Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-24 City Council (23)TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: June 24, 1996 CMR:321:96 2700 Ash Street: Application to rezone a property from RM-40 High Density Multiple-Family Residence District to Planned Community (PC) District to construct a two-story, 18,684 square- foot, 24-unit residential project for very low-income and developmentally-disabled persons (File Nos: 96-ZC-1, 96-ARB-11, 96-V-3, 96-EIA-3) The subject application is a request for rezoning of property from RM-40 to Planned CommuniOy (PC) District for development of a 18,684 square-foot, 24-unit multiple-family residences for very low-income and developmentally-disabled persons. The ’request includes an application for variances from the minimum street side setback requirements of Chapter 20.08 of the PAMC and the maximum fence height limit of Section 16.24.020 of the PAMC. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and staff recommend that the City Council approve the application, including the following: Approval of the attached negative declaration (96-EIA-1), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts if certain conditions of project approval are imposed (Attachment #6); Approval of the variances allowing for a 15-foot street side setback along Ash Street where special setbacks of 10 feet and 35 feet are normally required and a 10- to 14- foot high stepped noise wall adjacent to the Page Mill Road property line to exceed the 7-foot high fence height limit (Attachment #3); CMR:321:96 Page 1 of 8 0 o Adoption of the attached ordinance, including findings and conditions, rezoning the property at 2700 Ash Street from RM-40 (High Density Multiple-Family Residence District) to PC (Planned Community District), allowing the development of the two- story, 18,684 square-foot, 24-unit residential project for very low-income and developmentally-disabled persons (Attachment # 1); and Approval of the attached ARB findings (Attachment #3) and conditions of project approval (Attachment # 1A). POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan Compliance The proposed project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which designates the site for Multiple-family Residential use. The site is well suited for a multiple-family residential development for very low-income and developmentally disabled adults, as the site is in proximity to public transit, many services and job opportunities, and surrounded by existing multiple-family residences. A summary of the policy issues that were addressed and reviewed by the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board is provided as follows: The project is consistent with Policy #3 of the Housing Element, "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods especial!y desirable," in that this project would be in a unique neighborhood with a mix of multiple-family residences and commercial activity as the site is in proximity to the California Avenue Business District, which offers many services and amenities, including public transportation. A new project in this area should be designed to enhance the desirable qualities of the neighborhood. The project is consistent with Policy #6 of the Housing Element, "Maintain at least the present number of multiple-family rental units while working to increase the overall supply of rental housing," in that this project would add 24 new rental units to the City’s housing supply. The project is consistent with policy #7 of the Housing Element, "Encourage and foster the development of new and existing housing units affordable to the low, moderate, and middle-income households, especially those households with children, ", in that all of the proposed units (24 total) would be affordable units for low-income households. The project is consistent with Policy #11 and #12 of the Housing Element, "Encourage and participate in low- and moderate-income housing programs financed by local and other levels of government, " and "Encourage innovative housing CMR:321:96 Page 2 of 8 o o o o financing techniques to make more housing affordable," as this project will be funded by the federal government (HUD), municipal monies (Palo Alto’s housing reserve funds), and a nonprofit housing organization (the applicant). The project is consistent with Policy # 15 of the Housing Element, "Work towards the elimination of discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, age, sex, marital status, or physical handicap, and other barriers that prevent choice in housing," in that the project is specifically proposed for developmentally disabled adults aged 18 years and over, with awide range of physical disabilities. The project is consistent with the objective on page 42 of the Urban Design Element, "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 Residence, and with the exception of the potential noise impacts related to the Page Mill Road frontage, the site is well suited for a multiple-family residential project which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A noise barrier along Page Mill Road will mitigate negative potential adverse environmental impacts. The proposed project is a far more attractive and better use of the land at a comer location than the current parking lot. The project is consistent with the objective on page 42 of the Urban Design Element, "Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety, and considerate of each other," in that the proposed development adds a project with architectural character, provides human-scale elements at pedestrian level, and utilizes high quality materials. The project would replace a parking lot and add several buildings in a clustered arrangement which complements the surrounding neighborhood. The project is consistent the objective on page 42 of the Urban Design Element, "Encourage the maintenance of trees andplanting of new trees, "and Policy #3 of the Urban Design Element, "Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting, landscaped areas and removal of visually disruptive elements of major City streets," in that the proposed project includes the planting of trees and landscape in the private property setbacks and within the site interior. Standard City conditions also require additional trees be planted in the public sidewalk landscape strip. The proposed project will contribute a more aesthetically pleasing streetscape than exists as a paved parking lot with cyclone fencing surrounding the parcel. The project is consistent with Policy # 11 of the Noise Element, "Ensure compliance with existing noise laws and protection of residents from unnecessary noise," and Program #35 of the Noise Element, "Analyze noise impacts of new projects, " and CMR:321:96 Page 3 of 8 Program #37 of the Noise Element, "Construct noise barriers where the noise impact can be significantly’reduced," in that the project is required to include design mitigation which will reduce noise impacts generated from Page Mill Road by constructing a sound wall near the eastern property boundary and dense landscaping installed in the setback up to the sound wall. Other construction related measures will also be incorporated into the project’s building design to mitigate noise impacts on site. 10.The project is consistent with Policy # 11 of the Environmental Resources Element, "Ensure compliance with existing noise laws and protection of residents from unnecessary noise," in that the project is conditioned to ensure reduction of construction and demolition activity noise impacts to the surrounding public. Mitigation measures described above are intended to protect future residents from the impacts of noise from Page Mill Road. Standards for Architectural Review The design and architecture of the project has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and staff for compliance with Standards for Architectural Review (Section 16.48.120 of the PAMC). A summary of the project’s compliance with these standards is presented in Attachment #3. As modified by recommended conditions of approval, the project complies with these standards. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Description and Proposed Public Benefit In summary, the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition (MPHC) proposes the development of an 18,684 square-foot, 24-unit multiple-family residential housing development specifically designed for developmentally disabled adults. The project is configured in clusters with three separate residential buildings and a community building on a .75 acre site fronting Sheridan Avenue at Ash Street, and includes 10 on-site parking spaces. The project proposes a rezoning of the site from RM-40 (High Density Multiple-Family Residential) District to PC (Planned Community) District. The primary public benefit proposed by the project sponsor is the proposed permitted use of a multiple-family residential facility for developmentally-disabled persons, with supportive living services. The rezoning request is accompanied by variance requests. The variances would permit a reduction in the required street side setback along the entire frontage on Ash Street and allow the noise wall adjacent to Page Mill Road to exceed the 7-foot fence height limit. A detailed project and public benefit description and analysis of the pertinent issues is contained on pages 2 to 3 and 8 to 15 in the attached Planning Commission staff report of May 29, 1996 (Attachment #7) and in the written statement provided by the project sponsor (Attachment #4). CMR:321:96 Page 4 of 8 The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. Given that the project proposes a rezoning to the PC District from the current RM-40 District, the following table presents a comparison of the proposal with the current development regulations. Floor Area (sq. ft.) Floor Area Ratio Maximum Height Lot Coverage Parking Setbacks - Sheridan Avenue - Page Mill Road - Ash Street - Interior (south) # of Dwelling Units Common Open Space 18,684 .57:1 27.5’ 28% 10 on-site spaces 10’ 25’ 15’ 10’ 24 units 18,750 sq. ft. or 57% n/a n/a 50’ n/a 43 on-site spaces 10’ rda 35’ and I0’* n/a 10-25 Units n/a 32,798 1:1 35’ 45% 43 on-site spaces 15’ 25’* 3"5’ and 10’* 10’ 29 units 20% *Special setback map requirement Summary_ of Planning Commission Review On May 29, 1996, the Planning Commission voted (6 ayes, 0 noes, Commissioner Carraseo absent) to support the staffrecommendations to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve the PC district zone change, and approve the variances for a 15-foot street side setback along Ash Street and a 10- to 14-foot-high stepped noise wall adjacent to the Page Mill property line. The Commissioners found the project will add diversity to the City’s hous!ng stock, that the project is appropriately sited, well des.igned, and an attractive development that would be an asset to the community. In addition, the Commissioners expressed support for the parking proposal of 10 parking spaces, particularly because there is no evidence of a parking problem in the nearby vicinity of the site and that the project users tend not to drive and own automobiles. The Planning Commission supported the proposed permitted use of multiple-family residential with supportive living services as a public benefitand supported the project conditions presented in the drat~ PC Ordinance (Attachment # 1) and in the Standard Conditions for Project Approval (Attachment #1A). Condition #40 of the Standard Conditions of Project Approval, which addresses the requirement for a Certificate of Compliance to merge the underlying lot lines, was moved in sequence from Prior to Finalization to Prior to Issuance of Building Permit, thus becoming condition #22. Other than applicant comments, no public testimony was provided at the CMR:321:96 Page 5 of 8 meeting. The Planning Commission meeting minutes are included as Attachment #8 to this staff report. AL~T~RNATIVES The property is currently zoned RM-40 which permits variety of residential unit types, design and density alternatives. Alternatives that can be considered include the following: Recommend modifications to the subject proposal. Recommend a higher density residential project. Recommend denial of the project. FISCAL IMPACT Through federal and local sources, the City will participate in funding of the project, if approved. As of February 1996, the estimated total development cost is about $3.2 million, including land costs. The development budget is broken down into the following major categories: Land Hard Construction Costs Architecture & Engineering Other Soft Costs Contingency Developer Fee TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $1,100,000 1,726,000 180,000 118,500 50,000 60.000 $3,234,500 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition (MPHC) holds an option to purchase the site from the Santa Clara County Road and Airport Division, with the purchase price based on the site’s fair market, appraised value. Since the site was originally purchased with County Road Fund monies, the sales proceeds must be returned to the Road Fund. Although the County would not discount the purchase price, MPHC was able to negotiate favorable option terms. MPHC must Complete the site acquisition by August 1996. About two-thirds of the total development cost is expected to be funded directly by the HUD Section 811 Capital Grant that has been awarded to MPHC; the remaining one-third will need to come from local sources. The HUD Section 811 program also provides the project with an annual operating expense subsidy, so that the residents’ monthly rent will be limited to 30 percent of their income. All of the residents are required to be very low-income by HUD regulations. MPHC applied to the City for CDBG and City Commercial Housing In- Lieu funds in the total amount of $711,000. MPHC has also applied to Santa Clara County CMR:321:96 Page 6 of 8 and the cities of Sunnyvale, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills for CDBG funds. Budget appropriations were approved by each jurisdiction in May 1996, with funds available in fiscal year 1996-97. A funding and loan agreement for the City’s CDBG and Housing In-Lieu funds is tentatively scheduled for Council action in early August. The following is the anticipated breakdown of funding sources for the development budget: SOURCES OF DEVELOPMENT FUNDS: HUD Section 811 Capital Grant City of Palo Alto (ftmds under contract) City of Palo Alto (approved): [CDBG [Commercial Housing In-Lieu County of Santa Clara (CDBG approved) City of Sunnyvale (CDBG approved) City of Los Altos (CDBG approved) City of Los Altos Hills (CDBG applied for) Peninsula West Valley Realtors Grant (awarded) TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS: 411,0001 300,000] $2,i39,500 45,000 711,000 188,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 1,000 $3,234,500 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and is provided as Attachment #6. Potentially significant impacts associated with project development can be mitigated to levels of insignificance. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL After City Council approval, the City Council will review for approval the funding agreement to acquire the site and appropriate the money through a budget amendment ordinance. The applicant will then develop construction drawings and apply for building permits while implementing all conditions of approval at appropriate times. ATTACHMENTS Attachment # 1: Attachment # 1A: Attachment #2: Attachment #3: Attachment #4: Attachment #5: Attachment #6: Attachment #7: Planned Community Ordinance with Findings and Conditions Conditions of Project Approval Findings for Variance Request (96-V-3) Findings for Architectural Review Approval Project Description and Public Benefit Statement submitted by the Project Sponsor Location Map Environmental Assessment, #96-EIA-3, Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Commission StaffReport, May 29, 1996 (without attachments) CMR:321:96 Page 7 of 8 Attachment #8: Attachment #9: Attachment # 10: Attachment # 11: Attachment # 12: Attachment # 13: Attachment # 14: Attachment # 15: Planning Commission Minutes, May 29, 1996 Architectural Review Board Verbatim Minutes, May 2, 1996 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes, April 10, 1996 Information Related to Parking Needs. and Other Project Data - HUD 811 Housing Project for Developmentally Disabled Persons Letter from Jon & Ruth Wiseman, May 22, 1996 Letter from Herbert Foster, April 22, 1996 Letter l~om The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, March 22, 1996 Letter from Harold C. Hohbach, December 29, 1995 Plans (City Council Members only) CC:Janet Stone, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, Applicant, 658 Bair Island Road, Suite 300, Redwood City, CA 94063 County of Santa Clara, c/o Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, Property Owner, 3331 North First Street, Building B, San Jose, CA 95134 Paul Bamhart, Bamhart Associates Architects, Inc., Project Architect, 375 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 PREPARED BY: Lorraine Weiss, Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: LEMING City Manager CMR:321:96 Page 8 of 8 Attachment 1 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 2700 ASH STREET FROM RM-40 TO PC The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. (a) The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held May 29, 1996, and the Architectural Review Board, upon consideration at its meeting of May 2, 1996, have recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth. (b) The City 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 2. 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 2700 Ash Street (the "subject property") from "RM-40 - High Density Multiple-Family Residence District" to "PC Planned Community." The subject property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the subject property that: (a) The site is so situated, and the uses 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 development which will provide housing for very low-income persons with developmental disabilities. Neither the current RM-40, High Density Multiple-Family Residence District, nor any other district consistent with the site’s Comprehensive Plan designation provide the flexibility to allow the proposed development, an 18,684 square-foot multiple-family project. The decreased parking requirement of i0 spaces and smaller units suitable to a low-income working person serves a greater number of persons needing this type of housing and will reduce the cost per unit, thus making the units affordable to persons with very low incomes. 960521 la~ 0080247 (b) The project will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of general districts or combining districts, as follows: (i) Housing for persons with very low income and who are developmentally disabled is a public need and considering the expense of housing in Palo Alto, this type of small, affordable unit for this specific user group is not being provided in the community by other projects. (ii) Application of the PC District in order to allow this housing project will result in leveraging of housing funds to serve the Palo Alto community, in that the type of project proposed will be eligible for federal and other funds which would not otherwise be made available for use in Palo Alto. (c) The uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity, in that the permitted use (i.e., multiple-family housing for persons with developmental disabilities) will have minimal traffic or noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The development project proposed to be constructed on the subject property will further the policies and .programs of the Housing Element by increasing the supply of rental housing, providing smaller, affordable units, providing housing which meets the special needs of individuals with disabilities and by taking advantage of financing available from other levels of government. (d) The parking and loading plan for the project, which includes ten (i0) vehicular parking spaces, is feasible and adequate given the restrictions on the permitted uses for the site, and justifies modification of the requirements of Chapter 18.83 with respectto number of parking spaces. Relevant data has been presented by the project applicant to support the modification, in that similar residential projects for developmentally disabled adults in the Bay Area were surveyed for parking demand, and it was found that on-site parking was utilized almost exclusively by staff, guests, and vehicles dropping off or picking up those tenants who need such assistance. Due to their developmental disabilities, residents of this project and other similar projects surveyed tend to utilize other means of transportation rather than their own automobiles. SECTION 4. Those certain plans entitled "Palo Alto Supportive Housing" prepared by Barnhart Associates Architects, dated January 31, 1996, and resubmitted and approved by the Architectural Review Board on May 2, 1996, copy on file in the Planning Division office, and to which copy reference is hereby 960521 lao 0080247 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 for very low income persons with developmental disabilities, as defined and required by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines, and accessory uses incidental thereto. At least one resident of each unit, other than one unit which may be occupied by an on-site project manager, shall be a very low income person age eighteen (18) orolder and having a developmental disability as defined by HUD. (b) permitted. Conditional Uses.No conditional uses shall be (c) Site Development Regulations. All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the approved Development Plan and the Conditions of Project Approval adopted by the City 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 require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone. (iii) Street trees shall be planted, at minimum 15- gallon size, along Sheridan Avenue frontage, Ash Street frontage and Page Mill road frontage. The species shall be Pyrus Calleryane ’Chanticleer’ and planted as follows: approximately 20 feet on center apart in a 5-foot deep landscape strip between the sidewalk and curb in the public right-of-way. Three street trees shall be 960521 la~ 0080247 3 planted along Sheridan Avenue, nine trees along Ash Street, and seven along Page Mill Road, unless otherwise determined by the City Arborist. (iv) A 3-foot deep right-of-way dedication of the Ash Street frontage to the City shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s.office prior to building permit sign-off and project occupancy. (v) Mitigation measures as recommended by the noise analysis conducted by Wilson, Ihrig and Associates, dated April 3, 1996 and amended on April 8, 1996, shall be incorporated into the project including the following: Construction of a noise wall, a~ least six feet in height, along the Page Mill Road portion of the site, five feet away from the perimeter of the circular-shaped exterior courtyard. The noise wall shall be fabricated of a combination of masonry blocks or pre-cast concrete panels upto a height of four feet, and optionally, out of solid, two-inch thick tongue and groove timber, with a minimum surface density of four pounds per square foot, for the remaining height of the wall. Alternatively, materials for the upper section could be 3/8 inch thick laminated glass or 1/2 inch thick lexan or plexiglass transparent glazing sheets. The noise wall shall be continuous and airtight, avoiding any openings that would otherwise degrade its acoustical shielding properties. .Exterior window assemblies with sufficient sound isolation characteristics shall be installed and proper building shell design, in compliance with Title 24 and the City of Palo Alto interior noise standards., shall be utilized. (Vi) A revised design for the trellises along Ash Street, with a maximum clearance of 8 feet from grade to bottom of trellis canopy beam, shall be submitted for approval by the Architectural Review Board. (vii) Hedges surrounding dwelling unit patios shall be no higher than 4 feet maximum. (viii) The project shall include art work, such as tile on the raised planter of the communal courtyard near the rear of the property, which is visible to occupants of the site and the public. The applicant shall consult with the Public Arts Commission regarding the project’s public art prior to issuance of any building permits for the project. Final recommendations regarding the art by the Public Arts Commission, and final review 960521 lao 0080247 and approval by the Architectural Review Board, are required prior to initial occupancy of the project. The art work shall be fully installed no later than twelve months from the date of initial occupancy of the project. (d) Parking and Loading Requirements. The parking governing the subject property shall be in accordance with the Development Plan. Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.68.110(d), the requirements of Chapter 18.83 are hereby modified for this project to allow reduction in the required number of vehicular parking spaces. The project will provide i0 on-site parking spaces. (e) Development Schedule Construction of the project shall commence on or before September I, 1997, and shall be completed and ready for occupancy on or before December i, 1998o (f) Mitigation Measures. All mitigation measures described in the Negative Declaration for the project shall be implemented as conditions of project approval. 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: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 960521 lao 0080247 5 2700 A~I~ ~tre~t Zone change from High Density Multiple- family Residential (RM-40) to Planned Community (PC) District. GM LM PC -2533 Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Scale: 1 inch = 400 FT l~ North ATTACHMENT #1A STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL 2700 ASH STREET File Nos.: 96-ZC-1, 96-XRB-11, 96-V-3, 96-EIA-3 Most of the conditions listed below are standard conditions. These conditions would normally be applied to the project as part of the final ARB approval process. However, given that the project proposes a zone change to the Planned Community District, which includes the normal ARB process, these conditions have been incorporated into this recommended action. Major and!or special conditions are proposed for incorporation into the PC Ordinance for this project. All mitigation measures identified in the mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Assessment are incorporated as conditions of project approval. The project plans shall be revised to comply with the required mitigations and return to the ARB for review and approval. Any changes to these plans, other than those provided in this review, must be reviewed by the Public Works Engineering Division. Prior to Issuance of a Grading 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 @ 1-800-642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit Utilities Electric This project requires a padmount transformer. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the landscape plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the ARB. Utilities Rule & Regulations #1-3 (B) (3), #17-A2 (4). All new electric service must be underground. Utilities Rule & Regulations # 19- G(1). PAPCSR~2700ASH.CON 6-24-96 Page 1 4.Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulations #19-G(2). 5.Location of electric panel switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the ARB and Utilities Department. 6.All electric substructures required from the service point to the switchgear shall be installed by the customer to City standards. Fire Department 7. Fire Sprinklers required per PAMC, Section 15.04.170(dd). Planning/Zoning The ARB approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features. o Detailed landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on - and - off- site plantable areas out to the curb must be submitted to and approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations 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 take into consideration all elements included on: 1) the City of Palo Alto Landscape Plan Checklist: and 2) the Water Conservation Guidelines. The plan shall include: a. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size and locations. b. Irrigation schedule and plan. c. Fence Locations d. Lighting plan with photometric data. e. A separate water service for irrigation is required. 10. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate application. 11.Approved color chips to match the colors specified in the building permit drawings shall be attached to the cover sheet of the building permit drawing set by the applicant. P:kPCSR~2700ASH.CON 6-24-96 Page 2 Public Works......En gineering 12.The sidewalk on the Ash Street frontage requires installation partially outside the City right-of-way, and a deed dedicating the additional right-of-way shall be required: The property owner shall dedicate to the City 3 feet deep of Ash Street right-of-way frontage prior to building permit issuance in a form acceptable to the City, and recordation of dedication must be at the Santa Clara County’s Recorder’s office. 13. 14. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including existing and proposed drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing 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. Sec. 16.28.270. The plan shall show the existing affected off-site storm drainage and provide calculations showing how this system will handle the proposed site run-off. This plan shall show spot elevations of existing and proposed grades showing how drainage patterns work. This plan should also incorporate the direct connection of site drainage to the City’s storm drain system. 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. 15o 16. 17. The applicant must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for a structure, awning, or other features left in the public fight- of-way, easement or on property in which the City holds an interest. This permit must be obtained prior to the placement of the encroaching feature. The sidewalk on the Sheridan Avenue and Ash Street frontage shall be replaced. An approved permit allowing the construction in the public street will need to be obtained for this work. P:~PCSRL2700ASH.CON 6-24-96 Page 3 18.A construction logistics plans 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 truck routes shall conform with the City ofPalo 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 will be required to submit a copy of a recent Preliminary Title Report to resolve discrepancies between the submitted plans and City records regarding the accurate location of private property frontage along Ash Street. 20.The application shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering prior to commencement of work for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.010. 21.A portion of the proposed work is within the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency right-of-way. A permit must be obtained from the agency. Evidence of permit approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 22.The applicant shall be required to combine the underlying lots into one parcel. If there are 4 or fewer underlying lots, a Certificate of Compliance may be used. If there are 5 or more lots, a tentative map process shall be used. Transportation 23.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 heigh requirements. Utilities Electric 24. 25. All utility meter, 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. The applicant shall dedicate a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed in private property located at 2700 Ash Street for City use prior to issuance of a building permit. P:\PCSRL2700ASH.CON 6-24-96 Page 4 Public Works Operations 26.Street trees shall be required 15-gallon size spaced at minimum 20-foot intervals along project frontage on. Sheridan Avenue, Ash Street and Page Mill Road. The trees shall be installed in 5-foot planter strips betweenthe street and sidewalk, per City standards. Species shall be Pyrus Calleyane ’Chanticleer’. as determined by the City Arborist. Newly planted street trees shall be planted in accordance with the Public Works Department’s Standard Tree Planting Specification and irrigated and maintained by the property owner. During Construction Building Inspection 27.To reduce dust levels, exposed earth surfaces shall 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. 28.All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. Utilities Rule & Regulation # 19-A(1). 29. 30. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling. Utilities Rule & Regulation #19-A(1). Contractors and develop’ers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. Police 31.All 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 regarding allowable construction times. Construction times for the project shall be limited as follows: 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM Saturday No construction allowed on Sundays PAPCSR~2700ASH.CON 6-24-96 Page 5 Public Works Engineering 32.The Contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.060. 33.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 34.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in al 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. (Federal Clean Water Act). 35.All construction within City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifidations of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Sec 12.08.060 Prior to Finalization Utilities Electric 36.The applicant shall install junction boxes as requited and for all cable runs exceeding 500 feet. Utilities Rule and Regulation #17-A(2). 37.The customer shall install a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the service lateral and the service entrance conductors. Utilities Rule & Regulation #17-A(2). 38.The applicant shall install a switch pad and box for the installation of the padmount switch. Utilities Rule & Regulation # 17-A(2). Planning/~ 39.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 P:\PCSRL2700ASH.CON 6-24-96 Page 6 irrigation has been tested for timing and function, and all plants including streets trees are healthy. Public Works Engineering 40.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be fmished prior to this sign-off. P:~PCSRL2700ASH.CON 6-24-96 Page 7 ATTACHMENT #2 VARIANCE FINDINGS 2,700 ASH STREET The following f’mdings for the Variance requests have been prepared by staff in support of the proposal. 15-foot street side setback along Ash Street frontage: There are exceptional or extraordinary conditions applicable to the property involved that do not generally apply to property in the same district in that the site is an irregularly shaped lot that is significantly smaller than others in the area and poses difficulty in designing the project to meet the normal setback requirements and other development regulations required for the site. Other properties have setbacks within 15 feet of Ash, and the pedestrian environment along Ash Street will benefit by building architecture closer to the sidewalk..The project also has frontage on Page Mill Road, a major 4-lane arterial and significant noise source. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship, in that this irregular L-shaped parcel, a partial 3 5-foot setback along Ash Street would not otherwise meet site development requirements including usable open spaces, parking and achieving Comprehensive Plan density, and would set the buildings back further than is desirable for a pedestrian-oriented area. Multiple family residential development for very low-income and developmentally disabled persons who will occupy the project would not otherwise have access to these units and the’ site facilities under the normal development regulations. The granting of the application 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 multiple-family residential development with a 1.5-foot street side setback will be compatible with and will not have visual impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. A setback further from the sidewalk would not be consistent with surrounding properties and would be less desirable. P:\PCSR\\2700ASH2.VAR 6-24-96 Page 1 10-foot to 14-foot high stepped sound wall There are exceptional or extraordinary conditions applicable to the property involved that do not generally apply to property in the same district in that the site is adjacent to a heavily trafficked expressway, Page Mill Road, and poses difficulty in designing the project to meet the normal noise requirements for a multiple-family residential development without a 10-foot to 14-foot high stepped setback. As recommended in the Noise Analysis, completed by Wilson and Ihrig on April 18, 1996, a noise wall at least 6 feet in height will reduce noise levels to be at or below the City ofPalo Alto’s goal of Ldn 60 decibels. The fence height of the ordinance would not meet the noise requirements. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or ,unnecessary hardship, in that this multiple family residential development has the fight to acceptable exterior noise levels and would not otherwise be able to comfortably reside on the site next to Page Mill Road without a sound wal!designed as proposed. 3..The granting of the application will not be detrimental 0r 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 multiple-family residential development with the sound wall as proposed is designed in a manner which will not have a visual impact on the neighborhood as the wall is stepped in height and meanders along the site rather than providing a straight edge along the site perimeter, and it will be planted with dense landscaping to obscure it. P:\PCSR\\2700ASH2.VAR 6-24-96 Page 2 ATTACHMENT #3 FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL 2700 ASH STREET The following findings for the Standards for Architectural Review have been prepared by staff in support of the proposal: The proposed project complies with the goals and purposes (Section 16.48.010) of the Architectural Review Board Ordinance, Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, in that: Orderly and harmonious development will result from approval of the project which has been designed to relate well to the various existing land uses surrounding the site. The project, will enhance the desirability of the area and encourage investment in the City in that, the project will result in the provision of 24 multiple-family dwelling units in a desirable area of Palo Alto, and is a better use of land than a vacant site used for overflow parking. Approval of the project encourages the attainment of the most desirable land use of the land and improvements in that the Comprehensive Plan. Developing the site for housing provides an appropriate use in an area predominately surrounded by residential properties. do Approval of the project enhances the desirability of living conditions on the site and in the adjacent areas, in that the project results in 24 new dwelling units and related site improvements which have been designed to fit the architectural style and character of the neighborhood and complement the surrounding residential developments. eo The project promotes visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other, in that the project results in improvements to the Sheridan Avenue, Ash Street and Page Mill Road frontages, and provides quality architecture and variety in the landscape plantings throughout the development. The design and architecture of the proposed project further the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it complies with the Standards for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code as follows: PAPCSR~2700ASHC.STA 6-24-96 Page 1 a.The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed in the "Policy" section page of the staff report dated May 29, 1996, pages 6-8 (Standard #al). bo The design with some modification as recommended would be compatible with the immediate environment of the site as the architectural building style respects the mixed architectural character of the nearby vicinity and neighborhood in that the 25’ high building will be a comfortable height in relation to the 20-foot tall building adjacent to the site and the three- and four-story buildings to the north and east of the site. In addition, the common open space is compatible with the amount of common open space provided on the multiple-family sites in the immediate area (Standard #a2). C°The design is appropriate to the function of the multiple-family residential project in that it would provide adequate public open space and private outdoor living area for each unit, adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation has been provided by locating the parking close to the Ash Street entrance and allowing for pedestrian access at the back edge of the parking area rather than through the middle of the parking area. The separation of the two functions allows for safe use of both the pedestrian and vehicular areas (Standard #a3). The area in which the project site is located has no unified design character or historical character, however, it is an emerging mixed-use, residential support area for the California Avenue retail district. It is within walking distance of a multi-modal transit station and pedestrian orientation is desirable. This project contributes to improving the pedestrian environment (Standard #a4). The project consists of one and two story structures and is designed to fit within the surrounding development which consists of a three-story multiple family residential project across Ash Street to the north, a 20-foot high research and development use (Linus Pauling Institute) to the south, and a four story multiple family structure across Sheridan Avenue to the west, therefore, the project promotes a harmonious transition in scale and character (Standard #a5). The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that the multiple-family residential development complements the scale of the existing adjacent residential and commercial buildings along Sheridan Avenue and E1 Camino Real (Standard #a6). g.The siting of the buildings, open space, on-site parking and circulation, landscaping with recommended modifications would create an internal sense of P:kPCSR~2700ASHC.STA 6-24-96 Page 2 order to the site providing a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community, as described and discussed on pages 11-14 of the May 29, I996 staff report (Standard #a7). The proposed amount of open space, both common (57% of the total site area) and private (5% of the total site area), are appropriate to the design and function of the project, in that the site plan and landscape plan assures that each dwelling unit is designed with adequate private yard area (Standard #a8). The smaller than usual private open space is adequately compensated for by the increased common open space. The user group will be better served by the greater amount of common open space rather than a typically-sized private area that a resident will not use. jo mo The common community building and courtyard for all residents of the project provide sufficient ancillary ftmctions, compatible with and supportive of the main function of the project’s design concept (Standard #a9). Access to the .property and circulation for both drivers and pedestrians with recommended modifications would be provided in a safe and convenient manner in that vehicular access is limited to one driveway off of Ash Street and pedestrian access is provided on Ash Street and Sheridan Avenue and pedestrian walkways are proposed throughout the development (Standard #al0). The area in which the project site is located has no existing natural features (Standard #al 1). The proposed landscaped plan and the applicant’s proposed use of natural materials, (mainly stucco, wood siding, wood rafter tails, wood eave brackets, wood railings and wood trellises, and composition shingled roofs) and colors (terra-cota and ochre base colors, and white painted wood details) are appropriate expressions to the design of the buildings and compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures (Standard #al 2). The proposed landscape design provides a desirable and functional environment and pleasant outdoor space and is appropriate to a multiple-family residential development in that the landscape scheme provides pleasant walkways and oPen space conducive to residential surroundings as well as additional street trees being an advantage to the pedestrian qualities along all 3 frontage streets (Standard #a13). P:\PCSR\2700ASHC.STA 6-24-96 Page 3 no The proposed plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site and can be properly maintained on the site and the plantings are appropriate for private outdoor space and public open space and includes a mix of trees, and flowering shrubs and groundcover suitable for this type of development (Standard #a14). o.The building design incorporates energy efficient features, such as dual glazing and insulation (Standard #al 5). P:~PCSRX2700ASHC.STA 6-24-96 Page 4 14:02 495 4998 ¯B.ARNHART ASSOC. BARNHART ASSOCIATES ARCH~THCTS In~orpor Attachment 4 February 1, 1996 Palo Alto Supportive Housing Sheridan Ave, at Ash Sizeet Development Program Statement for PC Zone Change a. Mid-Peninsula Housiixg Coalition (Mid-Peninsula) is plam~ing to construct a 24-unit residential dewlopment in Palo Alto for developmentally disabled adults wt~o are capable of independent living..The complex wiD consist of 24 one- an’d be, o-bedroom aparh~ent units, along with a separate commons buildh~g, outdoor spaces wl’dch facilitate socializing and recreation, and landscaping. One of the u~fits will be for an on-site manager. This supported housing project is designed to be an affordable housing option for persons 18 years of age and older with a wide range of developmental disabilities who wou.ld benefit from living in a home of their own. In addition, the housing will be able to accommodate developmentally disabled adults With physical disabilities, including those who are physically challenged, hearing impaired a~d/or visually’ impaired. Supportive living services will be made availab!e to residents, including some activities which will be offered on-site. This property wiil have a long-term use regulation associated with the residential project to be built. Mid-Peninsula, along with our co-sponsor (Adult Independence Development Center), has received a t-ILK) Section 811 capital advance, which will assist h~ construction of the project, and a HUD Section 811 operating assistance grant. The rental operating assistance will help keep the rents affordable for the low income residents who will live.in the development. 375 Fremont SIr c| San Francisco CA 9,1!05 Talo Alto Supportive Flous~ng Deve|opme~t Program Statement Febma~ l, 1~6 page 2 A 40-year reguJatory agreement with HUD will ensure that the project remains affordable and serves the target population for at least this period o£ time, even in the case that Mid-Pe~fins,~a de£au~ts and the housing is turned over to another provider. Mid-Pe~xiv,.~u]a’~ affiliate, Mid-Peninsula Housing Management Corporation, will provide management services. A PC District is needed for several reasons: 1) to provide sufficient flexibility in design in order to accommodate the needs of the population which will be served by this project; 2) in order ~o proyidea public benefit which would not otherwise be attainable by application of the regulation of general districts or combi~xing districts; and 3) in order to further the goals of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. These are ¢×plained in detail below. 1.) Provide Sufficient Flexibility in Design The site is so situated (with frontages on three streets with various setback reqtfirements) and the use proposed for the site is such that the application of general or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. Experience from other housing developments servh~g the developmentally disabled demonstrates that this population greatly benefits from an ’internalized’ plan which fosters social interaction and security by having apartment entries g-rouped around a courtyard, rather than indMdual entries facing ~he street. Designing a project for the developmentally disabled is thus somewhat unique from a standard apartment building, as follows: ¯ Internalized apartment access around a court enables residents to sodalize with each other and provide~ visual security monitoring. It also allows the resident manager to monitor visitor activity and intervene when any unwelcome strangers intrude on residents. * A single loaded building design is greatly preferred to an interior hallway (double loaded) design because research has shown that increased daylight in a person’s environment promotes physical and emotional well-being. This is especially critical for’this population. The dcsign contemplated for this project provides one and t~vo bedroom ’through units’ with glass at each end of the apartment so that kitcheru% dining area, living rooms and bedrooms cem all have windows and maximize sunlight exposure while still meeting rigid HUD and State energy restrictions. Since this is a population that essentially does not drive, ordy limited .. parking is needed. Further, as this will be all surface parking, due to financial constraints imposed by the funding source, any’ excess of parking spaces provided over what is needed would onl). take away critically needed open space from the project: To provide the needed flexibility, the following variances from the underlying zoning requirements would be needed. Support for each variance is given. Variance #1) Reduction to Parking Requirement : 10 on-site parking spaces where 43 spaces would normally be required. Finding a) Due to the special population of developmentally disabled tenants.for this Project, 43 spaces is not necessary. Most of the tenants wo~dd not drive and parking would be used largely by the staff on site, guests, and vehicles dropping off or pic -king up tenants who are travelling to off-site activities. Thus, the 10 proposed parking spaces is more than adequate for this Project. Similar residential projects for the developmentally disabled have been approved in other Bay £rea communities that provided ordy a small portion of the required parking per the regular zone districts. ¯Finding b) If the 43 vehicle parking requirement were enforced, approximately one-half of the 3/4 acre parcel would be devoted to a surface parking lot, or alternatively to an ttndcrground parking garage which this publicly funded project could not afford. The only way this project will work on this site ~r~d stilt be "affordable" is by granting this parking variance. Accqrding to HUD regulations, all jurisdictions must conduct an Analysis of Pa~. Alto Supportive Housing Development Pro~’arn Sta temen~ February I, 1996 page 4 Impediments (AI) to fair housing choice. HUD specifically states that building codes and zoning ordinances which require certain aanenities or setbacks may affect the feasibili~, of providing low-income housing development, and should be addressed.1 Finding c) The Project sponsor has submitted substa.ntiating data to demonstrate that the reduced parking request will be more than adequate to serve the Project, and will not in any way adversely effect surrounding properties. Varlartce #2) Setback: A 15 foot side st-feet setback along Ash Street where a 35 foot special setback’is normally requixed. Finding a) The 3/4 acre "L’ shaped site is fronted on tl’tr~.e sides by roads ( Page Mill, Ash, and Sheridan ) and aninterior property line on the fourtJ~ side. The irregular slxape of ~he parcel makes it difficult to develop, but is further complicated by the narrow 100 foot dimension along Sheridan Street. However, if the 35 foot setback along Ash were enforced, combined with the 10’ side setback along the South Property Line, the net developable lot dimension from North to South would be a 55 foot width. This dimension would impose severe li~rdtation~ on a creative site plan that would be. ultimately most beneficial to the residents and The Cotru~unity. Finding b) The special population of developmentally disabled adults greatly benefits from internalized open space in the form of a courtyard that has greater privacy, and ~at promotes socialization. The granting of this varianceenables the proposed courtyard site plan to be implemented tt~at" accomplishes these goals, rather than a double loaded corridor building that would be the only solution to fit in the narrow 55 foot site width. Finding c) Because the proposed design is only two stories in height, the 15- foot setback along Ash will be more than adequate to maintain a residential quality to the block that is compatible with the neighborhood. There will be no adverse affect to any surrounding properties by graf~ting this varia~.ce. 1p. 5.3 " " s ¢ .~’’ ,~si m- Analysis of Impediments to Fair [4uush\g Choice. Palo Alto Supportive l-lou~ing Development Program Statem~:nt February I, 1996 page 5 2.) Provide a t,~u~.blic Benefit Not Otherwise Attainable. A Plam~ed Community District is needed in order to provide supportive- living residentiKl housing for developmentally disabled persons on this site. This housing will provide opportunities for people with developmental disabilities to experience choice, control and individuality in all areas of their lives, espedally housing. They have the right to live in tl~eir own communities, and have access to all ti’~t society has to offer. This type of housing is a p~.~blic benefit, bofl~ because it provides critically-needed housing opportm~ities for the population ~t will sen, e, and because it will create a more diversified, .~upportive envirorurnent for all. With the underlying multifamily zo:~.ing for the site (RM-40), the parking requirements alone would make provision of this type of housing mffeasible. The HUD Capital Advance and Rental Assistance Program, which is the only subsidy that adequately funds this type of special needs low-intone housing, allows up to 24 units to be developed at one site. This number of units is also within the allowable density for tl~e site. Th.e cost of a parcel of land in PNo Alto that would be suitable for this type of development, combined with the cost of building and underground parking garage in order to provide the required parking for 24 units would render the project financially unfeasible. under HL’D financh~g. As noted above, federal regulation pertairdng to fair housing choice point out that building codes and zoning ordinance which req~dre certain amenities or setbacks may also affect the feasibility of providing low- and moderate-income housing. This may have the effect of violath’~g the provision of th~ Fair I Ioustng Act. Thus, development of the site under provision of the PC District will result in public benefits not otherwi.~e attainable by application of the regulatim~ of general districts or combining districts. 3,) ~Lur~he_r the Goals of the Comprehe~i.~.e Plan and~..0xnpatibility ,w.ith Both the use and the site development plan proposed for this PC Disb:ict are Consistent with the Palo Alto Coral: tehens~ve Plan. Palo Alto Supportive. Housing Development Pro~a m Sta ternen t February ], 1996 pa~e 6 The need for independent and supportive living situation that are accessible and affordable to persons with disabilities has been amply docmnented in the Consolidated Plan, as well a.4, in previous City CI{A$ reports. Furthermore, the Housing and Commurdty Development Strategic Plan (1995-2000) of the i995 Consolidated Plan lists this 24-trait new construction project as a planned activity, and both the current IIousing Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Draft 1995-2010 Housing Element hadicate in their land inventor), that the site prbposed for this housing project is targeted for residential development. Finally, ° the proposed use and site design are compatible with existing and potential uses within the general vici~xit), of the_ site. The land use designation for the site and for the immedia,~e vicinity is multifamily residential. Although the Linus Pauling Institute is on an adjoit~ing parcel, the Institute’s use permit was not extended a~.d will soon be expiring (the Iructitute’s relocation to Oregon at the end of "._996 was recently armounced in the newspaper). A two- or three story apartment complex would be compatible with surrounding uses, wlxich are three- to five- story residential complexes. b. List of AI.] Uses Proposed or Potentially to~ The only use proposed or potentially to be included within the PC District is use for residential rental housing facilitating independent living for developmentally disabled persons .1.8 y~ars of age and older. Households living in this housing must include a developmentally disabled adult, and must be very low-income to qualify. c. Desc.~ ription of the Nature of U~es Proposed and Characteristics of As described above, the use will be for residential housing for perso1~ with disabilities. This will NOT be a group home; residents will live in their own apartment units, similar to any other residents in rental apartment units. They will be free to come and go as they please, although there will be certain rules and restriction pertaining to use of the unit, guests, mad other behavior, that are similar to those rules and regulation imposed upon other tenants in rental -properties. t°alo Alto Suppor~ve Hous~g Development Program Statement February 1; 1996 page 7 There will be a mzmager on site, in order to provide additional sec~u:~ty fob tenants a.nd to help residents with problems they may have. In e.ddition, there will be a supportive living service provider who will be on-site during the weekdays, in order to direct tenants toward appropriate social services or to provide on-site training. The commons building will be designated for ~L~e by residents. It will accomodate relaxation activities, socializing by residents, occasional gatherings involving residents and their families, and classes (such as computer education, support groups). There will be no uses allowed on the property which would be different from activities normally allowed at other multifamily residential p.roperties. .. MEMORANDUM DATE: February 22, 1996 BARNHAR f ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS Incorporated PROJECT: Page Mill Court Paul Barnhart A.I.A. TO:Lorraine Weiss, Planner FROM:Paul Barnhart JOB #:9518 VIA:Fax SUBJECT: Project Development Schedule KEY DATES Planning Commission Hearing March 27, 1996 Architectural Review Board Hearing April 18, 1996 Second Planning Commission Hearing (PC Zone Changes only) May 29, 1996 City Council Hearing (PC Zone Change) June 17,1996 Construction starts September 1, 1997 Construction Completion November 1, 1998 Occupancy December 1, 1998 375 Fremont Street San Francisco CA 94105 (415)495-4890 FAX(415)495-499~ Attachment % PC-2533 Graphic Attachment File #: 96-ZC-1;;96-V-3; 96-EIA-1 Scal~: 1 inch = 400 FT North ¯ ¯. ,Attachment 6 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM o 6. 7. 8. Project Title:2700 Ash Street Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Contact Person and Phone Number: Lorraine Weiss, Planner Project Location: Application Number(s): Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: 2700 Ash Street - Southwest corner Ash Street & Page Mill Road #96-ARB-11 ; #96-EIA-3; #96-V-3; #96-ZC-1 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition General Plan Designation:Multiple-Family Residential Zoning:RM-40 (High Density Multiple-Family ’, Residence) District Description of the Project: Application to rezone the property from RM-40 (High Density Multiple-Family Residence District) to a PC (Planned Community District) to construct a two-story, 18,684-square-foot, 24-unit residential project for very low income and developmentally disabled persons, and 10 on-site parking spaces where 43 spaces are normally required. The project includes multiple variances to allow: 1) a 15-foot street side setback along Ash Street where special setbacks of 10-feet and 35-feet are normally required; and 2) a 10-foot to 14-foot-high stepped noise wall adjacent to the Page Mill Road property line where 7-feet is the maximum height allowed. File Nos.: 96-ZC-1, ,96-EIA-3, 96-ARB-11, 96-V-3. 10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located on the southwest corner of Ash Street and Page Mill Road within walking distance of California Avenue retail core and the transit station. A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7196]Page 1 The 32,798 square-foot parcel is an irregular L-shape with 100 feet of frontage on Sheridan Avenue, 145.64 feet fronting Page Mill Road, 235.25 feet fronting Ash Street, and 142.50 feet and 112.73 feet deep interior sides on the south. The site is presently paved and level with striped parking spaces and a cyclone fence surrounding the property. The site is bordered on the north by Ash Street and multiple-family residences beyond; on the south by the Linus Pauling Institute; on the east by a major arterial, Page Mill Road, and research and development and automotive service uses beyond; and on the west by Sheridan Avenue and multiple-family residences beyond. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Water × Noise Air Quality Transportation and Circulation Public Services Utilities and Service Systems X Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: II find that the p(oposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96] Page 2 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 effectls) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and |2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, 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 WlI’L 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) hav~ been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Project Planner X Director of Planning & Community Environment EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) 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). 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. "Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "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 A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96]Page 3 5) 6) 7) 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). 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 © (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 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 attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96]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? b).Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies c) d) e) adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Af.fect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community) ? 1,2 1,2 x X X X X 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed officiai regional or local population projections? b) c) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X X X 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? Subsidence of the land?g) h) Expansive soils? Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 4 4,8 4 4 4 4 4 4. X X X X X X X x A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96]Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Lass Than Significant Impact I) Unique geologic or physical features? 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?. 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? c) 3,7 4,5,8 X d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body or wetland? 3 X X X e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 3 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? 3 g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impa~ts to groundwater quality through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities? I)Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 3 X 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a)Violat~ any air quality standard or contribute to an’ exiting or projected air quality violation? X X X j) Alteration of wetlands in any way?3 ’X X ~1 6,8,9 A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96]Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCeS Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Thsn Significant Impact b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? 6,8,9 6,8,9 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?10 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp 10 curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 10,1 1 uses?,12 d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or, off-site?3,10 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?10 f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 10 transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 3 Would the proposal result reduction or interference in: a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 3,8 8 8. 3,8 8 X X X × × X X × × × × X A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96]Page 7 Issues and Supporting information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact b) c) 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? 9. HAZARDS. 3 8 Would the proposal involve: a) b) c) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency ~esponse plan or emergency evacuation plan? The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e)Increased fir~ hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass of trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Increase in existing noise levels? Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 3,13 3,11, 12,13 3,12, 13 3,12, 13,16. 3,12 6,8, 14,17 14,17 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 8 X X X X X X X X X X X X A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96]Page Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant, Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact 12. 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? 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 tl~e 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? UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or - 15 15 15 15 15 X × × 15 15 X × 3 3 6 X X X × 8 8 8 8. 8 3 X A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96]Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation ¯ Incorporated Significant act Impact 16.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 16 Xa) 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 belo.w self-sustaining levels, threaten to elimillate 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,16 X to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 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) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 16 16 X 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 adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 © (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. A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96]Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCes Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act impact , 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 Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18.SOURCE REFERENCES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 City ¯ City City Palo City Palo Aito Comprehensive Plan, and Land Use Map, 1980-1995. City of Palo Alto Zoning Title 18. Planner’s General Knowledge of the project and area of proposed development. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Geology and Seismic Technical Background Report, August 1994. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060348 O005D, Map Revised September 6, 1996. City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval. City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Existing Setting Memorandum, August 1994. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quality Technical Background Report, August 1994. City of Palo Alto Transportation Division. of Palo Alto Police Department. of Palo Alto Fire Department. of Palo Alto Fire Department - Hazardous Materials Division. Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Noise Technical Background Report, August 1994. of Palo Alto Utilities Department. Letter from California Regional Water Quality Control Board, written by Steve I. Morse, Chief Toxic Cleanup Division and dated July 20, 1995. Noise Study Analysis: Page Mill Road Housing Project, prepared by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc., Acoustical Consultants, dated April 3, 1996 and amended April 8, 1996. A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96]Page 11 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES LAND USE AND PLANNINGla& lb ~: The subject property is located in the RM-40 (High Density Multiple-Family) zone district. This zone district permits a mix of residential land uses and deve!opment of up to 40 dwelling units per acre. The site is surrounded by multiple-family uses to the north and west of the subject property and is in close proximity to the California Avenue Business District which offers many services and amenities convenient for shopping, employment, transportation and other services. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site for Multiple-Family Residential use which allows residential development ranging in density of 10 to 45 dwelling units per acre. The p~oject would result in the development of 24 multiple-family residential units for very low income and developmentally disabled persons and a rezoning of the property from RM-40 to PC (Planned Community) District. The proposed project would result in 24 dwelling units which is lower than the maximum allowed density for this site if it remained RMo40. While the project would eliminate the opportunity for a residential development at this maximum density, it is doubtful that the site could be developed to the full potential under the traditional RM-40 zoning requirements including the required parking, open space and landscape given the irregular shape of the parcel and site constraints. Five units less is reasonable and would not represent a significant impact due to the following reasons: 1) The proposal results in a housing type and development specifically designed for very low income and developmentally disabled persons. This project provides a housing type not found in other parts of Palo Alto and the site is already surrounded by high density residential development consisting of apartments and condominiums. 2) The project is consistent with several policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element in that the development would add new rental units to the City’s housing supply (Policy 6); all of the units will be affordable units for very low income households (Policy 7 and 15); the project will be funded by the federal government (HUD), municipal monies (Palo Alto’s housing reserve fund), and a non-profit housing organization (Policies 11 & 12). Zonin(~ District Reouirements: In order to design the project on this irregularly-shaped lot to consist of 24 ’ dwelling units, a community building, 10 on-site parking spaces and amenities required by the project, the proposal includes requests to vary from the regulations of the Planned Community (PC) zone distr.ict requirements for parking, streetside setback, and height of noise/sound wall, and is the reason why the applicant chose to submit the project under.an application for a PC (Planned Community Zone District) which allows flexibility to the zone district requirements provided the project conforms to the policies and :)rograms of the Comprehensive Plan and provides sufficient public benefit. Mitigation Measures: 1.1 The applicant shall obtain variances from the development regulations of the PC zone district, Section 18.68.1 lO(d) of the PAMC to allow the project to establish a 15-foot street side Setback along the Ash Street frontage where a 10of0ot and 35-foot special setback is normally required, and Fence Ordinance - Section 16.24.020 of the PAMC to allow a 10-foot to 14-foot high stepped noise wall adjacent to the rear property line along Page Mill Road where 7-feet is the maximum height normally allowed. A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96]Page 12 2 POPULATION AND HOUSING ~ The site is currently vacant and used for overflow parking for the County Courthouse. The new development will produce and increase in the population on the site and in the immediate area of 24 to 36 new residents. This estimate is based on the population of similar projects in Belmont, San Jose, and San Leandro, of which each project has 24 to 29 dwelling units. The actual population would normally be less at any given time during the day or night because some of the population will not be at home as they will be either working, in classes, or take part in activities away from home. While this may be a noticeable change on this site, the surrounding area has large multiple-family developments with large numbers of people. The amount of population change is not considered significant given the site’s location within a multiple-family neighborhood and in close proximity to a business district, California Avenue, and the busy. commercial area along Page Mill Road. HousinQ: The project would increase the supply of housing for very low income and developmentally disabled persons .by providing 24 dwelling units. The need for this type of housing is identified in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Mitigation Measures: None required. 3b GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Construction of a new 18,684 square-foot 24-unit residential development and related site improvements will increase the amount of landscaping on site and decrease the amount of impervious surface area by 32% without significant changes to the site topography. Parking is provided on-site at grade and Will not require substantial excavation or grading. Site soil modifications are not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, the earth impacts of the project will .not be significant. The standard 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 issuance of any grading and building permits. Seismic: The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site is located in a moderate seismic risk area, subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of 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, wood-framed structures, will be subject to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directly at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. Mitigation Measures: None required. A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96]Page 13 4a,d WATER A Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) shows that this site is located within flood zone X which is not a special flood hazard zone. It is an area of moderate flooding, outside the lO0-year flood zone but inside the 500-year flood zone or flooding to a depth less than 1 foot in the 100-year flood event. Surface Runoff: The site is presently level and entirely paved. The new project is estimated to be covered with approximately 68% impervious surfaces resulting in an increase of rainfall absorption and a decrease in site runoff. The property and the surrounding neighborhood are served by a publicly managed stormwater drainage system. Presently, runoff is collected through gutters and transported to storm drains and would continue to drain in the same manner with the new development. The system is sized " to adequately serve the subject neighborhood including the new development. During construction activities, stormwater pollution could result. Runoff from the site flows to the San Francisco Bay with no treatment. Nonpoint source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife dependent on the waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or baylands. Construction debris (soil, concrete, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) are a source of this pollution. With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, the water impacts of the project will not be significant and by project.completion, there will be no additional runoff from the site due to a decrease in the impervious coverage. The general conditions of approval will require that a drainage plan be submitted which includes drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The general contractor will be required 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. Groundwater Plume on Paae Mill Road; A shallow groundwater plume contaminated with industrial solvents originates at an upgradient site at 620-640 Page Mill Road.that is west of El Camino Real but within the vicinity of 2700 Ash. The plume has migrated offsite in an easterly direction, and is commingled with other plumes originating from other Stanford Research Park which are present in groundwater coming to the surface at the dewatering system in the Oregon Expressway Underpass at Alma Street. Under the oversight of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency, the source tanks and surrounding contaminated soil have been removed, and there is ongoing soil vapor nad groundwater extraction and treatment as part of a Remedial Action Plan approved in 1994. " "A Baseline Public Health.Evaluation (BPHE) for the entire affected area prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the major risk represented by the contaminated plume would be use of the water as a potable water supply, an exceedingly improbable possibility. The other risk that the underground plume represents would be migration of vapors from the contaminated water up through the soil into below ground or groundlevel confined spaces and subsequent exposure of residents or workers to those vapors. However, the BPHE concluded that there was no significant risk for residents living or workers working in buildings built with underground garages or on concrete slabs. In addition, any potential risk has been, and will continue to be, further reduced through continued remediation efforts at the 620-640 Page Mill Road and 601 California sites and the Oregon Expressway dewatering system. Mitigation Measures: None required. A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96]Page 14 5a,d AIR QUALITY The subject site is located in in area surrounded on two sides by residential development and the remaining two sides by commercial uses. The site is located adjacent to Page Mill Road, a designated major arterial. According to the Air Quality Technical Background Report prepared for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update (August 1994), the property is located in an area with high local concentration of carbon monoxide largely generated from automobiles. The proposed uses for developmentally disabled residents will not result in an impact on air quality because most residents do not drive and most vehicle trips will be generated by employees. The project, however, would result in temporary dust and odor emissions and other temporary construction activities. These impacts would be associated with the transport of asphalt and dirt during site demolition, grading and construction preparation .and other construction activities. The standard conditions of approval will require that the following dust cbntrol measures be employed: 1) Exposed earth surfaces be watered frequently, during the late morning and at the end of the day, with frequency of watering increasing on windy days; 2) Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately; 3) Overfilling of trucks by the contractor is prohibited; 4) Trucks shall be covered during the transportation of demolished materials from the site. Mitigation Measures: None required. A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96]Page 15 6a, d TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ~ The subject property is located near the California Avenue bus’iness district, though is largely surrounded by multiple-family residential uses and commercial uses along Page Mill Road to the rear of the property and the Linus Pauling Institute south of the site. The property fronts Sheridan Avenue, a local street, and has access off of Ash Street, a local street. According to the Existing Setting Summary Memorandum prepared for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update (August 1994), the neighborhood streets and intersections currently operate at C and D levels of service, as does Page Mill Road, an arterial, during the AM and PM peak hours. 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. The conditions will require a construction logistics plan which addresses ’at minimum parking, trucks and staging, materials storage, and the provisions of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. Contractdr worker parking and storage of equipment or materials must conform with plans approved by the Transportation Division and Public Works Department. Parkina: Currently, the site is used as an interim parking lot for overflow parking for the County Courthouse. This parking is not associated with mitigation of another project, thus the new development is not considered to be displacing required parking. The City of Palo Alto Transportation Division has determined that based on the project description, the trip generation of this project Will be about 1/4 that of a typical apartment project. A typical project of 24 units generates about 6.5 vehicle trips per unit per day, for a total of 155 daily trips. Therefore, this project would generate about 39 trips per day, which would be an insignificant traffic impact. The new multiple-family residential development is proposed with ten on-site parking spaces which is fewer parking spaces than required by the RM-40 High Density Multiple-Family Residence District zone district and the Off-Street Parking Ordinance parking requirements which would normally require 43 parking spaces on-site. The proposed 10 parking spaces would include employee and visitor parking. The Planned Community (PC) Zone Ordinance, however, requires projects to provide parking based on the requirements of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance unless it is shown by relevant data that less parking will meet the needs of the project. There is a low rate of automobile ownership among persons with very low incomes and especially with a population group with developmental disabilities who do not drive. The applicant has provided data on three similar projects in Belmont, San Jose and San Leandro which include 24 to 29 housing units and 7 to 12 parking spaces. The data indicates that of all these projects only one development (in Belmont) has residents with cars, four residents total. In each of these developments, employee and visitor parking is included in the total amount of parking spaces provided on site. Thus, the ¯ information substantiates the need for less parking than required by the Off-Street Parking Ordinance. The Off-Street Parking Ordinance requires the provision of bicycle parking for the new development. Based on the number of dwelling units (not on the number of automobile parking spaces (Section 18.83;050, Table 1) bicycle spaces must be provided. Class I bicycle storage is shown the plans for Building A. Storage is also required in each building (one space per unit). In addition, one Class Ill rack is required for each unit, which may be grouped and located near the entrance(s) of each building. The design, placement and specification of the bicycle parking must be submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division and Architectural Review Board and is a condition of project approval. Mitigation Measures: None required. A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96] Page 16 7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 9 No endangered, threatened, or rar~ animal, insects, and plant species have been identified at this site. The project has been reviewed by the City Arborist and Planning Staff. With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, the impacts on the natural environment will not be significant. There are presently no trees on site and no street trees surrounding the subject prope.rty. The proposed landscape plan consists of a mix of Japanese Maples, Crepe Myrtles, Chanticleer Ornamental Pears, African Sumac, and Brisbane Box trees in addition to flowering shrubs, vines, groundcover and lawn. Street trees, Pyrus Calleryane ’Chanticleer’ (pear trees), 15-gallon size, shall be planted in the public sidewalk midway between the pear trees on the private property, approximately 20 feet on center apart in a 5-foot deep landscape strip adjacent to the sidewalk curb in the public right-of-way on all street .. frontages. Three street trees are required to I;e planted along Sheridan Avenue, nine street trees along Ash Street, and seven along Page Mill Road. All street trees are required to be irrigated with bubblers in water basins. The configuration of trees along Page Mill Road will have to be revised to allow for the 5- foot landscape strip adjacent to the sidewalk curb with proper clearance for a 5-foot sidewalk, such that there is a double row of trees along Page Mill Road, one row on pr.ivate property, a 5-foot public sidewalk, and one row of street trees. In order to accommodate a 5-foot planter strip and 5-foot sidewalk along Ash Street, a right-of-way dedication of 3 feet of Ash Street is required as the sidewalk on the Ash Street frontage is proposed to be installed partially in the city right-of-way and partially over property line. These requirements will be made conditions of project approval. A final landscape plan and irrigation plan showing the above mentioned modifications with water use calculations and statement of design intent and final plant lists with plant species, sizes, quantities, and locations are required for submittal as a condition of project approval. Mitigation Measures: None required. HAZARDS The proposed development, a 24-unit multiple-family residential project for developmentally disabled and very low-income persons, is not a use which has the potential to create a health hazard. Groundwater contamination underneath the subject property has been emanating from upgradient off-site sources, primarily the Hewlett-Packard and Varian 601 (COE) sites. The contamination beneath the property is at the lateral margin of regional groundwater pollution referred to as the COE perimeter sites, which is under active remediation by responsible dischargers, from other unrelated sites. .’A letter from t~e California Regional Water Quality Control Board, prepared by Steve L. Morse, Chief, Toxics Cleanup Division, and dated July 20, 1995, indicates that the current and future property owners are not required to conduct remedial investigations or cleanup of known groundwater contamination at this location. The property has been vacant and used as a parking lot for several years. There is no evidence of disdharges from sources on the property, and no contribution to this groundwater contamination by activities at the property. Mitigation Measures: None required. A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96]Page 17 10a,b NOISE The subject property is in an area of predominantly residential uses, and the proposed project would not increase existing noise levels. The greatest noise impact is generated from automobile traffic along Page Mill Road to the south of the property. According to the Noise Technical Background Report prepared for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update (August 1994), this portion of the neighborhood experiences noise levels of 70 dBA.or less. A noise study analysis prepared by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc., dated April 3, 1996 and amended April 8, 1996 indicates that with a sound wall of a minimum of 6 feet high, the expected noise level at outdoor recreation areas will be at or below the City Palo Alto goal of Ldn 60 decibels. The project will be required to employ measures in compliance with Title 20, which requires that interior noise levels in habitable space, attributable to exterior noise sources, shall not exceed 45 dB DNL. With exterior noise levels of 70 dBA, in order to meet interior noise standards, windows with appropriate sound transmission class ratings will be required to be installed as determined by review of a complete set of architectural drawings so that analysis for recommendations of exterior to interior sound isolation can be made. To further reduce noise levels, dense planting of trees, shrubs, and vines is required in front of the sound wall in the rear setback. De’molition and construction activities will result in temporaryincreases in local ambient noise levels. With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, the project’s noise impacts will 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 PAMC. Mitigation Measures: 10.1 Require implementation of and compliance with City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval and Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In addition, limit construction to the following: ao Contractors should limit construction hours to day time hours only so as to minimize disturbance to surrounding residents. bo Contractors should use and maintain properly operated mufflers and standard quieting devices, as well as locate generator equipment as far from nearby sensitive properties as possible. c. Contractors should shut off idling equipment. 10.2 d. Contractors should use portable or permanent acoustic barriers around point of noise sources. Construct a noise/sound wall adjacent to the Page Mill Road rear property line with dense planting of trees, shrubs, plants and vines within the rear setback. 10.3 Implement all recommended mitigation measures listed in the noise study analysis prepared by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc., dated April 3, 1996 and amended on April 8, 1996, in order to meet all Title 20 and Title 24 requirements for noise reduction at this site and compliance with City noise policies, including the following: ao Construct a noise wall along the Page Mill Road portion of the parcel, 5 feet away from the perimeter of the circular-shaped exterior courtyard. The noise wall shall be fabricated of a combination of masonry blocks or pre-cast concrete panels up to a height of 4 feet minimum and optionaly out of solid timber, 2oinches thick tongue-and-groove with a minimum surface density of A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96] Page 18 contd 4 pounds per square foot for heights above 4 feet. Alternative materials for the upper section could also be 3/8-inch thick laminated glass or 1/2-inch thick lexan or plexiglass transparent glazing sheets. b.The sound barrier shall be continuous and airtight, avoiding any openings that would otherwise degrade its acoustical shielding properties. 10.4 Install exterior window assemblies with sufficient sound isolation characteristics and proper building shell design in compliance with Title 24 and City of Palo Alto interior noise standards. 13c 14a, b,c,d AESTHETICS The proposed new residential project has been specifically designed to consist of three .buildings which are one and two stories. The project is subject to final review by the Architectural Review Board, which will ensure a design that is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its surroundings. The development of the site may result in a negligible increase in light and glare generated from the additional lighting of the site and glazing on the buildings, but will not have an adverse impact on surrounding uses. With the project’s conditions of approval, the light and glare impacts of the project will not be significant. The conditions of approval will require.that lights be shielded such that the light does not extend beyond the site, the lights be directional, and that the source of the light is not directly visible. A detailed lighting plan as part of the final landscape plan which is sensitive to existing adjacent land uses will be required for review and approval as a condition of project approval. .Mitigation Measures: None required. CULTURAL RESOURCES The site is designated as a moderate sensitivity area. The flatlands of Palo Alto are known to contain widely dispersed prehistoric sites and unidentified subsurface archaeological resources could be disturbed and/or destroyed as a result of construction activities related to the development of the proposed project. The subject site is not listed on the City’s historic inventory. However, proposed development plans have been sent to the Information Center at Sonoma State for their review of archaeological and cultural resources at this site. The Information Center at Sonoma State has indicated that the site has not been surveyed, although it is possible to find prehistoric/cultural resources during construction activities, the .likelihood is not great. Mitigation Measures: 14a.In the event that subsurface archaeological resources are encountered during project grading and construction activities, earth-moving and other land alteration work in the general vicinity of the historic find, construction activities shall be halted, and a qualified archaeologist and pertinent historic organizations shall be consulted. Prompt evaluation will be made by a qualified archaeologist regarding the archaeological resource, and a course of action as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment to assess the significance and protection of the resource will be implemented. A:\ASHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96] ’Page 19 Mit/ga ted Nega tire Declaration 2 700 Ash Street, Palo Alto WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED MARCH 15, 1996, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWS AS ~ STREET, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Date / A:\~SHPAGE.EIA [2/7/96] Page 20 Attachment 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA DATE TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 29, 1996 Planning Commission Lorraine Weiss, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning 2700 Ash Street: Application to rezone a property from RM-40 High Density Multiple-Family Residence District to Planned Community (PC) District to construct a two-story, 18,684 square- foot, 24-unit residential project for very low-income and developmentally disabled persons. (File Nos: 96-ZC-1, 96-ARB-11, 96-V-3, 96-EIA-3) RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the following: Approval of the attached mitigated negative declaration (96-EIA-1), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, if certain conditions of project approval are imposed; o Approval of the variances allowing for a 15-foot street side setback along Ash Street where special setbacks of 10-feet and 35-feet are normally required and a 10- to 14-foot high stepped noise wall adjacent to the Page Mill Road property line to exceed the 7-foot high fence height limit; 3.Adoption of the attachedordinance, including findings and conditions, rezoning the property at 2700 Ash Street from RM-40 (High Density Multiple-Family Residence P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5-29-96 Page 1 District) to PC (Planned Community District) allowing the development of the two-story, 18,684 square-foot, 24-unit residential project for very low-income and developmentally disabled persons; and 4. Approval of the attached ARB findings and conditions of project approval. BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION The project proposes the development of.75 acres (32,798 square feet) of vacant, level land fronting Sheridan Avenue at Ash Street with 24-units of multiple-family residential dwellings for very low-income and developmentally disabled persons. The property is located adjacent to Page Mill Road near the California Avenue Business District in an area surrounded by multiple-family residential development. Details on the project description, as well as information on the subject property and history, are presented below. Project Description The Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition (MPHC) proposes the rezoning of the subject property from RM-40 (High Density Multiple-Family Residential) District to PC (Planned Community) District in order to develop a two-story, 18,684 square-foot, 24 unit multiple- family residential project for very low-income and developmentally disabled persons, and 10 on-site parking spaces where 43 spaces are normally required. The project includes two variances for: 1) a 15-foot street side setback along Ash Street where special setbacks of 10- feet and 35-feet are normally required; and, 2) a 10- to 14-foot high stepped noise wall adjacent to the Page Mill Road property line where 7 feet is the maximum height allowed. The proposal for multiple-family residential housing specifically designed for developmentally disabled adults is configured in clusters with three separate residential buildings and a community building. A manager’s apartment and office are provided on-site towards the rear of the property. Vehicular access is provided from Ash Street into the center of the site where the on-site parking is located in a parking court. Pedestrian access to the site is located adjacent to the parking court on Ash Street and from an entry off Sheridan Avenue. Interior walkways allow for pedestrian circulation from the buildings through the site to the various structures and a communal courtyard adjacent to Page Mill Road on the eastern portion of the parcel. The buildings are one and two stories, and range in height from 16 feet to 27.5 feet. Floor plans indicate 16 one-bedroom units, 540 square feet each, and 8 two-bedroom units, 745 square feet each. The community building is 1,480 square feet and situated next to the communal courtyard adjacent to the rear setback fronting Page Mill Road. P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5-29-96 Page 2 Setbacks include a 10-foot landscaped front setback along Sheridan Avenue, a 25-foot landscaped rear setback on Page Mill Road, a 15-foot landscaped street side setback along Ash Street and a 10-foot interior setback adjacent to the southern property line. Building materials include gabled and hipped laminated composition shingled roofs, stucco and board and batten siding, white aluminum multi-pane double glazed windows and patio doors, wood brackets, trims and rafters, wood balcony railings, canvas awnings, and wood trellises. Rezoning to PC (Planned Community District.) and Statement of Public Benefit Since the project involves a rezoning from RM-40 to PC District, the project applicant is required to present a statement identifying the proposed uses, the development schedule and the public benefits of the project. The project description presented by the project sponsor (refer to Attachment #5) proposes a permitted use of multiple-family residential with supportive living services. The construction schedule presented states development would begin March 1, 1997 with completion by June 1, 1998. Staff recommends that the development schedule in the PC Ordinance provide for a commencement date of no later than September 1, 1997 and a completion date of no later than December 1, 1998. BACKGROUND Site Description The site is located on the southwest comer of Ash Street and Page Mill Road as well as within walking distance of the California Avenue retail core and the transit station. The 32,798 square foot parcel appears to be comprised of 3 lots, which form an irregular ’L’ shaped parcel with 100 feet of frontage on Sheridan Avenue, 145.64 feet fronting Page Mill Road, 235.25 feet fronting Ash Street, and 142.50 feet and 112.73 feet deep interior sides on the south. The site is paved and level with striped parking spaces and a cyclone fence surrounding the property. The site is bordered on the north by Ash Street and multiple- family residences beyond; on the south by the Linus Pauling Institute; on the east by a major arterial, Page Mill Road, and research and development and automotive service use beyond; and on the west by Sheridan Avenue and multiple-family residences beyond. Pr~ct 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. P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5-29-96 Page 3 TABLE__~I.: PROJECT INFORMATION Mid-Peninsula Housing CoalitionApplicant: Owner:County of Santa Clara, c/o Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Assessor’s Parcel Number: Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning District: 132-36-083 Multiple-family residential RM-40 o High Density Residence District Multiple-Family Surrounding Land Use:No~h: East: South: West: and multiple-family and research and automotive service Ash Street residences beyond Page Mill Road development and uses beyond Linus Pauling Institute Sheridan Avenue and multiple-family residences beyond Parcel Size:32,798 square feet or .75 acre Project History The site was once an automotive service repair and most recently has been used as a parking lot for overflow parking for the County Courthouse. Summary. of Architectural Review Board Preliminary. Review The applicant filed a preliminary review application on December 7, 1995. On January 4, 1996, the Architectural Review. Board (ARB) reviewed preliminary plans for the development of the site with 24 units of multiple-family residences and 10 on-site parking spaces. The ARB generally supported the project and .felt that this housing type was needed for this particular user group and the project, as proposed, has sufficient inherent public benefit. The ARB provided the following overall direction: 1)A better parking solution should be designed such that parking does not become the central site focus and that parking should be relocated away from the center of the site. P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5-29-96 Page 4 2)Noise generated from traffic along Page Mill Road needs to be addressed so that persons residing near the east side of the project are not impacted and disturbed by the noise. Public testimony was provided by three persons who expressed concerns that the site should be developed to the maximum density allowed, and reducing the number of parking spaces for a project in a neighborhood which already has a parking shortage is problematic. Refer to Attachment #8 for minutes of the preliminary review January 4, 1996 ARB meeting. Summary. of Planning Commission Review On April 10, 1996, the Planning Commission had its initial review of the project. The applicant provided an alternative site plan and elevations in response to some of staff’s and the ARB’s concerns regarding the location of the central parking court. The court has been modified, specifically separating pedestrian and vehicular circulation so that they no longer conflict, and Unit A101 in Building A, the trash enclosure and bicycle storage have been relocated. These changes result in a plan with somewhat less building and architecture on Ash Street, though satisfying one of the concerns for conflicting pedestrian and vehicular circulation at the center of the site. The Planning Commission provided comments on the proposed use, the environmental assessment, the variance requests, and the proposed public benefit statement. The Planning Commission minutes are attached (see Attachment #9). The Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0-1-0, Commissioner Carrasco absent) to forward the project with staff recommendations and modified draft findings to the ARB. Their recommendation supported the alternate site plan and included the following comments and recommendations: Further explanation of finding #2 in the Planned Community Zone Findings was desired. The Planning Commission found the second sentence of finding #2 to be inappropriate to the finding. Refer to Attachment # 1 for the revised finding. Clarification of finding #1c of the Findings for Architectural Review Approval was requested since the Sentence was incomplete. Refer to Attachment #3 for the completed finding. Summary. of Architectural Review Board (ARB) Action: On May 2, 1996, the ARB conducted a final review of the project (verbatim minutes attached). On a 5-0 vote the ARB recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Variances, the Planned Community zone change, and the findings for Architectural Review and conditions of project approval. The ARB members expressed enthusiastic support for the proposed project and the design, specifically the alternate parking solution which was previously presented to the Planning Commission at its initial review on P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5-29-96 Page 5 April 10, 1996. A suggestion was expressed by one board member to change the color of the rails and metalwork throughout the project from the originally proposed "seafoam green" to white which was thought to compliment the overall design. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Architectural Review Board Ordinance.The following Comprehensive Plan objectives, policy and programs apply: Comprehensive Plan .Housing Element. Policy 3. page 25: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods especially desirable." This project is in a unique neighborhood with a mix of multiple-family residences and commercial activity as the site is in close proximity to the California Avenue Business District which offers many services and amenities including public transportation. A new project in this area should be designed to enhance the desirable qualities of the neighborhood. Housing Element, Policy 6, page 30; "Maintain at least the present number of multiple- family rental units while working to increase the overall supply of rental housing. "This project will add 24 new rental units to the City’s housing suppiy. Housing Element,.Policy 7~ page 31: "Encourage and foster the development of new and existing housing units affordable to the low, moderate, and middle-income households, especially those households with children." All of the 24 units will be affordable units for low-income households. Housing Element,. Policy 11. page 31: "Encourage and participate in low-. and moderate-income housing programs financed by local and other levels of government," and ~lement Polic 12 a e 44: "Encourage innovative housing financing techniques to make more housing affordable. " This project will meet both these policies in that it will be funded by the federal government (HUD), municipal monies (Palo Alto’s housing reserve funds), and a non- profit housing organization (the applicant). P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5-29-96 Page 6 Housing Element, Policy 15. page 47: "Work towards the elimination of discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, age, sex, marital status, or physical handicap, and other barriers that prevent choice in housing." This project is specifically proposed for developmentally disabled adults aged i 8 years and over with a wide range of physical disabilities. 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 Residence. and with the exception of the potential noise impacts related to the Page Mill Road frontage, the site is well suited for a multiple-family residential project which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A noise barrier along Page Mill Road will mitigate negative potential adverse environmental impacts. The proposed project is a far more attractive and better use of the land at a comer location than the current parking lot. Urban Design Element. Ob_iective. page 42: "Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety, and considerate of each other." The proposed development adds a project with architectural character, human-scale elements at pedestrian level, and utilizes high quality materials. The project would replace a parking lot and add several buildings in a clustered arrangement which complements the surrounding neighborhood. Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42: "Encourage the maintenance of trees and planting of new trees, "and Urban Design Element, Policy 3, page 44: "Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting, landscaped areas and removal of visually disruptive elements of major City The proposed project meets both these goals because it includes the planting of trees and landscape in the private property setbacks and within the site interior. Standard City conditions also require additional.trees be planted in the public sidewalk landscape strip. The proposed project will contribute a more aesthetically pleasing streetscape than exists as a paved parking lot with cyclone fencing surrounding the parcel. N~oiseElement Polic 11 a e 62: "Ensure compliance with existing noise laws and protection of residents from unnecessary noise "; P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5-29-96 Page 7 "Analyze noise impacts of new projects"; and ~ "Construct noise barriers where the noise impact can be significantly reduced. " The project meets all three of these policies because it will be designed to reduce noise impacts generated from Page Mill Road by constructing a sound wall near the eastern property boundary and dense landscaping installed in the setback up to the sound wall. Other construction related measures will also be incorporated into the project’s building design to mitigate noise impacts on site. Environmental Resources Element, Policy 11: "Ensure compliance with existing noise laws and protection of residents from unnecessary noise." The project is conditioned to ensure reduction of construction and demolition activity noise impacts to the surrounding public. Mitigation measures described above are intended to protect future residents from the impacts of noise from Page Mill Road. Issues and Analysis The staff analysis for this project relates to the user’s needs, site planning and design, neighborhood context, project density, zoning compliance, and public benefit. The analysis in this staff report reflects both the original and revised site plan and design proposal. The ARB should comment on both site plans and provide a recommendation for one of these proposals. U er..~&~N_g_C&~ The population of persons residing on the property will be developmentally disabled adults 18 years and older some of whom have physical disabilities such as visual and hearing impairments, downs syndrome, or autism. The goal of this project is to design a housing project which enables the residents to live independently on-site in individual dwelling units while offering supportive living services ~and activities within the project. Because developmentally disabled persons benefit from an internalized plan which fosters social interaction and security, it is important to design the project to meet these needs while also achieving community needs. For this user, apartment entries grouped around a courtyard rather than individual entries facing the street enables neighbors to socialize and see one another while providing security at the same time. For these reasons, the project has been designed largely with internal circulation. P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 jS.ilg_.P_lttll~a_i~ .. and Design: The users of the site have special needs to consider, and the project should also complement the surrounding neighborhood. Staff provided several suggestions during the preliminary project review to achieve a project design which functions well for the use and also meets the community’s needs. Some of these suggestions have been incorporated in this PC zone change project and include the following: Location of Pedestrian Entrances: The applicant has stated that the project residents will be less reliant on cars than other residents of multiple-family residential projects. Therefore, pedestrian areas and connections to the neighborhood, nearby shopping and transit are especially important for this project. The proposal includes two pedestrian entrances consisting of one entrance adjacent to the driveway entrance off of Ash Street and a second entrance along the Sheridan Avenue property frontage. The Sheridan Avenue pedestrian entrance has clear view of the development, such that from Sheridan Avenue one can see the housing units, the parking lot straight through to the community building and the communal courtyard. As the project is part of the residential neighborhood, it would be advantageous to locate the main entrance as a prominent feature which invites people to the site and provides clear orientation and site circulation on Sheridan Avenue and to shopping and services beyond. By locating on Sheridan Avenue, the entrance faces the residential neighborhood, makes a stronger connection with the area, and extendsthe existing pattern of large residential multiple-family projects that already exist on Sheridan Avenue to the north (three-story multiple-family building) and west (four-story multiple-family building). A second pedestrian entrance is provided on Ash Street, though one which is subordinate to the parking lot. This entrance should instead make a statement announcing to the project and inviting pedestrians into the site. The proposed entrance opens up to the parking court which dominates the focus at the site center and appears to be more vehicular related than pedestrian oriented. Pedestrian- like intimate spaces with landscape features, special paving treatment in the parking court and a different paving surface on the pedestrian paths will help to better def’me the pedestrians’ spaces: Building siting: In order to provide a presence to the street and neighborhood, the communal buildings and prominent features would best be sited as close to the Sheridan Avenue/Ash Street comer as possible, and the parking court would not be the central focus of the site. In general, the parking court would be better situated if located closer to Page Mill Road. This would reduce the Ash Street frontage taken up by the parking area, the parking would be reconfigured for greater efficiency of space, enabling more building area near the street frontage. This redesign would result in units being located closer to Ash Street or Sheridan Avenue and away from Page Mill Road. P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5-29-96 Page 9 The applicant has provided programmatic reasons for the current site plan. The revised site plan shows the parking court located generally in the same area as in the original plan, though provides safer pedestrian circulation as the parking area no longer completely bisects the site. The pedestrian walkways no longer pass through the parking court. The parking spaces have been changed from mostly a single-loaded driveway to two parallel rows of five spaces each grouped together on either side of the drive aisle and are adjacent to Ash Street. Thus, the parking court is half as deep as shown in the original site plan, and the pedestrian walkway from Sheridan Avenue continues to the building on eastern portion of the site without endangering the pedestrians with on- coming vehicles. The remaining area can be used for socialization activities and additional greenscape. Neighborhood context: Staff fmds that the proposal is consistent with the existing neighborhood character which has a mix of architectural styles and heights. The proposed project at 25 feet maximum, measured to the midpoint of the roof, will be a comfortable height in relation to a 20-foot high building to the south (the Linus Pauling Institute) and a three-story building to the north across Ash Street, and the four-story building across Sheridan Avenue to the west. Project Density: The subject property is located in the RM-40 (High Density Multiple- Family) zone district which permits a mix of residential land uses and development of up to 40 dwelling units per acre and well within the Comprehensive Plan density allowed (10-45 units per acre). The project, as proposed, would result in the development of 24 multiple- family residential units for very low-income and developmentally disabled persons, which is lower than the allowed density for this site. Under the current zoning, up to 29 units could conceivably be built on the site. While the project would eliminate the opportunity for a higher density residential development, this loss would not present a significant impact due to the following reasons: The proposal results in a housing type and development specifically designed for very low-income and developmentally disabled persons. This project provides a housing type not found in other parts of Pal. Alto. The project is consistent with several policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element in that the development would add new rental units to the City’s housing supply (Policy 6); all of the units will be affordable units for very low-income households (Policy 7 and 15); the project will be funded by the federal government (HUD), municipal monies (Pal. Alto’s housing reserve fund), and a non-profit housing organization (Policies 11 & 12). P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5o29-96 Page 10 The project would result in a development that is approximately 83% of the maximum density that could be developed on this site, and result in 33 less parking spaces than normally required by the zone district.. The property zone would permit a maximum development of 29 units. Consequently, impacts to the site and the surrounding neighborhood would be significantly lower with the proposed development of 24 dwelling units. Architectural .Review Ordinance Standards for Review: The project must be consistent with the Architectural Review Ordinance, Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PANIC). Draft Architectural Review Approval Findings have been prepared and are attached to this staff report (Attachment #3). ¯ Zoning Ordinance Compliance: Zone Designation: Existing: RM-40 High-Density Multiple-Family Residence District Proposed: PC Planned Community District .Use Cate og.o__~."Multiple Family Residence The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance (Title 18). The applicant has applied for a PC (Planned Community) District zone change because the PC zone district allows flexibility to the regular development regulations for parking and setback. Variances for the special setback and sound wall height requirement ’ are required. As a PC zone project, the site development regulations will be site specific and unique to this development. A comparison of the proposed project to the PC District regulations and the RM-40 zoning district is provided in Table 2. P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5-29-96 Page 11 TABLE 2 Project Comparison with Current Zoning District Requirements REGUI~ATION- ,::.:.:- ::~ :-::::’*-:~i~PROJECT.- ...."~ ....:allowed) :... " ~: RM:40(allowed) .:i Floor Area (sq. ft.) Floor Area Ratio Maximum Height Lot Coverage Parking Setbacks - Sheridan Avenue - Page Mill Road - Ash Street - Interior (south) # of Dwelling Units Common Open Space 18,684 .57:1 27.5’ 28% 10 on-site spaces 10’ 25’ 15’ 10’ 24 units 18,750 sq. ft. or 57% *Special setback map requirement n/a n/a 50’ n/a 43 on-site spaces 10’ n/a 35’ and 10’* n/a 10-25 Units n/a 32,798 1:1 35’ 45% 43 on-site spaces 15’ 25’* 35’ and 10’* 10’ 29 units 20% Floor Area: Section 18.26.050(h) of the Zoning Ordinance allows a floor area of 1.0 to 1.0. The proposed project has been designed with a floor area of 18,684 square feet or floor area ratio of .57 to 1.0. Setbacks: The ’L’ shaped site fronted on three sides by streets (Sheridan Avenue, Ash Street and Page Mill Road) results in a difficult parcel to develop for residential use without requests to modify the setback requirements of the zone district. The proposed project does not meet the minimum setback requirements for front yard (Sheridan Avenue), and street side (Ash Street) setback standards. A variance would be required for a 15-foot side street setback along Ash Street where a 35- and 10-foot setback is designated for this site. A 15- foot setback would be consistent with the setback directly across Ash Street at another multiple-family residence project and because the proposed design is only two stories in P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5-29-96 Page 12 height, the requested setback along Ash Street will maintain a residential appearance to the block that is compatible with the neighborhood and enhance the streetscape for this portion of Ash Street. Drat~ Variance findings for the street side setback are provided in Attachment #2 of this staff report~ Automobile Parking: The Off-Street Parking Ordinance (Chapter 18.83, PAMC) requires a minimum of 43 parking spaces, including 1.5 spaces for one-bedroom units, 2 spaces for two-bedroom units resulting in 40 spaces in addition to the required 3 guest parking spaces. The proposed project, however, includes 10 parking spaces. Section 18.68.090(h) of the PC Zone Ordinance requires projects to provide parking based on the requirements of the Off- Street Parking Ordinance unless it is shown by traffic engineering studies or relevant data that parking should be modified to meet the needs of the individual project. The applicant has informed staffthat for the developmentally disabled residents of this project, 43 spaces are not necessary. Few, if any, of the tenants would drive, and parking would be used largely by the staff on-site, guests, and vehicles provided for tenants and driven by staff, to travel to off-site activities. The applicant has indicated that similar residential projects for developmentally disabled residents have been approved in other Bay Area communities that did not provide the required parking per the standard parking requirements regular zone districts. Data from other projects is provided in Attachment #8 of this report which compares three similar projects in Belmont, San Jose, and San Leandro, which include 24 to 29 housing units and 7 to 12 parking spaces. The data also indicates that of these projects, only one development, in Belmont, has residents with cars, four residents total. The proposed PC Zoning Ordinance will limit occupancy to persons with developmental disabilities. Thus, the information substantiates a need for less parking than otherwise required by ordinance and the 10 proposed parking spaces are adequate. Section 3(d) of the proposed PC Ordinance contains a fmding regarding the project’s reduced need for parking. One parking space is located within the Ash Street setback in the original site plan, and two parking spaces in the revised plan. Under the RM-40 district regulations, no parking is allowed in a required setback. Because the project will be filed under a PC zone change, this requirement will not be applicable. Bicycle Parkin~ Bicycle parking is required per Chapter 18.83, Off-Street Parking Ordinance of the PAMC, which requires 24 Class I parking for tenants (lockers and locked rooms), and 2 Class III parking for visitors (racks, located near entrances). The number of bicycle spaces is based on the number of dwelling units (Section 18.83.050, Table 1). The design, placement, and specification of the bicycle parking must be submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division and ARB as well as a condition of project approval. P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5-29-96 Page 13 L~dscape: There are presently no trees on-site and no street trees surrounding the subject property. The proposed landscape plan consists of a mix of Japanese Maples, Crepe Myrtles, Chanticleer Ornamental Pears, African Sumac, and Brisbane Box trees in addition to flowering shrubs, vines, ground cover and lawn. Street trees, Porus Coleraine ’Chanticleer’ (pear trees), 15-gallon size, shall be planted in the public sidewalk midway between the pear trees on the private property, approximately 20 feet apart and on center in a 5-foot deep landscape strip adjacent to the sidewalk curb in the public right-of-way on all street frontages. Three street trees are required to be planted along Sheridan Avenue, 9 street trees along Ash Street, and 7 along Page Mill Road. All street trees are required to be irrigated with bubblers in water basins. The configuration of trees along Page Mill Road could be revised to allow for the 5-foot landscape strip adjacent to the sidewalk curb with proper clearance for a 5-foot sidewalk, such that there is a double row of trees along Page Mill Road, one row on private property, a 5-foot public sidewalk, and one row of street trees next to the travel lane. In order to accommodate a 5-foot planter strip and 5-foot sidewalk along Ash Street, a fight-of-way dedication of 3 feet along the Ash Street frontage is required as the sidewalk on the Ash Street frontage is proposed to be installed partially in the city’s right- of-way and partially over the property line. Staffrecommends that the landscape revised to show a double row of trees, one within the landscape strip adjacent to Page Mill Road in the public sidewalk and a row of trees on the eastern private property edge. The overall landscape is subject to Palo Alto’s landscape water use standards and will require a separate water service for landscape irrigation. A final landscape plan must include a complete list indicating tree and plant species, quantities, sizes, and locations, irrigation schedule and plan, fence and sound wall locations, lighting plan with photometric data, a statement of design intent and water use calculations. A revised trellis design for trellises along Ash Street must be designed with a maximum clearance of 8 feet from grade to bottom of trellis canopy beam to meet the fence code requirements Chapter 16.24 (Fences) of the PAMC. The revised design shall be submitted for approval by the ARB and is made a condition of project approval. Sound Wall: The proposed sound wall adjacent to the rear property line along Page Mill Road exceeds the fence height maximum. This wall is stepped and ranges in height from 10 to 14 feet including 2 feet for a trellis located on top of the wall where 7 feet is the maximum allowed by Section 16.24.020 of the PAMC. A Noise Analysis, dated April 8, 1996, was completed for this project which recommends a sound wall, at least 6 feet in height, along the Page Mill Road (rear) property line, as mitigation for the high noise levels in the area. The inclusion of this sound wall is a mitigation measure in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and is the basis for staff’s belief that a fence height variance is justified. In order for the tenants of the development to reside at this location, ambient acceptable noise levels P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5-29-96 Page 14 must be maintained. The wall surrounds the rear of the communal courtyard and is setback rather than being placed in a straight line and is stepped in height. A dense landscaped setback, planted with trees, shrubs, vines and ground covers, will surround the wall resulting in a visually pleasing solution. Draft variance findings for the height of the noise wall are provided in Attachment #2 of this staff report. Allowable Construction Hours : .While Chapter 9.10, Noise Ordinance, allows construction activities on Sundays, staff recommends that construction be limited to Monday through Saturday as the site is surrounded on two sides by residential development. This is a recommended condition of project approval. PUBLIC BENEFIT A PC zone is required for this project because none of the City’s conventional zoning districts accommodates this housing type with the proposed reduced parking standard, setbacks, and sound wall height. Approval of the requested PC zone change would require that public benefit trmdings be made. The public benefits of the project should go beyond the minimum zoning ordinance requirements and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Staffbelieves that the project, a multiple-family residential development for very low-income and developmentally disabled working persons, is a public need and fulfills the public benefit requirement. Draft findings for the public benefits are contained in the proposed PC Ordinance, which is Attachment # 1 to this report. DRAFT FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS The ARB adopted findings and conditions are attached (see Attachments #3 and #4) as are the draft PC and variance findings and conditions (see attachments # 1 and #2). The Planning Commission will recommend on the draft PC ordinance, draft.vad~’ance fmdings and standard conditions of project approval, and will forward those recommendations to the City Council. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property have been mailed a public hearing notice. At the preliminary review ARB meeting on January 4, 1996, several members of the public spoke regarding the preliminary design of the project. Members of the public expressed concern for the site having potential for a higher density residential project, than what is proposed, mitigation of noise impacts from traffic along Page Mill Road, and parking shortage in the neighborhood. Public testimony was received at the April 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. All persons who spoke offered support for the project. No members of the public spoke at the May 2, 1996 ARB hearing; however, one P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5-29-96 Page 15 letter was received from a resident requesting more parking on the site. Interested parties will have additional opportunities to speak at the May 29, 1996 Planning Commission public hearing and at the final City Council meeting. ALTERNATIVES The property is currently zoned RM-40 which permits variety of residential unit types, design and density alternatives. Alternatives that can be considered include the following: 1. Recommend modifications to the subject proposal. 2. Recommend a higher density residential project. 3.Recommend denial of the project in which case the project would be forwarded directly to the City Council for policy direction. FISCAL IMPACT Through federal and local sources, the City will participate in funding of the project, if approved. As of February 1996, the estimated total development cost is about $3.2 million including land costs. The development budget is broken down into the following major categories: Land Hard Construction Costs Architecture & Engineering Other Soft Costs Contingency Developer Fee TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $1,100,000 1,726,000 180,000 118,500 50,000 60.000 $3,234,500 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition (MPHC) holds an option to purchase the site from the Santa Clara County Road and Airport Division with the purchase price based on the site’s fair market, appraised value. Since the site was originally purchased with County road fund monies, the sales proceeds must be returned to the road fund. Although the County would not discount the purchase price, MPHC was able to negotiate favorable option terms. MPHC must complete the site acquisition by August 1996. About two-thirds of the total development cost is expected to be funded directly by the HUD Section 811 Capital Grant that has been awarded to MPHC, the remaining one-third will need to come from local sources. The HUD Section 811 program also provides the project with an.annual operating expense subsidy, so that a residents’ monthly rent will be limited to 30%,of their income. All of the residents are required to be very low-income by HUD regulations. MPHC P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5-29-96 Page 16 has applied to the City for CDBG and City Commercial Housing In-Lieu funds in the total amount of $711,000. MPHC has also applied to Santa Clara County and the cities of Sunnyvale, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills for CDBG funds. Final fundin~ decisions will be made by each jurisdiction in May 1996, with funds available in fiscal year 1996-97. The following is the anticipated breakdown of funding sources for the development budget: SOURCES OF DEVELOPMENT FUNDS: HUD Section 811 Capital Grant City of Palo Alto (funds under contrac0 City of Palo Alto (additional funds applied for): [CDBG 411,000] [Commercial Housing In-Lieu 300,000] County of Santa Clara (CDBG) City of Sunnyvale (CDBG), City of Los Altos (CDBG) City of Los Altos Hills (CDBG) Peninsula West Valley Realtors Grant TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS: $2,139,500 45,000 711,000 188,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 $3,234,500 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An environmental impact assessment has been prepared for this project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) resulting in a Mitigated Negative Declaration, 96-EIA-3 (Attachment #7). The environmental assessment will be presented at the ARB public hearing on May 2, 1996. The major issues addressed in the environmental impact assessment include: 1) previous groundwater remediation on-site; 2) proposed on- site parking; 3) noise impacts from traffic along Page Mill Road and noise mitigation to lessen the noise impacts on occupants of the development; and 4) mitigation if archaeological resources are discovered during construction activities. The assessment concludes that the project has the potential to result in significant environmental impacts; however, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. STEPS FOLLOWING ACTION The process for this rezoning action-continues to proceed in the following order: 1) review by the ARB; 2) the development plan, if recommended favorably by the ARB, is then returned to the Planning Commission for final review and recommendation; and 3) submittal to the City Council for final review and action. P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5 -29-96 Page 17 Prior to making final approval recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission is required to make a specific determination regarding the project public benefit proposal and to approve an environmental determination, public benefit statement, development program statement, plan and schedule that will become the basis of site-specific regulations to be applied within the PC zone district. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Attachment # 1: Draft Planned Community Ordinance Attachment #2: Draft Variance Findings Attachment #3: Draft Findings for Architectural Review Approval Attachment #4: Draft Standard Conditions of Project Approval Attachment #5: Project Description and Public Benefit Statement Submitted by the Project Sponsor Attachment #6: Location Map Attachment #7: Environmental Assessment, #96-EIA-3, Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment #8: Verbatim ARB Minutes- Preliminary Review ARB Meeting January 4, 1996 Attachment #9: Verbatim Initial Planning Commission Review Minutes, April 10, 1996 Attachment #10: Information Related to Parking Needs and Other Project Data - HUD 811 Housing Project for Developmentally Disabled Persons Attachment #11: Verbatim ARB Minutes - Meeting May 2, 1996 Plans (Planning Commission members only) COURTESY COPIES: Janet Stone, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, applicant, 658 Bair Island Road, Suite 300, Redwood City, CA 94063 County of Santa Clara, c/o Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, property owner, 3331 North First Street, Building B, San Jose, CA 95134 Paul Bamhart, Barnhart Associates Architects, Inc., project architect, 375 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 Prepared By:Lorraine Weiss, Planner Division/Department Head Approval: _Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official ,,, P:\PCSR\2700ASH.PC2 5-29-96 Page 18 Attachment 8 PLANNING COMMISSION "DRAFT "EXCERPT MINUTES Meeting of May 29, 1996 PUBLIC HEARING 2700 ASH STREET (.southwest Corner of Ash Street and Page Mill Road Application ro rezone the property from RM-40 (High-Density Multiple-Family Residential District) to a PC (Planned Community District) to construct a two-story, 18,684-square-foot, 24-unit residential project for very low income and developmentally disabled persons. The project includes multiple variances for 1) a 15-foot street side setback along the entire Ash Street frontage where special setbacks of 10 feet and 35 feet are normally required; and 2) a 10- to 14-foot-high stepped noise wall adjacent tO the Page Mill Road property line where 7 feet is the maximum height allowed. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 96-ZC-1, 96-EIA-3, 96-ARB-11, 96-V-3. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 96-ZC-1, 96-EIA-3, 96- ARB-11, 96-V-3. Chairman Beecham: Does staff have any additional comments on this item tonight? Ms. Weiss: The design of the project has not changed since the last Planning Commission review of the project on April 10. The ARB did review the project on May 2nd, and they offered enthusiastic support for the project. One letter was received dated May 22nd and is at your places tonight. It expresses opposition to the project. In closing, I would like to say that Bob Peterson is present as an ARB representative to answer any questions of commissioners, as well as myself. Chairman Beecham: Bob, do you have any comments for us at this point? Mr. Peterson: I would just reiterate what Lorraine has already said, which is that we were in enthusiastic support for this, and we think it is an excellent project. It meets a real need, and it is below the FAR requirement. It has an excellent site plan, and the architecture is outstanding. So we were in complete support of the project. Chairman Beecham: Are there any questions for staff from the commission? (None) Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Seeing no one who wishes to speak, I will close the public hearing. We have had this item previously, and we, too, were all very enthusiastic about it and strongly supportive of it. Are there any new comments to be made on this item? Commissioner Ojakian: I would note that them are still comments in the staff report to the effect that the site could actually have more units than are currently being requested. Ms. Stone, at our last meeting, indicated why there would be the number of units as planned. That is, there is a HUD restriction that limits them to 24. I think it would bevery helpful to indicate that more clearly in some of the staff information than currently is shown. This will ensure that it will be in the minutes again in order for the City Council to take note of it. Ms. Weiss: Staffwould like to alert the Planning Commission that a condition has been added to the draft standard conditions of project approval on Page 7 of your attachments. That is Condition #40 which requires the combining of underlying lots into one parcel. We have checked and there are three underlying lots, so a Certificate of Compliance will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Ms. Cauble: I would like to add that the condition has been added, but it was added to the wrong place in the staff report. It indicates that that condition needs to be fulfilled prior to finalization of the building permit. In fact, even if it were not a part of these conditions, it needs to be dealt with before issuance of the building permit. So it really is sort of a courtesy condition to the applicant to put it in there. When it goes on to the City Council, Condition #40 will be moved up on the list. (Janet Stone inquires about asking a question of the commission.) Janet Stone. Project Manager for Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition: My understanding is that it is one parcel. It has one APN number. Is there something we need to do? I am not sure I understand the condition. Ms. Cauble: First of all, the fact that a parcel has a single APN number is not indicative of how many legal parcels exist. It is fairly typical for the assessor to assign one parcel number where there is common ownership. I believe it is unclear to the staff as to whether there is more than one parcel. It may be that there is more than one, but to avoid your reaching the stage of trying to pull a building permit and having this come as a surprise, staff is alerting you that this may be an issue. If there is more than one parcel, it needs to be combined. It is not an assumption that there is more than one, but from our city block book, it appears that there may well be three. That would make you eligible for combination through a Certificate of Compliance. It is a simple administrative process. Ms. Stone: While I am here, I would like to say that one of the conditions of approval has to do with the sound wall. We would like the opportunity to discuss that at some point. Chairman Beecham: I will reopen the public hearing for that purpose. Ms. Stone: Thank you very much. We would just like to have the flexibility to construct the sound wall perhaps not as high as stated and as allowed by the variance. Generally, that would be an aesthetic request that you would probably agree with. When the sound wall was originally proposed, we did not have the acoustic report. We envisioned the requirement of a much higher sound wall. Given the facts in the acoustical report, we may want to step that down from its highest point. At the comer, it shows close to 14 feet. We may not want to come down to the minimum six feet as suggested by the acoustical engineer, but we may want to compromise aesthetics and sound attenuation so that we can have some variation in that wall. I am sure you would not want it to go as high as 14 feet, either. Commissioner Schmidt: On the site plan, the sound wall does not go all the way to the comer of Ash Street and Page Mill Road. I wanted to confirm that the acoustical report did not recommend that it had to start there. Ms. Stone: There was some clarification from the acoustical engineer about the extent of that wall and where it joins. Paul Barnhart will explain that. Paul Bamhart, Project Architect: We designed the project before we had the final acoustic report, as Janet stated. I took a shot at what I thought might be required. As it turns out, when the acoustic engineer made his field measurements, he came up with the recommendation which was much lower, a six-foot-high wall. So we would like to have flexibility to fine-tune it between the six feet and what we presently show. In response to your question about wrapping the comer, the building mass, the community room, effectively does that. That is why it was designed that way, as I felt that no one would be very excited about having that wall wrap all around that comer. That is why we have the community building there. Commissioner Schmidt: I have another question for the architect. I believe this was discussed at the recent ARB meeting. It appears that there is an elevator in just one building, so that the units in two of the buildings would not be accessible on the second floor. Mr. BamharLt_: That is correct. Commissioner Schmidt: I believe it was also stated that there is a Certificate of Compliance or some other type of certificate from the state saying that you do not have to have all of the units accessible by an elevator. Could you explain that? Mr. Bamhart: Yes, according to the state building code, we do not have to have any of the units to be second-floor accessible.. However, there is an underlying HUD regulation for which we have submitted a waiver. This is kind of a compromise between the state requirements and the HUD requirements. It is a very arcane role. Rather than just 50% accessible, we have some 60 units or two-thirds accessibility. Ms. Stone: I would like to add one point of information on making the one building accessible. From a user point of view, the 50% accessibility for wheelchairs would be more than adequate for this population, because most of the population are not wheelchair users. Most do not have mobility problems, but we were thinking about the future. People with developmental disabilities are living longer. People with Downs Syndrome, for instance, are now typically living into their 40’s and 50’s. As that population ages, there may be some mobility problems, so we chose a compromise of about 67% of units being accessible with the elevator, so that people who are not in wheelchairs but may have problems walking up the stairs as they age would have the option of either living on the ground floor or living in the units accessible with an elevator. To add more elevators, the expense goes sky high. We are waiting to hear from HUD, and we have been told we will get HUD approval for the waiver, making it less than 100% fully accessible. Chairman Beecham: With that, I will again close the public heating. Commissioner Oiakian: I would like to ask the city attomey about the comments just made, stating that the wall can be less than currently in the staff report, so there shouldn’t be an issue there, I believe. Ms. Cauble: I was just reviewing that, as we heard the testimony. What we are zoning into the PC ordinance is what is required under the environmental assessment, the negative declaration, which is essentially the minimum necessary, per the noise study, which is the six feet. So what is zoned in is that there be a wall of at least six feet in the proper location with the proper materials. Applying for a variance does not mean that you need to use the whole variance. Ultimately, if their plans change, they will need to obtain ARB approval for whatever the final design is, but the way the ordinance and conditions are worded, nothing would force them to put up a 14-foot sound wall. Commissioner Schmidt: In the ordinance, Page 5, Section 4(c) (viii)(e), "Development Schedule." It states, "Construction of the project shall commence on or before September 1, 1997, and shall be completed and ready for occupancy on or before December 1, 1998." Does anything happen if it is not completed by that date, and is that an adequate amount of time, 15 months, for completion of a project of that size? Ms. Cauble: What happens is that our PC ordinance does require that a development schedule be specified in the ordinance. What happens if one does not comply with it is pretty drastic. The zoning administrator is required to commence proceedings to rezone the property. That is why we often recommend adding time to the very optimistic schedule that applicants always present to us. They present an optimistic schedule and want to move quickly. We say, we do not want bad things to happen if it does not move that quickly. I believe that the dates in the ordinance are the revised dates that the staff had recommended, adding a few months to the schedule that the applicant submitted. There is a procedure in the zoning ordinance for the zoning administrator, under appropriate circumstances, to allow up to an additional year upon request of the applicant. But we like to avoid doing that, so this schedule does add some extra time. Certainly, if the applicant has any concerns about these dates, now would be the time to add even more time than we already added to what they proposed. Chairman Beecham: I have a question for staff. Regarding Recommendation #2, "Approval of the variances allowing for a 15-foot street side setback along Ash Street where special setbacks often feet and 35 feet are normally required, and a 10- to 14-foot-high stepped noise wall adjacent to the Page Mill Road property line to exceed the 7-foot-high fence height limit." Do we need to vary that, since the wall will not necessarily be 10 to 14 feet high? Ms. Weiss: No, you do not have to do that. Chairman Beecham: I do not understand why not. Ms. Cauble: That variance allows the maximum possible height. Unless the commission is concerned that you are unable to make the fmdings for that height, I think the better practice is to make the findings for the variance, realizing that the applicant, as well as the city, wants to install the minimal wall necessary to protect the residents and be visually attractive. Again, it is a maximum for which, if you can make the findings, you may want to go ahead with the recommendation, and then the applicant will propose changes to get to a more reasonable height. Chairman Beecham: Thank you. Any other comments? Commissioner Ojakian: I noticed that you have included "no construction on Sundays." We have asked for that in the past. Was that .run past the applicant? Ms. Weiss: The applicant did receive a copy of the conditions and did not have any question about that particular condition. We did put that condition- in to protect the residents in the area. We felt that should be standard practice in a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Ojakian: I am happy to see it in there, since in a couple of past situations, it was not included, and we asked for that. It is nice to see that it is getting included before even having to discuss it. Now I would like to make my general eornments. I am still in the same position I was in when we saw this the first time. Nothing has happened between the conceptual phase and now that would change my mind. My mind was of the set that said this is a good project. It is appropriate land use planning; it is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. It is taking an area that is already multiple-family zoned and, in fact, not even being developed to the intensification that could be there if it were under some other set of circumstances. I like the fact that it adds diversity to our housing stock. That is one of the premises we have talked about a lot. This helps put into action what we have put into words. I also like the fact that it is a specific housing type, one that is severely lacking not only in Palo Alto but in the surrounding areas. Another interesting comment that came out of our original discussion of this from Ms. Stone was the fact that out of the group in Santa Clara County, there were 813 people that required this type of housing, and in a project in Belmont, the waiting list became So long that they stopped having one, since it was an unrealistic thing to do. I think the location is great for this project. I will continue to harp on that when we get projects like this in front of us, particularly because of the fact that it has good public transportation nearby, and it has commercial retail within close proximity to the site, allowing people the convenience of using those facilities. I have not heard any evidence that concerns me about the parking that will be offered at this site. We have seen in past projects, not necessarily with this type of tenant, but with similar situations such as the SRO downtown,that they are less car-dependent. I would trust the statistics that were furnished us the last time, so I do not see that as an issue. Again, along the lines of things that are not just in the Comprehensive Plan but looking at what we used to call CHAS when I started out on this commission, there are several things that come out of this project that we said we wanted to get. One is an increase in rental housing units, affordable units. The only other thing I want to speak to is the fact that we know there has been a long search for a site for this project, so it is pretty clear that this is a site that is not only available but has been one of the few we could fred that was, in fact, usable for this purpose. For all of those reasons, I find myself being in support of this project and will support a motion that would go along with the staff recommendation. MOTION: Commissioner O_iakian: I move that we approve the staff recommendations as stated on Page 1 of the staff report, including (I) Approval of the attached mitigated negative declaration, finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts if certain conditions of project approval are imposed; (2) Approval of the variances allowing for a 15-foot street side setback along Ash Street where special setbacks of ten feet and 35 feet are normally required, and a 10- to 14-foot-high stepped noise wall adjacent to the Page Mill Road property line to exceed the 7-foot-high fence height limit; (3) Adoption of the attached ordinance, including findings and conditions rezoning the property at 2700 Ash Street from RM- 40 (high-density multiple-family residence district) to PC (Planned Community District) allowing the development of the two-story, 18,648-square-foot, 24-unit residential project for very low income and developmentally disabled persons; and (4) Approval of the attached ARB findings and conditions of project approval. SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt. Ms. Cauble: Does the motion include moving Condition 40 up to before issuance of the building permit? Commissioner Ojakian: Yes. Commissioner Cassel: I was delighted with the project the last time it came before us, and I am really excited that we proceeding. I do not have any changes. It is just important to say something in order to build strength in case anyone should object. We continue to have people concerned who write letters to us. I think there is a misunderstanding, in one case, that we are building low-income housing and are going to have a lot of people on this site. Yes, it is low- income housing for a very specific group of people, but I do not anticipate that this will generate a lot of activity in the neighborhood at all. The residents are going to be relat!vely quiet: It is not a situation where there will be a lot of parties or large numbers of people. I am delighted to see us proceed with this project. Commissioner Eakins: I want to add to the growing body of glowing comments about this project. I would reiterate how pleased I am to see it moving along so that it is going to happen. Because it will look so good, having read the ARB meetings, I feel it will be such a positive contributor not only to the housing stock but to the appearance of the whole area that I hope it will set a good example and will inspire other communities, most of all Palo Alto, to build more of this kind of housing. Commissioner Schmidt: I would support all of the comments that have been made already, and again, I compliment the applicant and applicant’s architect for doing their homework, for doing an excellent project. It is a pleasure to supsport a project like this, and it is indeed a public benefit for the city. Commissioner Schink: I agree with the previous comments. Chairman Beecham: I do also, and as I said the last time this came up, I cannot think of any vote that I am happier to say yes on than this. This is absolutely what we need. It is a viable service to the community and to the very special people within it. As we talked about before, there are virtually no impacts on the neighborhood from this project. As Phyllis mentioned, in a letter received tonight, one of the residents has concerns about parking and about affecting the calmness of the environment. In the testimony we had before when we talked about parking and the kinds of people and activities that will go on here, in all expectation, the impact of this facility will certainly be less on the neighborhood than if there were a development built out to RM-40, which is allowed at this site. So in fact, not only are we doing a great service to some special people in the community, but also, this is better for the neighborhood than what would occur trader the normal zoning at this location. Commissioner Cassel: I would hope that some of the neighbors become particular friends and support this project. I think that if they go over and start visiting, this would be a nice place to do a little volunteer work, and they will become very strong supporters and very good friends of the tenants. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: An excellent idea. Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor of approving the staff recommendations regarding approval of the mitigated negative declaration and and certain conditions, approval of the variances for a setback and a stepped noise wall, adoptionof the attached ordinance, including findings and conditions and rezoning from RM-40 to a PC, and approval of the attached ARB findings and conditions, plus moving Condition 40, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner Carrasco absent. This project will be forwarded to the City Council, now tentatively scheduled for June 24th. Attachment 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING May 2, 1996 Excerpt Minutes 2700 Ash Street: Application to rezone a property from RM-40 High-Density Multiple-Family District to Planned Community (PC) district to construct a two-story, 18,648-square-foot, 24-unit residential project for very low-income and developmentally disabled persons, and ten on-site parking spaces where 43 spaces are normally required. The project includes variances for 1) a 15-foot street side setback along the Ash Street frontage where special setbacks of 10 feet and 35 feet are normally required; and 2) a 10- foot-high to 14-foot-high stepped noise wall adjacent to the Page Mill Road property line where 7 feet is the maximum height allowed. File Nos. 96-ZC-1, 96-ARB-11, 96-V-3, 96-EIA-3. Ms. Maser: Are there any comments from staff?. Ms. Weiss: Yes, I have several comments. First ofail, we want the ARB to note that we have two alternative plans on the wall today. One is the original parking lot plan, and the second is an alternate plan that was presented to the Planning Commission which basically splits up what was the central parking court. It is still pretty much in the same location, except that the auto parking is concentrated on the upper part of that court adjacent to Ash Street. The bottom part of the court would now be used for socialization, basketball, etc. What is nice about it also is that now, the pedestrian walkway no longer cuts through the court into oncoming traffic or cars backing up. Pedestrians are free of that concern. Other than that, in moving the parking around like that, one of the units in Building A got moved and the trash enclosure got moved, but the plan has remained largely the same. Also, this building now has an elevator because HUD required it. Ms. Maser: We have two applicants here today. Janet Owens. Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition Board Member: Janet Stone, the staff person who was here before, is out of town today. I want to point out that I am also a board member of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. I am representing Mid-Peninsula Coalition today. Paul Barnhard, our architect for this project, is here today, and he will take over now. Mr. Barnhard. Project Architect: A couple of months ago, we appeared before you on a preliminary review where we presented the site plan you were just looking at where the parking lot went all the way through the parcel. Out of that review, a couple of points were made. We are back before you this morning, and I feel we have addressed those issues. The first comment that you made was on the parking situation whereby the parking often cars effectively bisected the site. We went back and thought about that and agreed that we could come up with a different solution that would hopefully solve that problem. We have prepared a small-scale model illustrating that. What we have done is to reconfigure Building A, the building on Ash and Sheridan Streets. It was a C-shaped building, and the parking lot was single-loaded at the front and double-loaded at the back. We have reversed that and have double-loaded the parking lot so that there are five cars on each side. Doing that effectively cuts the parking lot in half, so that whereas before, the parking lot went al! the way in back and we had to have KITI1996MINS21A:~ASH5-2.ARB 5-2-96 Page 1 this pedestrian walkway that went through the parking lot, which we all agreed was not optimum. Now we have. brought the parking lot up front, and this is all open space in the back. It is all enriched hardscape. We have colored it different to indicate that it is for pedestrians, not for cars to drive back there. The net benefit of this is that we were able to pick up quite a large area of open space that can be used for recreation. We are labeling it a basketball court. As an offshoot of that, on the prior scheme, the trash enclosure was in the back, and the refuse truck would have to drive through the parking lot, which always creates a lot of damage to paving, especially enriched paving. So we have pulled that out and have relocated it off of Sheridan Street so that the trash can be rolled out to the street, and the trucks do not need to come into the center of the site any longer. ¯ Ms. Maser: Is a trellis supposed to go right in front of that opening? Mr. Bamhard: Yes, it frames it so that you can look through there. It takes a jog now, whereas before, it was a straight shot. The other issue was the sound wall. There were some comments made about that. I believe that the last time when we appeared before you, there was a preliminary acoustic report. Now we have the final one. It demonstrates that the sound wall does mitigate the noise along Page Mill Road. So it is confirmed that our design will meet the acoustic standards. Ms. Maser: What is the construction of that wall? Mr. Barnhard: It will be masonry. There were also comments made at the last hearing regarding public art. Mid-Peninsula has given a lot of thought to that, and they came up with some ideas. Originally, we were thinking about having the residents do ceramic plaques, 12 x 12 tiles that could be embedded in the paving or around the top of the planter in the courtyard. Then some other ideas came up. Rather than its just being focused on the inside of the project, perhaps it could be applied to the outside of the sound wall so that the decorative plaques could be inserted into portions of that wall. Those are some of the ideas we have been thinking about. The other item, as Lorraine mentioned, was that Building A on Sheridan has had an elevator added to satisfy HUD’s requirement for second floors being accessible, when we reconfigured Building A. So now, two-thirds of the units are fully accessible, whereas before, it was only 50 percent. Those are the main issues. Ms. Maser: So the second floor of Building A is accessible, but the second floor of these other two are not. (Correct) Is there anything you want to talk about regarding the exterior and changes you have " made? Mr. Barnhard: You have revised elevations on the wall that show the new building configurations. Also, we have changed the roof design. You cannot tell from the elevations, but it was a pitched roof and had a fiat section in the center. We have reconfigured them so that they are completely hipped roofs. There would have been a maintenance problem. KITI1996MINS21A:VX, SH5-2.ARB 5-2-96 Page 2 Mr.Ross: There is no mechanical up there? Mr.Barnhard: No. Mr.Ross: Where will that be located? Mr. Bamhard: That is something we are working on, just the type of systems. As it stands right now, the units are going to be gas-heated. The only air conditioning will be in the community room. The domestic hot water will be central boilers that will be in a mechanical room, so there really will be no major equipment in the project. Mr. Ross: Could you review the materials on the outside? Mr. Bamhard: These are the building materials. I brought this other elevation because the elevation you have up there for the major building on Ash Street is in the wintertime when all of the leaves are off the trees. It is a double-edged sword when you show all of the landscaping. I then get comments like "Are you trying to hide your building?" So this is a lot more stark than it actually will be. What I have done is take the liberty of showing some of the street trees along Ash Street, particularly across the front of the parking lot..Returning to the materials, it is a cement plaster stucco building, and it is a two-color scheme. Th~se are the stucco samples, a terra cotta and an ochre mustard color with a dark gray composition shingle roof. Mr.Peterson: Is it painted or is it an integral color? Mr.Bamhard: It will be painted. Ms.Maser: How will you texture your stucco? Mr. Barnhard: It will be a fine texture. It is hard to get exactly accurate samples for these presentations. Those are pretty standard. We have a lot of standard colors from various manufacturers, so to get the color and the right texture is a bit of a task. The idea is that it will be a fine, sand finish, textured stucco. We show the window materials there and the light fixtures in the public areas. Mr. McFall: And what color is the trim? Mr. Barnhard: That will be white, so it is this color, and it is wood. This is the accent color for these railings here. Ms. Maser: But the frame around the railing is white and this is black? Mr. Barnhard: No, this is such a small scale that we cannot get enough width to color it, so it comes out as black. All the railings around the walkways will get that color. This is the hardscape. Ms. Maser: Thank you. Are there any other questions? KITI1996MINS21A:VkSH5-2.ARB 5-2-96 Page 3 ~: The windows are metal? (Yes) Is the white a bonded color? Mr. Barnhard: Not necessarily. We cannot do proprietary specifications, so it will be that level of quality. It will be a painted window. Mr. Ross: Does HUD have a requirement on the percentage of accessible units? Do they dictate that?. You mentioned an elevator requirement. Mr. Barnhard: Yes, they do. Mr. Ross What is that percentage? Mr. Barnhard: That is what this waiver is about. They just recently made a change on this type of housing. They would like all of it to be one hundred percent accessible. We are getting a waiver on this project. Mr. MeFall: You want a full-time staff person on the site? Mr. Barnhard: That is correct. There will be a resident manager. Mr. McFalI: What about able-bodied roommates with cars? This is all in reference to the numbers of parking spaces. I am curious what the history has been if that tends to be where a number of cars would be generated. Ms. Owens: There is a table in there of parking spaces on the projects that we have been involved with. There may occasionally be a roommate with a car, but ifI am not mistaken, the roommate also has to be disabled. If it is a person who is there to provide assistance and is also a roommate but has this function, then that person could be able bodied. This happens very seldom. To live here, the person has to be capable of independent living, so we would not have, for example, a paraplegic who has to have a full- time, live-in assistant. These people are capable of independent living when they move in. If they ever become incapable of independent living, other arrangements would have to be made. This is only for those who can live independently. Part of what is so great about this site is that these people need to be able to get around independently. They will use buses, bicycles, their feet, and they are used to this. This is the way they live. It is a little hard for some of us to understand this when we hop into the car and go out. That is not a part of their lifestyle. Ms. Maser: I have a question about the awning material over the windows. Mr. Barnhard: It would be canvas. ~: And what color are you using? Mr. Barnhard_: (Shows a sample) KIT[ 1996MINS2[A:~SH5-2.ARB 5-2-96 Page 4 Ms. Maser: This is a computer drawing? It looks like you intended to match the roof. Mr. Barnhard: It is not all that accurate. The idea is that it was going to be the accent color, so it is going to be close to that other green. Ms. Maser: That seems to be all of the questions. Thank you for presenting this. I will return the item to the board for discussion since there is no one else from the public who wishes to speak. Ms. Piha: Again, I am very much in support of what you are proposing here. you’ve done a great job incorporating the suggestions we made. I think the revised site plan works very well. The reconfiguration of the lower buildings was a very good solution. I am again very pleased with your choice of materials. Some of the ideas of art work that you talked about integrating sound very good. I am excited about seeing the project move forward. MOTION: Mr. Ross: I will move that we approve this application as submitted with staff conditions and findings. I have no conditions to add. I would comment that it is an outstanding staff report. Ms. Maser: Yes. Mr. Ross: It was chock full of all of the information that I needed in order to do a good review. Mr. Barnhard: IfI could make one comment before you approve this, if that is according to procedure. (Yes) In going through these preliminary conditions of approval, I had a couple of comments on" them having to do with clarification on setbacks. In Attachment #4, Item 12, "The sidewalk on the Ash Street frontage requires installation partially outside the city right-of-way, and a deed dedicating the additional right-of-way shall be required. The property owner shall dedicate to the city three feet of the Ash Street right-of-way frontage prior to building permit issuance in a form acceptable to the city, and recordation of dedication must be at the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office." I needed clarification that our 15- foot setback is from the property line, not from the back of the sidewalk. Ms. Weiss: That is correct. Mr. Barnhard: Also, I would like to go over the Page Mill Road widening or improvement project on Page Mill. When we first started the project, I got from the city a very small-scale, almost free-hand drawing of that triangular section that needs to be re-worked. If there is an engineering drawing of that for our civil engineer to make sure we have that area worked out, I would appreciate it. Ms. Weiss: You should see Carl Stoffel in Transportation. Ms. Owens: Since I am on the Palo Alto Housing Corporation board, I am a board member of the Colorado Park Corporation. That was the first low-income housing project built in the city by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation back in 1973. So we have some experience with tree plantings after more than 20 years! We have just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars removing trees. At the time, there was not an ARB, but the Planning Commission was concerned about getting trees in there. Trees were added to the project, but unfortunately, eucalyptus trees were used. Even without that, they were planted very KITI1996MINS21A:V~SH5-2.ARB 5-2-96 Page 5 close to the buildings. The expense has not only been in removing them, but it is also the fact that it prevented air circulation around the side of the building, and the termites and dry rot were a real problem when we finally got the trees out. With assisted housing, our budget is set by government agencies, and they seldom allow enough money for really good maintenance. We did get some flexible subsidies, and it was with some of that money that we were able to remove more trees, but we always have to do the thing that is most critical at the moment. We have always kept it as a very good looking and good living project, but we knew there were things that needed to be done. I hate to see another project being built with too many trees put in at the beginning. They always do grow, and one difference between a non- profit developer and a for-profit developer is that the project is not sold to take the profits out after 10 or 12 or 15 years. The project stays under the same ownership, which is why you want to be sure you have a good owner, and then be sure you are giving them something that can be maintained. Trees against buildings, trees too close to buildings, are costly. Ms. Maser: Are you proposing another scheme, other than the one before us? Ms. Owens: Apparently, you had changed the number of trees slightly. This is just my chance to tell the ARB that there can be a real problem with too many trees. Ms. Maser: Are you unhappy with what is being proposed here? Ms. Owens: That looks pretty dense to me around the outskirts of the property line where there are both street trees on the outside and more trees inside the property line. My Sunset Gardening Book says that the trees you are talking about will grow to a 15-foot diameter at the top, and eventually to 40 feet high. If they are going to protect people from noise at all, it is only when they are in front of the windows that they protect, which means they are going to be pretty close to the building. Ms. Maser: I think that if we were going to change this plan, we would want it done by someone who knows what they are doing. Ms. Owens: I am not making any suggestions. Ms. Maser: If you decide, after reconsidering this, that you want to change the plan in some way, you would have to resubmit a plan and go back to staff with it. If it is a fairly minor change, staff can perhaps approve it at staff level. They may feel uncomfortable about it and would bring it back to us on consent calendar. It is difficult for us to reconfigure that drawing here now. Ms. Owens: I don’t really want that. I just wanted you to know about the situation. Ms. Maser: We will just go ahead and approve what is before us, and if you decide you want to change it, you can do that. Mr. Ross: We are not actually approving the landscaping plan here today anyway, except in concept. There is a condition for the actual landscape and irrigation plan to return to the board. KITI1996MINS2(A:~SH5-2.ARB 5-2-96 Page 6 Ms. Maser: Apparently, we are going to see this again anyway. In the interim, you can make some adjustments before we give final approval. That is Condition #9. Ms. Maser: I love this project, but I have only one teeny reservation. That is this one color. Had you ever considered making all of the railings and metalwork white? I think it would be so stunning and strong as a color concept, rather than introducing this green color, which is a pretty color, but somehow, I do not feel that it fits with the rest of the project. Mr. Barnhard: We do use a lot of white, but I don’t know that I would use white railings. White shows a lot of dust and dirt. But it is something to be looked at. It could be washed. Ms. Maser: I think it would be beautiful looking. It is just an idea, and then the awnings could be a charcoal gray to sort of bring the roof down to a lower level. For some unknown reason, I don’t feel that that green fits with the other colors. It is just a suggestion, and not to be made a part of the motion. MOTION: (Reiterated) Mr. Ross: This is a motion to approve, with staff conditions and also a finding of consistency with the Planned Community zone findings (Attachment # 1), the draft variance findings and the findings for Architectural Review Board approval consistent with our standards of approval as enumerated in Attachment #3, also sufficiency of the mitigated negative declaration. .SECOND: By Mr. McFalI. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Maser: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously. This will be a really nice addition to the community. There was a letter from Mr. Herbert Foster, a handwritten note, about the parking, just to acknowledge receiving it. Hopefully, the explanation of the way in which your residents intend to use and not use automobiles will be a satisfactory explanation to him. When do you plan to start construction? Mr. Barnhard: It will be first quarter next year. It must go through the HUD cycle this fall. Ms. Maser: Do you have a waiting list for residents already? Ms. Owens: Not that I know of, however, lots of parents of disabled people have been very active in getting this project going, and I’m sure we’ll fill up quickly. KITI1996MINS21A:VkSH5-2.ARB 5-2-96 Page 7 Attachment 10 "DRAFT" EXCERPT MINWFES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 10, 1996 t w " a : Initial Planning Commission review of an application to rezone the property from RM-40 (High-Density Multiple-Family Residential District) to a PC (Planned Community District) to construct a two- story, 18,684-square-foot, 24-unit residential project for very low income and developmentally disabled persons. The project includes variances for 1) a 15-foot street side setback along Ash Street where special setbacks of 10 feet and 35 feet are normally required; and 2) a 10- to 14- foot-high stepped noise wall adjacent to the Page Mill Road property line where 7 feet is the maximum height allowed. Chairman Beecham: We will now turn to Agenda Item 1. This had initially been scheduled for our March 27th meeting, but we were unable to gel to it. We willhold a public hearing on it tonight. We have one item at our places tonight, a set of drawings for this project. Do we have any new information from staff?. ~: Yes, the ARB had a preliminary review of the project on January J;. TheARB generally was in support of the project, and felt that this housing type was needed for this user group and the project, as proposed, provided sufficient inherent public benefit. The ARB provided the following overall direction to the applicant: (1) A better parking solution should be designed such that the parking does not become the central focus. It should be separated by pedestrian circulation and that the parking should be relocated away from the center of the site. (2) Noise generated from traffic along Page Mill Road needs to be addressed so that persons residing near the east side of the project are not impacted and disturbed by the noise. Three persons provided public testimony at the ARB meeting and expressed concerns that the site should be developed to the maximum density allowed. Reducing the number of parking spaces for a project in a neighborhood which already has a parking shortage could be problematic. Three letters from the public were received. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan and elevations in response to some of staff’s and ARB’s concerns regarding the location of the central parking court. The court has been modified, specifically separating pedestrian and vehicular circulation so that they no longer ebnfliet, and it changes the placement of Unit A 101 in Building A, the trash enclosure and bicycle storage. These changes result in a plan with somewhat less architecture on Ash Street, though satisfying one of the ARB’s concerns for conflicting pedestrian and vehicular circulation at the center of the site. KIT]PCMINS21AAASH4- I O.PC 4-10-96 Page 1 As this is the Planning Commission’s initial review of the project, the commission is asked to comment and recommend on the draft findings for the Planned Community zone change and variance, for the draft conditions of project approval, and to advise the applicant regarding the public benefit findings. Should the Planning Commission act favorably at this initial review tonight, the applicant will prepare more detailed plans which will be forwarded to the ARB for their recommendation on May 2nd. The development plan is then returned to the Planning Commission for its final review on May 29, and will be submitted to the City Council for final review and action tentatively scheduled for June 17th. Can you walk us through the visual changes on the wall map? ~: Certainly. This is the revised plan, in which Unit A101 used to be adjacent to the Ash Street frontage, and has now been moved to the lower portion’ofthe site and is incorporated into Building A but below/he pedestrian circulation path. In addition’ to that, the parking court in the center of the site now has all of the parking adjacent to the pedestrian circulation path in the middle of the site so that parking and pedestrian circulation axe completely separated. The trash enclosure, originally in the east portion of the site, has now been moved closer to the Sheridan Avenue frontage, but will be screened by landscaping. Those are the main changes that have occurred. ChaimianBeecham: Do we have questions for staff at this point? ~: This is a question for Lorraine. In one of the letters that I read, it indicated that there was too much of what was called "this type of housing" in this area. Do you have any information that would indicate whether or not this part of town has an imbalance, or this project would represent any type of imbalance? ~: According to a CPAC briefing report that was published in January, 1993, in this pan of town, we have two projects. One is the Sheridan Apartments at 300 Sheridan Avenue, with 57 subsidized units. Another is the California Park Apartments at 2301 Park Boulevard, which includes 45 units, for a total of 102 units. Commissioner O_iakian: That is out of a total of how many in the city? That is out of a total of 1,009 subsidized units. ~: Is there any information about how much of the on-street parking is generated by residents versus commuters? The reason why I ask is because when Commissioner Cassel and I walked this site, we saw lots of people carrying briefcases going to their cars and driving off. I surmised that they were coming from offices or perhaps from the train. Does the city do any tracking of this? KIT]PCMINS21A:L~SH4- I 0.PC 4-10-96 Page 2 ~: The only tracking we would do of the breakdown of resident versus employee parking would be through our parking permit programs. I do not know of any general, on-street parking surveys that actually try and get at whether those cars belong to residents versus employees. Perhaps fo~ a special purpose, the Transportation Division might try and get at that issue, but they do not do it as a general monitoring program. " ~: Does staffhave any comments about any kind of parking differences or problems in the evening and at night versus the daytime? ~: Every time that I have been out to this site, I have not really had a problem with parking on the street. .~.h~ll~Ll~gh~l: At what times were you there? ]~_gi~.: I have been out to the site at six or seven different times, anywhere from morning to the evening. Those times were all Monday through Friday. In terms of actual parking on site, some people may have noticed that recently, the lot has been used for some parking. I found out today that the ears that you may have found on that lot are not attributed to any specific requirements for parking on-site. In fact, people just on their own have decided to park there. A cyclone fence was recently erected on the actual site, because people were found to be dumping contaminated soils on the site. That is when the county decided to put the fence up to stop that activity from reoccurring. Right now, to our knowledge, there has never been any intention of long-term parking on the vacant site. !~]~:n~a]~’,ha~: If there are no further questions, we will turn to the public hearing. We will first hear from the applicant. Janet Stone. Project Manager: Good evening. I am the project manager for this project which we have officially named Page Mill Court. I am extremely pleased to be here tonight and I have with me our architect, whom I will introduce in a moment. I would like to give you a little background about it. Most of this was contained in your report, but I would like to fill in some of the details that I feel are important about the genesis of this particular project in Palo Alto. Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition (and we are one of the two co-sponsors of this housing project along with Adult Independence Development Center) is very pleased to be bringing this to you tonight for your review. This project represents the culmination of about three years of work to develop supported housing for developmentally disabled adults in this area. Approximately three years ago, a group of Palo Alto parents was directed to Mid-Peninsula by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation who, at that time, did not have the capacity to develop this particular housing. So the parents were directed our way, and we started at that time to look for a site that would be appropriate for this type of housing. Also at that time, we began to apply for federal funding for this type of housing, because there is special funding available under HUD particularly for special needs housing. After three attempts to gain that federal funding, we were successful last year, and we were awarded a HUD capital advance for almost $2 million which will go towards the cost of this project. We also were successful in finding what we feel is an extremely appropriate site, one that is very much supported by parents of KI’I]PCMINS2IAAASH4- I 0.PC 4-10-96 Page 3 developmentally disabled adults and children with whom we have been working. It is also supported by people in the c!ty who have indicated that the site is appropriately zoned. It is conveniently located for the user group. When we submitted our application to HUD this last year for funding, we had dozens and dozens of letters of supportfor the project. Those letters came from not only parents and families of people with developmental disabilities, but also from the Mayor and City Council of Palo Alto, the City Manager, elected officials from cities in the area, school officials, agencies that represented disabled people, you name it. We had all kinds of letters of support that pointed out that this project is not only critically needed to provide housing for people with developmental disabilities in this area, but that it is also in a very good location for the users in that it is very close to transportation, it is in a residential neighborhood, multiple-family residential, and in all other ways, the site seems to be very appropriate for this group. The HOD grant that we were given also contains a five-year rental assistance support that goes along with this. The Congress has cut that amount of assistance back from 20 years to five years, but it will still be very important in supporting this housing for a period of time. We are, of course, hoping that Congress will see fit to extend those operating assistance grants for a longer period of time, but we are not going to rely on that. We will be looking for other sources of rental subsidies in order to keep the housing affordable to very low income people. I will also say that we really feel that the design and location and everything about the project is superior. It really is the best design, given the site, that we could come up with, but of course, we are open to your comments. I would now like to introduce Paul Bamhart of Bamhart Associates. Bamhart Associates is an outstanding architectural fn’rn which designs multiple-family residential developments and has done a lot of work for nonprofit housing developers. They have designed a number of special needs housing developments. Two of their designs, Fell Street in San Francisco and Pinole Grove in Pinole, have won Gold Nugget awards for superior design. So we were very pleased to have Bamhart and Associates as our architectural firm. I would like to introduce Paul, who will go through a little more detail about the design. Thank you. ~L.I~aLII~: God evening, commissioners. I would like to review the design with you. Lorraine’s report really gave a very comprehensive overview of all of the aspects of the design. As she mentioned, we went through a preliminary ARB review which we all found to be very helpful. In that review, the board came up with what I believe to be a couple of very good suggestions. So we have seized upon that opportunity to modify the design in several different ways. Tonight, those revised drawings are on the wall. I can review the original design with you and then compare the revised design as to how it has been improved. I also have brought along a scale model. (It gets passed around.) It is mounted on a colored landscape plan, which pretty much describes in detail the landscape design with all the plant specimens on it. It is a small-scale model, but it demonstrates the grouping of the three buildings. As stated in the report and as Janet has stated, this housing type is slightly different from your standard apartment building because of the user group. We always try to approach that and design it specifically to address their needs. Those needs are mentioned in the staff report, but quickly, an overview is that this population benefits.from a single-loaded design, so KIT~PCMINS2[AAASH4-10.PC 4-10-96 Page 4 it is not a corridor building, either a closed corridor building or an open air breezeway. The units focus inward so that there can be security and socialization and people can see each other and greet each other.. They are not focused towards the outside, the street, which a general apartment building -might do for other reasons, more for a single-family approach Where people have their own identity, their own entrance, and they exit straight to the street. So it is different in that way. Also, we wanted to break down the scale. On this difficult site, we could have put a single building, a two-story or a three-story building here, and it would have been a lot less expensive than what we are proposing here, but it would not have achieved what we are trying to do. One of the main aspects of the design you see there that was reviewed at the ARB is that you can see that the parking lot is in the center of the site. It essentially goes from the street to the rear property line. Although.we only have ten parking spaces, which I will get into later, the parking lot is located in the center of the site. That would not have been our fn’st choice, because as designers and users, we would prefer to have the parking lot on the perimeter, but given that this site faces on three streets, and we have two main intersection comers plus a third comer that adjoins the Linus Pauling Building, from an urban design standpoint, no one enjoys having a parking lot on the comer in full view. It is not a major asset to the city or to anyone else, so when you factor that in, you are not going to have the parking lot either on Page Mill Road or on Ash Street or Sheridan and Ash Street, that cuts out a large percentage of your options. Our preferred choice would have been to put it on Page Mill Road directly adjacent to Linus Pauling, but in meeting with city staff, it was agreed that that is not a wise choice either, because you are accessing right onto Page Mill Road, a very busy thoroughfare. So having those constraints, we were left with the parking lot in the middle of the site. This is what we came up with the first time around. Having gone through this design, the ARB came up with a very good idea, I felt, which was that if we could somehow configure the parking lot so that it did not completely bisect the site, as you can see in that model, we had an enriched paving feature going through the parking lot that would designate it as a pedestrian way. As you can well imagine, this is not going to be a busy parking lot with ten cars coming and going like a shopping center. Also, because it is not a through parking lot where a car could cut through from one street to the other, you will not have people speeding through, so we thought that given those conditions, this would be an acceptable arrangement. They caused us to rethink it, and I feel we came up with an even better idea, which you see on that small colored drawing on the wall. Previously, the only reason it had to go front to back in that model that you see is because we had it mostly single loaded, that is, there was. only parking on one side of the drive aisle. We did that so that from Ash Street we could conceal the parking lot from Ash Street since it was the width of a car stall, say 18 feet. With it being single- loaded at Ash Street, our parking lot was 18 feet narrower and we could landscape it. The thinking was that you could essentially drive up and down Ash Street and not notice that the parking lot was there. That is what that model shows. The disadvantage of doing that is that the people would have to walk through the parking lot to get from one building to another. So we have double-loaded the parking with five cars on each side of the drive aisle, and that netted a big advantage. How the parking lot is only half as deep, and as Lorraine was saying, that pedestrian walkway still goes from the one building on Sheridan to the other grouping on the east side of the site, but it is completely below the parking lot. It is all landscaped and hardscaped area. You could have a little basketball court there and many other activities, and not have to even think about the parking lot. So we think that is a big advantage. KI’[]PCMINS2[A:L~SH4- I 0.PC 4-10-96 Page 5 In doing that, we had to reconfigure the building, which we call Building A on Sheridan. It used to be pretty much a C-shaped building because the parking lot went from north to south. Now it is more of a J-shaped building where on Ash Street, it is a short leg, and towards the south property line, it is a longer leg, since the parking lot is no longer ~ere. We have reconfigured that, redesigned it and we have redone all of the elevations to reflect this. We all think it is a superior design. Lorraine has the two main points from the ARB highlighted on Page 4 of the staff report. The first one was the parking solution, and the second one was the noise generated on Page Mill Road. We designed the building with the understanding that there would be a lot of noise generated on Page Mill. So we grouped the buildings in a tight cluster, and we have a sound wall that buffers that noise.- I believe you have a copy of the acoustic study’that was done, and it confirms that the noise is mitigated with this d~sign. The third point is that in Building A, we have added an elevator so that the second floor is fully accessible, and a fourth point is that we have relocated the trash enclosure out of the parking lot. It fronts on Sheridan and is no longer something that has to be dealt with in the middle of the site. Thank you. ~aiiml~ul~cham: Your report indicated that car ownership is anticipated to be very low by the occupants and that most occupants will not own cars. That is the rationale for having so few parking spaces¯ Wouid there be any difficulty with having a condition that limits car ownership for the occupants? ~: I am not sure that there really would be a need for that. We did a survey of three other sites, two of our properties plus a third one, that are all similar to this in that they are developmentMly disabled adults. You can see from the results that car ownership is practically nonexistent. This is a population that does not chive, and we have parents here tonight who will speak to that point. Also, it is a low-income population that cannot afford a car even if they could drive. So what would you decide to limit it to? Five, or four or three? It is kind of an arbitrary thing. : " : I want to get an idea ofhow long you have been looking for sites, and what other sites you looked at, and why you did not select one of them. ~: We have looked at just about every available site that would be appropriately zoned. What we are dealing with is HOD restrictions on site locations, for instance, that the site should be close to public transportation but not right on a busy street. Although part of the property fronts on Page Mill Road, this seems to be acceptable to HOD. A site we had chosen for our application last year which was right on El Camino Real was considered to be too noisy by HUD. As you know, there are only so many sites that are both appropriately zoned and available and at a price that would be consistent with the amount of money we are able to raise for the project. We are, by the way, seeking an additional $1 million in addition to .the $2 million from HUD. Some of this has already been KITIPCMINS2JAAAS H4- I 0.PC 4-10-96 Page 6 approved by other cities for CDBG money. I cannot tell you how many sites we have looked at. I am sure it has b~n over twenty. This had literally all of the attributes we w~’e looking for. We could not find a negative here. We had our soils report done, and there is no contamination which needs to be remediated. That is another aspect. HUD would only approve it if it did not require extensive remediation. So we feel blessed that we found this site. Would you explain to us a little about the demand for this type of housing? ~: I can speak to. that, and I believe the parents present tonight will address that, as well. There was a study done by the San Andreas Regional Center, which is an agency serving developmentally disabled adults. It is a provider of essential support services that serves all of Santa Clara County. These figures are contained in the Consolidated Plan. San Andreas found developmentally disabled adults who were capable of independent living. There are currently only a very few number of residential housing complexes to serve this population. So the 815 were in excess, that is, they could not find housing that is affordable and accessible. Another similar agency in San Mateo County called Golden Gate Regional Center found close to that number of people who were looking for housing. The waiting list at Horizons in Belmont is about two years long. There are about 23 people there, and it was closed because it was felt to be unfair to keep people waiting too long on the waiting list. The closest similar project is in San Jose, and is called Vivente Two. Mid- Peninsula owns both of these and manages them. That has a three-and-a-half year waiting list. It, too, has been closed. There is just no appropriate housing like this in any of the cities close to Pale Alto. be living in the project? primary population? I know there are 24 units in the project. How many people are expected to Is it one per unit? Are there other family members ever living with the ~: The reason why the project is 24 units, by the way, is that HUD puts a limit of 24 on the number of units you can have serving a special n~ds population.. So we are at the maximum number. We are required to have at least one developmentally disabled adult over the age of 18 per unit. If you have one per unit, that is basically 24, however, there are projects (and HUD does allow this) where if there is another member of the family, for instance, a spouse, who is also disabled, that of course would be allowed. We would not discriminate against that person. In our other similar housing developments like this, we have a combination of individuals and small households, primarily individuals, but there are some couples and there are even a few situations of couples with a child. Qommissioner Schmid_t: But they are all developmentally disabled adults? ~_to~: No. Another situation is that we are planning two bedrooms in anticipation of a developmentally disabled adult who may have an attendant living with them, a nondisabled attendant, or a nondisabled room mate. This is a concept that is increasingly supported for this population, someone to live with this population who can be a helpful roommate or mentor or role model or someone who can help negotiate things in their daily life. For instance, if someone is in a wheelchair, at Horizons, we have someone in a wheelchair, and they have an attendant whois there several days a week. So there is a combination. There are mostly individuals, but there are some with two people KIT~PCMINS21A:L4.SH4-10.PC 4-10-96 Page 7 per unit, and in a couple of cases, there is a small household. That is the reason why we have a combination of one- and two-bedrooms to accommodate different size households. The household income, which is figured in a complex way, has to be very low income. It is based on the head of household who is the disabled p~rson. ¯ " : The way you are talking, is this permanent housing? It will not be a teaching facility where someone stays two years and learns how to live independently. You are talking about permanent housing. Yes, this is permanent housing. C, hail:malx]~~: If that completes the questions, we will now hear fi’om members of the public. ~:Ll:lakla. 2619 Waverley S_II~_~P~h~M~: Thank you for the chance to address you on this project. We feel blessed that this is even at the stage where it is now. Janet mentioned my main concerns that there was nothing between San Jose and Redwood City. We have a son who is 23 years old, and we do not know if he will fit the edteda for this, but at least, the .option would exist that there may be something .like this in our neighborhood¯ It is also very dose to transportation whieh is already familiar to him, and it is next to California Avenue, so there is a viable place for him to go and shop. He already knows all of the shopkeepers there, so it is a very comfortable place for him. So I really hope you will pass this for him. Michael Hahn. 2619 Waverley Street. Palo Alt0: Good evening. As my wife has said, we would very much appreciate having housing for our speeial needs young adult son in the area. Both he and Palo Alto would benefit. Those who know him have gained tremendously, and it would be wonderful both for him and the community to have people like him stay here. Patrieia Saffir. 2719 Bryant Street. Palo Alto: I am speaking for the League of Women Voters this evening. You have our letter in your packet, so I do not need to do mueh more than stand up here and say that we certainly meant everything we put in the letter. A lot of it can be said much.better by the parents here tonight as far as the need goes¯ Also, they have mentioned the appropriateness of the location. We eertainly agree with that. We feel that it all justifies changing RM-40 to a PC zone,.and we hope that you will recommend to the eouneil that they do that. Thank you. Start Perry. 2020 Cowr~er Street. Palo All0: I am a member of the parent group that first approached Mid-Peninsula some three years ago. I can tell you that we looked at many, many places. In Midtown, we looked at St. Aloysius Church, which would have been a lovely location. Also Rudolfo’s, the Camino Club, The Orchard hidden away in Barton Park, and this is what we found. This is the only thing we found. It is a wonderful location. We are parents of a 25-year- old developmentally disabled young man who lives in a supported living program in Santa Cruz. It is a wonderful program; he has his own apartment there, and he has a nondisabled roommate. That roommate acts as mi assistant but really allows him to live independently. That is one of the things that we and other parents were able to contribute -- our insights as to what really works. The other thing we did was, in preparing for the HUD application, we had a meeting to which our KI1]PCMINS21A:~SH4-10.PC 4-10-96 Page 8 children came, some of whom have gone away to college, such as College of the Siskiyous, and some of whom have lived independently. We asked them what they liked. Some like single bedrooms, some like studios. They like everything. Some want to have a roommate. I think they have shown the flexibility here with this design that is really encouraging. The fact that there will be a mix of people I feel is an asset to this project. There is clearly a huge need. There is just no question about that. You can talk to parents anywhere and you will find that they have children living in Santa Barbara, Sacramento, just wherever they can find programs for their children, so there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the need is there. It is a great location, and also one of the things we feel really blessed about is the support that this community has shown for this project. Also, the strength of the Mid-Peninsula Homing Coalition persevering though application after application .was really remarkable. Their diligence and their perseverance, as well as Cathy Siegel from city staff, in finding places that we did not know existed and telling us to go and look at them. Susan Russell would follow up and try to fred the owners. We looked at a place that was owned by the Elks Club on Wilkie Way, ¯ mother wonderful location, but people are not very eager to give up their pieces of property even for market value. They want to maximize their return, so we finally found the county which was willing to sell at market value. The experience in Belmont has been a great experience, and we feel that that has been a great thing, that we are not the fn’st one here. We are coming in second, and the Belmont experience has been a great experience. We like the court design a lot. I am not’ convinced that having the parking in the center is a bad thing, because this is a group of people who like to see who is coming and going. You do not grow up developmentally disabled without some sense of vulnerability. My son is very security conscious, and I think that is true for others. The three courts are very pleasing, and that completes everything I wanted to say. I urge your approval of this project. ¯ e 4 e e "v : I have a daughter who is 27 years old, also developmentally disabled. She went to high school in this community when we moved here in 1988. She learned all the bus systems, she worked at Hobie’s, and got acclimated to this ¯ environment. Then when she grew up she had to move away to San Jose so that she could have- an independent life style. She is very fortunate to be living at the Vivente project that John had mentioned. She had to wait four years to get into it. It is still problematic that she is so far away from home. The possibility of her being able to live here in Palo Alto close by and still maintain her independence is something that we all look forward to. So I just wanted to let you know how important this is. I was one of the original people that started up with finding Mid-Peninsula and everything. We started off by asking the question, why is it our kids have to move out of the community in order to be independent? What kinds of stumbling blocks do we have to go over in order to be able to bring them back home so they can at least be a part ofthe community where they grew up with their friends and their associations here. So we are very excited about the project and excited about the design of it, where it is located, everything, and we look forward to getting in there soon. Thank you. KIT]PCM1NS21A:L4,SH4-10.PC 4-10-96 Page 9 v : My husband and I are also parents of a developmentally disabled daughter who is 23 years old. She is now a student at College of the Sisldyous. We have lived here for eight years, so she started high school here at Palo Alto High School. 1.will never forget coming here and finding what a place this is. What an open, supportive, program existed at the high school for these kids. So it has been one blessing after another being part of the Palo Alto community. So,this is another extension of this kind of blessing. The kids having grown up here, we felt that Palo Alto is the right place for a development like this to be, because of the heart of this city and the community that it is. I commend you for listening to all of the things we have had to say. I also want to make the point that I think this project has real potential because it is not just Palo Alto that it speaks to. It is a regional effort. We have called for support from different communities, other cities like East Palo Alto and other regions that are nearby, so it is a regional effort and will serve a regional population. That is another plus behind this. It is not just for kids that grew up in Palo Alto but is for people throughout this region. Thank you very much. C~:manBe~e~ham: With that, I will close the public hearing and bring the discussion back to the Planning Commission. Do we have additional questions for ~ Commissioner Oiakian: I want to ask staff, since it seems like one of the few objections that has been raised at the Architectural Review Board meeting, about this notion that there is not enough parking in that area. We have touched upon it again tonight. Where does that notion come from? What is it grounded in? ~: I think the people who raised those issues were residents of the area who have experienced some parking problems over time. We do not have any documentation of unusual ¯ parking problems in that area. ¯~r Oiakian: So it is basically supposition or opinions of some people who have had some difficulty at some point in time. That is correct. a_ChaimaanBeecham:. If that completes the questions, we can begin the discussion. _C~mmLssioner Cass¢l: I will be glad to start the discussion. I noted four points. One is the need, one is parking, one is the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, and one is the design of the project. There is no question in my mind about the need. I have worked with two such projects in my professional career. One was for permanent living, and the other was a training program. It was part of my responsibility to do the incoming evaluations and to inspect the units. As such, I got to know the people in these projects. They were both in San Jose. It was a delightful experience. I have also worked with Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition independently of those two projects, and had a very nice experience. They develop very free projects, and they maintain them well. If they are doing rehab, when you return the next year, the unit looks better than it did the in’st KIT~PCMINS21AAASH4- ! 0.PC 4-10-96 Page 10 year. If you go back the following year, it looks even better. They do very nice work. The need for persons to be independent and not living at home is apparent. Parents grow older; peop!e need other connections .to the community, and a way to live on their own. They need those facilities within a reasonable distance so that parents can provide support for their children, while they need to be out on their own with other people that they can enjoy and with some of the special amenities they are talking about having at this project. They need to be both independent but not too far away. I am aware, from my experience, that the need for a lot of parking spaces was not high. Very few people in the projects had cars. They could not afford them, for one, and also, they could not pass the driving test. In fact, that is a part ofthe nature oftbe special need for the housing. If you do have independent people living in those units, those people may indeed need some parking, so that is a factor I had not thought about. I was experiencing three or four people, each having a bedroom in a house or two people in the same apartment sharing an apartment, both with disabilities. The other option I saw was a mother and a child where they needed a two-bedroom unit. I like the design oftbe project. The placement of the parking does.not bother me. The nature of the project’s main doors opening into the center towards the courtyard means that people will have a chance to see each other as they come and go and will provide opportunities for people to sit and gather. I like the idea of having a community facility where they can gather. Chairman Beecham: We are a quiet group tonight. Commissioner Eakins: I remember when representatives from the parent group came to the Midtown workshop. At that time, the people attending the Midtown workshop were very supportive of the notion era project like this. So I think it will be very well accepted in Pale Alto. I think it is a handsome project and it will be an asset. I think we are quiet tonight because the hard work has been done, and the technicalities about setbacks and where the trees go I assume will be dealt with by the ARB. There was one comment about having some substantial trees. I have not seen a revised landscape plan, but I do urge that there be good, substantial trees, especially on the Page Mill Road, but in fact, on all three sides. There is a tall unit across on ¯ Sheridan, and a tall unit very well landscaped on Ash Street. All the trees in the world would be useful on Page Mill. " t: I, too, echo the comments that have been made. I think we are quiet tonight because the homework has been done. There has been all kinds of hard work that has gone into this, and there is no doubt in my mind that there is a need for this and that it has been very well thought out. They have worked very hard with the city, with the community, and the architect I feel has done a very good job of siting and designing the project. I had a thought before when one of the fathers commented on the parking internal to the design. I thought that would not be all bad, just as he was saying it might be nice for a number of the residents to see who is coming and going. Given the L-shaped site and the multiple-family residential identity of the rest of the neighborhood, I think it is a very nicely designed project. I will be happy to support it. KITIPCMINS21A:XASH4- ! 0.PC 4-10-96 Page 11 Obviously, most of the tenants will not have cars. The neighborhood is somewhat concerned about the small amount of parking, but I would hate to try and squeeze more parking into the project. I do not know if there are any appropriate conditions to put on the project, as Bern was ¯ asking about. I cannot recall if there are permit parking lots within close walking distance, if there were excess ears at the site from people who do have them, residents who are not developmentally disabled. I am a little concerned about parking, but not very much so. We talk on many other projects about the excessive parking requirements that we generally tend to have, and we have talked about going more in this direction for regular projects, so this is certainly an appropriate direction in which to go for this project. ¯ " " : I am delighted that we have gotten to review this project this week after some of the previous projects we have looked at where I have had to groan and mumble and complain. This project will be a great asset both to the people it is going to serve in the community, but also in the architecture. The architect has done a great job in creating what I think is pure architecture using materials that are appropriate for what he is trying to accomplish within a reasonable budget. So I am extremely pleased with the architecture, and it is a real honor for us’ to get to approve a project that will do so much good in our community. Commissioner Oiakian: Actually, I am only quiet because I could talk for a couple of hours in support of this project. I would like to take care of a couple of technical things. I assume that everyone is in agreement with the findings in here, and I have heard nobody suggest any additional public benefit. I understand that, as I agree with staff’s statement on Page 13 regarding the public benefit, and I fred that to be sufficient. I wholeheartedly endorse the suggestion someone made before about the developer of this site. We have had dealings before which unfortunately did not work out where the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition was unable to have a project pass through the Paio Alto system. As a part of that process, I went around with Fran Wagstaff and looked at several of the sites, so I can Say I understand what a good developer she is. One of the things I noticed when I toured her oftices is that she was missing a plaque from Palo Alto, about the only plaque that she was missing from any city in the surrounding areas. To go through a couple of other things, I do not f’md the parking to be a major issue. We, in the past in other areas where we have had parking problems, found that the good of a project was sufficient enough to assume that the parking would take care of itself. A good example of that is in the downtown area when this Planning Commission and this City Council approved the Byxbee House. It allowed for the building of four units plus maintaining the Byxbee House when there was no parking on site in an area that is heavily impacted by lack of parking. So I have heard no evidence that indicates that there is parking deficiency in this area. To reinforce what I am saying, this commission has shown sensitivity to parking in that particular area by the fact that they took action several years ago, at least in the commercial strip, to build a parking garage, so it is something that we have looked at. I do not see that this project is going to aggravate that situation in any way. KI’I]PCMINS21A:~ASH4-10,PC 4-10-96 Page 12 I agree with what was said that we have looked at other projects, not quite similar to this, and came up with the realization that in fact, our standards for parking did not necessarily apply to that particular project, and I don’t think they apply here. I think the location is highly appropriate. The reason why I asked the question before was, having known a tittle about this project, I know it is very difficult to find sites, and I know this group has worked hard to find them, so we know how difficult it was. The fact that you found a site is highly commendable. The fact that you have financing for this site is extraordinary. It would behoove us, as a city; to go ahead and assist you to ensure that rids project does get through. You have made a good indication tonight of the demand for rids project. We have had some people make assumptions at the ARB level about the appropriateness for this housing, but I would offset that against the fact that we have some cold-hearted facts that show that there is a need and people will be moving in here, and it does serve a local need. It think it is very compatible with all of the things we have talked about over the years about housing and the fact that we have tried to create a’diversified housing stock in Palo Alto. This helps fit into it. To say in summation, it should not be you who is thanking us. It should be us thanking you. ~fimlanB~.~m: I cannot think of any other project that I am .happier to support than this one before us tonight. I think there is a tremendous need, and my heart goes out to the people who will be served by this program. I truly am happy to support it. Given that, Jon mentioned that we have gotten used to finding problems and fixing things and poking and probing, and I am not out of that habit yet. So I would like to look briefly at the findings. On Page 17 of the staff report and the findings that support this as a Planned Community zone, I think Finding #2 really takes a minimalist approach to the benefits of this program. It simply states that there is a need not being met. I am sure staff can clarify the’ benefits that are being provided in this. One main benefit that also should be mentioned, which is possibly a precedent for us, is that this program will bring about $2 million in federal funds to the community for this very important need. I think that ought to be in the findings as a benefit. On Page 18, draft findings for the variance, in Finding #2, the last sentence talks about the multiple-family residential development for people who will occupy it, etc. It ref~’s to the finding . that should be relative t° why this finding is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right. I think that particular sentence is not appropriate in this finding, since it does not relate to the property right, even though I certainly agree with the sentence. On Page 20, the draft findings for the Architectural Review Board approval, Item 1.c. has something missing. "Approval of the project encourages the attainment of the most desirable land use.of the land and improvements in that the Comprehensive Plan." I am sure there is a good idea there that was lost. ]~)T_LO~: ~: I therefore move the staff recommendation that we advise the applicant regarding the public benefit findings as I just noted in those findings, and that we forward the PC zone application to the ARB. KITIPCMINS2~A:~a.SH4-10.PC 4-10-96 Page 13 ~: By Commissioner Schink. ~: ~31aimlark]k~fllam: Is there any further discussion on this motion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion by myself and seconded by Commissioner Schink to approve the staff recommendation with minor modifications to the findings, please say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner Carrasco absent. Can you go over for us one more time the next step for this application? ~: The next step is that it will go before the Architectural Review Board on May 2rid. It will return to the Planning Commission on May 29th, and it goes before the City Council tentatively on June 24th. ~: Thank you, and to you who came here tonight, we certainly wish youthe best of luck. KITIPCMINS2IAAASH4- I 0.PC 4-10-96 Page 14 Memo ~’o: From: Lorraine Weiss, Planner Palo Alto City Planning Department Janet Stone, Project Coordinator ~..%. Mid-Peninsula.Housing Coalition Date:1/23/96 Attachment 11 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition 658 Bair Island Road, Suite 300 Redwood Cit¢, California 94063 Tel. [415] 299-8000 Fax [415] 299-8010 Lorraine: Information Related to Parking Needs and Other Project Data -- HUD 811 Housing Project for Developmentally Disabled Persons Per your request, attached is a table showing comparisons between the Palo Alto HUD 811 Project and similiar HUD 811 projects for developmentally disabled persons, as far as a number of planning-related criteria. Regarding parking, we have requested a reduced number of parking spaces from what would normally be required. Based on the need, we are requesting a variance allowing a total of I0 full-sized parking spaces, l of which will be a handicapped space. Mid- Peninsula offers the following findings for this variance: (a) The intended use of the property is for housing for the developmentally disabled. Typically, most of the residents of this type of housing do not drive. Therefore the ¯ parking is generally necessary for staff and guests, with only a few spaces possibly utilized by residents. The manager will be the only staff person who lives on-site; a supportive- living service provider staff person will be on the property during regular business hours on the weekdays. (b) HUD will require that Mid-Peninsula enter into a regulatory agreement whereby the project must remain available to very low income persons with disabilities for a minimum of 40 years. Thus the use of the property as housing for developmentally disabled will continue for a long period, assuring that the approved amount of parking will be adequate for the use of the site. (c) Based on Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition’s experience in two other similar housing developments for the developmentally disabled, and on the experience of other similar HUD 811 developmentally disabled projects built by other nonprofit developers, the amount of parking planned for Palo Alto will be sufficient ’to handle anticipated parking needs. Attached is a summary, of parking surveys that have been conducted for two developmentally disabled projects: Vivente 11 in San Jose and Horizons in Belmont, both developed and managed by Mid-Peninsula. Comparisons between Palo Alto Project and Similar HUD 811 Projects for Developmentally Disabled 1/22/96 Da~e Occupied Site Area # of’Units Density Zoning FAR. Site Coverage Buildings Parkin,~]Pav Landscaping, Unit Size # Residents or household members with cars Parking .Palo Alto Project .75 ac 24 32 DU/ae RM 40 High Density Multi- Family Residen 0.49:1 28%, 12% 60% 1 BR- 540 sf 2 BR - 745 sf 10 spaces Horizons (Belmont) 1993 .81 ae :24 30 DU/ae R-4 Multi- Family Residen 0.24:1 28% 19% 53% Studio - 423 sf 1 BR - 574 sf 2 BI~ - 801 sf 4 Vivente 1/ (San Jose) 1988 1.16 ac 29 24.8 DU/ac not avail not avail 33% 61% Studio - 414 1 BK- 539 sf Fuller Lodge {San Leandro) 1989 .72 ae 26 36 DU/ae not avail 0.70:1 33% 8% 59% 1 BR- 540 sf 2 BR - 800 sf 10 spaces 12 spaces (4 are compact) 7 spaces Parking Surveys Vivente 1I (San Jose) and Horizons (Belmont) - HUD 811 Projects for Developmentally Disabled A general parkingsurvey was done at two different times at Vivente II, a 29-unit complex built by Mid-Peninsula in San Jose, once in May of 1991, and the second time in February of 1992. At 29 units, this complex is somewhat larger than the Horizons complex and the complex proposed for Palo Alto (both 24 units). For the May 1991 survey, two counts were taken during the week and two on the weekends; for the February 1992 survey, four counts were taken during the week and two on the weekends. Also, the average use was estimated both in May and in February. The site has 12 spaces; 4 are compact and 1 of the spaces is handicapped. In 1992 there were 36 tenants; 4 at that time had their own ears. The results of the surveys: 12 Weekday.t: The average weekday use was estimated at 11 during May and a little less than 11 during February. Generally 4 spaces are used at some time during the day by tenants; 1 by the site supervisor; 1 to 2 by guests; and up to 5 by other service provider staff persons. However, it is important to note that this is total use: the number of cars in the parking lot at any one time was typically between 2 and 8. I~1 Weekends: On the weekend, the count was 8 ~d 6 cars, on two separate occasions during the day, both in the May 1991 and February 1992 subceys. This was thought to be typical, with fewer spaces again being used at night. A general parking survey was done in November 1995. Five counts were taken during the weekdays and four counts were taken during the weekend period. The site has 10 spaces; 2 are for handicapped parking. In November there were 27 tenants; 4 have their own ears. The results of the survey: [3 ~: The average weekday use is estimated to be around 5 cars. The five counts were as follows: 3 vehicles parked at 10 a.m. Tuesday; 8 vehicles parked at 5. p.m. on Wednesday; 3 vehicles parked at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday; 6 vehicles parked at 1 p.m: on Friday and 4 vehicles parked at 4:45 p.m. on the same day. [3 Weekends: The average weekend use is estimated to be around 3 cars. All four weekend counts showed 3 vehicles parked in the lot. The counts were taken at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on Saturday and at 10 a.m. and 6:45 p.m. on Sunday. Photos from the Horizons parking survey are attached. MAY 81996 Departrn~n; Communit. Attachment 12 1549 Larkspur Drive San Jose, CA 95125 May 22, 1996 Planning Division Civic Center, 5th Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue P. O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 REF:Notice of Public Hearing, Planning Commission Mtg, May 29, 1996 Dear Planning Commission Members: I am a long-time owner of one of the units in a condo known as 410 Sheridan Avenue, located at that address in Palo Alto. Nearly all the residents of this condo are long-term owners and are predominantly "senior citizens". They all enjoy the peace, tranquility and security that this facility offers. I only recently became aware that the P&anning.Commission is proposing to rezone the area across the street from our facility (2700 Ash St.) and build a 24 unit residency for "very low-income and development&lly disabled persons". If this proposal is approved it will not only lower the current value of our condos, but would destroy the calm and secure environment that we now enjoy. We are all totally opposed to such a project. In addition to the several exceptions to current zoning requirements, I note that the P. C. is proposing only "ten on- site parking spaces where 43 spaces would normally be required". This is preposterous. On that block of Sheridan Avenue parking is already a serious problem, wherein there are already no parking spaces available for current residents and guests. To majorly increase the demand as defined in the P. C. proposal, without providing the necessary additional spaces for new residents, would make the situation chaotic and create an extreme hardship upon the incumbent residents. Please consider in your deliberations the nature and degree of problem that will be caused if the subject proposal is approved. Sincerely, " Jon Ruth Wiseman ~~ Attachment 13 From the desk of ~ HERBERT FOSTER RECEIVED AND OOMMUNITY THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PALO ALTO Attachment 14 457 KINGSLEY AVENUE. PALO d~)~:’~/~L’IFORNIA 94301 o 415/327-9148 March 22, 1996 Planning Commission city of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 2700 Ash Street (Southwest corner of Ash Street and Page Mill Road) Dear Commissioners: The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports providing a diversity of housing opportunities in Palo Alto to serve the needs of the various segments.of our population. The City of Palo Alto Consolidated Plan, 1995-2000, describes the scarcity of local housing suitable and affordable for the developmentally disabled. Individuals who need housing of this type must generally be placed in other parts of the county even when their families reside in Palo Alto. Additionally, it is particularly appropriate for Palo Alto to encourage such housing. The city has excellent support services for the developmentally disabled and nearby housing would alleviate the difficulty of furnishing transportation to these-services. For all the foregoing reasons the League supports efforts to provide more housing for these individuals in Palo Alto. The site at Ash Street a~d Page Mill is well located for this purpose. The commercial services and recreational opportunities of the California Avenue area are within walking distance and public transportation is accessible, which would enhance the independence of the residents. The League believes the special needs of this group justify the zoning change.from RM-40 to a PC zone which will allow the 24 units of suitable and affordable housing proposed by Midpeninsula Housing Coalition to be built. We urge the Planning Commission to recommend the zoning change. Sincerely, ,.i/-? ’ Pat Safi~i~ Housing Chair Sincerely, Sally Probst President Attachment 15 ~ THE MAYFIELD BLTZLDING COMPANY 29 Lo~ery Drive , Atherton, CA 94027 December 29, 1995 Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto ’ 250 Hamilton Ave., Ist FloOr Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Rezoning of Ash street and Page Mill Road county Property Dear Me.~bers: The 5~yfie!d Building Company wishes to register its objection to the proposed rezoning of the county property fronting on Ash street and directly across .frc~ the Mayfield Apartments. When the ~ayiield Building Company developed its adjacent property, the Cith of Palo Alto required it to meet its strengent parking require- ments as well as setbacks. It went to great e~.~pense to upgrade the neighborhood in the area south of california Avenue. This trend should be continued by other development in this area. Certainly the california Avenue area should not bear all of the brunt for I~ cost or affordablehousing for the City of PalO AltO. The proposed rezoning would take an L-shaped parcel from one of the few remaining large area of land in Palo Alto and cut it up making future development of the remaining land extending to E1 Camino ~eal much more difficult to develop. In addition to providing totally inadequate parking, the proposed development is completely out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood-Although we appreciate there is a need for housing for develop- mentally disabled young adults, this is not a site for such development. Sincerely yours, The Mayfield Building Cc~pany Hohbach Enterprises, Inc. General Partner