HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-20 City Council (29)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
DATE:October 20, 1997 CMR:421:97
SUBJECT:425-435 SHERIDAN AVENUE~ 440-460 PAGE MILL ROAD:
REVIEW A ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION TO THE
PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONE TO ALLOW THE
DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 26,000-SQUARE-FOOT
LABORATORY BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
35-UNIT, THREE-STORY CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX,
SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE AND RELATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS. FILE NOSo 97-ARB-97; 97-ZC-8; 97-EIA-10
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the City Council:
Approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that the proposed
project will not result in any significant environmental impacts if certain conditions
of approval are imposed; and
Approve the proposedproject for construction of the 35-unit, 3-story condominium
complex, 81 parking spaces, and related site improvements, consisting of (a) Planned
Community rezoning, (b) associated Design Enhancement Exceptions for minor
encroachments into the daylight planes and (c) a subdivision map for 35 air space
condominiums based on the attached fmdings (Planning Commission staff report
Attachments 3, 4, and 11) and conditions (Planning Commission staff report
Attachment 5).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to construct a 58,422-square-foot, 3-story condominium complex,
a subterranean parking garage containing 81 parking spaces, and related site improvements.
CMR:421:97 Page 1 of 5
The total building area is proposed to be 89,605 square feet, including the garage, and will
contain 35 condomim’um units, yielding an overall density of 33 units per acre. The project
is located on the site of the former Linus Pauling Laboratory between Page Mill Road and
Sheridan Avenue just east of E1 Camino Real.
The site consists of 4 parcels totaling 46,084 square feet or 1.06 acres, on the block bounded
by Page Mill Road, E1 Camino Real, Sheridan Avenue, and Ash Street (see Planning
Commission staff report Attachment 1 - Location Map). The proposed building footprint is
19,816 square feet at grade, resulting in a coverage of 43 percent. The proposed building is
set back 15 feet from Page Mill Road on the south, 13 to 14 feet from the adjacent Page Mill
Court housing for the disabled (2700 Ash Street) on the east, 10 feet from Sheridan Avenue
on the north, and 10 feet from the vacant garden center lot and the Santa Clara County
Park & Ride lot on the west.
Parking is on a single subterranean level and provides 80 uni-stalls, including 2 van-
accessible stalls and 2 standard accessible stalls. The parking level extends about 11 feet
below grade. Vehicular access to the site will be provided from a single, two-way driveway
on Sheridan Avenue that connects to the parking level. Pedestrian access is provided from
an entry on Page Mill Road as well as an entry on Sheridan Avenue. Transit access will be
provided from existing bus stops on Page Mill Road and E1 Camino Real. Bicycle access
is provided by an existing bike path located along Park Boulevard.
The building architecture is contemporary, with a modern interpretation of the California
Shingle Style. Building materials and features include a painted cement plaster exterior in
a color that is designed to complement that approved for the adjacent Page .Mill Court
housing, panelized cedar shingles, aluminum clad window frames, and glazed concrete roof
tiles.
The proposal also includes a graphic motif (plaque) as a tribute to the work of Linus Pauling
in the front entryway facing Page Mill Road as part of the public benefit package for the PC
Zone change application.
Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 1) and applicant’s
written description (Planning Commission staff report Attachment 6) and plans for further
details regarding the project. Photographs and plans will be available at the Council meeting.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
At the Planning Commission meeting on September 24, 1997, the only significant issue was
the height of the soundwall adjacent to Page Mill Road.
Soundwall HeighA
The Planning Commission expressed concerns about the visual effects of the recommended
eight-foot-high sound wall on Page Mill Road. The acoustical study prepared for the project
ClVIR:421:97 .Page 2 of 5
indicates that an eight-foot soundwall is required to meet Comprehensive Plan outdoor noise
standards for the patios facing Page Mill Road, after the road has been widened by ten feet.
(The project was analyzed assuming the Page Mill widening, since the project, as part of its
public benefit, proposes a 10-foot dedication of right-of-way for the widening project.) The
study indicates that only a seven-foot wall is required to meet the outdoor noise standard in
the present configuration of Page Mill Road. With the widened road, a seven-foot
soundwall would result in a noise level that exceeds the City’s Comprehensive Plan standard
of 65 dBA. A project that does not meet the 65 dBA standard is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and technically creates a significant environmental impact. Approval
of such a project would require an Environmental Impact Report and a fmding of overriding
consideration. The Planning Commission preferred the eight-foot wall to denying the project
as proposed and requiring an EIR.
The sound wall is set back 25 feet from the existing Page Mill Road right-of-way, but only
15 feet from the future right-of-way. Staff concluded that an eight-foot sound wall could be
aesthetically intrusive unless screened. Because there is only a one-foot landscaped strip
between the sound wall and the sidewalk, the most effective screening treatment would be
the planting of ivy or other vine on the sound wall. Combined with the proposed landscape
strip, between the sidewalk and the street this treatment would soften the view of an eight
foot sound wall from Page Mill Road. This technique has been used on sound walls in many
other residential projects in Palo Alto. The planting of vines on this sound wall has been
included as a condition of project approval.
The Planning Commission supported staff’s recommendation to retain the eight-foot
soundwall (see the September. 24, 1997 Planning Commission minutes, attached).
BOARD/COMMISSION ACTION
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted a review of the current project on August
21, 1997. The ARB supported the project. ARB members supported the inventive use of
materials and colors and thought that the project fit nicely with the adjacent Page Mill Court
project. The ARB voted unanimously to approve the project.
As mentioned previously, the Planning Commission reviewed the project on August 13,
1997, and September 24, 1997. Planning Commissioners were supportive of the project and
indicated it was a good use at an appropriate density for this location and close to transit.
Commissioners generally supported the design of the project, although some members
questioned the eight-foot height of the sound wall along Page Mill Road. Commissioners
supported the public benefit package, particularly the dedication of the 10-foot fight-of-way
along Page Mill Road. Commissioners thought that housing at this location was consistent
with Comprehensive Plan policies. Two neighbors spoke at the hearing to request that as
many trees as possible be saved on the site. The Commissioners indicated that the Planning
Department arborist had reviewed the tree preservation plan and that the plans preserved as
many trees as possible. See attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 1) for
CMR:421:97 Page 3 of 5
more detailed discussion of these issues. Commissioners voted 5 to 1 in favor of the project,
with Commissioner Schmidt opposed and Commissioner Beecham absent.
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
Findings for subdivision approval (Planning Commission staff report Attachment 3), a
proposed PC Ordinance, including recommended findings (Planning Commission staff report
Attachment 4), conditions-of project approval (Planning Commission staff report
Attachment 5), and DEE fmdings (Planning Commission staff report Attachment 11) are
attached.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may: 1) modify the project or 2) deny the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City resulting from this application.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Mitigated NegativeDeclaration has been prepared
finding that the project will not have significant environmental impacts provided that
mitigation measures are included in the project. These mitigation measures are included as
conditions of project approval. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for
public review from July 2 through July 30, 1997, and is attached to this staff report (see
Planning Commission staff report Attachment 2).
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission staff report dated September 24, 1997 (with attachments)
Planning Commission minutes (excerpt) of the meeting of September 24, 1997
Plans (City Council Members only)
cc~Architectural Review Board
Planning Commission
Serena Trachta, 1002 Rhode Island Street, San Francisco, CA 94107
Rick Hill, BK Palo Alto LLC, 204 Franklin Street, Redwood City, CA 94063
Michael Atherton, 300 Third Street, Los Altos, CA 94022
Janet Stone, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, 658 Bair Island Road #300, Redwood
City, CA 94063
PREPARED BY: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
CMR:421:97 Page 4 of 5
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
G
CMR:421:97 Page 5 of 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
2
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
Chandler Lee, Planner
September 24, 1997
DEPARTMENT:Planning
SUBJECT:425-435 Sheridan Avenue, 440-460 Page Mill Road: Review of an
application for a Zone Change to the Planned Community (PC)
Zone to allow the demolition of an existing 26,000 square foot
laboratory building and construction of a new 35 unit three story
condominium complex, subterranean parking garage and related
site improvements. File Noso 97-ARB-97; 97-ZC-8; 97-EIA-10
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Recommend that the City Council approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Attachment #2), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant
environmental impacts, if certain conditions of approval are imposed; and
Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project for construction of the
35 unit three story condominium complex, 81 parking spaces, and related site
improvements, with associated Design Enhancement Exceptions for minor
encroachments into the daylight planes and a subdivision map for 35 air space
condominiums based on the attached findings (Attachments 3, 4, and 11) and conditions
(Attachment 5).
BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION
The applicant is proposing to construct a 58,422 square foot, three story condominium
complex, a subterranean parking garage containing 81 parking spaces, and related site
9-24-97
S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRlSher435.pc2 Page 1
improvements. The total building area is proposed to be 89,605 square feet, including the
garage, and will contain 35 condominium units yielding an overall density of 33 units per
acre. The project is located on the site of the former Linus Pauling Laboratory between Page
Mill Road and Sheridan Avenue just east of E1 Camino Real.
Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the project is tentatively scheduled to
be considered by the City Council at a public hearing on October 20, 1997.
Project Description
The site consists of four parcels totaling 46,084 square feet or 1.06 acres on the block
bounded by Page Mill Road, E1 Camino Real, Sheridan Avenue, and Ash Street (see
Attachment #1 - Location Map). The proposed building footprint is 19,816 square feet at
grade resulting in a coverage of 43 percent. The proposed building is setback 15 feet from
Page Mill Road on the south, 13 to 14 feet from the adjacent Page Mill Court housing for
the disabled (2700 Ash Street) on the east, 10 feet from Sheridan Avenue on the north, and
10 feet from the vacant garden center lot and County park and ride lot on the west.
Parking is on a single subterranean level and provides 80 uni-stalls, including 2 van
accessible stalls and 2 standard accessible stalls. The parking level extends about 11 feet
below grade. Vehicular access to the site will be provided from a single, two-way
driveway on Sheridan Avenue that connects to the parking level. Pedestrian access is
provided from an entry on Page Mill Road as well as an entry on Sheridan Avenue. Transit
access will be provided from existing bus stops on page Mill Road and E1 Camino Real.
Bicycle access is provided by an existing bike path located along Park Boulevard.
The building architecture is contemporary, with a modern interpretation of the California
Shingle Style. Building materials and features include: Painted cement plaster exterior in
a color that is designed to complement that approved for the adjacent Page Mill Court
housing, panelized cedar shingles, aluminum clad window flames, and glazed concrete
roof tiles.
The proposal also includes a graphic motif (plaque) as a tribute to the work of Linus
Pauling in the front entryway facing Page Mill Road as part of the public benefit package
for the PC Zone Change application.
Please refer to the applicant’s written description (Attachment #6) and plans for further
details regarding the project. Photographs and plans will be presented at the meeting.
9-24-97
S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRISher435.pc2 Page 2
Site Information
Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor’s parcel number, Comprehensive
Plan designation, zoning district, existing land use, and parcel size is shown below in
Table 1.
TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
Owner:
BK Ltd Palo Alto, LLC
Michael Atherton
Assessor’s Parcel Number:132-36-37, 86, 90 and 91
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Zoning District:
Multiple Family Residential
RM-40 (Multiple Family Residential)/NC-2
(Non-Conforming Use Subject to Termination
(with extension)
Surrounding Land Use:North: Multiple Family Residential
South: Single Family Residential
East: Page Mill Court disabled housing
West: Park & Ride lot, Garden Center retail
Parcel Size:
Project History.
46,084 s.f. or 1.06 acres
The from of the site (the two lots facing Page Mill Road) is currently occupied by an
aging, concrete tilt up building. The rear of the site (the two lots facing Sheridan Avenue)
is currently vacant. The site lies immediately adjacent to the recently approved Page Mill
Court disabled housing project located to the northeast. The site was rezoned to RM-40
in 1978 as part of City efforts to identify additional housing sites. The commercial/researda
uses were declared non-conforming and the time extensions must terminate in 1998.
9-24-97
S:[Plan[PladivlPCSRlSher435.pc2 Page 3
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and Architectural Review Board Ordinance. The following
Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies, and programs are relevant to this project:
Housing Element Policy #3: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto’s
neighborhoods especially desirable. "This project is located in a neighborhood that features
a mix of multiple family residences and commercial activity and is in close proximity to the
Califomia Avenue Business District. The proposed project will provide additional housing
opportunities within walking distance to commercial services in the area.
Housing Element Policy # 13: "Increase funding sources used to provide affordable housing."
The project will provide Below Market rate units that will contribute to the supply of
affordable housing. The project recently has been revised to provide 6 three-bedroom units
for families as well as 29 two-bedroom units.
Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, "Promote the orderly and harmonious
development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements
through the review of new development. "The site is designated Multiple
Family Residential and is well suited for this use. The proposed site plan makes .more
efficient use of the site by improving the layout of parking and landscaped areas compared
with the previous use. The site is adjacent to and compatible with similar multiple family
residential buildings in the vicinity.
Urban Design Element, Policy 6A, Program G, "Encourage residentialuse in the commercial
areas near California-CambridgeAvenue area. "The proposed replacement of a laboratory
building with high density residential use within walking distance of California Avenue is
consistent with this policy.
DISCUSSION
Issues and Analysis
The staff analysis for this project relates to site planning, architectural design, landscaping,
traffic, acoustics, subdivision, zoning compliance, public benefit and City departmental
comments.
Site Planning: The site plan calls for the condominiums to be surrounded with landscaped
9-24-97
S:lPlanlPladivlPCSR[Sher435.pc2 Page 4
setbacks on all sides and served by an entryway on each street frontage. The condominiums,
private open space, and courtyard will be located on the three floors above grade while all
parking will be located below grade. The building faces Page Mill Road but provides
pedestrian entryways along both the Page Mill Road and Sheridan Avenue frontages. Both
street frontages provide pedestrian interest with ample fenestration, patio alcoves on the
ground floor and balconies on the upper floors that provide building articulation. The
proposed building provides setbacks along both Page Mill Road and Sheridan Avenue that
provide a pedestrian friendly experience along the public right-of-way. All four perimeter
areas will be landscaped to protect, adjacent uses and provide visual interest from the street
frontages. Overall project density is about 33 units per acre.
Architectural Design: The building architecture is contemporary, with a modem
interpretation of the California Shingle Style. The design complements the adjacent Page
Mill Court project and is compatible with the existing multiple family buildings in the area.
The design features natural materials and generous building articulation to provide visual
interest at all levels above grade.
Landscaping The landscape plan proposes a mix of perimeter landscape screening and an
outdoor courtyard. The Page Mill Road frontage features a row of accent trees and a variety
of plants and ground cover within the landscaped setback. The.project also proposes to plant
eight new oak trees (Shumard Red Oak) on each side of Page Mill Road within the public
right-of-way. The Sheridan Avenue frontage features six trees (five new Chanticleer
Flowering Pear trees plus an existing Elm) and a variety of plantings and ground cover
within the 10 foot setback. Interior setbacks are planted with a variety of accent trees, shrubs
and ground cover including a perennial border to provide year round color. The project
proposes an outdoor courtyard. The courtyard faces Sheridan Avenue and features a central
fountain, natural boulders, lawn, unit paving stones and seating. A decorative surface plaque
commemorating Linus Pauling is located in front of the Page Mill Road entryway and
extends into the sidewalk. A description of Landscape Treatment is included in the attached
Program Development Statement (Attachment 6).
There are 8 existing trees on-site including: four Redwoods, one 24 inch American Elm, one
24 inch Palm, one 14 inch Eucalyptus and one 8 inch Oak. Six of the eight trees will need
to be removed and the Elm and Palm trees will be saved. No heritage trees will be removed.
The American Elm will be pruned and saved and the Date Palm will be relocated to another
site prior to construction. Two other trees to be removed are located on the northwest
property line. They will have to be removed due to the proximity of their root systems to the
proposed structure. Over 100 new trees are proposed including 38 twenty four inch boxed
9-24-97
S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRISher435.pc2 Page 5
trees that are proposed as replacements for those removed and eight street trees on each side
of Page Mill Road that _are proposed as part of the public benefit package.
There are three street trees in the publicly owned right-of way on Sheridan Avenue, two
Coast Redwoods and an American Elm. Of these, the large mature American Elm (Ulmus
americana) is the dominant landscape feature and is required to be retained within the scope
of the project and receive irrigation and improved softscape area within which to grow.
Preservation and protection of this Elm tree will be included as a condition of project
approval. To the west of this tree,, there are four Coast Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens)
two of which, are in the small existing planter strip. There are no protected trees as defined
in the Palo Alto Municipal Code 8.10 (Chapter 8.10.020.) The two Redwoods in the right of
way are of poor quality and distressed, with the top third of one tree broken off sometime in
the past. These two trees would not be of benefit to be retained on the property. Since the
roots of all four Redwoods are grouped together under the crumbling sidewalk and it is not
probable that they can be successfully separated, it is recommended that this grouping of
distressedtrees be removed. This finding is also supported in the arborist report which states
that they are unlikely to survive the construction impact.
There is a 34-inch diameter Aleppo Pine tree that is leaning opposite of the new building
structure on the adjacent property. It is located in an undeveloped parcel along the southern
property line off Sheridan Avenue, and adjacent to its fence line. The specific project impact
includes the excavation of the underground gat.age to come within eight to ten feet of the
trtmk and compromising the root zone, thereby jeopardizing the tree’s stability. While the
tree has a height in excess of sixty feet and a significant presence, it is also nearing the end
of its projected lifespan. The cons6nsus of the City’s arborists is that the tree should be
removed. Because this tree is significant in size and the adjacent property value would not
have encountered loss of the tree if the project had not imposed such, the applicant has
agreed to plant another evergreen tree of significant size in a nearby location that will be of
benefit to the neighboring property.
Overall, the City’s arborists have determined that the tree removal plan is acceptable and the
new landscape and street tree theme will be a positive replacement.
Traffic: The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on traffic congestion.
Because the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study anticipated development of
residential use on this site, no significant impact will result from development of the project
and a separate traffic study was not conducted. A project of this type would typically
generate about 8 trips per unit, for a total of 280 average daily trips, ofwhich about 15
9-24-97
S:lPlanIPladivIPCSRISher435.pc2 Page 6
percent would be in the peak hour. The applicant is proposing to dedicate, as part of the
project’s public benefit package, ten feet of right-of-way for a proposed widening of Page
Mill Road in accordance with the 1989 Citywide study.
The City’s required standard conditions of approval address sight distance and other typical
traffic requirements. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts would be generated by the
project and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Acoustical Treatments: Noise generated by traffic on Page Mill Road will have an impact on
proposed units facing onto Page Mill Road. An acoustical study prepared in conjunction with
the project indicates that potential noise impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels in
accordance with the City’s noise standards. In order to reduce traffic noise to acceptable
levels, the noise study includes two mitigation measures including: 1) an eight foot high
acoustically effective barrier located approximately 15 feet from the building facade along
the Page Mill frontage, and 2) installation of windows with an STC rating of 36 in all rooms
nearest Page Mill Road and an STC rating of 30 in the units further north along Page Mill
Road. STC refers to Standard Transmission Class which provides a rating system for the
acoustical effectiveness of various building materials. The Noise Study conducted by Charles
Salter & Associates (April 28, 1997) indicates that the mitigations specified on pages 2 and
3 of the report will reduce noise levels in interior and exterior living spaces in compliance
with City noise standards. These mitigations are included as conditions of project approval
and, therefore, the project will not have a significant noise impact.
Staff has some concerns about the visual effects of an eight foot high sound wall on Page
Mill Road. The sound wall is setback 25 feet from the existing Page Mill Road right-of-way
and only 15 feet from the future right-of-way. Staff agrees with the need for the sound wall
but believes the sound wall could be aesthetically intrusive unless screened. The applicant
is proposing to build the sound wall only to six feet although eight feet is needed to meet
outdoor noise standards. The sound wall on the adjacent Page Mill Court project ranges from
12 feet at the western edge to 10 feet in the middle to 8 feet at the eastern edge, near Ash
Street. The lower height wall would certainly be an improvement visually but would not
reduce sound levels to acceptable standards and, therefore, staff cannot recommend lowering
it. Because there is only a one foot landscaped strip between the sound wall and the sidewalk,
the most effective screening treatment would be the planting of ivy or other vine on the
sound wall. Combined with the proposed landscape strip, between the sidewalk and the
street, this treatment would soften the view of an eight foot sound wall from Page Mill Road.
This technique has been used on sound walls in many other residential projects in Palo Alto.
The planting of vines on this sound wall has been included as a condition of project approval.
9-24-97
S:lPlan[PladivIPCSRISher435.pc2 Page 7
Staff is also concerned about the plexiglass screens on the balconies that are required to meet
outdoor noise standards. The applicant is proposing plexiglass acoustical shields up to ear
level for a person sitting on the balconies. This design will meet outdoor noise standards for
residential areas as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff was initially concerned about
the visual appearance of the plexiglass screens. The applicant maintains that plexiglass
materials are available that have the appearance and durability of glass. Plexiglass screens
were included in the design of balconies on the recently approved apartment .project at 4020
E1 Camino Real. Staff finds that a similar plexiglass material could be successfully
incorporated into the balcony design of the condominium project. The use of high quality,
scratch resistant plexiglass on the balconies is included as a condition of approval.
Subdivision: The project requires a subdivision map to combine the existing four parcels into
one and divide the property into 3 5 separate air rights condominiums. Draft findings for
approval of a subdivision are included as Attachment #3.
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The following table compares the project to the existing RM-40 Multiple Family Residential
District and the proposed PC Planned Community District regulations.
. S :[PlanlPladivlPCSRlSher435.pc2
9-24-97
Page 8
Project Comparison With Current and Proposed Ordinance Requirements
Floor Area (sq.fl.)
Floor Area Ratio
Maximum Height
Site Coverage
Automobile Parking
-Resident Parking
-Guest Parking
Total Parking
Bicycle Parking
- resident spaces
- guest spaces
Total spaces
Setbacks
- Page Mill Road
- Sheridan Avenue
- Interior: North
- Interior: South
PROPOSED
58,201 s.f.
1.26:1
35-40 feet
41%
70 spaces
12 spaces
82 spaces
(81 vehicle +
8 bikes =
82 spaces)
35 Class I
5 Class III
40 spaces +
8 Class I (for 1
car space) =
48 spaces
RM-40
46,237
1:1
35-40 feet****
45%
25 feet*
10 feet
13-14 feet
’10 feet
35
3.
21%
70 spaces
12 spaces
82 spaces
35 Class I
4 Class III
39 spaces
25
10
10
10
PC
n/a
n!a
50 feet ****
n!a
70 spaces
12 spaces
82 spaces
35 Class I
4 Class III
39 spaces
20**
10
10’**
10’**
# Dwelling Units 43 n/a
BMR Units 10%10%
Common Open 20%n/a
Space
Recycling Storage Provided Required Required
9-24-97S:lPlanlPladiv[PCSR[ Sher435.pc2 Page 9
* Because the applicant has offered to dedicate a ten foot right-of-way for public improvements, staffis recommending
that an existing 25 foot setback and future 15 foot setback is adequate at this location.
** There is a 20 foot special setback along Page Mill Road. The 10 feet for future widening of Page Mill Road for a
right turn lane onto E1 Camino Real is included within this setback
*** The site is within 150 feet of a residential zoning district; therefore, the 10 foot setback must be planted as a
landscaped screen with a solid wall.
**** The site is adjacent to a residential zoning district and is subject to daylight plane height restrictions in addition
to height limits of 40 feet for RM-40, 50 feet for PC, 35 feet on Page Mill for RM-40 & PC).
The proposal does not meet the development regulations of the RM-40 zoning district for
floor area, FAR, and setbacks and, therefore, the applicant is requesting rezoning to the
PC Planned Community District. The project meets all requirements of the Off-Street
Parking Ordinance.
Floor Area and FAR: The 58,422 square feet of project floor area (1.26 FAR) exceeds
both the floor area (46,084 square feet) and FAR (1:1) allowed within the existing RM-40
district by 26 percent. The PC Planned Community zoning regulation does not establish
limits for either floor area or FAR. The approximately 12,400 square feet of proposed
building area that exceeds that allowed in the RM-40 district must be addressed in the
required public benefit package.
Height: The plans show that the mid-point of the slope of the gable roof is 35 feet and peak
is 39.5 feet which meets the normal 40 foot height timit in the RM-40 zoning district but
exceeds the 35 foot limit on the Page Mill Road frontage. The 35 foot height limit is
established for areas within 150 feet of a more restrictive residential zone (there is an R-1
zone across Page Mill Road). The applicant has agreed to reduce the height of the building
along Page Mill Road to 35 feet to meet the City’s height limit. The proposed height of the
remainder of the building (39.5 feet) would be less than the 50 foot maximum height
allowed within the PC Planned Community zoning district.
Because the project is located within 150 feet of a residential area, the building is subject
to daylight plane regulations. Both the RM-40 and PC Zoning Districts include the
regulations. There are three daylight planes that apply to this project: 1) Adjacent to the
Page Mill Court project on the north frontage (nearest Sheridan Avenue), 2) adjacent to
the Page Mill Court project on the interior frontage, and 3) adjacent to the Page Mill Court
project on the south frontage (nearest Page Mill Road). The daylight plane is defined by
a point 15 feet in height along the lot line, extends upward at a 45 degree angle into the
9-24-97
S:[Plan[PladivlPCSRlSher435.pc2 Page 10
site and is shown on the attached diagram.
Page Mill Court - South Frontage: This daylight plane effectively limits building height
along the southern portion of this frontage to no greater than 30 feet at the proposed
setback of 14 feet and intersects with the proposed roof line about 4 feet below the
midpoint of the roof.
Page Mill Court - East Frontage: This daylight plane effectively limits building height
along the interior property line parallel to Page Mill Road to no greater than 30 feet at the
proposed setback of 14 feet and intersects with the proposed roof line about 3 feet below
the midpoint of the roof.
Page Mill Court - North Frontage: This daylight plane effectively limits building height
along the northern portion of this frontage to no greater than 30 feet at the proposed
setback of 14 feet and intersects with the proposed roof line about 4 feet below the
midpoint of the roof.
The applicant has proposed a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to these daylight
plane provisions. Section 18.91.010 of the PAMC permits minor encroachments into the
daylight plane if the findings can be made verifying that the encroachment is minor and
will enhance the design of the building. The attached Letter of Application for a DEE and
accompanying elevations (Attachment #7) indicates that all three intrusions are minor and
are needed to preserve the quality of living spaces within the building. One of the two
outdoor courtyards previously proposed by the applicant was sacrificed due to the
provision of a ten foot right-of-way dedication along Page Mill Road. Pulling back the
building to meet the daylight plane requirements would jeopardize the remaining outdoor
courtyard to the detriment of the livability of the residential units. Because the intrusion
into the daylight plane is minor, neighboring properties would not be affected, and the
design of the project would be improved, staff supports the granting of an exception to the
daylight provisions at these three locations. DEE f’mdings for the project are included as
Attachment #11.
Setbacks: The project meets all the setback requirements established by the RM-40 district,
except for the 25 foot setback along Page Mill Road. Because the applicant has offered to
dedicate a ten foot right-of-way for public improvements, staff is recommending that an
existing 25 foot setback and future 15 foot setback is adequate at this location. The site
plan shows a 13-14 foot setback on the north interior side yard whereas a ten foot setback
is required. If the site were to be rezoned to the PC district, a 10 foot setback must be
S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRISher435.pc2
9-24-97
Page 11
provided and planted as a landscaped screen with a solid wall of five to eight feet. The
proposed plan includes the ten foot setback with a fence but not the solid wall. Because
there will be a six foot solid wood fence built on the adjacent Page Mill Court project, staff
believes that an additional wall is not necessary and that the Page Mill Court fence will
suffice.
The special setback requirement along the Page Mill Road frontage of the site is 20 feet.
The proposed site plan provides 25 feet. Within the 25 foot setback, the applicant is
providing a 10 foot right-of-way dedication for the future construction of a right turn lane
onto E1 Camino Real. The right turn lane and several other improvements to the E1
Camino Real/Page Mill Road intersection is a result of the City’s 1989 Citywide Land Use
and Transportation Study which assumed additional growth in the vicinity or E1 Camino
Real and Page Mill Road. Although the need for the right turn lane is largely generated
off-site, the cumulative effect of development in the area has recently been reviewed and
determined to warrant the right turn lane improvement. The 10 foot right-of-way is
included in the proposed site plan.
Parking: The project proposes 81 parking spaces to be located on the subterranean level.
The Off-Street Parking Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.83) requires 2 spaces for units of
two bedrooms and larger in addition to 33 percent of the number of units for guest
parking. The applicant has recently revised the building plans to include 29 two bedroom
units and 6 three-bedroom units resulting in the need for 70 resident spaces and 12 guest
spaces for a total of 82 spaces. The entire project parking requirements can be
accommodated within the subterranean parking gar.age, for all but one space. The Off-
Street Parking Ordinance allows eight Class I bicycle racks to be substituted for each
parking space not provided on-site. The applicant has agreed to add 8 additional bicycle
spaces (Class I) in-lieu of the one parking space. Staff believes that the provision of bicycle
spaces in lieu of the one parking space is acceptable. This will be included as a condition
of project approval. Therefore, the project meets all requirements of the Off-Street Parking
Ordinance.
Bicycle Parking: The Off-Street Parking Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.83) requires one
space per unit (35 spaces), all of which are Class I bicycle lockers. One Class III bike rack
for each ten units (4 racks) are required for guest parking for a total of 39 bike spaces. The
applicant is proposing 5 Class III racks for guests to meet this requirement. In addition,
the applicant has agreed to add 8 additional bicycle spaces (Class I) in-lieu of the one
parking space. Therefore, the project meets the requirements for bicycle parking.
9-24-97
S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRISher435.pc2 Page 12
BMR Units: The project is required to setaside 10% of total units as Below Market Rate
(BMR). The applicant and the City have reached an agreement on the BMR provision. The
BMR requirements would normally include 3 BMR units plus an in-lieu fee for the
remaining half unit. Instead of the fee, the applicant has agreed to include a 3 bedroom
BMR unit for families along with 2 two bedroom BMR units. One of the corner two
bedroom units has been reconfigured to three bedrooms. Due to the inclusion of a three
bedroom unit that would not normally be required, the City has agreed to this approach.
A signed BMR agreement is attached (Attachment #10). The provisions of the agreement
shall be included in the subdivision agreement for the project which shall be recorded with
Santa Clara County prior to issuance of a building permit. This requirement is included
as a condition of project approval. Therefore, the project meets this requirement.
Common Open Space: The project is required to provide not less than 20% of the lot area
as common open space. The project proposes 21% percent (9,700 square feet) common
open space to be composed of the courtyard and perimeter landscaping. In addition, each
ground floor dwelling unit is required to provide an eighty square foot patio and each
upper unit is required to provide a fifty square foot balcony. The project proposes patios
of 150+ square feet and balconies of 50 to 150 square feet. Therefore, the project meets
all requirements for common and private open space.
Public Benefit: Approval of the requested PC zone change requires that public benefit
findings be made. The public benefits should go beyond the minimum zoning ordinance
requirements and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Public policy in PC Zone
change approvals has generally included the assumption that benefits should be
commensurate or proportional with the request to exceed normal regulatory requirements.
In this case, the applicant is requesting approximately 12,400 square feet of floor area over
what zoning would allow. The applicant has proposed the following public benefits:
1. The project includes a ten foot right-of-way dedication along the Page Mill Road
frontage for the future Construction of a right turn lane onto E1 Camino Real. The right
turn lane and several other improvements to the E1 Camino Real/Page Mill Road
intersection is a result of the City’s 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study.
2. The project proposes the inclusion of public art in the form of the Linus Pauling plaque
in the Page Mill Road entryway. The plaque can be viewed from the public right-of-way
and the applicant envisions it as part of a public art piece. Any public art proposal will
need to be reviewed and approved by the Public Arts Commission prior to subsequent
review by the ARB.
S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRISher435.pc2
9-24-97
Page 13
3. The project includes a row of street trees (eight on the opposite side of Page Mill Road
depending on available-right-of-way), in addition to the new trees proposed on-site and
along the street frontages.
Additional contributions by the project are discussed in the attached Program Development
Statement (Attachment #6) but are not considered by staff to be actual public benefits
according to the Planned Community regulations.
Staff believes that the cumulative effect of these public benefits appears to be
commensurate with the request to exceed normal regulatory requirements.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Notice of this Planning Commission review was provided by publication of the agenda in
a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility customers
within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card.
The Architectural Review Board conducted a preliminary review of the project on
December 5, 1996. The ARB generally supported the site planning, architecture, and
landscape components of the project and were in favor of the project moving forward
through the review process.
The Planning Commission conducted a preliminary review of the project on August 13,
1997. Planning Commissioners were supportive of the project indicating it was a good use
at an appropriate density for this location and close to transit. Commissioners generally
supported the design of the project although some members questioned the eight foot height
of the sound wall along Page Mill Road. Commissioners supported the public benefit
package particularly the dedication of the 10 foot right-of-way along Page Mill Road.
Commissioners favored saving as many trees as possible but supported the proposed
replacement of trees where preservation is infeasible. They favored providing the proposed
street trees on Sheridan Avenue and the opposite side of Page Mill Road with sufficient
space for root growth and providing on-going maintenance to ensure their continued
health. Commissioners thought that housing at this location was consistent with
Comprehensive Plan Policies.
The Architectural Review Board conducted a review of the current project on August 21,
1997. The ARB supported the project. ARB members supported the inventive use of
materials and colors and thought that the project fit nicely with the adjacent Page Mill
Court project. The ARB supported the building articulation and the resultant reduction in
S:]PlanlPladivlPCSRlSher435.pc2
9-24-97
Page 14
perceived building mass. ARB members supported the proposal to plant street trees and
indicated that the trees would not block views of the foothills. Members recommended that
the applicant reexamine the roof (to reduce the perception of mass) and window materials
(to provide for divided light) and attempt to consolidate the vent stacks (to reduce visual
clutter) on the roof when the project returns to the ARB for review of final details. The
ARB recommended approval of the Design Exception Enhancement (DEE) and
recommended that the City Council approve the project as proposed.
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
Findings for subdivision approval (Attachment #3), a proposed PC Ordinance~ including
recommended findings (Attachment #4), and conditions of project approval (Attachment
#5) are attached.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission may: 1) recommend modifications to the project and
recommend that the City Council approve the project as modified or 2) recommend that
the City Council deny the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no significant fiscal impact on the City due to this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared
for the project which determined that the project would have a less than significant impact
on the environment with implementation of recommended mitigation measures and that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared. The Mitigated Negative Declaration
was made available for public review from July 2 through July 30, 1997 and is attached
to this staff report (see Attachment #2).
NEXT STEPS
Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the project is tentatively scheduled to
be considered by the City Council at a public hearing on October 20, 1997.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment # 1: Location Map.
Attachment #2: EIA
9-24-97
S:[Plan[PladivlPCSRISher435.pc2 Page 15
Attachment #3: Findings for Approval of Subdivision
Attachment #4: Planned Community Zone Ordinance
Attachment #5: Conditions of Project Approval
Attachment #6. Program Development Statement
Attachment #7: Letter of Application for Design Enhancement Exception
Attachment #8: Minutes of ARB Meeting of August 21, 1997
Attachment #9: Minutes of PC meeting of August 13, 1997
Attachment #10: BMR Agreement
Attachment # 11: DEE Findings
Plans (Planning Commission members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Serena Trachta, 1002 Rhode Island Street, San Francisco, CA 94107
Rick Hill, BK Palo Alto LLC, 204 Franklin Street, Redwood City, CA 94063
Michael Atherton, 300 Third Street, Los Altos, CA 94022
Janet Stone, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, 658 Bair Island Road #300, Redwood City,
CA 94063
Prepared by:Chandler Lee
Reviewed By:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Division/Department Head Approval: ~"-~ ~,-~
Kenneth Schreiber, Director Of Planning
and Community Environment
9-24-97
S :[PlanlPladivlPCSRlSher435.pc2 Page 16
M(
ATTACHMENT 1
LLI:
CT. IllS E.
..:o
0
4268
2
Birch Street
PC -:5021
Ash
I
I
I
~ :.:.
El Carnino Real ============================
Project: 425-435 Sheridan Avenue/
440-460 Page Mill Road
Zone change from High Density
Multi-family Residential (RM-40) to
Planned Community (PC)
~" PC-435~
Date: July 30, 1997
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
¯ .. ~e.~ i bf! !f Liti
8O
ATTACHMENT 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
o
Project Title:
Lead AgenCy Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
425-435 Sheridan Avenue Condominiums
City of Palo Alto - Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
415-329-2441
o
Project Location"440-460 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA
Application Number(s)"97-ARB-97; 97-EIA-10; 97-ZC-8
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:BK Palo Alto I, LLC
204 Franklin Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
General Plan Designation:Multiple Family Residential
Zoning"RM-40 (Multiple Family Residential)
Description of the Project:
Application for a Zone Change to the Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the
demolition of an existing 26,000 square foot laboratory building and construction of
a new 35 unit three story condominium complex, subterranean parking garage and
related site improvements.
10.Surrounding Land uses and Setting:
The site is an irregular shape and consists of four parcels of land totaling 1.06 acres
(46,084 square feet) with a 200 foot frontage along Page Mill Road, a 165 foot
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\PAGE440.EIA [7/30/97]Page 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
frontage on Sheridan Avenue, and a 255 foot depth. The site is presently occupied by
a single story laboratory building of approximately 26,000 square feet and related site
improvements. The existing building was built in the 1960s and is currently vacant
and dilapidated. The existing site slopes from Page Mill Road to Sheridan Avenue at
approximately .5%. The site is surrounded by single family homes (across Page Mill
Road), multiple, family ,residential (across Sheridan Avenue), vacant parcels (park and
ride lot) to the southwest, a nursery to the south, and the proposed housing for the
disabled to the northeast. The site is about 1,000 feet from the California Avenue
Business District.
11.Other public agencies whose approval is required. None.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checkedbelow Would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impac.t" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and
Housing
Geological Problems
B!ological Resources
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Hazards
Water X Noise
Air Quality
Transportation and
Circulation
Public Services
Utilities and Service
Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
None
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\PAGE440.EIA [7/30/97]Page 2
DETERMINATION:
Qn 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 the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared. ’
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, b~t 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, if the effect is a "potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." 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,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project.
X
Project Planner Date
Director of Planning & Community Environment Date
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\PAGE440.EIA 17/30/97]Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency~ cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"
answer is adequatelY/supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3)"Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an e.ffect is significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR
is required.
4)"Potentially Significant Unless 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). Earlier
analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated. A source list should be att.ached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should
be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\PAGE440.EIA [7/30/97]Page 4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?1 X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 2 X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?1 X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact 3 X
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 3 X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local.population 3 X
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or 3 X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure?
c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable 3 X
housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?4 X
b) Seismic ground shaking?4 X.
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?4 . X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or ~olcanic hazard?4 X
e) Landslides or mudflows?4 X
f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 4 X
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?4 X
h) Expansive soils?4 X
i)Unique geologic or physical features?4 X
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\PAGE440.EIA [7/30/97]Page 5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
c)Discharge into surface ’waters or other alteration of
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature,-dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other
typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and
debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals
from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from
landscape maintenance?
d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body or wetland?
e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands?
f)Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h)Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of
reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has
contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
j)Alteration of wetlands in any way?
3,7,
4,5
3,17
3
3,17
3
6,17
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5.AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 6,8,9 X
exiting or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 6,8,9 X
c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause 6,8,9 X
any change in climate?
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\PAGE440.EIA [7/30/97]Page 6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
d)
a)
b)
c)
Create objectionable odors?6,8,9
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous in.tersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment))?
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?g)
b)
c)
d)
e)
8.
a)
b)
c)
10
10
10,
11,
12
3, 10
10
10
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in reduction or interference in:
8,16
8
8
8,16
8
8
3
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals or birds)?
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?.
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
X
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
I×1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\PAGE440.EIA [7/30/97]Page 7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass or trees? ¯
13
11,
12,
13
3, 1 2,
13
3,12,
13
3, 12
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
61 81
14 X
X
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or
storm drain facilities?
e) Other governmental services?
8, 12
8,11
8
8
X
X
12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
15
15
15
15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\PAGE440.EIA [7/30/97]Page 8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or’ scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
15
15
15
3
3
3
8
8
8
8
X
8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8 X
3 X
X
X
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\PAGE440.EIA [7/30/97]Page 9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
~ssues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigatior)
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
X
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been i~dequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses 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 Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated, or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions of the project.
Authority; Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093,
321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of
Superyisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980 - 1995, February 2, 1981 (as amended)
2 City of Palo Alto, Zoning Ordinance, Title 18, Chapter 18.49
3 Planner’s general knowledge Qf the project and area of proposed development.
4 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Geology and Seismic Technical Background Report, August 1 994
5 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060348-5, Map Revised September 6, 1989.
6 City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\PAG E440.EIA [7/30!97]Page 10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
IPotentially] Less Than
Significant
I Significant
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated .
7 City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department
8 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Existing Setting Memorandum, August 1994
9 .Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quality Technical Background Report, August 1 994
10 City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
11 City of Palo Alto ’Police Department
1 2 City of Palo Alto Fire Department
13 City of Palo Alto Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division
14 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Noise Technical Background Report, August 1994
15 City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
16 Fish & Game Code of California, "Chapter 1.5, Endangered Species", Sections 2050 through 2098
17 Santa Clara County Water District, Ordinance 83-2, as amended October 11, 1985
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\PAGE440.EIA [7/30/97]Page 11
19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
3a,b,
c,f
4a,b,h
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site is located in a strong seismic risk
area, subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure,
including liquefaction and subsidence o~f the land are possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults
cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at the site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. All new
construction will be subject to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC) which are
directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake.
Construction of the project will increase the amount of landscaping on site and slightly increase the
amount of impervious surface area without significant changes to site topography. Site soil modifications
are not expected to result in significant environmental impacts.
The City’s required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will
not be significant,. Project conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a final grading and
drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuanc,e of any grading and
building permits.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
This site is in Flood Zone X which is not a special flood hazard zone. It is an area of moderat~:f_Looding,
outside the 100 year flood zone but within the 500 year flood zone. Sites within this zone would be
subject to flooding to a depth of less than one foot in the 100 year flood event.
During construction activities, stormwater pollution could result. Runoff from the project site flows to San
Francisco Bay via the local storm drain system. Non point source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife
dependent on waterways ~nd for people Who live near polluted streams or baylands. Construction debris
is a source of this pollution.
With the City’s required conditions of approval, the water impacts of the project will not be significant
and by project completion, there will not be significant additional runoff from the site due to the decrease
in amount of impervious surfaces compared with the existing use. The standard conditions of approval
will require that a drainage plan be submitted which includes drainage patterns on the site and from
adjacent properties. The construction c6ntractor will be required to incorporate best management
practices (BMPs) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with
the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Therefore, the project will not result in
any significant impact on flooding.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
The project is not expected to rgsult in a significant impact on air quality. The new condominium complex
will generate more vehicle trips than the existing commercial uses, although this increase is not
considered a significant impact because it does not exceed thresholds established by the Santa Clara
County Congegtion Management Agency (CMA), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the
City of Palo Alto.
The standard conditions of approval will require that dust control measures will be employed at the site to
reduce dust emissions to acceptable levels during construction.
The proposed condominium complex, therefore, will not have a significant effect on air quality.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\PAGE440.EIA [7/30/97]Page 12
6a
2b
The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on traffic congestion. The new condominium
complex wilt generate more vehicle trips than the existing commercial uses, although this increase is not
considered a significant impact because it does not exceed thresholds established by the Santa Clara
County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) and the City of Palo Alto.
The 1989 Citywid~ Land Use and Transportation Study anticipated development of residential use on this
site. The applicant is proposing to dedicate ten feet of right-of-way for a proposed widening of Page Mill
Road in accordance with the 1989 Citywide study.
The City’s required standard conditions of approval address sight distance and other normal traffic
requirements. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts would be generated by the project and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
Demolition and construction activities could disrupt pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the area. With
the City’s required standard conditions of approval, construction impacts should not be significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
There are twenty seven trees of various sizes and species on the site that will be removed including four
redwoods, a 14 inch Eucalyptus and one 8 inch Oak. A large Elm tree and large Palm tree will be saved.
No heritage trees will be removed. The American Elm will be pruned and saved and the Date Palm will be
relocated to another site prior to construction. Over 70 new trees are proposed to be planted as
replacements for those removed including 38 twenty four inch boxed trees and eight street trees on each
side of Page Mill Road that are proposed as part of the proposed public benefit package.
There are three street trees in the publicly owned right-of way on Sheridan Avenue, two Coast Redwoods
and an American Eli-n. Of these, the large mature American Elm (Ulmus americana) is the dominant
landscape feature and is required to be retained within the scope of the project and receive irrigation and
improved softscape area to grow in. Preservation and protection of this Elm tree will be included as a
conditon of project approval. To the west of this tree, there are four Coast Redwoods (Sequoia
sempervirens) two of which, are in the small existing planter strip. There are no other protected trees as
defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code 8.10 (Chapter 8.10.020.) The two. Redwoods in the right of way
are of poor quality and distressed, with the top third of one tree broken off sometime in the past. These
two trees would not be of benefit to be" retained on the property. Since the roots of all four Redwoods
are grouped together under the crumbling sidewalk and and it is not probable that they can be
successfully seperated, it is recommended that this grouping of distressed trees be removed. This finding
is also supported in the arborist report that they are unlikely to survive the construction impact. The new
landscape and street tree theme Will be a positive replacement.
There are other small trees that are less than significant, and a Silver Dollar Gum (Eucalyptus
polyanthernos) that is not suitable and is also approved for removal. A final landscape pian, irrigation plan
and tree preservation program are required as a condition of approval. With the City’s required standard
conditions of approval, any impacts on trees should not be significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\PAGE440.EIA [7/30/97]Page 13
lOa,b
1 2a,e
13c
Noise generated by traffic on Page Mill Road will have an impact on proposed units facing onto Page Mill
Road. An acoustical study prepared in conjunction with the project indicates that potential noise impacts
can be mitigated to acceptable levels in accordance with the City’s noise standards. In order to reduce
traffic noise to acceptable levels, the noise study includes two mitigation measures including: 1) an eight
foot high acoustica.lly effective barrier located approximately 15 feet from the building facade along the
Page Mill frontage, and 2) installation of windows with an STC rating of 36 in all rooms nearest Page Mill
Road and an STC rating of 30 in the units further north along Page Mill Road. The Noise Study conducted
by Charles Salter & Associates (April 28, 1997) indicates that the mitigations specified on pages 2 and 3
of the report will reduce noise levels in interior end exterior living spaces in compliance with City noise
standards. These mitigations will be included as conditions of project approval and, therefore, the project
will not have a significant noise impact.
Demolition and construction activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. With
the City’s required standard conditions of approval, noise impacts during construction should not be
significant. The standard conditions of approval will require the applicant to comply with the requirements
of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measures: Acoustically effective sound wall and STC rated windows as specified on pages 2
and 3 of the noise study by Charles Salter & Associates (April 28, 1997).
A padmount transformer is required on-site for this project. As a standard condition of approval, a utilities
easement will be required for installing the transformer at this location, installing the existing primary stub
conduit, and extending the primary conduit to the new transformer location. Future access to the
transformer for maintenance may become a problem should any portion of the proper.ty that is now used
for parking be developed. Should this occur, the owner of the proposed project would be required to
relocate the transformer when needed. As a condition of project approval, the property owner will be
required to address the situation in writing.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Development of the site may result in a negligible increase in light and glare generated from lighting of the
site and glazing on the building, but will not have an adverse impact on surrou.nding uses. With the
project’s conditions of approval, the light and glare impacts of the project will not be significant. A
detailed lighting plan which is sensitive’to existing uses will be required as a condition of approval. The
condition of approval will require the shielding of lighting such that the light does not extend beyond the
site, the lighting will be directi.onai, and that the source of light is not directly visible.
Therefore, the project will not have a significant aesthetic impact and no mitigation measures are
required.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
(S:\plan\pladiv\eia\page440.eia)
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\PAGE440.EIA [7/30/97}Page 14
Environmental Noise Study for
430 Sheridan Avenue
Condominiums
Palo Alto, CA
CSA Project No. 96-347
Prepared for:
Rick Hill
BK Palo Alto I, L.L.C.
204 Franklin Street
Redwood City, CA 94053
Prepared by:
Alan T. Rosen
Principal Consultant
Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc.
130 Sutter Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
28 April 1997
1.0 I NTI(ODUCTION
The I~r°P°sed project is located along Page Mill Road just east of El Camino Real in the City of
Pal~ Alto. Currently the Linus Pauling Institute is located on the site. The proposed project
inclt~tles 35 units of.attached housing. The purpose of this study is to determine the noise control
mcasllrcs needed to meet City and State noise standards. To complete this analysis, a series of
noisC ~neasttrements was made throughout the project site. Future noise levels were determined
basctl on the future roadway conditions and traffic volume increases. The future noise levels are
co~lql;~rcd with City and State standards and noise mitigation measures are recommended.
2.0 I,;xISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The tna.jor noise sgurce affecting the project site is vehicuh’u" traffic on Page Mill Road. Traffic
frol~l lil Camino Real is audible but to a lesser extent. To quantify the existing noise
en\.i~ounaent, one continuous 24-hour measurement and two short term (15-minute)
mcaSt~rcments were made at the project site. The short-term measurements were made at the
appt.oxitnate setback of the future building facades (see Figure 1). Site 1 is the location of the
24-1~utr measuren~ent. The Day-Night Average Sound Level~ (DNL) at Site 1 is 73 dB. Site 2
reprt, Scl~ts the noise level at the setback of the proposed building. We estimate a DNL of 71 dB
at tht’ setback of the building. Site 3 represents the setback of the northerly portion of the project
site. The DNL at this location is 65 dB.
3,0 ;kCOUSTICAL CRITERIA
Apl~licable acoustical criteria are contained in the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan 1980-
1995 :rod Title 24, Part II of the California Code of Regulations. The City’s Noise Element
recotnmcnds acceptable indoor and outdoor noise goals While Title 24, Part II addresses only
ind(,or noise standards,
3.1 (’ity of Palo Alto
The t’it)’ of Palo Alto’s adopted noise goals for both indoor and outdoor use areas are in terms of
aven~ge daytime L~0. Table 1 summarizes the City’s standards.
Table 1--Recommended Average Daytime Llo Noise Levels (dB)
Land Use Superior Acceptable
Residentia!
Outdoor 55 65
Indoor 40 50
.Night Sound Level (DNL)--A descriptor established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the
h,,nr ..~vcragc A-weighted noise level. Sound levels during the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. are penalized 10 dB to
a,~,.,o~mt for the increased sensitivity of people during the nighttime hours.
Charles M Salter Associates |nc ~;os.~t....s..~e, Sa.:Fra-_:.- C~,’c..,ag.ali.a ]~ 4153920.;42 Fax 41539:’;-
3.2 State of California
Title 24, Part II of the California Code of Regulations is the State’s noise insulation standard.
Title 24 requires that interior noise levdls due to exterior noise sources be controlled to a DNL of
45 dB if the exterior noise level exceeds a DNL of 60 dB. Furthermore, Title 24 requires that if
the windows must remain in a closed configuration to meet the interior goal, then mechanical
ventilation, such as air conditioning, be provided.
Title 24 also has requirements for impact and airborne sound insulation between adjacent
dwelling units. The requirements are achieved through appropriate acoustical design of party
walls, interior corridor walls and floor/ceiling assemblies. The design of party walls and "
floor/ceilings for compliance with Title 24 is usually handled in the building design phase and
therefore not covered in this report.
4.0 NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project will be exposed to increased noise levels in the future due to a potential
roadway widen and increased traffic volume. We spoke with the City’s transportation engineer:z,
to obtain future traffic volume data and widening information for Page Mill Road. According to
this information the average daily traffic volume cotfld increase from 37,800 to 47,000 by the
year 2010. This increase in volume corresponds to a 1 dB increase in noise levels.
Page Mill Road may be widened to accommodate additional lanes and would be closer to the
project site. These additional lanes would move the roadway approximately 10 feet Closer to the
proposed building facades. This corresponds to a 1 dB increase in noise levels. Overall, the
future levels could increase by 2 dB as a result of future growth and the widening. Therefore, the
future DNL at Site 2 would be 73 dB (first floor receivers).
4.1 Exterior Noise
Noise levels in outdoor use spaces of units along Page Mill Road could reach a daytime L~0of72
dB with future growth. This exceeds the City’s acceptable goal of 65 dB and superior goal of 55
dB. In order to reduce noise levels to achieve the City’s acceptable goal, a 7 foot tall noise
barrier would be required.along the outdoor use spaces of first floor units along Page Mill Road.
The project plans include a 6 foot tall wall. This would reduce outdoor noise levels to within 1
dB of the City’s .goal. The noise barrier soundwall would be located approximately 15 feet from
the building facade and would need to be solid with no cracks or gaps. If the roadway is
widened, the barrier height would need to be eight feet to accommodate the increased noise level
from traffic located closer to the building.
The project has ~ther outdoor use spaces which would be exposed to future noise levels below
the City’s acceptable goal. These areas include spaces in front of units in the courtyard as ’,’,,ell as
2 Telephone conversation with Karl Stoffcr, 4 December 1996.
Charles iVI Sailer Associates Irlc ~a~,so.:.,,sv.~e: S~nF,a-:-.-:; Za’.t.~:n,agale~’ "re’ 4,539>0442 Fax
the large open space between the two buildings. Achieving this City’s sLtperior goal would be
difficult due to the existing high noise levels from Page Mill Road.
4.2 Interior Noise.
The future DNL at the building facade could reach 75 dB at upper floors due to widening and
future growth. In order to reduce interior noise levels to the City’s and State’s goal, sound-rated
windows and wall constructions will be required. Based on preliminary calculations, windows
with a Sound Transmission Class3 (STC) rating of 36 would be required in all rooms in the units
nearest Page Mill Road. Windows in the portion of the building along Page Mill Road, but
further north would require approximately STC 30 windows. The exact STC ratings will depend
on the size of the \vindows, room furnishings, and wall construction. The required ratings can be
determined as the design progresses and should be required as part of subsequent building
review.
3 Sound Transmission Class (STC)--Singlc figure rating designed to give an estimate of the sotmd insulation properties or n
partition. Numerically, STC represents the number of decibels of speech sound reduction from one side of the partition to the
other. The STC is intended for use when speech and office noise constitute the principal noise problem.
Charles M Salter ~,ssociates lllc 139SJHe’S:ree~ S3nF~a~s-.3 C.a’,f0’r3941¢.4 ~’e’ 415397-0442 Fax 4~53£,7C*:’’
.....................
zo
Charles M Salter Associates
ATTACHMENT #3
DRAFT FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION
425-435 SHERIDAN AVENUE
Recommended Findings for Approval
The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and
programs and the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, in that the project
would be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.20) in that the
proposed subdivision is consistent with neighboring properties, particularly the adjacent Page
Mill Court complex; the project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan
policies: Housing Element Policy #3: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo
Alto’s neighborhoods especially desirable" in that the project is located in a unique
neighborhood that features a mix of multiple family residences and commercial activity and
is in close proximity to the California Avenue Business District; Housing Element Policy
# 13: "Increase funding sources used to provide affordable housing," in that the
project will provide Below Market rate units that will contribute to the supply of
affordable housing and the project recently has been revised to provide 6 three-
bedroom units for families as well as 29 two-bedroom units; Urban Design Element,
Objective, page 42, ’’Promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City and the
attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements through the review of new
development"in that the site is designated Multiple Family Residential and is well suited for
this use and that the proposed site plan makes more efficient use of the site by improving the
layout of parking and landscaped areas compared with the previous use; and Urban Design
Element, Policy 6A, Program G, "Encourage residential use in the commercial areas near
California-Cambridge Avenue area" in that the proposed replacement of a.laboratory
building with high density residential use within walking distance of California Avenue is
consistent with this policy;
The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed 3 5
condominium units are within the density range allowed by existing zoning and compatible
with the scale of neighboring multiple family buildings;
The design of the condominium complex will not cause significant environmental impacts
in that potential traffic, noise, and biological impacts have been mitigated by the dedication
of a ten foot right-of-way and adjacent sound wall and existing trees have been either
preserved or replaced on-site.
The design of the condominium complex will not result in serious public health problems,
would not be detrimental to the existing pattern of the neighborhood and would result in
development of multiple-familyhomes that would be consistent with the adjacent buildings
in the neighborhood; and
The design of the condominium complex will not conflict with public easements for access
through the use of the property in that the resulting lots would have frontage on a public
street for vehicular access and utility service.
CONDITIONS FOR SUBDIVISION
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF FINAL MAP
The subdivider shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering,
Planning, Planning Arborist, Fire, and TransportationDepartments after approval of this map
and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed
and approved by the City prior to submittal of a parcel or final map.
All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City’s
jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility
Department.
o The subdivider shall coordinate with the Utilities Department to determine all utility design
and capacity requirements including water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable facilities.
All new construction shall have underground utility, telephone and cable service. The project
shall be limited to single service laterals for each lot for sewer, water and gas. Each parcel shall
have separate electrical service. All utility plans shall be approved by the Utilities Department
before the Parcel map is recorded.
PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP
The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto. The
agreement shall be recorded with the approved final map at the office of the Santa Clara
County Recorder and shall include the following agreements:
The subdivider shall be responsible for installing any required off-site improvements,
including utilities, to the satisfaction of the Utilities, Public Works, and Planning
Departments. These improvements shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of
guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney.
b)The subdivider shall grant the necessary public utility easements to the City for the
location and maintenance of required utilities. The required easements shall be shown
on the face of the Parcel map.
c)The subdivider shall preserve all existing trees shown for preservation on the site
plan and shall include all trees in the final landscape plans.
10.
In compliance with Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the
project is subject to a 10 percent Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement. The applicant shall
provide 2 two-bedroomunits and 1 three bedroom unit at Below Market Rates. No in-lieu fee
for the additional one-half unit is requiredl Provision of the units and fee shall be consistent
with the Letter of Agreement from Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community
Environment dated July 21, 1997, and signed by David Knudson..
The final parcel map shall be filed with the Planning Division within four years of the approval
of the preliminary parcel map. -
A street dedication as offered by the applicant as part of the PC rezoning of the property is
required as follows: Subdivider shall dedicate a ten (10) foot wide strip along the southerly
side of the property along the entire frontage of Page Mill Road.
The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel map to guarantee the
completion of the work specified in condition(s) 68 and 74. The amount of the bond shall be
determined by the Planning and Public Works Departments.
The subdivider shall submit to Public Works Engineering one (1) permanent mylar with
reproducible set of "as built" drawings for the work in the City right-of-way.
The subdivider shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public
and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall
contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning
work.
11.
12.
The subdivider shall submit a storm water pollution protection plan to be included in the
improvement plan submittal.
The subdivider shall construct public curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the entire
frontage of Page Mill Road. The improvements shall meet the City’s standard requirements and
shall be to the City’s satisfaction.
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 425-435
SHERIDAN/440-460 PAGE MILL ROAD FROM RM-40 TO
PC-PLANNED COMMUNITY
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
(a) The Planning Commission,.after a duly noticed public
hearing held September 24, 1997, and the Architectural Review
Board, upon consideration at its meeting of August 21, 1997, have
recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the .Palo
Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth.
(b) The Council, after due consideration of the
recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public
interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as
hereinafter set forth.
SECTION ~. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
certain property known as 425-435 Sheridan Avenue/440-460 Page Mill
Road (the "subject property") from "RM-40 High Density Multiple
Family Residence!’ to "PC Planned Community." The subject property,
consisting of approximately 1.06 acres, is shown on the map labeled
Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
~?~T!~[_~. The City Council hereby finds with respect to
the subject property that:
(a) The site is so situated, and the uses and
improvements proposed for the subject property are of such
characteristics that the application of general districts or
combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to
allow the proposed residential development, in that although the
Comprehensive Plan designation allows the proposed density, the
size of the proposed project (a 58,422 square foot building)
exceeds the maximum floor area allowed on the site under the
current RM-40 zone, andno other residential zoning district would
allow a greater floor area.
(b) Development of the site under the provisions of the
PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not
1
970917 lac 0080574
otherwise attainable by application of general districts or
combining districts, as follows:
(i) The project as developed under the PC Planned
Community District includes the dedication of ten feet of public
right of way along the Page Mill Road frontage, which will allow
the future construction of a right turn lane onto E1 Camino Real.
The right turn lane and several other improvements to the E1 Camino
Real/Page Mill Road intersections were proposed as a result of the
City’s 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study.
(ii) Public art, as approved by the Public Art
Commission and the Architectural Review Board, will be integrated
into the project.
(ii) The project as developed under the PC Planned
Community District will provide desirable street landscape
improvements along Page Mill Road. In addition to the street trees
which the project would be required to install along the project
frontage, the project includes the installation of a row of street
trees on the opposite side of Page Mill Road.
(c) The uses permitted and the site development
regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and with the mix of uses which
presently exist in the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the
project would be consistent with the following portions of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan:
(i) Housing Element Policy #3: "Protect and enhance
those qualities which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods especially
desirable." The project is located in a unique neighborhood that
features a mix of multiple family residences and commercial
activity and is in close proximity to the California Avenue
Business District;
(ii) Housing Element Policy #7: "Encourage and
foster the development of new and existing housing units affordable
to the low, moderate, and middle-income households, especially
those with children. " The project will provide Below Market Rate
units that will contribute to the supply of affordable housing;
(iii) Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42,
"Promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City and the
attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements through
the review of new development. " The site is designated Multiple
Family Residential and is well suited for~ this use, and the
proposed site plan makes more efficient use of the site by
improving the layout of parking and landscaped areas compared with
the previous use; and
2
970917 |~ 0080574
(iv) Urban Design Element, Policy 6A, Program G,
"Encourage residential use in the commercial areas near California-
Cambridge Avenue area." The proposed replacement of a laboratory
building with high density residential use within walking distance
of California Avenue is consistent with this policy.
SECTION 4. Those certain plans entitled "Planned Community
Zone, Condominiums, 430 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, CA" prepared by
Full Circle Design Group, dated August 13, 1997, and approved by
the Architectural Review Board on August 21, 1997, copy on file in
the Planning Division office, and to which copy reference is hereby
made, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject
property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal-Code Section 18.68.120.
Said Development Plan is approved for the following uses, and
subject to the following conditions:
(a) Permitted Uses. The permitted uses shall be limited
to multiple family residential use, including approximately 58,422
square feet of residential space and approximately 31,183 square
feet of ancillary underground automobile parking.
(b)
permitted.
~2Dditional Uses.No conditional uses shall be
(c) ~ite Development Regulatix2D~. All improvements and
development shall be substantially in accordance with the approved
Development Plan and the Conditions of Project Approval adopted by
the Council in conjunction with approval of this ordinance. The
following are site development regulations which establish rules
for modifications or additions to any building, accessory structure
or landscaping on the subject property. Definitions of terms used
shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
(i) Final plans, including materials and colors,
complete lighting and photometric plans, detailed landscaping and
irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas, and
signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review
Board (’~ARB") prior to issuance of building permits. All utility
meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, electric panel
switchboards, and any other required utilities shall be shown on
the final plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between
the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a
manner which respect the building design and setback requirements.
(ii) Any other exterior changes to the buildings
or any new construction not specifically permitted by the
Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall
3
970917 |~ 0020574
require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or,
eligible, approval under Chapter 18.99 of the Municipal Code.
if
(iii) The approved Development Plan permits some
tree removal and requires the preservation and protection of
specified trees within the development. No future development or
improvement proposed for the subject property following initial
construction authorized by Architectural Review Approval shall
result in the removal or destruction of trees without the approval
of the City of Palo Alto in accordance with applicable procedures.
(d) Parking and Loading Re_qui~. The parking for
the subject property shall be in accordance with the approved
Development Plan.
(i) Right of Way Dedication. The project includes
dedication to the City o{ a ten foot wide public right of way along
the Page Mill Road frontage. The site plan for the project shall
be revised to show this area to be dedicated and the dedication
shall be completed (i) prior to issuance of the first building
permit, or (ii) on the face of the final subdivision map, whichever
event first occurs.
(ii) P~c Art. This project was approved in
part on the basis that it will incorporate original art, visible to
the public, as a public benefit of the project. The applicant’s
public art proposal must be submitted to and approved by the Public
Art Commission, epplying the standards set forth in PAMC 2.26.040,
and by the Architectural Review Board prior to issuance of the
first building permit for the project, and shall be fully installed
prior to the date of initial occupancy of the project.
(iii) ~reet Trees. This project was approved in
part on the basis that it will provide a row of approximately eight
street trees, depending upon available right of way, on the south
side of Page Mill Road across from the project. The location and
species shall be as approved by the Planning Division and
Department of Public Works.
(iv)w ’’.
In conformance with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) requirements
(Program #13, Housing Element, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan), the
project shall provide two (2) two-bedroom units and one (1) three-
bedroom unit to be included in the BMR program, and subject to the
restrictions applicable to for sale units placed in’ the BMR
program. The units shall be the two "K" units on the first floor,
and unit "H" on the second floor, as specified on the approved
plans. Unit H shall be reconfigured as a three-bedroom unit. The
970917 la~ 0080574
4
exact location of the units shall be shown on the final subdivision
map prior to consideration by City Council.
The design, construction, materials, finishes,
windows, hardware, light fixtures, landscaping, irrigation,
appliances and like features of the BMR units shall be comparable
to all other units in the project. The owners of the BMR units
shall have access to all facilities, amenities, parking and storage
as provided to other owners in the project.
The initial sales price of each of the two-
bedroom units shall be $140,700 and the initial sales price of the
three-bedroom shall be $164,800. These prices were determined
utilizing the City of Palo Alto current Housing Price Guidelines
(effective May I, 1996). The price list is adjusted annually. The
greater of the sales prices set forth above or the applicable
prices in effect at the time of final map approval shall be the
initial sales price of the BMR units.
The provisions of this condition e.(iv) have been
negotiated between the City and the project applicant, and are
based upon that letter from the Director of Planning and Community
Environment to J. David Knudsen dated July 21, 1997, and signed by
Mr. Knudsen on July 28, 1997. In the event of conflict between the
letter and this Ordinance, the terms of this Ordinance shall
prevail. The provisions were negotiated based upon the
understanding that the project will consist of for-sale condominium
units. In the event that the project is to be used for rental
purposes a new BMR agreement must be negotiated with the City prior
to occupancy.
(f) Development Sche~IW!~. Construction of the project
shall commence on or before July I, 1998, and shall be completed
and ready for occupancy on or before December 31, 1999.
(g) Mitigation Measures. All mitigation measures
described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project
shall be implemented as conditions of project approval, and the
Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program shall be implemented.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
5
970917 la¢ 0080574
SECTION 5. The Council finds that this project, as
mitigated, will not have a significant environmental effect.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED :
PASSED :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSTENTIONS :
ABSENT:
ATTE S T:AP PROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
6
970917 la~ 00g0574
M(
ATTACHMENT l~
L~
CT. tiSE.
0
Birch Street
PC =302=
F
!
Project: 425-435 Sheridan Avenue/
440-460 Page Mill Road
Zone change from High Density
Multi-family Residential (RM-40) to
Planned Community (PC)
,...::::::: ,~
El Camino Real ==========================
Date: July 30, 1997
800:
Scale: 1 inch = 200 FT
ATTACHMENT #5
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
425-435 SHERIDAN AVENUE
Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit
A final site plan shall be prepared and approved by the Planning Division which reflects any
modifications by the ARB, Planning Commission and City Council. The revised site plan shall
include the following: a 10 foot right-of-way dedication along the entire Page Mill Road
frontage for the future construction of a fight turn lane onto E1 Camino Real and a five foot
planting strip between the Page Mill Road sidewalk and the curb; the two mitigation measures
recommended in the Noise Study conducted by Charles Salter & Associates (April 28, 1997)
including: 1) an eight foot high acoustically effective barrier located approximately 15 feet from
the building facade along the Page Mill frontage, and 2) installation of windows with an STC
rating of 36 in all rooms nearest Page Mill Road and an STC rating of 30 in the units further
north along Page Mill Road. The soundwall shall be planted with a covering of ivy or other vine
on the side facing the public right-of-way. A suitable location for a Coast Redwood (Sequoia
sempervirens) of 48-inchbox size shall be integrated within the project site. The location shall
have an adequate volume of soil, sufficient drainage and dedicated space to enable unobstructed
growth over the long term. Change the species of the Private Garden Accent Trees from
Arburus unedo, Strawberry Tree to Arbutus ’Marina’, Marina Madrone and from Lagerstromeia
’Cherokee’ to ’Muskogee’ (Lavender), ’Natchez’ (White) or ’Tuscarora’ (Coral). All neighbors
trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from impact of any kind. A statement of
the circumstances of the tree removal and intent of replacement on the applicants property,
inclusive of all expenses and ongoing maintenance, shall be sent to the owner of the tree and
written approval established. The applicant shall submit a letter to the Planning Division
indicating that a hazardous materials permit has been obtained and that the proposed
constructionwill not interfere with any extraction activities that are part of the on-going clean
up of the area. The public art proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Art
Commissionprior to subsequent review by the ARB.The applicant shall be required to submit
to the Planning Division a mitigation monitoring report indicating compliance with all the
mitigations contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project prior to
issuance of a demolition permit.
Utilities Electric
The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public
and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee
shall contact Underground Service Alert @ (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to
beginning work.
Public Works Operations
PAMC Sec. 8-04-070 shall apply to all public trees to be retained.
All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree inventory or landscape plan shall
be protected during construction. The following tree protection measures shall be approved
by the City Arborist and included in construction/demolition plans and contracts. Any
modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist.
The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the developer or project arborist
verifying that the tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance
unless otherwise approved. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to
be retained:
Co
All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences
are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground
to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose
the entire area under the dripline of .the trees. If the sidewalk will be blocked by the
above, the entire planting strip may be fenced off to allow pedestrian traffic to use the
sidewalk. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place
until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the
approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works
Department’s standard specification detail #505).
No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree
enclosure area.
The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered.
Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure
survival.
A certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to prepare and submit tree protection
plans. The plans shall identify the trees to be protected and include measures for their
protection during construction. The certified arborist shall inspect the tree protection
measures and shall certify that the PANIC Sec. 8-04-015 have been installed prior to
demolition, grading, or building permit issuance.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including
a signed affidavit of vacancy. The form is available at the Building Department. Utilities
will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The
demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been
disconnected and removed.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
Utilities Electric
This project requires a padmount transformer. The applicant shall provide an easement for
installing the padmounted equipment and associated substructure. The location of the
padmount transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Planning
Department and the Architectural Review Board. The tentative map shall be submitted to the
Utilities Department for establishing the location and dimensions of the required easement.
Fire Hazardous Materials
A hazardous materials closure permit shall be obtained from the Fire Department for the
existing building to ensure that construction does not interfere with any extraction or
monitoring wells on-site that would be part of the on-going clean up of the area.
Fire Department
The applicant shall submit f’mal plans for review and approval by the Fire Department that
include the following: (a) automatic sprinkler system is required (NFPA-13R modified). Plans
and permits required on underground fire service line and automatic sprinkler system (b) Fire
¯ alarm system required (plans and permits required) , (c) central station supervision of sprinkler
system for water flow and control value tamper - by building, (d) elevator gurney access is
required to be large enough to accommodate a gurney 24" by 82" and emergency personnel,
d) rated corridors and shafts are required, e) wet.standpipe system and hose cabinets are
required in garage area only, f) emergency and illuminated exit signs, g) Knox Box, h)
Portable fire extinguisher, (i) Site annunciator, j) Elevator recall with programming.
Planning/Zoning
9a. A subdivision map is required to merge the existing lots and create the condominium spaces.
10.The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit
drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features.
11.Final landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plan table areas out to the
curb must be submitted to and approved by the Utility Marketing Services Division. A
Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations, a grading plan, and a statement of
design intent shall be submitted for each project. These plans should be prepared by a
licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and irrigation
plans shall include:
a.All existing ~rees identified both to be retained and removed including private and public
street trees.
b.Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations.
c.Irrigation schedule and plan.
d.Fence locations.
eo Lighting plan with photometric data. The existing lighting plan shall be revised to reduce
illumination so as not to exceed 1.5 footcandles. All lighting must be shielded in a
manner to prevent visibility of the light source, eliminate glare and light spillover
beyond the perimeter ofthe development. The lighting plan, photometrics and
specification sheets should be revised to meet these guidelines and submitted to Planning
staff for review and approval.
Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure
survival.
12. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate ARB application.
13.The project shall include an enclosed trash and recycling area which complies with the design
guidelines adopted by the ARB and approved by the City Council pursuant to Section
16.48.070 (PAMC). The final site plan shall include an enclosed trash and recycling area
with a roof. The trash!recycling facilities shall be approved by the City of Palo Alto
Recycling Division prior to issuance of a building permit.
Public Works Engineering
14.The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering,
including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate
that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered.
15.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property.
The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the
building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month
following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division.
16.Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection
Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards.
17.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works
Engineering for the proposed construction which will impact the use of the sidewalk, street,
alley or on property in which the City holds an interest.
18.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at mi .nimum parking, truck routes
and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent
to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks
and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck
routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto.
19.The applicant shall gain approval of the Santa Clara County Roads Division, in writing, for
the placement of the special paving at the page Mill Road entrance.
Transportation
20.Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance requirements of PAMC 18.83.080,
applicable to project frontages where driveways are present, and in parking lots.
Landscaping shall be specifically identified in the landscape plan as meeting these height
requirements.
21.Bicycle parking shall be provided in the amount, type, and location specified in PAMC 18.83
and submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division prior to submittal of
a Building Permit. Guest bicycle parking shall be Class III.
Utilities Electric
22.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities,
shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur
between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects
the building design and setback requirements.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
23.
24.
25.
26.
The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE
CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The
applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in
G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.).
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 cleanouts,
and any other required utilities.
The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water
supply.
The applicant shall be respo .nsible for installing and upgrading the existing water and sewer
mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility
includes the design and all the cost associated with the construction for the
installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services.
Planning/Zoning
27.In compliance with Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the
project is subject to a 10 percent Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement. The applicant shall
provide 2 two-bedroom units and 1 three bedroom unit at Below Market Rates. No in-lieu
fee for the additional one-half unit is required. Provision of the units and fee shall be
consistent with the Letter of Agreement from Ken Shreiber, Director of Planning and
Community Environment dated July 21, 1997, and signed by David Knudson. The Letter of
Agreement is attached and is included herein by reference. In addition to other conditions,
the Letter of Agreement requires that an Agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney, be
prepared and executed by the owner and by the City and that the Agreement be recorded in
the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Public Works Engineering
28.The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works
Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way.
29.A portion of the proposed work is within the State of California or County of Santa Clara
right-of-way. A permit must be obtained from the applicable agency. Evidence of permit
approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
30.An underlying lot line exists on the property. The developer/applicant is required to apply
for a Certificate of Compliance to remove the underlying lot line from this parcel.
31.A detailed site-specific soil report must be submitted which includes information on water
table and basement construction issues.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
32.The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed
at the cost of the person requesting the relocation.
33.Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral
connection.
34.A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter
shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the
account.
35.A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required to furnish customer’s
demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. For service connections of
4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant’s contractor must provide and install a concrete
vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in
accordance with the Utilities Standard Detail.
36. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required to furnish customer’s
demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project.
37.A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required to furnish customer’s
demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project.
38.An approved Reduce Pressure Principal Assembly (Bacldlow Preventor Device) shall be
installed for all-existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with
requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive. The Reduce Pressure Principle Assembly shall be installed on the owner’s
property and directly behind the-water meter. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection
Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.
39.An approved Check Valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the
fire system to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17,
Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Double Check Detector Check Valve shall be
installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Inspection by the Utilities
Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the city connection and
the assembly.
40.A new gas service line installation is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the
load sheet presented with this project.
41. A new sewer lateral installation is required.
42.The applicant shall install a new sewer manhole and install a new sewer lateral per Utilities
requirements.
During Construction
Building Inspection
43.To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as
necessary. Spillage resulting from hauliiag operations along or across any public or private
property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances
originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall
be controlled at the contractor’s expense.
Utilities Electric
44.All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building
Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
45. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling.
46. Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of
Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way.
Planning/Zoning
47.All street trees shall receive monthly watering. A written log of each application shall be kept
updated at the site construction office. The log shall be forwarded to the Planning Arborist
before final sign off is approved.
Police
48.All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s
Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be
posted and that construction times be limited as.follows:
8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday
9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday
10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday.
Public Works Engineering
49.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any
work performed in the public right-of-way.
50.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without
prior approval of Public Works Engineering.
51.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s)
for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the
Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services
Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on
private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the
developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any
construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste
materials into.gutters or storm drains. The applicant also will be required to paint a "No
Dumping/Flows into the Bay" logo near all drainage inlets.
52.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City
jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility
Departments.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
53.The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from CALTRANS for all utility work in
the E1 Camino Real right-of-way and an Encroachment Permit from Santa Clara County
54.
55.
56.
Department of Transportation for all utility work in the County Road right-of-way. The
applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW Engineering Department.
The applicant shall obtain a Construction Permit from Santa Clara County Valley Water
District for the gas service line to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities.
The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new water
service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities.
The applicant shall pay all costs associated with required improvements to on-site and off-site
gas mains and services. All improvements to the gas system will be by the City of Palo Alto
or their contractor.
Prior to Finalization
Planning/Zoning
57.The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to Planning Division, and call for
inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the
approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and that irrigation has been
tested for timing and function, and all plants including street trees are healthy,
Public Works Engineering
58.All sidewalks, bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in
compliance with Public Works approved standards.
59.The six unused driveways located On Page Mill Road and sheridan Avenue shall be removed
and replaced with curb and gutter.
60.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the f’malization of this
permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off.
After Construction
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
61.
62.
The customer shall give the City written notice of any material changes in size, character,
or extent of the equipment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before
making any such change.
Project construction shall include installation of irrigation supply to all street trees. Details
shall specify an inline loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the rootball at a point one-
third of rootball diameter. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from
other shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for
the City of Palo Alto (V-C)(o).
(S: \PLAN\PLADIV\PCSR\PAGEM440. CND)
design group
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT
430 Sheridan Avenue Condominiums
Palo Alto, California ’
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT
A.Necessity for PC District Application:
Special setback at Page Mill Road is 20’-0". We have provided a
minimum of 15’-0" at this location due to the dedication of I 0’-
0" of curb-side property to the City of Palo Alto. The site has
irregular property lines creating two rectangular areas. The
narrowest rectangle, adjacent to Page Mill Road, has required
setbacks of 20’-0". In addition, to a greater setbackon this
narrow portion of the site; the City of Palo Alto has indicated
that Page Mill Road is to be widened. In order to facilitate this
widening, 10’-0" of Page Mill frontage will be dedicated to the
City as part of this project’s Public Benefit program. Thus, the ’
buildable area of the Page Mill frontage is very narrow creating
the need to violate setback requirements.
Floor Area Ratio allowed in RM-40 zoning is 1.0. Our floor
area ratio is 1.27. The site is zoned for 40 units to the acre,
and although Palo Alto does not have minimum density
guidelines, we are proposing a project at 33 units to the acre
which is well below the maximum density encouraged by the
Comprehensive General Plan. It is our understanding that the
City is positively supporting the development of much needed
housing in core areas of Palo Alto. Only 4 blocks from
California Avenue and on two major commuter roadways, our
site is ideally situated for a mid to high density housing project.
This site is particularly important as the southern gateway into
Palo Alto. A building on this site should be dense enough to
carry the weight of the intersection and create a transition
between the rural nature of western Page Mill Road and the
urban development along El Camino and California Avenue.
The height limit on Page Mill Road is 35’-0" due to the location
of the single-family houses across Page Mill Road toward the
south. The standard RM-40 zone t~eight limit is 40’-0" and the
PC Zone height limit is 50’-0". Our buildings range in height
from 38’-0" to 40’-0" measured from finish floor to the
midpoint between the eave and the ridge. It is our position
that Page Mill Road creates a significant separation between the
single family houses, across the street and therefore the
additional height restriction is unwarranted.
1002 Rhode Island Street San Francisco, California 94107 TEL: 415 282 2774 FAX: 415 642 0930
o
design group
The daylight plane impacts our project’s "eastern" property line
adjacent to Mid Peninsula Housing Coalitions project which is
currently under construction. Reviewing the details on sheet
A4. I of the submittal package, it is clearly illustrated that the
protrusion of the eave into the daylight plane will have no
significant effect on the adjacent project’s exposure to sun and
light. In order to technically comply with the daylight plane
restriction, it would be necessary to step the third floor of the
project back about 24". This would add considerable cost and
impact the interior of the units significantly for an
imperceptible gain in western sun exposure.
Due to site constraints we are unable to provide the required
number of guest parking stalls. The parking code requires
guest parking equal to 33% of the number of units when the
garage is enclosed or more than one stall is assigned. Because
we are providing covered parking and more than one stall with
be assigned; our guest parking requirement is I I I/2 stalls. If
the parking were not covered, the guest parking requirement
would be I+ 10% of the number of units or a total of 4 I/2
stalls. We have provided 70 stalls for assignment, 35 of which
have storage stalls approximately 6’-0" deep by 8’-0" wide.
There are an additional I 0 guest stalls including one van
accessible stall and three standard handicapped parking stalls.
We are removing two curb cuts along the Sheridan frontage
and thereby adding two stalls to the City’s stock which will be
available for guest parking. We have provided 35 Class I bicycle
storage areas for the residents and an additional storage area
providing 5 Class I bicycle locks for guests. We are willing to
increase the number of Class I guest bicycle stalls to mitigate
the reduction of guest automobile parking.
Palo Alto requires outdoor noise to be mitigated to no more
than 65dB in the private open spaces of all the units. We are
proposing to provide a 6’-0" sound wall which provides
protection to 66dB at the ground floor units. An additional
foot of wall would be required to provide the additional decibel
of noise protection. In addition, the balconies will require
solid wall treatment to a height yet to be determined. It should
be noted that a change of 3dB or more is necessary for
detection by the human ear.
It is very important to the design team that this project address
the street and avoid turning its back on the City. Page Mill
Road is a significant gateway into the community that is sorely
lacking in visual variety. Page Mill Road, although a busy
thoroughfare, is not a freeway. By raising the wall only a foot
1002 Rhode Island Street San Francisco, California 94107 TEL: 415 282 2774 FAX: 415 642 0930
design group
more, the impact on the units will be severe. The building’s
pedestrian connection to the street will be lost. By enclosing
the balconies, the private "outdoor" space becomes indoor
space; thus negating the provision for outdoor space.
in order to support our modification of the outdoor noise
levels at some of the backyards, entry patios have been
prov!ded at each unit which meet the City of Palo Alto’s private
open space requirements. The entry patios are on the
courtyard side of the building and are therefore protected from
the sound intrusion from Page Mi~ Road. In order to draw
light into the lower floors, the roofs are typically cut back at
the entry ways and the access galleries have been pulled away
from building walls. The smooth plaster, painted a dusty rose,
will color light as it is drawn down the wall creating a "sunnier"
more " rosy" atmosphere in the courtyards.
Important to any development is the creation of a sense of
security both for the residents of the project and the
surrounding users. The best way to create that sense of
security in this project is to provide visual control of the’
streets by the residents. By creating a visual link between the
units and the street, the street is watched and thereby
controlled. Should this visual link be destroyed, the sense of
ownership and responsibility for the street is lost. We are
proposing a combination of fences and solid sound walls to
create a secure environment and protect the residents from
excessive noise generated from the roadway. The heights of
these walls have been carefully chosen to allow a connection to
the street to allow the residents visual control of the streets
surrounding their homes. Visual control of Page Mill Road is
of particular importance because the use of this street is very
ambiguous. A massive wall adjacent to this roadway would
exacerbate this ambiguity by encouraging the development of a
"no-man’s-land."
In addition to visual control by the residents, it is also valuable
to encourage pedestrian activity by creating an environment
which is pedestrian friendly. It is necessary to create a series of
spaces that encourage the pedestrian to continue forth. The
surroundings must provide enough visual variety to engage the
pedestrian. By engaging pedestrians to frequent the area, the
street is thereby claimed and becomes safer and more lively.
This effect will be self supporting once the initial impetus has
been given by creating a enticing visual experience. A "freeway"
type sound wall will impede this process.
1002 Rhode Island Street San Francisco, California 94107 TEL: 415 282 2774 FAX: 415 642 0930
Bo
D°
design group
Once the street is widened, the balconies and patios will not be
in compliance with proiected noise levels. However, the
design proposal mitigates the projected values on the interior
of the units. Should the roadway ever be widened it will be
necessary to conduct further environmental studies. However,
we have projected the noise and traffic levels for a widening
sometime prior~to the year 2010. Should widening occur, the
sound wall would have to be increased to 8’-0" to
accommodate the expected increase in noise.
We strongly recommend that the 8’-0" wall is not built at this
time due to its impact on the pedestrian scale of the public
sidewalk. It should be stressed that this issue is not being
raised due to cost or impact on the residential units
themselves. The residential units will be landscaped to
mitigate the impact of the wall in its future location. The raised
wall will severely impact the security of the street by removing
the visual control of the residents and discouraging pedestrian
activity. Should the City insist on raising the .wall once the
street is widened, we will provide construction details for the
City’s use.
Proposed Uses
This project proposes to provide a multi-family housing complex
comprised of 35 for-sale condominium units with associated
underground parking garage.
Nature of Uses
In keeping with the comprehensive general plan, we propose a
moderate density multi-family housing project with associated
underground parking garage. Please see A above for a discussion of
the necessity for a PC zone submittal.
Schedule of Units
Unit
A
B
Bi
C
D
E
El
F
G
Type
Flat
Flat
Townhome
Flat
Flat
Flat
Fiat
Flat
Fiat
Occurrence Area
3
I
I
2
2
I
3
3
1601
1677
1667 + 1533
1148
1908
1723
1806
1442
1753
BedlBath
2/2
2/2
4/3
2/2
3/2
3/2
3/2
2/2
2/2
-1002 Rhode Island Street San Francisco, Califom~a 94107 TEL: 415 282 2774 FAX: 415 642 0930
design group
H Flat 3 1502 2/2
J Flat 3 1397 2/2
J I ~Flat 2 1554 2/2
J2 Flat I 1376 2/2
K Flat 2 1254 2/2
K I Flat 2 1395 2/2
K2 Flat 2 1430 2/2
L Flat 2 1379 2/2
L I Flat I 1276 2/2
TOTALS 35 55222 SF 77/71
The units are projected to sell for approximately $300.00 per square
foot.
E.Development Schedule
It is expected that this project will require approximately 4 months for
construction document preparation. Assuming approximately 2
months for plan check and permitting, construction is likely to begin
approximately 6 months after the project receives zoning and planning
approvals. Construction should take approximately 18 months.
Therefore, occupancy should occur approximately 24 months after
receipt of all planning appr.ovals.
According to our current schedule, we should receive planning
approvals in December 1997. Construction should begin by June 1998
and be completed by December 1999.
PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT
A.Street dedication
We propose to donate I 0’-0" of this project’s Page Mill frontage to the
City of Palo Alto once all planning approvals have been received. This
will accommodate part of the City’s proposed street improvements
including a right turn lane from Page Mill west to El Camino north.
We propose to install a new sidewalk in its eventual locations
assuming street widening. The current sidewalk shall be replaced with
a native wild flower garden. There will be a transition zone, on our
property that connects the new walk with the existing walk at the
Santa Clara Valley Park and Ride lot. It should be noted that the
housing project currently under construction for Mid Peninsula
Housing Coalition is not relocating the walk in it’s proposed location
once widening is complete. We, therefore, will need another
transition area at the south end of the walk along Page Mill Road.
-1002 Rhode Island Street San Francisco, California 94107 TEL: 415 282 2774 FAX: 4t5 642 0930
CLEI
design group
There is an existing transformer vault in the current sidewalk that will
have to be relocated once the roadway is widened. We recommend
that the City make arrangements to move this box now, during
construction.
We will be dedicating approximately 2000 square feet of land worth
approximately $50.00/square foot unimproved. Should that land
remain part of our project, the expected improved value of the land
increases to $150.00/square foot. The approximate value of this
public benefit donation is $300,000.00.
15.Street tree dedication
We propose to plant a row of deciduous Oak trees, chosen by the
City’s arborist, along the Page Mill frontage of this project. In addition,
we propose to plant a row of trees along the southern side of Page
Mill road. The actual extent to this dedication will have to be
determined due to new construction on the southern side of the
roadway. At minimum, we propose to mirror the line of trees at our
frontage. This planting will significantly augment the Page Mill Road
gateway into the Palo Alto community. The trees will serve to soften
the transition between roadway and residential districts as well as
break down the scale of the roadway. This will help foil the visual
impact of the proposed widening by drawing the street back together
beyond the intersection.
Co
In addition to the trees on Pagi~ Mill Road, we propose to plant
flowering Pear trees along the Sheridan frontage. This tree will also
be planted by Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition at the development
currently under construction at Ash and Sheridan adjacent to our
eastern property line.
Public Art donation
The sole existing building at this location is a modest tilt up concrete
laboratory, formerly the Linus Pauling Institute. In homage to its
prominent namesake, we propose to provide a Linus Pauling
memorial commemorating his Nobel Peace Prize as well as his Nobel
Prize for scientific discoveries. This memorial will begin .at the Page
Mill pedestrian entrance to the project and continue into the project
enhancing the pedestrian access to the internal courtyards.
This art will enhance the pedestrian experience on Page Mill Road and
help sustain the pedestrian environment in this area. In addition, it will
further connect the residential project to the street. We understand
that pedestrian activity along Page Mill road is minimal at present,
however, it is our intention to encourage additional pedestrian activity
1002 Rhode Island Street San Francisco, Californla 94107 TEL: 415 282 2774 FAX: 415 642 0930
Eo
design group
by creating a pleasurable experience along the roadway. By drawing
residents out of the project onto Page Mill Road, the security of the
area is augmented.
Redevelopment of Vacant Lot
The existing two-story tilt-up concrete warehouse structure on site is
a poor gateway into Palo Alto. Page Mill and El Camino is one of the
most significant intersections in Palo Alto and currently is sorely under
utilized. The scale of the buildings at the intersection suggest a
sprawling suburban development rather than a more urban City.
Because of our project’s proximity to the El Camino : Page Mill Road
intersection and because no redevelopment is proposed for the actual
El Camino frontage at the northeastern corner of Page Mill Road, our
project will play a major role in impact at the intersection.
We propose that the project itself is a public benefit by providing a
gateway project into the City replacing the eyesore that exists now.
We have heard similar views from neighbors who supported the
project during the preliminary Architectural Review Board hearing last
December.
Below Market Rate Provision
Three Below-Market-Rate units will be sold in this project for
approximately $135,000 each. Although a provision of the City’s
planning approval process, these units would not be added to the
City’s affordable housing stock without the construction of this
project. An in lieu fee will be paid for the additional I/2 unit we are
required to provide.
Pr.oposed Housing Use
Providing housing in Palo Alto is a public benefit. The current use of
the site is inconsistent with the comprehensive general plan. Our
proposed use continues to reinforce compliance with the general plan
in this area.
There is a housing shortage in many City’s of the Bay Area and due to
Palo A~to’s character and opportunity for a high standard of living, it is
particularly felt on the Peninsula. We are proposing 35 units of for-
sale housing in close proximity to the California Street District. The
housing will be close to schools, civic amenities, shopping and work
opportunities. Its proximity to transit lines along Page Mill and El
Camino should encourage the use of public transit. The project is also
close to the Caltrain line running from Gilroy to San Francisco and
1002 Rhode lsland Street San Francisco, California 94107 TEL: 4152822774 FAX: 4156420930
1002 Rhode Island Street
design group
Go
Highways 101 and 280 providing commute opportunities without
taxing the downtown streets of Palo Alto.
Parking Dedication
Currently there exist three driveways along the project’s Sheridan
frontage. By removing two of these driveway cuts we are essentially
creating a minimum of two street parking stalls on Sheridan Avenue.
This should relieve the pressure from the I I/2 stalls we lack on-site
to meet our guest parking requirement.
~an Francisco, California 94107 TEL: 415 282 2774 FAX: 415 642 0930
Shee~ A~ched + Cover.
9 July 1997
Lisa Grote
Zoning Administrator
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303-0862
design group_-
RE: 430 Sheridan Avenue Condominiums, 97-ARB-97 & 97-ZC-8
Design Enhancement Exception: Letter of Application
An exception to the daylight plane provision is being sought in order to
provide for an enhanced quality of private living space commensurate with
the expectations associated with the Palo Alto life style. The exception
being sought is based on site and unit plan restrictions throughout the
project.
Throughout the design process, it has been important to the design team to
create a building suitable for its prestigious location at the southern gateway
into the City. As with any project, there are challenges in negotiating the
various interests of the project" In our particular case, we have found it
necessary to mitigate the future widening of Page Mill Road by proposing a
public land dedication of ten feet of our Page Mill Road frontage. Such a
donation has impacted the site plan significantly.
In our previous submittal, on 24 October 1996, we had proposed a project
with two courtyards for use by the fut~ure residents. After the ten foot
dedication, the site allows for only the Sheridan courtyard to remain. It is
critical to the livability of the project to provide a vivid, lively, habitable
outdoor space for all residents and their guests. In order to maximize this
space, it is necessary to extend the units toward the property lines, and
thus, impact the daylight plane requirements.
Please see the attached drawings indicating the extent of the daylight plane
infringement. As the drawings indicate, the intrusion is minor. The gray
shaded area indicates the extent to which we are allowed to build,
remaining compliant with the daylight plane and setback requirements. It is
not our intent to jeopardize the habitability of the residential use project
proposed on the adjacent property. This, among other reasons, led us to
our current proposal which produces an infringement that is clearly minor
compared to the volume of structure that would be allowed by the zoning
regulation.
Another design factor concerns the current market practice demanding a
waterproofed garage to minimize water damage to cars parked within its
confines. It is prudent waterproofing practice to minimize the small, finicky
areas of waterproofing which would be created if the courtyard was
minimized and the units were pulled away from the adjacent property and
1002 Rhode Island Street San Francisco, California 94107 TEl’. 415 2_82:2774 FAX:415 642 0930
Page 2
the garage on the Ash Street side. The garage size itself has been minimized
to the greatest extent allowed by the number of cars required to be housed
by the zoning ordinance.
It is our position that the intrusion is minor and should be allowed, Our
land dedication at Page Mill Road has created a situation which is being
mitigated with an almost indiscernible impact on the neighboring property.
The architectural expression of the project sufficiently mitigates the impact
of the infringement by creating a responsive living environment for residents
and the surrounding community.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not hesitate to call
with any questions.
Sincerely,
Serena G. Trachta
Architect, C26069
FullCir¢le Design Group
CoC,Rick Hill @ WLB via FAX 415 369 7385
Dave Knudson via FAX 415 941 2150
Chandler Lee via FAX
10~)2 Rhode Island Street San Francisco, California 94107 TEl." 415 282 2774 FAX~ 415 642 0930
design group-_
PAGE
"\
5:12
.0,,~+39’-7’’@ Highest
+-35’ Ridge
~.+34’-~1" @
Mid-Roof
+30-3
Fascia
35-0 Max.
Ht. @ Ave.
Elev. of Gable
per Z.O.
Page Mill Rd.
Elevation Only.
~S+ 15’-0"
haded Area~Indicates MaY,
Allowed Bldg.
10’-0"Setb~ck
MILL ROAD (at the street)
Envelope
Conforming w/
Daylight Planes
and Setback
from Side
Property Line.
5:12
5:12
5:12
+40’-0" Max. Ht. @ Ave. Elev. of Gable per Z.O.
"\
Ridge
PAGE MILL ROAD (interior PL,
Midpt.
~+30’-6"
@ Fascia
I .~____~15’-o"
¯I I T Shaded Area
._.~ Indicates Max.
Allowed Bldg.
Envelope
Conforming w/
Daylight Planes
and Setback
!I from Side
I0’-0" Setback Property Line.
Parallel
+0’-0"
+14’-3"
to Page Mi Road)
./
/
/
/
Shaded Area
Indicates Max.
Allowed Bldg.
Envelope
Conforming w/
Daylight Planes
and Setback
from Side
Property Line.
i
I 0’-0" Setback
ASH STREET
(Interior PL, Perpendicular to Page Mill Road)
+40’-0"_~.\.~0’-0" Max. Ht. @ Ave. Elev. of Gable per Z.O./"
+_38 -5
+_34’-5" ~
@ Midp__~ +40’-0" Max. Ht._~
Primary ~" of Proposed Gable~
Gable
+_30’-5"
@ Fascia ~"
+ 19’-2"
+,s’-o"~
Shaded Area
Indicates Max.
Allowed Bldg.
Envelope
Conforming wtDaylight Plane1and Setback
from Side i
Property Line.~_____--,~---’~-
+0,~:~b_i ’,
"~ ~10’-0"Setback
+14’-3"
SHERIDAN AVENUE (at Ash
5:12
Street P-Line)
City of P-~Io Alto ..........,, ,~
DRAFT MINUTES
ROLL CALL
Board Members Present:
iI
Frank Alfonso
James McFall
Dave Ross
Bob Peterson
Thursday, August 21, 1997
8:00 A.M.
Council Conference Room
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California
Board Members Absent:
Staff Members Present:
Cheryl Piha
Lisa Grote
Dave Dockter
Phillip Woods
Bob Schubert (contract planner for Items I. 1, II.2. II.3, II.4,
II.5)
Chandler Lee (contract planner for Items II.7 and II.8) George
White
.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
AGENDA CHANGES. DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS;. Item II.4 was reviewed after
Item 11.5.
AGENDA ITEMS "
APPROVALS: The Architectural Review Board (ARB) decision on the design of the project
is a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment (the
Director), who makes the final decision. Unless otherwise stated by the ARB or the Director,
project approvals generally incorporate Project Review Committee conditions as mailed to
the applicants and staff conditions as recommended in the Information Memorandums.
CHANGES: Any change to an approved design plan must be resubmitted to the City for
approval. Resubmittal of a project may also be necessary if changes are mandated as a result
of complying with other City department requirements, other applicable codes, or ordinance
AAARB24WIIN0821 .drf Page 1
After Cons~uction
Utilities/Water-~Wastewater ~
57. The customer sha~ive.,~2ity Written notice of any material changes in size, character,
or extent of the equip~t or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before
making anY ~.~),,,.~,.~o"~" ~""~ . .
/. _...\58. Project ~ shall incl~e .....installation of irrigation supply to all street trees.. Details
shall sp~ify an inline loop of drlK,tubing placed around the top of the roothall at a point one-
third/6f football diameter. All tr~irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from
Oh~ee~iS~ofb~ealrYo 71dtog~U_~o~.Ver aspired in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for
425-435 Sheridan Avenue, (440-460 Page Mill Road)97-ARB-97
97-ZC-8
97-EIA-10
Application for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning
and Community Environment for a Zone Change to the Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the
demolition of an existing 26,000 square foot laboratory building and construction of a new 35 unit
three story condominium complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements.
PROJECT REPRESENTATIVES: Serena Trachta, project architect, presented architectural
concepts.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: N~ne.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION: (4-0-1-0, Piha, absent).
Recommend that the City Council approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration,
finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts,
if certain conditions of approval are imposed; and
Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project for construction of the 35
unit three story condominium complex, 81 parking spaces, and related site improvements
based on the attached findings and conditions; and
o Recommend approval of DEE.
A:~RB24LMIN0821 .drf Page 16
RECOMMENDATION WITH STAFF CONDITIONS:
Planning Condition
1.The following items shall return to ARB; reconsideration of roofing materials, balcony rails,
and resolution of vent stacks; provide samples of windows and shingle siding.
Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit
A final site plan shall be prepared and approved by the Planning Division which reflects any
modifications by the ARB, Planning Commission and City Council. The revised site plan shall
include the following: a 10-foot right-of-way dedication along the entire Page Mill Road
frontage for the future construction of a right turn lane onto E1 Camino Real and a five-foot
planting strip between the Page Mill Road sidewalk and the curb; the two mitigation measures
recommended in the Noise Study conducted by Charles Salter & Associates (April 28, 1997)
including: 1) an eight foot high acoustically effective barrier located approximately 15 feet from
the building facade along the Page Mill frontage, and 2) installation of windows with an STC
rating of 36 in all rooms nearest Page Mill Road and an STC rating of 30 in the units further
north along Page Mill Road. The soundwall shall be planted with a coveting of ivy or other vine
on the side facing the public right-of-way. A suitable location for a Coast Redwood (Sequoia
sempervirens) of 48-inch box size shall be integrated within the project site. The location shall
have an adequate volume of soil, sufficient drainage and dedicated space to enable unobstructed
growth over the long term. Change the species of the Private Garden Accent Trees from
Arburus unedo, Strawberry Tree to Arbutus ’Marina’, Marina Madrone and from Lagerstromeia
’Cherokee’ to ’Muskogee’(Lavender), ’Natchez’ (White) or ’Tuscarora’ (Coral). All neighbors
trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from impact of any kind. A statement of
the circumstances of the tree removal and intent of replacement on the applicants property,
inclusive of all expenses and ongoing maintenance, shall be sent to the owner of the tree and
written approval established. High quality, scratch resistant plexiglass shall be used on the
balconies where noise attenuation is required.
Utilities Electric
The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and
private, within the work area.. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall
contact Underground Service Alert @ (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning
work.
Public Works Operations
AAARB24WIIN0821.drf Page 17
3.PAMC Sec. 8-04-070 shall apply to all public trees to be retained.
All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree inventory or landscape plan shall
be protected during construction. The following tree protection measures shall be approved by
the City Arborist and included in construction/demolition plans and contracts. Any
modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist.
The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the developer or project arborist
verifying that the tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance
unless otherwise approved. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be
retained:
ao All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences
are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to
a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the
entire area under the dripline of the trees. If the sidewalk will be blocked by the above, the
entire planting strip may be fenced offto allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. The
fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection
of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be
done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard
specification detail #505).
b.No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree
enclosure area.
c. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered.
d.Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure
survival.
o A certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to prepare and submit tree protection
plans. The plans shall identify the trees to be protected and include measures for their
protection during construction. The certified arbofist shall inspect the tree protection measures
and shall certify that the PAMC See. 8-04-015 have been installed prior to demolition, grading,
or building permit issuance.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including
a signed affidavit of vacancy. The form is available at the Building Department. Utilities will
be disconnected or removed Within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition
permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and
removed.
A:L&RB24hMIN0821.drf Page 18
Prior to Submittal of a Building Permit
Utilities Electric
This project requires a padmount transformer. The applicant shall provide an easement for
installing the padmounted equipment and associated substructure. The location of the padmount
transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Planning Department and the
Architectural Review Board. The tentative map shall be submitted to the Utilities Department
for establishing the location and dimensions of the required easement.
Fire Hazardous Materials
A hazardous materials closure permit shall be obtained from the Fire Department for the
existing building to ensure that construction does not interfere with any extraction or monitoring
wells on-site that would be part of the on-going clean up of the area.
Fire Department
The applicant shall submit final plans for review and approval by the Fire Department that
include the following: (a) automatic sprinkler system is required (NFPA-13R modified). Plans
and permits required on underground fire service line and automatic sprinkler system (b) Fire
alarm system required (plans and permits required),(e) central station supervision of sprinkler
system for water flow and control value tamper - by building, (d) elevator gumey access is
required to be large enough to accommodate a gumey 24" by 82" and emergency personnel, d)
rated corridors and shafts are required, e) wet standpipe system and hose cabinets are required
in garage area only, f’) emergency and illuminated exit signs, g) Knox Box, h) Portable fire
extinguisher, (i) Site annunciator, j) Elevator recall with programming.
Planning/Zoning
9a. A subdivision map is required.
10.The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit drawings
for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features.
11.Final landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plan table areas out to the
curb must be submitted to and approved by the Uti!ity Marketing Services Division. A
Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations, a grading plan, and a statement of
design intent shall be submitted for each project. These plans should be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and irrigation plans shall
include:
AAARB24hMIN0821.drf Page 19
a.All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including private and public
street trees.
b.Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations.
c.Irrigation schedule and plan.
d.Fence locations.
Lighting plan with photometric data. The existing lighting plan shall be revised to reduce
illumination so as not to exceed 1.5 footcandles. All lighting must be shielded in a manner
to prevent visibility of the light source, eliminate glare and light spillover beyond the
perimeter of the development. The lighting plan, photometrics and specification sheets
should be revised to meet these guidelines and submitted to Planning staff for review and
approval.
Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure
survival.
12. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate ARB application.
13.The project shall include an enclosed trash and recycling area which complies with the design
guidelines adopted by the ARB and approved by the City Council pursuant to Section 16.48.070
(PAMC). The final site plan shall include an enclosed trash and recycling area with a roof. The
trash/recycling facilities shall be approved by the City of Palo Alto Recycling Division prior
to issuance of a building permit.
Public Works Engineering
14.The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering,
including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate
that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered.
15.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The
applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building
permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the
final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division.
16.Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division
if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards.
17.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works
Engineering for the proposed construction which will impact the use of the sidewalk, street,
A:~ARB24LMIN0821.drf Page 20
alley or on property in which the City holds an interest.
18.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes
and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to
the construction site. All track routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and
Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes
available throughout the City of Palo Alto.
19.The applicant shall gain approval of the Santa Clara County Roads Division, in writing, for the
placement of the special paving at the page Mill Road entrance.
Transportation
20.Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance requirements of PAMC 18.83.080,
applicable to project frontages where driveways are present, and in parking lots. Landscaping
shall be specifically identified in the landscape plan as meeting these height requirements.
21.Bicycle parking shall be provided in the amount, type, and location specified in PAMC 18.83
and submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division prior to submittal of a
Building Permit. Guest bicycle parking shall be Class III.
Utilities Electric
22.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall
be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur
between the utilities and landscape materials and shallbe screened in a manner which respects
the building design and setback requirements.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
23.The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE
CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant
must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in
B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.).
24.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 cleanouts, and any
other required utilities.
25.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water
supply.
AAARB24WIIN0821.drf Page 21
26.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing water and sewer
mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility
includes the design and all the cost associated with the construction for the installation/upgrade
of the water and sewer mains and/or services.
Planning/Zoning
27.In compliance with Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensi;ce Plan, the project
is subject to a 10 percent Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement. The applicant shall provide
2 two-bedroom units and 1 three bedroom unit at Below Market Rates: No in-lieu fee for the
additional one-half unit is required. Provision of the units and fee shall be consistent with the
Letter of Agreement from Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment,
and signed by David Knudson. The Letter of Agreement is attached and is included herein by
reference. The BMR Agreement shall be included in the Subdivision Agreement.
Public Works Engineering
28.The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works
Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way.
29.A portion of the proposed work is within the State of California or County of Santa Clam right-
of-way. A permit must be obtained from the applicable agency. Evidence of permit approval
shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
30.An underlying lot line exists on the property. The developer/applicant is required to apply for
a Subdivision map to remove the underlying lot line from this parcel.
31.A detailed site-specific soil report must be submitted which includes information on water table
and basement construction issues.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
32.The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the
cost of the person requesting the relocation.
33.Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral
connection.
34.A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter
shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the
account.
35. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required to furnish customer’s
A:L4,RB24hMIN0821.drf Page 22
demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. For service connections of 4-
inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant’s contractor must provide and install a concrete vault
with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in
accordance with the Utilities Standard Detail.
36.A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required to furnish customer’s
demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project.
37.A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required to furnish customer’s
demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project.
38.An approved Reduce Pressure Principal Assembly (Back.flow Preventor Device) shall be
installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with
requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive. The Reduce Pressure Principle Assembly shall be installed on the owner’s property
and directly behind the water meter. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is
required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.
39.An approved Check Valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the
fire system to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections
7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Double Check Detector’Check Valve shall be installed on
the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection
Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the city connection and the assembly.
40.A new gas service line installation is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load
sheet presented with this project.
41. A new sewer lateral installation is required.
42.The applicant shall install a new sewer manhole and install a new sewer lateral per Utilities
requirements.
During Construction
Building Inspection
43.To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary.
Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall
be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the
contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the
contractor’s expense.
Utilities Electric
A:~RB24WIIN0821.drf Page 23
44.All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building
Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
45. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling.
46.Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public
Works before digging in the street right-of-way.
Planning/Zoning
47.All street trees shall receive monthly watering. A written log of each application shall be kept
updated at the site construction office. The log shall be forwarded to the Planning Arborist
before final sign off is approved.
Police
48.All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s
Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be
posted and that construction times be limited as follows:
8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday
9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday
10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday.
Public Works Engineering
49.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any
work performed in the public right-of-way.
50.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior
approval of Public Works Engineering.
51.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for
stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa
Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division
shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property;
and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s
construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris
(soil, asphalt, sawcut sluny, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm
drains. The applicant also will be required to paint a "No Dumping/Flows into the Bay" logo
near all drainage inlets.
A:LARB24LMIN0821.drf Page 24
52.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City
jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility
Departments.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
53.The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from CALTRANS for all utility work in the
E1 Camino Real right-of-way and an Encroachment Permit from Santa Clara County
Department of Transportation for all utility work in the County Road right-of-way. The
applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW Engineering Department.
54.The applicant shall obtain a Construction Permit from Santa Clara County Valley Water District
for the gas service line to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities.
55.The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new water
service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities.
56.The applicant shall pay all costs associated with required improvements to on-site and off’-site
gas mains and services. All improvements to the gas system will be by the City of Palo Alto
or their contractor.
Prior to Finalization
Planning/Zoning
57.The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to Planning Division, and call for
inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the
approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and that irrigation has been
tested for timing and function, and all plants including street trees are healthy.
Public Works Engineering
58.All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and!or removed and replaced in
compliance with Public Works approved standards.
59.The six unused driveways located on Page Mill Road and Sheridan Avenue shall be removed
and replaced with curb and gutter.
60.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this
permit. All off.-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off.
After Constructio~n
A:L4,RB24WIIN0821.drf Page 25
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
61.
62.
The customer shall give the City written notice of any material changes in size, character, or
extent of the equipment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before
making any such change.
Project construction shall include installation of irrigation supply to all street trees. Details shall
specify an inline loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the rootball at a point one-third
of rootball diameter. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from other
shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City
of Palo Alto (V-C)(o).
o
Classic
*97-ARB-137
zone change
building and
improvements.
preliminary Architectural
allow the demolition of an
the construction
review of a Planned Community
;ring commercial structure and accessory
27 new residential units and related site
PROJECT
project; Scott Ward,ic
Baer, project applicant presented the proposed
presented the architectural concepts.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
commercial adjacent to the
He was concerned about the
4102 E1 Camino Real, representing owner of a
~erty, in general support the concept of the project.
from west of unit #27.
ARCHITECTURAL : No action, preliminary review.
Frank Alfonso: He the an to use landscaping to provide a screen from E1
Camino Real sound wall.two curb cuts are not handled well; the
northern area used as an inte of the site. The proposal is site driven; a
different buildin:could be used at th~The use of special paving material at
sidewalk and could make the street ~el more welcoming. The applicant should
do a shade and study; this could encouraL~e the proposal to be altered to avoid shade
and shadows./ect is an appropriate use o-f)~nsity. There is an over commitment to
a single ~1~ type. The streetscape could be ".lm~ved.
\
Bob Pe m: The guestparking and access need tonic addressed. Access to the rear
gardens be provided from individual unit decks. Axdifferent floor plan for some of
the work. The applicant has underestimated the i~arket for architecture that has
\
A:LARB24~VIIN0821.drf Page 26
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16
Wednesday, August 13, 1997
Regular Meeting
ORAL C~ QMMUNICATIONS-
AGENDA C~NGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of minutes of July 9, 1997.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
LOS TRANCOS(LANDS OF ARRILAGA, APN #!82-46-0!0):
Review the Draft Environment Impact Report (DEIR) prepared to
assess the environmental effects of a proposed8-1ot, single-family
residential subdivision. The subject property proposed for
subdivision consists of 151+ acres of undex;eloped hillside.
Consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the DEIR was subject to a 45-day public revibw period
running from June 9, 1997 to July 28, 1997. File Nos. 94-SUB-.5,
94-EIA-31.
425-435 SHERIDAN AVENUE (440 PAGEJ~II.~z.RQAD_): Public
hearing and review of an application for a zone change to the
Planned Community(PC) zone to allow the demolition of an
existing 26,000-square-foot laboratory building and construction of
a new, 35-unit, three-story condominium complex, subterranean
parking garage and related site improvements. Environmental
Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared.
File Nos. 97-ARB-97, 97-ZC-8, 97-EIA-10.
A:lPCMinsTIMin0813.reg Page 1
08-13-97
425-435 SHERIDAN AVENUE (440 PAGE MILL ROAD): Public hearing and.
review of an application for a zone change to the Planned Community(PC) zone to
allow the demolition of an existing 26,000-square-foot laboratory building and
construction of a new, 35-unit, three-story condominium complex, subterranean
parking garage and related site improvements. Environmental Assessment: A
mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 97-ARB-97, 97-ZC-8,
97-EIA- 10.
Chairman Schirlk: At this .time, David Ross of the Architectural Review Board has joined
us, as well as the planning consultant, Chandler Lee. Are there any staff comments?
Mr. Lee: This is a review of a 35-unit condominium complex on the site of the former
Linus Pauling Institute. The ARB did review this project last December in a
prescreening, and it supported the d.esign of the project and thought that it was consistent
with the adjacent properties. There is a public benefit package included with the
proposal, including a 10-foot right-of-way dedication, several street trees along the
opposite side of Page Mill Road, and a proposal for public art based on the public benefit
package and the proposal as .designed. The staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission forward the project for review by the ARB.
.Chairman Schink: We have David Ross, Chairman of the ARB, present,.but you have not.
actually reviewed this project, have you?-
Mr. Ross: We have seen this only in preliminary form. No action was tal~en. As you
know, the preliminary reviews are an aid to the applicant for their .further development of
the project. I believe.this is on an upcoming agenda, so I am really here to communicate
your concerns and comments back to the board during our review.
Chairman Schink: Next we will hear from the applicant, who is allowed 15 minutes i’or
an introductory presentation. Following that, members of the public are allowed five
minutes each to address us on their concerns.
Serena Trachta. 1002 Rhode Island Street, San Francisco: Good evening. I am a
principal in the Full Circle Design Group, the architectural firm responsible for this
submittal. I am representing the developer, BK Palo Alto, which is a partnership between
W. L. Butler Investments and J. David Knudsen.
We are pleased to present this project proposal for this important site at the southwestern
gateway into Palo Alto. When we began the conceptual development of this project, we
A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 15
.08-13-97
drew upon local history and specific site characteristics in order to generaie the
vocabulary for the design. It is important to us to create a sense of place within the larger
community while repairing a void in the urban fabric. The site near the intersection of
two major commercial routes, Page Mill Road and El Camino Real, is a landmark
representing the southern passage into established commercial centers such as California
Avenue, and eventually, Universi{’y Avenue to the north. The scale and density of the
project proposed are appropriate to the E1 Camino and Page Mill density thoroughfares,
and will serve to screen the residential neighborhood starting at Sheridan Avenue. The
site is well suited for a moderate- to high-density residential development. With such
proximity to transit routes, commuter highway access and train travel, the project will
support existing infrastructures rather than stress them. The project is supported by
nearby commercial, retail and educational resources. California Avenue is four blocks
away. The Mayfield Library, Stanford University and shopping are all within a close bike
ride. This proposal will reinforce the presence of higher density housing currently
functioning in the neighborhood. The project respects its relationship to the proposed
mid-peninsula housing project next door while relating to its important position at the
comer of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. The proposed residential buildings will
respond to a vision of the intersection as a transitional gateway by emulating the
experience of passage through .the design of the project itself.
From the street side, the building massing is asymmetrical, responding to both.the
commercial and residential scales surrounding the project. A variety of window bay~,
dormers, trellises and the like will provide visual interest and accommodate the variety of
floor plans within the project.
In order to create as much variety of usable open space as possible~ we pushed the
building perimeter to the edges of the site in order to use the building envelope to define
the outdoor living room. The interior court offer~ a variety of spatial experience as one
traverses from Page Mill Road to Sheridan Avenue, offering the residents, places for
social gatherings, as well as individual meditation,
At each stage in the planning process, it has been critical to the design team to create a
building suitable fo~ its important location. As with any project, there are challenges
negotiating fulfillment of the various interests of the project. In our particular case, we
found it necessa~ to mitigate the future widening of Page Mill Road by a public land
dedication often feet..This donation has had significant impacts on the site plan. These
and other challenges led us to submit for a Planned Community application in lieu of
strict compliance with the RM-40 guideline, for which the site is zoned. As mitigation
for our project’s variations from straight zoning requirements, we have worked closely
A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page ! 6
08-13-97
with staff to prepare a public benefit package that we feel is commensurate with our
allowances. We propose to provide a land dedication often feet of our Page Mill
frontage in order to accommodate the addition of a right-turn lane onto E1 Camino Real.
We are proposing a total of sixteen oak trees, eight of which will be on our property and
eight will be on the adjacent sid~ of Page Mill on the southern side. This will help
reinforce this route as a gateway into the city. In addition, a Linus Pauling Memorial has
been proposed to commemorate the important work of this two-time Nobel Prize
Laureate. Pauling and his research lab utilized the site from the late 1970s until July,
1996 when the lab was closed and moved to Oregon State University in Corvallis after
Pauling’s death.
There are several additional benefits intrinsic to our development. We are providing
much needed housing in Palo Alto through the repair of a vacant lot on Sheridan, and the
removable of a less than desirable tilt-up concrete office building on Page Mill Road. We
are providing three below-market-rate units in compliance with city guidelines, and in
addition, will be adding one street.parking stall back when we remove some existing c.urb
cuts.
In summary, we are very excited about this project and this opportunity to work in Palo
Alto and contribute to the high standard of living in this unique community. We are
encouraged by city and neighborhood response thus far, and look fotw~d to YOUr.
comments. Thank you for this opportunity.
Commissioner Ojakian: Could you explain why you. chose the mix of unit sizes that you
did?
hl~.~:g&k~: We wanted to provide for as much range as we could. We have tried to
provide some smaller units for smaller households, as well as a number of larger, 3-
bedroom units in order accommodate a variety of situations.
Commissioner Ojakian: Did you consider any one-bedroom units?
/2~.~../.g~aN: We did discuss it at the beginning of the project. It was felt that a one-
bedroom situation makes a great deal of sensein a rental situation, but in a sale situation,
too quickly the one-bedroom unit is too small, even for a single person. They often want
that one bedroom for. additional things, and we felt that the marketability of a one-
bedroom unit was not feasible for us.
Commissioner Ojakian:
A:lPCMinsTIMin0813.reg
Then taking a two-bedroom unit just as a guesstimate, because
Page 17
08-13-97
obviously, we cannot hold you to this, what do you think the going price wc~uld be on
one?
Ms. Trachta: Obviously, the market rate is going to determine what we are able to sell
them for. We were roughly estimat, ing $300 per square foot, and the average unit size
will be about 1,500 square feet, so roughly .four or four-fifty.
.Commissioner Beecham: Can you tell me the value of having a pedestrian entrance on
Page Mill, other than providing a site for the memorial?
Ms. Trachta: This was very important to the design team, to provide a front to Page Mill
Road. We realize that it is a busy trafficked way, but it is very important in order to
encourage people to watchthe street and become.engaged by it, thereby making it safer
by their visual control of the street. We needed to make sure that people would be
encouraged to be around Page Mill Road. We felt that if we shut the project off from
Page Mill Road and turned our back on it, we would be encouraging people not paying
attention to the roadway, not paying attention to any pedestrian activity, and therefore, the
potential for crime would increase because of the lack of visual control of that area. By
providing the residents an opporttmityfor visual control, we felt that we were
encouraging the creation of additional use patterns on that roadway.
Commissioner Cassel: Would you expect people to be walking from this si~e, for
instance, down to the bus stop at the comer of E1 Camino and Page Mill or perhaps over
to the movie theater, that kind of thing?
Ms. Trachta: Yes, I do. That is another reason why we created another entrance. The
main entrance we feel would be on Sheridan Avenue, but we do have the ability to walk
through the project and go through thePage Mill access.
D_r.~45 Sheridan Avenue, #421.,_,P~_~: The current project is in an
RM-40-zoned area, and as the project is proposed, it violates a number of RM-40 things,
such as the setback on Page Mill, the allowable floor area ratio, the height at Page Mill,
all three daylight planes, and the noise levels that are permissible. Also parking
requirements and the provision to protect existing trees,.
Currently, at Page Mi!l, their proposal would allow 25 feet setback, but after their lane
dedication, there would only be 15 feet, which would violate what is required. The
building is 26% too big as it is designed. It’s got 12,400 feet too much area, .and they
chose to ignore this, I guess, when they designed it, because they should have known how
A:IPCMinsT[Min0813.reg ¯ Page 18
08-13-97
big they were allowed to make it when they designed it. So it is far too large for the
property.
It is also too tall. At Page Mill Road, they are allowed 35 .feet, and in Attachment #6,
they say, "It is our position that l~age Mill Road creates a significant separation between
single-family across the street, and therefore, the additional height restriction is
unwarranted." However, presumably, they will agree to the 35-foot height limit at Page
Mill Road.
All three daylight planes are violated, and they say that they cannot pull back from the
property lines because it would compromise light inside the courtyard. I propose that
they simply make the building shorter, thereby allowing more sunlight to the neighboring
buildings and in their courtyard.
The six-foot sound wall they propose would only knock down the noise to 66 decibels,
which violates the 65 decibel limit and the 55 preferable limit that Palo Alto has. Also,
When the road is widened, that level will go up to 68 decibels, and they would need to put
in an eight-foot tall wall, which they are not doing now. They have also stated that all of
their balconies are not going to be in compliance in terms of noise levels.
Also they will be violating parking requirements, because they have 80 spaces where 82
spaces are required. They are putting in extra bike spaces, but really, bike spaces do not
make up for the extra space that is needed for c~rs. Page Mill Road is not a really big
biking area.
Also, they will be eliminating two parking lots which they did not address at all. They
are eliminating two parking lots which are ctwrently heavily used, especially by
churchgoers on Sundays, when those parking lots are packed. I do not know what they
propose to do about all of those people and where they will park.
In the conditions of approval, it was stated that the subdivider shall preserve all existing
trees on site, and shall include all trees in the final landscape plans. This is not what they
are planning on doing. Thirteen of the 15 trees that are currently on site are killed, and
one of them will be removed. The only remaining tree will be the elm tree.
Also in Attachment #.5, Conditions of Approval, it says, "All. neighbors’ trees that
overhang the Site shall be protected from impacts of any kind." However, a 34-inch
aleppo pine which is over 60 feet tall is going to be removed. This aleppo pine is going to
be removed because their garage will be cutting into its root zone, and that will make the
A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 19
08-13-97
tree unstable. However, the tree, in and of itself, is not near the point of death by any
means, and it is a very stri "ldng landmark that has taken seven years to grow. They are
going to be removing it.
In order to be able to build this building with all of these violations, they are going to
need a zone change, and therefore~ public benefits. The right-of-way dedication is ten
feet, as they have proposed it. I have gone there, and the sidewalk currently is ten feet
wide. Near the edge of the intersection, the intersection is wide enough that two cars can
pass, so really you only need about five more feet which can be taken out of the sidewalk.
This dedication is not necessary.. Also, only five feet was actually required in the
conditions of approval, which is Attachment #3.
As a second benefit, they are going to be planting i 6 street trees on Page Mill. Eight of
those will be on the frontage of the building, and eight will be across the street. The ones
across the street, quite frankly, (a) are subject to private property owners’ fights, and the
two business owners I have spoken to do not want trees on their site; (b) there are already
trees on that side of the road, so I do not know where they are planning on putting them;
and (c) this would block the commuters’ view of the hills which is fairly nice tosee as
you enter that intersection, so it would limit visibility at the intersection, and I do not
know how long those trees would last with the size of the truc "ks that go by at that
intersection, especially in the right-hand turn lane. I think they would knock a lot of the
limbs offofthe trees as they go by.
Public Art. I have talked to a lotofpeople who are not interested in seeing the public art
there. Also, the fact that they are putting in this sound wall, which must be eight feet tall
if it i~ going to meet requirements, right up against the sidewalk, due to how crowded this
is because the project is too big, making it very unappealing as far as a pedestrian
walkway goes. It is very narrow, and if you would like to see an example o£it, yo.u can
see the neighboring Sheridan Avenue property. I have a l.o_t more if you want to let me go
on.
Chairman Schink: No, I am sorry. Each person has five minutes.
Commissioner Beecham: You went through a long list of deficiencies in the project. Is
your basic intent to ha~ie nothing built, or to have a smaller project built?
Dr, Doncan: Further on in my remarks, I was going to have what I suggested as a
remedy.
A:lPCMinsT}Min0813.reg Page 20
08-I 3-97
Commissioner Beecham: Which is, basically?
Dr. Duncan: Which is fewer units, basically, a smaller size which would enable them to
pull back a little more, not necessarily at the bottom level, but at the top in terms of the
daylight plane. Also, the fewer units would mean they would not need as much garage
space. If they eliminated four garage spaces, that would allow enough room for the root
system of the aleppo pine, and that tree would remain intact, and that tree currently
shades the southern side and would provide benefits.
David Duncan, 345 Sheridan Avenue, #421, Palo Alto: This is more on the trees on the
area. Please save the trees. As the noise requirement plans for the site show, the
developer originally proposed to remove all of the trees on the site. In the city’s draft
conditions of approval, Attachment #3, the developer was asked to preserve all of the
trees. The current proposal is not a significant improvement. It still proposes to kill 25 of
the 27 trees on the site and to relocate one of the other two. The exact quote from
Attachment #3 is, "The subdivider shall preserve all existing trees on the site and shall
include all trees in thefinal landscape plans." In the latest proposal document, the
developer has lowered the estimated number 0ftrees on the site to eight. There are
actually 15 trees on site, and 12 affected trees on the border, for a total of 27 affected
trees. Twenty-seven, not eight, was the count of the trees in the document provided two
weeks ago. Included in the list of 25 trees to be removed are four 30- to 60-foot-tall
redwoods, a 40-foot-tall eucalyptus, a 30-foot-wide oak, and a 20-foot-wide fig tree. The
proposal will also kill the mentioned aleppo pin6 on the neighboring lot. The proposed
public benefit of putting in new trees will not nearly make up for this loss.
Depending upon which proposal you read, there are between 70 an~t 100 trees proposed
for the new building. Of these, only 13 are significant -- the five pear trees and the eight
oaks on the north side of Page Mill. These trees are very much appreciated. The other
eight oaks proposed for the south side of Page Mill are neither desired by the tenants
there, nor is there space for them, according to the arborist. None of the other 42 accent
trees, 13 courtyard trees or 28 trees that fit in the alcoves will be of significant size, nor
are they likely to be visible to the rest of the neighborhood.
The alepp0 pine is ~ most striking, the most significant tree in the area. In the words of
the Palo Alto arborist who was involved in the project planning, Dave Docktor, this tree
is awesome. The reason the proposal justifies killing this tree is that the new garage will
be too close to the tree’s roots, making it unstable and necessitating its destruction. The
tree is not the problem. The garage is the problem. In order to save the tree, the proposed
garage will have to be moved back.
A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 2 !
08-13-97
The proposal also claims that the aleppo is near the end of its life. In f~ct, the tree is
projected by the arborist to be healthy for another ten years before it begins to degrade.
Visit the site. You can see for yourselves that the beauty of this pine is worth preserving.
The redwoods, eucalyptus, oak,, fig and other trees would survive the construction just
free if the contractor would obey the proposal in Attachment #5 which states, "All trees to
be preserved to be protected with a six-foot-high chain link fence. The fence shall
include the entire area under the drip line of the trees." The fig tree, which is not even
mentioned in the proposal, is one of the favorite neighborhood nesting spots for many,
many birds. Visit the site any time of the day and listen. You will hear the birds there.
The fig tree p.rovides shelter, shade and a nesting home for them. The fig tree is also a
current public benefit that the proposal would do away with. Everyday for the last two
weeks, we have seen our neighbors and their familie.s picking figs.
Insumm. ary, of the 27 trees on or bordering the site, one will be saved, one will be
relocated, and the rest will be destroyed. The impact of.the trees on the site is very
significant. It is not a public benefit to kill the existing large trees only to replace them
with smaller ones.
CJlg_irman Schink: Could you describe which building #345 Sheridan Avenue is?
/~.]2!,lllf&II: It is the four-story, gray building right on the comer. It is two lots over.
from the new one on the north side of Page M~ll. If you are going along Page Mill Road
from Hwy. 101, just as you come out from under the overpass, there is the big gray and
green building there. That is it.
Roberta Harvey. ~,10 Sheridan Avenue. Palo Alto: My r~sidence is directly across the
street from this proposed development. I have lived there 20 years. I have great respect
for the people who have just spoken about the problem with the trees, but my concern is
more with housing in Palo Alto. I support this project. My only oncern, as mentioned
previously, is the sound wall. I cannot quite figure out what it is going to look like. I am
not too sure I am going to like it. But I wanted to say that there are people who do
support this project who do live nearby. I have reviewed the design carefully with the
architect, and I like it. Thank you.
].xmise~Bolitho. 410 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto: I am also a resident at the same
address. I have lived there 8 or 10 years. I love living there. It is a wonderful
neighborhood, and I am delighted that we are going to be able to share it with more
people. When I first moved into 410 Sheridan, we had a problem with drug users and
A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 22
08-13-97
bums occupying the vacant lot across the street. It was difficult to move these people out.
I think the idea of having more beautiful housing filled with happy, working people as
neighbors is much more desirable. I am sorry to lose that beautiful, asymmetric tree, too,
but I understand that it is on its last legs. I appreciate that the people who are planning
this are going to put in a lot more trees. I am loo "king forward to having new neighbors.
D;,Huntzinger. 461 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto: I live across the street from this
proposed development. I think that people should have to conform with the building
codes. I do not think that that property can handle that re,any people. They have cars. In
my family, there are four of us, and we have four cars. There is not enough parking spots
for people who have one or two Cars, in my opinion. It doesn’t conform to what the code
is, so why do we need to have it. I have been before this commission several times on
different things, and if we have a code, we should stick with it. If it is too many people
for a piece of property, then they shouldn’t have it, in my opinion. I am directly across
the street from it, and I have the only par’ldng area around there. I have to take care of
Ken’s Bonsai Nursery people, and they are going to take up my parking. It is pure and
simple, because they are not going to have enough, and I don’t want it. That is all I have
to say.
Chairman Schink: Thank you for your comments. Our rules of procedure allow the
applicant five minutes to rebut any comments that were made, if the applicant feels so
inclined.
Ms. Trachta: I would like to take a moment to rebut a few of the issues that werebrought
up during the neighbors’ presentation. First of all, with respect to.the trees, we have
reviewed the site, and we have worked with the city arborist, as well as our own arborist,
in evaluating the expected life span of the trees with respect to the expected life span of
the project and the need for housing in Palo Alto. We feel thai with the proposal of trees
that we are proposing to plant (and I, too, am very sorry about the aleppo pine), we cannot
maintain anywhere near the density of the project and save the tree.
I should mention that the density of the project that we are coming in with is at 33 units to
the acre, and the site is zoned for 40 units to the acre, so we are under the allowable
zonin’g. I understand that Palo Alto does not have minimum standards, however, .this is a
prime opportunity for Palo Alto to provide higher density housing in urban areas such as
this where there will not be as much reliance on car traffic, since there is access to the
train and commuter ways such as bus systems. Also, the plans have been revised since
the submittal you have seen to allow one additional car space in the garage, .so we are
only one car space short. Technically, we are adding that one space on the street,
A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 23
08-13-97
although that does not quite count. We have also mitigated it with an additional eight
bike stalls. The one stall that we are short is a guest parking stall, not a resident stall.
Each home will be provided with two par’king spaces per unit.
One of the other issues that was mentioned was the sound wall. As the project designer, I
do not want a sound wall at all. ’I would like the project to front the street. We are being
required to provide private outdoor space that meets ceretain sound requirements, so we
are providing a sound wall for that reason only. I don’t feel that the one or two decibel
increase is significant, based on the six- to eight-foot wall, because it takes three decibels
for the human ear to discern a difiference. So even if we have a six-foot versus an eight-
foot wall, the average person would not be able to tell the difference between the height
of those walls.
With respect to the fig tree, and apparently there was a 30-foot oak tree mentioned, those
trees were below the city’s required size for noticing. They do not show up on the
survey. It is not that we were trying to cover them up. They are very small in trunk
diameter. That is basically it.
I feel that the project is an excellent fit for this particular site. It is an urban comer. We
need to introduce density in these types of areas at the edges of neighborhoods such as the
Sheridan-to-California area, which is lower density. If we develop the.higher density at
the edge, we are strengthening those corridor areas. Thank you.
Commissioner Bialson: There was a point raised by one of the speakers regarding
imp.acting the view of the foothills as one drives along Page Mil! Road. Have you done
any studies to indicate that the view will be impacted?
Ms. Trachta: No technical studies have been done. There was criticism of the street trees
that we proposed, but we have had very positive feedback, up until this point, on the
street trees being proposed. They are deciduous oak trees, so they will be going through a
changing pattern of allowing views of the hills in the winter, modifying that view in the
summer..Also, I do not feel that those trees are going to be significantly impacting the
roadway such that their limbs would be clipped by trucks or that they would severely
impact the view. In my mind, they are going to frame the view and actually accentuate
the view, which right now, as you coming down from 1-280 into town, you are just
looking at a vacant lot and a very ugly concrete building. With our project.and with the
street trees, we are framing the view toward the east, and as you come out of the
underpass looking west, we will have a double row of trees, with the rows of trees on
either side framing the view westward.
A:IPCM ins7lMin0813.reg Page 24
08-13-97
Commissioner Cassel: I am concerned, though, about the amount of space for the roots
for these new trees. Are you sure there is enough space, with the garage the size that it
is?
Ms. Trachta: Of the new trees?
Commissioner Cassel: Yes, or the old trees., any trees that are left. This is a serious
problem.
Ms. Trachta: Yes, we have current methods of root barrier systems that will be utilized
on this project. Our landscape architect has been carefully evaluating the types of trees
that we use. We have also run the list of trees that we are proposing past Dave Docktor,
the city arborist. They are both confident that with the location of the garage and the
location of the street, we will be able to accommodate the root system. We do actually
have a fair amount of space, even after the road is widened. We will have a 10-foot
sidewalk with five-foot tree wells, which is more than adequate for the deciduous oak.
Then we have an additional 15 feet of frontage, until we hit the garage wall. So there is
more than enough room to accommodate the trees.
Commissioner Cassel: How will those trees across the street bemaintained? On your
side, obviously, you will be watering, but on the Other side, how do you maintain those
street trees?
Ms. Trachta: That is something on which we are working with the city to coordinate an
irrigation system that would be tied into our project that would water those trees. W..e
have not fully identified how that is going to work. That is one ~ing we are negotiating.
I have talked with one of the businesses on that side of the street, Zebra Copy, and
although they do have some smaller trees now, they are more than happy to accommodate
larger trees on their property..
"Chairman Schink: Seeing no other speakers, I will now close the public-hearing and
return this item to the commission. Are there any questions of staff by commissioners?
Commissioner Beecham: A po’.mt was raised by a speaker about the parking lots that
would be replaced. Is there any obligation by an developer or any other individual to
replace parking as th.ey do a project?
Mr. Schreiber: No. That is private property. If people are using it for-par’king, there is
no obligation to replace that.
A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 25
08-13-97
Commissioner Beecham: Also a speaker mentioned that in the conditions, all trees are to
be retained on site. I believe they are speaking to Attachment #5, Condition #4. Can you
explain the meaning of that, please?
~: That was an oversight on my part. The language that you have in front of you
is the standard condition of approval. I inadvertently omitted the phrase that should have
said, "as shown in the attached plans," which would have included the tree removals as
approved by the planning arborist.
Ms. Cauble: There are actually two sets of conditions here, and I think the speakers were
referring to a condition in Attachment #3, which contradicts the condition you are
referring to in Attachment #5. The language in Attachment #5 is the correct language.
Of course, this is a preliminary review for you. The.se and other conditions will be
refined when the project goes fonvard to the ARB and comes back to the commission, if
you move the project forward.
Commissioner Beecham: .A third question on the sound wall. In the staff report, staff’s
position is that an eight-foot sound wall is required, and there is no way to get around that
because of the sound levels. We have had issues come up before where tall sound walls
on major thoroughfares are very undesirable. Is there anything legally we can do to have
less than an eight-foot wall here? ¯ ¯
Mr, Lee: It is my understanding, based on the acoustical study that was prepared for the
project, that the additional two feet resulting in an eight-foot sound wall would be
required in order to meet the 65 decibel noise level on the outdoor balconies. If you were
to reduce that to six feet, as proposedin the application, you would exceed that outdoor
living space standard.
Commissioner Beecham: Is there any mechanism that we have to do that?
Ms. Cauble: Staff can certainly take another look at that before the project comes back to
you. If this is what the evidence in the record suggests as being necessary to meet the
noise standard, and therefore, not have a significant impact, the only theoretical way
around it that I can think of right now wouldbe to require the project to do a full EIR,
going through that process and then make some sort of statement of overriding
considerations at the end of that process. We can certainly relook at this issue, but right
now, it is included as a ~:equired mitigation measure.
.Commissioner Cassel: Related to that, can staffcheck on what happened to the Mid-
A:lPCMinsTlMin0813.reg P~tge 26
08-13 -97
Peninsula Housing Corporation project? I remember that we had the same issue there.
Whatever the height that was required, we were able to drop it some. I cannot remember
if they were dealing with ten feet and dropped it to eight, or what. I "know they have done
some sound studies that were related to that.
~: Yes, there is a description in here, but it is my understanding that the sound
wall in front of the Page Mill Court project actually starts at 12 feet at the property line’
that is shared with the current project, and steps down to roughly ten feet in the middle of
the project. It winds up at eight feet at Ash Street.
Commissi0ner.Schmidt: I want to ask staff’s opinion regarding the comment from the.
public about oak trees on the street and the likelihood or possibility that the tree limbs
would be clipped, destroyed, etc., by passing trucks. We have all certainly seen
numerous trees in Palo Alto that have suffered from truck damage.
Mr. Lee: I cannot respond to that tonight, but we can certainly check that out in the field
and prepare a response for you the next time.
M~7.dS_.~ar.NI2~: That is also an issue that the ARB .will deal with, and Mr. Ross is taking
notes, so I am sure the ARB will deal with that. Assuming this project is forwarded on,
When it comes back to you, you will have additional information on that .question.
Chairman Schink: Does anyone want to lead ~as in some directio~ here? Our challenge is
only whether we want to send this on to the Architectural Review Board or not.
Commissioner Cassel" So this is a preliminary review, and We are making comments
tonight, then move to send it on to the ARB?
Chairman Schink: Thatis correct.
MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: I feel th~it the basic concept here is good. As was
pointed out, they are doing a credible job on getting as many units in here as possible.
They are still under the limit, and we have always found that it is very hard to get high-
density housing that approaches the limits in the zoning ordinance. As they approach it, I
think it is appropriate to go.to a PC zone on this. At this point, we have heard a number
of issues. I think the report is clear on what the issues are, and they make
recommendations and mitigations for most of them. I still have a big problem on the
sound wall, but I am not sure there is anything feasible we can do onit. I certainly hope
staff can find something more to do. With that, I would move that the commission
A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 27
08-13-97
forward this to the Architectural Review Board for review and comment.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
~ommissioner Oiakian: I will support the motion, and concur with Commissioner
Beecham s comments. For me, th~s has been an interesting situation. If we go back some
four or five years ago, we had the Linus Pauling Institute before us, and we were
somewhat facing a dilemma at the time, because we had to choose then between
extending the amortization on that piece of property and/or let the clock mn out and have
the property convert to housing. I remember my own dilemma in that situation. I likened
it to having to evict my grandfather from an operation, and I did not have the heart to do
that, but at the time we had that hearing, I made it clear to the representatives from the
Linus Pauling group that with the extension of that amortization, I would have expected
that at the next go round, they would have found another piece of property, becaflse our
intentions have been for quite awhile to turn this piece of property into housing.
I was impressed by the applicant’s architect who spoke tonight who clearly is immersed
in contemporary philosophies on housing, and has an understanding, even though she is
new to Palo Alto, has a good understanding of some of the concepts we have been trying
to foster. Clearly, she has tried to design a project that meets those, So I am happy to see
this go on to the next level, and hope that when we get it back, some of the concerns,
especially the one voiced by Bern, somehow may be addressed. "
Commissioner Byrd: I am delighted to see a condo project come forward. This is a
difficult economic environment in which to build a condominium..There are liability
challenges there for the developer. So given the affordability challenges that we have in
town, that is, in itself, ~ my mind, arguably a public benefit. Also, it is an appropriate
design for the location..IfI had one preference, it would be to have the team go back to
the design to see if they can inch toward the 43 units that are allowed under the RM-40,
and perhaps reduce some of the unit sizes to provide a slightly greater unit mix, maybe a
couple of one-bedroom units, again to meet some of our affordability challenges here in
town.
My final comment is directed toward one of the pt~blic speakers.. It is a rare time when
we have someone come into these chambers and say, "I look forward to having more
people around me." If we had more people like you in this community, it would certainly
make our challenge of building a more affordable and sustainable community that much
easier. So thank you for coming down and sharing your views.
A:JPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 28
08-13-97
Commissioner..Cassel: I, too, am delighted that we have some housing on this corner. I
have argued before that we need and can handle high-density housing on this comer. One
of the statements I often make is on the public rights versus private rights issue. We have
a site that was zoned RM-40. The owners of that property have the right to do something
with that property within that range, and they have not exceeded that range. They have
asked for a PC zone because with slightly different guidelines, they can provide a better
product. We are going to get a public benefit out of this widened lane, which was a real
agony for us. We were being told by the state and others that we needed to widen that
intersection. Although many of us here have been holding our breaths and hoping we will
not have to do that, trying to propose other options such as getting out of our cars and
walking once in awhile so that we would not need to impact that intersection so badly and
would not need to widen it, we were being pressured to do so, and that is the primary
benefit in this project for us, having that access. It is causing some constraints in terms of
how this housing fits on this site.
It is customary to allow one or twl3 car spaces to not be put in place and to allow bicycles
in place of it. This is a site that is particularly amenable to that, because it is close to the
train station and close to California Avenue. There should not be quite the demand for
cars that other sites require when they are farther out and people need to drive to transit.
The hope is that as we provide some higher density housing closer to the train station, we
will not be forced to have one car for every single person in a household. That is not
always the case, but people moving into these units are going to know that they only have
two parldng spaces. ".
I hope that the developer .will look at his design for the garage and see if it is possible to
put more space on the Sheridan Avenue side for the tree space in that area. I am glad to
see that they are looking at how they will maintain the ~ees on the other side of the street.
That is an issue that we have discussed before, and I think it is very important.
Cganmissioner Schmidt: I am definitely in support of the project, and I Support the
comments of my colleagues. I want to emphasize a point that has been made that we are
getting more housing near transit. I know that helps alleviate traffic problems. It is the
kind of thing we are aiming for in the Comprehensive Plan, so I am very happy to see this
here. I also want to comment that we, over the last few years, ended up rezoning some
housing sites to commercial or other uses because they simply were not appropriate to
retain for housing. We were not getting housing projects. We are finally getting projects
that have a variety of housing sizes. It is really nice to see it, and is obviously partially
fueled by the economy at the moment, but we should take it when we can get it.
A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 29
08 - 13 -97
I think this is a thoughtfully designed project, and I would agree with the comments that
thearchitect has really tried to look at the site and understand what is going on there. I
think it is unfortunate that some well loved neighborhood trees are going to be lost, but I
hope that the project designers do a bang-up job of replacing landscaping there to help
bring it back into the favor of the neighbors.
MOTION PA_S.S.F~: .Chairman Schjrtk: Is there any further discussion on this motion to
forward this applicant to the Architectural Review Board? All those in favor, say aye.
All opposed? That passes on a vote of 7-0.
Mr. Schreiber: This will go before the ARB on Thursday, August 21, and ifthe.ARB
approves it at that time, it will return to the commission at the end of September.
A:IPCMinsT[M in0813.reg Page 30
08-13-97
July 21, 1997
C.i of Palo Alto
Departn~,nt qf Planning wwl
Cxnnmunity Environrr~t
Plannlng Division
J. David Knudson
24 Bay Tree Lane
Los Altos, CA 94022
Sent Via FAX at 415-941-215’0
04 1997
Depanmenl at Planninn
Cornrnunity Environ~’/u
SUBJECT:Below Markei Rate (BMR) Agreement for 35 unit condominium project at
425-435 Sheridan Avenue in Palo Alto
Dear Mr I-’.~nudson:
This letter contains an agreement regarding satisfaction of Program 13 of the Housing
Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which requires a Below Market
Rate (BMR) component for your proposed 35 unit for sale condominium project at 425-
435 Sheridan Avenue in Palo Alto. Program 13 re~tuires a 10 percent BMR component
or 3.5 units. Your proposed project includes thirty 2-bedroom units and five 3-bedroom
units.
City policy is to require on-site units scattered throughout the project and in the same
proportional mix as other units in the project. We have agreed that you will provide two
2-bedroom units and one 3-bedroom unit. Because the project was designed with only 5
of 35 units as 3-bedroom units, the .5 units is being satisfied by the provision of a 3-
bedroom unit and no additional in-lieu fee is required. Accordingly, the City suggests the
following as specifics to the agreement:
Two on-site 2-bedroom BMR units and one 3-bedroom unit shall be provided.
The units shall be specified on the plans and shall be located on both floors one
and two. The exact location of the units shall be agreed to by the City and shown
on the Subdivision map prior to consideration by the City Council. The units are
proposed to be the two K units on the first floor and unit H on the second floor as
shown on the "430 Sheridan Plans" as submitted to the City by Fullcircle Design
Group. and dated "2 May 1997 PC zone submittal." Unit H shall be reconfigured
as a 3-bedroom unit.
The design, construction, materials, finishes, windows, hardware, light fixtures,
landscaping, irrigation, appliances and like features of the BMR unit shall be ’
comparable tothe design and construction of all other units in the project. The
BMR owners shall have. access to all facilities, amenities, parking and storage as
that provided to other owners in the project.
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
415.329.2441
415.329.2240 Fax
The initial sales price of each of the 2-bedroom units shall be $140,700 and the 3-
bedroom shall be $164,800. These prices were reached utilizing the City of Palo
Alto current Housing price Guidelines (effective May 1, 1996). The price list is
adjusted annually. The greater of this price or the price in effect at the time of
fina.1 map approval shall ,be the initial sales price of the BMR units.
The terms of this letter of agreement shall be incorporated into the conditions of the
Planned Community Zone and .the Condominium Map. The Map must be completed and
signed prior to the final map being considered by the City Council.
Thank you for your cooperation during the planning process on this project. If you agree
with this revised proposal, you may sign this letter indicating that we have reached
agreemen.t regarding the BMR component for your project.
Sincerely,
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
I agree to provide a Below Market Rate component to the project at 425-435 Sheridan
Avenue as described in this letter dated July 21, 1997.
Marlene Prendergast, i~alo Alto Housing Corporation
Debra Cauble, Assistant City Attorney
Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
S:\PLAN\PLANDIV\SttARE\LTBMR430.
ATTACHMENT #1|
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION
425-435 SHERIDAN AVENUE
Recommended Findings for Approval
FINDINGS
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the site is located near
the intersection of E1 Camino Real and Page Mill Road and within an area desired by the City to be
used for the addition of a right hand turn lane along the Page Mill Road frontage and the approved
Page Mill Road project adjacent to the site will be separated from the proposed project by sufficient
setbacks such that both projects will be provided with adequate light, air and privacy; and
2. The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve
the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style,
in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum
requirements of Title 18 and the standards for review set forth in Chapter 16.48 in that the
encroachment is minor (3 to 4 feet intrusion into the daylight plane), will enhance the design of the
building, and is needed to preserve the quality of living spaces within the building. One of the two
outdoor courtyards previously proposed by the applicant was sacrificed due to the provision of a ten
foot right-of-way dedication along Page Mill Road. Pulling back the building to meet the daylight
plane requirements would jeopardize the remaining outdoor courtyard to the detriment of the
livability of the residential units. Therefore, the exemption would preserve the design integrity of
the roofline and the facade along the Page Mill Court frontage, would preserve the outdoor courtyard
for use by project residents, and preserve the architectural style of the building.
3. The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the proposed exception relates to a
small portion of the roofline adjacent to the Page Mill Court building, the design of the roofline and
building facade is consistent with the Page Mill Court project along the shared property line, and the
setback and roofline provide adequate light, air and privacy to both projects.
s:\plan\pladiv\arb\page440.dee
EXCERPT of minutes of the Palo Alto Planning Commission
meeting of September 24, 1997.
The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, September 24, 1997 at 7 p.m.
in the Council Chambers with Chairman Schink presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Commissioners Bialson, Byrd, Cassel, Ojakian, Schink and Schmidt
Commissioner Beecham
StaffPresent:Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Schink: This is the time on our agenda where we allow for oral communications. If
there is a member of the public who wishes to address us on an item which is not specifically
covered on the agenda, you have five minutes to speak. Seeing no one, I will close the Oral
Communications portion and go on to Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions.
AGENDA CHANGES~ ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
MOTION: Commissioner Bialson: I move that we bring forward Agenda Item 3, 675 E1 Camino
Real.
SECOND: By Commissioner Ojakian.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on
a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner Beecham absent.
It has become apparent that we will not have a quorum this evening to deal with this issue, so we
need to continue this item until October 29. Would someone like to make a motion to that effect?
MOTION: Commissioner Ojakian: I so move.
SECOND By Commissioner Bialson
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schi~: Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. All
opposed? That passes on a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner Beecham absent. Agenda Item 3 is
now continued.
1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 27.
A:IPCMins8 [PC 0924 .reg Page 3
09-24-97
425-435 SHERIDAN AVENUE (440 PAGE MILL ROAD): Review of an application
for a zone change to the Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow for the demolition of
an existing 26,000-square-foot laboratory building and construction of a 35-unit, three-
story condominium complex, subterranean parking garage and related site
improvements, with association coated design enhancement exceptions for minor
encroachments into the daylight planes and a subdivision map for 35 air rights
condominiums. Environmental Assessment: -A mitigated negative declaration has been
prepared. File Nos. 97-ARB-97, 97-ZC-8, 97-EIA-10.
Chairman Schink: Are there additional staff comments?
Mr. Lee: No comments at this time.
Chairman Schink: Our procedure is that we allow the applicant to begin with a 15-minute
presentation, and then members of the public are allowed five minutes each to address this
project. We then return to the applicant for closing comments. Would the applicant like to
introduce this item?
Serena Trachta,1002 Rhode Island Street, San Francisco: I am a principle in the Full Circle
Design Group, the architectural firm responsible for this submittal. I am representing the
developer, BK Palo Alto, which is a partnership between W. L. Buffer and J. David Knudsen. We
came before you one month ago to present this project of 35 two- and three-bedroom
condominium units at the site formerly used by the Linus Pauling Institute. Since we last saw
you, we have revisited the design of the elevations, and that is represented on the board on the
left. We have also submitted that set to the ARB, and had their feedback. We received very
positive feedback from the ARB, and they have obviously moved us forward, and asked us to
come back and talk with them during the construction document phase about some more
particular details. During our previous Planning Commission hearing, we received your feedback,
and we want to respond to a couple of the comments that were brought up the last time.
Commissioner Beecham brought up the sound wall issue, and asked us to work with the city
about the possibility of lowering the sound wall height from eight feet to six feet. We have been
unable to do that. It is a city policy and noise ordinance, and we are not able to change that
through a variance or through the PC process. The only alternative suggested to us was to
undergo a full EIR, which we are not really able to do with the schedule and the economic
constraints of the project. So we are willing to build the eight-foot wall. We will be working
with the ARB during the construction document phase to finalize the design and get their
approval on the details for the wall.
Commissioner Byrd requested that we revisit the number of units to see if we could get more
units, and reduce some of the bedroom count so that we could include some smaller units. We
have not been able to do that. When we first started the project, we talked with our client about
that possibility, and basically, they have been working with the city, as Well, in seeing what the
city had wanted. The city was encouraging us to include more 3- and 4-bedroom units for
A:lPCMins81PC0924.reg Page 5
09-24-97
families. We felt that the 2-bedroom unit was the smallest we wanted to go to for economic
feasibility. When people are going to spend a significant amount of money to buy a unit, often a
one-bedroom unit becomes too small too quickly. So we proceeded forward with a range of sizes
in our 2- and 3-bedroom units. Even though we were not able to accommodate that request, we
do feel like we are meeting some ofPalo Alto’s housing needs with the project by providing the
3 5 units.
Commissioner Cassel indicated concern about the trees, and wanted to see if we could move the
garage back on Sheridan in order to accommodate more space for the trees. We are also unable
to accommodate that request. With the configuration of the two lots, as they join together in their
staggered format, we are just locked in. It is a fairly utilitarian garage design, and we are not able
to accommodate any more space. We are working closely with Dave Docktor and our landscape
architect to ensure that the trees we do specify can work within the area that we have given.
We are still coordinating the irrigation particulars and the right-of-way dedication with the city,
and that is something that will be ongoing, I am sure, until we are at the permit stage.
In summary, we feel that the site is well suited for moderate- to high-density housing. We are
very excited about k. We have had such positive feedback on the project so far that we are
excited to just continue on through and get any more feedback that you have for us. Thank you.
Chairman Schink: Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time?
Commissioner Schmidt: Yes. Regarding the sound wall height, I wanted to know that ifyoia
could build a lower sound wall, would you do so? If it could be seven feet high?
Ms. Trachta: Absolutely. My initial position on the project was that we were trying very hard to
eliminate the sound wall altogether. We wanted a very strong street relationship, but Palo Alto
does have outdoor noise control, and we would take it down in a minute.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would like to ask stafffor a clarification. In reading the sound analysis,
the Environmental Noise Study prepared by Alan T. Rosen, it says that for the project currently, a
7-foot wall would be acceptable. Is that correct? And the 8-foot wall would only be required
when the roadway is widened?
Mr. Lee: That is correct.
Ms. Grote: The reason why we attached the mitigation for the 8-foot wall is that the project does
presume that that roadway will be built. All other aspects of the project were designed around the
roadway being constructed. The applicant offered 10 feet of right-of-way as a public benefit with
the assumption that it will be built, .so it would not be consistent to assume that for purposes of
the sound wall and noise attenuation that the road would not be built. We have assumed
consistently throughout the project review and analysis that it will be built. That impacts the
A:[PCMins8]PC0924.reg Page 6
09-24-97
benefits of giving the land for future widening of Page Mill Road.
public benefit package for that ten-foot dedication.
It was an integral part of their
Commissioner Schmidt: And in any case, it would be outside of their wall, so it is dedicated
property anyway. It is not something they are using.
Ms. Grote: That is correct. The 10-foot dedication is not something they would be using. It will
be landscaped in the interim until such time as the road is actually widened, but it is not something
that the project is dependent upon.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you.
Commissioner Byrd: I cannot remember if, at the last meeting, we asked and you ventured a
guess as to what the expected sales price for the units might be.
Ms. Trachta: You did ask, and basically what we are looking at now, and obviously it is based on
the current market, and we do not know what the market is going to do by the time this hits it, we
are looking at approximately $300 per square foot. Most of the units are around 1,500 square
feet. So it would be $450,000 per unit.
Commissioner Byrd: Even though some are 2- bedrooms and some 3-bedrooms?
Ms. Trachta: It will be based on $300 per square foot. We have some 1,200-square-foot units,
which will be less. We have some 1,800-square-foot units, and those will be more. Basically,
there will be a range within the project, because the way we see it, the units on Sheridan are some
of our larger units, and they will be a little quieter, a little bit bigger, a little more expensive. We
have some units on Page Mill, and there will be a different person looking at that urban experience
on that roadway. Those are a little bit smaller, and will be selling for slightly less.
Chairman Schink: Thank you.
Clarice Arnr,..410 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto: I live right across the street from the proposed
complex. After reading through this, I see that issues I was going to bring up have already been
decided upon, so I don’t think they are applicable anymore.
Chairman Schink: I am not sure that any issues have truly been decided. You should probably
tell us what is on your mind.
Ms.Arnr: Thank you. I purchased my condo in June of this year. Before I made my decision, I
went to the planning department to look at the blueprints of the proposed project. According to
the blue prints, only about 7 to 10 of the trees were going to be removed. I am here this evening
to ask the Planning Commission to keep the same number of trees surrounding the complex, as
originally proposed. There is one tree, in particular, that I would like to see remain, and that is
A:lPCMins8[PC0924.reg Page 7
09-24-97
the large pine tree. This pine tree adds much brilliance to the neighborhood, and the view from
my condo is very much enhanced by this stunning specimen. I am sure that the new tenants in the
proposed building would also find that this tree would add much beauty to their view. I ask you
to stay with the first plan and keep as many trees as possible. Thank you.
David Duncan, 345 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto: I am also a neighbor. I want to reiterate that it
is not necessary that several of the large trees on the lot be killed. I appreciate the developer’s
moving the large palm tree and preserving the elm tree. I would also appreciate it if the developer
would agree to preserve either, or both the eucalyptus tree and the fig tree that are there. Lastly, I
would also like to echo the other speaker and ask the commission to please require that the
garage be changed such that the aleppo pine can be spared. If the garage is either movedback or
is dug deeper instead of wider, the pine will not need to be destroyed. I wanted to note that the
condo complex that is being built down the street on Sheridan Avenue is a two-level garage. It
can be dug deeper in that area, as far as I know. In case anyone is not familiar with the tree or is
not familiar with the fig tree, I have a picture which I would like to give to you. That is all I
would like to say this evening.
Chairman Schink: Thank you. The applicant now has five minutes to make any closing
comments you wish.
Ms. Trachta: I will be very brief. I know that we had a lot of these issues brought up at the last
hearing, and I would like to touch on a couple of them. Just to reiterate, the aleppo pine is
unfortunately going to die with our proposal. It is not possible or feasible for us to go to a two-
story garage. There is an underlying channel of polluted water running about 22 feet below our
site. Our garage is going to excavate down to 13 feet. If we added another story, we would be
dangerously close to that waste line running under our site. We need to stay completely away
from that.
The other issue is that the tree is 70 years old, and its projected life span is approximately ten
more years. So although it is a huge sacrifice to the neighborhood, we feel that the longevity of
the housing and the units are going to have to take precedence over that. The fig tree was
brought up to me at the last hearing, as well, and we are looking into the possibility of
transplanting that fig tree possibly to the neighboring site. The woman who owns the neighboring
property might be interested in having some fruit trees. We cannot make any promises, but we
are talking about it. We do intend to plant fruit trees on our property, as well, in the back yards,
alfhough they would not be accessible to the public. We do have trees proposed for both
Sheridan and Page Mill.
Chairman Schink: At this time, I will dose the public hearing and return this item to the
commission. Are there any questions for staff?. I have one question. Maybe staff could clarify
the legal constraints that we are under as far as the height of the sound wall, so that we cannot
make exceptions to this requirement without doing an environmental impact report.
A:[PCMins8[PC0924.reg Page 8
09-24-97
Mr. Lee: Yes, it is my understanding that the city’s noise standard, as specified in the
Comprehensive Plan, specifies a maximum 65 ldn for outdoor noise areas. The patios for those
units would be usable outdoor areas. Although there would only be a one decibel saving with that
extra foot of wall, the city is faced with meeting that standard. Although the one decibel is not a
perceptible difference, the standard is, in fact, 65 db, and if we were not able to meet that 65 db
standard, we would, in fact, have a significant environmental impact, and the project would not be
able to go forward without an environmental impact report.
Ms. Cauble: IfI could amplify briefly on that (and it is something that planning staffand I talked
about again today since we know it is an important issue for the commission and for the
applicant), CEQA provides that one of the criteria for determining significance is whether a
project would conflict with adopted environmental goals and policies. So in deciding whether or
not an impact is significant, even though we can look at it and say, one db does not seem like a
big deal, and people generally say it is not a perceptible difference to the listener, as Chandler
indicated, the standard is the standard. CEQA tells us that when we cannot conform to our
adopted environmental policies, we have a significant impact. I think this problem is exactly why
this commission spent so much time on the noise standards in the Comprehensive Plan when you
reviewed and proposed a new plan, because you wanted to be sure we could achieve all of our
goals within some reasonable constraints.
I would also mention that this project does involve a subdivision, as well. Under the state
Subdivision Map Act, it is mandatory that a subdivision conform to the general plan, in our case,
the Comprehensive Plan. So unfortunately, we have a CEQA issue and a subdivision
conformance issue here.
Commissioner Schmidt: Do we have any idea when the widening of Page Mill Road might occur
at that location, so that this dedicated area would be used and we would have greater sound
levels?
Mr. Schreiber: We really do not. There is no time schedule, no programming going on for those
particular improvements. I would hope it would be sometime within th~ next 10 to 15 years, but
a lot of that timing can depend upon federal money and grants, that type of thing, that could go
toward the project. Right now, we do not have anything in the pipeline for that.
Commissioner Schmidt: Do we have any idea when the noise ordinance might be updated?
Mr. Schreiber: It will be one of many items coming out of the new Comprehensive Plan, one of
the many implementation tasks. I would say that at this point in time, it is within the next five
years.
Ms. Cauble: As I understand it (and staff, correct me ifI am wrong), the issue here is not the
noise ordinance, it is the Comprehensive Plan. We have different noise standards in each that
apply in difference ways. With this particular project, it is not a problem with our noise
A:[PCMins81PC0924.reg Page 9
09-24-97
ordinance. It is the Comprehensive Plan itself So it is possible, depending upon what the council
does with the Comprehensive Plan update, that those standards would be changed in a way that
might have caused this project to be addressed differently. So it is not an ordinance issue, it is a
Comprehensive Plan issue in this particular case.
Commissioner Schmidt: So if the updated Comprehensive Plan is approved within the next
several months, and it says, we would like to have flexibility for multiple-family projects close to
transit corridors, could that impact this project?
Ms. Cauble: I think it is possible. We.certainly could not reach a conclusion now, and Ken may
have some additional comments, but since it is a Comprehensive Plan issue that is leading to the
conclusion of environmental significance, if the Comprehensive Plan were to change in a way that
would find that this project meets the new Comprehensive Plan standards and if the project were
at a stage of construction where the sound wall was not yet complete and they were not yet ready
for their occupancy permit (and I think the sound wall needs to be done before that point), that
would be our typical way of conditioning it. In theory, at least, it would be possible for the
applicant to come back and request an amendment to the project approvals to reduce the height of
the sound wall. Then staff would do an environmental analysis, looking at the plan, so it is
theoretically possible. Obviously, it will not help the applicant if this occurs too far down the
road.
Mr. Schreiber: To be a little more specific, as the commission is aware, the council last night
began its review of the Comprehensive Plan with a very good and thoughtful Planning
Commission presentation. The public hearings are next week, and then, the council will move
perhaps next week, or definitely by November, into consideration of the various elements of the
Comprehensive Plan and the commission recommendations. I think it is reasonably possible that
the Comprehensive Plan will receive final adoption by sometime in the first two months of 1998.
If the new Comprehensive Plan does have different noise standards, as is quite possible, and those
standards would allow for a seven-foot wall rather than eight, for example, we can give careful
consideration to the idea of a minor Planned Community change to reduce the height of the wall,
if that would still mean that the lower wall were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We
would certainly encourage the applicant to keep in touch with us. We will also try to be sensitive
to the issue. That does not promise that anything is going to happen, but it is the best we can do
tonight in recognizing the concern of some commissioners and staffs concern that the wall should
’not be any higher than it absolutely has to be.
Chairman Schink: Ken, could the Planning Commission, in its actions tonight, recommend that
the wall be seven feet, for example, if there is a future change in the Comprehensive Plan that
would make that allowable from a policy perspective so that they would not have to come back
through the public review process again, and simply do it administratively?
Ms. Cauble: You can certainly express your comments on the sound wall and what your
"druthers" would be, but you need to make findings that this project, both from a PC perspective
A:[PCMins8[PC0924.reg Page 10
09-24-97
and from a subdivision perspective, is consistent with the plan. A project that says, maybe you
build a sound wail to eight feet or maybe you don’t, you are not really grappling with the issue,
which is to find that the project is consistent with the plan as it exists today. As Ken indicated, it
might be possible to revise it later. It certainly would have to go through the review process,
because the negative declaration is very specific as to what the mitigation measures are. If the
consensus of the commission is some wishful thinking that the sound wall could be lower, one
thing that I think planning staff and I should do before this goes to the City Council is to take
another look at the PC ordinance to make sure that there is a reasonable process available to at
least put an amendment on the table later, should circumstances warrant. Ken had indicated an
inclination that a minor amendment process might be more appropriate if the plan changes and if
the applicant wanted to have the city consider a change. We might want to tweak the language in
the ordinance to ensure that a focused review process would be available, rather than a major
rezoning.
Mr. Schreiber: Yes, the minor process that I am referring to would not involve Planning
Commission or City Council review. It may involve Architecturai Review Board approvai, and it
could also be a staff approval. We can certainly look at the wording to try and facilitate that
process, if and when it would be possible to do it.
Chairman Schink: Thank you. Any other questions?
Commissioner Schmidt: We had the discussion that right now, ail that is required to meet the
Comprehensive Plan regulations is a seven-foot-high sound wail, but the eight-foot height is
predicated on the idea that Page Mill will be widened. Because Page Mill is the width that it is
now, can we say that a seven-foot-high sound wail is enough?
Ms. Cauble: I have thought about that, and went back and looked at the report this afternoon
when that question was raised. I talked to Lisa about it, and the issue here, unfortunately for the
applicant, is to get their zoning approved; they offered to the city this very significant public
benefit of additionai right-of-way, which is a great thing for us and clearly made the project meet
the public benefit standard, at least from staff’s perspective (it is up to you and the council to
decide that), but that means that the project, for CEQA purposes, essentiaily includes a road
widening. I don’t know that we could piecemeai it and pretend that it didn’t. Lisa articulated it
very well earlier. We have to look at what we have before us, and what we have is a project that
assumes road widening. CEQA requires us to look at the entire project, and the project is condos
today, road widening tomorrow. CEQA says you cannot put your blinders on as to that which is
going to come. Staffwould not have recommended it as a public benefit if staff did not fully
expect the road widening to occur. It is not a case of someone giving us a parcel that we may or
may not use some day. This relates to some reai improvements that we expect to happen. So
unfortunately, I became very convinced, after taiking it over with Lisa, that staff analyzed it
correctly and that because we anticipate that, and the project assumes it, we need to mitigate the
impacts of that.
A:lPCMins81PC0924.reg Page 11
09-24-97
Commissioner Ojakian: There are two other issues that were brought up in regard to this project,-
so there should be a little discussion on them. The first one is for staff. The city arborist has
looked at the landscaping plan for this particular project and is comfortable with the fact that the
trees that need to be removed must be removed, and that we are replacing those with a sufficient
amount of trees. Is that correct?
Mr. Lee: That is correct. Staffhas done everything possible to try and make the building
footprint accommodate as many of the existing trees as we can. The city arborist and planning
staffhave been out there several times, trying to tweak the plan as much as we could. We feel
that we have the best possible combination of building footprint and preservation of existing trees.
Commissioner Ojakian: I also wanted to make sure that the public understands that, because we
used our own city arborist in looking at this, and it was done independently of the project
applicant’s opinion about what should be saved.
Mr. Lee: Yes, it was an independent analysis conducted by the city.
Commissioner Ojakian: My other point is the one that Owen articulated the last time. I sort of
alluded to it a little more indirectly. I would be interested in hearing staffs comments on the
number of units in this project, especially in light of some of the comments coming out of people
like Council Member Anderson who would like to see more density in some of the housing
projects that we have going in.
Mr. Lee: If you look at what the zoning would normally allow on that site, the project comes
very close to the maximum density. The applicant is requesting a PC zone change so that
theoretically, they could go higher than that, but it is certainly consistent with what is envisioned
for that neighborhood, based on the residential zoning. It certainly is possible to get more units in
there, as Serena mentioned, but staff feels that the mix that is being proposed is that which is
necessary in order to provide for the other public benefits in the package and in order to provide
the BMR units which will be offered at quite a deep discount, compared to the market rate.
Commissioner Ojakian: Chandler, how does this compare with some of the other housing
projects that are in that area? We have several others that are adjacent to this site nearby.
Ms. Grote: It actually falls within the range of what has been appr~3ved on an average in the area.
There certainly are projects that have a higher density, but then there are those that have a much
lower density, such as the disabled housing project right next door, which is at a lower density.
However, across the street on Sheridan, there are higher density projects, so it is within the range.
Chairman Schink: If that completes the questions for staff, let’s begin the discussion.
MOTION: Commissioner Bialson: I would move that we approve this project with the mitigated
negative declaration, and find that the project will not result in any significant environmental
A: [PCMins8 [PC 0924 .reg Page 12
09-24-97
impacts, and also approve the project for the construction of the 3 5-unit, three-story
condominium complex.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
Commissioner Byrd: I said last time, and I agree this time, that this is a welcome project in this
community. Condo housing adds the sort of housing we need. I continue to remain concerned
about the mix of unit type and the sales price, understanding completely that it is market driven.
It could go up, it could go down. Frankly, I do not understand from the developer’s perspective
why including some 900- or 1,000- or. 1,100-square foot, one-bedroom condos would not actually
spread your risk somewhat and help your pro forma. I think that there was room on the site in the
site plan to accommodate that need. It has not been accommodated, and that does not mean that
I will vote against this project, but I certainly hope that if the mix of interests represented by this
applicant come back and do more work in town, that there is a greater sensitivity paid to our need
for a range of housing in our community. We welcome what you are doing. We just need a little
more at the lower end of the market, as well.
Commissioner Schmidt: I like this project, and I am happy to see the housing, and I am happy to
see it close to our second downtown area, the California Avenue area. The last time, Vic noted
compliments to the architect and the applicant for really trying to learn about the community, to
understand what is going on, and do a very thoughtful job of designing the project.
I am disturbed that we have to create 8-foot sound walls in front of residential properties. In the
recommendations that we made last night at council about the updated Comprehensive Plan, there
were many areas where we are trying to make the streets more people-friendly. We are trying to
make facades more alive. If we put eight-foot sound walls in front of many fagades, we are not
going to be doing this. I would encourage the applicant to watch for any approvals of the
Comprehensive Plan and to indeed come back and talk with planning staffto see if there can be
some modification made, even down to six feet, hopefully. Again, I hate to see these high walls
which we must then cover up with ivy to make the walls less unattractive. That is unfortunately
the way it is now, but hopefully, it will change soon.
Commissioner Ojakian: I will support the motion and the comments of Commissioners Byrd and
Schmidt have just made. They both made very important comments. The one thing I did want to
say back to some of the people in the public is that I think we have a good city arborist. We take
care in our projects about dealing with the trees in the area. If, for some reason, the project does
not work out in terms of the way we are dealing with the landscaping, I think those people who
live in the area should let us know that, so that we take care with projects and make sure that they
do happen that way and make sure that this one works out well. Other than that, I am very
comfortable with the project and will support it.
Commissioner Cassel.: One of the painful parts of new projects is the loss of trees that are there,
and the rawness with which the new unit looks when we first put it up. No matter what we do,
A:lPCMins8[PC0924.reg Page 13
09-24-97
no matter how attractive the building, the trees are not yet there and the landscaping is not in, and
we feel hurt and caught until those trees come back and the landscaping is in. We need the 35
units, too.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those
in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner Beecham
absent.
A:[PCMins8[PC0924.reg Page 14
09-24-97