HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-08-29 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet
City of Palo Alto Page 1
=================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26======================
Thursday, August 29, 2013
SPECIAL 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
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Aaron Aknin, Interim Planning Director
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.
None.
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.
POSTPONED ITEMS:
405 Curtner Avenue [13PLN-00098]: Request by Salvatore Caruso on behalf of Zhen Zhen Li for
Architectural Review of a new 7,425 sq. ft., three-story building with six residential condominium units
on a vacant, 12,375 sq. ft. site. Zone District: Residential Multiple-Family (RM-30). Environmental
Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental quality Act (CEQA) per
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. This item is postponed and will be re-advertised for the meeting
of September 19, 2013.
STUDY SESSIONS:
1. Downtown Context Discussion: Interim Planning Director will describe staff’s efforts
toward review of the downtown cap and parking issues.
2. Recap of ARB-Council Joint Meeting: Discussion regarding (1) Council’s August 19,
2013 directive to develop specific recommendations to address concerns regarding
sidewalk widths, and (2) modifications to the El Camino Real guidelines.
CONTINUED BUSINESS:
Major Reviews:
3. 3159 El Camino Real [13PLN-00040]: Request by FGY Architects on behalf of Portage
Avenue Portfolio, LLC for Site and Design Review of the demolition of x sq.ft. a new 74,122
square foot four-story mixed use project with 48 residential units. The proposal also includes
Design Enhancement Exceptions for height, and build to lines as well as a Conditional Use
Permit for the parcel to exceed the 5,000 square foot limit for office space. Environmental
Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zone district: Service Commercial (CS).
BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS.
Subcommittee Members: Lee Lippert and Randy Popp
SUBCOMMITTEE:
4. 537 Hamilton Ave [13PLN-00087]: Request by Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects, on behalf of
Smith Equities III LLC, for review of minor changes related to the sun shades and wall opening
adjacent to driveway, for a previously approved commercial project in the CD-C(P) zone
district.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW:
Project Description: An existing utility pole mounted AT&T cross connect box to a ground mounted
location within the public sidewalk
Applicant: Nestor Mauricio
Address: 2287 El Camino Real [13PLN-00330]
Approval Date: 8/21/13
Request for hearing deadline: 9/3/13
Project Description: Landscape modifications which include removal and replacement of 19
Designated trees
Applicant: JC Miller
Address: 1101 Embarcadero Road [13PLN-00276]
Approval Date: 8/22/13
Request for hearing deadline: 9/4/13
Project Description: Removal & replacement of one tree to allow for a new pedestrian accessibility
path connecting city sidewalk to the building
Applicant: Scott Hutter
Address: 3172 Porter Drive [13PLN-00318]
Approval Date: 8/22/13
Request for hearing deadline: 9/4/13
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.
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.
#2
Summary of ARB/Council session August 19, 2013
The ARB Chair and Vice Chair, and several ARB members described efforts
underway to address the April 15, 2013 Council Colleagues Memo ‘requesting staff,
ARB and PTC review sidewalk widths with a focus on El Camino Real and the Grand
Boulevard Plan and return to Council with suggested Zoning Amendments’. A hard
copy of a power point presentation (not displayed during the meeting due to
technical issues) was provided to all and the participants glanced intermittently at
some of the pages including the Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) sidewalk width
image.
The initial discussion generally addressed constraints on El Camino Real, such
infrastructure, small lots and the limited occurrence of lot consolidation needed in
order to realize projects envisioned in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines
(SECRDG) and goals of the GBI. ARB members noted that addressing the sidewalk
width alone would not solve the issues on El Camino Real, that there are use issues
and need for the City develop its own sense of the zone and an approach to Caltrans.
During the session, the ARB and Council agreed that a higher standard is needed and
at the end, the Mayor asked that specific suggestions for changes and a timeline
come forward.
Councilmember comments
Councilmember Kniss queried the ARB about the GBI discussions, and asked
whether a dose of reality was needed to understand shortcomings and clarify the
vision.
Councilmember Price noted the lack of lot assembly and asked whether there was a
lack of willing property owners to consolidate lots.
Councilmember Burt stated that “sidewalk width” is really code speak for the issue,
which includes lack of a building setback, the “walled in” feeling of continuous
length of a building, and the need for softening of the facades. He noted three key
opinions: 1) when change occurs, the replacement buildings should be of greater
quality, 2) the City doesn’t want to drive rapid change, and 3) the City needs to ask
what the correct balance is and allow a certain amount of growth.
Councilmember Schmid noted that buildings should encourage interaction, and that
recent buildings on Alma Street are not welcoming.
Councilmember Holman commented about codification of the SECRDG and Grand
Boulevard Initiative, noting that inclusion of what is compatible and tolerable is
important.
Vice Mayor Shephard noted that Mountain View has taller buildings along El Camino
Real to achieve better at grade/ground floor usage, and noted that additional height
may be acceptable depending where placed on El Camino Real; ARB member
Malone Prichard agreed this could work with wider sidewalks in the node areas of
El Camino Real.
Mayor Scharff noted that there may need to be a mechanism to allow projects to go
up to Council when staff and the ARB agree that ground floor retail is needed. He
implored the ARB and staff to bring forward specific suggestions and a timeline as to
when changes to the SECRDG and code would be coming forward. He noted that the
recommendation should note which changes could come forward now and which
changes would need more study. He agreed with the ARB that a higher standard is
called for.
ARB member Lew noted Hayward’s Mission Boulevard as a case study and noted
that Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley achieves mixed use buildings including new
buildings with more traditional architecture. He also noted the issue of opaqued
window coverings installed by high tech companies and referred to the struggle that
occurs with applicants as ARB tries to encourage ground floor uses that enliven the
storefront, citing Hilton Garden Inn as an example. He cited several recent examples
of lot consolidations with mixed-use projects.
ARB vice chair Lippert cited the issue with the Hetch Hetchy pipeline location
affecting what could be done on El Camino Real in the medians. He noted there was
pushback from interests that needed to be resolved. He offered information about
mixed use floor area and the possibility of encouraging the arcading of buildings –
i.e., having a deeper setback at the ground floor with retail use required, and
allowing the upper floor(s) to extend toward the street. He noted the ARB had
conducted retreats about the SECRDG and GBI and the possibility of using form
code.
ARB member Popp stated that he agreed that the ARB should be requiring higher
standards, and recognize nodes and corridors as having different character since El
Camino Real is not a “one size fits all” development scenario; that the City should
direct growth in the areas where growth is desired.
Interim Director Aknin noted that one approach to breaking up the continuous
setback issue was to have an average setback so building facades would not be all in
the same plane.
CITY OF o o
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
August 29,2013
Architectural Review Board
Russ Reich, Senior Planner
3
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
3159 EI Camino Real [13PLN-00040]: Request by Heather Young of
Fergus Garber Young Architects on behalf of Portage Avenue Portfolio,
LLC for Site and Design Review of the proposal for the construction of a
new four story, 55 feet tall, approximately 74,122 square foot mixed use
building on a 1.6 acre site, with commercial and office uses and 48
residential apartment units. The project also includes Design Enhancement
Exceptions (DEEs) for height and build to lines and a Conditional Use
Permit. Zone District: Service Commercial (CS). Environmental
Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the
project in accordance with CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board recommend City Council approval of the
project. The Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) will allow Council to approve the
. project, including the Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE).
(1) A Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA);
(2) The Site and Design Review application for a new 67,506 s.f. mixed-use building (added to an
existing 6,616 s.f. building) on a 1.6 acre site (resulting in a total 74,122 s.f. offioor area on a
69,503 s.f. site, and FAR of 1.06:1) to provide 48 apartment units, including five Below Market
Rate (BMR) units, and office and retail uses, with structured parking facilities (at surface and
underground) providing 216 parking spaces (including 11 puzzle lifts for 196 cars),
(3) Density Bonus concession permitting increased FAR for both residential and commercial
components of the project in the total amount of 4, 619 square feet; and
(4) A Conditional Use Permit (to allow 16,118 sq. ft. of office space on one parcel where the limit
is 5,000 s.f.) recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission on July 10,2013.
(5) DEEs for five feet of additional height, and alleviation of the build to line by two and a half
feet along Portage Avenue, resulting in a greater setback than minimum required.
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 1 of6
BACKGROUND
Process History
Following the Planning and Transportation Commission's (Commission) review and
recommendation of approval on July 10, 2013, the ARB heard the item on August 1, 2013. The
ARB recommended that the item be continued to a date certain of August 15,2013 and requested
that the applicant consider the following items:
1. Review of the landscape plan for overall design and way finding;
2. Clarify the traffic ingress and egress points and evaluate the locations carefully in relation
to deliveries, move ins and outs, and visitors.
3. Look at providing private open spaces (balconies) at all of the residential units;
4. Review the privacy walls arid railings at the balconies and develop them further;
5. Include in the Conditions of Approval restrictions on the storage of items on the balconies;
6. Review the wall at the trash enclosure on the Portage A venue side of the project;
7. Provide specifics for material placement, and clearly identify these on the drawings;
8. Review the Acacia Avenue comer for design; consider reorganizing the plan;
9. Consider the sidewalk width along El Camino Real, relative to recent Council direction.
The August 15,2013 hearing deadline did not provide enough time for the applicant to prepare the
requested changes so the item was moved to August 29, 2013. Each of the nine items, requested
by the ARB, are covered in the discussion section below.
Project Description
The proposed project is 67,506 s.f. mixed use building which, when combined with the existing
6,616 s.f. Equinox gym annex located on the site, would result floor area to a total of 74,122 s.f ..
The maximum height would be 55 feet above grade to allow for 10ft space in the fourth floor
residential units, as well as to screen mechanical equipment. At the ground floor level,
retail/restaurant/commercial recreation space is proposed, and the building setback on El Camino
Real would allow an effective 12 foot sidewalk width. A total of 48 residential apartment units
would be provided on four of the floors (second, third, fourth, and partial fifth floors). The
proposed 10ft spaces, accessible internally from fourth floor residential units, would have floors
below the ceiling level of the fourth floor units. Office space would be provided on portions of the
first, second, and third floors. Third and fourth floors are proposed above a portion of the existing
Equinox building at 3127 El Camino Real. The first and second floors would be separated across
the site by the existing Equinox building walls and by a courtyard proposed between the gym and
the new restaurant/retail space. The third and fourth floors across the site are mostly physically
separated (using expansion joints) except for limited hallway access, but would be visually
connected.
The building is proposed to have a wide variety of colors, finish materials, and textures. These
include board formed concrete, precast concrete panels, stucco plaster, cement composite panels,
wood composite panels, mate terra cotta rain screen panels, and grooved terra cotta rain screen
panels. In addition there are metal sunscreens, terra cotta sunscreens, steel and aluminum
windows, and painted steel guardrails.
File Number 13PLN·00040 Page 2 of6
The project includes surface parking facilities and one level of underground parking facilities (13
feet below grade) for a total of 216 parking spaces, including 11 puzzle parking lifts. The building
would be constructed to displace one surface parking lot and reduce the size and cover another
surface· parking lot on the site. The subterranean garage would connect to the existing below
grade garage on Portage Avenue (that serves tenants of 411-435 Acacia Avenue) at the south east
comer of the site. The main, finished garage floor level would be located below the existing site
grades, and three level car stackers would be installed in the garage. The lifts would extend
approximately six to seven feet below the main garage floor. Vehicular access to the site would
be provided exclusively on Portage Avenue via two curb cuts; all other existing curb cuts (on El
Camino Real and Acacia Avenue) would be removed. The parking spaces would be provided in
both the existing two-level garage on Portage Avenue, and in the new underground garage that
would be accessed from a below grade connection to the existing Portage Avenue garage. Fifteen
(15) surface-level visitor parking spaces are proposed beneath the residential wing of the proposed
building.
Site improvements such as landscaping, walkways, courtyards, and an outdoor dining terrace are
also included in the proposed project. The portico feature at the center of the project on El
Camino Real leads into a large courtyard area located in the center of the project, allowing
pedestrian movement through the project and through to the Equinox main entrance behind the
project and access to the surface level parking area at Portage Avenue. The courtyard area also
provides access to the elevator and stair core that provides access to the offices and residential
units above. The courtyard has a series of planters with Japanese maples and accent stones in
gravel mulch. Some of the planters have cantilevered benches for seating. There is also a water
feature at the end of the courtyard. A specimen ginkgo· tree would be placed at the end of the
courtyard close to the main equinox entry. Due to the fact that the entire project would sit above a
parking structure, landscape opportunities are somewhat limited. In addition to the courtyard
plantings the proposal does include some cast in place concrete planters as well as potted plants in
various locations around the site. There would also be three new street trees on Acacia Avenue
and one new street tree on Portage A venue. The existing street trees around the perimeter of the
proj eet would remain.
The proposal also includes five below market rate residential apartment units (10% of the total
units), allowing a concession under State Density Bonus Law for greater floor area than the
maximum allowable area, as well as fewer parking spaces than would otherwise be required.
Two DEEs are requested which are within the purview of the ARB. One DEE is a request for the
height of the residential 10ft spaces to exceed the 50 foot height limit by five additional feet. The
second DEE requests a relaxation from the· build-to requirement along the Portage Avenue
frontage, resulting in a greater setback of seven feet six inches from the property line, rather than a
five foot setback. The DEEs are discussed in greater detail in the discussion section below.
DISCUSSION
As listed earlier in this report, the ARB had requested the applicant review the nine items and
continued the hearing to allow the applicant to address the comments. This discussion section
will cover the changes the applicant has made to respond each of the nine comments.
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 3 of6
Landscape Plan
The ARB did not feel that the proposed triangular planters and the proposed diagonal paving
pattern were consistent with the architectural design of the building. The applicant has modified
the landscape plan to eliminate the triangular planters and has replaced them with a series of
rectangular planters and a paving pattern that relates better to the architecture of the building. The
paving pattern has been modified to me more consistent throughout the project to improve the
way-finding. The new landscape plan is provided on sheets L-2.1 and L-2.2 of the plan set.
Site Access
The applicant believed that the issue for item #2 was vehicle queuing at the Portage A venue
entries to the project and has provided a response in their letter related to that issue. Staff
believed that the ARB has requested clarification about how delivery vehicles, moving vans, and
visitors would access the site. The applicant will be providing a supplemental response to address
staff s perceived version of the question.
Private Balconies
The ARB requested that the applicant look at a way to provide a private open space to all the
residential units. Three of the 48 units did not have a priVate balcony. The applicant has
reconfigured the plan to add a private balcony space for unit 420 but was not able to find a way to
provide units 201 and 414 with a private balcony. A private balcony for unit 201 would block out
too much daylight at the restaurant entry facing the at-grade parking and placing a balcony in front
of unit 414 was not found to be architecturally desirable. The new floor plan layout with the
balcony for unit 420 is shown on supplemental sheet ARB-I.
Balcony Partitions and Railings .
The applicant was asked to review the partitions and railings at the residential balconies. The plan
has been revised to include new privacy screens on the balconies between the units. Two different
systems have been developed, a frame and slat system for the balconies facing El Camino Real
and a solid and translucent panel system for the Portage and Acacia balconies. The railings have
not been modified. The revised partitions are shown on supplemental sheet ARB-2.
Restrictions on Balcony Storage
The proposed balcony railings are very light and open, exposing them to view. The ARB
expressed concerns about the possible storage of items on the balconies that could result in an
undesirable visual impact. The applicant has proposed language that would be incorporated into
the apartment leases to prevent the storage of unsightly items on the private balconies.
Portage Wall at Trash Area
The ARB expressed concern about the Portage Avenue elevation where the retail space transitions
into the residential portion of the building. The applicant has revised this area. The trash and
recycling rooms have been separated into two separate rooms. This has allowed for a narrower
. roll-up door facing the street for the recycling room, and the trash room opening has been rotated
to face the parking lot, no longer impacting the street view. The landscape planter has been
widened to provide additional landscape area on the building'S Portage Avenue frontage. The
applicant has also coordinated the size of the louvered vent at the second floor with the window at
the third floor such that they better relate to each other. These changes are indicated on
supplemental sheet ARB-3.
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 4 of6
Material Clarification on Elevations
The material notes have been coordinated and updated. See sheets A3.1, A3.2 and A3.3 of the
plan set.
Acacia Comer
The ARB requested that the applicant review and possibly reconfigure the Acacia A venue/EI
Camino Real comer. The applicant has revised the comer by setting the commercial/retail space
back to open an additional pedestrian arcade to match the one at the restaurant. This opens up the
comer and creates greater unity of design across the project frontage with the repetition of this
pedestrian friendly feature. At the comer of EI Camino Real and Acacia, the building now "wraps
around" with additional glazed openings and a triple layer of sunscreens, to further engage the
street and provide visual interest. Some of the office space has shifted from the ground floor to
the second floor and a new 2nd floor balcony has been added on the Acacia elevation providing for
additional tenant and pedestrian connectivity to enliven the street. See supplemental sheet ARB-4
Sidewalk Width
The ARB had asked the applicant to consider increasing the width of the EI Camino Real
sidewalk, in light of the recent City Council memo that calls for increased sidewalk widths for EI
Canlino Real and other major arterials. The revised plan does not show an increase in the width
of the sidewalk. However, there are changes in the revised plan that support and enhance the
pedestrian experience at the EI Canlino frontage. The Acacia comer has been opened up with an
arcade, the stair to the open dining plaza has been moved from Portage Avenue to EI Camino
Real, an additional seat bench facing EI Camino has been added, and a new pedestrian entry to the
restaurant has been added at the entry portal/courtyard area. These changes are shown on
supplemental sheets ARB -5 and ARB-6.
Additional Plan Changes
The applicant has made additional modifications to the plan in response to the ARB discussion at
the August 1, 2013 hearing as outlined below:
• A doorway from the restaurant space has been added to the courtyard elevation to allow
access to the courtyard for dining tables that would help to enliven the space;
• The entry to the central elevator tower has been reoriented to be located adjacent to the
entry to the stair tower( see supplemental sheet ARB-7);
• The zinc panels, previously proposed for the Portage and Acacia stair towers, have been
replaced with cement composite panels from within the existing material palette (see sheets
ARB-8 and ARB-9);
• The openings into the Acacia stair tower landings have been enlarged and the landings at
the 3rd and 4th floor landings are also now open on the courtyard side and the 3rd floor
terrace now connects directly to the Acacia stair tower (see sheet ARB-9);
• The Portage Avenue elevation of the residential units has been further developed to be more
consistent in the use of doors, windows, and sidelights (see sheet ARB-l 0);
• Following review of the overall color palette, the applicant has decided to change the
stronger red/brown color from the third floor to the fourth floor, which is setback further
from the street, to place the more neutral grey color on the third floor (see sheet ARB-II);
• The wood panel color for the central stair tower has been lightened up with a more open
grain pattern (see sheet ARB-12).
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 5 of6
In the drawing packet there are supplemental images that compare the August 1st version of the
plan, previously provided to the ARB, with the revised version noted as August 29th.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the project and the 30 day
public review and comment period began on May 31, 2013 and ended on July 1, 2013. 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 These include mitigations for
dust control during excavation, protection for nesting birds, building design for earthquake
resistance, basement shoring, a Health and Safety Plan for construction workers, a Remedial Risk
Management Plan, collection of additional soil samples, installation of a vapor barrier, vapor
collection, and venting system, third party inspection of vapor barrier and venting system, a
Groundwater Mitigation Plan, development of a Groundwater Extraction design, technical
documents uploaded to the appropriate agencies, and the evaluation and implementation of signal
cycle length optimization and reallocation of the green time.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Record of Land Use Action
B. Site Location Map
C. Zoning Compliance Table
D. Comprehensive Compliance Plan Table
E. Applicant's summary of project revisions*
F. Previous Staff Report, Planning and Transportation Commission, July 20, 2013
G. Previous ARB staff report, August 1, 2013
H. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
I. Plans/supplemental sketches (ARB Members only)*
* Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff
COURTESY COPIES
Heather Young, applicant
Portage Avenue Portfolio, owner
Prepared By: Russ Reich, Senior Planner tJIl
Manager Review: Amy French, Chief Planning Official (jfJ---
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 6 of6
Attachment A
ACTION NO. 2013-0X
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE-APPROVAL-FOR 3159 EL CAMINO REAL: SITE
AND DESIGN REVIEW, DENSITY BONUS CONCESSION;
DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT APPROVAL
(13PLN-00040)
--On ???? x, 2013, the Counci l O ~~l"'C
approved the Si te and Design Re ...
Exceptions (DEE) andCondi tional U
making the following findings, d
SECTION 1. Background.
Palo Alto ("City Council")
follows:
A. Fergus Garber
Portage Avenue Portfolio,
for the following items:
(1) A Mi tiga
with the Cali
( 2) Site
_ City Counci l
fin dete
------
the City of
_declares as
on behalf
~",!~ep'ared in accordance
ret (CEQA);
at ion for a new 67,506 s.f.
ting 6,616 s.f. building) on
~~~o a l 74,122 s.f. of floor area
~R of 1.06: 1) to prC?vide 48
including five below market rate
uni ts, o ffice _d r _ il uses, wi th structured parking
facili ti e surf -. and -underground) providing 216 parking
spaces (inc: ng I _puzzle lifts for 196 cars), inclUding
Design Enhanc t F] ptions (to be further described in ARB
draft RO:CUA);
(3) A Conditional Use Permit (to allow 16,118 sq. ft. of office
space on one parcel where the limit is 5,000 s.f.);
(4) An FAR concession in the total amount of 4,619 under the
density bonus law;
(5) A Parcel Map to merge into one parcel of land the following
four parcels:
1
i) One parcel is occupied by a parking structure with one
level of surface parking, one level of below grade
parking and an existing elevated swimming pool.
ii) The second parcel is occupied by a 6,616 square foot
annex to the Equinox Fitness facility which is a
commercial recreation use (formerly The Pet Food
Depot), with associated surface parking.
iii) The third parcel is occupied by ~e 900 square foot -We
Fix Macs store and its associ~~~~surface parking.
iv) The fourth parcel is a
attendant shack. These
a small
on the
and are
located within the Service
B. The . Planning and --=-Tra .*-~.
(Commission) reviewed t h ___ Site and ~~~~
Use Permit application§~~
eview
FAR concession and
I 2013, and recommended Mitigated Negative Decla
approval.
C. The
application f~~
Exceptions on -
The 1'--,. • .........-.,
the
the MND --
--
RB) reviewed the
W:::a-Dd Design Enhancement
approval.
has determined
be required for
the California
on July 1, 2013.
Site and Design Review Findings
"1. The us e 1.1 1 be constructed and opera ted in a manner
that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing
or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The proposed mixed use building wOuld introduce compatible
and harmonious uses in relation to adj acent and nearby uses in
this diverse and eclectic neighborhood. . The proposed building
and uses would besi ted such that they would not result in an
impact on adjacent properties .. The traffic and parking for the
proj ect have been reviewed and it has been determined that the
2
use would be adequately parked and that the traffic vol umes
would not result in an impact to local intersections or
roadways. The proposal removes several existing curb cuts and
widens the sidewalk on the El Camino Real frontage, improving
pedestrian safety.
2. The project is consistent wi th 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 wou ld ain the desirability
of . investment by providing a projec --a mix of uses that
would · assi.st in the reduction of trips by providing
small unit rental housing for work.ar in c e proximity to jobs
and transi t and would assist . ~proving nei ghborhood by
making use of a series of und ~ized parce nd implementing
the City's Guidelines in r tionship t o _ Camino Real
development. The proposal wou e ted in-manner that
has the potential to im· ove the ~ quali t y ~ the area.
Construction of all be governe d by the
regulations of the c u di nance, the Uniform
Building Code, and othe r _. safety and a
high quali ty of d~opment ~ ~ -=-
3.
redu
volume
parking
parking.
sunscreens
4. The
Comprehensi ve
design and
. fill project, is intended to
-. ng new housing wi thin the
Efficient use of space,
and the reduction in the
with the use of 11
lev~ls of below grade
also provides deep overhangs and
heat gain.
be in accord with the Palo Alto
The proj ect is compliant with several comprehensive plan
policies as noted in the Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table
SECTION 4. Conditional Use Permit Findings
1. Not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity~ and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
3
The proj ect, . as conditioned, would not result in
detrimental or injurious impacts to property or improvements in
the vicinity. The proposal has no significant impacts that are
not able to be mitigated and would "improve the area by providing
a mix of uses to better serve the needs of the community. The
proposed office use. is a reasonable amount of office space in
comparison to the other uses proposed for the site. The
proposed commercial area would be a total of 31,262 s.f.
Approximately half of the commercial square footage (15,144
s . f. ) would be retail, commercial recreation (gym) , or
restaurant uses. The 16,118 square ~ of office space is
only slightly over half of the quare footage in the
project.
2. Be loca ted and c o
wi th the Palo Ai to Comprehensi v
title (Zoning).
The project is comp
plan polic;:ies as noted ;-in
Table.
SECTION 5 .
. 1) The
consistent an~=~_ ..
---
in accord
of this
severa --2mprehensive
PI _Compliance -
Findings
~~~~xe 'se development is
____ lements of the City's
es ignated as Service
development and
Plan policies is
table .
2)
of
. ble with the immediate environment
he proposed building is located within a
commerci al
building wou
where large r
encouraged;
where a mixture of uses is common. The
ted on a · signi£icant arterial roadway
~~~~t; buildings with mixed uses are
3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project
in that the design appropriately accommodates all the proposed
uses, providing access in the right places, elevating the
residences off the street, improving pedestrian accessibility
and safety, and addressing the street in such a way as to
provide building mass close to the street wi thout overwhelming
it;
4
4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified
design character or historical character, the design · is
. compatible with such character. Not applicable. The area does
not have a unified design character.
5) The design promotes harmonious transi tions in scale and
character in areas between different de ignated land uses in
that the adj acent land uses are also c :~ rcial in nature and
the proposed project integrates them rather than
conflicting; ~~
6) The design is compatib
7 ) The
.~ -=.. --:"' ---r ovements both
funct ions and
i nternal sense of order and
_ occupants, visitors and the
design p;r-ovides a large
easy pedestrian access
8) rrangement of open space are appropriate
to the . function of the structures in that ample
open space is in the form of private patio areas for
the residences a~5~ff·ice users, large dinning terrace that is
both covered and uncovered, and the large central courtyard that
would be open to all building occupants;
9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support
the main functions of the project in that the proposal includes
sufficient parking and areas to accommodate trash and recycling
needs of the development;
5
10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe
and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that
adequate parking areas are proposed both at the surface and
below grade, bicycle parking provided at various locations
throughout th~ site, and safe pedestrian access through the
project;
11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and
integrated with the project in that the pm osal will ensure the
preservation of all existing street t ree~---
12) The materials, and details of
construction and plant e e xpressions of
the design and function in tha e building i r oposed to have
a multitude of exterior finis li t erials with colors
and textures providing a high vel ~. det al visual
interest; ~ ~
13)
the
and
cour
--
----
si te, as ' shown by
scale, plant forms
a desirable and
re proposal includes landscape
that the project sits upon a
a ndscape planters and potted
eter and through the open
14) PI i s suitable and adaptable to the site,
capable o f ng pro ly maintained on the site, and is of a
variety, whic ~uld --nd to be drought-resistant and to reduce
consumption o f ---its installation and maintenance;
15) The project exhibits green building and sustainable
design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and
nontoxic , with high quality spaces and high recycled content
materials. The design would comply
16) The design is consistent and · compatible with the purpose r:
of architectural review, which is to:
6
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 desirabili ty of living conditions upon the
immediate site or in adjacent areas; and
e. Promote visual environments e of high aesthetic
quality and variety and which, at "the -=--t ime, are considerate
of each other. ~-===-
The requested Design Enhancement ception r e consistent wi th
the following findings as state -AMC 18 . -50 (c).
DEE Findings for Height (five
limitation) \
(1) There are excepti on
conditions applicable" to
invol ved that d ~.t appl
zone district.
r the foot code
--
affirmative. The proposed
expansive
condition
(2) The gra of application will enhance the appearance
of the si te 0-ru e, or improve the neighborhood character _
of the proj e~ ~ preserve an existing or proposed
architectural styr-in a manner which would not otherwise be
accomplished through strict application of the mlnlmum
requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review
findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d).
This finding can be made in the affirmative. The five feet in
additional height would allow the loft roof spaces to pop up out
of the roof allowing for the combination of these elements with
the mechanical roof screen to create one seamless and cohesive
7
screening element that is archi tecturally compatible with the
building and more visually attractive than multiple individual
mechanical roof screens.
(3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or
site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be
detrimental to the public heal th, safety, general welfare -or
convenience.
This finding can be made in the
height exception for the individu
--I
in addi tional height beyond t h -e'lght of
of the mechanical roof screens -e
in that the proposed
s would not result
_pe rmitted height
---screen element
would also be set back 14 feet
and 39 feet back from the front
its visibility from the ~eet .
f ourth floor
, reducing -
zone
--This fi
Avenue corn
that access b
sidewalk.
----
------
-----
by 2.5 feet
ary circumstances or
or site improvements
property in the same
he affirmative. The project site is
l ower at the El Camino Real and Portage
tate accessibility requirements dictate
to the elevated dinning terrace from the
(2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance
of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character
of the project and preserve an existing or proposed
archi tectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be
accomplished through strict application of the mlnlmum
requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review
findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d).
8
This finding can be made in the affirmative. The 2.5 foot
additional setback from the required build to line of five feet
would allow for an accessible ramp from the sidewalk to the
dinning terrace/corner plaza and would move the building
slightly further from the street, providing a little extra
breathing room in that location.
(3) The exception is related to a
site improvement that will not be
property or improvements in the
detrimental to the public heal th,
convenience. -=--:"
This finding can be made in
additional setback of 2 .
of five feet is very m~--
detrimental visual impa c t--~·~~~~~
---s ~
n Ap~val.
or
to
be
welfare or
he proposed
d t~ line
result in a
Conditional
conditions of
The for Building Permit shall be in
substantial with those plans prepared by FGY
Architects., cons ,,_,rg of 39 pages, dated July 25, 2013, and
received July 25, 013, except as modified to incorporate the
conditions of approval in Section Seven. A copy of these plans
is on file in the Department of Planning and Community
Environment. This document, including -the conditions of approval
in Section eight, shall be printed on the cover sheet of the
plan set submitted with the Building Permit application.
9
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 July 25, 2013,
except as modified to incorporate the f.ollowing conditions of
approval arid any additional conditions placed on the project by
the Planning Commission, Architect ural · ~view Board, or. City
Council. The following conditions of a -val shall be printed
on the cover sheet of the plan set s t ed wit~ the Building
Permit application. -------' -
2. All noise producing ~pment
allowances specified in Sect '_ 9 .10 Noise
Municipal Code. ---
-----
exceed the
Palo Al to
3. Any existing
protected during const rneE~n
be m _~ained and
o f Palo Alto standard
requirements. ---
4 . All landscape rna
replaced if i t
5. Any
shall require
signs.~~~~~~
The effects of construction
i _ased dustfall and locally elevated
levels ar ticul-mat _ downwind of construction activity.
Construc t _ dust ha _t he pot ential for creating a nuisance at
nearby pro:-' ties. This impact · is considered potentially
significant 1:5' mi tigable by implementing the foilowing
control measur e
During demol i existing structures:
Water active demolition areas to control dust generation
during demolition and pavement break-up.
Cover all trucks hauli~g demolition debris from the site ..
Use dust-proof chutes to load d~bris into trucks whenever
feasible.
During all construction phases:
10
Pave, apply water 3x/daily, or apply (non~toxic)
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas,
staging areas at construction sites.
soil
and
Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive
construction areas {p~eviously graded areas inactive for
ten days or more) .
Enclose, cover, water 2x/daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil
binders t6 exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roa ~o 15 miles per hour.
~ ~ Install sandbags or other er~___ measures to
prevent silt runoff to publi c
Replant vegetation
possible.
fn ---
The above measures
construction emissiQIls
sites. According ~-
for construction i~~~~
would reduce construo. ·o~~·~
than signifi ~t level ~
7. Mit -':>.·~~
all provision
Game Code a n d
publishe ~ the
2005 ).~~~~
--~
as quickly as
l icant shall abide by
_ of the State Fish and
of 1918 (MBTA) as
70, No. 49; March 15,
Al th the proj ect site that may
e may be nesting birds in existing
p-osed proj ect site. To protect any
opose d project may avoid construction
od. Alternatively, a qualified wildlife
by the applicant) shall conduct a survey
are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections ~~~:e State Fish and Game Code in the vicinity
of the project site . This survey shall cover all areas that
would be disturbed as a resul t of construction-r~lated
activities during the nesting period, and shall include a
"buffer zone" (an area of potential sensi ti vity, beyond the
bounds of the proposed project construction area) which shall be
determined by the . biologist based on his or her professional
judgment and experience. This buffer zone may include off-site
habitat.
11
This biological survey shal.l be conducted no more than 14 days
prior to the commencement of construction activities. The
wildlife biologist shall provide a report to the City promptly
detailing the findings of the survey; No construction shall be
conducted until this report has been provided to the City and
the City has authorized in wri ting the commencement of
construction activities in accord with the biologist's findings.
8 . Mitigation Measures F-1: The design of all buildings
shall be designed in accordance wi th current earthquake
resistant standards, including the 200 CBC guidelines and
design recommendations regarding for localized
liquefaction presented in the Investigation
provided by Murray Engineers.
9. Mitigation Measure
approval, the applicant
system for the basement excav
engineer subject to review
Department.
10.
Safety Plan (HASP)
implemented, and
activities. AI.~l~~~~
the HASP and SM
Plan ~~~~~~~ futur e
impl
permit
and
would be
and exca va t i on
and understand
on site during
A Remedial Risk Management
. followed by current and
The plan will include the
dies and engineering design.
soil
Additional collection of four
be co~pleted after the base
gs is achieved. This soil-gas collection
soil gas below the residential ESLs.
~~~~oncentrations in soil-gas are one or two
orders greater that what would be expected to
accumulate based on current groundwater concentrations of PCE
and TCE, and would not be likely to reach the current
concentrations in the future if the reduction of groundwater
contaminants continues as it is expected to.
13. Mitigation Measures H-4: If soil-gas concentrations
collected following the ini tial base excavation phase have not .
resulted in significant decrease, a sub slab passive vapor .
collection and passive vapor collection and passive . venting
system designed full vapor barrier would be implemented to
12
mitigate against the identified VOC soil-vapor intrusion (see ·
Mitigation Measure H-5 for vapor intrusion mitigation system) .
14. Mitigation Measure H-5: Prior to issuance of the
occupancy p~rmi t the applicant shall file documentation from an .
independent consultant specializing in vapor mttigation system
design and installation for final approval by a third party
inspection service reporting to the City financed by the
applicant confirming that each component (coll,ection pipes,
transmission pipes, inlets, risers, vents, etc.) of the vapor
intrusion mi tigation system (VIMS) h..=.. been installed in
accordance with recommendations of the or Mitigation System
and Monitoring Plan, and includes t· ~ns tallation of a full
\ vapor barrier, which shall be t·hick, spray applied
membrane below elevator pipe chases, and
entire floor slab, as or collection and
venting system ·(i. e. , fa -t the effluent
end of the VMS riser
through inlet vents)
potential soil vapor
15.
shall be
groundwater.
groundwater
installed
entering
mitigate
encountered ~~~I~S;ecify the number of
ca ted pumps to be
p5 eter throughout the project
~~~~~~e~~p r ared and submitted for final
t or~Department prior to issuance
Department
H-7: A detailed groundwater
including a staging plans
required chemical testing,
depths, well screen lengths,
pipe sizes and capacities, grades,
surface water disposal method,
This design shall be prepared and
the Public Works
17. Mitigation Measure H-8: This and future technical
reports should be uploaded (as required) to the appropriate
regulatory agencies-including uploads to the SCCDEH's ftp
system and the State Geo Tracker system.
13
18. Mitigation Measures T-l: The applicant shall
conduct an evaluation and · implementation of
signal cycle length optimization and
reallocation of the green time at · the
intersection of EI Camino Real and West
Charleston Road.
Water Gas Wastewater Utiliti~s Department
19. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the
existing water/wastewater fixture unit lOads (and building as-
built plans to verify the exist ing ____ ds) and verify the
existing water meters and sizes of -s e rvices to determine
the capacity fee credit for "the e l oad. The properties
440 Portage (existing 6" fire se.rll:ic and 1" water meters),
3159 EI Camino Real (existing '--:::::-5/8" wa ' meter), 3111 EI
Camino Real (existing one 5/8' te r meter) 3127 EI Camino
Real (existing 6" fire service-, -e 5/8" wate r one 1-
1/2" water meter) are being combl. for e new
20. Prior to dem~~~ shal submit a
request to
including a
disconnected or
request. The
inspection
have been dis
wast
load
of
and/or meters
will be
s after receipt of
i -d by the building
t~:;~€rvi ces and/or meters
it a completed water-gas-
tion a i cation -load sheet (s) (one
h unit or place of business for City
applicant must provide all the
tility service demands (water in
.p .m., as in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer· in fixture
--l icant shall provide the existing (prior)
:~~~~ and the combined/total loads (the new
· g loads to remain).
22. 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.
14
23. New water; gas or ~astewater utilities · shall be
connected to Portage or Acacia Ave. No new utilities are allowed
from El Camino Real .
. 24. 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.).
25. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and
upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as
necessary to handle anticipated pea k loa<!2:: This responsibili ty
includes all costs associated wi th the . gn and construction
for the installation/upgrade of t t ility mains and/or
services.
26. submit flow
sect i 0 existing
be p i tted.
contr---or x aIled water and wastewater mains or
services , e appli t s 11 submit to the WGW engineering
section 0 -he Ut -. ties Department four copies of the
installa tion w r and wastewater utilities off-site
improvement p l -.~ ccordance with the utilities department
design criteria. utility work within the public right-of-way
shall be clearly ·hown 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
15
installed water and wastewater mains · and services per City ' of
Palo Al to 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.
28. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA
backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new
water connections frbm Palo Alto Utilities to comply with
requirements . of California administrative c.ode, title 17 ,
sections 7583 through 7605inclusive .~The RPPA shall be
installed on the owner's property a nd ""=-tly behind the water
meter wi thin 5 feet of the propert y RPPA's for domestic
service shall be lead free. Show th _ . on of the RPPA on the
plans.
29. An
30.
the WGW engine
connection
meter
(ABS ,
on
services,
performed
relocation.
--ssure de . assembly is
water connec for the . fire
of Ca:1 i fo rnia rni nistrative
t h . h -inclus (a double
f i -::-sprinkler
----~~~Bvice ....... hall be approved by
. ---==--
ection by the utilities cross
the supply pipe between the
--~-are not plastic
Utilities standards.
11 pay the capacity fees and
new utility service/s or added
The approved relocation of
other facilities will be
person/entity requesting the
33. Each uni t 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.
34. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is
required to irrigate the approved landsca~e 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
16
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.
35. A new gas service line installation is required. Show
the new gas meter location · on the pla·ns. The gas meter loca tion
must conform with utilities standard details.
36.· All existing water and wastew services that will
not be reused shall be abandoned a t t .=ain per WGW utili ties
procedures.
37. Utility vaults,
bases, or other
water, gas a n
---
--t ility cabinets,
placed over
Maintain l'
a
shall be
39 .
the City 0
wastewater.
n stallations shall be in accordance with
~o utility standards for water, gas &
40. The shall obtain an encroachment permit from
Cal trans for utili ty work in the El Camino Real right-of-
way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW
engineering section.
17
Environmental Services Division
General Comments:
41. Consider providing separate service for residential
and commercial units
Service Levels:
Commercial: Garbage -' 4-yard bin, R:.Eycling -3-yard bin,
Compostables -2-yard bin.
Residential: Garbage ~ I-yard b ' -2-yard bin,
Compostables -96-gallon c ' __
~~ ~
42. PAMC 18.23.020 Trash D' al
(A) that provide~adequate and
or terior closures for
-clable -in
trash
masonry or
be
access
Chain link
discouraged. (iv) Trash
structures shall be
with the design of the
construction and
and enclosures shall
su architect~ral review
board, ccordance with design guidelines adopted by
that board and approved by the ci ty council pursuant
to Section 18.76.020.
43. PAMe 5.20.120 Recycling storage design requirements .
44. The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or
expanded building or other facility shall provide for proper
storage, handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the
18
solid waste and recyclable materials loading anticipated and
which will allow for the efficient and safe collection. The
design shall comply wi th the applicable provisions of Sect ions
18.22.100, 18.24.100, 18.26.100, 18.32.080, 18.37.080,
18.41.080, 18.43.080,· 18.45.080, 18.49.140, 18.55.080,
18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code.
A,ll Services:
--
4,5. Collection vehicle access
width and turnaround space) and stre
pertaining to new developments. ~-
for vehicle access. --
clearance, street
are common issues
be provided
-46. Weight limit for al l -areas t ~ accessed by
the solid waste vehicles (roads, vew ,pads)--st be rated
to 60,000 lbs. This includes area ~~·'''\~'''1''"'~ permeabl e vement is
used.
47. Containers mu st
charges will apply.
48. Car ~~~1
or curbs to r
49.
----Buildin ------
t of service area or
Yard
without obstacles
curbs"
Waste/Compostables
50. The commercial development must follow the
requirements f o -~ i ng container space. Project plans must
show the placemen ._ f recycling containers, for example, within
the details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection space
should be provided for built-in recycling containers/storage on
each floor/office or alcoves for the placement of recycling
containers.
51. Enclosure and access should
access to all three waste streams
compostables.
19
be designed for equal
garbage, recycling, and
52. Collection cannot be performed in · underground.
Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77" of vertical
clearance. Pullout charges will apply. In instance,s where push
services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push
containers up or down ramps), the property owner will be
responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible
location 'for collection.
53. All service areas must have a clearance height of 20'
for bin service.
54. New enclosures should
reduce wear and tear on walls. --
rubber bumpers to
-
55. For questions regarding gat ,e, recycling, and
compostables coll·ection issues, -~t Gre-'aste of Palo Al to
(650) 493-4894. -=---Restaurants and food servi s tabli~hments
56. Please contact
to maximize the collec
areas and
o Alto 493-4894
in food preparation
57 . For more info rma
products, pleas -=-ct Ci
food service
ro Waste at (650)
496-5910.
58. Multi -
~~§~~~~mi development must follow the
ing C . n=er space All residential
I garB . e , recycling, and compostables
, or more dwelling units, must have
~ collection of recyclables and
the provision of recycling chutes = e provided. Proj ect plans must show the
and compostables containers, for example,
h e solid waste enclosures.
60. Enclosur ~ and access should
access to all three waste streams
compostables.
be designed for equal
garbage, recycling, and
61. Collection cannot be performed in underground.
Underground bins locations require a , minimum of 77" of vertical
clearance. Pull out ch~rges will apply. In instances where pUsh
services ar~ not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot pUsh
containers up or down ramps), the property owner will be
20
responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible
location for collection.
62. All service areas must have a clearance height of 20'
for bin service.
63. New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to
reduce wear and tear on walls.
64. For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and
compoBtables collection issues, contact Gr~en Waste of Palo Alto
(650) 493-4894.
PAMC 16. 09. 180 (b) (10)
Facilities
Dumpste r -=-New and Remodeled
65. New buildings and r e--=-tial de ",:"",pmen ts providing
centralized solid waste colle ,except f o 'ngle-family and
duplex residences, shall p rl . d e for
bin/dumpster. The area shall be
streams (garbage, recyc·
designed with grading 0 e r m sy
and runoff from the area .~
Tallow Bin Areas --
66.
Establishment s
eled Food Service
a covered area for all
used for the collection of
cooking fats, oils and
--
e designed and shown on plans to
th---ea and runoff from the area.
installed within the enclosure · for
dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs
installed shall be connected toa
69. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately
sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in
the covered area.
70. These requirements shall
converted facilities to the · extent
facility being remodeled is related
requirement.
21
apply to
that the
to the
remodeled or
portion. of the
subject of the
71. It is frequently to the FSE' s advantage to install the
next size larger GCO to allow for more efficient grease
discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between
cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCOs which are
available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic,
reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal) .
72. The requirements will assist FSEs wi th FOG
prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain ·
prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with
Use Ordinance of the Palo Al to Municipa l ode ~ The
include requirements for GCOs, GCD -intenance,
fixtures, record keeping and constru ct'~r o jects.
discharge
pollution
the Sewer
ordinances
drainage
(COD)
73. Covered proj ects and
demolition debris diversion 0 requirements
established in Chapter 16.14 'fo r n i ~ Green " 'lding Code).
In addition, all debris generate a red pro ___ must haul
100 percent of the debr '-ot salv- -r reuse to-' approved
facility as set forth in~~aPter-:-=
74. Contact the ci Green Building
where to
e construction and
i ng information on
Department
7 part of this project, the
us t rep l -t he _isting sidewalks, curbs, gutters or
roaches __ n t fi e public right-of-way along the
frontage s 0 he prQ-rty on all streets. Contact the Public
Works' inspecf6i at ~496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the
inspector · can -e the extent of replacement work. The
site plan must w the extent of the replacement work or
include a note that Public Works' inspector has determined no
work is required. 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 Permi t for
Construction in the Public Right-of-Way ("Street Work Permit")
from PWE at the Development Center. Additional review from
Caltrans may be required. Please see the "Caltrans" note on page
5 .
22
76. STREET RESURFACING: The full width of the street shall
be resurfaced (grind and overlay) along the frontages of the
project on Portage Avenue and Acacia Avenue.
77. PEDESTRIAN & STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS: Directional
curb ramps, median refuges, or other improvements to the
pedestrian crossing at EI Camino Real and Portage Avenue will be
considered in accordance with input from the Planning and
Transportation Division. Additional streetscape design elements
such as bike racks, trash cans, and decorative street lights
will be considered and placed in t he pub~ sidewalk per design
guidelines outlined in the EI Camino R aster Planning Study
and future input from the Board.
7~. VrA BUS STOP: The
Westbound direction on the nea_
Camino Real intersection is su ~~~~
the location presents a
offset intersecting
requested of the apPliC~~~~~
requested that the stop '_
proj ect frontage and t ha
part of the proj ect .
bus shelter th --.
applicant wo
Al ternati vely ,
in the
and
79. may be required to
treet trees in the public
ontage. Call Public Works'
site visit so he can
work be required for this
an must show street tree work that
mine including the tree species, size,
location , _ing a = irrigation requirements. Any removal,
relocation or nti -of street trees; or excavation, trenching
or pavement wi feet of street trees must be approved by
the Public Works ' -orist. The plan must note that in order to
do street tree wor, the applicant must first obtain a Permit
for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way ("Street Tree
Permit") from Public Works' Urban Forestry.
80. CALTRANS: Cal trans review . and approval of this
project is required. Cal trans right-of-way across EI Camino
Real extends from back~of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a
maintenance agreement with Cal trans that requires the City to
maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for work
done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has
23
retained the right to review and permit new or proposed
abandonments of ingress/egress driveways off EI Camino Real as
well as the installation of traffic c,ontrol devices as part of
this proj ect. Please include a record of Cal trans approval on
the planset submitted for a building permit.
81. PARCEL MAP: This project is merging several properties
under planning application 12PLN-00468. Prior to building permit
issuance, the Parcel Map shall be approved by the City of Palo
Alto and recorded by Santa Clara County. -82. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS: Publ' "='ccess
required for the additional sidewal k
edge and the property _line. ~~~
83. STORM WATER
measul:r~e~~~~~ or E;;
meas
, to
-, --must meet
(SRWQCB)
Section 16.11.030(c)
The appli can '= rporate permanent storm water pollution
prevention me a t treat storm water runoff that are site
specific. The ~n tion measures shall be reviewed by a
qualified third-p y reviewer who needs to certify that it
complies with the Palo Al to 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 list of qualified consultants.
(http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/consultants2012.htm) 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.
24
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 permi t . draw.ings. The proj ect 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 maint enanc ~ agreement shall be
executed prior to permit issuance. ~
The applicant is required to p. Dumping/Flows to
Matadero Creek" logo in bl ue ::::.a;'lor i te background,
adj acent to all storm . drain t he logo are
available from the Public Eruri r onme i Compliance
Division, which 329-25 9 A deposit
may be required sec Include
the instruction to pain _ grading
and drainage plan. ~tenanc-f these logos in the
Hazardous Materials Manage nt plan is part of
this proj ect. _
84. ): The applicant is
to gradlng and drainage plan.
m water quality impacts, the
b-. ncorporated into the Storm
PPP) that will be required
i nclude permanent BMP's to be
e -'ect to protect storm water quality.
~ available from PWE. Specific
reference _ 1 0 A -0' s companion document to "Start at
the Source'r.r=_ title _Planning Your Land Development Project").
The elements ._;; the -approved conceptual grading and drainage
plan shall be ~ --F -t ed into the building permit plans.
The developer shall require the 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) .
25
85. PARKING STRUCTURE DRAINS: Drains within the covered
floors of the parking .structures shall be connected to oil-water
separators and sanitary sewer lines~ Stormwater runoff from any
exposed surface or roof parking areas without canopies need to
be treated per C.3 reqtiirements.
86. GREASE/OIL REMOVAL DEVICE: If there will be a kitchen
and food serving area in the new building, any drains in the
food service facilities shall be connected to a grease removal
device and located on private property.
87. LOADING DOCK: Any loading doc "='eas shall be covered
and 'graded so · that no storm water e n ~a nd flows through the
space. Any runoff from the loadi _ area · shall be kept
isolated from the storm draina~-=-yst _ If the loading
area/dock contains a drain,' hall b-c onnected to the
'sani tary sewer through a manua' .:=' erated fa l afe valve. ---88. CENTRALIZED DUMPSTER
restaurant, please
recycling areas for
roofed or covered;
recycling enc lo~s~~~~
--
must
the
for
the
The following to assist the applicant at
the bU.l~i~'~i~~~ni~Yi!~~~ an obtain various plan set
deta il.-e ,",~Oiiiooiooo~1"'ro-: Public Works at _ the City's
Deve Hami Avenue) or on Public Works'
aloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/permits.asp --
Include __ ed for a building permit: -89. -CAVATION PERMIT: Since more than 10,000
square feet _... area on the proj ect si te is being
disturbed, a Grading and Excavation Permit needs to be obtained
from PWE at the Development Center before the building permi t
can be issued. Refer to the Public Works' website for
"Excavation and Grading Permi t Instructions." For the Grading
and Excavation Permi t application, various documents are
required including a grading and drainage plan, soils report,
Interim and Final erosion and sediment control, storm water
pollution prevention plan -(SWPPP), engineer-stamped and signed
shoring plan, and a copy of the Division of Occupational Safety
and Health (DaSH) excavation permit. Refer to our website for
26
"Giading "and Excavation Permit
Except " for the soils report and
required documents and drawings
drawings. Indicate the amount of
the project.
Application" and gu1delines.
the DOSH permit, include the
in the building permit set
soil to be cut and filled for
90." GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include
a grading and drainage plan prep~red 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 grac:U:ag plan for reference
only, and should be so noted. No util' ~'nfrastructure should
be shown inside the building footpr i-=-I nstallation of these
other utilities will be approve of a subsequent
Building Permit application. __ ""':"" -------Site grading, excavation, an
disturb large soil areas may
regular construction se (from
of each year the permit
to prevent soil erosion
defined as the period f ro~ __ ct~~.~~
--
that
stabilization ar be ifie~~~;:
the improvemen r app--
is
of
e Civil " sheets of
91.
proj e
groundw
structure
penetrate e
----site~specific soil report
e o -technical engineer must be
n on water table and sub
must be undertaken to
able to withstand all
pressures. No pumping of
general, PWE recommends that
such a way that they do not
ground water levels.
92. Excavation for sub-grade structures may
require dewatering. PWE only· allows groundwater drawdown well
dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. If
dewatering is required, the dewatering plan must be submitted to
Public Works as part of a Street Work Permi t. Dewatering is
only allowed from April through October due to inadequate
capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for
this site must list the hi'ghest anticipated groundwater level.
If the deepest excavation is expected to be within 3 feet of the
highest anticipated groundwater level, the contractor can
determine the actual groundwater depth immediately prior to
27
excavation by installing piezometers or by drilling exploratory
holes. Al ternati vely, the contractor can excavate and hope not
to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop
excavation and submit a dewatering plan to PWE for approval and
install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate.
Public Works may require the water to be tested fot contaminarits
prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering.
I f testing is required, the contractor must retain an
independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the
contaminants as specified by Public Works.
-.93. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to hi oundwater throughout
much of the City, PWE prohibiting t h e ----ing and discharging of
groundwater. Sub-grade drainage sy c h as perforated pipe
drainage syst.ems at the exterior Q;f-:" e go--. ent walls or under
the slabs are not allowed. PWE~ mmends ~t a waterproofing
consultant be retained to des ' a nd inspect e vapor barrier
and waterproofing systems for· ba sement.
94. BASEMENT
excavation, including ~~~~
private property or int
first obtained written
owners and/or an encroa c hm~
.Center. ---
95.
than one
with the
for basement
extend on adj acent
t-of-way wi thout having
fr-the private property
E at the Development
water
both
onstruction BMP's for storm water
building permit.
submit two
review and
96. POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-
sized "Pollution Prevention -It's Part of the Plan" sheet must
be included in ~he 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.
97.
creating
surface,
existing
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: Since the proj e.ct will be
or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious
the applicant shall provide calculations of the
and proposed impervious surface areas. The
28
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 websi te, then submi tted wi th the
building permit application.
98. 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:
BUILDING PERMIT FOR
99. LOGISTICS PLAN:
logistics plan to PWE
have an
to
NOT
THE
all impacts C~~~
submi t a
addresses
but not
limited to:
F SU G PERMIT: The Public Works
_ the b uilding permit prior to the
All off-site improvements shall be
ff. Similarly, all as-buil ts, on
post-developments BMP's shall be
Water Quality
101. 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:
102. Prior
dewatering, the
to discharge
water shall
of
be
29
any water
tested for
from constru~tion
volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method ' 624. The
analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to
the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598.
Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal
requiiements for discharge to navigable waters may not be
discharged to the storm drain system or creeks. If the
concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limi ts for
discharge to the storm drain ' system then an Exceptional
Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to
discharge to the sani tary sewer system. If the VOC
concentrations exceed the toxic discharge limits
contained in the ' Palo Alto Municipa (16.09.040(m)) a
treatment system for removal of VOCs w be required prior
to discharge to the sanitary sewe . itionally, any water
discharged to the sanitary sewe r y:si:.em -drain system
must be free of sediment.
103. PAMC 16. 09. i 8 0 (b) (11 )
---
-
as to prevent
sewer system
_0 (b) ffi Covered Parking
___ i ng garage floor drains must be connected
with capacity of 100
105. 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
30
designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water rUhon
and runoff from the area.
106. PAMC 16.09.180(b) (14) Architectural Copper
On and aftet 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 Q..uilding for whiCh a
building permit is required. Copper flas -for use under tiles
or sla'tes and small exempt from this
and downspouts on
historic t hat the, roofing
material For the
107. PAMC
(i)
be
---
or
non
dock
re emica -zardous materials, grease,
-~"'-st -oducts~re handled or us'ed within the
k a a drain to the storm drain system
-a ll no t al ed. A drain to the $anitary sewer
-tern may-e allowed if ' equipped with a fail-safe
valent device that is kept closed during
season and during periods of loading
~~~~n . The area in which the drain is located
-vered 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.
108. PAMC 16.09.180(b) (5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain
to the storm drain system.
31
109. 16.09.215 Silver Processing
Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or x
ray films) shall either submit a treatment application
or waste hauler certification for all spent silver
bearing solutions. 650-329-2421.
110. PAMC 16.09.205 Cooling Towers
No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer
system or storm drain system, or add to a..-cooling system, pool,
spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchan any substance that
contains any of the following: ---
111.
pool ,
of
meet
( 1 )
(2 )
(3 )
------ -------~ -
Copper in ex ~ of 2 .0
~~~l~:!~~U ::::-xcess
Chr in exce 2 .0 mg/li te -. ---(4) Zinc ~ -
--- --.-
mg/liter.
.. apply to any of the
n wi th the cooling --
11 be ~nstalled to
(b) {b) Copper Piping
of 0.10
above
system,
Copper, copper a " s, lead and lead alloys, including brass,
shall not be used ln 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.
114. PAMC 16.09.220(c) (1) Dental Facilities That Remove or
Place Amalgam Fillings
32
An ISO 11143 certified amalgam separator device shall be
installed for each dental vacuum suction system. The installed
device must be ISO 11143 certified as capable of removing a
minimum of 95 percent of amalgam. The amalgam separator system
shall be certified at flow· rates comparable to the flow rate of
the actual vacuum suction system operation . Neither the
separator device nor the related plumbing shall include an
automatic flow bypass. For facilities that require an amalgam
separator that exceeds the practical capacity of ISO 11143 test
methodology, a non-certified separator will be accepted,
provided that smaller units from t he sa_ manufacturer and of
the same' technology are Iso-certified .,
115. PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor D
Interior (indoor) floor drains t sewer system may
not be placed in areas wher e zardous m i a ls, hazardous
wastes, industrial wastes, in rial proces s ~,l ubricating
fluids, vehicle fluids or vehi equipme~t clea wastewater
are used or stored, unless second -c -, nment i -ovided for
all such materials and ~'ment
116. 16.09.180(12)
Mercury switcbes shall in sewer or storm
drain sumps.
117
It
Storm drain i n
dumping -Flows
---
Systems, Pools, Spas,
s --
discharge water from cooling systems,
and heat exchangers to the storm
(h) Storm Drain Labeling
11 be clearly marked wi th the words "No
" or equivalent.
Undesignated Retail Space:
119. PAMC 16.09
Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of
the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to
meet all requirements that would have been applicable during
design and con~truction. If such undesignated retail space
33
becomes a food service facility the following requirements must
be met:
Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project:
120. A. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC
Section 16.09~075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes
121. The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and
installation details of .all proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2)
122. GCD(s) shall be sized i n ac ance with the 2007 ----California Plumbing Code. --
123. GCD (s)
500 gallons.
shall be installe~~=~~
124. GCD sizing calcula ~E'D'O shall
minimum
plans. See a sizing calculati x ample below. ~
~ ;.. -=--
capacity of
on the
125. The size of al_l GCDs -shall be ual to or
larger than what is spe~~~
126. GCDs larger t ha--shall
installed in ' food -
County Departm._e~~~~~~~~~~~~
installed out s~
points or
cleaning
shall be
Department
ound r c eptors shall have a minimum
w visibility of each inlet plplng,
b-_e piping and outlet piping. The
icat the number of proposed manholes on
ntal Compliance Division of Public Works
e variances which allow GCD~ wi th less
than three rna ~~~~U
adequate visibil ~
to manufacture available options . or
128. Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all
GCDs.
129. All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent(s). (CPC
1002.2 & 1004)
130. GCD (s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be
rated and indicated on plans.
34
131. B. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section
16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes
132. To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures . are connected to
the correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly
labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their
discharge connection, . i. e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line,
shall be included on the plans.
133. A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCO
t
Shhaell be included on the plans. This ca.B::.. be incorporated into
sizing calculation.
134. All grease generating
to a GCD. These include but are not
-=-~
Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks -
Three compartment sinks (p inks)
Drainage fixtures _ in
dishwashers shall ~ t
Examples: trough
dishwasher),
pre-rins e ~~:_~~~
Floor dr
-Prep sin ks _ ~~-~ -------
shall connect
----------room --::;:-cept for
to entering a
o unters adj acent to
s
for equipment washing shall be
co ed
GC D.
--Eontained therein shall connect to a
enclosures
Wok stove 1s serie ovens/broilers or other grease
generating c ~ n g .equipment with drip lines
Kettles and til t/braising pans and associated floor
drains/sinks
135. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines
and non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is
prohibited~ The following shall not be connected to a GCO:
Dishwashers
Steamers
35
/
(.".
Pasta cookers
Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens
Hand sinks
Ice machine drip lines
Soda machine drip lines
Drainage lines in bar areas
136. No garbage disposers
a FSE. (PAMC 16. 09.075 (d) ) .
(grind~ all be installed in
• 137. Plumbing lines shall st alled above any
cooking, food preparation
individually
139. C. Covered
PAM C , 16. 0 9 . 07 5 (q) (2)
Newly constructed and
area for all dum
collection of .~ii~2:»:
fats, oils an
140. The
prevent ~
recy
---
GCD shall be --
and Areas
include a covered
for the
cooking
'gned and shown on plans to
--runoff from the area.
enclosure for
142 . I to be stored outside then an adequately
for a tallow bin shail be incl uded in
--143. These r e quirements
converted facilities to the
facility being remodeled is
requirement.
shall apply to remodeled
extent that the portion of
related to the subject of
or
the
the
144. D. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09. 075 (m) (2) (B)
FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to
a GCD and large enough for cleaning the largest kitchen
equip~ent such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc.
36
Recorrunendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than
a typical mop/janitor sink are more useful.
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, pur suant Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 18.30(G) .080.
SECTION 10. Term o ~~~~a l. -..... -----Conditional Use -oval . -event actual
construction of the project i s . corrunenced hin one year of
the date of counc,il approval, approval sha e xpire and be
. of no further force or effect, 'suant -. 0 Pa l o--=-0 Municipal
Code Section 18.77.090 (a.b. ~ ~
SECTION 11.
A. the si te
plan, floor additional
information by Applicant
during the St g process leading to
the approval of-tlemen _whe ther oral or written, which
indica:t .. ~e~~~ ~~~~~~~c~t~u~r-manner of operation, are deemed..:.:: 0' - ------u se 'dnd/or construction are subject
wi a ll applicable Ci ty ordinances and
an d-oth~ governmental agencies.
alifo =' a Government Code Section 66020 provides
that a proje ap ant who desires to protest the fees,
dedications, re ~ons, or other exactions imposed on a
development proj e-must initiate the protest at the time the
development proj ect is approved or conditionally approved or
within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications,
reservations or exactions are imposed on the
Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting
these development fees, dedications, reservations and . exactions
are set forth in . Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO
INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE
PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020,
YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR
37
REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND
EXACTIONS.
D. This matter is subj ect to the California Code of
Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which
judicial review must be sought is governed by , CCP Section
1094.6.
E. To the extent permi tted by law, the Applicant
shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council,
its officers, employees and agents (the 'nderrinified parties")
from and against any claim, action, or ~eeding brought by a
third party against the indemnified p -8 and the applicant to
attack, set aside or void, any p~___ approval authorized
h~reby for the Project, ng 'thout limitation)
reimbursing the City for its fees and costs
incurred in defense of the l ' a tion. . ty may, in its
sole discretion, elect to def e-a ny such act i . _ith attorneys
of its own choice. ---=-...-. ~
-------
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES: ---ABSENT~:ii~~~ "'=-~-~
ATTE _
-------
APPROVED AS TO
Senior Asst. City Attorney
38
~~ --::...
---.,.;.. -----
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
1. Those plans prepared by Heather Young entitled "3159 El
Camino Real", consisting of 19 pages, dated June 12, 2013, and
received on June 12, 2013.
-. ----------...:.. -:'" ----------------------
---
----------=------
--------.............
39
" .....
.. ,
3159 El Camino Real
Tite City of
Palo Alto
Attachment B
.-a ..
Minimum setbacks
Front yard (ft.)
Rear yard (ft.)
Street side yard (right,
Portage)
Street side yard (left,
Acacia)
Build to Lines
(required % of wall to be
built up to the required
setback . line)
Permitted setback
encroachments
Maximum Site Coverage
Minimum Landscape
Open Space
Usable Open Space
Residential Density
Maximum Height
AttachmentC
Zoning Compliance Table
3159 EI Camino Real
13PLN-90040
CS Proposed
0' -1 0' to create an 4 feet (provides 12 wide
effective 8'-12' effective sidewalk)
effective sidewalk
width
10' for residential 0' 10' minimum at
for commercial portion residential
5' 7' -6"
5" 5'
50% of frontage built .55% at EI Camino Real
to setback
33% of side street built 39% at Acacia Ave.
to setback 0% at Portage Ave.
6 feet for balconies 5 feet 11 inches at
Portage Ave. for
balconies
500/0 = 34,752 s.f. 27,432 s.f.
30% = 20,851 s.f. 27,785 s.[
150 s.f. per unit 9209 s.f. private
9,526 s.f. common
30 dwelling units per 48 units
I acre = 48 units
50 feet 55 feet
Compliance
conforms
conforms
conforms
conforms
conforms
Conforms
DEE (exceeds by
2 feet 6 inches)
conforms
conforms
conforms
conforms
. conforms
DEE (exceeds by
5 feet)
Floor Area
Maximum Residential
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Allowable Commercial
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Total Mixed Use Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)
Vehicle Parking
Existing commercial
recreation
New commercial
recreation
Restaurant (public
service area)
Restaurant
(back of house)
Retail
Office
Residential
Studio units
Attachment C
Zoning Compliance Table
3159 EI Camino Real
13PLN-00040
0 .. 6:1:::; 41,702 s.f. 42,860 s.f.
0.4:1 :::;27,801 s.f. 31 '262 s.f.
1.0: 1 :::; 69,503 s.f. 74,122 s.f.
1 per each 4 person 33 spaces provided
capacity( 6,616 s.f.) =
33 spaces
1 per each 4 person 11 spaces provided
capacity (2,447) :::; 11
spaces
1 space for each 60 41 spaces provided
gross s.f. 2,483/60 ;;: 41
spaces
1 space for each: 200 13 spaces provided
gross s.f. 2,598/200 :::;
13 spaces
1 space for each 200 5 spaces provided
gross s.f. 1,000/200 = 5
spaces
1 space for each 250 64 spaces provided
gross s.f. 16,118/250:::;
64 spaces
1.25 spaces per unit 33 spaces
33 units x 1.25 =41.25 (8.25 fewer spaces due
spaces to state code reductions
in parking requirements)
FAR concession
(1,158 over)
FAR concession
(3,461 over)
FAR concession
(4,619 over)
One bedroom units
Two bedroom units
Guest Spaces
Total Spaces Required
(perPAMC)
Bicycle Parking
Commercial Recreation
Restaurant
(Public Service Area)
Restaurant
(back of house areas)
Retail
Attachment C
Zoning Compliance Table
3159 EI Camino Real
13PLN-00040
L5 spaces per unit 14 spaces
14 units x 1.5 = 21 (7 spaces fewer due to
spaces state code parking
reductions)
2 spaces per unit 2 spaces
1 unit x 2 = s spaces
33% of units 16 spaces o spaces
247 spaces 216 spaces provided
With state code 216 spaces provided
reductions for
residential parking, the
total parking
requirement is = 216
spaces
1 space /16 occuEants
20%LT 80%ST
44/4=11
2 LT + 9 ST spaces .11 spaces
1 space/600 dross s.f.
40%L T, 60%ST
2,483/600 =4
2LT+2ST 4 spaces
1 space/2000 gross s.f.
. 40%LT,60%ST
2,017/2000 = 1 ST 1 space
1 space/2000 gross s~f.
20%LT, 80%ST
1,000/2,000 = 1 ST 1 space
31 spaces less
than PAMC
conforms
Office
Residential
Total Bike Spaces
Attachment C
Zoning Compliance Table
3159 EI Camino Real
13PLN-00040
1 space/2,500 gross s.f.
80%L T, 20%ST
16,1189/2500=6
5LT+ 1ST 6 spaces
1 space/unit L T = 48L T 48 spaces
57 Long term (LT) and 61 LT and 30 ST
14 short term (ST)
conforms
,ATTACHMENTD
APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
3159 EI Camino Real
13PLN-00140
Land Use and Communf!y DesiJ!n Element
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation
for the site is Service Commercial
Goal L-l: A well-designed, compact city, The proposed mixed use building is of an
providing residents and visitors with attractive attractive design providing a diverse mix of uses
neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, within a single project providing retail, office
public facilities and open spaces. and residential uses.
lPolicy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of ~he prop.ose? mixed ~s~ building follows the
h C· A'd I d h hi' PIty'S gUldelInes provldmg an urban edge along IU e lty. VOl an uses t at are overw e mmg ~l C . RIP' f h b 'ld' , fi ~nd unacceptable due their size and scale. IWJ ammo ea. ortIons 0 t e Ul ~ng s lrst
Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the
context of regional needs, overall City welfare
and objectives, as well as the desires of
surrounding neighborhoods.
~nd second floor are at the setback whIle the
~hird and fourth tloors are' set further back such
~hat the height of the building does not
overwhelm the street.
The redevelopment of the site with the proposed
mixed use project is an appropriate land use
change for the site. It places a mixture of uses
along a transit corridor, including small rental
units; where increased densities are encouraged.
Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create the proposed architectural design of the new
coherent development patterns and enhance city mixed use building appears to be of a high
streets and public spaces. Flualityand would enhance the existingEI
~amino Real streetscape. The proposal
~liminates all existing curb cuts along EI Camino
!Real, itp.proving pedestrian safety and provides a
raised plaza at the comer ofEI Camino and
Portage A venue. A covered pedestrian arcade is
also proposed at the retail space fronting EI
Camino Real.
Goal L-4: Inviting, pedestrian-scale centers that
offer a variety of retail and commercial services
~nd provide focal points and community
~athering places for the City's residential
neighborhoods and Employment Districts.
-The attractive design of the new mixed use
building would be inviting and would provide a
multitude of uses to benefit the community. The
ground floor spaces include a possible restaurant,
retail spaces, a fitness facility, office space and at
~rade parking. The facility is designed with a
large central portico that invites pedestrians into
~he space and facilitates increased mobility
~hrough the project.
Policy L-31: Develop the Cal-Ventura area as a !rhe proposed mixed use project fulfills this
Well-designed mixed use district with diverse policy that encourages mixed use development in
land uses, two-to three-story buildings, and a "~he Cal-Ventura area.
network of pedestrian oriented streets providing
links to Califonlia A venue.
Goal L .. 9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and the proposed new wider sidewalk, consistent
streets that enhance the image and character of ~long the entire block frontage at EI Camino
"he City. ~eal, with an elevated plaza area,would improve
~he character of the City
lPolicy L-48: Promote high quality, creative The proposed mixed use project is a quality,
design and site planning that is compatible with "" creatively designed project. The modem design
"he surrounding development and public spaces. is ora character that would be consistent with the
surrounding eclectic architecture.
tpolicy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize rhe mixed use project would revitalize the area
~treets and public spaces and to enhance a sense hat is currently underutilized with a vacant
pf community and personal safety. Provide an parcel and structures that do not maximize the
ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, sites land use potential. The project would
bays, and balconies along public ways where it is ~nhance the street and improve personal safety
consistent with neighborhood character; avoid ~ith wider sidewalks and elimination of curb
solid walls at street level; and include human-cuts. The building would have many balconies
scale details and massing. hat overlook the street, ample window
fenestration, bays, courtyards, porches, arcades,
and doorways that would activate the public right
of way.
tpolicy L-75: Minimize the negative impacts of All new parking is located behind and under the
!parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or Ibuilding or located underground such that no
~nderground wherever possible. open parking lots are visible form El Camino
tReal.
tpolicy L-77: encourage alternatives to surface !.Most of the parking associate with the project is
lParking lots to minimize the amount of land that proposed below grade such that it is not visible.
Plust be devoted to parking, provided that
economic and traffic safety goals can "still be
achieved.
Policy L-78 Encourage development that This project proposes multiple uses that have a
creatively integrates parking into the project by combination of dedicated and shared parking
providing for shared use of parking areas. facilities to maximize the use of available
parking and a large number of parking lifts to
maximize the amount of parking provided while
minimizing the area devoted to parking.
Transportation Element
Goal T -3: Facilities, services and programs that rhe mixed use nature of the project enhances the
~ncourage and promote walking and bicycling. ability for people to live and work in the same
location. The wider sidewalks with the
~limination of curb cuts improve pedestrian
~ccess. The provision of at grade and secured
~icycle parking along with shower facilities
1W0uid assist in encouraging bicycle ridership.
olicy T -19: Improve and create additional,
ttractive, secure bicycle parking at both public
d private facilities, including multi-modal
ansit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks,
t public facilities, in new private developments,
d other community destinations.
he new project would provide both at grade and
secured bicycle parking.
olicy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly he proposal for a new mixed use building
esign features such as sidewalks,· street trees, ould greatl~ enhance the e~is~ing s:reet with
n-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor' he con~tructIOn of a new~ bUIldmg wI~h ample
rniture, art, and interesting architectural details. edestna~ level fenestratIOn and d~taIl, .
olicy H-2: Identify and implement a variety of
trategies, to increase housing density and
iversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize
d encourage the develop'ment of affordable an
ttainable housin .
olicy H-3: Continue to support the re
esignation of suitable vacant of under utilized
lands for housing and mixed uses containing
olicy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a
eans of increasing the housing supply while
romoting diversity and neighborhood vitality.
reservatIon of large mature street trees, wIder
idewalks, and an activated plaza area for
edestrian interest.
he proposal increases housing density and
rovides studio and one bedroom units that are
small and more affordable than the larger
esidential units typically proposed within the
i.,
he proposal redevelops underutilized land for
ixed use, including housing.
he proposed mixed use project increases the
ousing supply by providing small rental housin
nits.that are. not typically seen in new
evelopments while also adding new retail and
ommercial uses to the site to promote diversity
nd nei hborhood vitali .
August 22, 2013
Russ Reich, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: 3159EI Camino Real
Site and Design Review
ARB Resubmittal
Russ,
Attachment E
On July 25th the proposed Mixed Use development at 3159 ECR was presented to the Architectural
Review Board. Although the project was well received in many respects, the ARB requested that the
team investigate the following 9 items and come back for further review and discussion. The design has
been reviewed and in many cases developed or modified to reflect the issues brought up during the
hearing. The ARB drawing set has been updated and several new side-by-side. comparison drawings
have been prepared to illustrate the development of several topics. Please note that many of the new
images don't reflect the full rendering quality of the 1 Aug images-and presentation; the intent is to
show development rather than color correctness which is best demonstrated by the material samples.
Comments on each item are provided below.
Item 1: Landscape Review
Concern was expressed that the landscape design should be more integrated with the architectural
design of the building. The triangles in. particular were noted as not a good fit for the project~ The
landscape and courtyard have been redeSigned to better coordinate with the architectural design; the
triangle design approach has been replaced with an orthogonal paving and planter approach that works
in harmony with the projects architectural design. Specific highlights include improved pedestrian
connectivity between the ECR sidewalk and dining areas, rectangular planting beds and seat benches in
the ECR Portal and courtyard, rectangular paving and accent pavers that continue into the central and
Portage stair lobbies, and a rectangular fountain connecting the courtyard and the lower level Equinox
entry. Please refer to sheets L-2.1 andL-2.2 for additional details.
Item 2: Traffic and Site Access
The topics of parking access and queuing at the entrances and exits along Portage Ave were brought up
during the August 1 sthearing. An Intersection Queuing Analysis was prepared as part of the Traffic · .
Impact Analysis report prepared for this project and referenced in the Mitigated Negative'Deciaration.
The analysis determined that the net impact of the project had a "Less than Significant Impact" on the
existing conditions. Please refer to pages 16-20, and table 10 of the Kimley-Horn Traffic Impact Analysis
report (attached) for specific details; the addition of the project to the site was found to add "nominal
additional queuing". Transcripts of the PTC discussion on parking and site access are included as
Attachment G of the ARB Staff Report. Rafael Rius from CoPA Public Works Transportation and Traffic
Engineer James Daisa from Kiniley-Horn and Associates were on hand to answer questions. The
Fergus Garber Young Architects
81 Encino Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301
phone 650/473-0400 fox 650/473-0410
August 22, 2013
safety plan. The goals are to increase physical and visual privacy while maintaining light and views.
Please refer to supplemental sketch ARB-2 for a comparison of the August: 1st arid August 29th designs.
Item 5: Residential Balconies to have Restricted Storage
The topic of storage on the exterior residential balconies was brought up during the August 1st hearing
as this can visually impact neighbors and community members visiting the project. The units have been
designed to give residents internal storage options for large items such as bicycles, oversize sporting
equipment, and other large items that are sometimes found on exterior balconies. 38 of the 48 units
include dedicated bicycle storage and secure on-floor storage areas area provided for each of the 48
units. These on-floor {(deep" storage areas typically vary in size from 13-19 sf but some are as large as
24-35 sf. The following language will be incorporated into the residential unit lease: Appropriate tenant
provided patio and terrace furnishings are allowed on the residential balconies and terraces. This
includes exterior quality tables, chaIrs, and side tables; umbrellas are permitted on the EI Camino Real
facing terraces. The following items are prohibited from being stored, hung, displayed, or used for any
period of time on the residential balconies and terraces: Bicycles or sporting equipment; Grills, fryers,
hibachis or cookers of any type or style; Hanging or drying of clothes, sheets or other materials; Storage
of items other than exterior quality tables, chairs and side tables.
Item 6: Review Portage Service Wall Elevation
FGY was asked to look more closely at the Portage service wall elevation -the a rea between the glazed
retail corner and the residential units along Portage Ave. In working with GreenWaste and the City of
Palo Alto, the Trash/Recycling room that serves the ground floor restaurant and commercial office space
has been broken into 2 spaces with 2 separate roll-up doors. The Recycling room still opens towards
Portage Ave with a 5'-4" wide roll-up door but the Trash enclosure has been rotated 90 degrees with its
8'-8" roll-up door opening onto the parking plaza. Not only is the width of the Trash door moved off
Portage but the raised planter width has been increased from less than 8' to over 21', increasing the
landscape frontage on Portage Ave. Additionally the 2nd floor louvers have been reduced in size and the
3rd floor windows re-proportioned to better relate to the residential rainscreen wall proportions. Please
refer to supplemental sketch ARB-3 for a comparison of the August 1st and August 29th designs.
Item 7: Material Notes on Elevations
The team was asked to provide notes indicating the proposed materials for the exterior elevations.
Material selection notes have been coordinated and updated; please refer to sheets A3.1, A3.2 and A3.3
in the main set.
Item 8: Acacia Corner
The team was asked to review the proposed design for the Acacia Avenue elevation and investigate
opportunities for increasing pedestrian activity and connectivity to the courtyard. A number of
variations were explored resulting in four primary improvements:
• The exterior wall of the Acacia/ECR corner retail/commercial recreation space has been set back
to align with that of the restaurant along the Dining Arcade creating a new arcade, the Acacia
Arcade. Not only does this visually open the Acacia/ECR corner and increase the pedestrian
activity and usability of the ECR 'frontage, but it better connects with the overall elevation deSign
along the ECR frontage.
• As the double-height retail/commercial recreation space moves away 'from ECR, the board form
concrete and glass wall extends and a new glazed opening has been added to balance the Acacia
Arcade portal. A triple stack of projecting sunscreens to match those at the third floor above
the restaurant have been added to the Acacia windows. The new sunscreens can be seen in
Page 3 of 5
August 22, 2013
sidelights, and windows. The revisions have been incorporated into the project design. Please refer to
supplemental sketch ARB-l0 for a comparison of the August 1st and August 29th designs.
Item 13: EI Camino Real-Color Palette & Central Stair Tower
In general the material and color palette presented on Aug 1 was well received. The team reviewed the
overall color palette as part of the revision from zinc to composite cement panel cladding at the stair
towers and explored two additional improvements. The location of the two terra cotta colors onEI
Camino Real (grey and red/brown) have been switched such that the stronger red/brown is on the 4th
floor, set back from the main fa~ade, and the more neutral grey is on the 3rd floor. The gives the ECR
elevation less of a horizontal stripe/layered feel. Also, rich and beautiful as the dark brown wood
cladding of the courtyard stair tower is, it tends to go very dark in shadow. The team considered other
options and has revised the proposal to a lighter brown with a more open grain pattern. Not only is the
palette lightened but the grain adds visual texture. The second floor steel beam of the central stair
tower has also been m"oved inside the glass to revise the proportions of the lowest 2 levels of the stair
tower. The revisions have been incorporated into the project design. Please refer to supplemental
sketches ARB-ll and ARB-12 for a comparison of the August 1st and August 29th designs.
Thank you for your assistance with this application. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
We look forward to reviewing these items with the Board on August 29th• "
Sincerely,
Fergus Garber Young Architects
Heather Young
cc: John Tarlton, Tarlton Properties Inc.
Page 5 of 5
3159 EI Camino Real
Traffic Impact Analysis
Palo Alto,
California
Table 7 -Cumulative (2025) Intersection Levels of Service
1 EI Camino Real @Oregon Expy/Page Mill.Rd Signal F 88.2 F
2 EI Camino Real @ Portage Ave/Hansen Way Signal 31.2 C 49.2 0
3 EI camino Real @ W Charleston Rd/Arastradero Rd Signal SO.8 F 78.2 E-
Bold = Substandard
-.
CUMULATIVE (2025) PLUS PROPOSED PROJECT CONDITIONS
Peak-hourtraffic associated with the proposed project was added to the Cumulative (2025) traffic volumes
and levels of service were determined at the study intersections. Table 8 provides a summary of the
intersection analysis and Figure 11 provides the AM and PM traffic volumes for this analysis scenario.
Table 8 -Cumulative (2025) and Cumulative (2025) plus Proposed Project Intersection Levels of Service
F
f 89.2 F
SIgnal C 49.2 D'
0+ 53.5 'D-
3 Et Camino Real @ Cum. Signal SO.8 F 78.2 E-
W Charleston Rd / Arastradero Rd Cum.+PP 83.5 F 78.6 E-
+ Cum. =Cumulative (2025), Cum. + PP = Cumulative (2025) plus Proposed Project" Bold = Substandard
As indicated in Table 8, the study intersections operate from LOS C to LOS F during the AM and PM peak
hours. The analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix D.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Standards of Significance .
Project impacts were determined by comparing conditions with the proposed project to those without the
project. Impacts for intersections are created when traffic from the proposed project forces the LOS to fall
below a specific threshold. VTA's standards3 specify a standard of LOS E, as well as the following:
"I/the analysis shows that a development project is projected to cause traffiC LOS on a CMP
facility to fall from LOS E or better to LOS F under project conditions, then the project is said
to impact the facility ... A project is said to impact an intersection determined to have been at
LOS F under background conditions if the addition of project traffic increases the average
control delay for critical movements by four (4) seconds or more, . and projected traffic
increases the critical vIc value by 0.01 or more."
The following is a discussion of the impacts and associated mitigations required for each of the analysis
scenarios .
............. Klmley-Horn
....... , ~ and Associates. Inc.
16 July 9, 2013
3159 EI Camino Real
Traffic Impact Analysis
Impacts and Mitigations
Existing (2012) plus Proposed Project Conditions
Palo Alto,
. California
As reflected in Table 4, the addition of the proposed project does not result in significant impacts as defined
by VTA. Accordingly, no mitigations are required. .
. Background (2015) plus Proposed Project Conditions
As reflected in Table 6, the addition of the proposed project does not result in significant impacts as defined
by VTA. Accordingly, no mitigations are required.
Cumulative (2025) plus Proposed Project Conditions
As reflected in Table 8, the addition of the proposed project results in one (1) significant impact as defined
by VTA. The following is a discussion of the impact and its associated mitigation.
Impact:
Il. Intersection #3, EI Camino Real @ West Charleston Road/Arastradero Road
As shown in Table 8 and as depicted in the analysis worksheets provided in Appendix 0, this
intersection operates at LOS F du ring the AM peak-hour without the project. The project increases
movement delay for the southbound through and right, as well as the westbound through and
right by more than 4.0 seconds, and increases the volume/capacity ratio for these four movements
by 0.01 during the AM peak-hour. This is a significant impact.
Mitigation:
Ml. Intersection #3, EI Camino Real @ West Charleston Road/Arastradero .Road
The significant impact at this intersection during the AM peak-hour can be mitigated with the
evaluation and implementation of signal cycle length optimization and reallocation of the green
time. As shown in Table 9 and in the analysis worksheet provided in Appendix E, this mitigation
measure reduces the delay and critical movement volume/capacity ratios below the conditions
without the project, although the intersection continues to operate at substandard LOS F.
However, this impact is less than significant.
Table 9 -Intersection Levels of Service -
Cumulative (2025) plus Proposed Project Mitigated Conditrons
3 EI Camino Real @
WCharleston Rd I Arastradero Rd Signal
+ Cum. = Cumulative (202.5), Cum. + PP = Cumulative (2025) plus Proposed Project. Mit = Mitigated.
Bold = Substandard
Analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix E .
......... n Kimley-Horn ~_, .., and Associates. Inc. 18 July 9, 2013
3159 EI Camino Real
Traffic Impact Analysis
Palo Alto,
California
CONCLUSIONS
Based uponthe analysis documented in this report, the following conclusions are offered:
•
•
•
The proposed project is estimated to generate 893 total new daily trips, with 89 trips occurring
during the AM peak .. hour, and 58 new trips occurring during the PM peak-hour. ,
As de'fined by'VTA, the addition of the proposed project to the Cumulative (2025) scenario
significantly worsen operating conditions at the EI Camino Rea] intersection with West Charleston
Rbad/Arastradero Road. This impact can be mitigated to be less than significant.
The addition of the proposed project adds nominal additional queuing to several of the study
locations. More specifically, the proposed project contributes at least one car length (25-feet) to the
eastbound EI Camino Real left-turn queue at the Portage Avenue/Hansen Way intersection .
....... _ ... Kimley-Hom
....... _, , and Associates. Inc. 20 July 9, 2013
Attachment F
• CfTYOF
PALO
ALTO
City of Palo Alto (10 # 3919)
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 7/10/2013
Summary Title: 3159 EI Camino Real
Title: Request by Heather Young on behalf of Portage Avenue Portfolio, LLC,
for Site and Design Review of a five story, 5S foot tall, 75,042 s.f. building,
replacing an existing 900 s.f. commercial building. to establish 48 residential
apartment units, and commercial and retail uses on a 1.6 acre site. The
proposal includes retention of 6,661 s.f. of floor area (3127 EI Camino Real)
and the existing parking structure at 440 Portage Avenue. Parking spaces
provided for 223 vehicles would include mechanical parking lifts.
Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study and Mitigated N·egative
Declaration have been prepared. Zone District: Service Commercial (CS).
From: Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Lead Department: Planning & Transportation Commission
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend
City Coundl approval of the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) approving:
(1) A Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA);
(2) The Site and Design Review application for a new 67,506 s.f. mixed-use building (added to
an existing 6,616 s.f. building) on a 1.6 acre site (resulting in a total 74,122 s.f. of floor area on a
69,503 s.f. site, and FAR of 1.06:1) to provide 48 apartment units, including five below market
rate units, and office and retail uses, with structured parking facilities (at surface and
underground) providing 216 parking spaces (including 11 puzzle lifts for 196 cars),
(3) Density Bonus concession permitting increased FAR for both residential and commercial
components of the .project in the total amount of 4, 619 square feet; and
{4} A Conditional Use Permit (to allow 16,118 sq. ft. of office space on one parcel where the
limit is 5,000 s.f.).
City 0/ Palo Alto Page 1
Background
Site Location
The project s"ite, located south of Page Mill Road on State Route 82 (EI Camino Real), is bounded
by Portage Avenue to the southeast and Acacia Avenue to the northwest, and the developed'
site at 435 Acacia Avenue (Equinox Gym building). The site includes the 6,616 s.f. Equinox Gym
annex at 3127 EI Camino Real, the 900 s.f. "We Fix Macs" building at 3159 EI Cami~o Real, the
parking structure at 440 Portage and two surface parking lots. The lot located at the northwest
corner of the site has 11 parking spaces, and the parking lot at the southwest corner of the site
(near the EI Camino Real and Portage Avenue intersection) has 44 parking spaces (on two
separate parcels). The site has five curb cuts onto public rights of way: two curb cuts on Portage
Avenue, one,curb cut on the EI Camino Real, and two curb cuts on Acacia Avenue. To the north
of Acacia Street is surface parking lot, across EI Camino Real to the west are restaurants
(McDonalds and Fish Market), across Portage Street to the south is a retail use (Footlocker) and
office buildings, and across the alley to the east is a retail use (Fry's Electronics).
The 1.6 acre project site (69,503 square feet) consists of four parcels to be merged under a
separate application (preliminary parcel map process). The parcel is, zoned CS (Service
Commercial) and is regulated by requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter
18.16. Mixed-use is a permitted land use in the CS zone district. The Comprehensive Plan
designation for this site is also Service Commerdal, which allows for facilities providing citywide
and regional services and relies on customers arriving by car. Residential and mixed use
projects may be appropriate in this land use category.
Project Description
The proposed project is 67,506 s.f. mixed use building which, when combined with the existing
6,616 s.f. Equinox gym annex located on the site, would result floor area to a total of 74,122
s.f. The maximum height would be 55 feet above grade to allow for loft space in the fourth
floor residential units, as well as to screen mechanical equipment. At the ground floor level,
retail/restaurant/commercial recreation space is proposed, and the building setback on EI
camino Real would allow an effective 12 foot sidewalk width. A total of 48 residential
apartment units would be provided on four of the floors (second, third, fourth, and partial fifth
floors). The proposed loft spaces, accessible internally from fourth floor residential units would
have floors below the ceiling level of the fourth floor units. Office space would be provided on
portions of the first, second, and third floors. Third and fourth floors are proposed above a
portion of the existing Equinox building at 3127 EI Camino Real. The first and second floors
would be separated across the site by the existing Equinox building walls and by a courtyard
proposed between the gym and the new restaurant/retail space. The third and fourth floors
across the site are mostly physically separat,ed (using expansion joints) except for limited
hallway access, but would be visually connected.
City 0/ Palo Alto Page 2
The project includes surface and one level of underground parking facilities (13 feet below
grade) for 216 parking spaces, including 11 puzzle parking lifts. The building woul d be
constructed to displace one surface parking lot and reduce the size and cover another su rface
parking lot on the site.
The subterranean garage would connect to the existing below grade garage on Portage Avenue
(that serves tenants of 411-43.5 Acacia Avenue) at the south east corner of the site. The main,
'finished garage floor level would be located below the existing site grades, and three level car
stackers would be installed in the garage. The lifts would extend approximately six to seven feet
below the main garage floor. Vehicular access to the site would be provided exclusively on
Portage Avenue via two curb cuts; all other existing curb cuts (on EI Camino Real and Acacia
Avenue) would be removed. The parking spaces would be provided in both the existing two-
level garages on Portage Avenue, and in the new underground garage that would be accessed
from a below grade connection to the existing Portage Avenue garage. Fifteen (15) sUrface
level visitor parking spaces are proposed beneath the residential wing of the proposed building.
Site improveme~ts such as landscaping, walkways and an outdoor dining terrace are also
inCluded in the proposed project. Plans also reflect a new concrete pad projecting at the level of
the EI Camino Real sidewalk into EI Camino Real right of way to provide a corral for 18 bike
parking spaces.
Other'project aspects include a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Design Enhancement Exceptions
(DEEs), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Concession, and parking reduction incentives. A CUP is
requested to permit the proposed office floor area to exceed the 5,000 square feet per parcel
limit (by 11,118 sJ.). Two DEEs are requested and would be reviewed by the Architectural
Review Board. One DEE is a request for the height of the residential loft spaces to exceed the
50 foot height limit by five additional feet. The second DEE r~quests a relaxation from the
build-to requirement along the Portage Avenue frontage, resulting in a greater setback of seven
feet six inches rather than a five foot setback. The proposal also includes five below market
rate residential apartment units (10% of the total units), allowing a concession for greater floor
area than the maximum allowable area, as well as fewer parking spaces than would otherWise
be required.
Summary of Land Use Action
Commission Purview
The Commission reviews and recommends the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Site and DeSign
Review,' density bonus concession and Use Permit applications. The recommendations will be
forwarded to Council following hearing and recommendation by the ARB on the Site and DeSign
Review and Design Enhancement Exception requests. The ARB hearing will be another public
City 0/ Palo Alto Page 3
comment opportunity on the environmental document and project as a whole, but the ARB
focus is on the ARB findings to ensure good site design, landscaping and building design, and
the sustainability of the project. The Commission's focus is on the environmental document,
land use and Site and Design Review findings. The Council will receive both recommendations
and minutes of the public hearings in the staff report and presentation to Council.
Summary of Key Issues
Concessions for FAR
Five of the proposed 48 rental apartment units will be provided as below market rate Units.
This is 10% of the total number of units. The floor area allowance in the CS zone district is 1:1
or 69,503 square feet for this site. The maximum nonresidential floor area is 0.4:1 of the site or
27,801 sq.ft., where the proposed nonresidential floor area is 31,262 sq.ft. (3,460 sq.ft. over the
0.4:1 nonresidential FAR). Of the nonresidential floor area, .15~1 FAR or 10,425 sq.ft. of floor
area must be ground floor commercial area; the project includes 17,073 s.f. of ground floor
commercial area, meeting the' minimum standard. The maximum residential floor area is 0.6:1
or 41,701 sq.ft. where 42,860 Sq.ft. is proposed (1,158 s'q.ft. over the 0.6:1 residential FAR).
To assist in providing the proposed BMR units, the applicant has proposed to exceed the
allowable 1:1 FAR (69,503 sq.ft. of floor area) by 4,619 square feet for a total floor area of
74,122 square feet. State density bonus law allows for concessions when at least 10% of the
housing units proposed are affordable units. The requested concession is an FAR of .06:1 over
the maximum allowable 1:1 FAR. The housing component of this project is a good example of
the type of housing develoPment envisioned by the new Housing Element. The sites were
located on the City's inventory. The project combines smaller sized parcels to maximize
density. The small units are designed to appeal to an urban commuter and they are located
close to transit. The requested concession is also consistent with the Density Bonus recently
recommended by the Commission.
Parking Reductions
, The total number of parking spaces that would generally be required for the project based on
the city's zoning requirements is 247 parking spaces. State density bonus law (Government
code Section 65915, also formerly known as 5B, 1818) provides the ability to use a lower
number of parking spaces when a project provides a 'minimum of 10% BMR units in a project.
The differences between the City's residential parking requirements and the residential parking
requirements under the State law are provided in the table below.
City 0/ Palo Alto Page 4
Parking Table
Residential City Standard Number State Incentives Number
··unit type (# of units X spaces of Spaces (# of units x spaces of spaces
per unit required) per PAMC per unit required) per$tate
Studio 33 x 1.25 41.25 33 x 1 33
1 bedroom 14 x 1.5 21 14 x 1 14
2 bedroom 1x2 2 1x2 2
Guest Parking 33% 16 0% 0
Total Parking 80 49
Spaces
The State law allows for a 31 space reduction in the number of parking spaces required in the
project. While the project would prQvide 31 spaces fewer than the City's parking code requires,
with the state incentives for parking reductions, the project will be otherwise zoning compliant
for required parking. A breakdown of the parking regulations is provided in the zoning
compliancetable attachment C.
DEE for Height
The height limit for the CS zone is 50 feet. The applicant has proposed a DEE to exceed the 50
foot height limit by 5· feet, for a total height of 55 feet. This is requested so the height of the
mechanical roof screens and the loft roofs could be integrated into one single cohesive roof
element, rather than multiple roof screens randomly scattered across the top of the building.
The DEE findings are provided in the draft Record of land Use Action (Attachment A).
DEE for Build to line
The CS zone district requires that 33% of the bui~ding be built up to the setback on the side
.streets (Acacia and Portage Avenues), and that 50% of the main building frontage (EI Camino
Real) be at the setback line of zero to ten feet to create a 12 foot effective sidewalk with (curb
to building face), On the 150 foot long Acacia Avenue frontage, 39% or 59' of the building wall -
is proposed to be placed at the five foot setback, therefore the requirement is met. On the 458
foot long Portage Avenue frontage, the length of the· building wall is approximately 149 feet
long. To meet the 33% build to setback requirement, at least 49·linear feet of the building wall
would need to be built up to the five foot required setback. To accommodate the extension of
the residential balconies and the accessible ramp up to the elevated plaza, the building Would
be built with a minimum seven foot'six inch setback, rather than up to the required five foot
setback. This would be two and one half feet further back from the street than is required by
City of Palo Alto Page 5
the code for 33% of the wall length. This would result in a greater setback than the build to
requirement allows, necessitating a DEE request. While the building wall is further from the
setback than required, the residential balconies at the second, third, and fourth floors would
extend ~ut forward 11 inches beyond the property line.
Site and Design Review
The Site and Design Review combining district is intended to provide a process for review and
approval of development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including
established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic ·factors, excessive
noise, increased traffic, or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will
be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental
and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The
property is not located within an ecologically sensitive area or within a Site and Design
combining district. The code, however, does require that mixed use projects providing mOre
than four residential dwelling units are subject to Site and Design Review. Because the
application includes 48 residential units, it is therefore subject to Site and Design Review which
requires review by the Commission, the ARB and the City Council. The Commission and ARB
will forward their recommendation to City Council for final approval of the proposed mixed use
project. Since the CUP and the DEE's are part of the project proposal the final Council action
will include these project elements as well. The Site and Design review findings are provided
within the RLUA (Attachment A).
Conditional Use Permit
The CS zoning limits office uses to no more than 5,000 square feet per parcel. The zoning also
contains a provision that allows the. parcel to exceed the 5,000 s.f. office limit with a
Conditional Use Permit., The limit is ultimately established by the Director. Since the four
parcels will be combined into one parcel a Conditional Use permit to exceed the 5,000 s.f. limit
of office space per parcel is included as part of the application. The -total amount of office
space proposed within the project is 16,118 square feet. This is only 21.7% of the total floor
area within the project. The amount of office square footage is similar to the amount of retail
floor area, providing a balance between the two uses while being considerably less than the
proposed residential floor area proposed within the project. The CUP findings are provided
within the RLUA (Attachment A).
Bike Parking
The plans provided'in this packet includes a bulb out area at the EI Camino Real frontag~ to
provide additional bike parking spaces. EI Camino Real is a State Highway and the California
City 0/ Palo Alto Page 6
Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) has ultimate authority over modifications to the EI
Camino Real public right-of-way. Transportation staff does not believe that Cal Trans will be
supportive of the bulb out element into the roadway and has directed the applicant to find
alternative locations for the bike ·parking. The applicant has stated that the plans will be revised
to eliminate the bulb out element and also provide the required bike parking at grade and in
secured bike cages in the below grade garage.
EI Camino Real Development
Three guidelines are applicable to this site: (1) EI Camino Real Design Guidelines (ECR
Guidelines), (2) South EI Camino Real Guidelines, recommended by ARB in 2002 (South ECR
Guidelines), and (3) EI Camino Real Master Schematic Design Plan, 2003 Draft (Design Plan).
South EeR Guidelines: The project site is located within the Cal Ventura Area, a corridor area, as
defined by the South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines indicate
new buildings should front EI Camino Real with prominent facades and entries should face EI
Camino Real or clearly visible and easily accessible to pedestrians.
• Guideline 3.1.2 states lithe design of the sidewalk setback should create an urban
character"; the buildings would be set back from EI Camino Real to provide a 12 foot
wide effective sidewalk width (curb face to building, required by Zoning Code Section
18.16.060). A raised outdoor dining terrace is proposed, facing EI Camino Real at the
corner of Portage Avenue.
• Guideline 3.1.8 notes "new buildings should relate to and compliment surrounding
buildings and street frontages" and "projects should relate to adjacent buildings with
complimentary building orientations and compatible landscaping." No landscape plans
have been submitted to date, but will be required for the Architectural Review Board
hearing of the project. The proposed design would ,meet Guideline 4.1.6, which states,
"buildings facing EI Camino Real should be oriented parallel to the ECR rignt of way to
create a cohesive well-defined street." Two entries would be facing EI Camino Real.
The proposed project would cover an entire EI Camino 'Real frontage block. Contextual
streetscape views beyond the block were provided to allow for comparison of the
project height and scale with development along the same side of EI Camino Real,
mostly one-story buildings. The ARB would also evaluate the project pursuant to
Guidelines 4.3.6, 4.5.4 and 4.5.5, which are:
• Guideline 4.3.6: /I All exposed sides of a building should be designed with the same level
City of Palo Alto Page 7
of care and integrityll and "Buildings should be attractive and visually engaging from all
sides, unless in a zero lot-line condition."
• Guideline 4.5.4 and 4.5.5: "rooflines and roof shapes should be consistent with the
design and structure of the building itself as well as with roof lines of adjacent buildlngsll
a~d "roof forms should reflect the fa~ade articulation and building massing, as opposed
to a single-mass roof over an articulated fa~ade."
ECR Guidelines: The 1979 ECR guidelines are somewhat helpful with respect to street trees,
signage, architecture and building colors.
• Trees: ECR guidelines call for street tree spacing every 25 feet (page 2, top) or 30 feet
(page 2, bottom); whereas the Design Plan calls for London Plane street trees in this
segment of EI Camino Real, planted every 22 to 33 ·feet on center in 4' x 6' tree .wells,
and prunes to provide 14 feet of clearance below to allow for truck and bus traffic. The
five existing London Plane trees on EI Camino Real are shown as to be retained; three
new street trees are proposed along Acacia, and one street tree is proposed on Portage
to supplement the existing Ash street tree. The Landscape Plan to be prepared for ARB
review would provide further detail as to plantings and proposed tree species.
• Signage: There are a few relevant statements, such as -"Signs on ECR are limited to Y2
to 2/3 the maximum size permitted by the sign ordinancell
; "Wall signs should appear
as though the building and the sign were designed together. The sign should not appear
as if it were attached as an afterthought"; "A place for a sign should be designed into
the elevation (if a sign is needed)"; and "Three signs, one on each elevation, are usually
not approved." The project plans indicate one location for sign age, at the intersection of
. EI Camino Real and Portage, a low wall sign. Further detail would be required for the
staff and ARB review of signage placement.
• Architecture: "In neighborhood commercial zones, the design should be pedestrian
oriented; signs and details should not be primarily auto-oriented." Also, "when possible
buildings should be set back from the front property line, with .Iandscaping or a people
oriented plaza in front." The project provides for planter landscaping, new street trees
where none currently exist, and some pedestrian oriented signage. An outdoor dining
terrace, facing EI Camino Real, with trelliage, is also proposed to activate' the EI Camino
Real elevation.
• Colors: "More than three colors on a structure will make it incompatible with the
City of Paid Alto Page 8
surroundings. Using bright colors, such as reds, yellows, purples and greens as the
predominant color on a structure may make it incompatible with the surroundings. The
ARB usually feels these colors are used to attract attention." Colors and materials board
would be provided for the ARB review.
Policy Implications
Many of the City's policies are reflected in the project's design. The South EI Camino Real
GUidelin'es, the Context-Based Design Criteria, and Comprehensive Plan policies are
implemented by this proposal. The project has pieced together smaller parcels to form a large
enough parcel that is able to realize the elements of the various City Guidelines. The bUilding
provides a strong street edge along EI Camino Real while providing a wide 12 foot sidewalk, at
minimum~ and various other pedestrian amenties. The building would have four floors but the
uper floors would be set back to reduce the apparent height and mass of the building on the
street. The building would have an elevated corner plaza at the intersection of Portage Avenue
and EI Camino Real 'for outdoor seating, storefront entries that face the street, an arcade
providing pedestrian weather protection, and residential balconies that relate to the street.
The building fa~ade is well articulated with ample fenestration and a multitude of deSign
elements including a corner glass element with sunshades, balconies at the residential floors,a
wide opening to an interior courtyard and stair tower, and multiple transitions in building
materials with numerous colors and textures. The project would replace surface parking lots,
visible from EI Camino Real, with underground parking and surface parking that is at grade
behind and beneath the new building. All curb cuts along EI Camino Real would be removed,
resulting in improved pedestrian safety. Many of the project elements work together to
improve pedestrian access and serve to implement the vision of a ,more pedestrian-oriented EI
Camino Real. In addition to the physical elements, the proposed uses within the project also
serve to reduce auto usage and encourage pedestrian activity. This is a true mixed use project
with a high number of small rental residential units not typically seen in mixed use projects of
the recent past. This is a housing project that is not commonly built in Palo Alto and would
be a welcome addition to the City's rental housing stock. The housing development is
consistent with the City's recently adopted Housing Element and also consistent with the
pending Density Bonus ordinance (scheduled for Council review in August). In adition to the
residential uses, the proposal also includes a reasonable balance of office and retail spaces.
Timeline
Application submittal:
Mitigated Negative Declaration available for Public comment:
Planning and Transportation Commission Review:
Architectural Review Board Review:
City 0/ Palo Alto
January 29, 2013
May 31,2013
July 10, 2013
TBD
Page 9
City Council Review: TBD
Environmental Review
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declarati~n have been prepared for the project and the
30 day public review and comment period began on May 31, 2013. The environmental analysis
notes there are a few potentially signHicant impacts that would require mitigation measures to
reduce.them to a less than significant' level. These include mitigations for dust constrol during
excavation, protection for nesting birds, building design for earthquake resistance, basement'
shoring, a Health and Safety Plan for construction workers, a Remedial Risk Management Plan,
collection~ of additional soil samples, installation of a vapor barrier, vapor collection, and
venting system, third party inspection of vapor barrier and. venting system, a Groundwater
Mitigation Plan, development of a Groundwater Extraction design, technical documents
uploaded to the appropriate agencies, and the addition of a southbound West Charleston Road
right turn overlap Signal phase.
Courtesy Copies
Fergus Garber Young Architects
Portage Avenue Portfolio, LLC
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action (PDF)
• Attachment B: Site location map (PDF)
• Attachment C: Zoning Compliance Table (PDF)
• Attachment 0: Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table (PDF)
• Attachment E: Applicant letter (PDF)
• Attachment F: Initial Studay and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (PDF)
• Attachment G: Project Plans (P& TC and Libraries only) (PDF)
• Attachment H: Letter of Support (PDF)
City 0/ Palo Alto Page 10
CITY OF
ALO
ALTO
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
August 1, 2013
Architectural Review Board
Russ Reich, Senior 'Planner
Attachment G
Architectural Review Board ,
Staff Report
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
3159 EI Camino Real [13PLN-00040]: Request by Heather Young of
Fergus Garber Young Architects on behalf of Portage Avenue Portfolio,
LLC for Site and Design Review of the proposal for the construction of a
new four story, 55 feet tall, approximately 74,122 square foot mixed Use
building on a 1.6 acre site, with commercial and office uses and 48
residential apartment units. The project also includes Design Enhancement
Exceptions (DEEs) for height and build to lines and a Conditional Use
Permit. Zone District: Service Commercial (CS). Environmental
Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the
project in accordance with CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and t~e Planning and· Transportation Conlffiission recommend that the Architectural Review
Board recommend that the ' City Council approve the draft Record of Land Use Action
(Attachment A) approving:
(1) A Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA);
(2) The Site and Design Review application for a new 67,506 s.f. mixed-use building (added to an
existing 6,616 s.f. building) on a 1.6 acre site (resulting in a total 74,122 s.f. of floor ~ea on a
69,503 s.f. site, and FAR of 1.06:1) to provide 48 apartment units, including five Below Market
Rate (BMR) units, and office and retail uses, with structured parking facilities (at surface and
underground) providing 216 parking spaces (including 11 puzzle lifts for 196 cars),
(3) Density Bonus concession permitting increased FAR for both residential and commercial
components of the project in the total amount of 4, 619 square feet; and
( 4) A Conditional U s~ Permit (to allow 16,118 sq: ft. of office space on one parcel where the limit
is.5,OOO s.f.) (Reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission on July 10,2013).
(5) DEEs for five feet of additional height and alleviation of the build to line by two and a half
feet.
File Number 13PLN-0004Q Page 1 of8
BACKGROUND
Process History
On July 10, 2013 the project was heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission
(Commission) for formal review and recommendation to the City Council. There were four
public speakers. Two speakers voiced concerns over traffic and parking while the other two
speakers spoke in favor of the project noting the benefits of higher density housing. The
Commission voted 5-0-2-0 to approve the project and discussed the following items:
• Parking lifts;
• Parking requirements;
• DEE for height;
• State density bonus law.
The Commission was supportive of the project and commented that it was real mixed use and
good urban design. The Commission agreed that the project implements the policies of the
Comprehensive plan. There were questions about the parking lifts. They asked if they are able to
charge electric vehicles, how much power the lifts used to operate, and if people would opt to use
the other open parking spaces rather than their own dedicated space within the parking lift. The
Conlmission expressed the desire for projects to be fully parked per the City's parking .code
despite the reductions permitted by the State when providing BMR units in a project. Much of the
discussion was related to the requested DEE for height. Many agreed that the additional five feet
in height, associated with the loft spaces, was an appropriate use of the DEE resulting in a more
unified roof element that was no taller than the roof screens alone would have been. Due to the
fact that habitable space would result within the loft spaces, one Commissioner believed that the
DEE process was not the appropriate process for the height exception. The State Density Bonus
Law was also discussed. The Commission asked if the City was compelled to accept the BMR
units and the associated concessions that go along with them or if the City could refuse the BMRs
and eliminate the concessions ..
Site Location
The project site, located south of Page Mill Road on State Route 82 (El Camino Real), is bounded
by Portage A venue to the southeast and Acacia A venue to the northwest, and the developed site at
435 Acacia Avenue (Equinox Gym building). The site includes the 6,616 s.f. Equinox Gym annex
at 3127 El Camino Real, the 900 s.f. "We Fix Macs" building at 3159 El Camino Real, the
parking structure at 440 Portage and two surface parking lots~ The lot located at the northwest
comer of the site has 11 parking spaces, and the parking lot at the southwest comer of the site
(near the El Camino Real and Portage Avenue intersection) has 44 parking spaces (on two
separate parcels). The site has five curb cuts onto public rights of way: two curb cuts on Portage
Avenue, one curb cut on the El Camino Real, and two curb cuts on Acacia Avenue. To the north
of Acacia Street is surface parking lot, across El Camino Real to the west are restaurants
(McDonalds and Fish Market), across Portage Street to the south is a retail use (Footlocker) and
office buildings, and across the alley to the east is a retail use (Fry's Electronics).
The 1.6 acre project site (69,503 square feet) consists of four parcels to be merged under a
separate application (preliminary ·parcel nlap process). The parcel is zoned CS (Service
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 2 of8
Commercial) and is regulated by requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC) Chapter
18.16. Mixed-use is a permitted land use in the CS zone district. The Comprehensive Plan
designation for this site is also Service Commercial, which allows for facilities providing citywide
and regional services and relies on customers arriving by car. Residential and mixed use projects
may be appropriate in this land use category.
Project Description
The proposed project is 67,506 s.f. mixed use building which, when combined with the existing
6,616 s.f. Equinox gym annex located on the site, would result floor area to a total of 74,122 s.f ..
The maximum height would be 55 feet above grade to allow for loft space in the fourth floor
residential units, as well as to screen mechanical . equipment. At the ground floor level,
retail/restaurant/commercial recreation space is proposed, and the building setback on El Camino
Real would allow an effective 12 foot sidewalk width. A total of 48 residential apartment units
would be provided on four of the floors (second, third, fourth, and partial fifth floors). The
proposed loft spaces, accessible internally from fourth floor residenti&l units, would have floors
below the ceiling level of the fourth floor units. Office space would be provided on portions of the
first, second, and third floors. Third and fourth floors are proposed above a portion of the existing
Equinox building' at 3127 El Camino Real. The first and second floors would be separated across
the site by' the existing Equinox building walls and by a courtyard proposed between the gym and
the new restaurant/retail space. The third and fourth floors across the site are mostly physically
separated (using expansion joints) except for limited hallway access, but would be visually
connected.
The building is proposed to have a wide variety of colors, finish materials, and textures. These
include board formed concrete, zinc shingles, precast concrete panels, stucco plaster, cement
composite panels, wood composite panels, mate terra cotta rain screen panels, and grooved terra
cotta rain screen panels. In addition there are metal sunscreens, terra cotta sunscreens, steel and
aluminum windows, and painted steel guardrails.
The project includes' surface and one level of underground parking facilities (13 feet below grade)
for 216 parking spaces, including 11 puzzle parking lifts. The building would be constructed to
displace one surface parking lot and reduce the size and cover another surface parking lot on the
site. The subterranean garage would connect to the existing below grade garage on Portage
Avenue (that serves tenants of 411-435 Acacia Avenue) at the south east comer of the site. The
main, finished garage floor level would be located below the existing site grades, and three level
car stackers would be installed in the garage. The lifts would extend approximately six to seven
feet below the main garage floor. Vehicular access to the site would be provided exclusively on
Portage Avenue via two curb cuts; all other existing curb cuts (on El Camino Real and Acacia
Avenue) would be removed. The parking spaces would be provided in both the existing tWo-level
garage on Portage Avenue, and in the new underground garage that would be accessed from a
below grade connection to the existing Portage Avenue garage. Fifteen (15) surface-level visitor
parking spaces are proposed beneath the residential wing of the proposed building.
Site improvements such as landscaping, walkways, courtyards, and an outdoor dining terrace are
also included in the proposed project. The portico feature at the center of the project on EI
File Number 13PLN·00040 Page 3 of8
Camino Real leads into a large courtyard area located in the center of the project, allowing
pedestrian movement through the project and through to the Equinox main entrance behind the
project and access to the surface level parking area at Portage Avenue. The courtyard area also
provides access to the elevator and stair core that provides access to the offices and residential
units above. The courtyard has a series of triangular shaped planters with Japanese maples and
accent stones in gravel mulch. Some ot the planters have cantilevered benches for seating and
decOrative screen walls that would be up lit at night. There is also a water feature with three
bubbling fountains. A~specimen ginkgo tree would be placed at the end of the courtyard close to
the main equinox entry. Due to the.fact that the entire project would sit above a parking structure,
landscape opportunities are somewhat limited. In addition to the courtyard plantings the proposal
does include some cast in place concrete planters as well as potted plants in various locations
around the site. . There would also be three new street trees on Acacia A vep-ue and one new street
tree on Portage Avenue. The existing street trees around the perimeter of the project would
remain.
The proposal also includes five below market rate residential apartment units (10% of the total
units), allowing a concession for greater floor area than the maximum allowable area, as well as
fewer parking spaces than would otherwise be required.
Two DEEs are requested which are within the purview of the ARB. One DEE is a request for the
height of the residential loft spaces to exceed the 50 foot height limit by five additional feet. The
second DEE requests a relaxation from the build-to requirement along the Portage Avenue
frontage~ resulting in a greater setback of seven feet six inches rather than a five foot setback. The
DEEs are discussed in greater detail in the discussion section below.
DISCUSSION
Concessions for FAR
Five of the proposed 48 rental apartment units will be provided as below market rate uni~s. This
is 10% of the total number of units. The floor area allowance in the CS zone district is 1: 1 or
69,503 square feet for this site. The maximum nonresidential floor area is 0.4:1 of the site or
27,801 sq.ft., where the proposed nonresidential floor area is 31,262 sq.ft. (3,460 sq.ft. over the
0.4:1 nonresidential FAR). Of the nonresidential floor area, .15:1 FAR or 10,425 sq.ft. offloor
area must be ground floor commercial area; the project includes 17,073 s.f. of ground floor
commercial area, meeting the minimum standard. The maximum residential floor area is 0.6: 1 or
41,701 sq.ft. where 42,860 sq.ft. is proposed (1,158 sq.ft. over the 0.6:1 residential FAR).
To assist in providing the proposed' BMR units, the applicant has proposed to exceed the
allowable 1:1 FAR (69,503 sq.ft. of floor area) by 4,619 square feet for a total floor area of74,122
square feet. State density bonus law allows for' concessions when at least 10% of the housing
units proposed are affordable units. The requested concession is an FAR of .06: lover the
maximunl allowable 1: 1 FAR. The housing component of this project is a good example of the
type of housing development envisioned by the new Housing Element. The sites were located on
the City's inventory. The project combines smaller sized parcels to maximize density. The small
units are designed to appeal to an urban commuter and they are located close to transit. The
File Number 13PLN·00040 Page 4 of8
requested concession is also consistent with the Density Bonus recently recommended by the
Commission.
Parking Reductions
The total number of parking spaces that would generally be required for the project based on the
city's zoning requirements is 247 parking spaces. State density bonus law (Government code
Section 65915, also formerly known as SB 1818) provides the ability to use a lower number of
parking spaces when a project provides a minimum ofl0% BMR units in a project. The State law
allows for a 31 space reduction in the number of parking spaces required in the project. While the
project would provide 31 spaces fewer than the ' City's parking code requires, with the state
incentives for parking reductions, the project will be otherwise zoning compiiant for required
parking. A breakdown of the parking regulations is provided in the zoning compliance table
attachment C.
DEE for Height
The height limit for the CS zone is 50 feet. The applicant has proposed a DEE to exceed the 50
foot height limit by 5 feet, for a total height of 55 feet. This is requested so the height of the
mechanical roof screens and the loft roofs could be integrated into one single cohesive roof
element, rather than multiple roof screens randomly scattered across the top of the building. The
draft DEE findings are provided in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
DEE for Build to Line
The CS zone district requires that 330/0 of the building be built up to the " setback on the side streets
(Acacia and Portage Avenues), and that 500/0 of the main building frontage (El Camino Real) be at
the setback line of zero to ten feet to create a 12 foot effective sidewalk with (curb to building
face). On the 150 foot long Acacia Avenue frontage, 39% ot 59' of the building wall is proposed
to be placed at the five foot setback, therefore the requirement is met. On the 458 foot long
Portage A venue frontage, the length of the building wall is approximately 149 feet long. To me~t
the 330/0 build to setback requirement, at least 49 linear feet of the building wall would need to be
built up to the five foot required setback. To acconlmodate the extension of the residential
balconies and the accessible ramp up to the elevated plaza, the building would be built with a
minimum seven foot six inch setback, rather than up to the required five foot setback. This would
be two and one half feet further back form the street than is required by the code for 33% of the
wall length. This would result in a greater setback than the build to requirement allows,
necessitating a DEE request. . While the building wall is further from the setback than required,
the residential balconies at the second, third, and fourth floors would extend out forward 11 inches
beyond the property line.
Site and Design Review
The Site and Design Review combining district is intended to provide a process for review and
approval of development . in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including
established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise,
increased traffic, or other disruptions,' in order to assure that use and development will be
harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and
ecologiCal objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan .. The property
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 5 of8
is not located within an ecologically sensitive area or within a Site and Design combining district.
The code, howe~er, does require that mixed l,lse projects providing more than four residential
dwellingimits are subject to Site and Design Review. Because the application includes 48
residential units, it is therefore subject to Site and Design Review which requires review by the
Commission, the ARB and the City Council. The Commission and ARB will forward their
recommendation to City Council for final approval of the proposed mixed use project. Since the
CUP and the DEE's are part of the project proposal the final Cpuncil action will include these
project elements as well. The Site and Design review findings are provided within the RLUA
(Attachment A).
Conditional Use Permit
The CS zoning linlits office uses to no more than 5,000 square feet per parcel. The zoning also
contains a provision that allows the parcel to exceed the 5,000 s.f. office limit with a Conditional
Use Permit. The limit is ultimately established by the Director. Since the four parcels will be
combined into one parcel a Conditional Use permit to exceed the 5,000 s.f. limit of office space
per parcel is included as part of the application. The total amount of office space proposed within
the project is 16,118 square feet. This is only 21.7% of the total floor area within the project. The
amount of office square footage is similar to the amount of retail floor area, providing a balance
between the two uses while being considerably less · than· the proposed residential floor area
proposed within the project. The CUP findings are provided within the RLUA (Attachment A).
Bike Parking
The plans provided in this packet include a bulb out area at the EI Camino Real frontage to
provide additional bike parking spaces. El Camino Real is a State Highway and the California
Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) has ultimate authority over modifications to the EI
Camino Real public right-of-way. Transportation staff does not believe that Cal Trans will be
supportive of the bulb out element into the roadway and has directed the applicant to find
alternative locations for the bike parking. The applicant has stated that the plans will be revised to
eliminate the bulb out element and also provide the required bike parking at grade and in secured
bike cages in the below grade garage.
El Camino Real Development
Three guidelines are applicable to this site: (1) EI Camino Real Design Guidelines (ECR
Guidelines), (2) South EI Camino Real Guidelines, recommended by ARB in · 2002 (South ECR
Guidelines), and (3) EI Camino Real Master Schematic Design Plan, 2003 Draft (Design Plan).
South ECR Guidelines: The project site is located within the Cal Ventura Area, a corridor area, as
defined by the South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines indicate
new buildings should front EI Camino Real with prominent facades and entries should face EI
Camino Real or clearly visible and easily accessible to pedestrians.
• Guideline 3.1.2 states "the design of the sidewalk setback should create an urban character";
the buildings would be set back fromEI Camino Real to provide a 12 foot wide effective sidewalk
width (curb face to building, required by Zoning Code Section 18.16.060). A raised outdoor
dining terrace is proposed, beginning at the 12 foot setback, facing EI Camino Real at the comer
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 6 of8
of Portage Avenue. The building would be setback an additional 24 feet from the 12 foot setback
creating an open plaza at the corner.
• Guideline 3.1.8 notes "new buildings should relate to and compliment surrounding buildings
and street frontages" and "projects should relate to adjacent buildings with complimentary
building orientations and compatible landscaping." No landscape plans have been submitted to
date,. but will be required for the Architectural Review Board hearing of the project. The proposed
design would meet Guideline 4.1.6, which states, "buildings facing EI Camino Real should be
oriented parallel to the ECR right of way to create a cohesive well-defined street." Two entries
would be facing EI Camino Real.
The proposed project would cover an entire EI Camino Real frontage block. Contextual
streetscape views beyond the block were provided to allow for comparison of the project height
and scale with development along the same side of EI Camino Real, mostly one-story buildings.
The ARB would also evaluate the project pursuant to Guidelines 4.3.6, 4.5.4 and 4.5.5, which are:
• Guideline 4 .. 3.6: "All exposed sides of a building should be designed with the same level of
care and integrity". and "Buildings should be attractive and visually engaging from all sides, unless
in a zero lot-line condition."
• GUIdeline 4.5.4 and 4.5.5: "rooflines and roof shapes should be consistent with the design and
structure of the building itself as well as with roof lines 'of adjacent buildings" and "roof forms
should reflect the fa9ade articulation and building massing, as opposed to a single-mass roof over
an articulated fa9ade."
ECR Guidelines: The 1979 ECR guidelines are somewhat helpful with respect to street trees . ,
signage, architecture and building colors.
It Trees: ECR guidelines call for street tree spacing every 25 feet (page 2, top) or 30 feet (page 2,
bottom); whereas the Design Plan calls for London Plane street trees in this segment ofEI Camino
Real, planted every 22 to 33 feet on center in 4' x 6' tree wells, and prunes to provide 14 feet of
clearance below to allow for truck and bus traffic. The five existing London Plane trees on EI
Camino Real are shown as to be retained; three new street trees are proposed along Acacia, and
one street tree is proposed on Portage to supplement the existing Ash street tree. The Landscape
Plan to be prepared for ARB review would provide further detail as to plantings and proposed tree
species.
• Signage: There are a few relevant statements, such as -"Signs on ECR are limited to 12 to 2/3
the maximum size permitted by the sign ordinance"; "Wall signs should appear as though the
building and the sign were designed together. The sign should not appear as if it were attached as
an afterthought"; "A place for a sign should be designed into the elevation (if a sign is needed)";
and "Three signs, one on each elevation, are usually not approved." The project plans indicate one
location for signage, at the intersection of EI Camino Real and Portage, a low wall sign. Further
detail would be required for the staff and ARB review of signage placement.
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 7 of8
• Architecture: "In neighborhood commercial zones, the design should be pedestrian oriented;
signs and details should not be primarily auto-oriented." . Also, "when possible buildings should
be set back from the front property line,with landscaping or a people-oriented plaza in front." The
project provides for planter landscaping, new street trees where none currently exist, and some
pedestrian oriented signage. An outdoor dining terrace, facing El Camino Real, with trelliage, is
also proposed to activate the El Camino Real elevation.
• Colors: "More than three colors on a structure will make it incompatible with the surroundings.
Using bright colors, such as reds, yellows, purples and greens as the predominant color on a
structure may make it incompatible with the surroundings. The ARB usually feels these colors are
used to attract attention." Colors and materials board would be provided for the ARB review.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project and the 30
day public review and comment period began on May 31, 2013 and ended on July 1, 2013. 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. These include mitigations for
dust control during excavation, protection for nesting birds, building design for earthquake
resistance, basement shoring, a Health and Safety Plan for construction workers, a Remedial Risk
Management Plan, collection of additional soil samples, installation of a vapor barrier, vapor
collection, and venting system, third party inspection of vapor barrier and venting system, a
Groundwater Mitigation Plan, development of a Groundwater Extraction design, technical
documents uploaded to the appropriate agencies, and the evaluation and implementation of signal
cycle length optimization and reallocation of the green time.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Record of Land Use Action
B. Site Location Map
C. Zoning Compliance Table
D. Comprehensive Compliance Plan Table
E. . Applicant's Project Description Letter*
F. Previous Staff Report, Planning and Transportation Commission, July 20, 2013
G. Planning and Transportation Commission minutes, July 10,2013,
H. Public Correspondence
I. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
J. Plans (ARB Members only)*
* Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff
COURTESY COPIES
Heather Young, applicant
Portage Avenue Portfolio, owner
Prepared By: Russ Reich, Senior Plapner 4't N9r'
Manager Review: Amy French, Chief Planning Officialw
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 8 of8
Attachment I
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Site and Design Review of the demolition of two existing
commercial buildings (at 3111 and 3159 EI Camino Real, comprising 6,616 s.f.) and the construction of
a 69,503 s.f. building (net gain of 62,887 square feet of new floor area) to establish a 49-6" foot tall, 4-
story, 46-unit . apartment building, with commercial, office and retail uses with underground parking
providing 223 parking spaces including parking lifts on a 1.6 acre site . located at 3159 EI Camino Real.
Zone District: Service Commercial (CS).
1. PROJECT TITLE
3159 EI Camino Real
Palo Alto, California 94306
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Commuriity Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Margaret Netto
Contract Planner, City of Palo Alto
. 650-617-3137
. 4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
Heather Young
81 Encina Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94402
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
13-PLN-00040
6. PROJECT LOCATION
3111-3159 EI Camino Real
Palo Alto
Parcel Numbers: 132-38-32, 35, 65 and 66
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration
The project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of
Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of Interstate 280. The project site has
frontage on State Route 82 (EI Camino Real), Portage Avenue to the southeast, Acacia Avenue
to the .northwest and a developed commercial property to the northeast.
To the north of' the site is surface parking, across EI Camino Real to the east are restaurants
(McDonaldsand Fish Market), across Portage Street. to the south is a retail (FootlOCker) and
office building, and across the alley to the east is retail (Fry's Electronics).
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The" General Plan designation for this site is Service Commercial, per the Palo Alto 1998 -2010
Comprehensive Plan." The Service Commercial land use designation allows for facilities
providing"citywide and regional services and relies on customers arriving "by car. Typical uses
encouraged in this district include auto services and dealerships, motels, appliance stores and
restaurants. Within some locations, residential and mixed use projects may be appropriate in this
land use category. The proposed mixed-use development within this section" of the City is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to provide residential and mixed-use.
8. ZONING
The project site consists of four parcels having approximately 1.6 acres (69,696 square feet)
which will be merged under a separate application. The parcel is zoned CS (Service
Commercial) and is regulated by the Palo Alto. Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.16.
Commercial development on the project site is subject to the development standards, review
process, and context based design criteria estahlished for mixed use developments within P AMC
Chapter 18.16. The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and
procedures established by other relevant chapters of the Zoning Code apply. Mixed-use is a
permitted land use in the service commercial (CS) district.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project at 3159 EI Camino Real is the demolition of two existing commercial
buildings (at 3111 and 3159 EI Camino Real), totaling 6,616s.f., and the construction of a 49-6"
foot tall, 4-story, 46-unit apartnlent building,' with commercial, office and retail uses totaling
62,887 square feet" of new floor area. The project includes underground parking facilities (13
feet below grade) providing 223 parking spaces including parking lifts. The four story building
would be constructed over a portion of the below grade garage footprint in the southwest comer
of the site, near EI Camino Real and Portage Avenue intersection. Third and fourth story
additions are also proposed above the central portion of the existing building (3127 EI Camino
Real-Equinox Fitness Gym) at the site. A second four-story building would be constructed over
the below-grade garage in the northwest comer of the site. The uppe'r two floors of the three
buildings would be connected. The building would be occupied by residential apartments on the
second through fourth floors, office space on the third, and recreational, restaurant, retail spaces
on the groUnd level. "
A single level of below-grade parking garage-would be constructed beneath the majority of the
site. The subterranean garage would connect to the existing below grade garage on Portage
Avenue at the south east comer of the site. The main finished garage floor elevation Would be
below the existing site grades, and car lifts would be installed on the southeastern half of the
garage, which would extend approximately 6 to 7 feet below the main garage floor.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 3 " Mitigated Negative Declaration
Primary access to the site would be provided from Portage Avenue with secondary access from
Acacia Avenue. Vehicul~ parking is provided in the existing two-level garage on Portage
A venue, to be supplemented by a new underground garage that would be accessed from the
below-grade portion of the existing garage .. Surface visitor parking' is proposed beneath the
residential wings of the building accessed from Portage Avenue and Acacia Avenue. Site
improvements related to the mixed use project, such as site landscaping, driveways, at-grade
. parking spaces, and walkways, would be constructed as part of the proposed project.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
. The project site is located on the south frontage of EI Camino Real, one block south of the ' EI
Camino Real and Acacia A venue intersection and one block north of the EI Camino Real and
Lambert A venue intersection.
The property is located across EI Camino Real from two restaurants (McDonalds and Fish
Market). To the north, across -Acacia Avenue is surface parking, to the south across Portage
Avenue is retail (Footlocker) and office use and east is retail (Fry's Electronics).
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
California Department of Transportation, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board (R WQCB) and the Office of the County Clerk-Recorder.
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 tQ 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 Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration
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 ~gencies 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.
7) Supporting Information' Sources: A source list should be 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
, Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? 1,2,6 x
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration
I ~
I
I II i ~
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
public view or view corridor? 1,2,3,5,6 X
c) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within 1,2-
a state scenic highway? MapL4;6 X
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,2,6 X policies regarding visual resources?
e) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or 1,5,6, X
nighttime views in the area?
f) Substantially shadow public open space 1,5, X (other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21?
DISCUSSION:
The project site is not located within a major view shed. The project would not substantially damage
scenic resources within a state scenic highway and does not violate any existing Comprehensive 'Plan
policies regarding visual resoUrces.
The project is subject to review by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), Architectural
Review Board (ARB) and City Council approval; the Site and Design Review approval findings and
ARB approval criteria and findings are designed to ensure an appropriate site layout and architectural
design, including landscaping that is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its surroundings. The
mixed-use project is designed to meet development standards (P AMC 18.16.060), Context Based
Design Criteria (PAMC 18.16.090), and observe the concepts set forth in the EI Camino Real Design
Guidelines. The guidelines and context based design criteria in the zoning code are currently under
Council consideration as to whether the building setbacks and sidewalk widths specified in the zoning
code and guidelines are desirable going forward, given the Grand 'Boulevard Initiative document
advising 18 feet of sidewalk width along EI Camino Real.
The height of the development is 49-6" feet, measured to the top of the parapet meeting the 50-foot
maximum allowable height limit for' the . CS zone district. The proposed rooftop light monitors and
mechanical roof screen would exceed the 50-foot height limit, none would be taller than 63'-5" these
projections above 50:-feet are monitors that would provide lighting to the interior of the, fourth floor
residential units. Inserting the light monitors between the required roof screens provides a consistent
horizontal element at the roof top where an assortment of mechanical screens would be located, resulting
in a streanllined profile. Section 18.40.090 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code permits thistype of height
exception so long as it does not extend IS-feet above the 50-foot maximum height limit. Howeve~, these
are considered habitable floor areas and would require a Design. Enhancement Exception (DEE). The
roof screens and light monitors enhance the overall aesthetics of the building.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration
The mixed-use design incorporates an articulated building base, body and roof. The exterior finish
materials would be simple forms of concrete and steel to evocate the industrial character of the
neighborhood. The color scheme employs medium neutral tones as a base, with deeply saturated accent
colors to highlight certain areas. .
The redevelopment of the site may result in a negligible increase in light and glare generated from the
additional lighting of the site and glazing on the building. With the City's standard conditions of
approval, the light and glare impacts of the project would not be significant. The conditions of approval
would require the shielding of lighting such that the light does not extend beyond the site, is directional,
and that the source of light is not directly visible.
With the required site and design review process, which includes the architectural review process, and
project compliance with the applicable zoning standards, context based criteria and design guidelines,
the proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or
its surroundings, therefore no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure:
None
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
a)
b)
c)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 1,2,3,5
Monitoring Program of the California X
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2-Map L-
use, or a Williamson Act contract? 9,3,5 X
Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or 1,2-MapL-
nature, could result in conversion of 9,3,6 X
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide
Importance" are;;t" 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. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact on agricultural resources.
Mitigation Measures:
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration
None
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 X
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,2,5,6
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X
substantially to an existing or projected air 1,2,5,6
quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and/or indirect operational 1,2,5,6 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
fine particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PM1Q);
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1,2,5,6 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 1,2,5,6 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 sensiti ve receptors to substantial levels 1
of toxic air contaminants? X
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) X
exceeds 10 in one million
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-1
carcinogenic T ACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Poten tially Less Than No
e)
g)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
MEl
Create objectionable odors affecting a 1 X
substantial number of people?
Not implement all applicable construction 1
emission control measures recommended in the X
Bay Area Air Quality Management District 1-CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:
The project is not expected to result in a'significant impact on air quality. The project may result in
temporary dust emissions due to construction activity. The City of Palo Alto uses the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) thresholds' of significance for air quality Impacts, as
follows:
Long Term Impacts: Long-term project emissions primarily stem from motor vehicles associated with
the proposed project. As discussed in'the Transportation/Traffic section of this Initial Study, the project
would generate additional vehicle trips and one intersection would be impacted but can be mitigated to
less than significant. However, the change of land use will not have an impact on the surrounding area
because of the anticipated increase in the volume of traffic that is expected within the project area
regardless of the project being built or not. The mixed-use development is a permitted use for the site
and will not affect a substantial number of people which would be limited to other commercial uses and
pedestrians in' the immediate vicinity. Long-term air-quality impacts are expected to be less than
significant. .
Sensitive receptors are defined as children, elderly, or ill people who can be more adversely affected by
air quality problems. The proposed project will be located in a mixed area consisting of retail,
residential, and commercial' uses. Although sensitive receptors are in the immediate vicinity of the
proj ect, the construction impacts would be addressed as standard approval conditions, resulting in a less
than significant impact to sensitive receptors.
On-site Impacts
As described in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section, a Phase I and Phase II was prepared
which indicates that the project site is in an area where there is known contanlination of the soil and
groundwater with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Because of this contamination, the proposed
proj ect, which includes residential uses, would be at potential risk for vapor intrusion to the bUilding.
VOCs can disperse easily into small air spaces in soil and underneath structures, such as through
foundation cracks, holes in concrete floors, and small gaps around pipes and utility lines. Some vapors,
such as VOCs, may enter structures af low contamination levels, and building ventilation systemsare
used to prevent harmful vapor buildup. VOCs mayor may not have a noticeable odor and may be
present at levels posing acute or chronic health risks.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 9 Mitigated Negative Declaration
According to the EP A, steps can be taken before site redevelopment to prevent vapor intrusion. 1 Some
examples of prevention include ensuring that VOC, contamination is removed from the site (and sent to a
proper treatment and disposal facility); preventing upward contaminant migration with an impermeable
barrier such as a clay cap; and venting soil gas to outdoor air before it can reach indoor spaces. At sites
where the source o~ contamination cannot be c~mpletely eliminated through removal, other solutions to
vapor intrusion problems can be implemented. Building techniques that serve to provide a vapor barrier
between interior spaces and soil (or groundwater) can be combined with structures that provide an
escape route for soil vapor to vent to the atmosphere rather than into indoor air. Some ventilation
systems operate effectively without the use of energy (passive systems), while others may need
connection to a power supply (active systems). It should be noted for indoor air quality monitoring that
the presence ofVOCs in indoor air may not necessarily be a result of vapor intrusion because there often
is a background or pre-existing level ofVOC contamination present from chemical use in the building or
from ambient air. As such, it is often difficult to distinguish between contamination attributable to vapor
intrusi~n and contamination from background levels.
As noted in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial Study, the proposed project
would implement Mitigation Measure H-5, which would require the inclusion of a full vapor barrier and
the installation of an active vapor collection and venting system underneath the building to mitigate
potential soil vapor intrusion, and a monitoring plan to verify positive air flow and monitor for V OCs.
Implementation afMitigation Measure H-5 would reduce the potential for on-site impacts from VOCs to
on-site residential and commercial uses to less than significant.
The project would be subject to the following City's standard conditions of approval:
The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust
related construction impacts:
• All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily.
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet
of freeboard.
• All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept
and watered daily.
• Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a
demolition permit.
• Sweep 'streets daily ifvisible soil,material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
Mitigation Measures C-I: The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally
elevated levels of particulate matter downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the
. potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties. This impact is considered potentially significant
but normally mitigable by implementing the following control measures:
During demolition of existing structures:
Environmental Protection Agency "Design Solutions for Vapor Intrusion and Indoor Air Quality," on~line at http://www.epa.gov!
swerospslbflfacts/vapor _intrusion. pdf (accessed December 12, 2008)
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Water active demolition areas to control dust generation during demolition and pavement break
up.
• Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site.
• Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible.
• During all construction phases:
• Pave, apply water 3x/daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,.
parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
• Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously
graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
• Enclose, cover, water 2x/daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt,
sand, etc.).
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
• Install sandbags or other erosion control J;11easures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
The above measures include feasible measures for construction emissions identified by the BAAQMD
for large sites. According to the District threshold of significance for construction impacts,
implementation of the measures would reduce construction impacts of ' the project to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measures: See H-5 under Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
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
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional 1,2-X plans, policies, or regulations, or by the MapNI, 5
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional p~ans, 1,2-
policies, regulations, including federally MapNI, 5 X 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~tion, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or 1,2-X migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use MapNI, 5
of native wildlife nursery sites?
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
e)
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by the City of 1,2,3,5, X
Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance 7,8
(Municipal Code Section 8.1 O)?
Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 1,2,3,6, X
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 7,8,
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located in an established urban area with no riparian or tree habitat for the
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in the area. No endangered, threatened, or rare animals,
insects and plant species have been identified at this site. The project site is located in an ~stablished
commercial urban setting.
The COJ.:nprehensive Plan includes policies, programs and implementing actions to ensure the
preservation of biological tree resources. The· following policies and programs are relevant to the
proposed Project:
II Policy N-14: Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto's urban forest.
Ii Policy N-15: Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single family housing projects to provide
street trees and related irrigation systems.
II Program N-16: Require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development.
III Program N-17: Develop and implement a plan for maintenance, irrigation, and replacement of
trees.
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 8.10), public trees (PAMC 8.04.020) and designated trees (PAMC 18.76,
when so provisioned to be saved and protected by a discretionary approval.)
Palo Alto Municipal Code Tree Preservation Ordinance
Chapter 8.10 of the Municipal Code (the Tree Preservation Ordinance) protects a category of Regulated
Trees, on public or private property from removal or disfigurement. The Regulated Tree category
includes:
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 12 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ii 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 form, size, age, location, and/or historical significance.
II Street Trees. Also protected are City-owned street trees (all trees growing within the street right
of-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 under MunIcipal
Code Chapter l8.76.020(d)(l1) includes as part of the findings of review, "whether natural
features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project." Outstanding tree specimens
cont~buting to the existing 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 Guidelines
For all development projects within the City of Palo Alto, discretionary or ministerial, a Tree Disclosure
Statement (TnS) 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 TDS 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 Manual2 (Tree Technical
Manual) describes acceptable procedures and standards to preserve Regulated Trees, including:
.. The protection of trees during construction;
11\ If allowed to be removed, the acceptable replacement strategy;
11\ Maintenance of protected trees (such as pruning guidelines);
II Format and procedures for tree reports; and
II! Criteria for determining whether a tree is a hazard.
There are six street trees that would be impacted by· the proposed underground parking. Some of the
trees will likely need to be cut for the underground parking to be installed. Thearborlst report identifies
protection measures to be incorporated in the plans to reduce the potential impact on public trees. These
include root removal during the winter, protective fencing, mulching, irrigation, and guidelines for tree
protection zone setback clearances for buildings and grading, above ground measures for walkways,
structures, landscaping and flatwork.
2 City of Palo Alto, City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, June 2001. Provided on line at
~lttp:llwww .cityofpaloalto.orglenvironment/urban canopy.asp
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 13 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Nonetheless, the proposed project could result in disturbances to nesting birds in these trees. Nesting
birds, their nests, and eggs are fully protected by the State Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5)
and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). Destruction of a nest would be a violation of these
r~gulations, and would be a significant impact. The magnitude of impact would depend on the species
affected.
Mitigation Measures B-1:
The applicant shall abide by all provisions of Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game
Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) as published in the Federal Register (Vol. 70,
No. 49; March 15,2005).
Although there is no vegetation on the project site that may contain nesting birds, there may be nesting.
birds in existing vegetation abutting the proposed project site. To protect any nesting birds, the proposed
. project may avoid construction during the nesting period. Alternatively, a qualified wildlife biologist (to
be hired by the applicant) shall conduct a survey for nesting birds that are covered by the MBT A andlor
Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code in the vicinity of the project site. This
survey shall cover all areas that would be disturbed as a result of construction-:-related activities during
the nesting period, and shall include a "buffer zone" (an area of potential sensitivity, beyond the bounds
of the proposed project construction area) which shall be determined by the biologist based on his or her
professional judgment and experience. This buffer zone may include off-site habitat.
This biological survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior' to the commencement of
construction activities. The wildlife biologist shall provide a report to the City promptly detailing the
findings of the survey. No construction shall be conducted until this report has been provided to the
City and the City has authorized in writing -the commencement of construction activities in accord with
the biologist's findings.
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 1,2-
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
MapL-7 X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource 1,2-X
pursuantto 15064.5? MapLB
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique 1,2-X
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
geologic feature? MapLS ·
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-
e)
t)
interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapLS X
Adversely affect a historic resource listed or
eligible for listing on the National and/or X
California Register, or listed on the City's 1,2-
Historic Inventory? MapL7
Eliminate important examples of major periods 1
of California history or prehistory? X
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate archaeological resource sensitivity zone.
Most of the City area east of Interstate 280 is designated in this zone. -Although existing and historic
development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried Native American sites
could be uncovered in future planning area construction.
The project would entail excavation of one level of parking to a depth of 15 to 22 feet below grade. The
project site is to be developed with underground parking. If archaeological materials are discovered the
applicant would be required to perform additional testing and produce an Archaeological Monitoring
and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) to be approved prior to the start of construction. The City's standard
conditions of approval will address this potentiality. -
Mitig~tion Measures:
None
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
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of See below
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-X
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area 2-MapN-
or based on other substantial evidence of a 5,5
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42. _
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration
b)
c)
d)
e)
t)
g)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-MapN-
10,5,9 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? 2-MapN-X
5,5,9
iv) Landslides? 2-MapN-
5,5,9 X
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? 1,2,5,9 X
Result in substantial siltation? 1,2,5,9 X
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, 2-MapN-X
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 5,5,9
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or 2-MapN-X
property? 5,5,9
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not 1,5,9
available for the disposal of waste water? X
Expose people or property to major geologic
hazards that cannot be mitigated through the 1,4,5,9 X use of standard engineering design and seismic
safety techniques?
DISCUSSION:
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. According to the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan the project site is not in an area that is subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an
earthquake or in an area subject to expansive soils, surface rupture, liquefaction, or earthquake induced
landslides. Based on the engineering analysis in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Murray
Engineers Inc, the site is not located in an area considered susceptible to earthquake liquefaction. There
are no active or potentially active faults across the property, therefore no fault rupture would occur on
site. Since the subsurface condition is not susceptible to liquefaction because the soil is not silty sand
saturated by groundwater. The site would not be subject to lateral spreading and or seismic settlement if
the recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared by Murray
Engineers Inc. are followed. .
Development of the proposed project would be required to conform to all requirements in the Uniform
Building Code, which includes provisions to ensure that the design and construction of. all bUilqings
includes provisions to resist damage from earthquakes to the extent feasible and acceptable. The primary
geotechnical constraints to the development are the presence .of moderately shallow groundwater
(relative to the planned basement excavation depths), the highly expansive nature of the near-surface
soils, the site's seismic setting, and the City's guidelines eliminating the use of subsurface drainage in
relation to all basement construction.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 16 Mitigated Negative Declaration
The excavation for the 13 to 20-foot deep (to floor elevation) below grade garage would likely ex.tend to
depths on the order of 15 to 22-feet below existing site grades, in some cases near or immediately
adjacent to existing· buildings and street sidewalks. Therefore, to mitigate the issue of differential
settlement and potential impacts on these structures,. the basement excavation would need a well
de~igned shoring system to be designed. The groundwater level is expected to be typically in order of 17
to I8-feet below existing grades. Therefore, because at least portions of the basement excavation would
extend below the estimated ground level, dewatering by the contractor will likely be necessary to control.
groundwater during construction.
Based on Murray Engineers Inc. investigation, the site appears to be blanketed hy stiff to hard and
medium dense to very dense alluvial soils to the depth explores at 46.5 feet. The alluvial soils should
provide adequate support for the new foundation proposed.
Substantial or permanent changes to the site topography are not expected. Standard conditions of
approval require submittal of a final grading and drainage plan for the project for approval by the Public
Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The application of standard grading,
drainage, and erosion control measures as a part of the approved grading and drainage plan is expected
to avoid any grading-related impacts.
All earthwork and site drainage, including foundation and basement excavations, retaining wall backfill,
preparation of the subgrade beneath hardscape, placement and compaction of' engineered fill, and
surface drainage should be performed in accordance with the Geotechnical Report prepared by Murray
Engineers, Inc., dated March 12,2013.
Mitigation Measures F -1: The design of all buildings shall be designed in accordance with current
earthquake resistant standards, including the 2007 CBC guidelines and design recommendations
regarding the potential for localized liquefaction presented in the Geotechnical Investigation provided by
Murray Engineers.
Mitigation Measure F -2: Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall submit a well-designed
shoring system for the basement excavation to be designed by a licensed engineer subject to review and
approval by Public Works Department.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Le$s Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routing transport, use, X
or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,5,16
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the X
release of hazardous materials into the 1.5,16
environment?
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 17 Mitigated Negative Declaration
c)
d)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
.~
I
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or X
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 1,5,16
proposed school?
Construct a school oIl a property that is subject X
to hazards from hazardous materials 1,5,16
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant X
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 1,2-
result, would it create a significant hazard to MapN-9,
the public or the environment? 5
F or a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or X
pub lic use airport, would the proj ect result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in 1,2
the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the projeCt result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the 1,2 X
project area?
Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response ' 1,2-X
plan or emergency evacuation plan? MapN-7
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to X
urbanized areas or where residences are 2-MapN-7
intermixed with wildlands?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment from existing hazardous materials 1,5,11,16 X
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:
The proposed project would not involve the handling, transportation, use, disposal, or emission of
hazardous materials. The project is not expected to pose airport-related safety hazards. The proposed
project would not interfere with either emergency response or evacuation. The project site is not located
in a designated fire hazard area. The new construction and site design shall.be required to comply with
the City's building permit approval standards and fire equipment and fire protection coverage standards
as conditions of project approval prior to the issuance ofa building perinit.
The property is not currently listed on any commercially available database, or on the Santa Clara
Valley Water District or Water Board databases, as having a release of hazardous materials or
docuinented contaminants. Several vicinity properties are listed as having reported releases of hazardous
materials or documented environmental contamination. Based on the location, it is likely that a
groundwater plume underlays the property. The site is documented to be contaminated by VOCs,
primarily trichlor,oethene (TCE). The groundwater contamination is referred to the Califomia-Olive-
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 18 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerson plume (COE) based on the city streets that bound it. The COE Study Area has a long (since
1981) of investigation and remediation by the responsible parties (HP and Varian). Both HP and Varian
agreed to accept financial responsibility to investigate and remediate the plunle, and the Water Board is
providing regulatory oversight of the monitoring and cleanup action.
Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc. conducted a Phase J of the subject site. During the course of this
assessment, Stellar Environmental identified several potential environmental concerns with the
development of the site: 1) Ensuring that the excavated soils are appropriately disposed of based on soil
sampling and profiling; 2) Evaluating the impact of dewatering during the deeper car lift machine
excavation areas that will require construction phase discharge of groundwater; and 3) Assessing the
potential for soil-vapor intrusion through the collection of site specific soil gas data collected at the base
of the area [above groundwater] of the excavation.
Soil samples results show minimal concentrations of any environmental concern and those that were
reported appear to be naturally occurring or de-minimus. No VOCs were detracted in any of the 12 soil
composite samples collected. Diesel and oil range petroleum hydrocarbons detected in soil composite
samples collected for this investigation are at non-hazardous concentrations, with only chromium and
lead (Pb) in one sample ,that showed concentrations above the 50 mg/kg requiring a Waste Extraction
Test (WET). The WET analy.sis showed no soluble concentration of concern, confiiming the non
hazardous nature.
Stellar Environmental concludes the soil shows no contamination of environmental concern and can be
disposed of offsite as non-hazardous to a regulated landfill placed on the dirt reuse market if an infill
area accepts the analytical profiling completed to date. The detected VOC contamination in the
groundwater shows TCE concentrations at the de-minimus levels consistent with the distal area of the
HP plume. The soil-gas is the one media showing significant concentration variations in the four
samples with one of the four samples showing a concentration of TCE and PCE above regulatory
guidance. The elevated TCE and PCE soil-gas can be mitigated during the excavation phase because the
base excavation depth is below the clay-rich cap that traps the soil-gas.
Mitigation Measures H-l: A project specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and a Site Mitigation Plan
(SMP), would be implemented, and adhered to during construction and excavation activities. All
workers on site should be read and understand the.HASP and·SMP, and copies should be maintained on
site during construction and excavation at all times.
Mitigation Measures H-2: A Remedial Risk Management Plan (RRMP) should be developed and
followed by current and future owners, tenants, and operators. The plan will include the implementation
of the described remedies and engineering design.
Mitigation Measures H ... 3: Additional collection of four soil samples at the site should be completed
after the base excavation to 14 feet bgs is achieved. This soil-gas collection will verify if the removal of
the clay cap has resulted in a reduction of residual soil gas below the residential ESLs. Current PCE and
TCE concentrations in soil-gas are one or two orders of magnitude greater that what would be expected
to accumulate based on current groundwater concentrations of PCE and TCE, and would not be likely to
reach the current concentrations in the future if the reduction of groundwater contaminants continues as
it is expected to.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 19 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measures H .. 4: If soil-gas concentrations collected following the initial base excavation
. phase have not resulted iri. significant decrease, a sub slab passive vapor collection and passive vapor
collection and passive venting system designed full vapor barrier would be implemented to mitigate
against the identified VOC soil-vapor intrusion (see Mitigation Measure H-5 for vapor intrusion
mitigation system).
Mitigation Measure H-5: Prior to issuance of the occupancy permit the applicant shall file
documentation from an independent· consultant specializing in vapor mitigation system design and
installation for final approval bya third party inspection service reporting to the City finance.d by the
applicant confirming that each component (collection pipes, transmission pipes, inlets, risers, vents, etc.)
of the vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) has been installed in accordance with recommendations
of the Vapor Mitigation ·System and Monitoring Plan, and includes the installation of a full vapor
barrier, which shall be a 60-mil thick, spray applied melIlbrane below elevator shafts, stairwells, pipe
chases, and entire floor slab, as part of the active vapor collection and venting system (Le., driven by
electric fans at the effluent end of the VMS riser pipes enhanced by outside air entering through. inlet
vents) to be installed in the building to mitigate potential soil vapor intrusion.
Mitigation Measure H-6: A Groundwater Mitigation Plan shall be provided for lowering ground water
levels during the excavation phase that may reach depths to 22-feet bgs which is about 4-feet below the
expected level of first encountered groundwater. The mitigation plan shall specify. the number of
groundwater dewatering wells with dedicated pumps to be installed around the site perimeter throughout
the project duration. This plan shall be prepared and submitted for final approval by the City's Public
Works Department prior to issuance of City permits.
Mitigation Measure H-7: A detailed groundwater extraction design shall be developed including a
staging plans for dewatering system, including all required chemical· testing, dewatering systems layout,
well depths, well screen lengths, dewatering pump locations, pipe sizes and capacities, grades, filter
. sand gradations, surface water disposal method, permitting and location. This design shall be prepared
and submitted for final approval by the City'S Public Works Department prior to issuance of City
permits
Mitigation Measure H .. S: This and future technical reports should be uploaded (as required) to the
appropriate regulatory agencies-including uploads to the SCCDEH's ftp system and the State Oeo
Tracker system.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER 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) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? 1,2,5 X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 20 Mitigated Negative Declaration
c)
d)
.e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production 2-MapN2
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 X
been granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
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 X
erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,2,5
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course ofa stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result 1,2,5 X
in flooding on-or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted 1,2,5 X
runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,2 X
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? 1,2-Map X
N-6,5
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect 2-MapN6 X
flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve flooding, X
including flooding as a result of the failure of a 2-MapN6
levee or dam or being located within a 1 DO-year N8
flood hazard area?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2-MapN6, X
N8
Result in stream bank instability? 1,2-X
MapN6,9
DISCUSSION:
Construction of the proposed building and related site improvements would not result in an increase in
the amount of'impervious surface area on the site. The site is entirely paved with asphalt. Stormwater
runoff is currently conveyed from the site via curb street gutters to the paved parking areas, where it
runs to the street and ultimately discharges into the San Francisco Bay. As previously referred to in the
Geology, Soils and Seismicity section of this study layers of moderately to highly plastic fine-grained
alluvium and medium dense to very dense coarse-grained alluvium.
The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge and will not deplete the groundwater
supplies. The project site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard area and would not impede or
redirect flood flows. The project site is not in an area that is subject to seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
With the City's required conditions of approval the water impacts of the project will not be significant.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 21 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Water quality standards and waste discharge requirements that are applicable to the proposed proj ect are
established in the Water Quality Control Plan for San Francisco Bay (Basin Plan) prepared by the
RWQCB in compliance with the federal CWA and the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,
and the NPDES permits issued by the RWQCB in accordance with the Clean -Water Act, which
incorporates Basin Plan objectives. All point and non-point discharges (including urban runoff) must
comply with the identified water quality objectives and the concentrations of contaminants in the
discharges must be controlled, either through NPDES permits or waste discharge requirements. Two
components of the proposed project are subject to separate NPDES requirements: construction and
operation. Although the RWQCB is ultimately responsible for ensuring discharges from development in
the City co~ply with conditions in the permits, which are summarized below, the City of Palo Alto is
required by the terms of its NPDES Municipal Pemlit to review and regulate storniwater discharges
from development sites.
During demolition, grading and construction, storm water pollution could result. Standard conditions of
architectural review approval would require the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara
Valley Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program, and submittal of a stormwater pollution prevention
plan (SWPPP) in conjunction with building permit plans to address potential water quality impacts. The
City requires the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required by the NPDES Construction
General Permit be reviewed by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Overseeing conformance to the SWPPP is the responsibility of the Public Works Department, or a third
party hired by the Public works Department, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of
activities related to water quality and water discharge requirements.
If contaminated soils were found, the soils would be managed appropriately by segregating them into
separate piles in a designated area onsite and covering the piles with plastic sheeting until additional
testing was completed. The stockpiles would be managed in accordance with the SWPPP and the SMP.
This would reduce the potential for soils (regardless of whether contaminants are present or not) to be
washed into storm drains and enter the creek. To prevent cross-contaminatiorr, construction equipnlent
. and transportation vehicles that contact exposed native soils would be decontaminated prior to leaving
the site. Wash water from decontamination would· be collected and managed in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations and monitored by trained personnel. The stored water would be sampled
for chemicals, the results. of which would determine how the water should be disposed. The water used
for on-site dust control would have to meet NPDES permit requirements for such use and for any
subsequent discharge to the storm drain. If the water were found not to meet the permit requirements it . ,
would either be treated on-site or removed. In either case, no discharges to the storm drain exceeding
adopted standards would be permitted. This measure would reduce the potential for contaminants to be
transported off-site. and possibly enter runoff from roadways, and would ensure proper disposal.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 22 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Implementation of the required NPDES SWPP as monitored and enforced during construction would be
compliance with storm water quality standards. City development standards and standard conditions of
project approval would reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure:
None
I. 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? 1,2 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local X
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an 1,2,3,6,11
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community 1,2 X
conservation plan?
I d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,2,6,11
intensity of existing or planned land use in the· X
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,2,3,6,11
the general character of the surrounding area, X
including density and building height?
f) Conflict with established residential, 1,2,6,11
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific X
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,2,6
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to X
non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project at 3159 El Camino Real is the demolition of the two existing commercial buildings
(at 3 111 and. 3159 El Camino Real) for the construction of 62,887 square feet of new floor area to
establish a 49-6" foot tall, 4-story, 46-unit apartment building, with commercial, office and retail uses
with underground parking facilities (13 feet below grade) providing 223 automobile spaces including
parking lifts. The project is subject to review by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC),
Architectural Review Board (ARB) and City Council approval; the Site and Design Review approval
findings and ARB approval criteria and findings are designed to ensure an appropriate site layout and
architectural design, including landscaping that is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its
surroundings. The site development complies with the land· use desiWlation as described below.
Compliance with parking regulations is addressed in Section 0 below.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 23 Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Service Commercial land use designation allows for facilities providing citywide and regional
services and relies on customers arriving by car. Typical uses encouraged in this district include auto
services and dealerships, motels, appliance stores and restaurants. The proposed hotel development
within this section of the City is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to provide citywide and
regional services. The proposed mixed use is an allowed use within the CS Zone District.
The project complies with the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) allowed under the CS zone district. The CS zone
allows for an' FAR of 1.0: 1 for a total mixed use floor area ratio. The total building area is 69,503
square feet (1 :0: IF AR).
Three'DEEs are requested as part of this application. The first DEE is to exceed the maximum height
limit in the CS zone district. The height of the development is 49-6" feet, measured to the top of the
parapet meeting the 50-foot maximum allowable height limit for the CS zone district. The proposed
rooftop light monitors and mechanical roof screen would exceed the 50-foot height limit; none would be
taller than 63'·5" -these projections above 50-feet are monitors that would provide lighting to the
interior of the fourth floor residential units. The monitors would provide lighting to the interior of the
fourth floor residential units. Inserting the light monitors between the. required roof screens provides a
consistent horizontal element at the roof top where an assortment of mechanical screens would be
located, ,resulting in a streamlined ·profile.
The second DEE request is for a reduction in the required setback from 5·feet to 2-feet along Acacia
Avenue. The project is unique in that it encompasses an entire block face ofEI Camino Real and serves
to anchor the entire frontage with a strong building mass that reinforces the street edge. The area
available for ground floor retail/recreation space at the comer of El Camino Real and Acacia Avenue is
constrained in width by the existing structures that will remain at 3127 El Camino Real. The reduced
setback allows a better proportional building element at the intersection of El Camino Real and Acacia
A venue, with a strong comer presence at the street level that steps back at the upper level as it
transitions to the residential element along Acacia Avenue.
The third r~quested DEE is to allow for an increase of the "build to" line requirement along Portage
Avenue to allow a 7-foot setback in lieu of a 5-foot setback. The proposed ground Hoor levels have been
set to allow accessibility across the site as well as at the Ei Camino Real' entry points. This results in an
elevated plaza area at the comer of El Camino' Real and Portage Avenue, which serves both to mark the
comer and to provide a distinct sense of destination for plaza visitors. Access .to the elevated plaza
would be provided via a stairway at the comer and a ramp along Portage Avenue at the face of the
building. A 7-foot setback at this location would allow access space for the ramp in addition to a
landscape buffer strip. The two-foot exception would afford enhanced aesthetics while providing easy
site accessibility. The commercial area would be set back from El Camino Real to provide a 12-foot
wide effective sidewalk width (curb face to building, required by Zoning Code Section 18.16.060). The
front setback is 4-feet from the back of sidewalk. The rear setback is 10-feet at the residential portion
which is consistent with the CS zone.
The project site is located within the Cal·Ventura Mixed Use Area, identified in the Comprehensive
Plan, a mixed use area adjacent to the California Avenue business district. It is also served by the
California Avenue Multi-model Transit Station. Cal-Ventura offers opportunities for new transit-
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN·00040 Page 24 Mitigated Negative Declaration
I \-
oriented development, as it includes several underutilized properties likely to redevelop in the near
future. New housing in this area could provide the momentum for neW pedestrian amenities and shuttle
bus connections to nearby Stanford Research Park. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
The project site is located within the Cal-Ventura corridor area, as defined by the South EI Camino Real
Design Guidelines (Guidelines). It is not considered a strategic site within the Cal-Ventura Area. The
area is characterized by mixed-use as well as auto-oriented retail commercial uses. Although presently
pedestrian activity is light, the Guidelines look toward accommodating such activity. With that in mind
the Guidelines indicate new buildings should front EI Camino Real with entries fronting the street or
clearly visible from the street providing-recognizable and easily accessible entries for both pedestrians
and vehicular arrivals. The project proposal complies with many of the specific Guidelines for the
mixed-use area relative to site planning and design. The Guidelines indicate that all buildings should
have entries facing EI Camino Real. The-proposed commercial entry faces on EI Camino Real adjacent
to the Portage Avenue comer.
The project is requesting three DEEs that would provide for enhanced aesthetics and stronger pedestrian
oriented entry on EI Camino Real. Consequently, the project would have a less than significant impact
with respect to land use and zoning designation.
The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmlan4 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.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
J. MINERAL RESOURCES
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
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? 1,2 X
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan 1,2 X
or other land use plan?
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 pMG has not classified the City for other
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 25 Mitigated Negative Declaration
r
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.
K. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or 1,2,13
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground 1,2,13 X
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above level~ 1,2,13
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? 1,2,13
e) For a project located within an airport land use X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to 1,2
e.xc.essive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private X
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to 1,2
excessive noise levels?
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,2,13
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an X
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 1,2,13
an existing residential area, thereby causing the X
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an 1,2,13
existing residential atea where the Ldn X
currently exceeds 60 dB?
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,2,13 X
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,2,13 X X
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater? c
1) Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,2,5,13 X
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 26 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
DISCUSSION·:
The project site is located in an area with an existing noise level ranging between 67-74 Ldn. Vehicular
traffic along EI Camino Real provides the dominate source of "steady~state" environmental noise at the
site. The typical events include cars and trucks as well as regularly scheduled buses. This noise level is
typical for commercial districts. Grading and construction activities will result in temporary increases in
local ambient noise levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with
excavation, grading and construction, which will be short term in duration. Standard approval
conditions would require the project to 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
construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less
than significant.
Based on acoustical measurements performed by Charles Salter and Associates, the future noise levels at
the proposed setback of the apartment units would range from DNL 74dB to 67dB. Facades facing EI
Camino Real receive the highest noise levels, DNL 74dB. Facades along Acacia Avenue and Portage
Avenue receive noise levels to 67dB. Project noise levels exceed 65dB threshold for Cal Green.
Therefore, the commercial and retail spaces require acoustical treatment. All' of these measured noise
levels would be considered "normal to' conditionally acceptable" for commercial space and
"conditionally acceptable" for residential per the City's noise goals. Therefore, noise reducing measures
would be required to comply with City'S noise standards.
Where the' DNL exceeds 65dBA, the project must incorporat~ mitigation measures into the building
design to reduce interior noise levels from exterior sources to DNL 45dBA or less. To meet the indoor
noise level criteria, sound-rated exterior facades will be necessary for some units. Recommendations for
sound rated construction will depend on the size and type of rooms, window and exterior facades, and
must be determined during the design phase.
In addition to the background noise affecting the project, the project will generate noise that would
increase the ambient noise levels. Equipment such as roof top air conditioning and exhaust fans as well
as emergency engine generators crates noise that must comply with the City of Palo Alto Noise
Ordinance. The ordinance requires that mechanical equipment noise . not exceed 6dB above the local
ambient at residential property lines or 8 dB at commercial property lines with a maximum daytime
exception of 70 dB when measures at 25 feet.
To mitigate the potential noise impacts of the mechanical equipment it is recommended that the project
incorporate mitigations measures as outlined in the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance which include equipment
selection, equipment location, and equipment enclosures. The underground parking will require an
exhaust system. Any noise from this system will be attenuated.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 27 Mitigated Negative Declaration
The City's standard conditions of approval will be applied to the project to ensure the construction noise
and rooftop mechanical equipment noise impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. The project
site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Mitigation Measures:
None
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Induce substantial population growth in ail
area, either directly (for example, by proposing X
new homes and businesses) or im;iirectly (for 1,2,5,6
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of X
replacement housing elsewhere? 1,5,6
Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement X
housing elsewhere? 1,5,6
Create a substantial imbalance between 1,2,6 X
employed residents and jobs?
Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1,2,6,
population projections? X
DISCUSSION:
The project is the redevelopm'ent of a 1.6 acre site to construct 62,887 square feet of new floor area to
establish a 49-6" foot tall, 4-story, 46-unit apartment building, with commercial, office" and retail uses.
This mixed-use project will not impact the City's jobs-housing (im) balance.
Population in Palo Alto's sphere of influence in 1996, according to Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan was
58,000 people. This is projected by the City'S Comprehensive Plan to increase to 62,880 by 2010. By
adding 46 units to the housing stock, the proposed project would contribute to popUlation growth in the
area. With an average household size of 2.24 persons the proposed project would generate a population
increase of approximately 103 people; however, the project is included as Housing Opportunity site in
the Housing Element, and the population increase has been anticipated. This incremental increase in
population generated by the proposed project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 28 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
'a)
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 performance
objectives for any of the public services:
1,2 X
Fire protection?
1,2 X
Police .protection?
1,2 X
Schools?
1,2 X
Parks? X
1,2
Other public facilities?
DISCUSSION:
Fire
The site is presently served by the Palo Alto Fire Department. The proposed changes will not impact
present Fire District service to the site or area. The project would, as a condition of approval, be
required to comply with all Fire Department requirements for fire safety.
Police
The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The proposed changes
will not result in the need for additional police officers, equipment or facilities.
Schools
The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) serves the City of Palo Alto and portions of the City of
Los Altos Hills. PAUSD includes 12 elementary schools (kindergarten through grade five),
3 intermediate schools (grades six through eight), and 2 high s~hools (grades nine through twelve).
Other schools and programs in the PAUSD include a pre-school program, a self-supporting adult school,
a school for the hearing impaired, the Children's Hospital School at the Lucille Packard Children's
Hospital, and a summer school. 3 In 2006, P A USD employed approximately 646 teachers, providing a
ratio of one teacher for every 17.5 students.4
4
Palo Alto Unified School District, http://pausd.orglparents/schools_sites/index.shtml, accessed I?ecember 12,2008
The staffing ratio is calculated based on 2006 student 'enrollment of 11,329 as reported by the Palo Alto Unified School District
Agenda, Regular Meeting, September 23, 2008 '
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 29 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Enrollment in the PAUSD is approaching capacity. According to the City of Palo Alto's Board of
Education, in the 2008-2009 school year, elementary schools have room for an additional
123 students, middle schools have room . for 95 students, and high schools have room for
239 students. Therefore, PAUSD schools' classroom capacity can accommodate approximately
457 additional students. Based on the P AUSD student generation rates (Lapkoff & Gobalet
Demographic Research, Inc. (Lapkoff Forecast page 20), an apartment unit yields 0.15 student, a
stacked condominium yields 0.25 student, and a BMR multifamily residential unit yields 0.7 student.
With 46 apartments at a 0.15 yield factor, a total of 6.6 students are estimated to be generated from
the development. Student enrollment associated with the proposed project would be within existing
capacity. Consequently, the impact of the proposed project on schools would be less than
significant.
Parks
The City of Palo Alto follows the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Standards as
guidelines for determining parkland needs. These standards recommend that a city of the size and
density of Palo Alto should provide 2 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The proposed
proj ect would generate 103 additional residents at the proj ect . site and would generate additional
workers at the project site. Based on the NRP A Standards, the addition of 103 residents to the
proj ect site would generate a demand for 0.10 acres of parkland. Impact fees to address impacts on
parks were adopted by the Palo Alto City Council in March of 2002. As a condition of approval and
prior to receiving a building permit, the project applicant will be required to pay a one-time
development impact fee for parks. The City's park-in-lieu fee and park facility fee will be used to
offset impacts on park facilities as a result of this project. Therefore, the project would result in a
less than significant impact.
Other Public Facilities
Impact fees to address impacts on conlmunity centers and libraries were adopted by the Palo Alto
City Council in March of 2002. Prior to receiving a building permit, the project applicant will be
required to pay a one time development impact fee for community centers and libraries. The fee will
be used to offset impacts on community centers and library facilities as a result of this proj ect.
Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures:
None
N. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than .No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the 1,5,6
facility would occur or be accelerated?
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 30 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless' Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Does the project fuclude recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which X
might have an adverse physical effect on the 1,5,6
environment?
DISCUSSION:
This project is subject to payment of impact fees for parks, libraries and community facilities. The
project would not have any significant impact on existing parks, nor include or require construction of
recreational facilities. No mitigation is required.
There would not be a significant change to the demand of recreation services as a result of the proposed
~~ .
Mitigation Measures:
None
o. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic X
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., 1,5,14,20
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by the X
county congestion management agency for 1,5,14,
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns,
including· eit4er an increase in traffic levels X
or a change in location that results in 1
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or X
dangerous intersections) or incompatible 1,6,14
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
3159 EI Camino Real 13PlN-00040 Page 31 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,2,5 ·X
t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,2,5,14, X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & 1,2,5,6,14
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City ofPaIo Alto) intersection 1,2,5,14
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) X
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 at 1,2,5,14
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average X
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more? -
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,2,5,14
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause X
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical V /e value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F 1,2,5,14
or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of X
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
I) Cause any change in traffic that would 1,2,5,14,20 X
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,2,5,14
comparative analysis between the design X
queue length~and the available queue storage
capacity? Queuing imp~ts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at tum 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 1,2,5,14 X
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,2,5,14 X
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,5,14 X
DISCUSSION:
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 32 Mitigated Negative Declaration
A Transportation Impact Analysis & Neighborhood Traffic Study provided by Khnley-Hom analyzed
the potential impacts to the transportation system as a result of the redevelopment of the project site. The
existing facilities at the project site include the operation health/fitness club (Equinox) and operational
retail building (We Fix Macs). The existing operational specialty building would be displaced and its
square footage incorpo~ated into the proposed.
Significant findings of the study concluded:
• The proposed project is estimated to generate 893 total new daily trips, 89 trips occurring during
the AM peak-hours, 58 new trips occurring during the PM peak-hour.
• As defined by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the addition of the proposed
project to the Cumulative (2035) scenario significantly worsen operating conditions at the El
Camino intersection with West Charleston Road! Arastradero Road. This impact can . be
mitigated to less than significant.
• The addition of the proposed project adds nominal additional queuing to several of the study
locations. Specifically, the project contributes at least one car length (25-feet) to the
eastbound EI Camino Real left-turn queen at the Portage A venuelHansen Way intersection.
The significant impact at the EI Camino West Charleston Road/ Arastradero Road intersection can be
mitigated with the addition of a southbound West Charleston Road right-turn overlap signal phase.
Access/Circulation
Primary access to the site will be provided from Portage Avenue with secondary access from
Acacia Avenue. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the site will also be provided via EICamino Real
and Portage A venue.
Parking Spaces
Vehicular parking is provided in the existing two-level garage on Portage Avenue, supplemented by a
new underground garage that will be. accessed from the below-grade portion of the existing garage. In
addition, on-grade visitor parking is tucked beneath the residential ~ngs of the building accessed from
Portage A venue and Acacia Avenue.
According to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.52.040, the project is required to provide 235
parking spaces. The project proposes 223 parking spaces, 5% (12 parking spaces). The parking provided
is a joint facility serving a variety of uses, the applicant will request a reduction in accordance with
PAMC Section 18.52.050 Table (4). PAMC 18.52.050 allows for Director adjustments for, for joint use
parking facilities where at least 10 spaces are otherwise required where the Director can require a TD M
program to be submitted and approved (up to 20% reduction). The applicant is requesting a 5%
reduction in the required number of stalls. Car lifts for tenants will be employed in the new portion of
the underground garage, while conventional spaces are provided for customers and visitors.
Transit Service Impacts
Existing bus serVice is provided on EI Camino Real. The project is estimated to have a less than
significant impact to transit service.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 33 Mitigated. Negative Declaration
The project includes adequate bicycle parking as well as pedestrian access to and from the site. The
project is estimated to have a less than significant impact to bicycle and pedestrian impacts.
The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Department and Transportation Division and does
not contain design features that will substantially increase hazards or result in inadequate emergency
access. The project will not result in a change to air traffic patterns.
Impact Fees
The property is subject to citywide traffic impact fees.
Mitigation Measures T-l: The applicant shall conduct an evaluation and implementation of signal
cycle length optimization and reallocation of the green time at the intersection of EI Camino Real and
West Charleston Road.
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? 1,2 X
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the X
construction of which could cause significant 1,2
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities; the construction of X
which could cause significant environmental 1,2
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded 1,2 X
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate X
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing 1 -
commitments? r
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste dis~osal needs? 1 X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
. and regulations related to solid waste? 1
X
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 34 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project? X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service
systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Standard conditions of approval require
the applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off site
water, sewer and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent
properties during peak flow demands. Trash and recycling facilities are proposed in the proj ect to
accommodate the expected waste and recycling streams that would be generated by the expected uses
within the building. The project is subject to all conditions of approval provided by all applicabie city
departments.
Mitigation Measures:
None
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation ,-.
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, X
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or -wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining 1,2-Map
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal L4,5.
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively X
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects · of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, 1,2,5
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects X
on human beings, either directly or . 1,5,9,10,13,
indirectly?
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 35 Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic
resources. The uses are appropriate for the site . and the development would not result in an adverse
visual impact. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements
that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts
once mitigation is implemented to redu~e potential impacts to the users of the new mixed use project in
the area of biological resources, noise, seismicity and aitquality.
Global Climate Change Impacts
Global clinlate change is the alteration of the Earth's weather including.its temperature, precipitation,
and wind patterns. Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic generated
atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases allow sunlight into
the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping into outer space, which is known as the
"greenhouse" effect. The world's leading climate scientists have reached . consensus that global climate
change is underway and is very likely caused by humans. Twenty agencies at the international, national,
state, and local levels are considering strategies to control emissions of gases that contribute to global
warming. -There is no comprehensive strategy that is being implemented on a global scale that addresses
climate change; however, in California a multi agency "Climate Action Team", has identified a range of
strategies and the Air Resources Board, under Assembly Bill (AB) 32, has been designated to adopt the
main plan for reducing California's GHG emissions by January 1, 2009, and regulations and other
initiatives for reducing GHG emissions by January 1, 2011. AB 32 requires achievement by 2020 of a
statewide greenhouse gas enlissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and
regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas
emissions reductions.
By 2050, the state plans to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. While the state of
California has established programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are no established
standards for gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA
Guidelines provide any methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases. Given the "global" scope of
global climate change, the challenge under CEQA is for a Lead Agency to translate the issue down to
the level of a CEQA document for a specific project in a way that is meaningful to the decision making
process. Under CEQA, the essential questions are whether a project creates or contributes to an
environmental impact or is subject to impacts from the environment in which it would occur, and what
mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts.
The project would generate greenhouse gases prinlarily through electricity generation/use and
generation of vehicle trips. Efforts to reduce _ the project's greenhouse gas emissions by reducing
electricity demand and reducing vehicle trips and miles, therefore, should be implemented·. The land use
is changing from general business service and to a larger mixed use development . consisting of retail,
commercial and residential; The proposed project would conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan
and other policies to reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, and encourage automobile-alternative
modes of transportation (e.g., public transit, walking, and bicycling), as described in detail in Section 0,
Transportation of this Initial Study.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 36 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Given the overwhelming scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single development
project would have an individually discernable effect on global climate change (e.g., that any increase in
global temperature or rise in sea level could be attributed to the emissions resulting from one single
development project). Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude that the greenhouse gas emissions
generated by the proposed project would combine with emissions across the state, nation, and globe to
cumulatively contribute to global climate change.
Declaring an impact significant or not implies some knowledge of incremental effects that is several
years away, at best. To determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on
global climate change is speculative, particularly giv~n the fact that there are no existing numerical'
thresholds to determine an impact. However, in an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing
environmental impacts and to conform with the CEQA Guidelines [§16064(b)], it is the City's position
that, based on the nature and size of this project, its location within an established urban area served by
existing infrastructure (rather than a greenfield site) and the project's location in an area served by local
and regional shuttle and transit systems, the proposed project would not impede the state's ability to
reach the emission reduction limits/standards set forth by the State of California by Executive Order S-
3-05 and AB 32. For these reasons, this project would not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions.
The measures to reduce energy use have not been specifically identified~ Final measures to reduce
energy use and emissions would be prepared during the building permit process. The project includes
components that will offset the project's potential minor incremerital contribution to global climate
change. These include: .
• Cal Green Tier 2 compliance
• Incorporate low-and zero-V OC products
• Interior design will incorporate sustainability harvested, recyclable and renewable materials
• Location in proximity of existing public transportation network
• Incorporating materials and finishes to protect indoor air quality
• Indoor water reduction
• Energy Star equipment and appliances
SOIJRCE REFERENCES
1. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 (list specific policy and map references)
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 .:.. Zoning Ordinance
4. Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and
Windload
5. Project Plans, Architectural Dimensions, received May 22, 2013
6. Project Description, Architectural Dimensions, received March 4,2013 and April 5,2013
7. Arborist Report, Urban Tree Management, received March 4,2013
8. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001
9. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Murray Engineers, Inc., March 2013
10. City of Palo Alto South El Camino Real Design Guidelines,June 2002
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 37 Mitigated Negative Declaration
11. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Steller Environmental Solutions, April 2013,
March 2013
12. Transportation Analysis, Kimley-Hom and Associates, February 21, 2013
13. Environmental Noise Assessment, Charles M. Salter, February 27,2013
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 x
the project have been made by or agreed toby the project proponent. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find tbat the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed 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
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 38
Date
Date
Mitigated Negative Declaration
-
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLNM00040 Page 39 Mitigated Negative Declaration
I
P
t-
tl
l
1
)1
.1 'I ' I ~
II i r
located at 3159 El Camino Real could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that
study, the City makes the following determination:
x
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant. effect on the environment in this case because mitigation
measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGA TIVE
DEC LARA TION is hereby adopted.
The initial study prepared for this project described above incorporates all relevant information regarding
the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determinati(!>ll that an EIR is not
required for the project. .'
In addition, the following Mitigations have been incorporated into the project:
Mitigation Measures . C-l : The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall' and locally
elevated levels of particulate matter downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the
potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties. This impact is considered potentially significant but
normally mitigateable by implementing the following control measures:
During demolition of existing structures:
o Water active demolition areas to control dust generation during demolition and pavement break-
up.
o Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site.
o Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible.
o During all construction phases:
o Pave, apply water 3x1daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,
parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites ..
o Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded
areas inactive for ten days or more).
o Enclose, cover, water 2x1daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand,
etc.).
o Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
o Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
D Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
The above measures include feasible measures for construction emissions identified by the BAAQMD for
large sites. According to the District threshold of significance for construction impacts, implementation
of the measures would reduce construction impacts of the project to aJess than significant level.
Mitigation Measures B-1: The applicant shall abide by all provisions of Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the
State Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) as published in the Federal
Register (Vol. 70, No. 49; March 15, 2005).
Although there is no vegetation on the project site that may contain nesting birds, there may be nesting
birds in existing vegetation abutting the proposed project site. To protect any nesting birds, the proposed
project may avoid construction during the nesting period. Alternatively, aqualified wildlife biologist (to
be hired by the applicant) shall conduct a survey for nesting birds that are covered by the MBT A and/or
Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code in the ','idnity of the project site: This survey
shall cover all areas that would be disturbed as a result of construction-related activities during the nesting
period, and shall include a "buffer zone" (an area of potential sensitivity, beyond the bounds of the
propos~d project construction area) which shall be determined by the biologist based on his or her
professional judgment and experience. This buffer zone may include off-site habitat.
This biological survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the commencement of
construction activities. The wildlife biologist shall provide a report to the City promptly detailing the
findings of the survey. No construction shall be conducted until this report has been provided to the City
and the City has authorized in writing the commencement of construction activities in accord with the
biologist's findings.
Mitigation Measures F -1: The design of all buildings shall be designed in accordance with current
earthquake resistant standards, including the 2007 CBC guidelines and design recommendations
regarding the potential for localized liquefaction presented in the Geotechnical Investigation provided by
Murray Engineers.
Mitigation Measure F-2: Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall submit a well-designed
shoring system for the basement excavation to be designed by a licensed engineer subject to review and
approval by Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measures H-1: A project specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and a Site Mitigation Plan
(SMP), would be implemented, and adhered to during construction and excavation activities. All workers
on site should be read and understand the HASP and SMP, and copies should be maintained on site
during construction and excavation at all times.
Mitigation M~asures H-2: A Remedial Risk Management Plan (RRMP) should be developed and
followed by current and future owners, tenants, and operators. The plan will include the implementation
of the. described remedies and engineering design.
Mitigation Measures H-3: Additional collection of four soil samples at the site should be completed after
the base excavation to 14 feet bgs is achieved. This soil-gas collection will verify if the removal of the
clay cap has resulted in a reduction of residual soil gas below the residential ESLs. CurrentPCE and TCE
concentrations in soil-gas are one or two orders of magnitude greater that what would be expected to
accumulate based on current groundwater concentrations of PCE and TCE, and would not be likely to
reach the current concentrations in the future if the reduction of groundwater contaminants continues as it
is expected to.
Mitigation Measures H-4: If soil-gas concentrations collected following the initial base excavation phase
have not resulted in significant decrease, a sub slab passive vapor collection and passive vapor collection
and passive venting system designed full vapor barrier would be implemented to mitigate against the
identified VOC soil-vapor intrusion (see Mitigation Measure H-5 for vapor intrusion mitigation system).