third window
was added at the third floor level.
10. The RMH would like to move away from the shades of pink in the existing building color
and shift to colors with more earth tones. They propose that both buildings be painted the
same colors as provided on the color/material board.
11. The roof and gutter details between the plan and elevation drawings have been resolved.
12. The plan has been revised to propose a heavier stucco texture at the base, as well as a
different color, to set is apart from the rest of the bUilding. Ground floor windows have
also been recessed in to create greater depth and further distinguish the base from the rest
of the building.
13. The overall surface of the building has been addressed in multiple ways. The use of two
different stucco textures and colors to accentuate the base and the gable features,
File Number IIPLN-00388 Page 2 of4
realignment of the windows, recessing the ground floor windows, adjustment of the score
lines, and narrowing of the wall surfaces with gable elements.'
14. The expansion joins have been revised in relation to the realignment of the windows.
15. The building design has been revised to attempt to bring in additional character elements
from the existing building such as an increase in the scale of the eve brackets and the
elimination of the roof domlers in exchange for wall dormers. The building mass has also
been broken down further to better relate to the existing building. This has been done by
accentuating the base of the new building, recessing the ground floor windows, reducing
the width of the gable elements in several locations, and modification of the dormers.
16. Staff has added the ARB findings to the Record of Land Use Action. (Attachment A)
17. Required parking is calculated based on the rate of one parking space per guest room. The
requirement acknowledges that both staff and guests need places to park. This is the
requirement applied to hotels, which is the most similar use to the proposed facility. The
existing facility has 47 guest rooms and 64 parking spaces. Site visits to the site confirm
that the existing facility is over parked and that many of the existing spaces go unused.
The total number of guest rooms with the existing and proposed facility combined would
be 116 rooms. The total number of parking spaces will be 133 spaces. This will be 17
spaces more than is required by code.
The applicant has provided a letter addressing the ARB's comnlents. This is provided as
Attachnlent D. The applicant has also provided a comparison narrative document that includes
details of the existing RMH facility, elements of the previous design, and new versions of those
elements in a side by side comparison to assist in detailing how the plans have been revised to
respond to the ARB's comments (Attachment E).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project and the 20
day public review and comment period began on November 14, 2012 and ended on December 4,
2012. A summary of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is provided in the previous ARB staff
report (Attachment I).
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Record of Land Use Action
B. Site Location Map
C. Applicant's Project Description Letter*
D. ARB Response Narrative*
E. Comparison Narrative (ARB Members only)*
F. Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table
G. Zoning Compliance Table
H. Previous Staff Reports, City Managers Report, February 13, 20 12/Architectural Review
Board, July 12, 20 12/Planning and Transportation Commission, November 14,2012
http://wvvvv.cityofpaloalto.onrigov/boards/architectural.asp
1. Previous Architectural Review Board staff report, January 24, 2013
J. City Council Minutes, February 13,2012/ Planning and transportation commission minutes
November 14,2012 -http://\v\vw.citvofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural.asp
K. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
File Number IlPLN-00388 Page 3 of4
L. Plans (ARB Members only)*
* Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff
COURTESY COPIES
Huiwen Hsiao, applicant
Amy Taylor, applicant
Linda Poncini, applicant
Alex Ingram, applicant
Laura Boudreau, applicant
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, owner
Prepared By: Russ Reich, Senior Planner M.
Manager Review: Amy French, Chief Planning OffiCiW
File Number IlPLN-00388 Page 4 of 4
Attachment A
ACTION NO. 2013-XX
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 50 EL CAMINO REAL: SITE AND
DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL
(11PLN-00388)
On ???? x, 2013, the Council the City of Palo Alto
approved the Site and Design Review and Conditional Use Permi t
application for a hospital accessory facility in proposed
Public Facilit s (PF) zone district with Site and Design (D)
Combining District, making the llowing findings, determination
and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Huiwen Hsiao has requested the Ci ty' s approval for
Si te and Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit the
construction of a three sto , approximately 52,000 sq. ft.
expansion of the existing Ronald McDonald House facility as a
hospital accessory facility. The building would approximately
42 feet tall, have 69 parking spaces, and would have 69 guest rooms
as well as other kitchen, recreation, and laundry spaces. Also
requested are changes to the zoning ignation and the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. The zoning would change
from Communi ty Commercial with a Landscape combining district
(CC (L)) to Public Facilit s with a Site and Design combining
district (PF(D)). The Land Use Designation would be amended from
Streamside Open Space to Major Institution/Special Facilities.
B. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped and is
occupied by 91 trees and an illuminated bi and pedestrian pathway
that parallels Sand Hill Road. It designated on the
Comprehens Plan land use map as Streamside Open Space, and is
located within the Community Commercial (CC) zone district with a
Landscape (L) combining Dist ct.
C. Following staff review, the Planning and
Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project on
November 14, 2012, and recommended approval. The Commission's
recommendations are contained in CMR: XXXX and the attachments to
it.
D. lowing Commiss review, the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) reviewed the Project on January 24, 2013, and continued
the project to a date uncertain. On April 4, 2013 the
1
Architectural Review Board reviewed revisions to the proposal and
recommended approval. The ARB's recommendations are contained in
CMR: XXXX and the attachments to it.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City, as the lead
agency for the Project, has determined that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) will be required for the project subject to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
Public Notice period for the MND began on November 14, 2012 and
concluded on December 4, 2012. There were no comments on the MND.
SECTION 3. Architectural Review
1. The design is consistent and compatible wi th
applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the project incorporates quality design that preserves the creek,
compliments the existing buildings in the area, and provides a
valued service within the community.
2. The design is compatible with the immedia te
environment of the site.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the project has attempted to preserve as many existing trees as
possible, working them into the site layout. The building has also
been placed on the side to maximize the use while preserving the
adjacent riparian area.
3. The design is appropriate to the function of the
project.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the design works well to serve the needs of the Ronald McDonald
House lity.
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.
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 project maintains the same height as adjacent buildings and is
well screened from nearby single-family residential uses.
2
6.
both on and
design is compa tible wi
the site.
approved improvements
This finding can be made in the rmative in that
the project's design is intended to relate to existing Ronald
McDonald House facility by incorporating architectural details form
the existing building into new one.
7. The anning and ting of the various functions and
buildings on the site create an internal sense order and provide
a desi e environment for occupants, visitors and the general
community.
s finding can be made in affirmative in that
the new building would be tied to the existing via a pedestrian
path through a circular garden. The circular garden features a
mature coast live oak tree and is connection point between
existing and new buildings. Vehicular connectivity is also
provided by a driveway allows vehicular movement between the
sting and new buildings wi thout the need· to enter onto the
public roadway.
8. The amount and arrangement
appropriate to the gn and the function of
open space are
structures.
s finding can be made the affirmative in that
proposal provides ample outdoor patios, gardens, and play areas
to meet the needs of the buildings users.
9. Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support
the main functions of project and same are compatible with
project's design concept.
This finding can made in the affirmative in that a
new
building.
enclosure is proposed to be compatible with new
10. Access to property and circulation thereon are
and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehi es.
This finding can be made in the affirmative
the proposal provides an onsi te driveway that connects
buildings as well a multiple pedest pathways.
that
two
11. Natural features are appropriately preserved and
integrated with project.
This finding can be made in the rmative in that
many existing trees are preserved in place and others are
transplanted just behind site to re-vegetate the riparian area
between the creek and the proposed building.
3
12. The materials, textures, colors and details of
construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the
design and function.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
proposal primarily includes earthy colors and materials as well as
native tree and plant species to blend with the natural
surroundings of the site.
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 native landscape materials that are used to
screen and soften the appearance of the building while also
providing a pleasing color pallet.
14. Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site,
capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a
variet¥ 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.
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 micro
climates 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;
4
• Create healthy indoor environments; and
• Use creati vi ty and innovation
sustainable environments.
to build more
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the project would comply with the City's green building ordinance,
parking lot trees are provided to reduce the urban heat island
effect, and easy pedestrian access is provided.
16. The design is consistent
purpose of archi tectural review as
18.76.020 (a) .
and compa tible wi th the
set forth in subsection
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. Site and Des Review
1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner
that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or
potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The proposed expansion of the Ronald McDonald House as
ahospital accessory facility would be a compatible and harmonious
use in relation to adjacent and nearby uses. The proposed location
for the RMH is ideal in that it is adjacent to the existing
facili ty which creates efficiencies for' the operation and is in
close proximity to the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital and the
Stanford Hospital where there tenants and family members receive
treatment. The proposed building is set away from the adjacent
riparian creek area so as not to negatively impact it. The RMH
would be conducted such that it would not result in an impact on
adjacent properties. The traffic and parking for the project have
been reviewed and it has been determined that the use would be
adequately parked and that the traffic volumes would not result in
an impact to local intersections or roadways. The new building is
proposed to be architecturally similar to the existing facility
next door.
2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring
the desirabili ty of investment, or the conduct of business,
research, or educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
The approval of the project would maintain the
desirability of investment by supporting a use that is important to
the community. The proposal would be executed in a manner that
preserves the aesthetic quality of the area. The proposed building
would be setback 70 feet or more from Sand Hill Road providing a
5
significant setback to accommodate ample landscaping and preserve
the aesthetic of the corridor. Construction all improvements
will be governed by the regulations of the current Zoning
Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to
assure safety and a high quality of development.
3. Sound principles of environmental
ecological balance are observed in the project.
design and
The proposal respects the nearby natural riparian
corridor with an 80 foot setback from the top of bank. The
proposal does not remove riparian corridor vegetation and would
even add new native shrubs and trees to further ensure the
protection of the creek and the nearby natural environment. The
project would also meet all City and state requirements for green
building. Of the 70 trees to removed, 16 of them will be saved
and relocated between the new building and the creek. The 21
remaining trees on site would be protected in place and 30 new
trees would be planted on site.
4. The use will be in accord with the Palo to
Comprehensive Plan.
The project is compliant with several comprehensive
plan policies as noted in the Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table
SECTION 5. Conditional Use Permit
1. Not detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the
public lth, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
The proj ect, as conditioned, would not result in
detrimental or injurious impacts to property or improvements in
vicini ty. The proposal has no signi cant impacts that are not
able to be mitigated and would propose a use ident I to the use
existing on the adjacent parcel which currently functions without
negatively impacting the neighboring properties. proposed
facility is large but is designed to mitigate the proposed building
mass and has significant building setbacks. It is located in close
proximity to the existing facility which creates operational
encies between the existing and new RMH buildings. It is
also close to the hospital to minimize vehicle trips and adds
conveniences to the users.
2. Be located and conducted a manner in accord with
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes this tle
(Zoning) .
6
The project is compliant with several comprehensive
plan policies as noted in the Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table
SECTION 6. Site and Design Review and Conditional Use
Permit Approval Granted. Site and Design Review and conditional
Use Permit Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.30(G) .070, and Section 18.76.010 for
application 11PLN-00388, subject to conditions of approval in
Section seven of the Record.
SECTION 7. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Huiwen Hsiao
entitled "Ronald McDonald House", consisting of 27 pages, dated
November 6, 2012, and received November 7, 20 , except as modified
to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section Six. A copy
of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and
Communi ty Environment. The condi tions approval in Section 6
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 January 16, 2013,
except as modified to incorporate the following condi tions of
approval and any additional conditions placed on the project by the
Planning Commission, Architectural 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 speci ed in Section 9.10 Noise of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
3. Any existing city street trees shall be maintained
and protected during construction per City Palo Alto standard
requirements.
4. All landscape material shall be well maintained
and replaced if it Is.
5. Any exterior modifications
property shall require Architectural Review.
signs.
to the building or
This includes any new
6. Mi tigation Measure Bio-1: Prepare a final Tree
Preservation Report all trees to be retained. Activity within
7
the dripline of ordinance-regulated oak trees requires mitigation
to be consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan. An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR)
prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted for review and
acceptance by the City Urban Forester. For reference clarity, the
tree survey shall include ( st and field tag) all existing trees
within the project area, including adjacent trees overhanging the
si te. approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including
mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to City Urban Forester.
The TPR shall be based on latest plans and amended as needed to
address activity or within the dripline area of any existing tree
to be preserved, including incidental work (utilities trenching,
street work, lighting, irrigation, etc.) that may affect the health
of a preserved tree. The proj ect shall be modified to address
recommendations identified to reduce impacts to existing ordinance
regulated and other trees to be retained. The TPR shall be
consistent with the criteria set forth the tree preservation
ordinance, PAMC 8.10.030 and the ty Tree Technical Manual,
Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urban canopy.asp. To
avoid improvements that may be detrimental to the health of
regulated trees, the TPR shall review the applicant's landscape
plan to ensure the new landscape is consistent with Tree Technical
Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks.
The project site arborist will also review the plans submitted for
building permit to verify in writing that all final design review
measures to protect trees are incorporated into the plans.
7. Mitigation Measure Bio-2: Prepare a Tree Relocation
Feasibility Plan for protected and non-protected trees to be
relocated. Because of inherent mortality associated with the
process of moving mature trees, a Tree Relocation and Maintenance
Plan (TRMP) shall be prepared subject to Urban Forester's approval.
The project sponsor shall submit a TRMP to determine the
feasibility of moving the Protected Trees to an appropriate
location on this site. Feasibility shall consider current site and
tree conditions, a tree's ability to tolerate moving, relocation
measures, optimum needs for the new location, aftercare,
irrigation, and other long-term needs.
If the relocated trees do not survive after a period of five years,
the tree canopy. shall be replaced with a tree of equivalent size or
security deposit value. The TRMP shall be inclusive of the
following minimum information: appropriate irrigation, monitoring
inspections, post relocation tree maintenance and for an annual
arborist report of the condition of the relocated trees. If a tree
disfigured, leaning with supports needed, decline with a dead
top or dieback of more than 25%, the tree shall be considered a
total loss and replaced kind and size. The final annual arborist
report shall serve as the basis for return of the tree security
deposit.
8
8. Mitigation Measure Bio-3: Provide a Tree
Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The natural tree resources
on the site include significant protected trees and neighborhood
screening, including 15 trees proposed for relocation. Prior to
building permit submittal, the Tree Security Depos for the total
value of the relocated trees, as referenced in the Tree Technical
Manual, Section 3.26, Security Deposits, shall be posted to
City Revenue Collections in a form acceptable by the City Attorney.
As a security measure, the project shall be subject to a Memorandum
of Understanding between the City of Palo Alto and the Applicant
describing a tree retention amount, list of trees, criteria and
timeline for return of security, and conditions as cited in the
Record of Land Use Action for the proj ect. The applicant and
project arborist shall coordinate with the City Urban Forester to
determine the amount of bonding required to guarantee the
protection and/or replacement of the regulated trees on the site
during construction and wi thin five years after occupancy. The
applicant shall bond for 150% the value for the relocated trees,
and 50% the value of remaining trees to protected during
construction (as identified in revised and final approved Tree
Protection Report). The applicant shall provide the proposed level
of bonding as listed in the Tree Value Table, with the description
of each tree by number, value, and total combined value of all the
trees to be retained. A return of the guarantee shall be subject to
an annual followed by a final tree assessment report on all the
relocated and retained trees from the project arborist as approved
by the City Urban Forester, five years following final inspection
occupancy, to the satisfaction of the director.
9. Mi tigation' Measure Bio-4: Retain protected oak
trees #53 and #35 with focused site planning. Oak #35 is a fine
specimen functioning as a significant aesthetic and biological
resource and screen tree. Speci roadway mitigation design shall
be implemented to enable retention of this tree. Oak # 53,
along the creek side of the building perimeter, is a healthy oak of
significant character and function to provide screen, shade and
environmental bene s from the western sun exposure. Sufficient
root clearance, canopy clearance shall be afforded the tree, as
well as specific measures in the tree protection report to ensure
the tree's survival.
10. Mitigation Measure Bio-5: Provide monetary in-lieu
fee for protected trees that cannot be relocated and will not
survive construction, after all design options have been exhausted
consistent with Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, Tree Value
Replacement Standard. The appraised value protected trees that
are inadvertently removed shall be paid to the City of Palo Alto
Revenue Collections, Forestry Fund, prior to building permit
issuance.
11. Mitigation Measure Bio-6: Provide optimum publ
tree replacement for loss of any public trees along Sand Hill Road.
9
As mitigation to offset the net loss for rs of publ resource
stments and minimize future years to parity with
ructure benefits (Co2 reduction, extended asphalt Ii ,
water mgmt., etc.) currently provided by the trees, the new Sand
Hill Road frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design
and materials to include following elements:
• Provide adequate room
growing volume resources.
tree canopy growth and root
• Utilize city-approved best management
sustainability products.
ices for
12. Mit ion Measure Bio-7: Provide monetary lieu
fee for Designated California Black Walnut # 48 that is too 1
to be relocated and is within the project footprint. The appraised
value of Walnut #48 consistent with Tree Technical Manual,
Section 3.00, Tree Value Replacement Standard shall be paid to the
City of Palo 0 Revenue Collections, Forestry Fund, prior to
building permit issuance.
13. Mitigation Measure Bio-8: Prior to construction,
limits of work along San Francisquito Creek shall be demarcated
wi th plastic construction mesh fencing and silt fencing.
fencing must in place prior to any improvements and only
removed when all construction work is completed.
14. Mitigation Measure Bio-9: The proposed setback area
between creek top-of-bank and the development shall be re
vegetated with native riparian plant es (trees and shrubs) to
the creek resources. Native riparian trees and shrubs shall
be used, such as coast live oak, valley oak, western sycamore, blue
elderberry, toyon, co berry, and California wild rose.
15. Mitigation Measure Bio-10: Construction shall be
scheduled to occur between August 15 and March 15 of any given
, which is outside the nesting season for this area. If this
is not poss , a qualified biologist shall conduct
preconstruction surveys for nesting birds. If nesting birds are
observed, buffer zone shall be established where no construction
will take until biologist determined that all chicks
have fledged. The buffer zone shall be 50 feet for passerines and
200 feet for raptors.
16. Mitigation Measure Culture-1: A program of
mechanical subsurface presence testing shall be conducted.
Depending on the findings, a more comprehens program of
evaluation of significance of the deposits may be recommended in
order to devise a respons program of mitigation of impacts
through data recovery excavation combined with archeological
10
monitoring of earthmoving activities to identify, record and/or
remove significant archeological mat Is and to limit damage to
human remains and associated grave goods which may be encountered
during construction related excavation. Presence/absence testing
would be limited to a series of trenches. Based on findings, a
plan for further evaluative testing and/or mitigation would be
prepared.
SECTION 9. Term of Approval.
Site and Design Approval. In the event actual
construction of the project is not commenced within two years of
the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of
no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section lS.30(G) .OSO.
SECTION 10. Term of
Condi tional Use Permit Approval. In the event act ual
construction of the project is not commenced within one year of the
date of council approval, approval shall expire and be of no
further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section lS.77.090(a).
SECTION 11. Indemnity Clause.
To extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall
indemnify and hold harmless the City, s City Council , its
cers, 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 void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the
Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its
actual attorneys and costs incurred in defense of the
1 igation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend
any such action with attorneys its own choice.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
C
11
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
s
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
1. e plans prepared by
House Expansion", consist
January 16, 2013.
12
Hsiao entitled "Ronald McDonald
33 pages, dated, received
-.... :
Legend
~;f~~i,~ .Project Parcel-50 EICamino Real .
_ Project Site-Portion of 50 .EI Ca~ino Real C::3 city Jurisdictional Limits
'-[::::J Zone Districts
abc Zone Distrid Labels
.(0.
The City of
Palo Alto
"'.lOQo1.Z4 ":11:22 5OECRrr(\~~)
50 EICamino Real
Zone Change
CC (L)toPF
Project Area Map
" ...•
. ThIs map is a Product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
·-.w 0' .
1M CilyolPllaAlIO _nolaplllldllily
-c o • c I .= •• ••• . ~ o ~ ...
"a 1i & CI u .2
"a 'ii c &
"i •• II: o c "i u
iii
:8
I. PROJECT APPLICANT.
520 SandHill Road
PFZONE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Attachlllent c
The project applicant is Ronald McDonald House at Stanford.· Ronald McDonald House
("RMH") ,at Stanford creates a home-away-fr.o,m-home an,~ supportive-community for
families with a child being treated for a life-threatening iII~ess. Located close to lucile
Packard Children's Hospital, the RMH is a shelter for the famUy to stay together and
provides respfte from the stress of medical procedures.
, '
Fof"-•• riously ill'littie ones and their families every day can be a challenge. They are'
, confronted by a daunting situation. e~~tionally and financially, the stress of which may
hamper the child's recovery. As families leave the comfort of home to seek adVanced
or specialized treatment, the eXperience becomes even more difficult without the
immediate support· network of family' and friends. At a time w~en tubes, bandages
baldness, wheelchairs, needles, and tests are part of these families' daily Uvea, ·Ronard
McDonald House at Stanford looks for ways to provide respite ~nd relief from the
pressures each family faces so that they ~n focus on their number one priority: the'
health of their child.
With St$nford Hospital's, expanded service~, the need for rooms· is consistently
expanding' and families are tumed away every night. With the forthcoming. expansion Of
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, that demand· will continue to increase. even mOre
quickly. Fortunately, RMHhas identified an ideal property -immediately adjacent to the
existing House -on which to grow and meet both current and projected needs. The
pr:operty, ·which represents a portion of the · Designated Remainder of the Lands of the
Leland Stanford Junior University. will be incorporated into the current lot by means of a
lot line adjustment.
II. LOCATION AND CONTEXT.
The B,MH is located at ·520 Sand' Hill on land leased from the ~oard of Trustees of
leland Stanford 'Junior University ("Stanford"). It is adjacentto the Vi senior community
and across Sand .HiIl Road .. from Stanford Shopping Center; across the c~k to the
north are Single-family residences in Menlo· Park and to the east all 'the wiy to EI
Camino Real is open space. When' the originatC~ildren's Hospital at StanfOrd Was
relocated from Sand ,Hill Road to Welch Road,. the RMH remained' on Sand Hill Road
and retained its PF zone. It was categorized as a hospital accessory facility and
although that use is not specifically listed' as a conditional use in the PF zone, Similar
private uses (such as outpatient.medical facilities. day care centers, private schOOls and
residential care facilities) are conditionally allowed. Section 18.28.040 of the Zoning
Code allows other uses which, in the opinion of the Director of Planning andC.ommunity
Environment, are similar to those listed, as permitted or conditionally permitted uses.
1
C:\Users\rreich\Apl!!?llta\Local\Microsoft\W~ndows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook.\IOKOOTGQ\Project Description 121108.doc ...... -,.. ~.,~.: .....
The Diredor has determined that the RMH is similar -to these uses and would be a
conditionally allowed use in the PF zone. -
The RMH currently has a conditional use permit for 47 rooms, administrative offices
and common rooms, including a large:kitchen, teen room, day care room and compute;
room used by the residents. The RMH is also ~u~j~ctto a recorded Affordable HOUSing
Agreement whereby the RMH covenants that all units.are rentectat ~ordable,rates. In
fact, the RMH charges only $1 D.DO/night for each room, and even, that am~unt is waived
if. it is .a hardship on the occupant.
The expansion of the RMH . will require the Comprehensive Plan designation of
Streamside Open Space to be changed to Major Institutions/Special Facilities for 1.57
acres of the ·approximate 8.52 acres of open space. The RMH is also requesting a
, rezone of this same 1.57 acres to PF (D). Adding the (0) overlay zone to the PF zone
will, assure that the design of the expansion is integrated into ~nd justifies tI;1e expanSion
of the PF zone. Additionally, an amended CUP (or new CUP) will be needed to expand
the: use permit for theRMH. The additional 1.57 acres forth~ expansion will be set way
beyond 'the top of the creek bank and the expanded RMH will be at least 290 feet from
the closest residence on the north side of the creek.
III. DETAILS OF DRAFT DESIG~.
The proposed 52,000 square feet will more than double the size of the existing RMH
and the expansion will add 70 rooms to _ the existing 47. The height of the proposed
expansion will be approximately 42 feet, the same as the existingRMH. The RMH
intends to generally comply with required setbacks and site' coverage on the leased
parcel. There will be an ~dditional sixty-nine parking spaces, inclUding surface spaces
and an underground parking garage. Although several groups of trees will be removed
all 'the major oak trees on the site will be preserved. '
The proposed new addition will be designed with the same architectural features and
vocabulary as the existing RMH buildings. It will be a wood frame construction on a
concrete basement foundation. A unique meditation garden is proposed in between the
exisling RMH and the proposed expansion.
IV. HOUSING NEEDS AND FACILITIES
Currently, Ronald ,McDonald House at Stanford has 47 guestrooms and offers families a
place to s~y that is designed to meet their specific needs during this challenging time.
The RMH features a Children's Activity Room, Teen Recreation Center, Computer
Center, family. library, and fitness center.-Shared areas such as a large kitchen and
dining room, 1V rooms on each floor and a multi-purpose "great room" -create a sense
of community among the families.
Everything about Ronald McDonald House at Stanford is geared towards SUPPorting
and healing the family_ Often, the entire family is uprooted. For the siblings of ill
2
C:\Users\rreicb\AppOata\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Tcmpormy Internet Files\Content.Outlook\lOKOOTGQ\Project Description 121108.doc
children, the experience can be very traumatic. N,ot' only are 'they worried about the
health' of their brother or sister, but the majority of the family's attention is focused on
their ill sibling. Having a place to stay that offers kid-friendly activities and a life as
much like home as possible helps maintain the family's closeness and structure.
Additional benefits offered through the House help families with everyday tasks that
could otherwise be daunting: st)uttles to and from the hospital, free laundry "facilities,
group trips to the grocery store, breakfast provided seven days a week, and dinner
brought in about fIVe nights a week. A story-time, dance, and acting workshop helps
kid~ roleplay and express the complex emotions they are experiencing. Programs, such
as Kids Can Cook, Furry Friends HOUf, Bingo, Arts and Crafts Night, scrapbooking, and
massage offer avenues for healing the whole family.
, .
This,'~xpansion project will supplement the current 47 guestrooms with an additional 68
guestrooms, and would include a second kitchen, dining' room and activity centers. The
number of rooms needed was ascertained through a joint· project between Ronald
McDonald House at Stanford and Lucile Packard Children'S Hospital. The study was
'conducted by Kaufman Hall & Associates, a third-party independent consulting firm that
offers strategic advisory 'services to hospitals and healthcare organizations. Kaufman
Han found that the forecasted need would increase after the hospital's expansion and
that 65 .. 70 rooms would be needed to accommodate the additional families traveling to
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital for life-saving treatment.
As Lucile Packard Children'S Hospital is able to treat increasingly ill children who need
to stay locally for extended periods, the demand for services and housing at Ronald
McDonald House at Stanford continues ,to rise. As shown in Chart 1 (attached), the
average length of stay has grown, from 6 nights in 2003, when the current expanded'
building re-opened, to 29 nights in 2012. Because many procedures require patients to
be near the hospital for pre-and post-operative care as well as for outpatient
,treatments, more patients are staying at the House during part or all of their treatment.
Ronald McDonald. House's statistics demonstrate the need for expansion with a greater
number of families being put on the waitlist each night. Chart 2, (attached) shOWs an
average number of families per night who are b.eingturned awaYl many, of them, night
after night. The urgency for an expansion has grown with the number of ~milies
ne8dil1g housing. Because rooms are so limited, a family might remain on the waitlist for
weeks Without ever getting an opportunity to stay in the 'House before their treatment is
complete. It is a hardship on these families that needs to be addressed.
Since the House opened in 1979, the fee requested from the families has remained at a
modest $10 per night and no family is evertumed away due to inability to pay" With the
high cost of medical care, many of the families are putting all their assets toward the
treatment of their child. Nearly two-thirds of the families served are so financially
impacted they cannot afford the $10 nightly fee. Because of generous community
support, Ronald McDonald House at Stanford can continue to give these families a safe
place to stay when they need 'it the most.
3
C:\Users\rreich\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Tcmporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\lOKOOTGQ\Project Description 121108.dot
A generous amount of the annual operating budget (6%) is supported by . Bay Area
Ronald . McDonald House Charities and local McDonald's owner/operators; however, the
. RMH's largest supporters are members. of the community, providing about 85% of the
op~ratir:lgbudget. Every penny raised in support of the RMH is spent locally. -
v. MINIMIZING NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS.
By adding guestrooms to Ronald McDonald House at Stanford, . the RMH Will
accommodate the families of c~ically . ill _children being treat~ at Lucil~Packard
Children's -Hospital. With the RMH's shuttles, bicycle loan program and . walking
pr~ximity to the . hospital, this expansion is not expected to increase car traffic in the
-area. The-families stay for long periods and frequent the stores and restaurants near the
RMHand throughout Palo AHo. The RMH also provides vans for food and inexpensive
clothing shopping. . --
-rhe RMHexpansion will have no exterior lighting facing· the creek and is not expected
to generate noise. The existing RMH has received no complaints from· neighbors in the _
nearly 1 o years it has operated u~der its. current use permit.
Ronald McDonald House at Stanford h~s been investigating altemative additional sites
throughout Palo AHo for many. Years, none of which have -be~n appropriate for its needs.
By expanding on the land -adjacent to the existing RMH, citywide impacts areminimi~ed.
There is no location and no combination of" services that could be created as efficiently
as this expansion can. IfwiU-offerthe fewest complications for famines-staying at the
RMH and offer better cost-savings than a second RMH elsewhere in the City.
4
C:\Users\rreicb\AppData\Loca1\Microsoft\ Windows\Temponuy Internet Files\ContentOutlook\lOKOOTGQ\Project Description 121108.doc
Lauderbaugh Assooiates
11111 lAlOERBAUGH ~A s soc l ATE S
tandlCape .Ard1IteclureiPlannlng
425 ·Clyde Avenue
Mountain View,CA 94043
-re1. (650) 691-9711
Fax: (650) 691-9713
Ca1~f. Lie. Bo. 2415
6506919713
S'l'AHMENT OF DESIGN ::rNTEHT
PROJEe!: RaULD McDOIJALD BOUSE
. .ADDBBSS; SA1ID Ill:LL ROAD
p.6
·,'the 1.57 acre s:lte located just north of the exlstlug B.oDa.J.d
". lk:Donald House· on Sand Hill Road wll1 provide lodging for the
fami1ies wbile their children are receiv1ng:treatmeut at the
L1lei1le Packard Children· s Hospital. our vision is to create an
att'.ractive and welcomiog' landscape environaent. that will, hOPef1J.~ly
provide some therapeutic tranqui11ty during' th1sdif~.icult t:111e. '
Chi~dren's play areas have been incorporated into the design to
further enhance the faDIily exper.ien.ce and help t.o distract. the .
child's focus on the hospital care. Located w:Lthin a l.alldsOClpe
reserve area, the site 1s surrounded. by nati-ve Oak trees, Coast
R.edwoods,. and groves of Euca~yptus.Tbe proposed p1ant palett.. w.i.l~
at maturity integrate with the existing landsca.pe qOll8lllU.ty and
. provide. colorfu1 flowering trees, shrubs displaying textural. ana
tOQal contrasts, and drifts of ornamental grasses swaying W1th
the breeses. .
All of the proposed ~andscape p~ant materia1 is indig-eoouB to
northern Califox:nia and are predominantly low to mediWll wa1:ex wse:r:s .
Hanyof the existing native oaks and Rec.iwooilSare being transplant.ed to·~ create a landscape buffer along the .westerly property line within
the ~andscape reserve. New native Oaks, Redwoods ana ·ornament.al
grasses will frame the re-aligned existing pedestrian/bike path and
provide a landscape buffer between SanaB111 Road and the Project
dJ:lveway. '!'he existing 50,2u diameter Patriarch Coast Live Oak stanc1s
as a tranquil. focal point at the south end o:f the site and Will be
protected for tbe duration of t:he construction period. Hardy, wate.r
conserving colorful shrubs and ornamental grasses appear throughout
. the building landscape.
~e proposed irrigat~oD system wi11 be oontro11ed by a .ult~_
programmable time clock capable' of several short watering CYcles to
prevent surface ~un-o££and a soil-based mo:Lstuxe SeDsor that wi11
turn-off the system. during inc1ement ~ther. Low-precipitation
shrub ana. laWD heads, drip irrigation at SIIlaller land~eape. areas
and guiclt coupler valves for hand-waterinCJ during perioas of drou~t
w.i~l also he emp1oyea. by this system. .
The irrigation system should be inspected bi-monthly and kept clean
and properly adjusted. Damaged equipment should be repaired promptly
wi:tb identical equipment. '.rurf Jlanageaent will be .minimal. as there
is only ane SIIla1.1 lawn play area. Maintenance shall. include, but not
be l.faited t:.o the :fo11owlng: .routine inspectioD$, pressure testing
irrigation .repair, aerating and de-thatching turf areas, replenishing
mulch, fertilizing, pruning, cutting o:rDillDental grasses I replanting'
:fai1ed plants, weeding, pest contxol., and. general c1ean-up Of all
~an4scape Oebr~s.
Attachment D
Architectural Review Board Follow-up for 50 EI Camino
This narrative will outline the issues and concerns that were raised at the ARB meeting
on January 24,2013 regarding the design of 50 EI Camino and the Team's response to
the concerns.
Building:
1. Review entry shed roof, provide more design details and elements. Look at
Existing House for design elements.
Response: We have looked more closely at the existing house and have
made numerous changes to the exterior of the building, visually tying the
existing to the new building. The roof lines have dramatically changed,
windows have been realigned and resized, dormers have been eliminated
and some dormer elements blended into the vertical planes of the house,
which matches the existing house's elements. We have extended this through
the fence around the children's play area in the front and back. We have
also balanced the building better on each end so the overall look and feel
more closely matches the existing house. The entry has been redesigned and
'popped-out'. The sloping shed roof has been elirrlinated and a pitched
frosted glass roof has been added to the entry which matches the style and
shape of the new and old roof lines.
2. Detail dormer window design. Seem disjointed, not coordinated to rooms and
space.
Response: The windows have been redesigned and aligned to the interior
details. The windows are now aligned to each other and the interior spaces.
We eliminated the variety of window sizes in a single vertical element and
made them consistent.
3. Window pattern placement seems odd. Not uniform. Dress up with design
elements more like a home.
Response: We made significant changes to the window layout, sizes and
spacing as noted above. Lower level windows were depressed (set-in) to
add more depth, shadow lines and layers to the building. The style of
window matches the existing house.
4. Match existing building colors.
Response: The existing house color has faded over the last 11 years and
needs to be refreshed. We are going to paint the existing house the same
color as the new house so 'they will match exactly. We are staying close to
the original colors but want to move a little more toward modern earth
tones and away from pink shades.
As part of the ARB resubmittal package, we are providing a comparison
color elevation to illustrate the existing "faded" color scheme vs. our
preferred color scheme for both buildings.
5. Provide more detailed roof and gutter plan to ensure run-off and drainage.
Can't tell how roofs tie together.
Response: The drawing details have progressed significantly. We have
added much more detail in regards to the roof lines, gutters and
downspouts. We have realigned the roof planes to meet in logical places
and have simplified the roof lines with the new design and the elimination
of oddly placed dormers.
6. Revisit building base design to reduce mass.
Response: We have made numerous changes to the base, including
setting in windows and utilizing a heavier stucco texture to set the base
apart from the main wall. A change of color has been introduced at the
base to differentiate it from the main wall and make the building feel
more grounded.
7. More articula'l'ion and broken up fa<;ade. More elements need to be broken
down.
Response: The front entrance has been redesigned, including elimination
of the shed roof. We have balanced the building on each end and have
matched the elements on each end and each side to provide balance
and depth.
8. Review expansion joints in stucco exterior for aesthetics and alignment.
Response: The joints have now all been aligned since the windows are all
aligned.
9. Review adding window headers or other elements.
Response: We have provided more details regarding the window design
and we are matching the existing house style. We have inset numerous
2
windows on the first floor and added a window in the children's playroom
to allow more light and interaction with the outdoors.
Site/Landscape
1. Review existing generator and its loca1"ion.
Response: We have reviewed this extensively and have concluded that
the potential damage to the oak tree, its root system and surrounding
area does not allow us the relocate the generator. The proximity to the
transformer supplying power, the feeds to the generator from the panels,
and fuel supply lines being relocated would all potentially cause harm to
the tree, its root system and the environment. The generator is existing and
will continue to only service the existing house; however, screening has
been implemented on the landscape plan to better conceal the existing
generator. Greenscreen with espaliered Kangaroo Treebine vines is
placed around both the generator and the transformer.
2. Gate at top of the fence
Response: We have added two access controlled gates in the rear of the
building to allow access to the creek and open space.
3. Trees on left of entry to balance with trees on the right
Response: The four small trees have been eliminated for the right side of
the entrance and one large oak tree has been added. The large tree
provides balance for Tree 35 which is being preserved. The original plan
eliminated Tree 35, but we now can balance the view and look by
framing the entrance with the 2 large oak trees, especially when viewing
the building from the street. While a suggestion was made to incorporate
some Birch trees near the entrance, it was felt that using a large oak tree
would be more appropriate for two reasons: a) Birch trees require heavy
water usage and b) the limited amount of landscape space immediately
adjacent to the entry does not allow for sufficient space for that type of
tree.
4. Add lighting to garage entrance on photometric plan
Response: Photometric plan has been updated with lighting changes and
includes the addition of the garage entrance lighting. Bike path lighting
and site lighting photometric plan has been updated to show correct light
3
levels, indicating that there is not spill light beyond the property
boundaries.
5. Add Bike parking cut sheet and trash enclosure detail
Response: The cut sheet for the bicycle rack and the details and design of
the garbage enclosure are included in the updated packet. Bike lockers
for long-term use by employees and/or resident families are located in the
underground garage, providing security and convenience.
6. Request entry detail, cut sheet and more design work
Response:The updated drawing set provides much more detail in almost
every aspect of the project. We have accelerated the design and
brought in additional resources to move our project forward.
Addi'I'ional Comments:
1. Bring in more outdoors for youth room.
Response: We have added a window to the room allow more light and
interac'l"ion to the outdoors.
2. Look to exis'l"ing house for wonderful design elements
Response: The updated drawings have been heavily influenced by the
exis'l"ing architecture and many elements have been 'borrowed' to make
the buildings fit together much better with each other and the site.
A separate Comparison document is being provided, to illustrate how the
design has been modified based on previous ARB input and how
elements from the exiting house have been used as inspiration in the
detailing of the new house.
Summary: The Ronald McDonald House and design Team have taken all of the ARB
members' feedback into consideration and we respectfully resubmit our
design package for your reconsideration. Your input and comments have
been very helpful and valuable. The design Team appreciates the ARB's
passion for architecture, and our revised design reflects your insights. We
have a much better project today due to your valuable input.
4
ATTACHMENT F
APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
50 El Camino Real
11PLN-00388
Business and Economics
Policy B-32: Assist Stanford Medical Center in
responding to changes in the delivery of health
care services.
Natural Environment
Policy N-12: Preserve the habitat value of creek
corridors through preservation of native plants and
the replacement of invasive, non-native plants
with native plants.
Policy N-13: Discourage creek bank instability,
erosion, downstream sedimentation, and flooding
by minimizing site disturbance and vegetation
removal on or near creeks and carefully reviewing
grading and drainage plans for development near
creeks and elsewhere in the watersheds of creeks.
Policy N -17: Preserve and protect heritage trees,
including native oaks and other significant trees,
on public and private property
[and Use and Community Design
Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative
design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces.
Policy L-66: Maintain an aesthetically pleasing
street network that helps frame and define the
community while meeting the needs of
pedestrians, bicycles, and motorists.
The expansion of the RMH facility would assist in
providing temporary logging for families with
children seeking medical treatment at the Lucile
Packard Children's hospital. The existing facility
must continually tum people away and a
significant need for the proposed facility is need.
The project keeps away from the riparian corridor
and further protects it by adding native riparian
trees and shrubs between the building and the
creek.
The project stays 80 feet away from the top of the
creek bank and would provide nlesh fencing and
silt fencing to keep project activities away from
the creek.
The project site has 14 protected oak trees on site.
Seven of these trees would be protected in place
and three would be transplanted as part of the
project. Four of the trees would be removed.
The proposed building would be the same height
as the adjacent facility and would be
architecturally compatible with it. The design will
receive review by the ARB to ensure quality of
design.
Large setbacks and ample landscape areas in front
of the building have been proposed to fit in with
the aesthetic of the Sand Hill Road corridor as
well as the adjacent open space. The winding
bicycle/pedestrian path that currently runs through
the site is preserved in an altered location.
Housing
Policy B-1: Meet community and neighborhood The proposal would provide needed temporary
needs as the supply of housing is increased. affordable housing to families with children
Ensure the preservation of the unique character of seeking medical care at Stanford while
the City's existing neighborhoods. maintaining the quality design aesthetic of the
area.
Policy B-2: Identify and implement a variety of While the proposed project is not permanent
strategies to increase housing density and diversity housing, it is a form of temporary affordable
in appropriate locations. Emphasize and housing in a very appropriate location. Its close
encourage the development of affordable and proximity to the Stanford medical facilities is one
attainable housing. of its key benefits to its users.
Attachment G
ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE
50 El Canlino Real/File No. IlPLN-00388
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE DISTRICT PROPOSED CONFORMANCE
FOR PF(D) ZONE DISTRICT STANDARD PROJECT
I Minimum Building setbacks
Front Yard (Sand Hill Road) 24' Special Setback 59' conforms
Rear Yard 10' 10' conforms
Interior Side Yard (right) 10' 58' conforms
Interior Side Yard (left) 10' 25' conforms
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1:1 (68,260 sq. ft.) 0.76:1(51,948 sq. ft.) conforms
Maximum Site Coverage 30% (20,478 sq. ft.) 280/0 (19,218 sq. ft.) conforms
Ma~imum Height 50' 42' -7" conforms
Daylight Plane none No requirement conforms
Parking Requirement 1 space per guest 69 spaces conforms
room (69 spaces)
.".
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
1
January 24, 2013
Architectural Review Board
Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Attachment I
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Department: Planning and
Community Environnlent
50 EI Camino Real [IIPLN-00388]: Request by Huiwen Hsiao on behalf
of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University for Site
and Design Review of the construction ofa 69 ... room, three story, 51,948
square foot building on a 1.57 -acre site, to house an expanded Ronald
McDonald House program. The project includes a rezoning to Public
Facility with a Site and Design Combining District(PF(D)) zone, and
Comprehensive Plan re-designation (from Streamside Open Space to Major
Institution/Special Facilities), and a Conditional Use Permit-amendment.
Zone District: Community Commercial with a Landscape Combining
District (CC(L)). Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the Architectural Review
Board recommend that the City Council approve the Site and Design Review application for the
construction of a 69-room, three story, 51,948 square foot building on a 1.57 -acre site, to house an
expanded Ronald McDonald House program.
BACKGROUND
Process History
The, existing RMH facility is subject to the existing Conditional Use Permit, (89-U-22) as
amended by (Ol-CUP-12). Prior to Decerrlbet 12, 1989, RMH operated under provisions of the
use permit granted for what was then the adjacent Children's Hospital. When the hospital was
relocated, the RMH applied for and received approval of a separate Conditional Use Permit (89-
U-22) for the facility and a 10,519 square foot expansion, increasing the number of rooms from 13
to 24. On May 21, 2012 CUP (Ol-CUP-12) was approved to modify the 1989 CUP to allow the
facility to expand from 24.rooms to 47 roonlS.
File Number IlPLN·00388 Page 1 of6
On February 13, 2012 the City Council initiated a Rezone Request from Community Commercial
with a Landscape Combining District (CC(L)) to Public Facility with a Site and Design
Combining District (PF-D) and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Streamside Open Space
to Major Institution/Special Facilities. There were seven public speakers at the initiation hearing.
All but one of the speakers spoke in favor of the project. The comments generally covered the
following topics:
•
•
•
•
Need in the community for the expansion of the existing RMH, it was noted that the facility
typically has to turn away 40 families a day;
Personal experiences of how the RMH has helped families;
Location of the proposed expansion in relation to the Children's .Hospital being a significant
benefit. It was noted that many families seeking treatment at the hospital must stay in hotels
in adjacent communities because there are not enough places to stay close to the hospital;
One speaker voiced his concern that the application was not complete.
The vote was 6-0-2-1 to initiate the rezone and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment,
with two members not participating and one member absent.
On July 12, 2012, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted a Preliminary Review to
provide early feedback on the proposed building design. There were no public speakers at the
meeting. The ARB was generally supportive of the project, but there were several
recommendations for improvement. The members were in general agreement on:
• Realign the bike/pedestrian path further from the street;
• Provide greater back-of-the-building articulation;
• Refine the overall building design;
• Eliminate one garage entry next to the meditation garden to provide more open space and a
better pedestrian link;
• Reconfigure the parking area with more landscape shading and screening.
The ARB agreed that the bike path had been pushed too close to the street and that greater
separation would be more appropriate. The ARB noted that the rear elevations of the building
were too flat and needed greater articulation and perhaps additional glazing. Lastly, the ARB was
concerned with the level of refinement in the building's detailing. The ARB expressed concern
that the charm and detail of design in the existing Ronald McDonald House building was not
being met in the new building concept.
On November 14, 2012 t~e project was heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission
(Commission) for formal review and recommendation to the City Council. There was one public
speaker representing the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital that spoke in favor of the project.
The Commission voted 6-0-1 to approve the project and discussed the following items:
•
•
•
Visual and physical access to the creek;
Parking;
Need for future expansion;
File Number IlPLN-00388 Page 2 of6
•
•
•
The amount of paving in front of the building;
Alternative modes of transportation, and
Process.
The Commission questioned the ability for the public to access the large expanse of creek area
that would result behind the new building. It was explained that no new fences would be
introduced to prevent access to the creek behind the building and that the area would be open and
accessible to the larger open area beyond the building. The Commission asked if the proposed
expansion would meet the growing demand for rooms considering the expansion of the Stanford
Hospital and Children's Hospital facilities. It was noted that the new Children's Hospital facility
will also be incorporating living quarters to assist in offsetting the increased demand for family
living accommodations during medical treatments. The necessity of the large amount of paving
shown at the front of the project was questioned. The applicant explained that the paving area
was essential to 'their operation, ensuring safety while shuttling children from one facility to the
other, to ensure they do not enter the public roadway. The Commission also noted that its ability
to provide meaningful input on the project was compromised by having the project initiated at the
City Council level rather than by the Commission.
Site Information
The project site is located on the west side of Sand Hill Road just to the north of the existing
Ronald McDonald House (RMH) facility. The site is owned by Stanford University and would be
incorporated into the existing RMH site through a lot line adjustment. The new area added to the
existing RMH property would be approximately 1.57 acres. To the north of the site lies
undeveloped land, bounded by San Francisquito Creek, El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road. Just
to . the west of the site is the remainder of the undeveloped area and San Francisquito Creek.
Beyond the creek, further to the west, are single family residences in Menlo Park along Creek
Drive. To the east of the site, across Sand Hill Road, is the Stanford Shopping Center. The
existing RMH lies immediately adjacent to the south (520 Sand Hill Road). The property is
currently undeveloped and has no built structures. The terrain is relatively flat and there are 91
trees, consisting primarily of Oak and Eucalyptus, on the site. There is also an illuminated
pedestrian/bike path that winds through the property parallel with Sand Hill Road.
Project Description
A project description letter has been provided by the applicant (Attachment E). The project area,
1.57 acres, would accommodate the construction of an expansion to the existing RMH facility.
The new building on the site would be three stories tall, at approximately 42 feet high, a have
approximately 52,000· square feet of floor area. The building would provide 69 rooms along with
a kitchen, dining room, laundry facilities, and other activity rooms. There would bea total of 69
parking spaces, 43 in a new below grade garage and 30 surface parking spaces. The existing bike
path through the site would be adjusted closer to Sand Hill Road to make room for the new
building and parking. The project would be adjacent to the existing RMH facility, which was
established in 1979 and includes 47 guest rooms, a kitchen, dining room, community room,
acti vity centers, and a fitness center. The existing facility is approximately 41 feet tall, and
provides a total of 64 parking spaces.
File Number IlPLN·00388 Page 3 of6
C ompanson 0 fE .. dE xlstlng an xpan e aCllt1es d dRMHF '1"
Existing Expansion Combined
Site Area (sq. ft.) 78,275 sq. ft. 68,260 sq. ft. 146,535 sq. ft.
Building Area (sq. ft.) 20,634 sq. ft. 51,948 sq. ft. 72,582 sq. ft.
Number of Rooms 47 rooms 69 rooms 116 rooms
Building Height 41 feet 42' -7" 42'-7"
Parking Spaces 64 spaces 69 spaces 133 spaces
The site is currently zoned CC(L) and the proposed project includes rezoning of the site to Public
Facility as well as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Streamside Open Space to Major
Institution / Special Facilities. The proposed use, "hospital accessory facility," would allow
families of patients receiving treatment at the Lucille Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH) a place
to stay during the treatment period. The site of the existing RMH is zoned PF, and has the same
use as is requested for the new adjacent site. The den lands for affordable tenlporary lodging for
families with children being treated for life threatening illnesses at LPCH have increased
dramatically and the current application requests to amend the existing use permit to allow an
additional 70 guest rooms within a new approximately 52,000 square foot building.
DISCUSSION
Bike Path
The proximity of the bike/pedestrian path relative to Sand Hill Road has been a difficult design
issue. Staff has advocated nl0ving the path further from the street while the site constraints in
terms of lot size and existing mature tree locations have proven to be difficult barriers to
overcome. Since the preliminary review, the applicant has managed to move the path away from
the curb and preserve two additional mature oaks in place and would be transplanting two others
from this area that were previously slated for removal. The current version of the plan is an
improvement over earlier versions and provides greater separation from the street and additional
landscape planting to help separate the new building from the roadway and assist in maintaining
the landscape aesthetic of the Sand Hill Road Corridor.
Generator Screening
The location of the existing emergency generator is within the new circular feature element
highlighting the grand oak tree between the existing and proposed building. While this location is
less than ideal, the applicant has proposed to screen the generator with a green screen fence to
reduce its visibility.
Riparian Area
In order to ensure that the riparian area behind the new building is protected, the applicant's
'Biological Study includes a recommendation for the area to be re-vegetated with native tree and
shrub species. It is currently open land with little landscape material. Re-vegetation of this area
will assist in limiting possible erosion and create a buffer between the project and the creek. Staff
is working with the applicant to create a planting plan for this area. Many of the trees that are to
be transplanted would be planted in this area.
File Number IIPLN-00388 Page 4 of6
.
Protected Trees
The applicant has worked with City staff to retain in place and transplant additional oak trees that
had previously been marked for removal. These changes to the project provid~ significant
improvements in the visual screening of the building from the roadway and at the rear of the
property. Oak trees 35 and 36 will be protected in place. These trees are at the front and center of
the project site. The preservation of these two trees adds a screening element that would not
otherwise be achieved with new planting for several.Jears and creates a layering affect with old
and new landscape material. Tree 53 is also being retained in place and this tree is located at the
rear of the site and is really the only significant tree between the building and the creek. The
retention of this tree helps to provide a landscape buffer that would not otherwise be achieved for
several years. Protected oaks 37 and 38 are proposed to be transplanted, they had previously been
slated for removal. These trees will be added in with the.other transplanted trees to re-vegetate··
the riparian area between the building and the creek.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project and the 20
day public review and comment period began on November 14, 2012 and ended on December 4,
2012. The environmental analysis notes there are a few potentially significant impacts that would
require mitigation measures to reduce them to a less than significant level. One issue is the
proposed removal of seven protected oak trees, as well as a significant Black Oak tree from the
site. As mitigation for the removal of these. trees, the applicant has been required to transplant
three. of the protected oaks, seven other oak trees from the site and six redwood trees from the site
to a location just behind the proposed building. The applicant will also be required to provide a
monetary In Lieu fee for the. four protected oak trees and the large black Walnut tree that cannot
be relocated as mitigation for their removal. The relocation of the trees behind the building would
also serve as mitigation for development near the San Francisquito Creek. While the project will
not impact the riparian corridor of the creek, it is recommended that the area between the project
site and the creek be re-vegetated to ensure its protection. This area currently has very little
native plant material. The project would take place outside the 50 foot creek stabilization area,
and to further protect the riparian corridor, plastic construction fencing and silt fencing will also
be required. Tree protection measures are also required to mitigate any potential damage to
protected trees that are to be retained. As mitigation for any potential impacts to nesting birds,
construction activity is restricted to occur between August 15 and March 15 of any given year, or
a qualified biologist is required to conduct a preconstruction survey for nesting birds. If nesting
birds are found, buffer zones are required to be established until all chicks have fledged.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Record of Land Use Action
B. Site Location Map
C. Applicant's Project Description Letter*
D. Comprehensive Compliance Plan Table
E. Zoning Compliance Table
F. Previous Staff Reports, City Managers Report, February 13, 2012/Architectural Review
Board, July 12, 20 121PIanning and Transportation Commission, November 14,2012
http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglgovlboards/architectural.asp
File Number IlPLN-00388 Page 5 of6
O. City Council Minutes, February 13,20121 Planning and transportation commission minutes
November 14,2012 -http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov!boards/architectural.asp
H. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
I. Plans (ARB Members only)*
* Prepared by Applicant; all' other attachments prepared by Staff
" COURTESY COPIES
Huiwen Hsiao, applicant
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford JuniorUniversity, oWner
Prepared By: Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Manager Review: Amy French, Chief Planning Official ro
File Number IIPLN-00388 Page 6 of 6
DRAFT ADOPTED ON: ___ _ Attachment K
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
" California Environmental Quality Act
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
" I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date: November 13,2012
Project Name: Ronald McDonald House Expansion
ProjeCt Location: . The project site is located in the northern portion of the City of Palo Alto, in
. the northern part of Santa Clara County, west ofEI Camino Real and north of
Sand Hill Road .
Project Proponent: Huiwen Hsiao
City Contact: Russ . Reich, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
Project Description:
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
The applicant has proposed to apply for a lot line adjustment to incorporate 1.57 acres of the SO EI
Camino Real property into the existing RMH property at 520 Sand Hill Road to accommodate the
construction of an expansion to the existing RMH facility. . The new building on the site would be three
stories tall, at approximately 42 feet high, consisting of approximately 52,000 square feet in floor area.
The bllilding would provide 70 rooms along with a kitchen, dining roOm, "laundry facilities, and other .
activity rooms. . There would be a total of 69 parkingspaces~ 43· in a new below grade garage and 30
surface parking spaces. The existing bike path through the. site would be adjusted closer to. Sand mil
Road to ~~e roo~ for the new. buil~g and"p~ki~g. The project.would be 8dj~t to ~~ exiSting
RMH faclhty, whIch was estabhshed m 1979· and" mcludes 47 guest rooms, a kitchen, dmmg room
co~uni~ room, activity centers, and a fitness center. The existing facility is approximately 41 feet tall:
and· provides a t,?tal of 64 parking spaces. . .".
ll. DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto's procedures for compliance With the Califol'llia
Environmental Quality Ad (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study; to detel"Dline
whether 'the. proposed project eould have a significant etlect on the enviroDDlent On the
basis of that study, the City inakes the foUowing determination: " .
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect · oil the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
X Although . the project, as proposed, could have a . significant "eff~t on the
environment, therewUl.not be a significant effect on the environment in this
case because mitigation measures have been added to . the project and
therefore, a ·MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. '
;The ·_~ttach~d itrlti~ .-;;d;"~=;~;;-f!;n" ;l;vant inform~ti=eu;;a;;ili~~;i;
environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required
~~~~ . .
;-~)!l~~:aJ:~~!'ie--~~~mi!2l:'a: tWd iii + ~ i c ~. • a· . • ' .. ""' eean~
In addition, the following mitigation measures have been -incorporated into the project: ~
Mitigation Measure Bio-l : Prepare a Tree Preservation Report for all trees to be retained.
Activity within the dripline of ordinance-regulated oak trees requires mitigation to be consistent
With Policy N-7 of the Palo . Alto Comprehensive PIall. An updated tree survey and tree
preseryation report (TPR) prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted f<;>r review and ..
accep~ce by the City Urban Forester. For reference clarity, the tree survey shall include (list
and. field. tag) all existing trees within the project area, including adjacent trees overhanging the
site. The approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including mandatory inspections and
monthly reporting to City Urban Forester. The TPR Shall be based on latest plans and amended ·
as needed to address activity or within the dripline area of any existing tree to be preserved,
including incidental work (utilities trenching-, street work, lighting, irrigation, etc.) that may
affect the health of a preserved tree. The project sball be modified to addJ:ess recommendations
identified to reduce impacts to existing ordinance-regulated and other trees to be retained. The
TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the tree preservation ordinance, -P AMC
8.10.030 and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30
http://~.cityofpaloalto.org/environmentlurban _ canop~ .asp.!o avoidim~rovements that may
be. detnmental to the health of regulated trees, the TPR shall revIew the applicant's landscape
plan to ensure the new landscape is consistent wi:tb Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and
Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks. The project site arborist will also review the plans
. submitted for building permit to verify in writing that all final design review m~asures to protect
trees are incorporated into the plans.
Mitigation Measure Bio-2: Prepare a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan for protected and non
protected trees to be relocated. Because of inherent mortality associated with the process of
moving mature trees, a Tree Relocation and Maintenance Plan (tRMP) shall-be prepared SUbject
. to Urban Forester's approval. The project sponsor shall su~t a TRMP to determine the
feasibility of moving the Protected Trees to an appropriate 10catiOli on this site~ Feasibility shall
consider current site and tree conditions, a tree's ability to tolerate moving, relocation measures
optimum needs for the new location, aftercare,. irrigation, and other long-term needs. '
. If the relocated trees do not survive after a period of five years, the tree canopy shall be replaced
with a tree of equivalent size or security deposit value. The TRMP shall be iilclusive of the
following minimum information: appropriate irrigation, monitoring inspections, post relocation
tree maintenance and for an annual arbarist report of the condition of the relocated trees. If a tree
is.di$figw:ed, leaning with supports needed, in decline with a dead top or dieback of more than
25%, the tree shall be considered a total loss and replaced in kind and size. The final annual
arbarist report shall serve as the basis for return of the tree security·deposit.
Mitigation Measure Bio-3: Provide a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The natural
tree resources on the site include significant protected trees and neighborhood screening,
Page 2 of4
including 15 trees proposed for relocation. Prior to byj.1Qin.i.pe~t~J.J.s.~~, ~~~Curity
Dep?Sif:fuft'he ~ value of~ r.eJocated ~_Tree T~ual,
Section 3.26, Secunty DeposIts, slWl De'pg ., .' ,', ' . . fCollections m a form
acceptable by the City Attorney. As a secuDtYmeasure~'the project shall be subject to a
Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Palo Alto and the Applicant describing a
tree retention amount, list of trees, criteria and timeline for return of security, and conditions as
cited in the Record of Land Use Action for the proJect. The applicant and project arborist shall
coordinate with the City Urban Forester to determine the amount of bonding required to '
'guarantee'the protection and/or replacement'oftbe regulated trees on the site during construction
and Within five years after occupancy. The applicant shall bond for 150% of the value for the
, relocated trees, and 500Aa of the value of the remaining trees to be protected during construction
(~identified in the revised and tiDal approved Tree Protection Report). The applicant shall
provide'the proposed level of bonding as listed in the Tree Value Table, with the description of '
each tree by number, value, and total combined value of all the trees to be retained. A return of
the guarailtee shall be subject to an annual followed by a final tree'assessment report on all the
relocated and retained trees from the projec~ arborist as approved by the City Urban Forester,
five years.fol1owmg final inspection for occupancy, to,the satisfaction of the director.
Mitigation Measure' Bio-4: Retain protected oak trees #53 and #35 with focused site planning.
Oak #35 is a fine specimen functioning as a significant aesthetic and biological resource and
screen'tree" Specific roadway mitigation design shall be implemented to enable the retention of
this, tree.' Oak # 53, along the creek side of the building perimeter, is a healthy oak of significant
character and function to provide screen, shade and environmental benefits from thewestem sun
exp()sure. Sufficient root clearance, canopy.clearance sMll be afforded the tree, as well as
specific measUres in the tree protection report to ensure the tree's survival.
Mitigation Measure Bio-5: Provide monetary in-lieu fee for protected trees that cannot be
relocated and will not survive construction, after all design options have been exhausted
, consistent with the Tree Technical M~ual, Section 3.00, Tree Value Replacement Standard. The
, appraised value of protected trees that are inadvertently removed shall be paid to the City of Palo
Alto Revenue Collections, Forestry Fund,prior to building permit issuance.
Mitigation Measure Bio-6: Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of any public trees '
along Sand Hill Road. As mitigation to offset the net loss for years of public resource
investments and minimize the future years to parity, with infrastructure benefits (Co2 reduction,
extended asphalt life,water mgmt, etc.) currently provided by the trees, the new Sand Hill Road
frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design and materials to include the follOwing
elements: ' ,
• Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume resources.
• Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products.
Mitigation MeasUre Bio-7: Provide monetary in-lieu fee for Designated California Black Walnut
# 48 that is too large to be relocated and is Within the project footprint. The appraised value of
Walnut #48 consistent with the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 'Tree Value Replacement
Standard shall be paid to the City of Palo Alto Revenue Collections, Forestry Fund, prior to
building permit issuance.
Page 3 of4
.,
Mitigation Iy.1~~ure Bio-8: Prior to construction, the limits of work along San Francisquito Creek
shall be demarcated with plastic construction mesh fencing and silt fencing. The fencing mus~ be
in place prior to any site improvements and only removed when all construction worKis
completed.
Mitigation Measure Bio .. 9: The proposed setback area between :the creek top-of-bank an4 the
development shall be revegetated with native riparian plant speCies (trees and shrubs)to buffer
the creek resources.' Native riparian trees and shrubs .shall be. used, such as coast live oak., valley
oak, western sycamore, blue. elderberry, toyon, coffee berry~ and California wild rose.
Mitigation Measure Bio-} 0: ConstrUction shall be scheduled to occur between August 15 and
March } 5 of any given year, which is outside the nesting season for this area. If this is not
possible, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting birds. If nesting
birds are"observed, buffer zone shall be established where no construction will take place until
the biologist has determined that all chicks have fledged. The buffer zone sball be 50 feet for
paSserlnes and 200 feet for raptors~
Mitigation Measure Culture-!: A program of mechanical subsurface presence testing shall be
conducted. Depending on the findings, a more comprehensive program of evaluation of
significance of the deppsits may be recommended in order to devise a responsible program of
mitigation of imp~ts througb data recovery excavation combined with archeological monitoring
of all earthmoving activities to idcmtify, record and/or r~ove $ignificant arche()logical materials
.and to limit damage to human remains and associated grave goods which may be encountered
during construction related excavation. Presence/absence testing would be limited to a series of
" trenches. Based on findings, a plan for further evaluative testing and/or mitigation would be
prepared, "
Prepared by Project Planner
Adopted by City Counell, Attested by Date
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ArrEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THE INITIAL STUDy AND
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIQN FOR THE PROJ;ECT DESCRIBED ABOVE AND AGREE
TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED TIlEREIN. . "
Project Applicant's Signature Date
Page 4 of4
50EI Camino Real Rezone Application
Initial Study
Prepared by
City of Palo Alto
November 13,. 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
. City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environl11ent
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 3
11. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ..................... 7
.. A,;; AESTIffiTICS ........................................................................................ ~ ................. 7
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .....................•..................... 8
C. AIR QUALITY .................... ~ ...................................................................................... 8
D.. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 10
E. CULTURAL RESOUR.CES .................................................................................. 15
F .. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY ................................. ~ ............................ 16
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 17
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................... ~ ............... ~ ............ 18
I. HYDROLOGY AND WA1ER QUALITY· ....................................................... : .. 19
J. . LAND USE AND PLANNING ......... ~ .................................................................. 21
K. MIN'ERAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. ~ ....... 22
L. NOISE ........................................................ : .......................................................... · .. 22 .
. .
M. POPULATION AND.·HOUSI.N'G ......................................................................... 24
N. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................... u ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 24
O. RECREATION ...................................................................................................... 25
P. TRAN'SPORTATION AND 'IRAFFIC ................................................................. 25
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................. 27
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................... 28
In. ~OURCE REFERENCE~ ................................................................................................ 28
IV. DETERMIN'A TION ................................................... ········.······································· ..... 29
SO EJ Camino Real Rezone Application Page 2 Initial Study
"" ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Department ofPI"anning and Community Environment "
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
,;.Ronald McDo~d House Expansion
2. . LEAD AGENCY NAME AND'l\DDRESS
City of Palo Alto "
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 HamUton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
. Russ Reich, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
650 ... 617-3119
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
Huiwen Hsiao
32245 Derby Street
Union City, CA 94587
5. "APPLICATION NUMBER
I1PLN .. 00388
6. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the northern portion of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of
Santa Clara County, west of EI Camino Real and north of Sand Hill Road, as shown on Figure 1
Regional Map. The project site is 50 EI Camino Real, as shown 'on Figure 2, Vicinity Map. '
50 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page 3 Initial Study ----
Figure 1: Regional Map
Figure 2: Vicinity Map
SO EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 4 Initial Study ----
7.
8.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The project area is designated as Streamside Open Space in the Palo Alto 1998 -2010
Comprehensive Plan. This: land use designation generally allows hiking, biking and riding trails
to be developed. The designation typically takes place within a corridor of riparian vegetation
along a natural stream. The width of the corridor will generally vary between 80 and 310 feet .
. The application proposes to· amend the land use designation for a portion of the site to Major
institution/Special facilities to . match ' the land use designation of. the adjacent . parcel to
accommodate the expansion of the adjacent Ronald McDonald House (RMH). It must be noted
that the area to be amended is adjacent to the riparian corridor but is not within the riparian
corridor. The riparianconidor and the natural stream are outside' the project boundaries and will
not be disturbed. . .
ZONING
The project area is zoned Community Commercial with a Landscape Combining District. The
zone district is intended to create and maintain major ·commercial centers accommodating a
broad range of office, retail sales, and other commercial activities of ~ommunity-wide and
regional ·significance. The associated Landscape Combining District however, only allows
landscaping, screening, and fences. The project applicant is proposing to .rezone the property to
.. Public Facility with a Site and Design Combining District to accommodate the proposed
exp~si~n of. th~ existing RMH facility on the adjacent parcel. . The. ~ublic Faci~ity zoning
deSignatIon IS Intended to accommodate governmental, publIc· utilIty, educatIOnal, and
co~unity .s~rvice.or rec~ational facilities. ·The RMH .has been c~~go~ed ~ and accessory
hospital faCIlIty as 1t prOVides temporary affor~ble hOUSing for familIes With chIldren receiving
treatment at the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant haS proposed to apply for a lot line adjustment to incorporate .1.57 acres of the 50
EI Camino Real property into the existing RMH property at 520 Sand Hill Road to accommodate
the construction of an expansion to · the ·existing : RMH facility. The new building on the site
. would be three stories tall, at approximately 42 feet high, consisting of approximatelYS2,000
. square · feet in flo~~ ~a. The buildi?~ would provide 70 rooms along with a kitc~en, dining
. . room, laundry facIlitIes, and other. activity rooms. There would be a total of 69 parking spaces
·43 in a new below grade garage and 30 surface parking spaces. Theexis~ing bike path through
the site would be adjusted closer to Sand Hill Road to make room for the new building and
parking. The project would be adjacent to the existing RMH facility, which was established in
1979 and· includes 4 7 guest rooms, a kitchen, dining room, community room, activity centers
aDd a fitness center. The existing facility is approximately 41 feet tall, and provides a total of 64
parking spaces.
The site is currently zoned CC(L) and the proposed project necessitates the rezoning to Public
Facility with a site and design combining District as well as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
from Streamside Open Space to Major Institution / Special Facilities. The proposed use
"hospital accessory facility," would allow families of children receiving treatment at the LucilI~
Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH) a place to stay during the·treatment period. The site of the
50 EI Camino Reai Rezone Application Page 5 Initial Study
existing RMH is zoned PF, and has the same use as is requested for the new adjacent site. <The
< demands for affordable temporary lodging for < families with children being treated for life
threatening illnesses at LPCH have increased dramatically and the current application requests to
amend the existing Conditional Use Permit to allow an additional 70 guest rooms within a new
approximately 52,000 square foot building. <
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The. project site is lOcated on .. the west side of Sand. Hill Road jllst to the north of the existing
Ronald McDonald House {RMH) facility. The site is owned ~y Stanford University and would
be incorporated into the existing RMH site through a lot line adjustment. The new area added to
the existing RMH property would be approximately 1.57 acres. To the north of the site lies
undeveloped land, bounded by San Francisquito Creek, El Camino Real and SandHill Road.
lust to the west of the site is the remainder of the <rindeveloped area and San Francisquito Creek.
Beyond the creek, further to the west, are single family residences in Menlo Park along Creek
Drive. To the east of the site, across Sand Hill Road, is the Stanford Shopping ·Cen~r. The
existing RMH lies immediately adjacent to the south (520 Sand Hill' Road). The property is
c~ently <undeveloped and has no built structures. < The terrain is relatively flat and there are 91
trees, consisting prirDarlly of Oak and Eucalyptus, on the site. There is also an illuminated
pedestrian/bike path that winds through the property parallel with Sand Hill Road.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED
None
-S-OE-I-C-m-in-o-R~--R-em--~-A-w-li-cm-io-n------~--------P-~-e6-----------------I-m~·um--Sm-~-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The f~l1owing Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented,·.The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source{s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and
a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and SUpportlDg Information Sourees Potentially Potentially LessThaa No
Resourees Significant SipifieaDt SignHieaat I.pad Issues Unless Impaet
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated·
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1, 2-Map L4, X
scenic vista? 5
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 1, 2-Map L4, X . including, but not limited to, trees, rock 5,
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) Substant:ially degrade the existing vi~ual 1,2,5 X
character or quality of the site and its
surroundingS?
d) Create a ~ew source of substantial light or 1,5 X
glare which would adverSely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?·
DISCUSSION:
The subject site is located on a scenic rotite, as shown in the Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010. The rezoning and
development of the property would. not have a negative impact on the corridor. !be project has a deep 70 foot
setback such that any new development of the site would not impede views and would be landscaped to maintain
the character of the corridor. Although the project is identified with an El Camino Real address, which is a state
sceni~ highway, the project site on that property is adjacent to Sand Hill road and is not located on a state .scenic
highway. .
Any future project proposal for the site would be subject to review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and
compliance with the Municipal Code an~ Architectural· Review findings wol,lld ensure that the design and lighting
are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with their surroundings. The project would have a deep setback from
the street with abundant tree and natural vegetation planting to maintain the aesthetic of the corridor. Any future
project would be designed to be compatible with the scale of the surrounding development in the area.
Mitigation Measures: NODe required
50 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page 7 Initial StuciY
.'
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ' -
Significant Significant Significant Impaet
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation '
Incorporated
a) Convert Prime Fannland, Unique Farmland, 1, 12, 13 X or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agriculturaruse?
b) Conflict~ith existing zoning for agricultural' 1,2-MapL9, X -
uSe,:or a Williamson Act contract? 13
c) ·Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause 1 X rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g» or
timberland (as defui,ed in Public Resources
Code section 4526) or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 511 04(g»?
d) Result'in the loss of forest land or conversion 1 X of forest land to.non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing 1 X environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion offorest land to non-forest use?
DISCUSSION:
The project area is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of S~tewide'
Importance" area, as shown on Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map 2010, published June 2011 by the
California, Department of ~onservation. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not re~ated by the
Williainson Act. The project area is within an urban area and has no impacts on forest or timberland. The site is
undeveloped with a multitude of trees but it is not forest or timberland. Most of the trees on the site are oak and
eucalyptus, planted by Stanford, therefore, the proposed project will result in a less than significant impact on the
City and/or Regional agricultural resources, forest land, and timberland.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
c. AIR QUALITY
, Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially LessTban No Significant Signitieant Signifieant , Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation 1,5 X-
of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 1,5,7 X
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? -
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 8 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No -
Signifieant SigDificant Significant I ". " mpaet -
Would tbe project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,5,7 X -
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels 1.,5 X
e)
of pollutant concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a 1,5 X -
substantial number of people?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto uses the threshold of significance established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) to assess air quality impacts .. Based on the BAAQMD screening level, projects that are less
than 259,000 square feet for construction activities and 553,000 square feet in operational activities are Dot
considered major air pollutant contributors and do not require a technical air quality study. As this project could
result in the eventual construction of approximately 52,000 square feet, no air quality report was prepared.
In the case of any future development of the site, to further reduce temporary air quality impacts from demolition
of the existing structure(s), excavation of soil, and other construction activities on the subject s.ite, the project
proponent and/or contractor will implement the following standard construction measUres, recommended for all
proposed projects in accordance with BAAQMD requirements, to ~revent visible dust emissions from leaving the
site.
• Wat~r.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.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of
freeboard;
• 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. '
• 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; and
• Sweep streets daily, or more often if necessary (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
SO EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 9 Initial Study
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting IaformationResources Sources Potentially Potentially Las Than No
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Significant Significant Significant Itnpact
Would tbe project: . Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1,2-MapNl, X
directly or through habitat modifications, on 5, 16
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regi()nal
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department ofFish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any 1,2-MapNl, X
riparian ~abitat or other sensitive natural
Community identified in local or regional plans,
5,16
policies, regulations. or by the California
. Department ofFish ~d Game or US -Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 1,2-MapNl, ,X ' protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 5,16
the Clean 'Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? .
Interfere substantially with the movement of 1,2-MapNl, X any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 5,16
species or with established native resjdent or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any l~ policies or ordinances 1,2,3,4,5,6 . X
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
16, 17
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted 1,5, 16 X Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
Riparian Corridor
The riparian corridor of the San ~rancisquito Cr~k is located in relativ,e close proximity .to the project. Riparian
woodland occurs as a band of natIve and non-native trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation along the creek bank
and on low-elevation gravel deposits. The riparian habitat is one of the highest value habitats for wildlife SPecies
diversity and abundance in California. The ripari~ vegetation occurs primarily within ,the. stream bank Which is
located approximately 80 feet from the project. The proposed project would not directly impact the riParian
corridor, but due to its close proximity to the corridor, mitigation measures D-8 and D-9 are recommended to
ensure that no indirect impacts occur. .
No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects and plant species have been identified at the project site.
Trees
The project site is located in an undeveloped area of annual grassland and upland landscape trees. There are
91 trees within the project area. Many of these trees would be potentially impacted by the Proposed
development. Some of the trees would need to be relocated 'or removed to accommodate the proposed
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 10 lniti8I Study ~
....
-
building, surface parking area, and other site improvements such as· the trash enclosure, pedestrian pathways,
a new driveway access, and new landscape improvements. A total of 70 trees would be removed and IS
those trees would be transplanted and randomly layered between the creek and the new building. Of the
existing 91 trees, 21 would remain on site and· be protected during construction. A total of 30 n~ trees
. would be planted in the project. Most of the trees to be removed are non·native eucalyptus trees. Only seven
protected oak trees would be removed, three of which would be retained by transplanting them just off site,'
behind the new. building. These transplanted trees would also serve as a native vegetation buffer between the
proposed project and the riparian corridor.
Palo Alto's Regulated Trees
The City of Palo Alto Municipal 'Code regulates specific types of trees on public and private property for the '
purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without first being reviewed and permitted by the City's
Planning or Public Works Departments. Three categories within the statUs of regulated trees include protected
trees (pAMC 8.1 O)~ public trees (PAMC 8.04.020) and designated trees (p AMC 18.76, when so provisioned
to be saved and protected by a discretioriary approval.)
Palo Alto Malliapal Code Tree Preservation Ordinanee
Chapter 8.10 of the Municipal Code (the Tree 'Preservation Ordinance) protects a· category of Regulated
Trees,on public or private property froin removal or disfigurement. The Regulated Tree category includes:
• Protected Trees. Includes all coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak. trees 11.5 inches or
greater" in diameter, coast redwood trees 18 inches or greater in diameter, and heritage trees
designated by the City Council according to any of the following provisions: it is an outstanding .
,. specimen of a desirable species; it is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto; or it possesses,
distinctive fonn, size, age, location, and/or historical significance.
• Street Trees. Also protected are City· owned street trees (all trees growing within the street right~f ..
way, outside of private property)
• Designated Trees. Designated trees are established by the City when a project is subject to
discretionary design review process by the Architecture Review Board that unqerMunicipal Code
Chapter 18.76.020(d)(11) includes as part of the findings of review, "whether natural, features are
appropriately preserved and integrated with the project" Outstanding tree specimenS contributing to
the existirig site, neighborhood or community, and that have a rating of "High" Suitability for
Preservation as reflected in Table 3.6·1 would constitute a typical designated tree.
Palo Alto Tree Preservation GaidellDes
For aU development projects within the City of Palo Alto" discretionary or ministerial, a Tree Disclosure
statement (TOS) is part of the submittal checklist to establish and verify trees that exist on the site, trees that
overhang the site originating on an adjacent property, and trees that are growing.in a City easement, parkway,
or publicly owned land. The IDS stipulates that a Tree Survey is required (for multiple trees), when a Tree
Preservation Report is required (development within the dripline of a Regulated Tree), and who may prepare
these documents. The City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (Tree Technical Manual) describes acceptable
procedures 'and standards to preserve Regulated Trees, including:
• The protection of trees during construction;
• If allowed to be removed, the acceptable replacement strategy;
• Maintenance of protected trees (such as pruning guidelines);
• Format and procedures for tree reports; and
• Criteria for determining whether a tree is a hazard.
SO EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 11 Initial Study
Site Tree Resources Impact Assessment
An Initial Tree Impact Analysis (prepared by Walter Levison Consulting Arborist) identified. 91 trees of
various species on the subject property. The following breakdown was ascertained by staff: .
• Protected trees. Of the 91 trees, 14 trees are defined as protected ordinance size trees within the
formal project site. They include #13, 14., 35,36,37,38,40,42,43,51, 53, 57, 60 and 62. The total
appraised value of the ordinance size protected trees is $157,840. The roadway footprint is located on
the location of a large protected coast live oak #42 representing a conflict with the tree ordinance. The
tree has def~ts, but according to the project arborist, it appears to be healthy enough to remain. Two
ordinance size oak trees (#37 and 38) are at risk of destruction from the new driveway extension and
bike path. An alternative" to destruction and preservation of these two trees is relocation to an
optimum area of the site with sufficient room to allow continued growth.
• Protected oak trees #53 and 35 are significant treeS that shall remain protected with focused site
planning. Oak #35 is a fine specimen functioning as a significant aesthetic and biological resource
. and screen tree. Specific roadway mitigation design shall be implemented to enable the retention of
this tree. Bike path alignment shall also be designed to avoid significant impact to Oak #35 roots. Oak
# 53, along the creek side of the proposed building perimeter, is a healthy oak of significant character
and function providing screen, shade and environmental benefits from the western sun exposure.
Sufficient root clearance, canopy clearance shall be afforded the tree, as well as specific measures in
the tree protection report to ensure the tree's survival.
• Public trees. Of the 91 trees, several are defined as publicly owned street trees due to being situated
within the public right-of-way along Sand Hill Road. These are required to be protected in place. If a
. public tree is approved to be removed, it would require mitigation replacement sufficient to offset the
net loss. to years of public resource investment and several more years of future growth for parity with
infrastructure benefits (Co2 reduction, extended asphalt life, water mgmt., etc.) currently provided by
the trees. " " "
• Designated trees. The California Black Walnut #48 has been designated as a tree of high value
because of its Aesthetic prominence and· visibility to the Sand" Hill Road and Stanford Shopping
Center.
The City Tree Technical Manual (TIM) development guidelines require the appraised value for each tree to
be presented with the development application for ·the purpose of identifyiIlg asset value, security bond
incentive for protection and care and/or damage or replacement value in the event of a destroyed tree. Trees
classified as protected trees have a combined value of$157,840.
The ~ee evaluation report identifies mitigation measures to be incorporated in. the plans to reduce the
potential impact on protected and public trees. These include Design Review, advising tree protection ZOne
setback clearances for buildings and ~ding, above ground measures for walkways, structures, landscaping
and tlatwork.
SumlDary
The tree inventory and evaluation, inclusive of the design guidelines and preliminary protection Itleasures
submitted for the project have been deemed" ad~quate for the assessment and scope of this environmental
study, dependent upon forthcoming project site information, additional staff recommendations, Precautions
and the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential impact on protected and public tree resources to
a less than significant level. Trees to be relocated qualify under the tree ordinance as 'retained' providing that
specific mitigation measures are drafted (see Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan) and a security guarantee is
secured in the event a relocated tree dies (see Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee).
50 EICamino Real Rezone Application Page 12 Initial Study
Black Walnut
California BlaCk Walnut #48 is a fine specimen with significant aesthetic and habitat value, prominently
visible to· Sand Hill Road and Stanford Shopping Center. Its age is estimated tQ. be at the centwy mark and is
a healthy tree of sound stature. The tree is 52.5 inches in diameter, ~5 feet high and 90 foot canopy spread.
intrinsic qualities of this tree are many and profOund, equaling the criteria found in the city's Heritage. Tree
program, PAMC 8.10.090. A tree may be designated as a heritage tree by city council finding that it is unique
and of importance to the community due to any of the following' factors: (1) it is an-outstanding specimen of a
desirable species; (2) it is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto; (3) it possesses distinctive form, siZe
age, location, and/or historical significance. . ,
Recognizing that the tree meets. the criteria for a potential of either a Heritage Tree, or to be 'protected in place
as a condition of discretionary approval by the Director, staffhas determined the California Black Walnut #48
. is of equal value to the tree. ordinance category (oaks, redwoods). This designation does not imply the tree
cannot·be . removed but, if so, it would be mitigated by applying the Tree Value Replacement Method,
outlined: iIi the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00.
Breeding Birds
All nesting migratory birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and various' CDFG codes.
Construction has the potential to directly impact nesting birds during vegetation removal if any are present.
Noise ftom construction may cause nesting birds to abandon eggs or chicks.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure D~ 1: Prepare a Tree Preservation Report for all trees to be retained. Activity within the
driplirie of ordinance-regulated oak trees requires mitigation to be consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by a certified arborist
shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the City Urban Forester. For reference clarity, the tree survey shall
include (list and field tag) all existing trees within the project area, including adjacent trees overhanging the site.
The approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to City
Urban Forester. The TPRshall be based on latest plans and amended as needed to address activity or Within the
dripline area of any existing tree to be preserved, including incidental work (utilities trenching,. street work.,
lighting, irrigation, etc.) that may affect the health of a preserved tree. The project shall be modified to address
recommendations identified to reduce impacts to existing ordinanc~regulated and other trees to be retained. The
TPR shall ~e consistent with.the criteria set forth in the tree pre~ation ordinance, P~C 8.10.030 and the City
Tree Technical Manual, ~ection 3.00, 4.00 ~d 6.30 http://WWW.Cltyofpaloalto.org/envtronmentlurban_canopy.asp.
To avoid improvements that may be detrimental:to the health of regulated trees, the TPR shall re'View the
applicant's landscape plan to ensure the new landscape is consistent with Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and
Appendix L, Landscapi~g tinder Native Oaks. The project site arborist will als~ review the plans submitted for
building permit to verify in writing that all final design review measures to protect trees are incorporated into the
plans~
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the construction impacts to protected and retained trees
to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure D-2: Prepare a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan for protected and non-protected trees to be
relocated. Because of inherent mortality associated with the process of moving mature trees, a Tree Relocation
and Maintenance Plan (TRMP) shall be prepared subject to Orban Forester's approval. The project sponsor shall
submit a TRMP to determine the feasibility of moving the Protected Trees to an appropriate location on this site.
Feasibili~ shall consider current site and tree conditions, a tree's ability to tolerate moving, relocation measures
optimum needs forthe·new location, aftercare,itrigation, and other long-term needs. '
If the relocated trees do not survive after a period of five years, the tree canopy shall be replaced with a tree of
equivalent size. or security deposit value. The TRMP shall be inclusive of the following minimum information:
. 50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 13 Initial Study -----
appropriate irrigation, monitoring inspections, post relocation tree maintenance and for ~ annual arborist report
of the condition of the relocated trees. If a tree is disfigured, leaning with supports needed, in decline with a dead
top or dieback of more than 25%, the tree shall be considered a total loss and replaced in kind and size. The final
annual arboriSt report shall serve as'the basis for return of the tree secwity, deposit.
Imple-",entation of this mitigation measure woUld reduce the relocation risk potential impact of the protected and
non-protected trees to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure D-3: Provide a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The natural tree resources on the
site include significant protected trees and neighborhood screening, including 15 trees proposed for relocation.
Prior to building permit submittal, the Tree Secwity Deposit for the total value of the relocated trees, as
referenced in the, Tree TeChnical Manual, Section 3.26, Secwity Deposits, shall be posted to the City Revenue
Collections in a fonn acceptable by the City Attorney. As a security measure, the project shall be subject to a
Mem~randuin of Understanding between the City of Palo Alto and the Applicant describing a tree retention
'amount, list of trees, criteria and timeline for return of secwity, and conditions as cited in the Record of Land Use
, Action for .theproject. The applicant and project arborist shall coordinate with the City Urban Forester to
, determine the amount of bonding required to guarantee the protection arid/or replacement of the regulated trees on
the site dwing construction and within five years after occupancy. The applicant shall bond for 150% of the value
for the relocated trees, and 50% of the value of the remaining trees to be protected during construction (as
identified in the revised and final approved Tree Protection Report). The applicant shall provide the proposed
level of bonding as listed in the Tree Value Table, with the description of each tree by number, value, and total
combined value of all the trees to be retained. A return of the guarantee shall be subject to an annual followed by
a final tree assessment report on all the relocated and retained trees from the project arborist as approved by the
City Urban Forester, five years following final inspection for occupancy, to the satisfaction of the director.
Implementation of this mitigation measure woUld reduce the potential security risk to retained trees to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measure D-4: Retain protected oak trees #53 and #35 with focused site planning. Oak #35 is a fine
specimen functioning as a significant aesthetic and biological resource and screen· ~ee. Specific rOadway
mitigation design shall be implemented to 'enable the retention of this tree. Oak # 53, along the creek side of the
building perimeter, is a healthy oak of significant character and function to provide screen, shade and
environmental benefits from the western sun exposure. Sufficient root clearance, canopy clearance shall be
afforded the tree, as well as specific measures in the tree protection report to ensure the tree's survival.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact to Oaks #57 and 35 to a less than
significant level. '
Mitigation Measure 0-5: Provide monetary in-lieu fee for protected trees that cannot be relocated and will not
survive construction, after all design options have been exhausted consistent with the Tree Technical Manual
Section 3.00, Tree Value Replacement Standard. The appraised value of protected ~es that are inadvertentl;
removed shall be paid to the City of Palo Alto Revenue Collections, Forestry Fund, prior to building permit
issuance.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the potential loss of protected trees to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measure D-6: Provide optimum, public tree replacement for loss of any public trees along Sand Hill
Road. As mitigation to offset the net loss for years of public resource investments and minimize the future years
to parity with infrastructure benefits (Co2 reduction, extended asphalt life, water mgmt., etc.) currently provided
by the trees, the new Sand Hill Road frontage should be provided maximum Streetscape design and materials to
include the following elements: '
50 E1 Camino Real Rezone Application Page 14 Initial Study
• Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume resources.
• Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact of the loss of public trees to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measure 0-7: Provide monetary in-lieu fee for Designated California Black Walnut # 48 that is too
large to be relocated and is within the project footprint. The appraised value of Walnut #48 consistent with the
Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, Tree Value Replacement Standard shall be paid to the City of Palo Alto
Revenue Collections,' Forestry Fund, prior to building permit issuance.
Mitigation Measure 0-8: Prior to construction, the' limits of work along San Francisquito Creek shall be
dem.a.:rcated with plastic construction mesh fencing and silt fencing. The fencing must be in place prior to -any site
improvements and only removed when all construction work is completed.
Mitigation Measure D-9: The proposed setback area between the creek top-of-bank and the' development shall be
revegetated with native riparian plant species (trees and shrubs) to buffer the creek resour~es. Native riParian
trees and shrubs shall·be used, such as coast live oak, valley oak, western sycamore, blue elderbeny, toyon, coffee
berry, and California wildrose.
Mitigation Measure D-IO: Construction shall be scheduled to occur between August 15 and March 15 of any
given year, which is outside the nesting season for this area. If this is not possible, a qualified biologist shall
conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting birds. If nesting birds are observed, buffer zone shall be established
where no construction will take place until the biologist has'detennined that all chicks have fledged. The buffer
zone shall be 50 feet for passerines and 200 feet for raptors.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to a less than Significant level.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues aDd Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially . Less nan No -
Significant Significant Significant Jlbpaet
Would the project: Issues Unless IDlpad
MitiptiOD
llie,rporated
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-MapL7, X signifipance 'of a historical resource as defined 8 in 15064.S? .
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-X
significance of an archaeological resource MapL8,18
pursuant to 15064.S?
c) . Directly .or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2-MapL8, X ~
paleontological resource or site or unique 18 geologic feature?
d) Disturb any:human remains, including those 1;2-X -
interred outside. of fonnal cemeteries? MapL8,18 -
DISCUSSION:
The project is located on land designated as "Extreme sensitivity" for archeological resources. The proposed
development of the site includes a below grade parking garage that would involve excavation at the site.
Excavation of the soil has the potential of disturbing. archeological r~ources that may be in the ground. The
Archeological Analysis determined that there was a high potential that prehistoric ~heological materials may
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page IS Initial Study ~
extend· into the project area. It has recommended that a program of mechanical subsurface presence testing be
done inside areas where deep excavation is planned to search for archeological deposits.
The following standard project conditions, consistent with State and County regulations, would be included in any
future development permit. .. : .
1. Should evidence of prehistoric cultural resources be discovered during construction, work within 50 feet of
the find shall be stopped, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be notified., and the
applicant shall. hire a qualified professional archaeologist to examine· the find to make appropriate
recommendations regarding the significance · of the find and the appropriate measures . needed.
Recommendations could include collection, recordation and analysis of any significant cultural materials.
Prior to obtaining a Use and Occupancy permit, a report of findings documenting any data recovered during
monitoring shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment
2 .. 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 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 C!'uoty 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.
MitigatioD Measures:
Mitigation lv!easure E-l: A program o~ mechanical subsurfacep.resence t~sti!lg shall be conducted .. Depending
on the findmgs, a more comprehensIve program of evaluation of slgmficance of the depOSIts may be
recommended in order to devise arespoilSible program of mitig~on of impacts through data recovery eXcaVation
combined with archeological monitoring of all earthmoving activities to identify, record and/or remove significant
archeological materials and . to limit damage . to human remains and .associated grave goods which may be
encountered during construction related excavation. Presence/absence testing would be limited to a series of
trenches. Based on findings, a plan for further evaluative testing and/or mitigation would be prepared.
Implementation. of these mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues Ind Supporting Int~rmatioD Resources
.. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss in· or death involvin :
Sources Potentially
SignificaDt
luues .
PoteDtiaily
SipifiaDt
UDIeu
Mitigation
I rated , ,
LasTbu
Significant
. Impact .
No
Impact
~ ":'. .' :'. ~ . J. I' ,.',.. : • ~ • .' • .... ,. '.' . .... .-
':;'~_:::':··I:·~ .: ........ :····>,·4·'~ __ .'.:: .'.~. . _ .. .
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 9,15 x
ii
iii)
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a·
known fauli? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geolo S cial Publication 42.
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application
2-Ma NIO x
2-MapNS x
Page 16 Initial Study
b)
d)
e)
f)
iv) Landslides? 2-MapN5 X -
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 1,15 X
topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 2-MapN5,15 -x
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on-or off-site landsJide, lateral spreading,
subsidence~ liquefaction or collapse?
Be lo~ated on expansive soil, as defined in 2·MapN5,15 x
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting 1 X
.the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are .not
available for the disposal of waste water?
DISCUSSION:
The site is not located within a Geologic HaZard Zone or Liquefaction Zone. However, the project site is located
within the seismically active San Francisco region, which . requires that builcUngs be design~d and built in
conformance with the requirements of the 2010 California Building Code for Seismic Zone' 4. According to the
Comprehensive Plan map N-5 the project is located in an area of expansive soils. Expansive soils can present
engineering challenges for seismic safety. The Geotechnical investigation has detennined that the soils have a
low expansion potential when subject to fluctuations in moisture. It is recommended that theadjacem ground
surface' promote proper drainage a diversion of water away from the structure. The potential for geologic and
soils impacts resulting from conditions on the site can be controlle~ by utilizing standard engineering and
construction techniques. The project would include these required building code measures, the. potential for
seismic impacts will be less than significant. .
Mitigation Measures: None Required
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues and Supp»rting IDfor.ation Resourees Sourees Potentially PoteDtiaBy Lesanan No
Sipifteant Significant SigDifieant Impact
Would the projeet: Issues Uilleall Impact
Mitigation
t.-rporated
a) . Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either 1,5,7 X
directly; or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or 1,5,7 X
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouSe gases?
DISCUSSION:
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and
national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards. SFBAAB's nonattainment
status is attributed to the region's development history. Past, present and future development projects contribute
to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a
cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself; result in nonattainment of ambient air
quality standards. Instead, a project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse
50 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page 17 Initial Study
air quality· impacts. If a project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project's impact
on air quality would be considered significant. .
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) has established project level screening criteria to
assist in the evaluation of impacts. The proposed "Hospital Accessory Facility" is most similar to a hotel use.
Under the project screening criteria for a hotel project, 83 rooms is the trigger to require that the lead agency
perfonn a detailed air quality assessment The proposed project includes 70 guest rooms. This is below the
BAAQMD screening criteria level. The rezoning would not result in a project that would be considered as
contnDuting to a cumulative impact, and would be considered to have a less than significant impact. .
Mitigation Measures: None Required
H. : HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues aDd SUpportiDg IDformatioD Resourees Sourees Potentially Potentially Less Than No SipificaDt SignificaDt Significant IlIIpaet
Would tbe project: Issues Unless IDlpact
Mitigation
IDeorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5,6, X environment through the routing transport, use,
. or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Createa· significant hazard to the public or the
enVironment through reasonably foreseeable
1,5,6, X
; upset and acci~ent conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 1,2-X or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or MapCl,5,6 waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? ,
d) Be located .on a site which is included on a list 1,2-MapN9 X of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962S and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) F or a project located within an airport land use 1 X plan or, 'where such it plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
pu~lic use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) F or a project within the vicinity of a private 1 X airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically 1,2-X interfere with an adopted emergency response MapN7,6
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2-X of loss, injury, or death involving wildland MapN7,6
fires,· including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 18 Initial Study ----
DISCUSSION:
The City has Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements (posted on the City' s website) based· on the model
Hazardous Material~ Storage Ordinance (HMS?) developed i~ ,1982 and adopted, by, all cities and the county in
Santa Clara County m 1983. The HMSO estabbshed the quantities of 55 gallons (hqwds), 500 pounds (solids) or
200 cubic feet (cOmpressed gases) for a specific hazardous materi~ as the threshold for filing a Hazard~us
. Materials Management Plan (HMMP) and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (HMIS). Below the
threshold, a facility could file a Short Form HMMP (now called a Registration Form). For new construct jon, the
City's Fire Department (the regulatory entity for the use and handling of hazardous materials) uses the general
quantities of 10 gallons, 100 pounds, or 200 cubic feet as .thresholds of.nominal QSe, below which no specific
permits or special construction would be required; above these levels, the thresholds in Chapter 27 of the
California Fire Code would be applied on a site-specific case-by-case basis, with permits and special'90nstruction
required .. for use levels above those specified in the model HMSO. (Certain exceptions include any quantity of
gases regulated under the Toxic Gas Ordinance, which must be reported on the HMIS .. ~er hazardous materials
. below the reporting threshold may be· required to be reported if they present an unusual hazard, such as Water
reactive .materials, or materials that are highly toxic, radioactive, carcinogenic or explosive.) .
The proposed d~velopment of the site would meet the current requirements for hazardous material ~orage per the
Palo Alto Municipal Code, California Fire Code and Health an~ ~afety Code.
The current proposal to expand the RMH would not disturb contaminated soil or result in the exposure of hum~s
to hazardous materials, therefore, the project will have a less-t6111l-siglliflcant impact as it relates to hazardS and
hazardous materials.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and. Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Signiliant Signilieant Sipifant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impaq
Mitigation
IncorDOrated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,2,5 X discharae reQuirements? .
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 2-X interfere substantially with groundwater . MapN2,
recharge such that there would be a net deficit 15 in aquifer volum~ or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g~, the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existfug land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been aranted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,5,15,16 X of the site or area, including dlrough the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or sillation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,5,15,16 X of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a st(eam or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in floodina on-or off-site?
50 EI Camino ~eal Rezone Application Page 19 Initial Study
e) Create' or contribute runoff water which would 1,5 X exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources ofpoUuted
runoffl
f) Oth~se substantially degrade water quality? 1,5 X
.g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard 2 .. MapN6 X area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate M8p or
other flood hazard delineation map?
b) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area 2 .. MapN6 X structures which would impede or redirect "
flood flows?
i) Expose-people or structures to a significant risk
ofl~~s, injury or death involve flooding,
2 .. MapN8 X
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam or being located within a l00-year
flood hazard area~
j) .InundatiQD by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2 .. MapN6 X
DISCUSSION:
• 'FioodiaglDrainage
According to comprehensive plan Map N .. 8 the project would be located in an area that could potentially be
. inundated ~y flood flows as a result of dam failure.
Per Chapter 16.28 of the Palo Alto MUnicipal Code submittal of a final grading and drainage plan for' City
approval is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. The application of standard grading, drainage, and
erosion 'control measures as part of the approved grading and drainage plan would reduce the potential for site
runoff to cause erosion or siltation that could degrade water quality. Implementation of the required NPDES -
Swppp and the Soil Management Plan and Remedial Risk Management Plan, as monitored and enforced during
construction by the City of Palo Alto, would ensure compliance with stonnwater quality standards and would
ensure the project creates a less than significant impact.
• Water Quality -During and Post-Constnaetion
The project shall comply with th,e stann water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal
stonn 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 imperviQUS surface. In order to address the potential
pennanent impacts· of a project on storm water quality, the applicant would incorporate into a project a set of
pennanent·site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect stonn water quality,
subject to the approval of the Public Works Department.· The applicant shall identify, si~, design and incorporate
pennanent 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. In addition, the applicant would designate a party to maintain the control
measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City. The City
would inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee.' _
Implementation of the following standard measures, consistent with NPDES Pennit and City Ordinance
requirements, would reduce potential construction impacts to surface water quality to less than significant levels:
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 20 Initial Study
1. Prior to issuance of a Use & Occupancy pennit, an Elevation Certificate based on finished construction is
required for each built structure.
2. Prior to issuance of a Building permit, the project applicant shall submit a certification by a qualified third
party reviewer that the design of the project complies with the requirements of PAMC Chapter 16.11.
3. Prlor to issuance of a Use & Occupancy permit, the project applicant shall submit a certification ,by a qualified
. third-party reviewer that the project's permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were constructed
or installed in accordance with the approved plans.
4. Before submittal of plans for a building permit, the applicant shall submit a drainage plan which includes
drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties.
'5. The Applicant shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP's) to be incorporated into a 8tonn Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. The SWPPP shall include both temporary BMP's to be
implemented during demolition and construction. '
Mitigation Measures:, None Required
J. LANDUSEANDPL~G
Issues alid Supporting Information Resources Sourees Potentially Potentially Lessn .. No Significant Sipificant , Significant IlIIpaet
Would tbe project: Issues Unless "Impact
M~tigiltion
Incorporated
a) . Physically divide an establlshed commUnity? 1,5 X
b)
c)
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, , 1,2,3,4,5 X
policy,'or regulation ofan agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan; specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat 1,2 X conservation plan ornatural community
conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
Projects that have the potential to physically divide an established community include new freeways and
highways~m~or arterials streets, and railroad lines. The proposed project will not physically diVide an
established community.
The ,project would conflict with the existing zoning and Land. Use Designations of the property. . The· rezoning
request is accompanied by a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation as well as a
Conditional. Use Permit for the facility.
ZoDeChaDge
The site is currently zoned Community Commercial with a Landscape combining district (CC(L» and the
proposed project necessitates the rezoning to Public Facility. The proposed use, "hospital accessory facility;'
would allow families of patients receiving treatment at the Lucille Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH) a place ;0
stay during the treatment period. The site of the existing RMH is zoned PF, and has the same use as is requested
for the new adjacent site.
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 21 Initial Study ----
Comprehensive Plan ADlendDlent
The proposed project includes a request to modify the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Streamside Open
Space to Major Institution/Special Facilities. RMH is considered an. auxiliary function of the Lucile Packard
Children's Hospital. Due to the unique nature of its use as a non .. profit community facility, the Special FaCilities
Land Use designation appears to be the most appropriate one for the project.
Conditional Use PerDlit
The permitted lmid uses in the PF zone are facilities owned or leased by a governmental agency, park USes, and
uSes incidental to park operations. The RMH facility has been categorized as a hospital accessory facility. This
use is not specifically listed asa conditionally allowed use in the PF zone. However, similar USes are
conditionally allowed in the PF zone.' Conditionally Permitted uses in the PF zone include both· hospitals and
outpatient medical facilities associated with medical research. Section 18.28.040 of the Palo Alto MuniCipal
Code (p AMC) allows the Director to determine this use to be similar to a permitted or conditionally pennitted
use .. The ,RMH has been deemed to be similar to these uses since 1989 and therefore, the additional floor and site
area for this use 'can be allowed via the CUP.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
K. 'MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting InformatioD Resources Sources PotenUal1y Potentially LessTban No Impact Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impaa
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Resultin the loss of availability of a known 1,2 X miner8I resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the. state?
b) Result in the loss of availability ofalocally-1,2 X , iJ1lportant mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific pian
or other land use plan? '.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has be~n classified by the· California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of
California Geological Survey (CGS) as a Mineral Resource Zone·1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that
there are no aggregate resources in the area. The CGS has not classified the City for other resources. There is
no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources
within the City of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
L NOiSE ..
Issues aDd· SUpportiDg Information Resources Sources PotentiaUy Potentially LeIs Than Nollnps.:t Signifieant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated .
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1,2,10,14 . -. X
levels in excess of standards estabUshed in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
50 El Cainino Real Rezone Application Page 22 Initial Study ----
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially LeuTban NOhnpaet Sigaifteant Signifieant Sipifieant
Would tbe project: lunes Unleu Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated ,
b) ExposQre of persons to or generation of 1,2,10,14 X
excessive ground ~ome vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1,2,10,14 X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project? '
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase'in 1,2,10,14 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the proiect?
e) For.a,project locateci'within an airport land use
plan or., where such a plan has not been
1 X
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1 X airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
DISCUSSION:
Noise Impacts
Section 9.10.040, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code limits noise generation to no more than eight dB above the
local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. The Noise Study conducted by Environmental
Consulting Services found that any potential sources of project noise, such 8$ outdoor play activities and traffic
noise would not violate the city of Palo Alto's noise ordinance. The project would not increase existing noise at
the site; therefore there are no noise impacts associated with the project.
Temporary construction of a future project that 'complies with the Noise Ordinance could result in impacts that are
expected to be less than significant. Although not identified as a significant impact under CEQA, the project, per
Section 9.10.060, would include the following measures as Conditions of Approval. '
• Construction hours shall be limited to 8:00am to 8:00pm Monday through Friday and 9:00am to §:00pm
on Saturdays. No construction is allowed on Sundays or Holidays as specified in Title 9 of the Muni
Code. ' .
• . No individual piece of' equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding one hundred ten dBA at a
distance of twenty-five feet. .
• The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project s~all not exceed 90 dBA.
• Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this permi~ 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.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
50 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page 23 Initial Study
"
M.· . POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues aDd SuppOrtiDg IaformatioD Resources Sources . Potentially . Potentially LessTban No I.pad Signifieant Significant SilnifieaBt
Would tbe project: Issues UBIaS Impact
Mitiption
lueorporatecl
a) Induce substantial population growth in an 1 X
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 1 X housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Di~place substantial numbers of people, 1 X necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? ..
DISCUSSION:
The project does not displace existing housing or induce substanthil population growth. The proposal includes 70
units for temporary lodging.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues aDd 'SUPPOrtiDg Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially . Less Than ~O"Dlpact Significant Signific .. nt Signifieut
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project' result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with tbe provision of
new or physically altered govemment8I facilities, .
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
. maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other perfonnance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,2-X MapN7
b) Police protection? 1 .. X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? 1 X e) Other public facilities? 1 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project site is located ina developed area, of the City, where public services are already aVailable.
The proposed project would not impact fire service to the area and the site is not located in a high fire h8Z8rd area.
The site.is located within the jwisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The project would not by itself
50 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page 24 Initial Study
result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. The City's development impact fees are
also applicable to address any demands on City facilities.
Mitigation'Measures: None Required
O. RECREATION
Issues ad Supporting Informatio. Resources Sources Potentially Potential~ LessTban No Impact Signifieant Signlfical'd Sipificant
Would the projed: Issues Uilless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of 1 X
existingnei~borhood and regional parks or
other· recreational facilities such that
substiDtial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational 1 X facilities or require the construction or
expansiori of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would house families that may use parks or other City facilitieS but the number of users and
the amount of use is anticipated to be small such that it would not create impacts to existing City recreational
facilities.
Mitigation Measures: None,Required
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resourees Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than Nolm-,.et Significant Significant Sipificant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
MidPtion
Incorporated
a) , Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance 1,5,11 X
or policy established measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion 1,5,11 X
management program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
SO El Camino Real Rezone Application Page2S Initial Study
c)
. d)
e)
f)
Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1,5,11 ·X
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in loca~on that results in
substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a 1,5,11 X·
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equ!PJIlent)?
Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,5,11 X
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1,2,5,11 X
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease
the perfonnance or safety of such facilities?
DISCUSSION:
The traffic study, prepared by Sandis Engineers, analyzed the potential traffic' and transportation related impacts
associated with the expansion of the existing RMH. .
Intersection Traffie Signal Opentions
The results of the analysis of existing plus project' conditions indicated that the four signalized intersections are
forecast to continue operating at existing LOS with minimal changes in critical delay and capacity ratios. All
intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an LOS A-C during the morning peak and evening peak
evening periods and not experience any adverse traffic related impacts. . .
Biey~le and Pedestrian Traffic
The proposed expansion is expected to generate some amount of both bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The facility
is within one half mile of both the Lucile Packard and Stanford Hospitals as well as the Stanford Shopping
Center. There is an exclusive bike/pedestrian path paralleling Sand . Hill Road past the project site as well as
numerous other pedestrian and bicycle facilities located throughout the Stanford Campus· which all Combine
together to provide a very' bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment. The proposed expansion will add some
traffic but would not impact any facilities. The existing path on the northerly side of Sand Hill Road adjacent to
the site will be required to cross the project's new driveway but this will be controlled with traffic signals.
Parking
The project would include 69 new parking spaces associated with the new 70 room expansion. Of these 30
would be surface parking at grade and the remaining 39 would be located in a garage under the new building. The
existing 47 facility has 64 parking spaces exceeding the code requirement of one space per guest room by 17
spaces. The two projects together would have a total of 117 rooms and 133 parking spaces. The . combined
project would exceed the code requirement by 16 spaces.
Site Access .
A new driveway would be provided at the expansion site as the extension of London Plane Way which. will
provide 9irect access from Sand ·Hill Road to the new surface . parking area and an underground garage. The
intersection of London Plane Way ~ith.San~ Hill Ro~ is curr~ntly signalized and th~ new drivew~y willsimply
become the fourth leg of a fully sIgnalIzed mtersection. ReVIew of the LOS analysIs shows the mtersection is
forecast to operate acceptably with the project by City standards (LOS D or better). However, the median in Sand
Hill Road will need to be modified to provide a left hand tum pocket and the signals will have to be modified to
accommodate the new driveway with an exclusive eastbound left tum pocket.
Mitigation: None Required
50 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page 26 Initial Study
-
Q. UlUITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Po~niially Potentially Las nan No Impaa Sipifte8nt Sipifieant SipHieant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Ineorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 1,5,6 X
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new 1,5,6 X'
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
, envirorimental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new 1,5,6 X
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies av.ailable to 1,5,6 X
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements.needed?
e) Result in a determination by ~e wastewater 1,5,6 X
trea~ent provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill widt sufficient 1,5,6 X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1,5,6 X
. and regulations related to solid waste?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed rezoning project would not require construction of new facilities for Wastewater treatment, stonn
dr~~e, w~er, or waste disposal: The subject site is located :mthin the City of Palo Alto where adequate Utility
faclhties eXlst,and have the capacity to serve the proposed proJect.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
SO El Camino Real R~ne Application Page 27 Initial Study ----
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNMCANCE
Issues aDd SUppOrtiDg Information Resources Sourees Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impaa
a)
b)
c)
Signifieant Signifieant Signilieaat
Would tbe project: Issues Unlas Impaet
Mitigation
Ineorporated
Does the project have the potentia1 to 1,2,3,5,8,18 X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
conun~ity, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or epdangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
. perlodsof California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are 1,5 X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are oonsiderable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effecis of probable future projects)7
Does the project have environmental effects 1,5 X
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
DISCUSSION:
The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat .
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal. The proposed project would not eliminate an important example of California history.
The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable nor does it have
substantial ~nvironmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or .
indirectly. The project is located within an existing urban area in an urbanized City. The project would not result
in considerable effects to the environment.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
3. Palo Alto MuniCipal Code, Title 18 -Zoning Ordinance.
4.. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 200t
5. Project Plans, dated received November 7, 2012 .
6. Departmental communication/memos such as Transportation, Fire, Utilities, Public Works, Building, and
Arborist that address environmental issues.
7. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June 2011
8. Palo Alto Historic ResoUrces Inventory .
SO EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 28 Initiai Study
9. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
10. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Secti<)D 9.10-Noise Ordinance
11. Traffic hnpact Analysis, prepared by Sandis, May 17, 2012
12. Important Fanniand in California Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land' Resource
Pt'otection, Fannland Mappingand Monitoring Program, 2010.
13. Agricultural Preserves Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection.
14. Noise Impact Study, prepared by Environmental Consulting Services, May 16,2012
15. Geotechnica1 Investigation, prepared by Silicon Valley Soil Engineering, May 11,2012
16. BiQlogical Report, prepared by Biotic Resources Group, May 22,2012
17. Arborist Report, prepared by Walter Levison, November 15, 2011
18. Archeological Analysis, Sandis Engineers, May 10,2012
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I nDd that the proposed project COULD·NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, aDd a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared •. '
I find that although the proposed proje'ct eould have a signmeant effect on the X . environment, there will not be a significant effect in this ease because revisions m the
project b.ve been made. by or agreed to by the projeet propoD~Dt. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOJlT is ·required.
I f"1D~ that the proposed' project MAY have a "Potentially signifieant impact" or
"potentially signifiesnt unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
eft'eet: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earner doeument pursuant toapp6eable legal
staBdards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it ~ust .nalyze only the effects that remam.t~ be addressed.
I f"lDdthat although the proposed projeet eould have a sip meant effect on the
environment, ""use aU potentiaUy signifiesnt eirects <a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to appnesble standards, and
(b)· have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earner EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, meluding revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed D~n the
proposed projeet, nothing further is required.
Russ Reich, Senior Planner Date
5,0 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page 29 Initial Study
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Department:
Subject:
2 Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
April 4, 2013
Architectural Review Board
Tim Wong, Senior Planner
Planning and Community Environment
567-595 Maybell Avenue [12PLN -004531: Request by Candice Gonzalez on
behalf of Palo Alto Housing Corporation, for a new Planned Community (PC)
zone district to allow a 15 single family homes and a 60 unit affordable rental
project for seniors on parcels having a combined area of 107,392 square feet
and zoned R-2 and RM-15. An initial study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared and the public comment period concludes on
April 8,2013.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recon1fl1ends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend approval of the
Development Plan associated with the Planned Community zone change request to the Planning and
Transportation Commission based upon draft findings (Attachments A) and subject to the conditions
of approval (Attachment B).
A draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Planning
Community zone request. The document was published on March 22, 2013 for public review and
submittal 'Of comments through April 11, 2013.
BACKGROUND
The proposed project, as described in the Summary section below, was submitted to the City on
November 6,2012 as a request to rezone the site from Low Density Residential (R-2) and Residential
Multi -family (RM -15) to a Planned Community (PC) zone to allow for the development ofa IS-unit,
single-family home subdivision and a 60-unit, multi-family senior affordable rental development.
The single-family homes would be two and three story units of approximately 1,900 -2,300 square
feet. The affordable senior development would be a four story, 60-unit building with an overall
height of 45 feet. Forty-two (42) parking spaces with five spaces in reserve, would be provided for
the senior development.
The project was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) at the February 13,
2013 PTC public hearing. The PTC initiated the PC zone district by a vote of 4-2. Meeting minutes
from the February 13,2013 PTC session are provided as Attachment D of this report.
Planned Community Zone Change Process
Rezoning to a PC district follows a unique set of procedures and standards, which are described in
Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The first step in the PC process is PTC
review of the concept plans, development program statement and draft development schedule. With
favorable feedback, the PTC, the development plan, site plan, landscape plan and design plans are
submitted for ARB review. The environmental docunlent is prepared and circulated prior to ARB
consideration. The development plan recommended for approval by the ARB is then returned to the
PTC, together with a draft zoning ordinance and environmental document, for its final review and
recommendation to the City Council.
September 18,2012 Council Study Session
The City Council conducted a study session based on conceptual site and elevation plans for comment
and feedback. In the site plan, the proposed single family homes on Maybell Avenue had individual
driveways. The common Council comments were the safety impacts on pedestrian and bicycle traffic
of the proposed Maybell single family homes using Maybell Avenue for vehicular access, the "cookie
cutter" design of the single family subdivision and the desire for a shared community open space.
Based on Council comments, the applicant revised their site plan for the development to access
Clemo Avenue. In addition, greater community open space was added. The applicant submitted the
revised site plan as part of the PC application submittal on November 6, 2011.
In addition, during a public hearing, the Council approved a $3.2 million site acquisition loan to
PAHC in November 2012 to PAHC. The City has provided another $2.6 million loan in March 2013.
P AHC conducted public outreach meetings to neighborhood associations prior to the September
Council study session. In addition, residents within 600 ft. of the project site received notices about
the Study Session.
January 17, 2013 ARB Preliminary Review
The ARB reviewed the submitted site plan during the January 17,2013 meeting. While generally
favorable to the overall design of the site, there were some additional comments regarding the
proposed development. Some of the comments that were made included:
• F or the single family homes, the commissioners felt that too many materials were used on the
facades;
• It was suggested that the applicant reduce some of the "verticality" of the SFD's along
Maybell A venue to be more compatible with the existing homes across the street including
receding the massing on the upper floors;
• There were concerns on height of the senior development and the shadowing effect created by
the senior building. A shadow study was suggested, and
• Some ARB men1bers felt that the senior development was too isolated and some measures
were needed to better integrate the building such as a walking path to Maybell Avenue.
February 13,2013 P&TC Initiation
At the February 13,2013 PTC public hearing, staff had recommended to the PTC to initiate the PC
process. During the meeting, there was discussion about the PC process in general and the required
public benefits. There were a number of comments about site planning and the proposed design of the
587 & 585 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453] Page 2
buildings. Some of the comments included:
• The number of parking spaces provided for the senior development seemed low. Some of the
commissioners felt that the 47 spaces provided for senior development was inadequate. Other
commissioners felt that the senior development was providing too many spaces while there
was inadequate parking for the single family residences.
• The facades if the senior development needed some additional design features.
. • It may be more appropriate to decrease the number of proposed single family lots and increase
the individual lot sizes.
While the PTC felt that there were some concerns with the proposed plan, they felt the application
was sufficient to initiate the PC zone change process.
SUMMARY
Site Information
The project site is comprised of two parcels (APN # 137-25-109 and -108) located at the comer of
Maybell and Clemo Avenues (see Attachment C, Site Location Map). The cornbined lot size is
approximately 107,392 square feet (2.46 acres). The larger parcel (93,639 square feet) and the
smaller parcel (13,753 square feet) are zoned RM-15 and R-2. The R-2 zone district runs the length
of Maybell Avenue and is approximately 0.5 acres. The remainder of the site is zoned RM-15. The
current land use is a non-functioning orchard and four existing one-story single family homes on
Maybell Avenue. The homes were built between the late 1950's to the early 1970's. The building
square footages range from 2,500-3,500 square feet. Historical records show the orchard has not been
in operation since the early 1990' s. Vehicular access to the site is from both Maybell Avenue and
Clemo Avenue with a barrier at the end of Clemo Avenue to prevent vehicular traffic from Clemo
Avenue on to Maybell Avenue.
A Phase I and a Phase II Environmental Assessment was prepared prior to purchase of the site. No
significant environmental impacts or concerns have been identified. There were minor concerns
about existing contaminants in the soil. The applicant initiated a voluntary cleanup program with the
County to remediate the soil containing residual levels of pesticides, lead arsenic, and petroleum
hydrocarbons. On November 30, 2012, the County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental
Health issued a letter confirming the completion of the remedial actions to their satisfaction.
Surrounding Uses
The project site is surrounded by the following land uses:
Single Family residences of one and two stories (Zoning: R-1) West
North -
East
South-
Multifamily residences (Arastradero Park owned by P AHC, Zoning: PC-2656)
Multifamily residences (The Tan Plaza Continental, Zoning: PC-2218) I Briones Park (Zoning: PF)
Project Description
The applicant's comprehensive project description and supplementary statements in support of the
proposed PC district zone change are provided as Attachment D.
The applicant, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (P AH C), has requested a rezoning of the 2.46 acre site
587 & 585 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453] Page 3
to Planned Community (PC) to allow increased density, smaller lot sizes and additional height above
the maximums of the underlying zone districts. The proposed 15 single-family homes and 60
multifamily units would exceed the 34 units allowed under the current zoning, R-2 and RM-15, by 41
units. PAHC plans to subdivide the 2.46-acre property. There are two conlponents to the proposed
development: a 15 unit single-family subdivision and a 60-unit affordable rental apartment building
for seniors. The project's inclusion of affordable rental housing units allows for the granting of
"concessions" under State Density Bonus Law per Government Section 65915. Requested
concessions are described below. The project would be designed to meet or exceed the City's green
point rating system.
The two legal parcels have zoning designations ofR-2 and RM-15. The proposed new development
use would replace the existing residential and the two adjacent residential zoned parcels would form a
single PC zoned site. The PC district is intended to accommodate developments for residential,
commercial, and other activities, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility
under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts.
The project includes the demolition of the four existing single family homes along Maybell Avenue
and construction of 15 single-family units and a 60-unit affordable senior rental housing development.
Senior Units
P AHC proposes to build a four-story multi -family structure of approximately 56,192 square feet with
a height of approximately 45 feet above grade. The senior rental building would be on a one-acre
parcel on the northeast comer of the site and would include 59 one-bedroom apartments and one two
bedroom apartment for an on-site manager, common areas such as a community room with computer
lab, laundry rooms on each floor, a resident services office, as well as outdoor common area space.
The affordable apartments would have an average size of 600 square feet and be affordable to senior
households earning 30-60% of the Area Median Income (AMI).
The total floor area breakdown and unit distribution of the senior development is as follows:
Sg. ft. Res. Units
First Floor 16,116 14
Second Floor 13,976 16
Third Floor 13,883 16
Fourth Floor 12,237 28
r\
Total 56,192 60
The fourth floor will also have a roof terrace and an exercise room available for all the residents.
Roof top photovoltaic energy systems are proposed to pre-heat water prior to entering a central boiler.
Photovoltaic electric solar panels are proposed to power the community room. Water conservation
will be achieved with drought-tolerant landscaping of all vegetated areas. Energy Star appliances will
be used in the residences. Additional sustainable measures will be met throughout the construction
and materials selection process which may include recycled aggregate, engineered lumber, no added
formaldehyde insulation and modular cabinets, low-VOC paints, wood coatings and adhesives, and
low-emitting flooring.
587 & 585 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453] Page 4
Single Family Housing Units
The market rate units would be located on the remaining 1.46 acre portion of the site, running
adjacent to the perimeter of the property, bordering Maybell and Clemo Avenues. The 15-unit
subdivision would be fee simple lots of approximately 2,300 to 3,400 square feet with residence sizes
between 1,800-2,400 square feet. A majority of the homes are three-story with an approximate height
of35 feet.
There would be eight single-family houses located on Maybell Avenue, one on a comer lot, and six .
along Clemo Avenue. The houses on Maybell A venue would be two or three stories with an average
height of approximately 25 feet for the two story houses and 35 feet for the three story units. The
comer house would have three stories with an overall height of 35 feet. They will be setback
iilPproximately 12 feet from Maybell Avenue. In response to the January 17,2013 ARB preliminary
review, the applicant has redesigned the proposed homes to step back the upper stories of the three
story homes from the first story to reduce the "verticality" and massing of the homes. Houses on
Clemo A venue would have three stories and a height of 35 feet. The Clemo Avenue homes would be
setback 20 feet to accommodate the mature oak trees that are along Clemo Avenue. In order to avoid
parking impacts on Maybell and Clemo Avenues, two car garage parking would be provided at the
rear of each unit, accessed by an alley in the interior of the site. Garage parking at the rear of the
homes would allow an uninterrupted sidewalk along Maybell Avenue which will connect existing
sidewalks north and south of the property. Seven of the units will also have additional apron parking
(in front of the garage doors) that will accommodate an additional two parking spaces for a total of 14
parking spaces.
DISCUSSION
Zoning Compliance
The application is generally in compliance with the requirements of the Planned Community (PC)
Zone District. However, the proposed senior affordable development is inconsistent with height and
daylight plane requirements. The proposed 45 foot height of the senior development exceeds the 35
foot maximun1 height requirement and the daylight plane requirement. The height and daylight plane
requirements are applicable as the project site is within 150 feet of existing residentially zoned
parcels. The Arastradero Park and Tan Plaza Apartments are within 150 feet of the proposed senior
development.
Section 18.38.050( e) requires a daylight plane be established along that portion of the lot that abuts
the neighboring residential property. The daylight plane is to be measured beginning at a height of 10
feet and increasing inward at 1:2 slope (30 degree angle). Using this formula, the building would
protrude into the daylight plane at approximately mid-way of the second floor of the senior
development. In addition, Section 18.38.050(b) requires that building height be a maximum of 35
feet if within 150 feet of residentially zoned parcels otherwise the maximum height is 50 feet. The
height of the proposed senior development is 45 feet.
The applicant is requesting concessions per State Density Bonus Law Government Code Section
54915 for relief from the daylight plane and height requirement in exchange for providing affordable
housing.
Staffhas prepared a zoning comparison table (Attachment D) that analyzes the development standards
587 & 585 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453] Page 5
for the proposed PC zone development compared to a development of the site following the existing
RM-15 and, by comparison, the RM-40 development standards. RM-40 development standards are
included since the proposed density of the development is most similar to RM-40 zoning. In addition,
the site development regulations of the Village Residential housing type (PAMC 18.13.050) were
compared with the proposed project, in that the proposed single-family lots are generally consistent
with the purpose and applicability of Village Residential.
The Proj ect exceeds the RM -40 requirements for height, daylight plane and Village Residential
setback requirements. The proposed senior building exceeds the maximum allowable height and
extends into the daylight plane. The single family residences on Maybell Avenue would not meet the
setback requirements for the RM-40 zone. In order to meet the goals of the Project, the applicant has
requested PC zoning in that the development plan would not specifically conform to any of the multi
family residence district. Furthermore, the PC district, if granted, would be applicable only to the
approved Development Plan, thereby ensuring that only the proposed proj ect could be developed. Any
future redevelopment of the site to a different use would require additional rezoning that could only
be approved by the City Council.
Context Based Design Criteria
Although the project is not subject to the RM zone district requirements, staff completed a
comparison of the proposed project to the Context Based Design Criteria as outlined in Section
18.13.060 of the Zoning Code in the RM code. The proposed design appears to be consistent with
many of the requirements. In summary the project would provide pedestrian walk -ability by adding
the sidewalk on Maybell Avenue, a bicycle-friendly environment with the removal of driveways on
Maybell A venue and connectivity through design elements with the existing neighborhoods. In
addition, the applicant is proposing to add new trees along Maybell Avenue to help improve the visual
appearance of the Maybell Avenue streetscape.
The Maybell Avenue homes would minimize massing with increased setbacks at the top two floors.
The proposed homes on Clemo Avenue have given a larger front yard setback to integrate the existing
mature oak trees into the design of the homes. All the residential units have a presence on the street
and are not walled-off or oriented exclusively inward.
The parking design is consistent with the design criteria in the parking is located behind the single
family residences and is concealed from public view. Landscaping provides a visual buffer between
vehicle circulation areas and abutting properties
Circulation
All ingress and egress for the single-family homes and the senior apartments would be from a single
entry way from Clemo Avenue with the exception of the comer lot. It would have its own driveway.
All automobile traffic would be directed to Arastradero Road. The existing automobile traffic barrier
would remain; therefore there would be not vehicular traffic from Clemo Avenue onto Maybell
Avenue. By redirecting all ingress and egress traffic onto Clemo Avenue, the four existing driveways
would be removed and additional four street parking spaces would be created.
A traffic study was prepared to analyze the impacts of the proposed single Clemo Avenue driveway.
The study concluded that there would be a potentially significant impact for all the traffic to be
directed to the non-signalized intersection of Clemo Avenue and Arastradero. The study proposed
587 & 585 l\.fl<:l,,,nl'lo. Avenue [12PLN-00453] Page 6
alternatives to move the Clemo barrier east of the proposed driveway to direct the traffic onto Maybell
Avenue or to create an addition access way directly onto Maybell Ave.
PAHC owns the adjacent property to the north, Arastradero Park. Arastradero Park is a 65 unit
affordable housing development consisting of one, two, three and four bedroom units. The 65 units
are distributed in two and three story buildings on the three acre property. Access to the property is
from Maybell Avenue and Arastradero Road. PAHC is working with its lenders to obtain an
easement from Arastradero Park to the project site.
Parking
The plan provides for 42 parking spaces with five reserve spaces for a total of 47 spaces for the senior
development. One space would be an electric vehicle (EV) space. The City requires 1.5 units per
one-bedroom unit and 2 spaces per two-bedroom unit. Therefore the development would typically
require a total of 91 parking spaces. However, the City has recognized that senior developments
generate less traffic impacts and require less parking than other residential developments. The
developer is providing 47 parking stalls for 60 units or a ratio of .78 stalls per unit. This ratio is
consistent or exceeds other parking ratios for senior developments throughout the City.
Parking for the single family homes would be provided with two car garages. Access to the garages is
from the interior of the project site. Driveways are proposed for each home to accommodate
additional parking. There would be street parking on Maybell and Clemo Avenues.
Trees
There are twelve oak trees on the site adjacent to Clemo Avenue. Ten of the oaks are mature oak
trees that are proposed to be retained. Two other oak trees are in fair to poor condition and are
proposed to be removed. The oak trees will be retained and have been integrated into the overall
design of the project. An arborist' s report has been prepared that evaluates each oak tree and includes
a tree preservation and protection plan which outlines the necessary protection measures to be
implemented during construction to prevent injuries to the trees to remain. These recommendations
include installation of protective fencing around the trees during construction, that any grading or
excavation within Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) must be accomplished through hand digging, and
that a qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater that one inch diameter. In
addition, the single family residences along Clemo Avenue would be set back an average of 40 feet
from the property line to accommodate the oak trees. The trees will also provide a privacy screen
between the homes and Briones Park.
Medium sized canopy trees are proposed along Maybell A ve. The new frontage trees would be
located in each front yard of the Maybell Avenue homes.
Density Bonus and Concessions per Government Code Section 65915
As discussed, the senior development exceeds the height and daylight plane requirements in the PC
zone district. The applicant has requested "concessions" through Government Code Section 65915.
Under Government Code Section 65915, developments that provide nlore than 20% affordable
housing in the development are eligible for incentives or concessions. An incentive or concession can
be used to provide regulatory "relief' from zoning requirements. Per the State law, the development
is eligible for up to three concessions. Examples of concessions are reduction in required setbacks,
exceeding maximum floor area ratios, reduction in parking requirements, or in this instance,
587 & 585 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453] Page 7
exceeding the height limit and encroaching into the required daylight plane. These concessions are
allowed "by right" through State law. The jurisdiction must grant the concession unless the
jurisdiction finds that the concession is not necessary for the production of the affordable housing or if
it creates an adverse impact on a Historical Resource.
A number of developments, both market rate and affordable, have used density bonus concessions.
Palo Alto Family Apartments, located at 801 Alma Street, developed by Eden Housing, is a 50 unit
affordable rental development. Eden requested concessions to encroach into the required setbacks,
exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and not provide private useable space. The development
at 195 Page Mill Road also requested concessions to allow residential uses in GM zoning and to
exceed the maximum FAR in return for providing 17 affordable housing units.
Community Concerns
The project applicant has contacted nearby neighborhood associations and has discussed the proposed
project with them. The current design incorporates the comments received from the neighborhood
meetings.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and began circulation on March 23, 2013. Public comments are requested
through April 11, 2013. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is contained in Attachment F.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Findings
Conditions of Approval
Site Location Map
PC application and project description*
Zoning Comparison Chart
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Development Plans (ARB members only)*
*Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by staff
PREPARED BY: Tim Wong, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manag~
587 & 585 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453] Page 8
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL
567 -595 Maybell Avenue
12PLN-00453
The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the
Findings for Architectural Review as require'd in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC.
1. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the proposed
development is located within a residential area, adjacent to similar uses and zoning;
2. The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the project will provide for
enhanced landscaping, pedestrian and bike friendly amenities, and provides for better and
safer circulation connections for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles. Green building
features will be incorporated into the single family residences and multifamily building to
meet green building standards;
3. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in the
proposed development, as conditioned, includes improvements necessary for the
residential development;
4. The planning and siting of the various functions and building on the site create an internal
sense of order and provide a desirable environment for the occupants, visitors and the
general community in that the proposed design is compatible with the applicable design
guidelines, development standards and performance criteria and Comprehensive Plan;
5. The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function
of the structures in that the new landscaping and street trees will help provide visual
appeal;
6. Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project
that the proposal includes sufficient automobile and bicycle parking, outdoor activity
areas and common open space areas. The project includes installing a sidewalk to
connect existing sidewalks to the east and west of the project site;
7. Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians,
cyclists and vehicles in developnlent;
8. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. The mature
oak trees on Clemo Avenue have been integrated into the design of the single family
homes;
9. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plan material are
appropriate expressions of the design and function in that the proposed design concept
creates an effective design along Maybell Avenue;
10. The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses,
open space, scale plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and
functional environment in that the landscaping softens the appearance of the buildings,
walkways, and parking lot through plantings and creates an effective outdoor activity
area for the residents;
11. Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly 'maintained
on the site, and is of a variety which would lend to be drought-resistant and to reduce
consumption of water in its installation and maintenance in that appropriate plant
materials are proposed;
12. The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water
conserving, durable and non-toxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content
materials. The following considerations should be utilized in determining sustainable site
and building design:
a. Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, day lighting, and natural
ventilation;
b. Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat
island effects.
c. Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access;
d. Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable
paving;
e. Use sustainable building materials;
f. Design lighting; plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use;
g. Create healthy indoor environments;
h. Use creativity and imlovation to build more sustainable environments.
Green building features will incorporated to achieve green buildings standards.
13. The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review, which
is to:
a. Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city;
b. Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city;
c. Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements;
d. Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in
adjacent areas; and
e. Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and
which, at the same time, are considerate of each other.
The design is consistent for all of the reasons and findings enumerated above.
Planning Division
ATTACHMENT B
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
567 -595 Maybell Avenue
12PLN-00453
1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial compliance with plans dated
March 14, 2013 except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.
2. These ARB conditions of approval shall be printed on the plans submitted for building
permits.
3. The existing city street trees shall be maintained and protected during construction per City
of Palo Alto requirements.
4. Upon submittal of the application for a building permit, the project is required to comply
with the City's Green Building Program (PAMC 16.14). The project required to complete a
green building application, and implement the programs requirements in building plans and
throughout construction. More information and the application can be found at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.orgldepts/plnlsustainablity green building buildinglapplicationld
efault.asp.
Public Works
5. SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: The applicant needs to file for a Major Subdivision
Application with the Planning Department for creating five (5) or more parcels. A Major
Subdivision typically requires the approval of tentative and final maps. A building permit
cannot be issued until the final map is recorded at the County Recorder's Office.
6. OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS: As part of this project, the applicant, at minimum, will be
required to repave (2-inch grind and pave) the full width of Maybell Avenue and Clemo
Avenue and install all new sidewalk, curb, gutter, and driveway approach in the public right
of-way along the property frontage per Public Works' latest standards and/or as instructed by
the Public Works Inspector. 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 Permit for
Construction in the Public Right-of-Way ("Street Work Permit'') from Public Works at the
Development Center.
7. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street
trees in the public right-of-way along the property's frontage. Call City Public Works'
arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work will
be required for this project. The site or tree plan must show street tree work that the arborist
has determined including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements.
Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement
within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by the Public Works' arborist. The plan must
note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street
Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way (tStreet Tree Permit'') from Public Works' Urban
Forestry.
8. STORM WATER RUNOFF SYNOPSIS: Provide a synopsis of pre and post-development
storm water runoff flows and drainage systems. Summarize existing storm water drainage
patterns such as where the existing site runoff drains to. Explain the increase in the site storm
water runoff flow for post-development. Show justification that the existing City storm water
drainage system has the capacity to handle the increase in the flow.
9. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project must meet the latest State Regional Water
Quality Control Board's (SRWQCB) C.3 provisions. The applicant is required to satisfy all
current storm water discharge regulations and shall provide calculations and documents to
verify compliance. All proj ects that are required to treat storm water will need to treat the
permit-specified amount of storm water runoff with the following low impact development
(LID) methods: rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or
biotreatment. However, biotreatment (filtering storm water through vegetation and soils
before discharging to the storm drain system) will be allowed only where harvesting and
reuse, infiltration and evapotranspiration are infeasible at the project site. Complete the
Infiltration/Harvesting and Use Feasibility Screening Worksheet (Santa Clara Valley Urban
Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Handbook -Appendix I). Vault-based
treatment will not be allowed as a stand-alone treatment measure. Where storm water
harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapotranspiration are infeasible, vault-based treatment
measures may be used in series with biotreatment, for example, to remove trash or other
large solids.
Reference: Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16. 11. 030(c)
http://www.scvurppp-w2k.comJpermit c3 docs/c3 handbook 20l2/Appendix I
Feasibility 20l2.pdf
In order to qualify the project as a Special Project for LID treatment reduction credit,
complete and submit the Special Projects Worksheet (Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff
Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Handbook -Appendix J: Special Projects).
Any Regulated Project that meets all the criteria for more than one Special Project Category
may only use the LID treatment reduction credit allowed under one of the categories.
http://www.scvurppp-w2k.comJpermit c3 docs/c3 handbook 20l2/Appendix J-
Special Projects 20I2.pdf).
The applicant must incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures that
treat storm water runoff prior to discharge. The prevention measures shall be reviewed by a
qualified third-party reviewer who needs to certify that it complies with the Palo Alto
Municipal Code requirements. This is required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The third-party reviewer shall be acquired by the applicant and needs to be on the Santa
Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program's (Program) list of qualified
consultants. Any consultant or contractor hired to design/and/or construct a storm water
treatment system for the project cannot certify the project as a third-party reviewer.
http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/consultants20I2.htm ?zoom highlight=consultants
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. The project must
also 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.
10. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly,
the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California's General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice
of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site
specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction
stage and post-construction BMP's for storm water quality protection. The applicant is
required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit.
11. LOADING DOCK: If there is a loading dock, storm runoff from loading docks where
chemicals or hazardous materials may be handled shall not drain to a street, gutter, or storm
drain. See I6.09.032(b)(4)(D). It is recommended that the loading dock(s) be covered to
preclude the need for a drain.
12. GREASE/OIL REMOVAL DEVICE: If there will be a kitchen and food serving area in the
new Senior Building, any drains in the food service facilities shall be connected to a grease
removal device.
13. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: The pedestrian circulation shown for Senior Building on
Sheet C2 indicates pedestrian route through neighboring property to access the public
sidewalk at the north end of the property. Such encroachment through a private property is
not recommended by the City.
14. The following comments are provided to assist the applicant at the building permit phase.
You can obtain various plan set details, forms and guidelines from Public Works at the City's
Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on Public Works' website:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms permits.asp
Include in plans submitted for a building permit:
15. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: For disturbing greater than 10,000 SF of land area,
a Grading and Excavation Permit needs to be obtained from PWE at the Development
Center before the building permit can be issued. Refer to the Public Works' website for
"Excavation and Grading Permit Instructions." For the Grading and Excavation Permit
application, various documents are required including a grading and drainage plan, soils
report, Interim and Final erosion and sediment control, and storm water pollution prevention
plan (SWPPP). Refer to our website for "Grading and Excavation Permit Application" and
guidelines. Indicate the amount of soil to be cut and filled for the project.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglcivicax/filebank/documentsI11695
16. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading and drainage
plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations
and showing drainage flows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Other site utilities
may be shown on the grading plan for reference only, and should be so noted. No utility
infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprint. Installation of these other
utilities will be approved as part of a subsequent Building Permit application.
Site grading, excavation, and other site improvements that disturb large soil areas may only
be performed during the regular construction season (from April 16 through October 15th) of
each year the permit is active. The site must be stabilized to prevent soil erosion during the '
wet season. The wet season is defined as the period from October 15 to April 15. Methods of
stabilization are to be identified within the Civil sheets of the improvement plans for
approval.
17. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP's): In order to address potential storm water
quality impacts, the plan shall identify BMP's to be incorporated into the Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall
include permanent BMP's to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality.
(Resources and handouts are available from PWE. Specific reference is made to Palo Alto's
companion document to "Start at the Source", entitled "Planning Y our Land Development
Project").
The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate BMP's for storm water pollution
prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the SWPPP prepared for the
proj ect. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint,
chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter
16.09).
The applicant is required to paint the "No Dumping/Flows to Barron Creek" logo in blue
color on a white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are
available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be
contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil.
Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan.
Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a
plan is part of this proj ect.
18. 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
Development Center or on our website. Also, the applicant must provide a site-specific
storm water pollution control plan sheet in the plan set.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/2732
19. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: Since the project will be creating or replacing 500 square
feet or more of impervious surface, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing
and proposed impervious surface areas. The calculations need to be filled out in the
Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form which is available at the
Development Center or on our website, then submitted with the building permit application.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebankldocuments/2718
20. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY -If any work is proposed in the public right-of-way, such
as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, curb inlet, storm water connections or utility
laterals, the following note shall be included on the Site Plan next to the proposed work:
"Any construction within the city right-of-way must have an approved Permit for
Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE
PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING
PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR
INFORMATION ONLY."
21. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to PWE prior to
commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City's right-of-way, including, but not
limited to: pedestrian control, 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 part of the building permit submittal.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglcivicax/filebank/documents/2719
22. FINALIZATION OF BUILDING PERMIT: The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the
building permit prior 'to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be
finished prior to this sign-off. Similarly, all as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and post
developments BMP's shall be completed prior to sign-off.
Public Works Water Quality
23. 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 conlpounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 6011602 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 ofVOCs will also be required prior to
discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer
sy~tem or storm drain system must be free of sediment.
24. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(11) Carwash Required New Multi-family residential units and
residential development projects with 25 or more units shall provide a covered area for
occupants to wash their vehicles. A drain shall be installed to capture all vehicle wash waters
and shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer
systenl. The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every six
months or more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or the Superintendent.
Oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. The area shall be graded
or bermed in such a manner as to prevent the discharge of storm water to the sanitary sewer
system; (Note: the Senior Housing component of this development may apply for an
exemption to this requirements, in which case any hose bibs must be fitted with lock-outs or
other connections controls and signage indicating that car washing is not allowed.)
25. 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.
26. 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 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.
27. 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.
28. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected
or allowed to drain to the storm drain system.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
Fire Department
32. Fire sprinkler, standpipe, fire alarm and underground fire supply installations require separate
submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
33. Roof access shall be provided from both stairways. A hatch with ladder access is acceptable
where access via stair is not otherwise required. Hatch must be a minimum 36 x 48 inches in
size. Where alternating tread access is approvable under the code, a ship's ladder shall be
provided instead.
Utilities
GENERAL
33. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service
requirements noted during plan review.
34. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public
and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall
contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to
beginning work.
35. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters
including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection
Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of
request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have
been disconnected and removed.
THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR ELECTRIC
SERVICE
36. A completed Utility Service Application and a full set of plans must be included with all
applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary
submittal.
37. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
38. If this project requires padmount transformers, the location of the transformers shall be
shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural
Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & # 16.
39. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e.
transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City.
40. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required
from the service point to the customer's switchgear. The design and installation shall be
according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18.
41. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by
the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department.
42. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment
shall be. shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will
occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipnlent
shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback
requirements.
43 . For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition
cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility's padmount transformer and the
customer's main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric
Utility Engineering Department for review and approval.
44. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be
connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for
connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the
transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition
cabinet will not be required.
45. The customer is responsible for sizing equipment according to the National Electric Code
requirements. The service conductors shall be sized per City standards. Utilities Rule &
Regulation # 18.
46. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the
utility deenls standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special
Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of
ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20.
47. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement
of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer's expense and must be coordinated with
the Electric Utility.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
48. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before
digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips.
49. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground
Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and
marked. The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA
markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete.
50. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads)
required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a
secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code
requirements and no 112 inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work
will be constructed by the City at the customer's expense. Where mutually agreed upon by
the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by
the Applicant.
51. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the
depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run.
Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes.
52. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and
shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling.
53. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus
duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the
National Electric Code and the City Standards.
54. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service
Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA
standards for meter installations. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater)
and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the
switchgear to:
Gopal Jagannath, P.E.
Supervising Electric Project Engineer
Utilities Engineering (Electrical)
1007 Elwell Court
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal.
55. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building
Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
56. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards,
conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and
switch/transformer pads.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT
57. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private
property for City use.
58. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection
Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.
59. All fees must be paid.
60. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and
applicant.
SUBDIVISION PROJECTS
61. There may be other conditions applicable to your project that can be found in previous
sections of this document.
62. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel.
63. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (Le.
transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City.
In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed within the
subdivision as required by the City.
64. The civil drawings must show all existing and proposed electric facilities (Le. conduits,
boxes, pads, services, and streetlights) as well as other utilities. The developer/owner is
responsible for all substructure installations (conduits, boxes, pads, streetlights system, etc.)
on the subdivision parcel map. The design and installation shall be according to the City
standards and all work must be inspected and approved by the Electrical Underground
Inspector.
65. The developer/owner is responsible for all underground services (conduits and conductors) to
single-family homes within the subdivision. All work requires inspection and approval from
both the Building Department and the Electrical Underground Inspector.
66. The tentative parcel map shall show all required easements as requested by the City.
Utilities Water, Gas Wastewater
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT
67. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit
loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) 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.
68. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services andlor 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 andlor meters have been disconnected and removed.
FOR BUILDING PERMIT
69. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application
-load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities for each residential or commercial unit. 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 combinedltotalloads (the new loads
plus any existing loads to remain).
70. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show
the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right
of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer
cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities.
71. There is no sewer main in Clemo Ave and the sewer main in Maybell Ave is constricted to 6"
in the last block approaching EI Camino Real. As part of this project the applicant is required
to pipe burst the 6" section of main sewer main to 8".
72. Water and gas services for each single family home will be served directly off Maybell Ave
or Clemo Ave.
73. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e.
water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc).
74. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains
andlor 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 andlor services.
75. 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
hislher 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.
76. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to
the WOW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of
water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities
department design criteria. 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 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. For contractor installed services the
contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main
and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals.
77. 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 Cali fomi a administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive. The RPP A 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 RPP A on the plans. Residential single family homes with no special
cross cOlmection hazards will be allowed to use double check assemblies.
78. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water
connection for the fire system (non single family home buildings only) to comply with
requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive
(a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the
CP AU's approval). 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.
79. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WOW engineering division.
Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between
the meter and the assembly.
80. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shrill be abandoned per
the WOW Utilities Standards.
81. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility
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.
82. 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.
83. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape
plan. 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. New gas service installations are
required. Show the new gas meter locations on the plans. The gas meter locations must
conform with utilities standard details.
84. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private
property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa
Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities
easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development.
85. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the
main per WGW Utilities procedures.
86. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be
placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain l' horizontal clear
separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If
there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaultslbases 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.
87. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer
c1eanout at the front of the building. This c1eanout is required so the sewer lateral can be
videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring.
88. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for
water, gas & wastewater.
89. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all utility work in the El
Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW
engineering section.
: Attachment C
-~.....,....,.....,.~~~~
The City of
Palo Alto
twang 2013-02-<16 13:36:51 db) (\1cc-;"'pslgis$\gisladmlnlPersonallPlamlng.m
Location Map
567-595 Maybell'Ave.
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-. 0' 144'
This document is a graphic "'p" .. nlation only 01 best available aoon:e s.
The City 01 PaloAilo assumes no responsibility lor anyermroC 1989 \0 2013 City oIPaloA!tD
Attachment D
MAYBELL ORCHARD DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Planned Community (PC) Zone Change
INTRODUCTION
. Originally Filed November 6,2012
REVISED March 15, 2013
On June 22, 2012, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) entered into a Purchase and Sale
Agreement with Sambuceto Partners and Maybell Sambuceto Properties to acquire the properties
located at 567-595 Maybell and 575-587 Maybell, in the City of Palo Alto, California. The APN
numbers for the property are: 137-25-108 & 137-25-109. The main purpose of this acquisition
is for P AHC to develop a much-needed affordable housing development in Palo Alto. Escrow
for the transaction was successfully closed on November 30, 2012 and PAHC now owns the
property.
PAHC is applying for a Planned Community (PC) Zone Change, Architectural Review Board
(ARB), environmental review, and tree removal for the property. PAHC has had preliminary
meetings with City staff and neighbors, as well as a City Council study session in September of
2012 and an ARB preliminary review session in February of 2013. Relying on input from the
surrounding community, City staff and policy makers, PAHC is applying for:
PROPOSED APPLICATIONS
1. PC Zone change from R-2 and RM-15;
a. Architectural Review Board (ARB)
b. Environmental Review & Approval per CEQA; and
c. Tree Removal
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT
The two parcels presently carry R-2 and RM-15 zoning designations. Approval of the Planned
Community (PC) Zone Change Application to rezone the 2.46-acre underutilized property would
allow for the redevelopment of the site into a mixture of fifteen single-family, market rate homes
and sixty affordable, rental housing units. The apartments will serve extremely-low to low
income seniors with incomes in the range of 30-60% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for
Santa Clara County.
City codes for high-density residential development do not provide sufficient flexibility to
develop the proposed community under standard regulations. The proposed development will not
be attainable without a PC Zone change. The application allows for greater City oversight to
ensure a unified, comprehensively planned development that will guarantee the development of
affordable housing, thereby providing substantial public benefit to the City of Palo Alto.
A PC Zone Change would enable P ARC to build sixty affordable, rental housing units for
seniors on approximately 1 acre of the site, and to set aside approximately 1.46 acres for nlarket
rate housing development to be either developed by PAHe or a private developer. The sale of
the market rate portion will significantly reduce the costs associated with the land acquisition and
development for the sixty unit senior housing project.
The project will increase the affordable housing stock available to the City's aging population.
According to Census Data, the senior population has been the fastest growing age group in Santa
Clara County, and second fastest growing in Palo Alto, over the last ten years. The Housing
Element, part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, reports that Palo Alto seniors are deciding to
age in place and many will begin to shift from larger single-family homes to smaller units.
According to the Silicon Valley Council on Aging, twenty percent of seniors in Palo Alto are
living at or near the federal poverty level. The project will provide long-tenn affordability
restrictions and will leverage the monetary 'contributions of the City and the County for the
public benefit. Furthermore, the project will help the City meet its regional housing needs per the
Association of Bay Area Government's housing allotment. The property is a designated a
Housing Inventory site under the City's Housing Element.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The subject property is the configuration of two contiguous parcels of land with a net site area of
approximately 2.465 acres (107,392 square feet). The larger parcel, currently zoned RM-15,
contains a fonner apricot orchard and two single-family houses. The smaller parcel, currently
zoned R-2, contains two additional single-family homes. These four one-story houses were built
in the 1950s and 1960s and range in size from approximately 900 square feet to 1,500 square
feet. All four 'homes face Maybell Avenue and have two-car garages. 567 Maybell A venue has
an additional attached one-car garage so there are presently a total of five garages fronting
Maybell. Unlike typical single-family dwellings, none of the h.ouses have their own individual
lot. All homes are in need of maintenance, repair and upgrades.
The former orchard, which comprises the majority of the larger parcel behind the four houses,
was family-run by the property owner, producing fruit until roughly 1990. Since the early 1990s,
the orchard has not been maintained. The south frontage of the orchard along Clemo Avenue is
lined with large mature live oak trees.
The entire property is level and at grade with surrounding properties and is served by all major
utilities.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will provide sixty affordable rental apartments, including fifty-nine (59) one
bedroom units and one (1) two-bedroom unit for the onsite manager. The project will also
include common areas such as a community room, computer room, laundry rooms on each floor,
manager's office, resident services office, visiting· nurse's office, exercise room, as well as
outdoor common spaces including a large courtyard and patio, community garden, and rooftop
terrace. The units ~ll have an average size of approximately 600 square feet and rents will
range from $532-1,065 per month for one person and will be adjusted annually based on Santa
Clara County AMI. The fifteen single-family homes will range between 1,840 and 2,330 square
feet. The' homes will have three and four bedrooms and will vary in height between two and
three stories.
The following provides a brief description of the application:
Architecture. Elevations vary in height. The two-story homes will not exceed 25 feet and the
three-story homes will not exceed 35 feet. All of the single-family homes will feature
architectural elements that will enhance the diversity of the streetscape, including step-backs on
each floor. The senior apartment building will be four stories. Fenestration of the building will
be achieved through large windows, alcoves, textures, and stepping floors back on the southern
side of the building. In doing so, the elevations will be broken into several plains, reducing the
mass of the building. The single .. family homes and the apartment building will compliment the
natural features of the site and will take into consideration adjacent properties in order to blend
into the overall neighborhood fabric.
Height. The single-family homes along Maybell and Clemo Avenues will have maximum
heights of approximately 32 feet, and the senior apartment building will have a maximum height
of approximately 45 feet. Massing and orientation of the buildings will respect and mirror the
massing of the neighboring structures by stepping back upper stories. The development will
gradually step up in height from the two and three-story homes along Maybell and Clemo
A venues, to the four-story senior apartment building. This gradual step up in height will provide
continuity between the one and two story homes present to the west of the development, the
three story AP AC apartment complex to the north, and theeigh.t-stofy TAN apartment building
to the east.
Setbacks. The eight homes along Maybell Avenue will have approximately 12 foot front-yard
setbacks, 7 foot side-yard setbacks and 18-foot rear yard/driveway apron setbacks. The comer
house will have (approximately) a five foot setback from Clemo Avenue, a 20 foot setback from
Maybell A venue, and a 5 foot side-and rear-yard setback. The six remaining homes along
Clemo Avenue will have between 10 and 20 foot front yard setbacks in order to preserve and
feature the mature live oaks lining the street, 12 foot side yards, and between 2 and 10 foot rear
setbacks. Fourteen (14) of the 15 homes will have alley-loaded garages, allowing space for the
addition of an uninterrupted sidewalk along Maybell Avenue which will connect existing
sidewalks to the north and south of the property. These improvements will make Maybell
Avenue a safer bicycle and pedestrian route.
Development. The senior apartments will have a standard size of approximately 600 square
feet and the manager's 2 .. bedroom unit will be approximately 726 square feet. The development
will, at a minimum, meet ADA requirements for accessibility in bathrooms and kitchens. Gas
and water will be provided to the building via a single meter and are included in the rent.
Internet and cable service will be available throughout the building" and each resident will have
the option of contracting with an independent contractor for this service. Each unit and the
common areas will be provided electricity via individual meters. Roof top photo voltaic energy
systems are proposed to pre-heat water prior to entering a central boiler. Heating and cooling
will be 'supplied to each unit via individual meters. Photovoltaic electric solar panels are
proposed to power the community room. Water conservation will be achieved with drought
tolerant landscaping of all vegetated areas and the use of Energy Star appliances. Additional
sustainable measures will be met throughout the construction and materials selection process
which may include recycled aggregate, engineered lumber, no added formaldehyde insulation
and modular cabinets, low-VOC paints, wood coatings and adhesives, and low-emitting
flooring. Other green features will be explored as funding permits.
The single-family homes will range in size between 1,840 and 2,330 square feet. The
protected/heritage oak trees along Clemo Avenue will be preserved. P AHC plans to have edible
landscaping and/or a memorial plaque in the courtyard o.f the senior apartment building as a
tribute to the agricultural history of the neighborhood. The project is designed to meet or exceed
the City'S green point rating system and will be environmentally sustainable. Table 1 and Table
2 illustrate the proposed housing mix and livable square footage.
T bl 1 S · A rtm t H M" a e -enlor ~pa en s ouslng IX
Apartment Square Apartments Housing Mix Unit Total
Composition Feet Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3 Floor 4 Square Feet
Unit 1 -1 Bedroom 600 14 16 16 \ 13 35,400
Unit 2 - 2 Bedroom 796 0 0 0 1 796
Apartment TOTAL -14 19 14 13 36,196
T bl 2 S" I F "I H M" a e -mgJe amllY ouslng IX
Single-Family Square Single Family Housing Mix
Home Design Feet Quantity Height Bed Bath
Plan lA 2,330 2 3 story 4 3.5
Plan IB 2,330 3 3 story 4 3.5
Plan lC 1~901 3 2 story 3 2.5
Plan 2 2,304 1 2 story 4 3.5
Plan 3A 1,832 2 3 story 4 4
Plan 3B 1,840 3 3.story 4 4
Plan 3C 1,840 1 3 story 4 4
The senior apartments will provide high-quality rental housing to seniors with annual incomes
ranging from 30% -60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Table 3 illustrates the Santa Clara
County income limits per home size as a percent of AMI, which are adjusted annually.
Table 3 -Santa Clara County Area Median Income (AMI)
Area Median Income N umber In Household
Santa Clara County 1 2 3 4
100% Income Level $71,000 $81,100 $91,200 $101,300
60% Income Level $42,600 $48,660 $54,720 $60,780
30% Income Level $21,300 $24,330 $27,360 $30,390
Source: TCAC 2013 Maximum Income Levels,
Open Space. The apartment building will surround a large courtyard, complete with interesting
landscape elements, walking and seating areas' and a community garden. The community room
will open up to an outdoor patio, making the courtyard easily accessible to residents. The current
plans include a roof terrace. The landscaping plan includes a walking path through the courtyard
and a connecting path from the senior apartment building to Briones Park. The garages for the
single-family homes are alley-loaded, providing front yard open space for each house.
Tree Removal. S.P. Mclenahan Co. has drafted a tree survey and tree protection plan. A site
visit with David Dockter was conducted and S.P. McClenahan Co. Inc. is following through on
the recommendations of the City. The mature Oak trees along Clemo A venue will remain and
have been incorporated into the project design. The tree protection plan is included as
Attachment A.
Parking for Senior Apartments. The senior apartments will have a total of 47 parking spaces,
inclusive of three handicap spaces. Five of these spaces will be placed in a landscaped parking
reserve which can be converted to parking if necessary. The typical parking ratio for a senior
development in Palo Alto has been approximately .5. The Maybell Orchard Apartment project
will have a parking ratio of .78, accommodating residents as well as visitor parking needs. For
comparison, the Stevenson House, a 120-unit low-income senior housing development in Palo
Alto, presently has a parking ratio of .45 spaces per unit and is well-parked. P AHC' s Sheridan
senior apartments has a parking ratio of .35. Table 4 provides an overview of parking at nearby
senior properties.
T bl 4 S . D I a e -enlor eve opmen tA t bOI P ki U omo Ie ar ng
PROPERTY I California Total I Spaces ParkiDg
i City Homes . Provided Ratio
Sheridan Sr. Apt Palo Alto 57 20 .35
Stevenson House Palo Alto 120 54 .45
Fair Oaks Plaza Sunnyvale 124 84 .67
DeVries Place Milpitas 103 70 .68
Eden Issei Hayward 100 52 I .52
MaybeU Orchard Palo Alto 60 47 .78
PAHC will monitor parking demand at the senior apartments. Parking will be metered by
assigning spaces to residents as needed, with proof of registration and insurance. Due to the , "
typically lower car ratios for seniors and affordable housing properties in general, we expect to
be more than sufficiently parked to allow extra spaces for visitors and P AHC staff. Five spaces
will be landscaped as a parking reserve. Should further parking prove to be necessary for the
seruor housing, the parking reserve can be converted into parking. Furthermore, PAHC is
exploring the option of providing a shared van for resident use. Also, P AHC plans to provide an
Electric Vehicle charging station on-site.
Parking for Single-Family Homes. Fourteen of the single-family homes will have alley loaded
two-car garages. The comer home (comer of Maybell and Clemo) will have a garage loading
onto Clemo Avenue! In addition to the two-car garage, seven of the homes along Maybell and
the comer home on Clemo will have guest parking for two additional cars in the driveway apron.
Covered Parking. The zoning code requires residential parking to be concealed from the street
for projects with six units or more. Although uncovered, all of the proposed parking spaces will
be concealed from Clemo and Maybell A venues through a combination of landscaping and
building locations on the site. The single-family homes and existing live Oak trees will shield
the parking area from view from M~ybell and Clemo Avenues.
Bicycle Parking for Seniors. Palo Alto Municipal Code does not address bicycle parking
requirements for senior housing. The City of Santa Rosa requires 1 biCycle parking space per 8
urtit$ of senior affordable housing if a private garage ~or bicycle storage space is not provided.
The City of Mountain View does not have a requirement for bicycle parking related specifically
to senior affordable housing. However, Mountain View requires a minimum number of bicycle
. parking spaces equal to 5% of required vehicle. parking spaces, which equates to roughly one
bicycle parking space per ten units.
The current plans for the senior apartment building include indoor bicycle parking for 20 bikes
(1 space per· 3 units) on the western end of the building, adjacent to the stairwell, and a rack for
an additional 7 guest bicycles Gust over 1 space per 10 units) located just to the east of the main
entrance. Table 5 provides comparable bicycle parking for local affordable senior apartments.
T bl 5 PlAit Afti d bl S . B· I P ki a e -ao 0 ora e enlor IC' "C e ar nl'
PROPERTY California Total Spaces Parking
City Homes Provided Ratio
Sheridan Sr. Apt I Palo Alto 57 24 .42
Stevenson House Palo Alto 120 40 .33
Maybell Orchard Palo Alto 60 27 .45
Public Transit -Bus. The project is within 500 feet of the north-south peninsula artery, EI
Camino Real. EI Camino Real is served by Santa Clara Valley Transit Agency (VTA) Bus
Routes "22", "Rapid 522"and "88.ft The bus stop for each of these routes is less than a five
minute walk from the property. Additionally, the Palo Alto shuttle route extension will bring the
free shuttle within a few blocks of the development.
The Palo Alto "Crosstown Shuttle" operates a circular route through Palo Alto, providing service
to Mitchell Park, Main Library, midtown shopping, downtown Palo Alto and the Palo Alto
Caltrain Station, among other destinations. It runs Monday-Friday from roughly 9:00am-
5:00pm.
The "22" operates along El Camino Real, running northwest to the Palo Alto train station and
southeastto San Jose. It runs 24 hours a day, with buses every 12 minutes from 6:00am-7:00pm
and every 30 minutes after 7:00pm, seven days a week. It runs every 15 minutes on Saturday
and SUnday.
The "Rapid 522" also operates along El Camino Real, running northwest to the Palo Alto train
station and south to the Eastridge Transit Center. It runs during workweek daytime hours with
service approximately every 15 minutes from 5:30am to 8:30pm. It runs every 15 minutes on
Saturday and Sunday between 6:00am and 8:00pm.
The "88" runs between the Palo Alto V.A. and Middlefield/Colorado streets, serving south Palo
Alto neighborhoods with easy access to grocery stores and satellite colleges at the Cubbedey
Center; it runs during workweek daytime hours with service approximately every hour from
6:30am to 6:30pm. There is no service on Saturday and Sunday.
Public Transit -Caltrain. Railway access is readily available at the Palo Alto, San Antonio,
and California Avenue Caltrain stations. .
The California Avenue train station is located approximately 2.0 miles north of the property.
Access to the station involves a short 9 minute bus ride and a 6 minute walk. Alternatively, the
station is a 39 minute walk or a 10 minute bike ride from the property.
The Palo Alto train station is a major transit station for Caltrain operations. The station is
located approximately 3.5 miles north of the property. Access to the station involves a short 20
minute bus ride that drops off right at the train platform.
The San Antonio train station is located approximately 1.9 miles east of the property. Access to
the station involves a 15 minute bus ride and a15 minute walk. Alternatively, the station is a 33
minute walk or a 10 minute bike ride from the property via sidewalks and a Class I pedestrian
trail.
Development Schedule. The anticipated development schedule is as follows:
November 2012 Secure City/County and Additional Funding
November 30, 2012
March 2013
June 2013
June 2013
July 2013
September/October 2013
October 2013
October 2014
OctoberlNovember 2014
December 2014
Close of Escrow
Architectural Review Board Approval
Council Development Permit & Design Review Approval
Market Rate Portion Land Sale
Deadline to apply for tax credit financing for 2012 year
Obtain GradinglBuilding Permit
Commence Construction
Complete Construction*
Obtain Occupancy Permit
Full Occupancy and Operational
* Site constraints & difficulties associated with winter construction may cause delays.
CONCESSIONS
Government Code section 65915 provides zoning concessions for the development of affordable
housing. The following provides a brief description of the concessions that are being sought for
the development.
Height. The maximum allowable height for any PC district is fifty feet. However, Section
lS.38.150(b) requires that the maximum height within 150 feet of any residentially zoned or
applicable PC district shall be 35 feet. The single-family homes are in compliance; however, the
senior building exceeds this restrIction by approximately 10 feet. The senior building's strategic
placement on the property nearest the AP AC apartment community and the TAN Plaza
Apartments allows the building to blend in with the context of the '3-story and 8-story adjacent
~evelopments. As discussed in the project description, the entire development smoothly
tmnsitions up in height from the two and three story single family homes, to the four-story senior
building, linking the existing one and two story homes along Maybell with the three-story AP AC
apartments to the north of the property and the eight story TAN apartment building to the east.
Daylight Plane. The PC code requires that setbacks be scaled to the height of each building
the taller the building, the greater the setback-ensuring minimal shading of neighboring
properties. Given the four story height of the senior building, the structure would need to be set
back 72 feet from the property line in order to comply with the daylight plane zoning ordinance.
Due to the limited size of the property, setbacks meeting the daylight plane requirement are not
possible. At the request of the Architectural Review Board, a shadow study was conducted,
included on Plan Sheet Al.1. The study shows that the structures on the neighboring properties
are subject to minimal shading due to their setbacks from the property line and their height. The
three-story AP AC apartment community to the north of the senior building is setback 57 feet
from the property line with a parking area and a driveway in between, thereby limiting the
possibility that residents will be shaded by the senior building. The eight-story TAN apartment
building is similarly setback from the property line behind carports and a drive aisle. Due to the
height and location of the TAN building, it is not shaded by the senior bUilding. The single
family homes do not present any daylight plane issues.
Landscape Design Intent:
567 -595 Maybell Avenue
Palo Alto, California
Master Landscape Design Concept
The Maybell Orchard residential development combines single detached housing with a senior
housing element, and the landscape compositions are scaled and presented in the character of the
development. The planting character will be a mix of predominantly evergreen species with
some deciduous species that are found in the Northern California plant communities that qualifY
in the Bay-Friendly Plant List defmitions, including native and Mediterranean style material that
provide visual interest of contrasting textures, foliage and flower colors throughout the year. In
addition, the species and compositions will provide for minimal maintenance efforts (trimming,
feeding, treatment of diseases), as well as provide durability to reduce replacement costs,
supporting the project as part of the surrounding neighborhood while providing its own sense of
place.
Landscape Irrigation:
The irrigation for the development will be dominated by a mixture of drip application for shrub
and ground cover areas, complimented with bubbler application for the trees, reducing water run
off and general water waste. There is one modest area of turf for the senior housing element that
will receive overhead spray application.
Long Term Maintenance:
The plant palette will be comprised of materials that minimize maintenance attention needs,
through appropriate growth size and habit selection, species suitability for the plant community
low-water requirements, and composition density within the limited planting areas. The
fertilization and measures of care will be compliant with Green Building Guideline practices
utilizing organic materials acquired locally.
567-595 MAYBELL AVENUE PLANNED COMMUNITY-ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
: ~ ·~IifvEOOPM·ENT SfAN&1ARI)" R~2' REQUIREMENTS RM~15 RM.:40 , {_ pLANNED PRQPQSED t>EVEbQPMENT l:!~:~:.!<·);~-: .:c ",.: I ..' " ~ '---..... .., -L.. ' I ~EQUIR~MENTS '" REQYlrtEMENTS ': COMMlJNITv ~ -, ~. -1 ."
; . . (Village
~ ~-,
~ " -',' <~ ~ ':'. " (,COMP.ARISl>N) , : REQUIREMENTS -... ,
I' " I ~ . .
L· ....-.1:-:.:. __ ~ ~ "--",-.l. __ .. _--. _ ::!...-. ~ -_. -. --... ---"""---. -'. Resi_d~tj~l) 1_' I __ . . _ . _ _ --.~,.1--'-'>I~ ~ ~_. -c:
Single Family Senior
Homes
Minimum .site Area (sq. ft.) 6000 8500 No minimum 1.5 acre 1 acre
Minimum Site Width (feet) 60 70 No minimum ±36' 196'
Minimum Site Depth (feet) 100 100 No minimum ±68 or 95' 248'
Minimum Front Setback (feet) 30 20 0-25 NA 12'-20' 10
Minimum Rear Setback (feet) 30 10 10 NA 0-12' 10
Daylight Plane Front and Rear No daylight plane for side and rear lot lines Within 150 feet of Lot 1 does not Northern and
Daylight Plane is for sites abutting aRM-30, RM-40, Planned any R-E, R-l, R-2, comply with the Eastern
initial height at 16 ft. Community or nonresidential district that RM, Resi PC zone, PC Daylight Pia ne elevations do
with a 60 degree rise. deos not contain a single-family or two-the a ngle at 10 feet requirement not comply
Side Daylight Plane is family residental use for lots with width of side/rear property with PC
initial hieght of 10 ft. 70 feet or greater. line, increases 3 ft. Daylight Plane
with a 45 degree rise. height for each 6 ft. requirement
distance from line
(unless 60%
resid entia I,
Base Site Coverage 40% 35% 45% NA 30% 38% ~
Maximum FAR 6000 0.5:1 1.0:1 NA 30,681 sq. ft. of 56,192 sq. ft.
single-family of senior
residential floor residential
i a
area, FAR .47:1 floor area, FAR ttl
1.29:1
} .. ~~DEVEb"QPMEN;r STANDARD R-2 REQwiRErJfENTS:q ~. RM:'15 " -RM-4O' -~. PLANNED . PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT r~~:~lf~2:~r::-~"~" '_-'_\~: --. .
1-· . ! REQUIREMENTS ,. REQUII~EMENTS : ~ COMMUNiTY ' . '
I .... ," .. ""'. ~'_"~ !j':-:-.. ' i
• ... ...... ,I; I • ~ • •.• .. J'1 4... [.;"l_
(villi:!ge . (COMPARlgON) _.1 ;' ~EQUIR"EMENT$ .
I , ',t' :.. :', ~,~ ~:. :"" -,~ ~~-" -~.~-~{'~_"~;l ~,.-._ J ~ident@l) l ~ . _. -~ ~:."> ....lII' ~ --.' I __ ........ ~ ....... _ '" ,. ~ ,........ '. -·,i"·".· •. ,,,,·,"·,,·,.··,
Single Family Senior
Homes
Maximum Height (feet) 30 35 40 Within 150 feet of 35 The proposed
any R-E, R-l, R-2, 46 foot Senior
RM zone or Resi PC building does
zone, the maximum not comply
height is 35 ft ft. with the height
requirement.
Residential Density (units/acre) 2 15 40 NA 10 60
Usable Open Space (%) NA 35 20 NA 26-32 20
Minimum Usable Open Space (sf NA 200 100 NA 792-1056 285
per unit)
Minimum Common Open Space (sf NA 100 50 NA None 142
per unit)
Minimum Private Open Space (sf NA 50 50 NA 792-1056 None
per unit) ---
Attachment F
.. 567 M~ybell Avenue
Proposed Planned Community
Zone District
For Development Of 15 Single Family Residences
And A 60-Unit Multifamily Affordable Rental
Project For Seniors
567 Maybell Avenue
Initial Study
C .1I .\{~ .. ()<F
'I.~:.
A :LID
March", 2013
Page 1 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................. ~ ............................................ : ................. 4
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ................... 10
A. AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................ 11
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES ........ ~ ..................................... 13
C. AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................... 14
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOlTRCES .............................................................................. 18
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES ................. ~ ................................................................ 20
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY ............................................................. 21
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 23
H. . HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Error! Bookmark not defined.
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITy .......................................................... 29
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................ 31
K. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 33
L. NOISE ................................................................................................................... 34
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................... 36
N. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. 36
O. RECREATION ..................................................................... ~ ................................ 38
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................ 39
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................. 47
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .............................................. 49
III. SOURCE REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 51
IV. DETERMINATION ...................................................................................................... 52
567 Maybell Avenue Page 3 Initial
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
567 Maybell Avenue (APN 137-25-108/109) Proposed Planned Community Zone District for
Development of 15 Single Family Residences And a 60-Unit Multifamily Affordable Rental
Project For Seniors
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Tim Wong, Housing Coordinator
City of Palo Alto
650-329-2561
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
Palo Alto Housing Corporation
725 Alma Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301-2403
650-321-9709
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
12PLN-00453
6. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located north of Arastradero Road, in the southern part of Palo Alto, in the
northern part of Santa Clara Courity, west of State Route 82 (EI Camino Real) and east of
Foothill Expressway, as shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. The project site is located on the
southeasterly comer of Maybell and Clemo Avenues, as shown on Figure 2, Location Map.
567 Maybell Avenue Page 4 Initial Study
Figure 1: Regional Map
567 Maybell Avenue Page 5 Initial Study
Location Map,'
:.s6J .. 5~9:S M~ybelLAve.,
Figure 2: Location Map
567 Maybell A venue Page 6 Initial Study
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The project site is comprised of two parcels, which are designated as Single Family and
Multiple Family Residential in the Palo Alto 1998 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The proposal
to develop 15 single family residences and a 60-unit multifamily affordable rental development
for seniors is compatible with the single family and multiple family land use designations.
8. ZONING
The project site is zoned R-2, Two Family Residential District and RM-15, Low Density
Multiple-Family Residential District. The existing R-2 two-family residence district is
intended to allow a second dwelling unit under the same ownership as the initial dwelling unit
on appropriate sites in areas designated for single-family use by the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, under regulations that preserve the essential character of single-family use. The RM-15
low-density multiple-family residence district is intended to create, preserve and enhance areas
for a mixture of single-family and multiple-family housing which is compatible with lower
density and residential districts nearby, including single-family residence districts. The RM -15
residence district also serves as a transition to moderate density multiple-fanlily districts or
districts with nonresidential uses. Permitted densities in the RM-15 residence district range
from eight to fifteen dwelling units per acre. .
. As a part of this proposal, the applicant is requesting that the site be rezoned to a new Planned
Community (PC) zone district. The PC planned community district is intended to
accommodate developments for residential, 'commercial, professional, research, administrative,
industrial, or other activities, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility
under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned
community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments
which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies and
programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
As established by the process for rezoning to the PC district, a Planned Community (PC)
Ordinance will be drafted, which will include identification of the permitted and conditionally
permitted uses and site improvements which would apply to this site, as well as a schedule for
completion of the project. In order to grant the zone change, the Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC) and City Council must consider findings regarding the need for flexibility
that is not available through the general districts, that the project will result in public benefits
not otherwise attainable by application of the general districts, and that the uses and regulations
shall be consistent with the Palo' Alto Comprehensive Plan and compatible with existing and
potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The terms of the PC Ordinance
will ensure compliance with the standards of the zone district and the Comprehensive Plan.
567 Maybell Avenue Page 7 Initial Study .
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background
Site Information
The project site is comprised of two parcels (APN # 137-25-109 and 108) located at the comer
of Maybell and Clemo Avenues. The combined lot size is approximately 107,392 square feet
(2.46 acres). The larger parcel (93,639 square feet) and the smaller parcel (13,753 square feet)
are zoned RM-15 and R-2, respectively. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation is
Single Family and Multiple Family Residential. The sites currently contain a non-functioning
orchard and four existing single family homes fronting on Maybell A venue. The four homes
were built in the 1950's and 1960's. Currently, vehicular access to the site is from both
Maybell and Clemo Avenues with an automobile barrier at the end of Clemo Avenue to
prevent vehicular traffic movements from Clemo Avenue on to Maybell Avenue.
Project Description
The Project consists of the demolition of the four existing single-family houses and removal of
the orchard for the construction of 15 single-family homes and a 60-unit affordable rental
development for seniors. The existing homes each have approximately 900 to 1500 square feet
(sq. ft.) of floor area, and are single~story structures, built in the 1950's and 1960's. The
demolition is necessary for the construction of the 15 single-family homes. The proposed
single family homes would range between 1,900 to 2,400 square feet. The homes would be
constructed on fee simple lots of approximately 2,300 to 3,400 square feet. The single-family
homes would be sited adjacent to Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue, the western and
southern boundaries of the property. Eight of the homes would face Maybell Avenue, one
home would be located on a comer lot, and six homes would face Clemo Avenue. All
automobile ingress and egress to the single family homes will be from a main entry driveway
on Clemo Avenue, except for the comer unit, which will have its own driveway onto Clemo
Avenue. In order to avoid parking impacts on Maybell and Clemo Avenues, garage parking
would be provided at the rear of each unit.
. The Maybell Avenue residences would be two and three story homes. The maximum height of
the proposed three story homes is 35 feet and the two story homes would be approximately 24
feet tall. The comer home and six homes facing Clemo Avenue would be three story units with
a maximum height of 35 feet. The intent is to sell the homes to a market rate developer to help
defray development costs for the affordable seniorrental development. The affordable senior
development portion of the Project consists of fifty-nine (59) one-bedroom units and one (1)
two-bedroom manager's unit in a single building consisting of four stories with an overall
height of 46 feet. The one bedroom units would be approximately 600 square feet. The senior
project will have common open space including a rooftop terrace, a community room, and an
exercise room. The total floor area of the senior development is as follows:
First floor
Second floor
Third Floor
Fourth Floor
Total Floor Area
567 Maybell Avenue
16,116 sq. ft.
14,115 sq. ft.
14,085 sq. ft.
12,237 sq. ft.
56,553 sq. ft.
Page 8 Initial Study
Rents will target seniors with low, very low and extremely low incomes. Rents for the units
will range from $590 to $1,181 per month. Rents will be adjusted annually.
Review Process
Rezoning toa PC district follows a set of procedures and standards, which are prescribed in
Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC). The PC process begins with PTC
review of the concept plans, development program statement and draft development schedule.
If the PTe recommends initiating the PC request, the development plan, site plan, landscape
plan and design plans are submitted to the ARB for design review in the same manner as any
commercial or mixed-use project. The environmental document is prepared and circulated
prior to ARB consideration. The development plan recommended for approval by the ARB is
then returned to the PTC, together with 'a draft PC ordinance and environmental document, for
review and recommendation to the City Council. The PC ordinance would identify the
permitted and conditionally permitted uses and site improvements, as well as a schedule for
completion of the project. The PTC may recommend a PC zone change only if it finds that:
1. The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such
characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not
provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development.
2. Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will
result in public, benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of
general districts or combining districts. In make the findings required by this section,
the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall
specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned
community district.
3. The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the
district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and' shall be
compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general
vicinity.
The project shall also obtain appropriate encroachments permits from the Public Works
department for construction activities in the city right-of-way, as well as the standard required
building permits. The project is required to comply with the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC).
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
To the west of the project, across Maybell Avenue, are 1-2 story single family residences. The
adjacent parcel to the north is the Arastradero Park Apartments, owned by the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation (PARC). The multifamily residences are 2-3 stories. East of the parcel is
the Tan Plaza Continental, an 8-story, 61-unit multi-family residential building with an overall
height of approximately 90 feet. South of the site is Briones Park. On the southern comer of
Clemo Street and Arastradero Road is Palo Alto Fire Station No.5.
567 Maybell Avenue Page 9 Initial Study
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED
None required.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or
less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impacf' entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the· mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
567 Maybell Avenue Page 10 Initial Study
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list shouldb"e attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer
and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
I Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorl!orated
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual 1,2,3,5 X
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1, 2-Map L4, X
public view or view corridor? 5
c) Substantially damage scenic resources, 1, 2-Map L4, X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock 5
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,2,5 X
!
policies regarding visual resources?
e) Create a new source of substantial light or 1,5 X
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
f) Substantially shadow public open space 1,5 X
(other than public streets and adjacent
I
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3 :00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21 ?
DISCUSSION:
The project proposes construction of 15 single family homes with heights ranging from two to three
stories located along the Maybell and Clemo Avenue street frontages. The maximum height of the
three story homes would be 35 feet, and the two story homes would be approximately 24 feet tall. The
proposed affordable senior housing portion of the project would be in a four story building with an
overall height of 46 feet. The four story building would be located away from the street frontages,
adjacent to an 8-story, 90 foot tall multiple family residential building to the east, and a two to three
story apartment complex to the north.
567 Maybell Avenue Page 11 Initial Study
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains the following land use policies which relate to aesthetics
and visual resources:
POLICY L-3: Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public
streets in the developed portions of the City.
POLICY L-4: Maintain Palo Alto's varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of
its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto's
desirable qualities.
POLICY L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming
and unacceptable due to their size and scale.
The project area is in a relatively flat area of the City, and does not offer views of the foothills or East
Bay hills from the public streets. Therefore, the project will not have an adverse impact on a public
view or view corridor. The portion of the site to be developed with single family residences is
adj acent to existing single family residences along Maybell A venue. Briones Park is across the street .
on Clemo Avenue. Although the existing homes along Maybell Avenue are primarily single story,
these properties are zoned R-l, which allows building heights of 30 to 33 feet, depending on the roof
pitch. The proposed project is generally compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood.
The project is subject to design review and approval by the City through the Architectural Review
process. The purpose of architectural review is to: (1) Promote orderly and harmonious development
in the city; (2) Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city; (3) Encourage the
attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; (4) Enhance the desirability of living
conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and (5) Promote visual environments which
are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same tinle, are considerate of each other.
The project is not adjacent to a State Scenic Highway, so there would be no impact to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Any exterior lighting proposed for
the project will be required to comply with City ordinances relating to light and glare, and will not
create a new source of substantial light or glare. The proposed four story building is located more than
200 feet from Briones Park and, therefore, will not create a shadow on public open space.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Conclusion: The proposed project would not result in significant, adverse visual or aesthetic impacts.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
567 Maybell Avenue Page 12 Initial Study
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Convert Prime Fannland, Unique Farmland, 1 X
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Fannland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2-MapL9 X
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause 1 X
rezoning of, forest land (as defmed in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)1) or
timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 45262)?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion 1 X
e)
of forest land to non-forest use?
Involve other changes in the existing 1,8 X
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
I PRC 12220(g): "Forest land" is land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including
hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including
titnber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
2 PRC 4526: "Timberland" means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated
by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any
commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial
species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after consultation with the district committees and
others.
!
DISCUSSION:
The project area is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farrrliand of Statewide
Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by
the Williamson Act. . A portion of the site contains a nonfunctioning peach orchard. This site was part
of a larger orchard which was active between 1909 and 1990, and which included the adjacent site
which is now Briones Park. The remaining orchard is on an approximately two acre portion of the site,
is surrounded by urban uses and is no longer suitable for agricultural use. The project area is within a
fully developed urban area and has no impacts on forest or timberland.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Conclusion: The proposed project would not result in impacts to agricultural resources. (No Impact) .
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless . Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation 1,5 X
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute -., ~' ,
'Fl,' ~1 1-. substantially to an existing or projected air '\-1 I
. quality violation indicated by the following: . ~ '. . .:' 0; ~ .
i. Direct and/or indirect operational 1,5,9 X
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fme particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PM lOt
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) . 1,5,6 X
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
, eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,5,6 X
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
567 Maybell Avenue Page 14 Initial Study
~
I Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially
I
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
I Incorporated
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels 1,5 X
e)
t)
of toxic air contaminants?
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1 X
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl)
exceeds 10 in one million
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-1 X
carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the
MEl
Create objectionable odors affecting a 1 X
substantial number of people?
Not implement all applicable construction 1,9 X
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:
A project would have a significant effect on air quality if air pollutant emissions would cause the
exceedance of ambient air quality standards, contribute to existing or projected air quality
exceedances, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, which is part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has the primary responsibility for
ensuring that the Santa Clara Valley Air Basin attains and maintains compliance with federal and state
ambient air quality standards. This regional agency regulates air quality through its permit authority
over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review process. Ambient
air quality standards are set to protect public health. There are currently both Federal and State
ambient air quality standards by USEP A and state air quality agencies, CALEP A for California.
California air quality standards are generally more stringent that federal standards. Continuous air
monitoring by these agencies and BAAQMD ensure that air quality standards are being met and
improved.
Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have
established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards
are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects
associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria"
pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents.
The major criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter.
The Bay Area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards
and as a nonattainrnent area for the state particulate matter (PMIO and PM2.5) standards. The Bay
Area 2005 Ozone Strategy has been prepared to address ozone nonattainnlent issues. No PMIO or
567 Maybell Avenue Page 15 Initial Study
PM2.5 plan has been prepared or is required under state air quality planning law. The 2005 Ozone
Strat~gy was developed in order to bring the area into attainment of federal and State ambient air
quality standards for ozone and particulate matter violations. As noted below, the proposed project
would not result in a significant increase in emissions of particulate matter or ozone precursors during
operation. Construction emissions, with implementation of the mitigation measures below, would also
not result in significant emissions of particulate matter or ozone precursors. Therefore, the proposed
project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD's air quality plans to
bring the Air Basin into attainment for particulate matter and ozone, resulting in a less-than-significant
. impact.
The proposed project includes demolition of the four existing single family residences on the sites, and
construction of 15 new single family residences and a 60-unit multifamily affordable rental project for
seniors, as well as parking, circulation and landscaping of the site. The project would affect local
pollutant concentrations in two ways. First, during project construction, the project would affect local
particulate concentrations by generating dust. Over the long term, the project would result in emissions
due to motor vehicle trips associated with the residential use proposed by the project, and the motor
vehicle trips would affect carbon monoxide concentrations along the local road network.
Short Term Air Quality Impacts: Construction activities at the project site would involve use of
equipment and materials that would emit ozone precursor emissions. With respect to the construction
phase of the project, applicable BAAQMD regulations would relate to portable equipment (e.g.,
Portland concrete batch plants, and gasoline-or diesel-powered engines used for power generation,
pumps; compressors, pile drivers, and cranes), architectural coatings, and paving materials. Project
construction would be subject to the requirements ofBAAQMD Rules and Regulations.
During construction, the project would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including
suspended and inhalable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. Project-related
construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, earthmoving, and general
construction activities. Construction-related fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day,
depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. In the absence of
mitigation, construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust, and as a result, local
visibility and PMI0 and PM2.5 concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary and
intermittent basis during the construction period. In addition, the fugitive dust generated by
construction would include not only PMI0, but also larger particles, which would fall out of the
atmosphere within several hundred feet of the site and could result in nuisance-type impacts. The
BAAQMD considers any project's construction related impacts to be less than significant if the
required dust-control measures are implemented. Without these measures, the impact is generally
considered to be significant, particularly if sensitive land uses are located in the project vicinity.
Long Term Air Quality Impacts: With respect to the operational-phase of the project, emissions
would be generated primarily from motor vehicle trips to the project site. The Traffic Impact Analysis
for the Proposed Residential Development at Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue in Palo Alto,
California, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., February 26, 2013, indicates that
the proposed project would generate 238 net new daily vehicle trips, with 16 net new trips occurring
during the AM peak hour and 21 net new trips occurring during the PM peak hour. The minor increase
in vehicle trips generated by the project would only marginally increase daily emissions of ozone
567 Maybell Avenue Page 16 Initial Study
precursors and PMI0 and would be well below BAAQMD established thresholds for consideration of
a significant impact. Consequently, the project would not affect air quality in the region or conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plans. Any stationary
sources on site would be subject to the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations. Compliance with
BAAQMD Rules and Regulations would ensure that the project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plans.
Sensitive Receptors: BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor
population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located.
These land uses include residences, school playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes,
convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. In the case of this project, other residential uses are
located adjacent to and across the street from the project-site. The proposed project would be subject
to the measures recommended by the BAAQMD (listed below in Mitigation Measure 3a), which
would reduce construction-related PMI0 and PM2.5 emissions to a less than significant level.
Objectionable Odors: As a general matter, the types of land use development that pose potential
odor problems include wastewater treatment plants, refineries, landfills, compo sting facilities, and
transfer stations. No such uses would occupy the project site. Therefore, the project would not create
objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Also, there are no existing odor
sources in the vicinity of the project site that would impact future occupants of the project site. Project
odor impacts are therefore considered to be less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measures:
During construction, the project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to. implement the
following measures required as part of BAAQMD's basic and enhanced dust control procedures
required for all construction sites. These include:
• Water all active construction areas daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust
from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds
exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (Le., the minimum required space between the top of the load and
the top of the trailer).
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) all paved access roads,
parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each day if
visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
• Pave all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. as soon as feasible. In addition, building pads
should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Conclusion: Based on the size of the project and the minor increase in vehicle trips generated, the
project would not result in significant long-term or local air quality impacts. Implementation of the
mitigation measures during construction will reduce potential short-term impacts to a less than
significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation)
567 Maybell Avenue Page 17 Initial Study
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1,2-MapN1, X
directly or through habitat modifications, on 5
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 1,2-MapN1, X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 5
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, including federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interru:Qtion, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of 1,8-MapN1, X
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 5
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2,3,4,5,7 X
e)
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by the City of
Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.10)?
Conflict with any applicable Habitat 1,5 X
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation ~lan?
DISCUSSION:
The project site is in a fully developed urban area, and does not contain any habitat suitable for special
status species of plant or animal life. There are no wetlands or riparian habitat on or near the site. In
urban areas, the lack of natural nesting habitat results in resident and migratory birds nesting in
ornamental and/or street trees. The existing oak trees on the site may provide nesting sites for
migratory birds. However, these trees are to remain and will be protected during construction.
Therefore, the impact on migratory birds would be less than significant. There is no habitat or natural
community conservation plan which applies to the project site.
Tree Preservation: According to the Arborist Report, 567-595 Maybell Avenue, prepared by John H.
McClenahan, McClenahan Consulting, LLC, the project site now contains four older single family
homes and a large orchard. There are approximately 90 fruit trees located in the orchard that will be
removed with the project. Most of the fruit trees are apricot, with a pistachio, some citrus and
chestnut. There are ten larger oaks on the Clemo Avenue frontage which will be preserved as a part of
567 Maybell Avenue Page 18 Initial Study
the project. In addition, some of the trees in better condition along the east property line will be
preserved to provide screening.
The Arborist's Report provides an analysis of the condition of39 non-fruit trees on the site. The Oaks
to be preserved along the Clemo ·frontage are in fair to good condition. There are two oak trees along
this frontage which are in poor to fair condition and are proposed for removal. The Coast Live Oak
trees along the proposed site access are generally in fair to good condition and are to be preserved.
The Arborist' sReport also includes a tree preservation and protection plan which outlines the
necessary protection measutes to be implemented during construction to prevent injuries to the trees to
remain. These recommendations include installation of protective fencing around the trees during
construction, that any grading or excavation within Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) must be
accomplished through hand digging, and that a qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots
greater that one inch diameter. In addition, the single family residences along Clemo Avenue would
be set back an average of 40 feet from the property line to accommodate the oak trees.
Mitigation Measure:
In order to make sure the proper tree protection measures are followed during construction, the project
sponsor shall comply with the Tree Preservation and Protection Plan outlined in the Arborist 's Report,
567-595 Maybell Avenue, prepared by John H. McClenahan, McClenahan Consulting, LLC,
November 26,2012.
Conclusion: Implementation of the mitigation measures requiring tree protection during construction
and tree preservation will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. (Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation)
567 Maybell Avenue Page 19 Initial Study
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Directly or·indirectly destroy a local cultural 1,10 X
resource that is recognized by City Council
reso lution?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-MapLS X
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5? I
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2-MapLS X
paleontological resource or site or unique I
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-MapLS ! X
e)
If)
interred outside offormal cemeteries?
Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2-MapL7, X
eligible for listing on the National and/or 10
California Register, or listed on the City's
Historic Inventory?
Eliminate important examples of major periods 1 X
of California history or prehistory?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves demolition of four existing single family homes on the site and
construction of 15 single family residences and 60 multifamily affordable housing units for seniors.
The four homes to be demolished were built in the 1950's and 1960's and are typical single story
ranch style homes from that era. None of the buildings on the site is listed on the National or
California Register of historic resources, nor are they listed on the City's Historic Inventory.
Buried Prehistoric and Historic Resources: Based on relevant archaeological reports for the'
immediate area, there are no known cultural resources associated with the site, and the proposed
project will not create any cultural impacts to the affected area. For all projects, if during grading and
construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease
and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the fmd. The Santa Clara County Medical
Examiner'S office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native
American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a
Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of
California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in
mitigation planning.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Conclusion: Since the site has already been disturbed by the previous residential and orchard use, it is
not expected that the project would have an impact on prehistoric or historic archaeological resources,
and the site is not listed on any register of historic resources. The proposed project would not result in
significant impacts to cultural resources (Less Than Significant Impact)
567 Maybell Avenue Page 20 Initial Study
F. GEOLOGY SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss or death·
i)· Rupture of a known earthquake fault, 11,17 X
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-MapNI0, X
17
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 2-MapN5, X
? 17
iv) Landslides? 2-MapN5, X
17
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss 1 X
of il?
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,17 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 2-MapN5, X
unstable, or that would become.unstable as 8,17 .
. a result of the project, and potentially
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
se?
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 2-MapN5, X
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building 8,17
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or
f) Have soils incapable of adequately 1,8 X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major 1,5 X
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
and seismic s?
DISCUSSION:
According to the Phase 1 Environmental Assessment, Maybell Property, Palo Alto, California,
prepared by Rosewood Environmental Engineering, July 2, 2012, the project site is located in Santa
567 Maybell Avenue Page 21 Initial Study
Clara Plain of the San Francisco Bay Area. The Santa Clara Plain forms the floor of the Santa Clara
Valley. The plain is broad, flat to undulating gently sloping alluvial fan that extends northeast from
the base of the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the salt evaporators that now ocqupy the
marshes that formerly bordered San Francisco Bay. The foothills rise sharply to about 400 feet above
mean sea level (+400 feet MSL) west of Junipero Serra Boulevard (about 150 feet MSL). The plain
drops gently across 3.5 miles to about +5 feet MSL at the Bay margin and is incised by streams such
as San Francisquito and Barron Creeks near the site. Based on geotechnical bOlings at the site, first
groundwater is encountered in a sand lens below a layer of gray-blue tight clay. The groundwater was
somewhat confined and rose approximately six inches in the open borehole over an hour.
Seismicity: The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active regions in the United
States. Generally, the City of Palo Alto would experience a range from weak to very violent shaking
in the· event of a major earthquake along the San Andreas or Hayward fault. Although hazards exist,
development would not expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be addressed
through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques, as required by building
codes. With proper engineering new development is not expected to result in any significant adverse
short or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity.
The major cause of damage during an earthquake is ground shaking, with frequency and amplitude of
motion dependent on local geologic conditions. Sites on bedrock tend to have sharp, high frequency
jolts with little amplitude, while sites on deep alluvium receive lower frequency shocks but suffer
movement with high amplitude.
Regional studies have suggested that the response of certain soils such as baymuds to earthquakes will
also vary according to the depth of soil and the magnitude of the quake. Thus, ground accelerations of
smaller quakes are magnified as much as three times over the underlying bedrock, whereas ground
accelerations of a large quake (7.5 or more on the Richter scale) would be reduced to a value below
that of the underlying bedrock.
Landslides: The natural factors that promote landsliding are steep slopes, poorly consolidated
bedrock, and occasional heavy rainfall are generally found in hilly areas. The project site is in an area
that is relatively flat.
Liquefaction: Soil liquefaction is a condition where saturated granular soils near the ground surface
undergo a substantial loss of strength during seismic events. Loose, water-saturated soils are
transformed from a solid to a liquid state during ground shaking. Liquefaction can result in serious
deformations. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, uniformly graded, saturated fine
grained sands that lie close to the ground surface. The project site is not identified on the State of
California Seismic Hazard Zones Official Map, Palo Alto Quadrangle, as. being susceptible to
liquefaction, and is not in an area where soils have a moderate potential for expansion.
Construction of the proposed project will be required to meet current building code standards and may
be required to submit geologic reports to address potential geologic impacts associated with the
development. With proper engineering, new development is not expected to result in any significant
adverse short or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity.
567 Maybell Avenue Page 22 Initial Study
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Conclusion: Since the proposed development will be required to comply with the current building
code requirements and meet any geological and earthquake standards of the current code, no adverse
impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity are expected. (Less Than Significant Impact)
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
a)
b)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either 1,5,9 X
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or 1,5,9 X
regulation of ali agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
DISCUSSION:
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for
state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter· ambient air quality standards.
SFBAAB's nonattainment status is attributed to the region's development history. Past, present and
future development projects contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative
basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in
size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project's
individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a
project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project's impact on air quality
would be considered significant.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of
Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a
project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to
reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would
generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially
to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.
The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions 'are: .
• For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction
Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of C02e; or 4.6 MT
C02e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial,
industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
• For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of C02e.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that
emitGHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of
operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively
567 Maybell Avenue Page 23 Initial Study
considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate
change.
The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If
a project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the
screening criteria, then the proj ect' s air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. Below
are some screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010
(Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes).
Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size **
Single-family 56du
Apartment, low-rise 78 du
Apartment, mid-rise 87 du
Condo/townhouse, general 78 du
City park 600 acres
Day-care center 11,000 sf
General office building 53,000 sf
Medical office building 22;000 sf
Office park 50,000 sf
Quality restaurant 9,000 sf
**Ifproject size is => screening size, then it is considered significant.
The proposed project consists of construction of 15 single family residence and 60 multifamily
affordable apartments for seniors, and is replacing four single family homes. The combined total of 75
units would fall within the thresholds established by the BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
It is not anticipated that the project will create'significant operational GHG emissions. The Traffic
Impact Analysis/or the Proposed Residential Development at Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue in
Palo Alto, California, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., December 14, 2012,
indicates that a senior housing development has a much lower vehicle trip generation rate than other
residential uses (2.20 daily trips per unit), which would result in comparatively lower emissions. The
traffic impact analysis indicates that the project would generate a total of 238 new daily trips, with 16
net new trips during the AM peak hour and 21 net new trips during the PM peak hour, which does not
represent a significant increase in vehicle trips. During the construction phase of the project there
would be a ' temporary increase in emissions; this discussion is provided in the Air Quality section of
this report.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Conclusion: The project will not result in a significant impact on greenhouse gas' emissions (Less
Than Significant)
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERiALS
567 Maybell Avenue Page 24 Initial Study
Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the
primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5 X
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5 X
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 1,5 X
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1,5 X
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list 1,2-X
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant MapN9,8
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the ~ublic or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use 1 X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1 X
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
h) Impair implementation of or physically 1,2-MapN7 X
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emer&encyevacuation plan?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2-X
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland MapN7,16
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
. urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5,8 X
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
DISCUSSION:
567 Maybell Avenue Page 25 Initial Study
Background Information: Hazardous materials encompass a wide range of substances, some of
which are naturally occurring and some of which are man-made. Examples of hazardous materials
include pesticides, herbicides, petroleum products, metals (e.g., lead, mercury, arsenic), asbestos and
chemical compounds used in manufacturing. Determining if such substances are present on or near
project sites is important because exposure to hazardous materials above certain thresholds can result
in adverse health effects on humans, as well as harm to plants and wildlife.
Due to the fact that these substances have properties that, above certain thresholds, are toxic to humans
andlor the ecosystem, there are mUltiple regulatory programs in place that are designed to minimize
the chance for unintended releases and/or exposures to occur. Other programs establish remediation
requirements for sites where contamination has occurred.
The proposed residential project does not involve the use, creation or transportation of hazardous
materials. Maybell and Clemo Avenues are not designated as evacuation routes. The project site is
within and urban area and is not located within or near the wildland fire danger area.
A Phase I Environmental Assessment was prepared by Rosewood Environmental Engineering on July
2, 2012 to determine if there any recognized environmental conditions associated with the project site.
The property was evaluated for the presence of potentially adverse environmental conditions and the
adjacent properties were evaluated for secondary potential contaminated sites with a review of
potential contamination sources within a one~mile radius of the site.
As a part of the assessment, site observations were made to determine the presence of any hazardous
materials. Disturbed soil and a cleared area were observed in the southeast comer of the site in a
copse of trees. A 1940s era tractor was observed in the southern quadrant of the orchard. Numerous
spigots on standpipes of the irrigation system were noted throughout the orchard. The ground around
the tree in the orchard was cleared of weed for fire control. The irrigation for the orchard remained in
place and operational drawing from City water supply. A well in the back yard of the house at 595
Maybell once served the orchard and houses, but is no longer operational.
No evidence of staining or subsidence was present that would indicate a removed tank or spill in the
orchard area. Representative soil sampling indicated that uniform application of pesticides had
occurred in the orchard. The four houses on the site were examined, and it was determined that based
on the age of the houses, it is likely that asbestos containing materials may be present.
Site History: The site was a part of the Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito, which encompassed a
total of 8,400 acres and covered much of the South Palo Alto and Barron Park Areas. The Maybelle
(original spelling) tract was laid out in 1905, which subdivided this area into orchard tracts from three
to five acres in size. This site was a part of a larger apricot orchard, which was active from 1909 to
1990. The larger orchard included the adjacent site, which is now occupied by Briones Park.
The Phase I Environmental Assessment identified five potential recognized environmental concerns as
follows:
1. Elevated Arsenic concentrations in a localized area near the former raised shed approximately
eight feet by eight feet in area and two feet deep.
567 Maybell Avenue Page 26 Initial Study
2. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon as oil and grease concentrations in an area approximately twenty
by twenty feet in area and three feet deep in the area of the former tractor garage.
3. Agricultural Organo-chloride pesticide application in the apricot orchard.
4.. A former underground storage tank (UST) that had been removed without permits .. Based· on
the results of a previous Phase II investigation of the tank grave, it does not appear that the tank
or associated piping leaked.
5. Potential Asbestos and Lead-based building materials and coatings in the houses on the site.
Based on these factors, a new Phase II environmental assessment was conducted (Phase II
Environmental Assessment, Maybell Property, Palo Alto, California, prepared by Rosewood
Environmental .Engineering, July 20, 2012). The Phase II Environmental Assessment addressed the
agricultural pesticides, Arsenic, and TPH in soil, but did not address the potential asbestos and lead
based paint; it was determined that these potential hazards could be remediated at the time of
demolition of the structures.
The results of the Phase II Environmental Assessment indicate the following:
1. Residual organo-chloride pesticide concentrations at the site are compatible with residential
use.
2. Elevated concentrations of Arsenic above naturally occurring background levels were found at
the Site affecting approximately 5 cubic yards of soil in the area of the former raised shed.
These soils will need to be remediated for the area to be compatible with residential use.
3. Elevated concentrations of Non-RCRA · waste, non-carcinogenic Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TPH) as oil and grease were detected in the area of the former tractor garage.
No BETX constituents were detected. The TPH is likely highly degraded tractor lubricant and
perhaps spilled diesel from more than 20 years ago, when the tractor was last uses. This area
should be remediated to set aside any potential concerns future residents may have about the
environmental condition of the property or the suitability of the site for residential land use.
4. . The first groundwater beneath the site is in a silty sand lens approximately 40 feet deep
beneath a thick layer of tight, blue-gray clay. It is unlikely that there is a beneficial use for the
water or that there is an exposure pathway for groundwater to affect beneficial use waters,
sensitive receptors, or create a concern to future residents due to soil gas. The groundwater
likely would not be encountered during excavation for subterranean garages at the Site.
5. The groundwater well at the Site is not properly shut off from the municipal water supply and
so cannot be sampled or destroyed without jeopardizing the continued water supply to the
houses on the Site.
Based on a previous Phase II Environmental Assessment, a former underground storage tank grave
was discovered and investigated reSUlting in the opinion that the tank had not leaked.
Recommendations: Based on the findings of the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Assessments,
the following recommendations for site-specific issues were made by Rosewood Environmental
Engineering. The specific actions that will be necessary at the site include:
1. No further action with regard to residual organo-chloride pesticide concentrations at the Site.
567 Maybell Avenue Page 27 Initial Study
2. Remediation of Arsenic affected soil under the oversight of the Santa Clara Water District in a
Voluntary Clean-up Program. In general, the remediation will require over-excavation of the
affected soil, packing the soil in boxes, hauling the soil to an appropriate class landfill for the
concentrations in soil, and confmnatory soil sampling to ensure the Arsenic is below
background concentrations.
3. The TPH..;affected soil from the tractor garage area should also be over-excavated and
remediated similar to the Arsenic, but will likely not require the same class of landfill as there
is no RCRA waste involved.
4. No further action is recommended with regard to the groundwater at the site.
S. The groundwater well at the site must be properly shut off from the municipal water supply by
a plumber before well destruction. Well destruction need not occur until after the demolition
of the houses, but before grading commences. The well should be properly permitted as closed
under the oversight of the Santa Clara Water District.
6. A "no further action" letter should be requested from the Santa Clara Water District with
regard to the former tank to document tank closure.
7. If the houses are to be demolished, they should have demolition-level asbestos and lead-based
paint sampling conducted beforehand to determine proper remediation procedures and disposal
of materials.
8. Should any pipe that might lead to an underground fuel or septic tank be located during mass
grading operations, it should be reported to the Environmental Engineer and carefully
evaluated. If any PVC, concrete or metal pipes not associated with the irrigation system are
exposed during grading or excavation operations the Environmental Engineer should be
notified and they should be removed from the grading site under supervision.
9. During any grading or excavation activities on the property, soil technicians and operators
must be made aware to look for unusual conditions suggesting buried debris or other potential
adverse enviroilmental conditions that may be discovered on the property. It is likely that
septic tanks are present from the old residence and the current residence at the south east part
of the site. If any of these conditions is encountered, then the Environmental Engineer nlust be
notified and the specific condition appropriately remedied in accordance with the local, county,
and state and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements.
10. According to site observations, the EDR report, county records, the property owner, and
persons familiar with the site, no additional water wells than the one noted exists on the site.
However, if any is encountered during the Site development activities it should be destroyed
according to local, county and state regulations.
Mitigation Measure:
In order to mitigate any potential impacts related to existing environmental conditions on the site, the
project sponsor shall comply with the recommendations made in the Phase II Environmental
Assessment, Maybell Property, Palo Alto, California, prepared by Rosewood Environmental
Engineering, July 20,2012.
Conclusion: With implementation of the mitigation measure requiring remediation of existing
environmental conditions on the site, there will be no adverse impacts with regard to public safety,
hazards and hazardous materials. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation)
567 Maybell Avenue Page 28 Initial Study
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,2,5 X
discharge requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 2-MapN2 X
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,5 X
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,5 X
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on-or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,5 X
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,5 X
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard 2:'MapN6 X
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area 2-MapN6 X
structures which would impede or redirect 13
flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk 2-X
of loss, injury or death involve flooding, MapN8,1
including flooding as a result of the failure of a 3, 13 levee or dam or being located within a·l OO-year
flood hazard area?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2-MapN6 X
13
Result in stream bank instability? 1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located equidistance between Barron Creek to the northwest and Adobe Creek to the
southeast. Both creeks flow to the east and lie approximately 1,000 feet from the site. Barron Creek
567 Maybell Avenue Page 29 Initial Study
appears to be primarily flowing through underground structures, while Adobe Creek appears to be
following its natural course.
Hydrology and Flooding: The project site is shown on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel No. 06085C 0017 H. The
site is mapped into Flood zone X, which is not a Special Flood Hazard Area. Zone X is described as
an area of moderate risk to flooding (outside of the 100-year flood but inside the 500-year flood
limits). The special floodplain construction rules are not applicable to structures in an "X" zone. The
site is not subject to inundation from a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Water Quality: The federal Clean Water Act and California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control
Act are the primary laws related to water quality. Regulations set forth by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board have been developed to fulfill
the requirements of this legislation. EPA's regulations include the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into
waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are inlplemented at the
regional level by water quality control boards, which for the Palo Alto area is the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Proposed projects are required to comply with Provision C.3 of the City's NPDES permit and the
City's local policies and ordinances regarding urban runoff and water quality. In practical terms, the
C.3 requirements seek to reduce water pollution by both reducing the volume of stormwater runoff and
the amount of pollutants that are contained within the runoff. The methods used to achieve these
objectives vary from site to site, but can include measures such as a reduction in impervious surfaces,
onsite detention facilities, biofiltration swales, settlement/debris basins, etc.
Drainage and Flooding: The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area.
Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in people or structures being exposed to any
significant flood risk.
Water Quality: Construction activities the project site could temporarily generate dust, sediment,
litter, oil, paint and other pollutants that could contaminate runoff from the site.
All development is required to comply with building codes that address flood safety issues.
Development projects are required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction
activities as specified by the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (CASQA,
2003) and/or the Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (ABAG, 1995).
The BMPs include measures guiding the management and operation of construction sites to control
and minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to storm runoff from these areas. These measures
address procedures for controlling erosion and sedimentation and managing all aspects of the.
construction process to ensure control of potential water pollution sources. All development projects
must comply with all City, State and Federal standards pertaining to storm water run-off and water
quality.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
567 Maybell Avenue Page 30 Initial Study
i
Conclusion: The propose project would not result in substantial adverse flooding or drainage impacts.
With implementation of Best Management Practices during construction, water quality impacts would
be less than significant (Less Than Significant Impact)
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,5 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 1,2,3,5 X
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 1,2 X
conservation plan or natural community I
conservation plan?
d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,5 X
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,5 X
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
f) Conflict with established residential, 1,5 X
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,2,3 X
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION: -
Setting: The proposed project includes the initiation of a new Planned Community (PC) zone district
to allow the development of 15 single family residences and a 60 unit multifamily affordable rental
project for seniors on parcels having a combined area of 107,392 square feet (2.46 acres) and zoned
R-2and RM-15. Surrounding land uses include multiple family residential uses adjacent to the site
along both Maybell and Clemo Avenues, single-family residences across Maybell Avenue from the
site, and Briones Park across Clemo Avenue from the site.
General Plan Land Use Designation: The project site is designated as Single Family and Multiple
Family Residential in the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan. The proposal to develop 15
single-family residences and a 60-unit multifamily affordable rental development for seniors is
compatible with the single family and multiple family land use designations.
'Zoning Designation: The project site is zoned R-2, Two Family Residential District and RM-15, Low
Density Multiple-Family Residential District. The existing R-2 two-family residence district is
intended to allow a second dwelling unit under the same ownership as the initial dwelling unit on
567 Maybell A venue Page 31 Initial Study
appropriate sites in areas designated for single-family use by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, under
regulations that preserve the essential character of single-family use. The RM-15 lOW-density
multiple-family residence district is intended to create, preserve and enhance areas for a mixture of
single-family and multiple-family housing which is compatible with lower density and residential
districts nearby, including single-family residence districts. The RM-15 residential district also serves
as a transition to moderate density multiple-family districts or districts with nonresidential uses.
Permitted densities in the RM-15 residence district range from eight to fifteen dwelling units per acre.
As a part of this proposal, the applicant is requesting that the site be rezoned to a new Planned
Community (PC) zone district. The PC district is intended to accommodate developments for
residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including
combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise
attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly intended for unified,
comprehensively planned developments which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform
with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
PC Zone District Process: The first of the three required findings to be made by the PTC to
recommend a PC is that: "The project site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of
such characteristics that the application of general districts. or combining districts will not provide
sufficient enough flexibility to allow the proposed development." As noted earlier, the project site
consists of two zoning designations: Residential Multifamily-IS (RM-15) and Residential-2 (R-2). The
RM-15 zoned portion of the site is 93,692 sq. ft. (87%) of the 107,392 sq. ft. project site. The R-2
parcel is surrounded by the RM-15 zone and extends through approxinlately half the Maybell Avenue
frontage.
The proposed development appears to be consistent with many of the requirements of the Planned
Community zone district as outlined in Section 18.38.060 of the Municipal Code. The proposed
density of the development is most similar to RM-40 zoning. However, the Project exceeds the RM-
40 requirements for height, daylight plane and Village Residential setback requirements. The proposed
senior building exceeds the maximum allowable height and projects into the daylight plane. The single
family residences on Maybell Avenue would not meet the setback requirements for the RM -40 zone.
In order to meet the goals of the Project, the applicant has requested PC zoning in that the
development plan would not specifically conform to any of the multi-family residence districts.
Furthermore, the PC district, if granted, would be applicable only to the approved Development Plan,
thereby ensuring that only the proposed Project could be developed. Any future redevelopment of the
site to a different use would require additional rezoning that could only be approved by the City
Council.
Land Use Compatibility: Land use conflicts can arise from two basic causes: 1) a new development
or land use may cause impacts to persons or the physical environment in the vicinity of the project site
or elsewhere; or 2) conditions on or near the project site may have impacts on the persons or
development introduced onto the site by the new project. Both of these circumstances are aspects of
land use compatibility. Potential incompatibility may arise from placing a particular development or
land use at an inappropriate location, or from some aspect of the project's design or scope.
567 Maybell Avenue Page 32 Initial Study
Depending on the nature of the impact and its severity, land use compatibility conflict can range from
minor irritation and nuisance to potentially significant effects on human health and safety. The
discussion below distinguishes between potential impacts from the proposed project upon people and
the physical environment, and potential impacts from the project's surroundings upon the project
~ili .
Impacts From the Project: Any proposed housing project could change the character of a project·
site. The proposed project, however, is located in an area where there are currently similar residential
uses. There are existing single-family residences adjacent to the proposed single-family residences
along the Maybell frontage, and there are existing multifamily residential project adjoining the portion
of the site to be developed with the four-story senior apartment building. The PC zoning district will
provide development standards that will ensure that new development will have similar characteristics
(such as mass, bulk, height and density) as the surrounding areas. Therefore, it is not anticipated that
there will be land use compatibility impacts from the proposed project.
Impacts to the Project: The surrounding uses are similar in nature to the proposed use, and will be
compatible with the proposed uses on the project site. No on-going land use conflicts with adjacent
uses are anticipated.
Mi~igation Measures: None Required
Conclusion: The proposed project would not result in significant, adverse land use impacts. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
a)
b)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Result in the loss of availability of a known 1,2
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-1,2
important mineral resource recovery site
I
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan I
or other land use plan? I
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC),
Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-l). This designation
signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for
other resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or
regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
X
X
Conclusion: The proposed project would not result in impacts to known mineral resources. (No
Impact)
567 Maybell Avenue Page 33 Initial Study
L. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1,2,12 X
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other a~encies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 1,2,12 X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1,2,12 X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2,12 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use 1 X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1 X
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area, to
excessive noise levels?
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1 X
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1 X
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 1 X
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1 X
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1 X
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
1) Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,12 X
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
DISCUSSION:
The project site is not located on a major arterial street, nor is it near a freeway or railroad. Therefore,
there should be no adverse roadway noise impacts to future residents of the project site. The project is
not located within an airport land use plan, and is not in an area impacted by airport noise.
567 Maybell Avenue Page 34 Initial Study
I
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Noise can be disturbing or annoying because of its pitch or
loudness. Pitch refers to relative frequency of vibrations, higher pitch signals sound louder to people.
A decibel (dB) is measured based on the relative amplitude of a sound. Ten on the decibel scale marks
the lowest sound level that a healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are
calculated on a logarithmic basis such that each 10 decibel increase is perceived as a doubling of
loudness. The California A-weighted sound level, or dBA, gives greater weight to sounds to which the
human ear is most sensitive.
Sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night because excessive noise interferes with
the ability to sleep. Twenty-four hour descriptors have been developed that emphasize quiet.:.time
noise events. The Day/Night Average Sound Level, Ldn, is a measure of the cumulative noise
exposure in a community. It includes a 10 dB addition to noise levels from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to
account for human sensitivity to night noise.,
Noise Impacts From Construction: Construction of the project would generate noise, and would
temporarily increase noise levels at adjacent land uses. The significance of noise impacts during
construction depends on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing
and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and
noise sensitive receptors.
Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during the construction of
project infrastructure when heavy equipment is used. Typical hourly average construction generated
noise levels are about 75 dBA to 80 dBA measured at a distance of 100 feet from the source during
busy construction periods (e.g., earth moving equipment, impact tools, etc.). Construction generated
noise levels drop off at a rate of about six dBA per doubling of distance between the source and
receptor.
Construction noise impacts are more significant when construction occurs during noise-sensitive times
of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours near residential uses), the, construction occurs
in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts extended periods
of time. Construction activities could result in annoyances to existing uses adjacent to the project site.
All development, including construction activities, must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance
(PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction
activity. Short-term temporary construction noise that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result
in impacts that are expected to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Conclusion: Because the project would be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance,
potential noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant leveL (Less Than Significant
Impact)
567 Maybell Avenue Page 35 Initial Study
!
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Induce substantial population growth in an 1 X
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure )?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 1, 5 X
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 1, 5 X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1 X
'e)
employed residents and jobs? I
Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1 X
population projections?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project will increase the City's housing stock by 71 housing units, by replacing 4
existing single family residences with 15 single family residences and 60 multifamily affordable
apartment units for Seniors. This site is one of the Housing Inventory Sites identified in the Draft
2009-2014 Housing Element currently being reviewed for compliance with State Housing Element
Law by the State Department of Housing and Community Development.
Palo Alto currently has an imbalance between employed residents and jobs; there are 80,000 jobs and
30,404 employed residents, which translates into 2.63 jobs per employed resident. The addition of 75
housing units will increase the supply of housing in Palo Alto and slightly alter the City's jobslhousing
ratio, which would lessen the imbalance between employed residents and jobs. The proposed project
will not displace housing or residents since 75 dwelling units will replace the four existing single
family residences on the site.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Conclusion: The proposed project would not result in a significant population or housing impact.
The potential impact on the jobslhousing balance is a positive one. (No Impact)
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially I Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues . Unless Impact I Mitigation
Incorporated
567 Maybell Avenue Page 36 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other perfonnance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection? 1 X
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? 1 X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto is a built out community, and this project is on an infill parcel that is adequately
served by public services and facilities such as parks and schools. The site is adjacent to Briones Park,
a neighborhood park that serves the surrounding area. The minor increase in population from this
housing development would not adversely impact Police and Fire response times since this site is in an
existing developed area.
The single-family residential portion of the project would generat~ new students resulting in an
increase in school population. Palo Alto Unified School District (P AUSD) collects school impact fees
on new residential and commercial construction within District boundaries. Fees are used only for
construction and reconstruction of school facilities. The City of Palo Alto does not issue· building
permits for a project until PAUSD has certified that school impact fees have been paid. Therefore, the
proposed development would contribute through payment of fees toward future construction of
facilities to address the needs of increased school population from the project.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Conclusion: The proposed residential project would not result in significant impacts to public
facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact)
567 Maybell Avenue Page 37 Initial Study
o. RECREATION
IsslIes and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
a)
b)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project increase the use of 1 X
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration" of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational 1 X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto is served by a variety of parks and recreation facilities located throughout the
community. The City's recreational system is augmented by local school faciliti~s, which are
available to the general public. The proposed residential development could increase usage of nearby
parks and recreation facilities. However, it is expected that the increase in population from the project
can be accommodated by the existing parks and recreation facilities in Palo Alto. As noted, the site is
adjacent to Briones Park, a neighborhood park that serves the surrounding area. There are no existing
recreational uses on the project site, so the project would not displace any recreation facilities.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed housing project would not result in significant impacts
to park and recreational facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact)
567 Maybell Avenue Page 38 Initial Study
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information . Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Resources Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing 1,5,6 X
circulation system, based on an applicable
measure of effectiveness (as designated in
a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.),
taking into account all relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion 1,5,6 X
management program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1,5 X
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 1,5 X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,5 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity that 1,5,6 X
impacts traffic circulation and air quality?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1,2,5,6 X
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) 1,5,6 X
intersection to deteriorate below Level of
Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in
the average stopped delay for the critical
movements by four seconds or more and
the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C)
value to increase by 0.01 or more?
i) Cause a local intersection already operating 1,5,6 X
at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements
by four seconds or more?
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,5,6 X
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
567 Maybell Avenue Page 39 Initial Study
Issues and-Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Resources Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
increase by foUr seconds or more and the
critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS 1,5,6 X
F or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
1) Cause any change in traffic that would 1,5,6 \ X
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,5,6 X
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue
storage capacity? Queuing impacts
include, but are not limited to, spillback
queues at project access locations; queues
at turn lanes at intersections that block
through traffic; queues at lane drops;
queues at one intersection that extend back
to impact other intersections, and spillback
queues on ramps.
n) Impede the development or function of 1,5,6 X
planiledpedestrian or bicycle facilities?
0) Impede the operation of a transit system as 1,5,6 X
a result of congestion?
p) Createlln operational safety hazard? 1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
Existing Roadway Network: The project site is located at the intersection of Maybell and Clemo
A venues. Maybell Avenue is a two-lane north-south residential roadway that begins at Donald Drive
in the south and continues north to EI Camino Real. Clemo Avenue is a two-lane east-west roadway
that runs between Maybell Avenue and Arastradero Road. Just east of Maybell Avenue, Clemo
A venue has concrete bulb-outs preventing vehicle access to and from Maybell Avenue. Clemo
A venue forms the southern border of the project site and provides direct access to the site.
Regional access to the project is provided via EI Camino Real, a six-lane roadway that serves as a
north-south route of travel, although it is aligned in a predominately ease-west orientation in the
vicinity of the project site. Arastradero Road connects to EI Camino Real, and is primarily a two-lane
road in the vicinity of the project site. Arastradero Road provides access to the site via Clemo
Avenue.
Existing Transit Service. Transit service in the area includes local bus service provided by the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VT A), and train service from the Caltrain commuter line,
which provides service along the Peninsula from San Francisco in the north to Gilroy in the south.
Local bus service to the project site includes VT A routes 22 and 522, which run along EI Camino Real
567 Maybell Avenue Page 40 Initial
and connect to the Palo Alto Transit Center to the north and the San Antonio Transit Center to the
south. Both of these transit centers are adjacent to Caltrain Stations (University Avenue and San
Antonia stations). VTA route 86 runs along Arastradero Road and provides access to Palo Alto
Veterans Hospital.
Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: Pedestrian facilities comprise sidewalks, crosswalks and
pedestrian signals. Bicycle facilities comprise paths (Class I), lanes (Class II), and routes (Class III).
Bicycle paths are paved trails that are separate from roadways. Bicycle lanes are lanes on roadways
designated for bicycle use by striping, pavement legends, and signs Bicycle routes are roadways
designated for bicycle use by signs only.
There are sidewalks adjacent to the project site along Clemo Avenue, but there are no sidewalks along
the Maybell frontage. As a part of the project, sidewalks will be provided adjacent to the single-family
residences along Maybell and Clemo Avenues.
Maybell Avenue is an existing bicycle boulevard, which serves as part of the School Commute
Corridor Network throughout Palo Alto. Arastradero Road contains Class II bicycle lanes and
connects to various north south routes throughout the community.
Traffic Impacts: Traffic operations at intersections are typically described in terms of "Level of
Service" (LOS). LOS is a qualitative measure of the effect of several factors on traffic operating
conditions, including speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving
comfort, and convenience. It is generally measured quantitatively in terms of vehicular delay and
described using a scale that ranges from LOS A to F, with LOS A representing essentially free-flow
conditions and LOS F indicating over-capacity conditions with substantial congestion and delay.
According to the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Residential Development at Maybell
Avenue and Clemo Avenue in Palo Alto California, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants,
the proposed project is anticipated to generate 238 net new daily trips,with 16 net new trips occurring
during the AM peak hour and 21 net new trips occurring during the PM peak hour.
Daily traffic counts were collected in May 2012 on Maybell Avenue in the vicinity of the project site.
The results showed there are approximately 3,320 daily trips (both directions) on Maybell Avenue,
. between Thwain Way and Pena Court, during a typical weekday. The traffic analysis also looked at
operating conditions at three signalized and three unsignalized intersections in the vicinity of the
project site. It was determined that all of the signalized intersections currently operate at acceptable
levels of service, measured against City of Palo Alto and the VTA's Congestion Management
Program's (CMP) standards. The unsignalized intersections all currently operated with reasonable
delays. The traffic study noted that there is congestion on Arastradero Road between 7:50 a.m. and
8:25 a.m., and congestion on Maybell Avenue between 7:45 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., from traffic accessing
nearby schools. There is also more pedestrian and bicycle traffic on Maybell Avenue during this time
period.
Project Impact on Traffic -Project Access Alternative Scenarios: The project proposes two
access points for traffic entering and exiting the site. Access to the site would be provided by one
driveway on Clemo Avenue and an access easement through the ArastraderoPark Apartment Complex
567 Maybell Avenue Page 41
(APAC) to the north that would connect to an existing driveway on Maybell Avenue. In the event the
access easement through the adjacent APAC property cannot be obtained, the project would be access
through a single driveway on Clemo Avenue. The traffic study looked at two additional site access
scenarios, both of which would include the single access point on Clemo Avenue.
\
Clemo via Arastradero Access: The first alternative presumes that the Clemo barrier at the
intersection of Clemo and Maybell Avenues would remain in its current location so that all trips to and
from the project site would access Clemo Avenue via Arastradero Road. Under this alternative"there
would be an increase in trips on Arastradero Road, as all project sites would access the project site via
Arastradero Road. This alternative would result in a slight decrease in traffic on Maybell Avenue, as
the project would replace existing homes that currently have access via Maybell Avenue.
Clemo via Maybell Access: The second alternative assumes that the Clemo barrier would be moved to
the other side of the project driveway allowing access from Clemo Avenue to Maybell Avenue, but
preventing through traffic to Arastradero Road. The project site would not be accessible via
Arastradero Road because of the barrier. Under this alternative, all project traffic will be added to the
ClemolMaybell intersection and no traffic will be added to the Clemo/ Arastradero intersection.
Level of Service Analysis
Proposed Project: The traffic study looked at existing traffic volumes plus the added trips generated .
by the project as originally proposed with two access points. The results showed that measured
against City of Palo Alto and Congestion Management Plan (CMP) standards, all of the signalized
intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak
hours, and all of the unsignalized intersections would continue to operate with reasonable delays.
Alternatives: The traffic study also looked at intersection levels of service under existing plus project
and cumulative plus project conditions for the two alternative access scenarios. Under either access
alternative, the peak-hour levels of service would be unchanged at all but one of the study
intersections. The intersection of Arastradero Road and Clemo Avenue would incur a substantial
increase in delay and deterioration in the level of service during the AM peak hour if the project were
limited to a single driveway on Clemo Avenue with the current barrier location. As previously noted,
this intersection is currently subject to frequent blockages as queues extend along Arastradero Road
from the downstream intersection at Coulombe Drive past Clemo Avenue. Thus, the "Clemo via
Arastradero" access alternative, which would funnel all of the project traffic through the
Clemo/ Arastradero intersection, would exacerbate the existing congestion at this intersection.
In contrast, moving the Clemo barrier to the east of the project driveway so that all project trips would
access Clemo Avenue via Maybell Avenue would result in less d~lay. An analysis of the projected
traffic volumes at the newly created Maybell/Clemo intersection shows that the stop-controlled Clemo
Avenue approach would operate at LOS A in the AM and PM peak hours. Furthermore, compared to
the Clemo/ Arastradero intersection, queue blockages were observed to occur less frequently at the
ClemolMaybell intersection.
Traffic Signal Warrants: The traffic study provided traffic signal warrant analysis for the project as
proposed and for both site access alternatives. The analysis shows that the peak-hour volume warrants
would not be satisfied at the unsignalized study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours under
567 Maybell Avenue Page 42 Initial Study
existing or cumulative conditions with the project as proposed or under either access alternative.
Cumulative Conditions: The traffic study also looked at forecasted far-term future (year 2020)
traffic conditions. The cumulative conditions were estimated by applying an annual growth factor of
1.1 per cent over a period between when the existing traffic counts were taken and the year 2020. The
project traffic volumes were also included. The results show that all signalized intersections would
continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours, and the
unsignalized intersections would continue to operate with reasonable delays. However, the side street
delay on Clemo Avenue would operate at a poor Level of Service (LOS) during the PM peak hour.
The poor LOS is primarily a result of the future traffic growth projected to occur between existing and
cumulative conditions. During field observations, it was noted that this intersection has a significant
number of pedestrian crossings and it is sometimes blocked by through queues on Arastradero Road.
The project would add 6 and 4 project trips to the westbound approach on Clemo A venue during the
AM and PM peak hours respectively. It is not expected that these trips would significantly contribute
to this projected side street delay.
Neighborhood Traffic Volume: Residential areas are especially sensitive to traffic because
otherwise relatively small increases in traffic can impact the livability of the neighborhood. A concern
common to many residents is the possibility that a new development will cause an increase in traffic
volume on their streets. A tool for measuring the effects of increases in traffic on neighborhood
"livability" was developed by D.K. Goodrich. The tool is named the TIRE index, or Traffic Infusion
on Residential Environments.
The TIRE index uses average daily traffic (ADT) volume to determine the amount of daily traffic that
could be added to a roadway before residents would perceive the increase in traffic. The amount of
daily traffic that can be added before residents would notice directly correlates to the amount of daily
traffic already present on the street. According to this methodology, a noticeable traffic increase
occurs when the difference in index between no project and project conditions is 0.10 or more. An
increase in index of 0.10 corresponds to an increase in ADT of between 20 and 30 percent.
To quantify the perceptions of its residents, the TIRE index was applied to Maybell Avenue. Daily
traffic counts were conducted on May 29th, 30th, and 31st of 2012 (Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday, respectively) to determine the existing traffic on this street. According to the TIRE index,
825 daily trips could be added to Maybell Avenue before residents would perceive a change. The
proposed project would add 80 daily trips to Maybell Avenue. According to the TIRE index, it is
unlikely that residents along Maybell Avenue would notice an increase in traffic as a result of the
proposed development.
Clemo via Arastradero Access Alternative: Under this alternative, the project would not add any trips
to Maybell A venue between Thain Way and Pena Court. On the contrary, the project would result in a
decrease in volumes on this segment as the project would replace existing homes that currently have
direct access to Maybell A venue.
Clemo via Mavbell Access Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed project would add
approximately 150 daily trips to Maybell Avenue. According to the TIRE index, it is unlikely that
567 Maybell Avenue Page 43 Initial Study
residents along Maybell Avenue would notice this projected increase in traffic as a result of the
proposed development.
On Site Circulation and Parking: The on-site circulation was reviewed in accordance with
generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Generally, the proposed plan would provide
adequate circulation throughout the site. The site would include 47 uncovered surface parking
spaces for the senior housing units including three accessible parking spaces. Parking stalls are
oriented at 90 degrees to the drive aisles. Aisle widths are appropriate for 90-degree parking,
and there are no dead end aisles. A passenger loading zone is shown in front of the colIlIl1unity
room at the proposed senior housing component. Parking for the single-family residential units
would occur in attached two-car garages. In addition, ~ll but one of the single-family units
adjacent to Maybell Avenue has driveway aprons that are 18 feet deep, which would allow for
two additional parking spaces per unit. With the exception of one unit at the comer of Maybell
Avenue' and Clemo Avenue that would have direct access to Clemo Avenue, all single-family
units would be accessed by internal drive aisles. As described previously, access to the public
street system from the northern driveway requires traveling through the adjacent property.
Traffic Study Conclusions: The traffic study indicates the following conclusions regarding the
proposed project and the two site access alternatives:
As currently proposed, the project would be accessed via a single driveway on Clemo A venue. With
the current Clemo barrier, all project trips would access Clemo Avenue via Arastradero Road. The
stop-controlled Clemo A venue approach at Arastradero Road would incur a substantial increase in
delay and deterioration in the level of service during the AM peak hour if the project were limited to a
single driveway on Clemo Avenue with the current barrier location.
Alternatively, the Clemo barrier could be relocated east of the project driveway so that all project trips
would access Clemo Avenue via Maybell Avenue. An analysis of both site access alternatives shows
that all of the signalized study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under
existing plus project and cumulative plus project conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours.
The analysis also showed that none of the unsignalized intersections would meet the peak hour signal
warrants and the unsignalized study intersections would operate with reasonable overall average
delays. Moving the Clemo barrier to the east. of the project driveway so that all project trips would
access Clemo Avenue via Maybell Avenue would result in reasonable delays and acceptable levels of
service at the stop-controlled Clemo A venue approach at Maybell A venue. Furthermore, residents
along Maybell Avenue would not notice a change in traffic as a result of the proposed development.
As stated earlier, given the severity of queuing, bike and pedestrian trips on Arastradero Road, it
would be beneficial to relocate the barrier on Clemo Avenue to east of the project driveway, so that the
project trips cannot access Arastradero Road via Clemo Avenue.
As an alternative, the project would be served by two driveways-one driveway on Clemo Avenue
and an access easement ·through the Arastradero Park Apartment Complex CAP AC) to the north that
would connect to an existing driveway on Maybell A venue. The analysis of the proposed project
shows that it is unlikely that residents along Maybell A venue would notice an increase in traffic as a
result of the proposed development. In addition, all of the signalized study intersections would operate
at acceptable levels of service under existing, existing plus project, and cumulative conditions during
both the AM and PM peak hours. The analysis also showed that none of the unsignalized intersections
would meet the peak hour signal warrants and the unsignalized study intersections would operate with
reasonable overall average delays. However, the side-street delay on Clemo Avenue would operate at
a poor LOS during the PM peak hour under cumulative conditions with or without the project. The
poor LOS is primarily a result of future traffic growth projected to occur between existing and
cumulative conditions. Furthermore, the level of service analysis at this intersection does not reflect
the significant number of pedestrian crossings and frequent blockages by through queues on
Arastradero Road that were observed during the AM peak hour. The project would add 6 and 4
project trips to the westbound approach on Clemo Avenue during the AM and PM peak hours,
respectively.
Generally, the proposed plan would provide adequate circulation throughout the site. The existing live
oak trees located along the project frontage on Clemo Avenue are not expected to interfere with the
visibility of drivers exiting the proposed Clemo A venue driveway. In order to ensure that on-street
parking does not obscure the view for outbound traffic, it is recommended that the curb be painted red
for a distance of 65 feet east of the driveway. Adequate sight distance is provided at the existing
Maybell Avenue driveway at the AP AC.
Potential Impacts: If the Clemo Avenue driveway is the only access to the site and the access
barriers on Clemo are not relocated, the stop-controlled Clemo Avenue approach at Arastradero Road
would incur a substantial increase in delay and deterioration in the level of service during the AM peak
hour. This would result in a potential significant effect on traffic operations at this intersection. If the
access easement is obtained and there is site access from both Clemo and Maybell Avenues, there
would be no significant adverse traffic impacts expected from the project. Or alternatively, if the
Clemo barrier could be relocated east of the project driveway so that all project trips would access
Clenlo A venue via Maybell Avenue, there would be no significant adverse traffic impacts expected
from the project. .
Mitigation Measures:
1. In order to ensure that there are no adverse impacts to traffic circulation, one of the following
mitigation measures shall be required.
a. The project sponsor shall obtain on access easement through the adjacent Arastradero
Park Apartment Complex to connect the site access aisle to the existing driveway for
APAC o,n Maybell Avenue.
b. If an access easement cannot be obtained and access is from a single driveway on
Clemo Avenue, the access barriers on Clemo Avenue shall be relocated from the
intersection of Maybell Avenue to east of the project·driveway on Clemo Avenue.
2. In order to ensure that on-street parking does not obscure the view for outbound traffic from
the Clemo Avenue driveway, the curb shall be painted red for a distance of 65 feet east of the
driveway.
567 Maybell Avenue Page 45 Initial Study
Conclusion: Based on the traffic analysis and the mitigation measures proposed, it has been
determined that with mitigation, there would be no significant adverse impacts to traffic and
circulation from the proposed project. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation)
567 Maybell Avenue Page 46 Initial Study
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 1,5 X
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? I
Require or result in the construction of new 1,5 X
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new 1,5 X
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to 1,5 X
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,5 X
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient 1,5 X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1,5 X
and regulations related to solid waste?
Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,5 X
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department provides water and sewer services as well as gas and
electric service. Palo Alto also provides refuse and storm drain service, operated through the Public
Works Departnlent.
There are existing utilities in place in the area to serve the proposed development. There are existing
water and gas lines within both the Clemo and Maybell Avenue rights-of-way, and the proposed
single-family residences and apartment building will connect to these existing lines. There is an
existing sanitary sewer main within the Maybell Avenue right-of-way. A new 8-inch diameter
sanitary sewer main will be installed in the Clemo Avenue right-of-way to connect to the existing
main in Maybell A venue and serve the proposed residences. A new storm drain system will be
installed on site, and a new storm drain line will be installed in the Maybell A venue right-of-way to
connect to an existing storm drain located at the intersection of Maybell and Baker Avenues.
567 Maybell Avenue Page 47 Initial Study
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Conclusion: There is adequate capacity in the existing Palo Alto utilities and service systems to
accommodate the proposed project (Less Than Significant Impact)
567 Maybell Avenue Page 48 Initial Study
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
IsslJes and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
a)
b)
c)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Does the project have the potential to 1,2,3,4,5,10 X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
perio<is of California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are 1 X
individually limited, but cumulatively -
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects 1,5 X
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
DISCUSSION:
With the implementation of policies in place and avoidance measures required by the City of Palo Alto
and other agencies as described in the specific sections of this report, as well as implementation of the
mitigation measures proposed (refer to Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts), on pages
7 through 44 of the Initial Study, the proposed project would not result in significant environmental
impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Conclusion: The proposed project is not expected to have impacts that are cumulatively
considerable. (Less Than Significant Impact)
567 Maybell Avenue Page 49 Initial Study
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. During construction, the project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement
the following measures required as part of BAAQMD's basic and enhanced dust control
procedures required for all construction sites. These include:
a. . Water all active construction areas daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne
dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
nlaintain at least two feet of freeboard (Le., the minimum required space between the top of
the load and the top of the trailer).
c. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) all paved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
e. Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each
day -if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
f. Pave all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. as soon as feasible. In addition, building pads
should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
2. In order to make sure the proper tree protection measures are followed during construction, the
project sponsor shall comply with the Tree Preservation and Protection Plan outlined in the
Arborist's Report, 567-595 Maybell Avenue, prepared by John H. McClenahan, McClenahan
Consulting, LLC, November 26,2012.
3. In order to mitigate any potential impacts related to existing environmental conditions on the
site,_ the project sponsor shall comply with the recomnlendations made in the Phase II
Environmental Assessment, Maybell Property, Palo Alto, California, prepared by Rosewood
Environmental Engineering, July 20,2012.
4. In order to ensure that there are no adverse impacts to traffic circulation, one of the following
mitigation measures shall be required.
a. The project sponsor shall obtain on access easenlent through the adjacent Arastradero
Park Apartment Complex to connect the site access aisle to the existing driveway for
AP AC on Maybell Avenue.
b. If an access easement cannot be obtained and access is from a single driveway on
Clemo Avenue, the access barriers on Clemo Avenue shall be relocated from the
intersection of Maybell Avenue to east of the project driveway on Clemo Avenue.
5. In order to ensure that on-street parking does not obscure the view for outbound traffic from
the Clemo Avenue driveway"the curb shall be painted red for a distance of 65 feet east of the
driveway.
567 Avenue Page Study
SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Conlprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 -Zoning Ordinance
4. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001
5. Project Plans
6. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Residential, Development at Maybell Avenue and
Clemo Avenue in Palo Alto, California, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.,
February 26, 2013
7. Arborist Report, 567-595 Maybell Avenue, prepared by John H. McClenahan, McClenahan
Consulting, LLC, November 26,·2012
8. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Assessments, Maybell Property, Palo Alto, California,
prepared by Rosewood Environmental Engineering, July 2, 2012 and July 20, 2012
9. BayArea Air Quality Management District, CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012
10. Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory
11. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
12. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10-Noise Ordinance
13. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No.
06085C 0017H, May 18, 2009 .
14. CEQA Guidelines -Environmental Thresholds (Professional judgment and expertise and
review of document).
15. Association of Bay Area Governments, Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Mapfor Palo
Alto/Stanford, 1995. http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl
16. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) , Wildfire Hazard Maps and Information,
November 2004
17. State of California, Seismic Hazard Zones Palo Alto Quadrangle Official Map, October 18,
2006
567 Maybell Avenue Page 51 Initial Study
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect· in this case because revisions in the X
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the propo~ed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
. standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Project Planner Date
567 Maybell Avenue Page 52 Initial Study