HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 363-07City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
9
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 CMR:363:07
SUBJECT:ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 395 PAGE MILL
ROAD AND A RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR A 9.84-ACRE PARCEL FROM LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL TO RESEARCH/OFFICE PARK LAND USE
DESIGNATION,AND AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO CHANGE THE ZONE
DESIGNATION FOR 395 PAGE MILL ROAD FROM THE GENERAL
MANUFACTURING (GM) ZONE DESIGNATION TO THE RESEARCH,
OFFICE & LIMITED MANUFACTURING (ROLM) ZONE
DESIGNATION
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the Council:
1.Adopt the proposed Negative Declaration (Attachment C),
o Adopt the Resolution amending the land use map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to
change the designation of 395 Page Mil! Road from Light Industrial to Research/Office
Park (Attachment A), and
Adopt the Ordinance to change the zoning classification of 395 Page Mill Road from
General Manufacturing (GM) to Research, Office & Limited Manufacturing (ROLM)
(Attachment B).
DISCUSSION
The property owner desires to expand the potential uses of the property to include professional,
medical and general office use to provide flexibility in leasing the building. The property owner
has recently secured a long term tenant for the building. Although this tenant meets the
allowable uses under the parcel’s current zoning, the need for greater flexibility of uses could
return in the future if new tenants are solicited.
The original approval for the building included a 20% parking reduction (fiom 850 parking
spaces to 680 parking spaces) because the applicant at the time demonstrated that effective
alternatives to automobile access are in effect for the building occupants. The 170 parking spaces
not provided on site were placed in landscape reserve along the southern property line adjacent
to the 211-space parking garage. The former tenant had implemented a commute alternatives
program ~vhich provided assistance and incentives to employees who seek to use alternative
transportation modes. It was determined that this pro~am would effectively reduce the need for
parking at the site, since internal surveys of its facilities indicated that 35% of the former tenant’s
employees use alternative transportation modes. In addition, it was determined that the location
of the new building near the Caltrain depot at California Avenue and bus routes along E1 Camino
Real made this level of alternative transportation use realistic. It is anticipated that future tenants
will provide similar transportation demand management progam for employees.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
On July 11, 2007, the PTC reviewed the proposal. Staff’s presentation to the PTC included a
memorandum responding to several PTC questions (Attactmaent D) and a definitions handout
(Attachment E) distributed to the PTC at the meeting.
One member of the public spoke to the PTC regarding this item, expressing his support for the
proposal and noting that the proposed zoning was suited for the building and site and a new
tenant could then use the building more appropriately.
The PTC voted 4-1-0-2 (Holman opposed and Sandas and Tuma absent) to recommend that the
City Council approve the Negative Declaration, adopt a resolution amending the Comprehensive
Plan designation to Research/Office Park and adopt an ordinance rezoning the 9.86-acre parcel to
Research, Office & Limited Manufacturing (ROLM). The staff report and minutes of the PTC
meeting are attached (Attachments F and G).
RESOURCE IMPACT
As the request is for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change with no new
development proposed, the action results in no change to property or sales tax revenues accruing
to the City. There will thus be no direct impact on City resources associated with the action
recommended in this staff report. Staff time spent on the development revie~v of this project is
fully recoverable through fees charged to the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
Attaclmaent A: Resolution Amending Land Use Map
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attactmaent F:
Attaclmaent G:
B:Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map
C:Negative Declaration and Initial Study
D:Staff Memorandum to Commission dated July 11,2007
E:Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.04.030, Definitions
PTC Staff Report, July 11, 2007, with Table 1, location map and applicant letter
PTC Meeting Minutes, July 11, 2007
PREPARED BY:
Contract Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
-"~TE~E EM$I~E -
Director of Plalming and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Assistant City Manager
COURTESY COPIES
Ray Paul, Jay Paul Company
Harold Hohbach, Hohbach Realty Company
Suzanne Bayley, Emerson Street Neighborhood
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. ---
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE MAP BY CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR 395 PAGE MILL ROAD FROM LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL TO RESEARCH/OFFICE PARK
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after a duly noticed
public hearing on July ii, 2007 recommended that the City Council
amend the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as
set forth below; and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation after
a duly noticed public hearing on September 24, 2007, the Council
desires to amend said plan as hereinafter set forth;
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION i. The City Council finds that the public
interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the
surrounding region require amendment of the Land Use Map of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use
Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the
designation of the area depicted in Exhibit A from Light
Industrial to Research/Office Park. Exhibit A is attached to this
resolution and incorporated into it by this reference.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this
resolution will have no significant adverse environmental impact.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
070830 syn 0120152
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
070~30 syn 0120152
2
NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO TO CHANGE THE ZONE DESIGNATION FOR 395 PAGE
MILL ROAD FROM GENERAL MANUFACTURING ZONE
DESIGNATION TO THE RESEARCH, OFFICE & LIMITED
MANUFACTURING (ROLM) ZONE DESIGNATION.
The Counci! of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. The City Council finds as follows:
A.The Planning and Transportation Commission, after
a duly noticed public hearing on July ii, 2007 has recommended
that the City Council rezone the subject site (395 Page Mill
Road) to the Research, Office & Limited Manufacturing (ROLM)
zone designation.
B. The Planning and Transportation Commission has
reviewed the facts presented at the public hearing,including
public testimony and reports and recommendations from the
director of planning and community environment or other
appropriate city staff.
C.The Planning and Transportation Commission find
that rezoning the parcel to Research, Office & Limited
Manufacturing (ROLM) zoning is in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive Plan designation
of the site is recommended to be Research/Office Park.
D.The Counci! has held a duly noticed public
hearing on the matter on September 24, 2007, and has reviewed
the environmental documents prepared for the project and .al!
other relevant information, including staff reports, and all
testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest,
health and welfare require an amendment to the Zoning Map of the
City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3.
SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of
the City of Palo Alto to place the subject site (395 Page Mill
Road), within the Research, Office & Limited Manufacturing
(ROLM) zoning district.
070830 syn 0120184
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 4. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning
is subject to environmental review under provisions of the
California Environmenta! Quality Act (CEQA) . An environmental
impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been
determined that no potentially adverse impacts would result from
the rezoning of the property; therefore, the project would have
no significant impact on the environment.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the
thirty-first day after its passage and adoption.
INTRODUCED
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
St. Deputy City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
070,~30 syn 01201 ~4
ATTACHMENT
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
California Environmental Quality Act
NE GA TIVE DECLARATION
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date:June 19, 2007
Application Nos.:07PLN-00093
Address of Project:395 Page Mill Road
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 132-32-047
Applicant:Ray Paul (Jay Paul Company), 350 California Street, Suite
1905, Palo Alto, CA 94104
Owner:Ray Paul (Jay Pau! Company), 350 California Street, Suite
1905, Palo Alto, CA 94104
Project Description and Location
The applicant proposes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to
Research!Office Park and a Zone Change from General Manufacturing (GM) to Research, Office
& Limited Manufacturing (ROLM). These requests are not associated with any new
development on the site. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a
Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zone District: GM.
II.DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance ~vith the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine
whether the proposed project located at 395 Page Mill Road could have a significant effect
on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following
determination:
X The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this
case because mitigation measures for contaminated soils and traffic impacts
have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential
environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not
required for the project.
Project Planner Date
Director of Planing and Community Environment Date
ATTACHMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Q
10.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
395 Page Mill Road
City of Palo Alto, Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Contact Person and Phone Number:Lorraine Weiss, Contract Planner
(415) 921-5344
Project Location:395 Page Mil! Road
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Application Number(s):
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
07PLN-00093
Ray Paul, Jay Paul Company
350 California Street, Suite 1905
Palo Alto, CA 94104
General Plan Designation:Light Industrial
Zoning:GM
Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
The applicant proposes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to
Research/Office Park and a Zone Change from General Manufacturing (GM) to Research, Office
& Limited Manufacturing (ROLM). These requests are not associated with any new development
on the site. The applicant desires both a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change in
order to bring the subject site current with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance since the ROLM
category is more suited for the site than its current General Manufacturing zoning because the
existing building and parking garage on the site which was designed and constructed in 2000 was
built as an office building. As an office building, it is more likely to attract office users with
more flexible zoning in place rather than the current restricted uses. The proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Change would allow for a broader range of office
uses.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings)
The property is bordered by single family uses on the south, commercial and single family uses
on the west, commercia! and light industrial on the east and by Page Mill Road, multi-family
395 Page Mill Road Page 1
residential and commercial on the north. The 9.8 acre site is currently developed with a three-
story 212,500 square foot office building, parking facility and related site improvements.
11.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement).
None.
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.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
X
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Construction/Demolition
None
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
X
395 Page Mill Road Page 2
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Project Planner Date
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. :Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or
more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (C) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
395 Page Mill Road Page 3
6)
7)
8)
9)
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c)Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
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.
Supporting Information Sources: 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 formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
I.AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
395 Page Mill Road Page 4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether im ~acts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), asshown
on the maps prepared pursuant to 1 Xthe Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson 1,2 X
Act contract?
c)Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in 1 X
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air 1,3
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an 1,3existing or projected air quality
violation
c)Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state 1,3
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant 1,3
concentrations?
e)Create objectionable odors affecting 1,3a substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
X
X
X
X
X
395 Page Mill Road Page 5
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or 1,3
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,1,3policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not 1,3limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or 1,3
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological 1,3resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation 1,3Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical 1,3
resource as defined in 15064.5?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
395 Page Mill Road Page 6
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources
b)Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an 1,3archaeological resource pursuant to
15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or 1,3
site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of 1,3
formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for 1,4the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?1,4
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,1,4including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?1,3
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or 3the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-1
or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),1,3
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or 1,3
alternative waste water disposal
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
395 Page Mill Road Page 7
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
Sotlrces Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project?
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routing transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d)Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e)For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working the project
area?
g)Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires,
3
3
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
395 Page Mill Road Page 8
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
a) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements?1,3
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,1,3
the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a 3
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d)Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or 3substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater 3drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?.
f)Otherwise substantially degrade 3
water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or 3
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Would the pro,’ect:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
395 Page Mill Road Page 9
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sotlrces
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede 3
or redirect flood flows?
i)Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involve flooding, including 3
flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 3mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established 3community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local 1,2,3
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c)Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural 1
community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would 1be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local 1
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan 1,3
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive ground borne vibration 1,3
or ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project 1,3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
395 Page Mill Road Page 10
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e)For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, would
the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c)Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
1,3 X
1,3 X
395 Page Mill Road Page 11
Issues and Supporting Information
XIV.
a)
b)
Resources
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
RECREATION
Would the project increase the use
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Sources
1,3
3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
b)
c)
d)
~ roject:
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
Result in change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
1,2,3
1,3
1,3
3
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
395 Page Mill Road Page 12
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Potentially
Significant
Sources Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Issues
e)Result in inadequate emergency 3access?
f)Result in inadequate parking 1, 2, 3capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative 1, 2,3transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycleracks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable 1,3Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b)Require or result in the construction
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of 1,3
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing 3facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,3
or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e)Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity 3
to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
f)Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to 3accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to 3
solid waste?tXVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
395 Page Mill Road Page 13
b)
c)
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history
or prehistory?
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 past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
SOURCE REFERENCES:
1.Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 & Maps
2.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18- Zoning Ordinance
3.Planner’s knowledge of the project and project site
4.FEMA Flood Map, Community Panel Map #060348 0005DX, dated 9/6/89
5.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES:
No
Impact
X
X
I.Aesthetics
The project is for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to broaden the range of
pelvnitted office uses on this site and does not include any physical change to the development of
the site. Therefore, there is no aesthetic impact that results from the proposed project
Mitigation Measures:None
395 Page Mill Road Page 14
II.Agricultural Resources
The site is not located in a Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned as an agricultural use, and it
is not regulated by the Williamson Act.
Mitigation Measures:None
III. Air Quality
The subject site is in the Cal-Ventura neighborhood and is in an area surrounded by a mix of uses
including commercial, single family residential, and light industrial. As the project does not
change the physical development of the site, it will not result in an impact to air quality.
Mitigation Measures:None
IV. Biological Resources
The subject site is currently developed with a three-story 212,500 square foot office building, parking
facility and related site improvements including some trees and landscaping. As the project does not
change the physical development of the site and none of the existing trees would be removed, the
project would not result in an impact to biological resources.
Mitigation Measures:None
V. Cultural Resources
The project site is located in an area of moderate sensitivity, as indicated in the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. A three-story building and parking facility with related site
improvements were constructed on the site in 2000 and no cultural resources were discovered at
this location during grading and construction activities. As the proposed project would not result
in any modification to the existing development or site, this request would not result in impacts
to cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures:None
VI. Geology and Soils
While the site is located in a seismically active area and the site is located in a strong seismic risk
area which is subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake, the proposal does
not entail physical changes to the existing development on the site. The existing building was
constructed in 2000 to the latest Uniform Building Code which are directed at minimizing
seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. Additionally,
the development at the time it was constructed was subject to conditions of approval which
395 Page Mill Road Page 15
ensured that potential impacts on erosion and soil would not be significant. Therefore, the
proposed request would not result in an impact to geology and soils.
Mitigation Measures:None
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
No known conditions exist on the site regarding existing materials that may be deemed harmful
or hazardous nor would the proposal entail the use of hazardous materials on site or create
hazards. Therefore, the project would not result in an impact to hazards and hazardous materials.
Mitigation Measures:None
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
No physical changes are proposed to the existing structures and site improvements. Therefore,
the project does not result in impacts to hydrology and water quality.
Mitigation Measures:None
IX. Land Use and Planning
The site is designated for ’Light Industrial’ use in the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan,
1998-2010. This land use provides wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing,
processing, repairing, and packaging of goods. Emissions of fumes, noise, smoke or other
pollutants are strictly controlled. Compatible residential and mixed use projects may be located
in this category. The proposed project would include a change to the Comprehensive Plan
designation to ’Research, Office Park’ which allows office, research, and manufacturing uses in
addition to educational institutions and child care facilities and compatible commercial services
uses such as banks and restaurants, and residential or mixed uses that would benefit from the
proximity to employment centers.
Zoning for the project site is GM, General Manufacturing. The proposed project includes the
rezoning of the site to Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) which would
accommodate a broader range of office uses.
The applicant desires both a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change in order to
bring the subject site current with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance since the ROLM category is
more suited for the site than its current General Manufacturing zoning because the existing
building and parking garage on the site which was designed and constructed in 2000 was built as
an office building. As an office building, it is more likely to attract tenants suited for office use
rather than a manufacturing user and would be consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan
land use designation and Zoning category which would allow for a broader range of office uses.
Mitigation Measures:None
395 Page Mill Road Page 16
X. Mineral Resources
The project would not impact known mineral or locally important mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures:None
XI. Noise
As the proposed requests do not involve changes to the physical development of the site, the
project would not create additional noise over and beyond what is already generated on the
property. Therefore, the project would not result in a noise impact.
Mitigation Measures:None
XII. Population and Housing
There would not be any substantial change to housing or population as a result of the proposed
project. Therefore, the project would not result in an impact to population and housing.
Mitigation Measures:None
XlII. Public Services
There would not be any change in required services, including Fire, Police, Schools, Parks and
other public facilities as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not result
in an impact to public services.
Mitigation Measures:None
XIV. Recreation
There would not be any change to the demand of recreation services as a result of the proposed
project. Therefore, the project would not result in an impact to recreation.
Mitigation Measures:None
XV. Transportation/Traffic
The proposed project does not include modifications to the existing building and site, or
reconfiguration of the parking, circulation and site access. Currently, the site is parked with 680
on-site spaces, 180 deferred spaces in landscape reserve, and 3 loading spaces. Eight hundred
and sixty (860) parking spaces are required by the Off-Street Parking Ordinance for the existing
building. The office uses proposed under the ROLM zoning would not increase the demand for
parking and increase the number of trips to the project site. Therefore, the project would not
result in a transportation/traffic impact.
395 Page Mill Road Page 17
Mitigation Measures:None
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
The proposed project would not increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or
use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner as the proposed project does not alter the
physical development of the site, and the uses allowed under the ROLM zoning would be similar
in nature to those that presently exist. Therefore the project would not result in an impact to
utilities and service systems.
Mitigation Measures:None
395 Page Mill Road Page 18
ATTACHMENT D
PLANNING &
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
Memorandum
Date:July 11, 20t)7
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FFOnl:
Subject:
Lorraine Weiss, Contract Planner
395 Page Mil! Road (07PLN-00093) - Response to questions
Please find below questions asked by Commissioner Holman in her email message dated July 9,
2007 and Commissioner Keller in his email message dated July 10, 2007 and their responses by
staff.
Commissioner Holman’ s questions:
A comparison of the development standards for GM, ROLM, and PTOD in determining
how the zone change would or would not conform provided along with the cun-ent
building deve!opment specifications.
Please find attached Table 3: Development Standards which compares the existing site
for information that is available through City records with the GM Zone, ROLM Zone
and PTOD Zone.
The City Attorney will respond to this question
Comlrfission meeting.
Commissioner Keller’s questions:
1.
Would rezoning be a spot zoning since there are no ROLM-zoned parcels nearby?
at the Planning & Transportation
Could we please get a layout of the site in question?
Attached is a copy of a site plan used by the applicant for general marketing purpose.
Also for reference are floor plans for the first, second, and third floors of the building
located at 395 Page Mill Road. These are floor plans used for marketing purposes by the
applicant and could be modified as different tenants occupy the building.
Can the PTC recommend requiring as a condition of approval that no lighted signage
from this property be visible from the residential neighborhood across Alma Street?
Conditions cannot be applied to Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zone Change
Amendments.
Can the PTC recommend requiring as a condition of approval a Transportation Demand
Management program?
As with response to question #2 previously, Conditions cannot be applied to
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zone Change Amendments.
What transportation impact fees is this property subject to? Is this property subject to
fees that pertain to the Stanford Research Park? Please explain the new transportation
impact fee enacted by the Council and how it applies to this property.
Transportation impact fees do not apply to this property for the requested Con-tprehensive
Plan Amendment and Zone Change Amendment as this project does not involve adding
an increase of floor area or development to the site. The requests, if approved, would
broaden the allowable office uses at this location.
The prqiect site is not located within the Stanford Research Park; therefore, no fees that
pertain to Stanford Research Park apply to this project.
The new transportation impact fee enacted by the Council applies to projects which result
in a net increase in trips. As the subject project does not add development to the site and
only broadens the office uses permitted at this property, no net increase in trips is
anticipated.
TABLE 3: Development Standards
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD
Minimum Site Specifications
Site Area (sq. ft.)
Site Width (ft.)
Site Depth (ft.)
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (ft)
Interior Side Yard (ft)
Street Side Yard (ft)
Minirnum Yard (ft) for site
lines abutting or opposite
residential districts
Maximum Site Coverage
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
100% Non-Residential FAR
100% Residential FAR
Mixed Use FAR
Mixed Use Non-Residential
FAR Cap
Hotels
Height
Standard
Within 150 ft of residential
zone
Within 40 ft of a residential
zone
Parking
EXISTING
SITE
9.84 acres
25
0.49:1
(3,110 sf
exempt from
floor area)*
1-1!a
50 feet
GM
ZONE
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
0.5:1
50 feet
35 feet
35 feet
ROLM
ZONE
43,560 (1 acre)
100
150
20
20
20
20
10
30%
0.4:1
35 feet
35 feet
25 feet
PTOD
ZONE
t.0:1
1.25:1
Total 0.35
Office &
research &
development
uses: 0.25
2.0
40 feet
680 spaces &1 space for 1 space for 1 space for
180 deferred every 250 sq. ft.every 250 sq. ft.every 250 sq. ft.
spaces = 850 spaces = 850 spaces = 850 spaces
Exempt floor area for cafeteria, fitness center, mother’s nursery room, recycling
ASH STREET
PARK BOULEVARD
ATTACHMENT F 2
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Lorraine Weiss
Contract Planner
DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community
Environment
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
July 11, 2007
395 Page Mill Road (07PLN-00093): Request for a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment from the Light Industrial to Research!Office Park Land
Use Designation and a Zone Change from General Manufacturing (GM)
to Research, Office & Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) on a 9.86 acre
parcel. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study and Draft Negative
Declaration have been prepared in accordance with California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend
that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the requested Comprehensive
Plan Amendment from the Light Industrial to Research/Office Park Land Use Designation, and a
Zone Change from General Manufacturing (GM) to Research, Office & Limited Manufacturing
(ROLM) on a 9.86 acre parcel.
BACKGROUND:
Project Description
The project involves a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to
Research/Office Park and a Zone Change from General Manufacturing (GM) to Research, Office
& Limited Manufacturing (ROLM). These requests are not associated with any new
development on the site. Rather, because the building has remained vacant for over a year, the
applicant believes that the potential for leasing the property would be improved with a
Comprehensive Plan designation and Zoning that offered uses that are more consistent with this
type of building and the current Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. The applicant indicates that the
ROLM zoning is more suited for the site than its current General Manufacturing zoning. The
395 Page Mill Road; PTC July 11, 2007 Page 1
existing building was constructed in 2000, and was designed and built as an office building for
administrative office use (Agilent headquarters), though the zoning is general manufacturing.
The applicant has stated that the site is more likely to attract office users with more flexible
zoning in place (ROLM allows administrative office services and professional and general
business offices) rather than the current restricted uses imposed on the site (GM allows only
administrative offices, i.e. headquarters, via conditional use permit approval). Please refer to the
applicant’s statement of intent in Attachment E.
Site Information
The project site is a rectangular property bounded by Page Mill Road on the north, Park
Boulevard on the east, Olive Street on the south, and Ash Street on the west. The site is 429,523
square feet or 9.86 acres in size. Surrounding uses include single family uses on the south,
commercial and single family uses on the west, commercial and light industrial on the east and
by Page Mill Road, multi-family residential and commercial on the north. The property was
redeveloped in 2000 and is currently developed with a three-story, 212,500 square foot
administrative/research office and development building (formerly Agilent Technologies), a two
level parking structure, and related site improvements. Parking on the site consists of 680
parking spaces, including 469 spaces at grade and 211 spaces within the two level parking
structure.
In May 2006, an affiliate of Jay Paul Company acquired the property from Agilent Technologies,
Inc. and, subsequently, in September 2006, Agilent vacated the premises. The property has
remained vacant since then.
DISCUSSION:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Attachment A is a Resolution in support of the requested change to "Research/Office Park."
Findings for a Comprehensive Plan amendment are set forth in PAMC Chapter 19:
1."When changed conditions or further studies by the commission require, the commission
may amend, extend, or add to all or part of the master or general plan... [Section 65505]"
2."When it deems it to be for the public interest, the legislative body may change or add to
all or part of an adopted master or general plan. [Section 65511]".
The parcel has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of"Light Industrial" which allows for
wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing, processing, repairing, and packaging
of goods. Emissions of fumes, noise, smoke or other pollutants are strictly controlled.
Compatible residential and mixed use projects may be located in this category. The proposed
project would include a change to the Comprehensive Plan designation to ’Research, Office
Park.’ "Research/Office Park" is defined as: "Office, research, and manufacturing
establishments whose operations are buffered fi’om adjacent residential uses. Other uses that
may be included are educational institutions and child care facilities. " Compatible commercial
services uses such as banks and restaurants, and residential or mixed uses that would benefit
395 Page Mill Read; PTC July 11, 2007 Page 2
from the proximity to employment centers are also allowed. Additional uses, including retail
services, restaurants, commercial recreation, churches, and private clubs may also be located in
Research/Office Park areas, but only if they are found to compatible with the surrounding area
through the conditional use permit process. "
Zone Change Amendment
Attachment B is a draft Ordinance in support of the requested change to Research, Office &
Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) zoning. The rezoning of the site from GM, General
Manufacturing, to ROLM would accommodate a broader range of office uses. Chapter 18.20 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code describes the purposes of the ROLM zone as follows: "The
ROLM research, office and limited manufacturing district provides for a limited group of office,
research and manufacturing uses in a manufacturing/research park environment, where uses
requiring la~ger sites and available natural light and air can locate. Office uses can be
accommodated, but should not predominate in the district. The ROLM district is primarily
intended for land designated for research and office park use by the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan and located east of El Camino Real"
Please refer to Table 1 in Attachment B comparing the existing GM and proposed ROLM uses.
The office uses that the ROLM zone would permit (which the GM zone does not) include:
professional and general business offices and medical offices (only by approval of a conditional
use permit). Administrative office services (headquarters) are allowed in the ROLM zone and
allowed only by approval of a conditional use permit in the GM zone,
As the site is located in the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use Area, staff requested that the applicant
evaluate uses more consistent with the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented
Combining District (PTOD). Providing a mix of uses (i.e., neighborhood retail, restaurant, or
daycare use) that support services to the building and the public would help further the intent of
the PTOD zoning. The applicant, however, has provided a letter indicating why including these
uses at this location would be impracticable at this time (refer to Attachment F). While the
applicant states that the additional uses would not be feasible, staffbelieves that, at a minimum,
the site owner should require that future building leases include language which requires the
lessee to utilize Transportation Demand Management (TDM) efforts, coordinated with City staff.
An example of an appropriate TDM measure would be to provide Cal Train passes (or other
modes of public transportation) to employees to encourage use of public transit. Supporting use
of public transportation is one of the objectives of PTOD. As this area is served by the California
Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station and Cal Train, requiting TDM practices at this site would be
appropriate.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues as required by the California
Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA), was circulated for a 20-day public review period from June
22, 2007 to July 11, 2007. A copy of the Negative Declaration and Initial Study are provided in
Attachments G and H, respectively. The impacts of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
395 Page Mill Road; PTC July 11, 2007 Page 3
Ordinance are considered negligible as the use of the building is not proposed to change.
TIMELINE:
Application submitted:
Application deemed complete:
CEQA public review period began:
PTC hearing date:
CC tentative hearing date:
March 27, 2007
June 11, 2007
June 22, 2007
July 11, 2007
September 17, 2007
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution of Approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment
B. Ordinance for Approval of Rezone to Research Office and Light Manufacturing ("ROLM")
C. Vicinity Map
D. Table 1, Existing and Proposed Uses
E. Applicant’s Written Narrative dated April 23, 2007
F. Applicant’s Letter, dated June 11, 2007
G. Negative Declaration
H. Initial Study
COURTESY COPIES:
Ray Paul, Jay Paul Company
Harold Hohbach, Hohbach Realty Company
Suzanne Bayley, Emerson Street Neighborhood
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Lorraine Weiss, Contract Planner
Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning~~
Department/Division Head Approval:
Curtis Williams, Assistant Director
395 Page Mill Road; PTC July 11, 2007 Page 4
ATTACHMENT
TABLE 1: Existing & Proposed Uses
USE EXISTING PROPOSED
GM ROLM
ACCESSORY & SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities and activities customarily P P
associated with or essential to permitted uses, and
operated incidental to the principal use.
Automatic Teller Machines P P
Home occupations, when accessory to permitted P P
residential uses.
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND
ASSEMBLY USES
Business and Trade Schools P
Religious Institutions P P
Colleges and Universities P
Private Clubs, Lodges, or Fraternal Organizations CLIP CUP
Private Schools (K- 12)CLIP CUP
HEALTH CARE SERVICES
Ambulance Services
Convalescent Facilities CLIP
Medical Office CUP
Medical Research P
Medical Support Retail
Medical Support Services
MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING USES
Manufacturing P P
Recycling Centers CL~CUP
Research and Development P P
Warehousing and Distribution P P
OFFICE USES
Administrative Office Services CUP P
Financial Services CUP
Professional and General Business Offices P
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC USES
Service and Equipment Yards P
Utility Facilities CUP
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility CUP
services but excluding construction!storage yards,
maintenance facilities, or corporation yards.
RECREATION USES
Commercial Recreation CL~CLIP
Neighborhood Recreational Centers
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single-Family Not permitted Not permitted
%vo-Family Not permitted Not permitted
Multiple-Family CUP
Residential Care Homes CUP P
RETAIL USES
Eating and Drinking Services, excluding drive-in and CI~CUP
take-out services
Retail Services CLIP CUP
SERVICES USES
Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels P
Boarding and Kennels CUP
Day Care Centers CUP P
Family Day Care Homes
Small Family Day Care P P
Large Family Day Care P P
General Business Services P
Lodging
Hotels providing not more than 10% of rooms with
kitchens
Mortuaries and Funeral Homes P
Personal Services CUP CUP
Vehicle Services
Automobile Service Stations, subject to site and CUP
design review in accord with the provisions of
Current Code Chapter 18.82
Automobile Services CUP
Off-site new vehicle storage for auto dealerships CUP CUP
located in Palo Alto
TEMPORARY USES
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that such CUP CUP
facilities shall remain no more than five years.
TRANSPORTATION USES
Passenger Transportation Terminals CUP
P = Permitted Use
CUP = Conditional Use Permit
395 Zoning Page Districts Mill Road
Area Map
ATTACHMENT F
June 11, 2007
Steve Emslie, Director
Planning & Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE:395 Page Mill Road Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Application
Dear Steve:
As you know, the Jay Paul Company has applied for a zoning change and Comprehensive
Plan amendment for its property located at 395 Page Mill Road. Staff requested that we evaluate
the viability of adding a retail component to the office building, in order to provide for
neighborhood-serving uses on the site.
We have considered this proposition and concluded, for the reasons set forth below, that
the inclusion of a retail component would not be viable at the present time. The property was
designed and built in 2000 as an single-tenant office building, not as a mixed-use development.
Moreover, since our purchase of the property in May 2006, we have had encountered difficulties
attracting tenants with the existing zoning designation. We believe that changes to the existing
facility would give rise to certain issues that would further complicate the marketability of the
site.
First, the existing on-site parking currently is adequate to accommodate the office uses
for both occupants and visitors at 3.3 spaces per 1000 square feet. Because retail tends to require
higher parking ratios, the site would not be adequately parked for both retail and office uses
without the reduction of parking spaces reserved for tenants. The site’s current parking ratio
generally is considered the minimum number of spaces the office market will accept.
Consequently, reducing the number of tenant spaces in order to accommodate a retail component
would make the site less desirable to prospective flagship tenants.
Second, the building is configured for a single-tenant user and the Jay Paul Company
would prefer that a single-tenant occupy the building. However, while we might consider
converting the building to a multi-tenant office configuration, it is premature to commit to such
an approach absent concrete lease deals in hand. We also evaluated the possibility of opening
the on-site cafeteria to the public, but most prospective single-tenant users would have security
concerns about opening up an internal part of the building to the public. As you know, high tech
companies, such as Yahoo, Google, HP, and Adobe, have extremely tight security requirements,
which would make the public cafeteria a security liability for the prospective tenant, as well as a
financially dubious business proposition for the cafeteria operator. Our goal in submitting the
application for the zoning change and Comprehensive Plan amendment is to maximize the
leasing opporttmities for the site. Opening the cafeteria to the public likely would have a chilling
effect on the overall marketability of the building because of these security and operational
issues.
Third, we believe that the area already is well served by the significant amount of retail
located on California Street. In fact, based on our discussions with the California Street
merchants and the Chamber of Commerce, we would be loathe to attempt to compete with the
neighboring merchants in light of their expectations as to the business traffic generated from our
tenanting of the building. Moreover, because of this neighboring retail, there is no actual need
for retail on our site, thereby making it difficult to attract retail tenants even if we were to set
aside square footage to accommodate the use. Consequently, we have concluded that it would be
ill-advised for our company to commit to a development that actually has questionable market
viability and that would detract from the natural synergies between the re-populating of the
former Agilent building and the California Street merchants.
Fourth, the City amended its Zoning Ordinance to include the Research, Office, and
Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) District for those office, research, and manufacturing uses in
manufacturing/research park environments. (Section 18.20.010(b).) We are seeking a zoning
change to bring the 395 Page Mill Road site current with the City’s Zoning Ordinance since the
ROLM category is more appropriate for the site than its current General Manufacturing zoning.
The ROLM category, however, requires a conditional use permit for retail uses and, as such,
retail uses in the ROLM context clearly are to be decided on a case by case basis. Based on the
foregoing, we do not believe that the City intended for such conditional uses to be granted in this
rezoning context, especially when a site is built out and ready for immediate occupancy.
In sum, while a mixed-use development for the 395 Page Mill site might be viable if we
were seeking to completely redevelop the site by tearing down the existing building and starting
fresh, this is not the case here. The building was built in 2000 and has many years of useful
service ahead of it. Accordingly, because of nature of the existing built environment, as well as
the abundance of retail and restaurant uses in the immediate vicinity, the Jay Paul Company has
concluded that the addition of a retail component to the 395 Page Mill site would not provide a
tangible benefit to the City nor be a viable business proposition for our company.
Sincerely,
Ray Paul
Cc:Amy French
Lorraine Weiss
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transportation Commission
July 11, 2007
Verbatim Minutes
EXCERPT
395 Pa~e Mill Road (07PLN-00093): Request by Ray Paul, on behalf of Jay Paul Company,
for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to Research/Office Park and a Zone
Change from General Manufacturing (GM) to Research, Office & Limited Manufacturing
(ROLM). These requests are not associated with any new development on the site.
Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study and a Draft Negative Declaration have been
prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zone
District: GM.
Ms. Lorraine Weiss. Contract Planner: Good evening Commissioner Holman and members of
the Commission. First of all I would like to indicate that I provided at your places this evening a
memo with some additional information including responses to questions from Commissioner
Holman and Commissioner Keller. Additionally you have an expanded version of Table 2 that
includes the PTOD uses that are allowed and it offers comparison to the existing GM and the
proposed ROLM. Attached to the memo you will find a site plan and conceptual floor plans, as
well as a development standards table to consider.
So moving right, along the applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light
Industrial to the Research, Office Park land use designation and a zone change from the General
Manufacturing to the Research/Office and Limited Manufacturing. As Karen indicated, these
requests are not associated with any additiona! development on the site; rather the applicant is
requesting these changes so that they can have a broader range of office uses permitted for the
site.
So in terms of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Staff Report offers the definitions of the
existing General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial and that of Research and Office
Park. In terms of the Zone Change Amendment, the existing GM would allow administrative
office use, though, only with a conditional use permit. In Table 1, attached to the Staff Report,
in the expanded version, it shows the differences between the GM zoning and the proposed
ROLM uses that are allowed. The differences between the two are that the ROLM zone would
allow for professional and general business offices and medical offices, whereas GM currently
does not unless a conditional use permit is obtained.
This particular site is located within the Cal-Ventura mixed use area also associated with the
California Avenue Pedestrian Transit Oriented Combining District. Staff thought because this
particular site is part of the PTOD we were trying to encourage a mix of uses. We spoke to the
applicant about providing some service support to the administrative office building and at the
time they offered reasons why they found that it was not practical and feasible. Then we thought
about it further and thought because of the PTOD zoning that we would require if possible that
for future building leases that we can incorporate some TDM measures and efforts.
Cir. of Palo Alto July 1 l, 2007 Page 1 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
~9
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Additionally with this project we prepared an Initial Study, which determined that there were no
environmental impacts related to the uses with the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change
Amendment. That would conclude my Staff Report this evening and I would happy to answer
any questions of the Commission.
Chair Holman: Curtis.
Mr. Williams: Just to add that we also gave you a sheet from the definitions of the Zoning
Ordinance that has the definition of Administrative Office Services. It means offices and service
facilities performing headquarters, regional, or other level management and administrative
services for firms and institutions. So that is essentially what the current GM zoning allows in
the way of offices is this management and administrative type of office for a firm as opposed to
trying to show the distinction between professional offices which can include a wide variety of
different offices, medical office, other types of offices that the ROLM zone would do. That is
the major distinction as far as what the applicant is looking for in terms of flexibility and in terms
of the types of tenants that they might have out there.
I also wanted to note that while the administrative office generally requires a use permit in the
GM zone that because this building has been used that way for a number of years there is not a
use permit required. Essentially that use is already established here so it wouldn’t require a use
permit in this case if they did proceed that way. They are obviously not proposing to do that
anyway as they are proposing to rezone it to the ROLM.
Chair Holman: Lorraine thank you very much for all this information. Because we just got this
at our places tonight I wonder if we might just briefly, and it might be helpful for the public as
well, if you could just put this Table 3 up on the screen and briefly walk us through the
comparisons of what is there and what the three different zones require. That might be really
helpful and help move us along more quickly and more informed.
Ms. Weiss: Okay.
Chair Holman: Thanks. Sorry, I didn’t mean to throw you a curve. If there are any members of
the public who would like to speak, I have just one card, and if the applicant wants to speak if we
could get a card too.
Ms. Weiss: Maybe what I can do is just talk you through it because it just isn’t legible on the
screen. So what I have done here is offered a comparison of the existing GM to the proposed
ROLM and then the PTOD.
On the far left of the table are the various uses. The uses were generated out of the Municipal
Code from each of the various zones that are provided in the GM, the ROLM, and the PTOD.
I should also indicate that in the PTOD column you will see some items or some uses that are
marked with a double asterisk. The double asterisk indicates that allowed nonresidential uses
when combined with residential in the PTOD zone have not yet been defined. So it is possible
Ci.ty of Palo Alto July 11. 2007 Page 2 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
that those uses that are delineated with the double asterisk could possibly work in the PTOD
zone as long as it is a combined use. So for instance it might be something like a business and
trade school with some other form of residential use, though single family would not be allowed.
So for the existing GM versus the proposed ROLM you will see that in the existing GM there are
many items that are considered permitted uses and some of them are conditional uses. Likewise,
you see similar things in the proposed ROLM but when it comes specifically to the office uses
you will see administrative office services under the GM requires a conditional use permit
whereas under the ROLM it would just be automatically a permitted use. Under professional and
general business offices it is not even listed under GM; however, it is considered a permitted use
under the ROLM district. Those are the sorts of things that you will glean from looking at this
particular table.
Then the table includes a second page and hopefully you have it also. It shows that mixed use
development is not even considered in the GM, though, under the PTOD it is considered
permitted, though combined with residential.
Do you have any questions regarding this?
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert does.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a couple and thank you very much for this table. I think this table
helps significantly. When you have an existing site, and I am just going to take the first example
here and you have 50 feet in height for the building but then we are looking at changing the
zoning on it and it exceeds that height limit is it a legally existing nonconforming structure.
Ms. Weiss: That is correct, a legal nonconforming structure, yes.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So are we in any way giving away bonus development rights that we really
don’t have any business doing? We are actually giving more height. We could be giving away
more floor area than what would be permitted perhaps. What are the legal ramifications of that
when you do something like that? I am thinking again specifically if we looked at an example of
a bowling alley being rezoned as multi-family residential. In this case the distinction is a little
more subtle.
Ms. Silver: In this case if there is a rezoning the building does become a legal nonconforming
use and it has certain grandparent rights, it is grandfathered. So it can remain.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, then the other question I have and then I will pass it on to one of my
colleagues. Could we in fact be giving the property owner in this case two bites of the apple? It
is a legally existing nonconforming use but for instance in the bowling alley situation even
though it has been rezoned as multi-family residential it still remains right now as an operating
bowling alley. What is to prevent the owner from keeping this in perpetuity as a OM zone, in
other words the use is for the GM zone and then arbitrarily at some point in the future then just
saying I am going to go to the ROLM?
Ci& of Palo Alto July 1 l, 2007 Page 3 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3!
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Ms. Weiss: Once the property is rezoned and it is rezoned to ROLM you can’t then revert back
to the old previous use, which was under the GM zone. All the zoning regulations and
development standards of the ROLM zone then go into play.
Mr. Williams: In this case, assuming it is administrative office use that it was used for before,
that is permitted in the ROLM too so it doesn’t create any nonconforming use situation.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So basically there is no conflict in this case.
Mr. Williams: There is no conflict going that way. There would be conflict if this were say a
heavy manufacturing use that weren’t allowed in ROLM and they were zoning it to that than
there would be a conflict. If they wanted to go back to something that is allowed in the GM that
isn’t allowed in the ROLM but that is not the case.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So as long as they are moving in one direction it is fine.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay.
Chair Holman: Do you have any other clarifying questions? Commissioner Keller and then
Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Keller: First Vice-Chair Lippert alluded to this but I just wanted to be really
clear. Is it the case that if this were a vacant lot and it were zoned ROLM could the building that
is there now be legally built under ROLM zoning?
Ms. Weiss: If it were a vacant lot today, meaning that there is no building there in place at this
time, and you were going to construct a new building, the new building would have to conform
to the new ROLM zone development standards. Those standards are different from the GM zone
development standards. So the building that is there today would not conform to those
standards.
Commissioner Keller: So in particular it has about 25 percent more floor area than is allowed by
ROLM zoning. It has 15 more feet than is allowed by ROLM zoning. I am not sure if there is
anything else but that is basically it. I am not sure about lot coverage. I don’t see lot coverage in
here as one of the comparisons.
The second thing is with respect to the CUP that was done. This building was built in 2000.
Was a CUP required under the GM zone in 2000 or was that a requirement that was added for
administrative office uses subsequent to the building being built? Was that requirement added to
the GM zoning subsequent to this building being built?
Mr. Williams: That requirement was added in 2005. Administrative office use used to be a
permitted use and we specifically restricted it because of the potential office traffic in GM zones
Ciu’ of Palo Alto July 11, 2007 Page 4 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
and the concern about that the early 2000’s brought about. So it was changed in 2005. When it
was built it was a permitted use so there is no conditional use permit for the existing building.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The third question relates to the questions that I asked and
that specifically it was responded that conditions cannot be applied to Comprehensive Plan
Amendments and Zone Change Amendments. However, the City of Palo Alto could refuse to
offer such a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change Amendment. We can simply
say no. That would obviously be a hardship for the owner of the project because that is why they
are asking to change this in the first place.
So the statement that ’conditions cannot be applied to such changes’ precludes the potential for
quid pro quo agreements where the City basically says we will entertain these changes if you
make these concessions? Can the City basically say we will do it if that and if you don’t make
those concessions like along the lines I talked about or other ones the City could simply refuse to
make the change? Is that something that is legally possible?
Ms. Silver: It depends on what changes are being requested. For the most part, this is a
legislative action and you really need to just look at whether the particular request for a zone
change is appropriate. There are some issues that you can look at with respect to the project but
you really should be looking at whether there is just a rational basis for approving the zone
change.
Commissioner Keller: Let’s suppose that the applicant were to come here with a vacant lot and
try to build something akin to what exists here. Would those mitigations that might be needed in
order to build that building today, which is conforming or whatever, would considerations like
that or are those the kinds of things that we can consider in terms of our recommendation to the
City Council that they make as quid pro quo conditions of approval?
Ms. Silver: No, you really can’t impose quid pro quo conditions of approval.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, clarifying question.
Commissioner Garber: I have three and I think they are quick. Does the building fit into any of
the existing zones in the city?
Mr. Williams: I would say it pretty much just fits into the GM, the zone it is in now because to
get close to 50 feet in height and a .5 FAR, you couldn’t do that in any of our commercial zones.
CS allows a 50-foot height but it allows .4 FAR not .5 and that is pretty much the most intensive
commercial zone then the other industrial and ROLM is the other one from GM. So it is pretty
much GM.
Commissioner Garber: The second question is the adjacent zoning across Park Boulevard is GM
now but some portions of that are in play. Can you remind us if those are going to remain GM or
if some of them have been requested to change as well?
Cir.’ of Palo Alto July I1, 2007 Page 5 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Williams: Two of them are currently in process of change. One is the Hohbach property at
195 Page Mill Road which was approved under the GM zoning but with certain concessions
under state law for housing so that it is a mixed use development with the first floor research and
development and two floors of residential above that with a 1.5 FAR total and a 40 height. Then
the other site across Page Mill Road from that is in consideration right now for the public safety
building which the City is looking at. Also, it is actually two parcels there and one parcel also
has a residential application in under PTOD for 27 town_house units. Again, they are in
negotiations with the City over purchasing the property for the Police Building.
Commissioner Garber: Finally, there is a single asterisk at Research and Development.
Ms. Weiss: The single asterisk is research and development in the PTOD zone which is not
permitted where hazardous materials are used or stored in excess of quantity less than the exempt
quantities that are allowed by the Municipal Code.
Commissioner Garber: So hazardous materials but underneath that threshold would be allowed
in a PTOD zone.
Ms. Weiss: Yes.
Commissioner Garber: Okay, thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt, you have a clarifying question?
Commissioner Burt: Yes. Could Staff go into greater depth in the distinction between
administrative office services and everything contained in that definition on 18.04.030,
paragraph A-6, which talks about not only offices and service facilities performing headquarters,
regional, or other level management and administrative service, which seems very unclear to me
as to what the intent is there versus what we mean by general business offices?
Mr. Williams: The way we have administered that definition for administrative office services is
that those are generally single user where the offices are serving that user. They may take up all
of the building or they may take up a portion but the rest of the building is to be also meeting the
GM uses and be the single user that is being supported by those management services. It might
be your accounting group, or legal group, and your administrative group of your firm. It could
take up the whole building with that for one firm or it could be that a portion of the firm meets
the research and development requirements and is used that way and then administrative offices
is part of that overall firm too but the office part may not occupy all of the building but that one
firm does.
Whereas general business services I think is more like business-to-business type of offices. This
is specifying real estate, insurance, property management, title companies that essentially
provide a lot of services to other businesses. So if general business office were allowed here
there could be 20 tenants in the building and a couple could be insurance firms and another could
be a travel firm and another could be a title company, etc., etc.
Cir. of Palo Alto duly 11. 2007 Page 6 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
DD
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Burr: Given that this building was built at a .5 FAR and ROLM now is a .4 FAR
and there are certain requirements that go along with the ROLM approval process today, is that
correct, that don’t exist either for the GM or didn’t exist for this building at the time of its
construction? Can you clarify what those differences are?
Mr. Williams: There are some standards that exist today that did not exist at the time the
building was approved. I don’t know that they are necessarily different for ROLM than they are
if a new GM property were to come in. We have performance criteria now that apply to all
industrial and commercial properties like lighting and noise with thresholds and requires more
extensive analysis, and to the extent there are any parking reductions associated with it,
transportation demand management requirements. So there are a series of those types of
requirements that would probably apply if this were coming in new either under GM or under
ROLM.
Commissioner Burt: So given that this project has some parking set asides and reserves and it
also has had significant issues that were not foreseen at the time of its construction in terms of
the light impact on residential areas. Has the applicant volunteered to do any measures to
mitigate any of those actions or impacts that would be required by a new construction under
ROLM but are not presently being addressed by this building?
Mr. Williams: Yes, I think we brought the TDM issue. That was in the Staff Report so that has
been presented to the applicant. I just left a message this afternoon but was not able to talk with
the applicant about lighting as another issue that would be addressed today in a different way
than it was then. So the applicant has not made any specific proposal to us as to opportunities to
address those issues.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, I will wait and ask the applicant about it then.
Chair Holman: One question from Vice-Chair Lippert, one question from Commissioner Keller,
and then let’s go to the applicant.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Again, in your table here it talks about existing a little over 3,000 square
feet of exempt floor area. Is that contained in that FAR number?
Ms. Weiss: Yes, if you add the 3,000-plus square foot figure to the 212,500 square feet it ends
up coming right to 50 percent FAR.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, so in other words what it is actually doing is there would be no
requirement that the property owner keep cafeteria, fitness center, mother’s nursery, or any of
those other things as part of the building. Those could be easily converted into additional
administrative office space, correct?
Ms. Weiss: That could occur because they would fall right at the 50 percent FAR.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
City of Palo Alto July 1 I, 2007 Page 7 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Keller: In follow up to Commissioner Garber’s question you said that there is no
zone today for which this building could be built other than GM. Do you know whether there
was another zone in 2000 when this building was built that this building could have been built
under other than GM?
Mr. Williams: I don’t think so.
Commissioner Keller: The other part of this is this building was built as a headquarters building
for Agilent Corporation. Assuming that a conditional use permit could be obtained could
another headquarters for some company be located in this building if such a tenant were to be
provided, would that be legal for some large corporation to locate its headquarters in Palo Alto at
this building?
Mr. Williams: Yes it would be legal to do that under the GM zoning.
Commissioner Keller: If some large company wishes to locate a sales office here which would
provide sales tax revenue to Palo Alto, I understand that if you have a large company that locates
a sales office here that the sales tax for sales accrues to Palo Alto because that is where it is
coming from. I am wondering if that is a use that is either conditionally permitted or permitted
under the GM zone.
Mr. Williams: It depends on the nature of the sales. Retail is not allowed here. If the sales is
something that would be considered sort of accessory to and incidental to the overall
headquarters use or something like then yes it would be allowed. But to the extent that sales is
primarily the use of the building then no because it is not allowed to just be a sales point of sale.
Commissioner Keller: I don’t mean retail sales I mean sales to other corporations for which I
think it would be a desirable use by the City of Palo Alto.
Mr. Williams: I understand it would be I am just trying to think of how that fits into the uses that
we have here. I think if it is business-to-business type of use, I don’t know, we would have to
think about that some more but it may under that scenario.
Chair Holman: I think Commissioner Burt wants to jump in on this.
Commissioner Burt: Curtis, I have to jump in and clarify that. On business-to-business that is
an administrative function. It is something that is specifically allowed historically in a GM zone
or an ROLM zone. You were referring to retail sales but business-to-business sales have no
restriction on them in these districts at all.
Mr. Williams: I think that is because they have always been considered that the building is not a
sales building. The building that is part of a whole business venture it is not the primary
business of that building. That is fine if that becomes an incidental accessory use to the GM
business. That is the way I would see it.
Ci& of Palo Alto July 11, 2007 Page 8 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!3
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Burt: When we went through and had our Zoning Ordinance Update discussions
on the ROLM District, one of the things that we specifically addressed was wanting to assure
that we not only permitted business-to-business sales but we had extensive discussions on ways
in which we might actually encourage it. I wouldn’t want to have an interpretation of either GM
or ROLM that put restrictions on business-to-business sales. They are the best source of revenue
generation and sales tax for the City. It is exactly what we want to encourage. If StafFs
interpretation is in any way restrictive on business-to-business sales then I want to revisit that in
the ZOU.
Mr. Williams: We will look at that but again, I don’t think it is restrictive but I think it is
because we wrote in language that says that sales can be part of the manufacturing or the
research and development or whatever. We made those definitions such that they included sales
but again I don’t know if it was intended to be the principle use of the site for sales.
Commissioner Burt: I think way may not need to settle this issue under this topic but can we get
a follow up clarification on that? If there were an office use that was entirely sales office, not
retail, but business-to-business sales office, and if Staff’ s interpretation is that that is a restricted
use in either GM or ROLM zones, then I want to revisit the ZOU on that subject.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Chair Holman: Okay, with that we have two cards from members of the public. We have the
applicant and you are allowed ! 5 minutes so you can use whatever of that you wish. Then we
have one member of the public, Skip Justman.
Mr. Ray Paul, Applicant: Very good, I will try to be brief. I am Ray Paul from Jay Paul
Company. I handed out to you some of our marketing literature just so that you can see what the
building is.
I think Staff has pretty much covered what the requested change is although we got focused on
administrative office quite a bit. From the perspective of the landlord and owner of the building,
we were hoping to be able to expand potential tenants to professional office and that would be
things like law firms and architects and the like and we are less focused on the administrative
office uses in our application.
I think you know the particulars of the site. That has been presented well by the Staff. So just
want to talk briefly to the rationale for the change from our point of view. As you know the
building was built in 2000. It was built by Hewlett Packard and at a time when they still owned
Agilent and then Agilent was spun off. The building is an office building. That is what the
building is. It is not a general manufacturing building and it was not built as such. This is
reflected in the original City approvals. The ROLM designation, as you know, was not available
then and not withstanding the comments about differences in density, we think that the building
is more aptly categorized as a site suitable for ROLM uses than General Manufacturing uses.
We don’t think anything is lost to the City necessarily by the zoning change. Light
Manufacturing would continue to be allowed there and, in particular, software companies and the
Ci& of Palo Alto July l I, 2007 Page 9 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
like could continue to occupy the building whether it s zoned as ROLM or General
Manufacturing.
We acquired the building in May of 2006 and for six months we attempted to lease the building
without coming to you requesting this zoning change. Once we had gone six months without
success and having turned away several prospective tenants because they were essentially
professional office uses, we made the decision to start moving forward with this request. One
thing I should add at that point, because I want you to have the information I have, is that we
finally, as of Monday, have a signed lease on this building. It is Google that we will have as a
tenant. So I don’t want to misrepresent. It has taken over a year to lease the building and as I
said we had to turn down several prospective tenants along the way.
What we were seeing quite frankly is law firms approaching us for instance. There were several
other businesses that were interested in general office space. So once again I think it is clear that
the building simply is an office building. The property was aggressively marketed throughout
this time by Cornish & Carey. The number of actual manufacturers to look at the building was
slim. Effectively with the building zoned as General Manufacturing given what in fact is built I
think what it amounts to saying is that it will have to be a software company and that is really
quite restrictive.
I think the proposed change is in the interest of the City and the surrounding community. It does
no good for the building to sit vacant for the length of time it laid vacant. Certainly the City
collects no utility taxes or anything else on an unoccupied office building. The other thing I
would say is the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy B-8 encourages the renovation and reuse
of long-term vacant buildings. I believe long-term vacant is defined as a year and that is just
about how long or a little bit more than a year this building was vacant. The proposed change
has the support of the business community. In particular, it has the support of the California
Avenue Area Development Association and also of the Chamber of Commerce.
We also approached local residential groups, the Barron Park Association, College Terrace
Residents Association, and the Mid-Town Residents Association and we did that through Lee
Weider and his organization. We did not get any pushback from the residential community and I
think there is a reason for that which is that the proposed use will be essentially indistinguishable
from Agilent’s use of the building. So short of making the argument that we prefer to have this
building be empty, I don’t think a resident wil! be able to tell the difference between the
proposed uses that would be allowed under the zoning change and what was there before. I think
that is true from a traffic perspective.
I would be interested to know what the lighting issue is because we did along the way have our
lighting consultant go out to the building and look for light spillage, and frankly anything that
would be annoying to the surrounding residents and to make recommendations to us about how
we might reduce the light profile of the building and we came up empty. The recommendations
were that there was nothing recommended to be done to mitigate the light profile of the building.
So if there are recommendations, I would be interested to hear them and we would be open to
considering them.
Cir.’ of Palo Alto July I l. 2007 Page I0 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
That is essentially my presentation. Our argument really is based on if you look at the building,
we think it is more aptly described under the ROLM designation.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Burr has a question for you.
Commissioner Burr: Mr. Paul, the reason for bringing up the light spillage issue was that when
we were going through our evaluation of the PTOD district zone and part of the discussion is
whether this property should be in that district. From the Midtown area, we had a pretty sizable
and vocal contingency of neighbors who had cited this building as having had extensive light
spillage into their neighborhood. I think that was news to the Commission and the Staff, and
pretty much everybody who had gone through previously the approval process (it didn’t go
before the Planning Commission). It was something that was a surprise and a concern. So that is
the nature of that question.
Mr. Paul: It is news to me as well. It is actually all the way from Midtown. I don’t want to
debate the point and we are certainly willing to entertain measures to curb the light spillage if we
can be convinced that it is real and that there is something we can really do to mitigate it.
Mr. Williams: Madam Chair, if I could just add, their concern was actually the interior lights on
the upper level that they are ~een and glowing at night. It wasn’t the parking lot lighting or that
kind of thing. It was more the interior lights, which would seem to be readily fixed in a number
of ways. So it is achievable.
Mr. Paul: At this point, of course, we have a tenant and this is something we would certainly
discuss with our tenant. The only thing I guess I would point out and would like to speak to is
the TDM issue.
We do have a lease and it is a long-term lease so there really isn’t much I can do to address
traffic issues by controlling that lease because it is already signed. However, I would encourage
you to look into Google’s record in terms of being both an environmentally friendly company
and a company that is responsible and friendly to the infrastructure demands it makes on the
communities in which it is located. I think they have actually an exemplary record and are likely
on their own steam to come up with things that the City perhaps hasn’t even thought of on a
voluntary basis. We certainly would do everything we could to encourage our tenant but as I say
we are under lease at this point.
Commissioner Burr: Since we house a good number of Google employees and I think are soon
to house at least two others who are going to reside not far from there we may be able to get
responsiveness from the corporation if there is any problem.
Mr. Paul: I would be surprised if there were a problem with that particular company.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, you had a question for the applicant and I believe
Commissioner Lippert does too.
Ci& of Palo Alto July 11, 2007 Page 11 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: Yes. In follow up to what Commissioner Burt said I believe that one of
the comments from the people in Midtown, and realize that Midtown Neighborhood Association
comes all the way to Alma Street.
Mr. Paul: Very good. Whether they do or don’t, I take the comment seriously. We don’t want
to be unfriendly to the residential community. We want good relations. So if there are things that
we can do practically we are certainly willing to entertain them. As I said we tried to be
proactive on this issue by retaining a lighting consultant and having him examine the building. I
think he may well have been focused more on the exterior lighting because that is what these
guys worry about mostly.
Commissioner Keller: I have heard the concern and what I understand the concern to be
specifically about is the Agilent logo on the top of the building, which is visible at night from the
Midtown residents’ area. That when it is turned on in the middle of the night which doesn’t
seem to have a need, but when it is it is visible. I think that is specifically what the green glow is
just to be precise.
I am assuming and, perhaps, Staff can correct me that when that logo is removed because I am
assuming that Google doesn’t want the Agilent green logo on the building.
Mr. Paul: I think that is a safe bet.
Commissioner Keller: That there will be a process involving architectural review of that sign
and at that time there won’t be an internally lit sign on the top of the building announcing Google
and that may avoid that problem.
The second thing is I am pleased that you now have a tenant. To the extent that you can
encourage your tenant to work with City Staff on creating a Transportation Demand
Management program I think that would be helpful. My knowledge of that tenant is that they
would probably be amenable to doing that. I was at a Mountain View City Council meeting
yesterday and one of the comments was talking about how proud Mountain View was to have
Google where they are located. I observe that they actually started in Palo Alto so it is nice to
have them back.
Mr. Paul: I think it is good. I think it is very good for the city to have them back.
ChairHolman: Commissioner Lippert and then Commissioner Garber, you have questions for
the applicant?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Just indulge me for a second here. Since you have a tenant what is the
urgency in rezoning it to the ROLM District? My assumption is that it is a multi-year lease and
that, it like Agilent, Google would comply under the current use and zoning.
Mr. Paul: I believe Google does comply under the current use. Of course it was Monday that I
knew that we had this tenant. The reason we are not withdrawing the request at this point is
Ci.ty of Palo Alto July 11, 2007 Page 12 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
because of the difficulty we had. Because at bottom we have put a lot of effort into this and so
has Staff and I think this issue will simply come back at some point. There is always the
possibility of a sublease at some point in time. It would certainly come back in that context.
So what I am asking in essence is let’s resolve this now because I believe it is the right thing for
the property and I think it is the right thing for the city and for the surrounding businesses as
well. It really should not have taken this long to lease a Class A office building in the cunent
market. As I said, we had a number of cases where we had to turn businesses away and that is
what finally got us after six months of trying to say that maybe we need to bring this before the
City of Palo Alto.
I don’t think it is healthy for the city and that it is worthy of your consideration under those
circumstances. Just simply looking at the building and asking yourself what is this building? On
that basis alone I would put it forward to you.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So I just want to go back to my original hypothesis, which I presented to
Staff here, which is that it would be a legally existing nonconforming use if Google or a
company like Google were to move in say Monday before the rezoning happened. They are
moving into a building under the GM zoning and then Council took action and decided to go
with a recommendation of an ROLM or a PTOD then they would be in there as a GM use
because they are a tenant and they have their permits and everything to go into that building so
until such time as they chose to vacate or another entity took that space under that GM zone. So
my initial hypothesis was are they taking two bites of the apple? Are they?
Chair Holman: If I might, I would like to finish the questions for the applicant and have Staff
respond to this when we come back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Garber
you have a question for the applicant.
Commissioner Garber: My questions have been substantially answered. Let’s move on.
Chair Holman: I have one question for you, which is a brief one. The Staff-had indicated in the
Staff Report that they had spoken to you, the applicant, about a TDM program. I am a little
confused because now you say you have a signed leased and TDM discussions were not a part of
that lease. So I am a little confused as to why it wouldn’t have been when it was something that
the Staff had wanted to be address, unless I am misunderstanding.
Mr. Paul: The Staff request for TDM was relatively recent and we were past most of the lease
negotiation at that point and down to really the final nuts of the lease, which as you may know
can take several weeks. So this was not before us at a time when we could have - let’s put it this
way, we would have been risking the lease to bring this up with Google by the time this request
surfaced to us. Maybe you can refresh my memory but it seems to me that last week was the
first time that I was seeing the request for a TDM plan put before me.
Chair Holman: Okay, Staff can respond to that later too.
Ci~’ of Palo Alto July 1 i, 2007 Page 13 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Paul: I would like to add one other thing. We did, however, confer with a traffic consultant
and essentially the way we thought about it is the use that we are proposing wouldn’t be any
different from the use of Agilent. Our way of thinking is are we going to impact the community
in a way that is substantially negative. It is not like this building was never used.
Chair Holman: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Paul: We more or less satisfied ourselves through the traffic consultant that there would be
no impact.
Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Keller, do you have one more question for the
applicant?
Commissioner Keller: Yes, a quick question. You have had to turn down prior potential tenants.
Mr. Paul: Yes, that is correct.
Commissioner Keller: Until you got the current tenant. Could you without quantifying that did
the amount that you would have gotten from those earlier tenants other than the time value of
money, would the rent have been higher from those earlier tenants than the one you got now?
Mr. Paul: That wasn’t the issue, no.
Commissioner Keller: The second thing is I am assuming that you lost some money from having
to wait. I understand that is not relevant.
Mr. Paul: We certainly agree that question is not relevant. Of course it costs money to own
property, as you know, and to have it vacant but we are not presenting on that basis. We think
this is the right zoning for this property. We are not presenting this, as gee, why don’t you help
us make money, that is not our position that we are putting in front of the City.
Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. We will move forward and try to get you out of here sooner,
too. Skip Justman will be our only other speaker tonight. Welcome, Mr. Justman.
Mr. Skip Justman. Palo Alto: Good evening, Madam Chair. I am a member of the Chamber’s
Board of Directors and the Government Action Committee. The Palo Alto’s Chamber’s
Government Action Committee and its Board of Directors recommended approval of the
applicant’s request to amend the zoning in the Comprehensive Plan. These recommendations
were based upon considerations of the details of land use and its effect on the community’s
economic health.
With tonight’s announcement that Google is the tenant I would just like to point out that as a real
estate attorney who has of{en advised tenants the zoning of the property also affects the tenants
and the tenants consider the zoning of property because the zoning can give them more
flexibility in their use of the property. The Applicant’s request will give flexibility to Google so
Cio, of Palo Alto July 11, 2007 Page I4 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
!0
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
that its uses can change if necessary to meet competitive needs or the needs of Google. The
Google employees will contribute to the economic health of our community.
Approval of this application is Palo Alto’s first chance to say to Google, welcome. I would
sincerely regret ifPalo Alto did not welcome Google by approving this application. This request
is the right zoning for this building on this site and at this time and it is the right zoning for a
tenant so that a tenant has the flexibility that it needs in using its facilities. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you very much, Mr. Justman. With that we will close the public
comments and come back to Commissioners for questions if there are any other questions and if
not we will go to comments. Curtis, you had an answer to Commissioner Lippert’s question.
Mr. Williams: Yes, this use is allowed in either ROLM or GM. So there is not any
nonconforming use created by the zoning. There is a nonconforming building under the ROLM
if the zoning is changed to ROLM but there is not a nonconforming use. The use is a conditional
use generally in GM although this is a continuation of an existing use by just a different user and
it is a permitted use under ROLM. So in some ways you could argue it is more conforming with
ROLM as far as being a permitted use.
I also wanted to just briefly comment on the TDM aspect of it. My understanding is Agilent has
worked with our Staff on TDM and that was part of, I think, why they got some different parking
requirements and such on the property. Working with a single user like that is generally
effective. If this property were divided into multiple tenants it gets more difficult to effectuate
some meaningful TDM program. So our thought was if it is going this way then we would like
to have some commitment that through the lease process or some other way these people at least
get directed to us to work with us. That said, assuming that we are looking at Google going in
there you all probably know that Google could probably teach us about TDM. They have some
of the most ambitious TDM programs out there. They have transit that takes their employees
from the far reaches of the Bay Area to their offices. So my thought is that there isn’t any need
to require anything for them to do. We will touch base with them and I am sure they will be
cooperative on letting us know what they are doing. I think they will be an asset to the work that
we are doing right now in working with the Research Park and others to try to pull together a lot
of TDM data and then try to develop a more cohesive TDM program for the area. That, to me,
should be an asset for the City. So, assuming that it is Google, I am not sure that there is
anything that we could do that is any better than what they would be doing on their own. I am
sure Gayle would be excited to make contact with them and find out what they do and try to link
into that with some of the other efforts that we have going on.
Chair Holman: I have a follow up to that which is this. I presumed when I saw the existing site
and the parking on the table that Lorraine provided, it says 680 spaces and 180 deferred spaces. I
presume that the reason those were deferred was because of a TDM program. So my
overarching question, which is larger than this project although it relates to this project, is those
kinds of concessions go with the property not with the tenant is my understanding. So how in
the world have these discussions not happened before? I am concerned about this because those
kinds of rights go with the property not the tenant. I don’t mean to put you on the spot but this is
a big concern. A tenant could turnover in two years and you have gotten a project where you
Cir. of Palo Alto duly 11, 2007 Page 15 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
have massive amounts of car trips going on and you can’t accommodate the parking onsite
because a TDM program isn’t carried on with the property. So I am finding this very disturbing.
Mr. Williams: That is one of the problems with not having a use permit. Associated with the
use permit is something that would show up and we would have a condition there. Apparently it
was a site condition that doesn’t just carry through and isn’t something that is operable
constantly so you don’t see it when you go to look at the file that there is a use permit that would
be current and would have conditions that we would be looking at. So I don’t know the
back~ound on it. I can look into that and see why that wouldn’t show up.
Ms. Weiss: I am not sure of the reason why that occurred, however I would think that in the
future if there were a problem because of too many trips being generated from the site because
that amount of parking is actually in landscape reserve you could revert back to putting some of
the landscape reserve back into parking spaces to try to accommodate or alleviate the problem
created by the additional trips.
Chair Holman: I don’t have any way of knowing if it is even in landscape reserve. I don’t want
to delve into this too deep.
Ms. Weiss: The project files and the building records have made it quite clear that the amount of
parking that was approved for the project was a certain amount and then the difference that
would have been required was put into landscape reserve. Staff Reports have made it very clear.
Chair Holman: Okay, well that is better to know but it still doesn’t resolve the problem. Our
preference would be to reduce the trips.
Mr. Williams: Right, but knowing that the reserve is there, too, then there is a fallback but we
would certainly prefer not to go in and tell somebody to take their landscaping out. It is the
contrary to the intent of what we want to do.
Chair Holman: Yes, exactly. So maybe in a larger context, and we are not going to resolve this
tonight but we can look into seeing in a broader city way if there is any way we can track this
sort of thing.
I think Commissioner Burt had a follow up and then Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Burt: My follow up is related to that landscape reserve. If a tenant in the future,
say someone after Google, if we are having faith that a tenant like Google is not going to need
those additional parking spaces because they will have their own TDM program. If a tenant
wanted to convert that landscape reserve to parking can we place conditions on that that instead
of allowing a conversion to parking that we would require a TDM for a future tenant? It is a
change in the use of that land.
Mr. Williams: Right, I think they would have to come back and then change that because it was
approved as a landscape reserve and so in that change I think we could then discuss with them
Cir." of Palo Alto July ] I, 2007 Page I6 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
that our preference would be to develop a TDM program. I think our landscape reserve
provision would allow for us to do that.
Commissioner Burt: Well, allowing for us to ask them to do that is one thing. Do we have the
prerogative to set in place conditions that a future tenant that wanted to convert the landscape
reserve to parking we could instead impose the requirements of a TDM program to mitigate or
eliminate the need for that additional parking? Agilent didn’t need that parking. Google is not
going to need that parking. I am worried about ten years down the road. Would a tenant by right
be able to come in and say I want to park more cars there rather than have a TDM program?
Would we have any say so on saying no, we want you to have a TDM program and avoid the
need for the additional parking spaces? They are converting that land that was put in a reserve
but what are the conditions for that reserve?
Mr. Williams: I don’t know and I don’t know that we know. One of the things we thought was
we would need to do an environmental review if they wanted to add parking. As part of that I
think we would have a lot of discretion to say to mitigate that impact and that TDM is a more
appropriate way to go. We don’t have some nice mechanism there right now. We will go back
and look at the conditions of approval but unless there was some condition of that original
approval that said the City has the right to tell you that you shall not covert that.
Mr. Williams: The question is if they come back and say they want to now convert that
landscape area back to parking and not have a TDM program can we say no?
Commissioner Burt: So it sounds to me that one, you are saying some future tenant beyond the
upcoming one we would have some degree of control through environmental review, and it also
sounds like this may be something that we want to revisit on a more citywide basis as we moved
into mandating TDM programs. How do we make sure these programs follow the property and
the building and not just the tenant?
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert and then Commissioner Keller.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I just wanted to add some additional information here. I guess I should
have stated for the record earlier that I was on the Architectural Review Board at the time that
this property was reviewed. Now that I think about it, there were several reasons why parking
went into landscape reserve. Number one was the proximity of the project to the residential
neighborhood, Olive Avenue. At the time there were a significant number of neighbors that
were concerned with regard to the impact of this building and the parking on that neighborhood.
That is not just a landscape buffer that is there. It is a berm landscape buffer. It actually has a
rise to it and the idea was that it was to shield and make the residents across the street feel more
comfortable with having such a large facility located there. So the idea was that this parking
would go into landscape reserve virtually in perpetuity.
Well, the other rationale behind it was at the time we had a 2,000-foot circle around the
California Avenue train station and transit center. The idea was that that was also a zone that
allowed for parking reduction. So it was both of these components. It was early PTOD or
transportation demand management handled through some of the standards that the City had at
Cir. of Palo Alto duly 11, 2007 Page 17 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
the time. So that sort of gives you a little bit of background but is sort of a precursor to what we
discussed in PTOD in terms of looking at that. It was just handled through those requirements.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Keller: Continuing on this theme of general discussion about a building owner or
building developer that has particular uses and gets particular concessions based on those uses. I
am wondering a couple of things to think about. First of all, we now have a new Transportation
Demand Management program that involves evaluations of TDM at a two-year and five-year
interval. I realize we are getting into this a little deep, but I am just wondering whether we
should think about restarting that clock with every new tenancy or new ow~aer as opposed to just
having it be when the building is built originally. You don’t have to answer that question in
detail I am just tossing it out as an issue.
Similarly, when there are concessions made for particular use immediately, in the instant when
the building is to be built, and those concessions may be made that are not justified by
subsequent uses of that building, I am wondering whether they should be enforced through deed
restrictions. So for example, the idea that you have allowed certain extra allowances such as
TDM or setbacks or whatever for various reasons associated with the expected use that if those
expectations are made permanent through a deed restriction that it can only be vacated through
redevelopment, I think that would provide some degree of permanency for new ova-hers and new
USES.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, if I might, and at the risk of being abrupt here, I think
probably this is a separate discussion we should have. We should focus this discussion,
especially given the hour, on this project. While the other is interesting and valid for a later
discussion, let’s not go there tonight.
Commissioner Keller: Sure, that is all I wanted to say on that. What I want to say however is
according to something called "me to-ism." I am wondering if this parcel is rezoned as ROLM
as a legal nonconforming use, whether this sets precedent for future parcel owners to follow this
path to get increased densitT, increased concessions by going through a rezoning or whether
somebody with ROLM would say, how come they have it and I don’t? So I am wondering about
the potential for "me to-ism" and the potential for that setting precedent.
Ms. Weiss: Just to clarify, it wouldn’t be considered a nonconforming use. It is not the use that
is nonconforming. In this instance, it would be the structure that would be a nonconforming
structure.
Commissioner Keller: Thanks for the correction but nonetheless the nonconforming structure
made nonconforming through a rezoning does have potential for precedent value and me to-ism.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: Arthur is reading my notes. When we worked through the definitions of
the PTOD district part of the reason that we adopted it was because of the flexibility of the use of
Cir. of Palo Alto July 11, 2007 Page 18 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
that zone in that it would give us a proactive way of integrating the potential needs of that
particular neighborhood in an immediate and non-prescriptive way. I remind us of that because I
am curious and I am just going to ask the question again. Is there no way that the PTOD cannot
be utilized to accommodate the proposed use of this building?
Mr. Williams: I don’t think we believe there is because you have to have a housing component
to it and, in fact, the majority of it needs to be housing related and that is just not going to happen
with this building. It is too new to expect it to turnover to housing. It is built-out as you can see
to pretty much its maximum. So there is not really a potential for more development.
What we did start out with was the concept of trying to have some setice uses on the site to at
least have some mix in there even if it is not housing. They didn’t feel like that was viable.
Again, Google is probably a good model for providing those kinds of uses with their facilities.
So hopefully we will still get that kind of component to this project.
Commissioner Garber: May I ask one more? On the topic of precedent, having been and
currently involved with others in the business community trying to find leases, trying to place
potential occupants into this area of the city is particularly a difficult area to be able to find good
matches between occupants and what is allowed in the zonings and utilizing existing sizes of
buildings and footprints, etc. It is not easy. It is probably one of the more difficult ones in the
city.
However, I !ook at the map and ROLM certainly seems pretty lonely there as a use. There is the
question of spot zoning which hasn’t been addressed but I would like to ask that question. The
other one is, is this a viable way of accommodating some of the uses on other properties that this
allows that a potential owner or occupant can point to and utilize for their purposes on other lots
in this area?
Ms. Silver: I can address the spot zoning issue and I apologize for not addressing it earlier. I
saw that it was a question. We have analyzed the situation. It is an approximately ten-acre site.
I don’t think it is vulnerable for spot zoning. We also have several different districts around that
area which is another reason why it probably isn’t susceptible to a spot zoning challenge.
Mr. Williams: As far as that precedent issue goes, I think you are looking at this and whether
this makes sense in this site. I think it is not hard to argue that this is not a manufacturing site
and hasn’t been for a long time. You could probably argue that a lot of those other GM parcels
along Park Boulevard are not really GM anymore too and that there would be perhaps
justification for some of them, particularly with their existing uses, to request being ROLM
instead of GM. So I think there may be some justification for some of those but again I think
you have to look at each one and see if there is a compelling reason for those to occur and then
look at overall if you want all of those properties to turnover to something that might just
become an office park when we are trying to generally encourage PTOD in the area.
Chair Holman: I have a couple of questions. Commissioner Garber asked the spot zoning
question, it is still a little fuzzy to me. I hear what you are saying I also had understood that it is
Ci~’ of Palo Alto July 11, 2007 Page I9 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
fairly isolated even though there are different zones around. I won’t even go down that road
especially given the hour.
A quick question. I want to have Staff confirm this. Did I understand that the tenant agreed to
address any lighting issues that had come up previously? I know that there has been some
thought that the 195 Page Mill project might block any light impacts but who knows what is
going to happen there? Maybe the most vocal people that have spoken about lighting aren’t the
only people who are affected. So did Staff also understand that the tenant is agreeable to
addressing all of those lighting impacts?
Mr. Williams: It sounded like it for us but I think you need to ask him that.
Mr. Paul: Excuse me, but I am not speaking for the tenant. I have no right to speak for Google.
We are the owner and we certain can work with the tenant. I believe that for Google to put - and
we have an ability to, and once again I say this subject to reviewing the lease, but I think we have
a right to control the outdoor lighting at least. The lighting as far as the Agilent sign or the
Google simon has to conform to Palo Alto requirements. It is not something we would oppose. So
what I would say is we are certainly willing to be cooperative to the extent that we are able given
our lease. I think we have a good measure of control at least on the outdoor lighting.
Chair Holman: Okay, and you will have conversation with Google to see if they wil! be
agreeable to addressing indoor lighting issues? You will have that discussion?
Mr. Paul: Yes, we will and also regarding their signage. Although they are entitled to put up
what is legal in Palo Alto.
Chair Holman: Okay, thank you very much.
A clarification on one thing, the 3,110 square feet that is exempt from floor area that was exempt
because that was put into I think it was cafeteria previously. So that 3,110 square feet whatever
it was before doesn’t matter, but it is 3,110 square feet that was exempt before for specific
amenity use for employees. Can that be required to continue as amenity square footage for the
current tenant? Again, it is another one of those travel with the property not the tenant. The
purpose of that of course is to keep trips down so can we require that to stay in some kind of
facility function?
Mr. Williams: I guess I am going to throw out the suggestion that that brings it up to the .5 FAR
but what we are looking at right now is a .49 plus this common area. That would become
nonconforming if it is more than .4 under ROLM and that they could not make it more
nonconforming than that. So the only way to me they could do that is to keep that 3,110 square
feet as some kind of amenity space.
Chair Holman: That is helpful. Thank you very much.
Mr. Williams: We can work on that.
City of Palo Alto July 11, 2007 Page 20 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!3
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Thank you very much for that. I think we would all probably concur that Google
would be a fantastic addition to the community, given that and given Google’s history with TDM
programs and such I think I understood Staff to say and I will just state it so that it is clear that
Staff will still have outreach with them so that Google is very well aware that this ciU is very
interested and promotes that kind of program.
Mr. Williams: Definitely.
Chair Holman: So we will have that kind of conversation. Then I did some quick calculations
that the floor area ratio for the existing site, the Staff Report says the FAR is 212,500 square feet.
Under ROLM what would be allowed is 171,800 square feet. So the difference is basically
41,000 square feet of nonconforming if we have the zone change and a height differential of 15
feet if we have a zone change. So with that I will hush and Commissioner Burr.
Commissioner Burt: I would like to just make one statement and then make a motion. Under the
question of what is the appropriate zoning for this area the Commission in previous years as we
were going through the Zoning Ordinance Update and as we were under the understanding that
after we completed changes in the zones we would be able to go back and look at parcels. This
area was one that we had several different discussions on that GM zone is an antiquated zoning
for this area. The reason that Agilent had a GM zone for that parcel was because that site was
Hewlett Packard’s original sheet metal house. I have an employee who worked there 25 years
ago. It doesn’t belong as a GM district down there and the other parcels along the track belong
in a PTOD sort of district and not a GM. If we had started from scratch who knows what we
would have decided for this parcel, whether it would be ROLM or PTOD, but it wouldn’t be
GM. I brought that up for five years that this is crazy that we have it all zoned for GM in that
area. We really only have one proper GM district in the city and that is on the southeast side of
San Antonio near 101.
MOTION
So having said that let me make a motion. I move that the Planning and Transportation
Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the
requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 395 Page Mill Road from Light Industrial to
Research, Office Park land use designation and initiate a zone change from General
Manufacturing to Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing.
SECOND
Commissioner Keller: Second.
Chair Holman: Motion by Commissioner Burt, second by Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Burt: So just to speak to the motion, it is important to remember that we are not
rezoning the building and we are not rezoning a tenant. As much as we might have opinions
about being enthusiastic about the prospective tenant we have to return to our responsibilities on
rezoning the land. We do have interrelated issues of the building on the land and it does become
CiO, of Palo Alto July 11, 2007 Page 21 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
confusing in that way. This is a building that has a floor area ratio that would not be allowed
under the zoning that we are switching it to so that is really the struggle of this that I think most
of us have been looking at. For me, when I weigh it against what is the right land use
designation, ROLM, for that property with that building that is going to be there for probably 50
years is the right land use designation.
The other aspects of what we have been concerned with on some of the requirements that would
go along with today’s either a conditional use permit for this building in a GM or a use of a
building like this, a little bit smaller if it were to come forward with an ROLM. There are some
conditions of approval that we have been talking about that are of concern to us. In those cases it
appears that we are going to have to proceed on good faith. There are times where that is not the
way we would like to do it, there are times where we have been burned by doing that. In this
case, I think it is a good decision to make. Commissioner Lippert talked about the background
for that landscape reserve area and Staff has given us adequate assurance that we will have some
basis, a decade from now, continue to have the progressive practices of a TDM program that we
think are important for that parcel.
I think that whether it is this tenant or other good new tenants most of them are going to care
about the ability to be welcomed in the community. This spillover lighting issue can be
correctable and I expect that that being the other major concern whether it is this tenant or some
future one in a decade we can address it. In a perfect world we would be able to condition it but
we just don’t have that option before us. So those are the reasons in a nutshell that I am
proposing supporting the Staff recommendation.
Chair Holman: Did you intend to also include as a part of your motion the environmental
assessment that is indicated on the front of the Staff Report to determine that the initial study and
Negative Declaration have been prepared in accordance with CEQA?
Commissioner Burt: I included the adoption of the Negative Declaration. I believe I stated that.
Chair Holman: Okay, I am sorry I didn’t hear you. Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I think that Commissioner Burt has said things very eloquently and I
don’t wish to extend the comments very far in this. However, I will make one comment and ask
one question. The one comment I am going to make is that while this particular action is for this
particular parcel I agree with Commissioner Burr that part of the land that is to the east of Park
Boulevard at the time w-hen we visit this area in a more general capacity as part of the Cal-
Ventura assessment we would likely be rezoning that. In particular there is a risk if you will, a
danger building will be rezoned to ROLM because that seems to be the use of that building. So
that is my comment about that.
My particular question is a follow up to Chair Holman’s question about cafeteria space. Now-, I
am familiar probably more than most people here about the cafeterias at Google. I am
particularly familiar with that because one of my daughters has done a ’Take Your Daughter to
Work Day’ at Google several times and in fact a couple of weeks ago volunteered there. So the
question is if Google decides as I would suspect that they would take more than 3,110 square feet
CiO, oJPalo Alto July 11, 2007 Page 22 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
to put in cafeteria space, because if you have seen those cafeterias that Google has they are
actually quite sizable, whether that would mean that that would reduce the degree of
nonconformance and therefore a subsequent tenant would be unable to convert that space back
into office space from the space that Google made into cafeteria space? Do you understand my
question?
Mr. Williams: Exactly. I don’t know. Theoretically, yes but I would rather not go there at this
point. I understand what you are saying that then the actual FAR is even lower and they can’t
increase it more than that. So they have to have that amount of amenity space then or else
somehow reduce the square footage.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: Will Staff remind me, the ROLM obviously allows research and
development spaces. Are the hazardous materials that are allowed in a GM different than those
that are allowed in the ROLM space? I believe they are less but I was just looking for a
confirmation.
Mr. Williams: I believe there is some language to that effect but I don’t have it. I would have to
look it up.
Commissioner Garber: I only bring it up because this property is adjacent to residential areas
and the rezoning it to ROLM would reduce the potential hazard that is adjacent to it.
Just some comments relative to the motion. As much as I am reluctant to change the zoning of a
partially compliant zone to one that is again partially compliant, there is no net add difference,
benefit, deficit I will support the motion. I think perhaps the reason that I will is for the
hazardous materials issue.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I too will support the motion. I am having a lot of difficulty with it but I
will support the motion. Part of my difficulty is that with property owner having a tenant for it I
don’t see any urgency in terms of changing the zoning immediately. The fact that it is Google or
any other company is irrelevant here. What is important though I think is that in some ways this
piece of property is an adjunct to the Stanford Research Park and the intent was that if you had a
company that was located in the Research Park this would be one of their manufacturing
facilities. The truth of the matter is that manufacturing has moved out of Palo Alto, that in fact
we have more research and development here, and we have more administrative offices here than
we really do in terms of manufacturing. So, while I have difficulty wanting to change the zoning
on this, there really isn’t a compelling reason why we shouldn’t change the zoning on it. I think
it is going to pretty much function the way it is going to function anyway.
Cir. of Palo Alto July I I, 2007 Page 23 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
DD
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
There is one other minor point that I would like to make. The bonus square footage here
associated with the larger square footage in terms of the GM zone versus the ROLM zone I think
of in a way as a way of compensating maybe the property owner in terms of the fact that he has
to wait for a manufacturing tenant to go into the building. So that is one way of looking at it,
you are given more square footage because you are going to get more income for it so those
tenants may not come around as easily. So that could be one of the reasons why the additional
square footage is associated with the GM zone versus the ROLM zone. That is a minor point
here. I am just going to support the motion.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber you had another comment?
Commissioner Garber: Yes, I just wanted to state that I do believe that the applicant is correct in
stating that the existing zone does not support the uses for the likely occupants not only for this
space but it is an issue for a lot of the spaces in this particular area of the city. I am supportive of
this particular act to focus in on the Staffs advice here. My reluctance is that I wish we had a
more perfect tool to allow it to occur than the ones that we have available to us.
Chair Holman: Just to confirm that as a part of this, the 3,110 square feet that will be required to
be in an amenity. Okay, so that is confirmed.
This is a bit of a difficult one. Actually it is a fairly difficult one. I find that where I come down
is a lonely position. I am not going to be able to support the motion and I will say why. One of
the compelling reasons from the applicant’s perspective was that they had been having difficulty
finding a tenant. They now have a tenant, which I presume Staff will confirm that they do have
Google. Planners are loath to create situations where you are creating nonconforming situations
and indeed Staff has opposed this and resisted this for quite some time. As I stated earlier this
zone change will create a situation where there is 41,000 square feet of nonconforming space,
41,000 square feet, and a 15-foot height discrepancy. It is 50 feet where 35 feet is allowed in
ROLM. So that for me is pretty compelling.
Potentially, I don’t know absolutely but potentially, maybe ultimately this will become an
ROLM site that is very possible. I agree that the GM is not necessarily the best zone for some of
these properties but rather than doing this one parcel at a time I would rather us take a look at
this when we can and decide what should or shouldn’t be GM and not do it one parcel at a time.
Potentially not doing the zone change now might be able to give Staff more time to figure out
how we can best address this deferred parking issue not just with this property but others as well
and how that travels with the property. I can’t swear that that can be linked to a future zone
change but I would rather not make that change now with that in place where it is.
The other thing I think has to go with the broader issue of doing the rezone with the
nonconformances is that we are giving without getting. We are not getting a more
comprehensive look at what should or shouldn’t be rezoned here. We are doing it one parcel at a
time and it is a giving of a lot of square feet. We do have a jobs/housing imbalance here that has
been perpetuating over the many years. To change this to ROLM I think just further exacerbates
that. So for those reasons I will be opposing the motion and lonely as it is I will still do that for
all those reasons stated.
City of Palo Alto duly I 1, 2007 Page 24 of 25
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
MOTION PASSED (4-1-0-2, Commissioner Holman voted no, with Commissioners Sandas and
Tuma absent).
So having said that, all those in favor of the motion to rezone to ROLM and find the Negative
Declaration adequate say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) That motion passes on a four to one vote
with Chair Holman voting nay.
Cir.’ of Palo Alto July 11, 2007 Page 25 of 25