HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 396-07City Of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Repor
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING &
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2007 CMR: 396:07
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (NO
DESIGNATION CURRENTLY EXISTS); AND ADOPTION OF AN
ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.8 ACRES OF
CALTRANS-OWNED LAND, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY AT SAN ANTONIO
AVENUE AND U.S. 101 (BAYSHORE FREEWAY) NORTH OF THE
TERMINUS OF TRANSPORT ROAD, FROM PUBLIC FACILITES
DISTRIC (PF) TO GENERAL MANUFACTURING (GM) FOR 1001 SAN
ANTONIO ROAD (CIARDELLA’S)
8
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the City Council:
1.Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment F);
2.Adopt by Resolution a Comprehensive Plan designation of Light Industrial where no
Comprehensive Plan land use designation currently exists (Attachment A); and
3.Rezone the 1.81-acre site from Public Facilities (PF) to General Manufacturing (GM) by
adopting the attached ordinance (Attachment B).
BACKGROUND:
The proposal is a request by Ciardella’s to rezone from the PF to the GM zone district the area
located at the north terminus of Transport Road, in the existing Caltrans fight-of-way, known as
1001 San Antonio Road. The rezoning would also require a Comprehensive Plan land use
designation change to Light Industrial. CalTrans has leased the subject land to Ciardella’s, a
local garden supply center, in anticipation of the zone change.
Previously, Ciardella’s was located at 2027 East Bayshore Road, land owned by the Santa Clara
Valley Water District and leased to Ciardetla’s. Additional background information and
CMR: 396:07 Page ! of 3
discussion is included in the attached Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) staff
report. The City’s pump station project implementation required Ciardella’s to move from their
previous location by September 2007. In order to assist the business and avoid downtime, staff
scheduled P&TC meetings in advance of receiving the application and the required Caltrans
correspondence, received September 9, 2007.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On April 11, 2007, the P&TC initiated rezoning of the site and the amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan. On September 19, 2007, the P&TC reviewed the proposal. The P&TC
voted 6-0 (with Tuma not participating) to recommend that the City Council approve the
Mitigated Negative Declaration with amendments as stated during the P&TC meeting and the
requested land use designation and zone change as recommended by staff. The staff report and
minutes of the I:’TC meeting are attached (Attachments D and E).
The attorney for the adjacent property owner at 4007-4009 Transport Road stated her belief that
there had not been adequate environmental review. Her concerns focused on dust, traffic and
drainage impacts that could potentially affect her clients’ property. She indicated that a full
traffic study should be conducted and that neither CalTrans nor the City has adequately
addressed drainage on the site. Staff responded that the appropriate study was prepared and
adequate mitigation measures are provided.
The P&TC discussed with the applicant the extent of the work that has been done on the site and
the applicant’s current use of the site. Caltrans had been leasing the San Antonio site to a
contractor and had authorized grading and placement of base rock on the site. The applicant
stated that site work was done with the approval and oversight of CalTrans and that additional
work will be performed in response to the requirements of the City, and that the materials had
been moved to the site approximately two weeks prior to the meeting.
Subsequent to the hearing, code enforcement staff visited the site and ascertained that the
business had begun operating on the site contrary to staff’s direction to the applicant. A code
enforcement letter demanding cessation of all commercial activities was issued October 4, 2007
(Attachment C). Upon approval of the rezoning request, mitigation measures set forth in the
environmental document prepared for the rezoning (Attachment F) would be imposed upon the
applicant.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Changing the zoning of the proposed site will allow Ciardella’s to operate on the site and remain
a local Palo Alto enterprise, retaining sales tax generated by the business in Palo Alto.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed change in the Zoning Map is consistent with the zoning of adjacent lands that also
have frontage on Transport Road and San Antonio Avenue. The extension of the GM zoning will
enable the property owner (Caltrans) to lease state property to a long-standing private business,
subject to completion of architectural review and compliance with the GM regulations, which
require all uses to be conducted in such a manner as to preclude any nuisance, hazard, or
commonly recognized offensive conditions. The GM zoning is in accord with the Light
CMR: 396:07 Page 2 of 3
Industrial land use designation proposed for the site as defined in the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan (PACP). The site is within the San Antonio Road industrial area referenced in the
Comprehensive Plan’s land use definition of Light Industrial, which, similar to the GM zone
requirements, indicates that emission of fumes, noise, smoke or other pollutants is strictly
controlled and limits the floor area ratio to 0.5:1.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment F) was prepared for the rezoning and
land use designation, which is intended to allow Ciardella’s as a permitted use. Therefore, the
environmental document addresses some specific concerns related to Ciardella’s use of the site,
with mitigation measures that include a requirement for the applicant to complete the
architectural review process to ensure the site modifications meet City codes, standards and
required findings. The mitigation measures were designed to mitigate on-site and off-site
nuisances related to business operations.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Resolution Amending Land Use Map
Attachment B: Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map
Attachment C: Code Enforcement Letter
Attachment D: PTC Staff Report, September 19, 2007 with Table 1, map and applicant letter
Attachment E: PTC Meeting Minutes, September 19, 2007
Attachment F: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study, September 26, 2007
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Steptien O’Connell U
Contra~t Planner -~
,. --"~te~,e Emsli~ "
D~rector of ~!anmng and~,om~umty Enviro~ent
~
Emi~ Ntrison
Assistant City Manager
COURTESY COPIES:
Larry Ciardella, President of Ciardella’s
Bob Budelli, Vice President of Ciardella’s
Nicolas P. Jellins, Esq.
Elizabeth Bridges, Esq.
Jim Bozionelos, CalTrans, Division of Right of Way
Peter Gilli, Deputy Zoning Administrator, City of Mountain View
CMR: 396:07 Page 3 of 3
NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATION OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FOR i001 SAN
ANTONIO AVENUE (CIARDELLA’S)
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission
("Commission"), after a duly noticed public hearing on
September 19, 2007, has recommended that the Land Use Map of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan be amended to assign the "Light
Industrial" land use designation to 1.81 acres of land at I001
San Antonio Road; and
WHEREAS, the Council has held a duly noticed public
hearing on the matter on October 22, 2007, and has reviewed the
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project and all
other relevant information, including staff reports, and all
testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
does hereby RESOLVE, as follows:
SECTION i. The Council finds that the public interest,
health and welfare of Palo Alto and the region require an
amendment to the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan as set forth in Section 2.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby amends the Land Use Map
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to designate 1.81 acres of
land at i001 San Antonio Road, HLight Industrial", as shown on
Attachment A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective on the 31st
day after its adoption. This delayed effective date is intended
and shall be construed to provide a sufficient period of time
between adoption of the resolution and its effective date to allow
a complete and exclusive opportunity for the exercise of the
referendum power pursuant to the Charter of the City of Palo Alto
and the Constitution of the State of California. A referendum
petition filed after the effective date shall be rejected as
untimely.
071017 syn 0120262
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 4.
use designation will
environment.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
The Council hereby finds that this new land
have no significant effect on the
APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
071017 syn 0120262
NOT YET APPROVED
ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.81 ACRES OF CALTRANS-
OWNED LAND, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY AT SAN ANTONIO AVENUE AND
U.S. 101 (BAYSHORE FREEWAY) NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF
TRANSPORT ROAD, FROM PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT (PF)
TO GENERAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT (GM) FOR 1001 SAN
ANTONIO AVENUE (CIA~ELLA’S)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The Planning and Transportation Commission ("Commission"), after a duly
noticed public hearing on September 19, 2007, has recommended that the City Council of the
City of Palo Alto ("Council") rezone the 1.81 acres of land at 1001 San Antonio Road at the
southwest comer of the CalTrans fight-of-way at San Antonio Avenue and U.S. Highway 101
(Bayshore Freeway), north of Transport Road from "Public Facilities (PF)" to "General
Manufacturing (GM)";
B.The Council has received the facts presented at the public heating, including
public testimony and reports and recommendations from the director of planning and community
environment or other appropriate city staff;
D. The Council finds that a change in the Zoning Map from Public Facilities
(PF) to General Manufacturing (GM) is consistent with the zoning of adjacent lands also having
frontage on Transport Road and San Antonio Avenue and extension of the GM zoning will
enable the property owner (Caltrans) to lease State property to a long-standing private business
and thereby retain the business within City limits, subject to completion of architectural review
and compliance with the GM regulations, which require all uses to be conducted in such a
manner as to preclude any nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized offensive conditions;
E.The Council finds that rezoning the parcel to General Manufacturing District
(GM) is in accord with the Light Industrial land use designation proposed for the site as defined
in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (PACP), amended pursuant to the accompanying
resolution, in that the site is within the San Antonio Road industrial area referenced in the
PACP’s land use definition of Light Industrial, which, similar to the GM zone requirements,
indicates that emission of fumes, noise, smoke or other pollutants is strictly controlled and limits
the floor area ratio to .5:1.
F.The Council has held a duly noticed public heating on the matter on October
22, 2007, and has reviewed the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and all other
relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the
matter.
071017 synO120263
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 2. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto
to place 1001 San Antonio Road, 1.81 acres of land, within the "General Manufacturing District
(GM)."
SECTION 3. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning will have no significant
effect on the environment and approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31st) day after its
passage and adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
071017 syn 0120263
2
ATTACHMENT C
City of PaloAlto
Department of PIanning and
Community Environment
VIA HAND DELIVERY AND U.S. MAIL
October 4, 2007
Larry Ciardella and Bob Budelli
Ciardella’s Garden Supply
1001 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Subject:1001 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (07PCE-003XX)
Demand to Cease Commercial Operations
Dear Mr. Ciardella and Mr. Budelli:
This is a demand for an immediate cease of all commercial activities at 1001 San
Antonio Road.
While investigating nuisance complaints against your operations at the above-cited
address, I learned that Ciardell’s Garden Supply is open for business, but without any
City permits or approvals to do so. City staff supports your relocation efforts, but we
cannot allow you to continue to operate a garden supply business at a location that is
not yet zoned for commercial business of any kind.
The complaints that generated my investigation were of dust and other particulate
matter in the air, dirty streets, and traffic congestion due to large trucks. Please
institute immediate measures to minimize these negative impacts on your neighbors.
Failure to comply with these requests will result in enforcement action by the City of
Palo Alto. Your cooperation is appreciated.
You can reach me by phone at (650) 329-2276
~,,C,,,~de Enforcement Officer
Nicholas P. Jellins, Esq., Jellins & Associates (by electronic mail)
Jim Bozioneles, California Department of Transportation (by facsimile)
H:L2007 - J OCTOBER\ 1001 San Antonio Road - Order to Cease Operations.com.doc
PrintcKI with ~ov-based ink-q on 100% recycled ~a~er rarocessed without chlorine
250 Hamilton Avenue
RO. Box 10250
Pa!oAlto, CA 94303
650.3292.44!
650329.2154
18.40.070 Projections into Yards
The canopy or patio cover and other structures shall not occupy more than fifty
percent of the required rear yard. ¯
(4)The canopy or patio cover shall not be enclosed on more than two sides.
(c)Storage Structures
Structures not over 1.8 meters (six feet) in height or 2.3 square meters (twenty-five square
feet) in floor area, used exclusively for storage purposes, may extend into a required side yard
a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required front or rear
yard a distance not exceeding 1.2 meters (four feet).
(d)
(e)
Porches, Stairways, Landings and Fire Escapes
Uncovered porches, stairways, landings, balconies or fire escapes may extend not more than
1.8 meters (six feet) into a required front or rear yard, and may extend not more than 0.9
meters (three feet) into a required side yard; provided that, in residential districts or in
nonresidential districts adjacent to residential districts, these projections may not extend into
any yard above a first story.
Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs
Pools, spa.s, and hot tubs may extend into a required rear yard a distance not to exceed 4.27
meters (fourteen feet), provided that a minimum setback of 1.8 meters (six feet) from the
property line shall be maintained.
(f)Building Extensions and Corner Lots
In residential districts, a portion of a main building which is less than half the maximum
width of such building may extend into the required rear yard no more than 1.8 meters (six
feet) and with a height of no more than one story, except that a corner lot having a common
rear property line with an adjoining comer lot may extend into the required rear yard not
more than 3.0 meters (ten feet) and with a height of no more than one story.
(g)Encroachment into a Special Setback
Subsections (a) through (d) of this section notwithstanding, a projection shall not be
permitted to encroach into a spe.cial setback, as established by the setback map pursuant to
Chapter 20.08 o£ the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
(h)Excavated Features: Terraces and Terraced Landscaping
In residential districts the terraced and landscaped portions of excavated features, such as
below grade patios and sunken gardens, that comply with the provisions of Section
18.10.050(m); 18.!2.050(o), 18.17o050(p), or 18.19.050(o), as applicable, may extend into a
required side yard a distance not to exceed 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a
required rear yard a distance not to exceed 1.2 meters (four feet).
(Ord. 4934 § 3 (part), 2007)
l~ - 3zsaoov)Ch. 18.40 - Page 4
ATTACHMENT D 1
PLANNING &TRANSP OR TA TION -
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Stephen O’Connell
Contract Plarmer
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
September 19, 2007
1001 San Antonio Road: Request by Ciardella’s Garden Supply for
rezoning from Public Facilities District (PF) to General Manufacturing
District (GM) for 1.81 acres of land at 1001 San Antonio Road at the
southwest comer of the CalTrans right-of-way at San Antonio Avenue and
U.S. Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), north of Transport Road. A
Comprehensive Plan amendment to apply a land use designation of Light
Industrial (no designation currently exists) is also requested.
Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City
Council adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approve rezoning from Public
Facilities District (PF) to General Manufacturing District (GM) for approximately 1.81 acres of
land at 1001 San Antonio Road. Additionally, Staff recommends that the Planning and
Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a comprehensive plan
land use designation Light Industrial for these lands, which currently have no designation.
BACKGROUND:
The proposal is a request by Ciardella’s to rezone from the PF to the GM zone district for the
area located at the north terminus of Transport Road, located in the existing CalTrans right-of-
way, known as 1001 San Antonio Road. The zone changes would allow CalTrans to lease the
subject land to Ciardella’s, a local garden supply retailer. Currently, Ciardella’s is located at
2027 East Bayshore Road, land owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and leased to
Ciardella’s.
Cirv c(-Palo Alto Page
On April 11, 2007, the P&TC initiated rezoning of the site and the amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan as proposed.
DISCUSSION:
Ciardella’s Garden Supply, a local Palo Alto business for over 30 years, has been asked to vacate
its current location at 2027 East Bayshore Road. This one-acre site, which is zoned General
Manufacturing District (GM), is owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD).
The City has entered into an agreement with the SCVWD to install a new storm-water pump at
this location, necessitating the relocation of Ciardella’s.
The General Manufacturing (GM) District provides for light manufacturing, research, and
commercial service uses. GM also allows for General Business Services, which would
accommodate the proposed use of Ciardella’s. Office uses are very limited in order to maintain
the district as a desirable location for manufacturing uses. The GM district is intended for
application to land designated for light industrial use in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
Adjacent commercial properties are also zoned GM in this area. The subject property does not
have a Comprehensive Plan designation, but the proposed Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for the subject property is Light Industrial, which would be consistent with both the
immediately adjacent properties and with the proposed GM zone district.
The site at 1001 Transport Road is currently a fenced, relatively flat property with some mature
vegetation that has been historically used by Caltrans maintenance and construction staff as a
storage yard. Zoning to GM would allow Ciardella’s to operate as a permitted use, defined as
General Business Services. Caltrans has entered into a lease agreement with Ciardella’s, and has
authorized Ciardella’s to improve the surface of the site with clean base rock, to install concrete
block walls for storage of Ciardella’s inventory and a portable trailer in advance of conducting
their business on the site due to the need to vacate the ]East Bayshore site. These items appear to
be stored on the site as of the writing of this report. The applicant has provided plans dated July
20, 2007 (Attachment H), sho.wing the existing topography of the site, conceptual grading and
drainage plans, and an erosion control plan and details. The plans indicate the provision of a
new driveway per City standards at the end of Transport Road, additional fencing to connect
with existing fencing, with the existing entrance gate to remain, bulk storage bins, dry goods
areas, tree protection, an office, and reconnection of the existing water service and meter. The
plans do not include details regarding the building design, any proposed landscaping or other
utility connections. Such plans would be required to be submitted to the City for Architectural
Review and Building Permits.
CalTrans A~reement
The applicant has entered into an agreement with CalTrans that will allow them to utilize the
lands indicated on the attached map (Attachment B). Caltrans has also provided a synopsis of
how they analyze environmental impacts for potential leaseholders of their properties
(Attachment C).
Zone Change Process
The process for a City-initiated zone change is outlined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code under
Section 18.98. The steps are summarized as follows:
The City Council or Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) directs the Planning
Director to initiate a zoning amendment. The PTC initiated the rezoning and
Comprehensive Plan land use designation on April 11, 2007, expressing their support of
the rezoning, but noting interest in understanding Caltrans’ overall goals and in ensuring
proper signage for Ciardella’s would be installed. The adjacent neighbor spoke in support
of the rezoning but noted some concerns related to parking in the area and the desire to
see the site cleaned up.
The PTC conducts a public hearing with notice to the property owner and surrounding
property owners. The Commission may recommend to the City Council approval of the
rezoning, modification of the area to be rezoned, application of more or less restrictive
zoning, or denial of the rezoning.
The decision of the Commission is forwarded to the City Council, including the
Commission’s findings and determinations for the requested zone change. Upon notice
and a public hearing, the City Council takes final action regarding the zoning.
The Comprehensive Plan designation follows the same review process as the rezoning
and will be done in parallel to the rezoning.
Timeline
Action:Date
Initiation of Rezoning
Application Received:
Application Deemed Complete:
Negative Declaration Public Review Period:
P&TC Meeting:
Council Meeting:
April 11, 2007
August 31,2007
September 12, 2007
9/12/07 - 10/11/07
9/19/07
10/29/07
ENVIRONMENTA L REVIEW:
CalTrans has determined that Ciardella’s Garden Supply business will not substantially
envirom-nentally impact the subject property, and that further environmental assessment is not
required because of the limited use, as noted in a September 9, 2007 letter (Attachment C)
CalTrans was the lead agency for reviewing the physical changes to the property that are now
underway in preparation for the establishment of Ciardella’s on the property. Palo Alto, as a
responsible agency in accordance with the California Enviromnental Quality Act, has prepared
an initial study (Attachment G), including draft mitigation measures, and a notice of intent to
adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the rezoning and for the anticipated completion of
improvements requiring City review and associated operation of Ciardella’s business as a
permitted use on the site.
Neighbor concerns reaarding environmental effects
The neighboring property owners’ attorney provided three letiers dated June 7, September 10 and
11, 2007 (Attachment F’). The letters confirm the neighbors’ support of Ciardella’s relocation to
the site, but note concerns regarding activities on the site to date and potential dust and truck
traffic in the area due to planned operation of the business. Mitigation measures have been
included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to address these issues subject also to ARB
review and conditions related to the site development.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The City Council has directed staff to pursue strategies to preserve and enhance the revenue
stream that supports City services. As a long-time contributor to Palo Alto’s revenue stream,
keeping Ciardella’s Garden Supply in Palo Alto is an important goal. Changing the zoning of
the proposed site will allow Ciardella’s to operate their business on the site and remain a local
Palo Alto enterprise.
ATTACHMENTS:
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Location Map
Applicant Submittal
CalTrans letter dated 9/9/07
PTC Staff Report dated 4/11/07
Excerpt of PTC Minutes of4/11/07
Correspondence from 4007-4009 Transport representatives
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Plans dated September 14, 2007
COURTESY COPIES:
Larry Ciardella, President of Ciarde!la’s
Bob Budelli, Vice President of Ciardella’s
Nicolas P. Jellins, Esq.
Elizabeth Bridges, Esq.
Jim Bozionelos, CalTrans, Division of Right of Way
Peter Gilli, Deputy Zoning Administrator, City of Mountain View
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Stephen O’Connell, Contract Plannei£--!vJ/-"
Amy French, Current Planning Manager~
Department/Division Head Approval:
Curtis Williams, Assistant Director
ATTACHMENT A
3875
3901
990
,, __9~ ....
1 O01 San Antonio Avenue
This map ts a product of the
Cdy of Palo Alto GIS
ATTACHMENT B
Development Review
Application
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2441 plandiv.info@cityofpaloalto.org
Applicant Request
Architectural Review
Historic Review
Design Enhancement Exception
Environmental Impact Assessment
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Protected Tree Removal
Home Improvement Exception
Property Location
Address of Subject Property:
Zone District: P F
~Temporary Use Permit
~Individual Review
[~Conditional Use Permit
~Variance
F---]Site and Design
~Zone Change
F---’--]Subdivision
[~Parcel Map
Fee(s):
Receipt
Job Ledger # "
Assessor’s Parcel Number;.
Requested Action
Oe/s, cription of reques)ed action:
Historic Category(if applicable):
~ Npplica~t
NOTE:APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER musl be placed on the submilted
~~ , _
/,
_,mailirg list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken.
City:O/’~ K : ,~, pl’p State:
APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted
mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken.
E-mail: 3t~’a..BO~l ON~kO£ ~ Do’T. CA.6aM
~I~Y~&E ~ll Phone: ~O ~C ~
~A Zip:q~GIZ Fax: ~ 2~£ ~3~&
hereby cedify that I am the owner of record of the property described in Box #2 above and that I approve of the requested action herein. If
this application(s) is subject to 100% recovery of planning costs, I understand that charges for staff time spent processing this
application(s) will be based on the Policy and Procedures document provided to me. I understand that my initial deposit is an estimate of
these charges and not a fee, and I agree to abide by the billing policy stated.
Signature of Owner:Date:
@ Action Taken (om,:e ~_~ o~ty)
r-----i Architectural Review Board
|Historic Resources Board
[~Planning Commission
~City Council
[~Planning Manager
~Director of Planning
Your Next Step
Apply to the Buildin~ Inspection Division (or other ori~inatin9 Department) for your Permit.
Findings and Conditions are attached
Tbt: project n~ust comply wid~ the requirements of ALL ap...plical)le (21t5’ Codes and Ordinances
ATTACHMENT C
STATE OF CAL[FORN-EA--BUSINESSI TRANSPORTATION AN-D HOUSI’NG AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
111 GRAJ’,FD AVENLIE
P. O. BOX 23360
OAKLAND, CA 94612
PHONE (510) 286-6236
FAX (510) 286-5366
TTY (800) 735-2929
ARNOLD SCHWAILZENEGGER Governor
Flex your power~
Be energy efficient,t
September 9, 2007
Stephen O’Connell
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning & Community Development
250 Hamilton Avenue
PO Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Re: Ciardella’s Garden Supply - Caltrans parcel at San Antonio Rd.
Dear Mr. O’Connell:
At our last meeting I was asked to provide a synopsis of our leasing process as part of the
Ciardella’s Garden Supply application for zoning change and issuance of a conditional use
permit.
The Caltrans Division of Right of Way Airspace Development Branch has been tasked with
managing and leasing available parcels of State operating fight of way to third parties as a means
of generating additional revenue for the State through the collection of rents and/or the
realization of cost savings due to third party occupancy of State property.
Over the years, many parcels of operating right of way throughout the State have been developed
into "Airspace Freeway Lease Areas" that are made available to the general public for short term
lease. As stewards of public land, to ensure that all interested parties have equal access to leasing
these Airspace Freeway Lease Areas, the Division of Right of Way has developed an oral bid
public auction process whereby interested prospective tenants have the opportunity to bid for the
opportunity to lease available airspace parcels for two year lease terms. This auction method
ensures that the general public has equal access to the available State parcels and that the bidding
process sets a market rent for each freeway lease area.
To date our office continues to identify and develop new Airspace Freeway Lease Areas. In
many cases, a party looking for real estate to accommodate a business need will contact our
office inquiring whether a particular State owned parcel of real estate is available for lease. In
such cases where a particular parcel of State operating right of way has never been previously
leased, we undertake an internal review of the relevant Caltrans branches to determine whether
the subject property may be required for an existing use or for an upcoming maintenance or
"’Ca!trans improves mobility across California
Ms. Steven O’Cormell
September 9, 2007
Page 2
construction project. Assuming the property is not required for internal Caltrans uses, we also
conduct a minor environmental review to determine whether the particular parcel may be
environmentally sensitive and whether the proposed use will unreasonably harm the property.
An extensive environmental assessment is not required because of the limited uses that we allow
on our Airspace Freeway Lease Areas. The only uses we typically allow involve either short
term vehicle parking or temporary storage of"clean" materials. Since all proposed uses are
screened and we generally not allow the construction of any permanent structures or the storage
of toxi c or flammable materials, we severely limit the necessity of any detailed environmental
study to a basic review of any storm water runoff impacts relating to the third party use of the
State property.
Specifically regarding the Ciardella’s Garden Supply request to lease State property located at
San Antonio Road adjacent to southbound Interstate Route 101 for use as a garden supply
business, I coordinated an internal Caltrans review to determine whether the specific property
would be available for third party lease. The subject property is a fenced, flat, dirt property that
has been historically used by Caltrans maintenance and construction staff as a storage yard.
Pursa~ant to this review, it was determined that the San Antonio Rd. property is not at this time
required for exclusive Caltrans use. Furthermore, due to the prior use and the parcel’s permeable
dirt surface, the site easily drains and absorbs storm water such that it cannot be considered a
wetland. The garden supply ow~ners have provided my office with en~neered plans to improve
the natural grade of the property and improve the surface of the property with the installation of
several inches of clean base rock. Since drainage on the property has not been a problem, the
addition of several inches o frock will only improve storm water drainage and percolation into
the soil. Finally, the garden supply owners will not be constructing any permanent improvements
on the subject property. Their inventory is contained within, open bins with walks constructed by
the stacking of large concrete blocks. Because these block walls are not cemented together or
affixed to the ground, the bin layout on the property can be modified at any time. The business
will also be operated from a portable trailer that can be moved with mirdmal notice. As a result,
the Ciardella’s Garden Supply business use will not substantially environmentally impact the
subject prop erty.
All third parties who use State right of way are required to sign an Airspace Lease. The
Department legally obligates its tenants through its lease provisions to conform to the
requirements of the Caltrans statewide 1NrpDES Storm Water Permit. To that end, Caltrans
requires that its tenants not allow the unauthorized discharge of storm water runoff to private or
public water drainage systems and that tenants comply with State and Federal storm water
pollution control standards, including those of the State Water Resources Control Board, and the
lawful requirements of municipalities, counties, drainage districts, and other local agencies
regarding discharges of storm water to separate storm sewer systems or other watercousses under
jurisdiction of the above agencies. In order to minimize the discharge of pollutants, spilled,
leaked fluids, and any other wastewater into the storm water drainage system, tenants are usually
"Caltrans improves mobili~ across Califor~ffa °"
Mr. Steven O’Connell
September 9, 2007
Page 3
not allowed to wash, fuel, maintain or repair vehicles or equipment on the leased premises and
are not alIowed to store or stockpile hazardous materials on the premises.
To further educate our tenants, they are provided with copies of informational leaflets discussing
best management practices for specific land uses. Specifically relating to the Ciasdella’s Garden
Supply use, they will be provided information regarding best management practices that relate to
plant nurseries, retail operations, outdoor loading, storage, and vehicle parking (See attached).
Finally, after a tenant takes possession of a lease area, Caltrans Right of Way staff conduct
regular inspections of the property to attempt to discover any problematic practices that may
violate lease terms including the aforementioned storm water runoff issues or other
environmental concerns.
If you have any other questions regarding our leasing process, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
BOZIONELOS
Associate Right of Way Agent
Airspace Development
"’Caltrans improves mobili.), across California
Genera! Lar d Use
Illicit Conne.ctions/lllegal Discharge
¯ - Locate solid waste storage areas away from drainage facilities and watercourses and no( inareas prone to-flooding or ponding.
Prevent storm water run-on from contacting stored solid waste through the use of ditches, berms, dikes and swales. Use dr~ cleanup
fechniques (e.g., vacuuming, sweeping, dry rags) to remove solid wasle from the site when practicable. Use wet cleaning techniques
only when dry cleanup lechniques are not practicable. Periodically inspect the solid
waste storage areas and re,,4ew ~he disposal procedures.
Non-storm wa~er discharges to drainage palhs, drain systems and watercourses are
probibiled. Fluids should be collected by vacuum or olher methods and contained
and recycled, evaporated or discharged to the sanilary sewer system with approval
[rom the publicly-owned b-eatment works.
Store, transport and dispose of all hazardous waste in accordance with federal, state
and local regulations. Follow label instructions regarding the proper handling, mixing
and application of materials which could gen~ate hazardous wasle and a discharge
to waterways..
Train employees in proper waste disposal and cleaning, maintenance and good
housekeeping procedures.
General Maintenance and Repair
Properly coiled and dispose of water when pressure washing buildings, rooftops, and other large obiects. Propedy prepare work area
belore conduding building maintenance. P[opedy clean and dispose of equipment and wastes used and generated during building
maintenance.
Recycle residual paints, solvenls, lumber, and other materials to the maximum extent practical. Buy recycled products to [he maximum
exienl praciicat.
Do nol dump waste liquids down the storm drain. Make sure that nearb’f slorm drains are well marked lo minimize tile chance of
inadvertent disposal of residual paints and olher liquids.
Keep the work site clean and orderly. Remove debris in a timely tashion. Sweep the
area. Cover materials of padicular concern that must be left outside, parlicularly during
the rainy season. Use drip pans or absorbent material under leaking vehicles and
equipment Io capture fluids.
Al! maintenance activi{ies should practice water consewation. Keep water application
equipmen[ in good working condition. Use the minimum amount of water needed to
complete each maintenance activity.
........ r--::’7 i : ’.
General Housekeeping
¯ ,,Purchase only the amount ol matedai [hat will be needed for [oreseeable use. Choose products that do the same iob wilh less
environmental risk.
,,Keep work sites clean and ordedy. Remove debris in a limely fashion. Sweep the area. Dispose of wash water, sweepings, and
sediments, properly. Recycle or dispose of fluids properly.
Specific employees, should be assigned specific inspection responsibilities at the work site and given the aulhorily to remedy any
problems found.
-Prohibit. littering by employees, subcontractors, and visitors.
Full dumpsters shall be removed from the proiect site and the contents shall be disposed of outside the highway right of way.
Dumpster washout on the project site is not allowed. Noti~’ trash hauiing contractors that only waterticjh[ dumpsters are acceptable
for use on-site.
Painting
Use water-based paints whenever possible. They are l~ss loxjc lhan oil-based painis and easier to clean up. Look for produds
labeled "latex" or "cleans wilh water.". Develop paint handling procedures for proper use, storage, and disposal of pain{s. fransport.
paini and malerials to and [rom iob sil.es in containers wil~ secure lids and lied.down Io the Iransport vehicle. Tesl and inspect spray
equipmenl prior io starting Io painl. Tighlen all hoses and connections and do
overfill paint containers. Mix paint indoors before using so that any spill will not be
exposed ~o rain. Do so even during dry weather because cleanup o[a spill will
never be 100% e[fectJve.
Transler and load paint away from storm drain inlets. Plug nearby slorm drain
inlets prior io slarting painting and remove plugs when job is complele when ihere
is signi[icanl risk of a spill reaching slorm drains or if sand blasting is used 1o
remove paint. Use a ground clolh to collect Ihe chips if painting requires scraping
or sand blasting of ihe existing surface. Dispose Lhe residue properly_
Cover or enclose painting operations properly to avoid drift. Clean ihe appticalion
equipmenl in a sink that G connected to Ihe sanitary sewer if using water based
pain~. Capiure all deanup-waler and dispose of properly. Store fell.over paints propedy if they are to be kept [or the ne:d job, or
dispose properly_
Regularly train employees on appropriate BMP implementation, storm water discharge prohibitions, and waslewaler discharge
requirements. Train employees on proper spill containmenl and cleanup.
Fence Repair
~Properly dean and dispose of equipment and wastes used and generated during fence repairlmai~.lenance.
Solid wasle storage areas al repair sites should be located away from drainage faciliiies and waiercourses and not tocaled in areas
prone ~o flooding or pending.
Compacbon is not an alternalive ~o resloring vegetation. Compaction is reslric[ed to areas where vegeiation is undesirable or is not
suslainabk such as in 9uardrail post or [ence post installation. Consider lhe effect of runoff item lhe compacted soil on nearb’/
surface waler. Eventy grade or level the area prior 1o compaction. Do not perform compaclion while slorm waler runoff is observed.
Compaci exposed soil as soon as possible after grading or soil disturbance. Insp~[ compacted areas Io idenlJ~/any evidence o[
erosion upon the completion of mainienance acfivilies.
Plumbing
Copper enlers receiving waters lJ~rough sierra drains and from wastewaler discharged lrom wastewaler treatment plants. Copper is
acutely loxic to planklon and affecis the reproduclion and growlh of she!irish.
Design each plumbing system to minimize velocity, minimize hol waler temperalure, avoid
s~agnanl seclions and rninimize direction and size changes to preserve pipe iniegriiy.
Eliminale small burrs created from pipe cutting. -[his reduces turbulence and significanlly
decrease.., corrosicn. Remove all oxides, debris, and surface soil from tube ends.
Maintain gooo housekeeping practices whiie working. Keep lhe work site clean and orderly.
Remove debris ~n a iirnely fasl~ion. Sweep ~he area. Protect slored pipe from wealher and
,:]amage so ihal ~nslalled pipe is as clean as possible.
Newly inslalled systems should be flushed soon after compfebon to remove excess flux and debris. For inaclive syslems, repeat ..
tlush~ng periodically
Avoid excess use of flux. Excess flux residue can ~ncrease pipe corrosion thai leads Io copper discharges
Graffiti Removal
,,If painting over gra~ti, use Painling Best Nlanagemen[ Practices.
ff removing gra~ti using wel sand blasting methods, minimize [he quanlity o[ water used, direct runo[I to landscaped or soil area, filter
runoff lhrough a b~m to keep sand ou[ of storm drains, sweep debris and sand and dispose of all waste to avoid Mute runoff
contamination.
.If removing graffiti using high-pressure washing and cleaning compound, direct washwater runoff to landscaped or soil area. No
runoff can discharge into slormdrains. Seal stormdrains and vacuumtpump washwater to the sanitary sewer. Contaci the tocal
wastewater treatment plant for guidance, as harsh clea.ning compounds may require pretreatment.
Roof Repair or Replacement/Chimney Maintenance
Recycle residual paints, solvents, lumber, and olher materials to the ma.~mum extent practical. Buy recycled products to the
maximum extent practical.
Maintain good housekeeping practices while work is underway. Keep the work site
clean and orderly. Remove debris in a timely fashion. Sweep .the area.
Store materials properly thai are normally used in repair and remodeling such as paints
and solvents. To provide prolection from fain, bagged and boxed materials stored
outdoors.should be stored on pallets throughout the rainy season and covered prior to
rain events. Storage areas should be kept clean, well organized and equipped wilh
cleanup supplies. Perimeter controls, containment structures, covers and liners shall be
repaired or replaced as needed.
Do nol dump waste liquids down the storm drain. Dispose of sweepings, and sedimenls properly. Properly collect and dispose of
waler ,,,;hen pressure washing rooftops, chimneys and other large obiects.
Solid waste storage areas at the work site should be located away from drainage facililies and watercourses and shall not be located
in areas prone Io flooding or ponding.
Periodically inspect the solid waste storage areas and review the disposal procedures.
Use dr’/cleanup lechniques (e.g., vacuuming, sweeping, dry rags) to remove solid waste trom the site when pradicabie. Use another
technique only when dry cleanup techniques are nol practicable, such as having to wel for dust conlrol for safety or air quality
lessons.
Carpentry
o.Wood pieces too small Ior construction reuse should be recycled or chipped lot mulch or compost to reduce solid wastes.
Mainlain good housekeeping practices. Keep the work si~e clean and orderly. Remove debris
in a timely fashion. Sweep lhe area. Dispose of sweepings, and sedimenis properly.
Storage areas should be kep! clean, and well organized.
Solid waste storage areas at the work site should be located away from drainage facilities
and watercourses and shall not be located in areas prone ~o flooding or ponding. Periodically
inspect the solid waste sto~age areas and review the disposal procedures.
Use dry cleanup techniques (e.g., vacuuming, sweeping, dry rags) Io remove solid waste
Irom the site when practicable_ Use another technique only when dry cleanup techniques.are
not pracficabie, such as having to wet for dust control for safety or air quafily reasons.
Office/Reta]|
Trash/Trash Bins/Dumpsters Connections/lllegal Discharge
Post:"No Littering" signs and enforce anti-litter laws. Provide a sufficient number
o! litter receptacles for lhe iacility. Clean out and cover ii~er receptacles
frequently Io p[evenl spillage.
Keep dumpster areas clean. Recycle matedals whenever possible. Use all of a
product before disposing of the container. Ensure that only appropriate solid
wasles are added Io lhe solid waste container. Ceda~n wastes such as
hazardous wasles, appliances, fluorescent lamps, pesticides, etc., may not be .-:,- .......
disposed of in solid.waste containers. Take special care when loading or
unloading wastes to minimize losses.
inspect dumPslers and trash bins weekly tor leaks and to ensure [hat lids are on
lightly. Replace any that are leaking, corroded, or olherwise deterioraling.
Sweep and clean the storage area regularly and clean up spills immediately.
If lhe dumpsler area is paved, do not hose it down to a storm drain, instead, collect the wash water and di&charge it to the sewer il allowed
by the local sewer authority. Use dry methods when possible (e.g., sweeping, use o[ absorbents). Prevent stormwater run-on from entering
the dumpster area by enclosing it or building a berm around the area. Prevent waste materials from directly contacting rain. Cover
dumpsters [o prevent rain from washing waste out of holes or Gacks in the bottom of the dumpster.
Building Maintenance
Propedy collect and dispose of water if pressure washing buildings, rooP~ops, and etcher.large ~bjects. If pressure washing where the
surrounding area is paved, use a water collection device that enables collection of wash water and associated solids. Use a surn, p pump,
wet vacuum or similarly effective device io coiled the runoff and loose materials. Dispose of the collected runoff and solids properly, if
pressure washing on a landscaped area (wilh or wilhoul soap), runoff must be dispersed as sheel flow as much as possible, rather than as
a concentrated stream. The wash runoff must remain on the landscaping and not drain to pavement.
Do not dump any loxic substance or. liquid wasle on the pavemen!,, the ground, or
Ioward a storm drain. Store toxic materia! under cover when not in use and during
precipitation evenls Switch to non-toxic chemicals lot mainlenance when
possible. If cleaning agents are used, select biodegradable producls whenever
feasible. Consider using a waterless and non-toxic chemical cleaning method [or
graffiti removal (e g. gels or spray compounds). Use chemicals that can be
recycled. Buy recycled products to the maximum extent practicable
Use water:based painls whenever possible. They are tess toxic than oil-based
paints and easier to clean up. Look for products labeled °lalex" or "cleans with
wafer." Develop painl handling procedures tot proper use, slorage, and disposal of
paints, qransport paint and materials to and from job sites in containers with
secure lids and tied down to the transport vehicle. Test and inspect spray
equipment prior Io slading Io paint_ Tighten all hoses and connections and do not overfill paint conlainers. Mix paint indoors belore using
so that any spill will not be exposed to rain. Do so even during dry weather because cleanup el a spill will never be 100% effective.
Transfer and load paint away from storm drain inlets. When there is significanl risk o[a spill reaching storm drains or itsand blasting is
used Io remove paint, cover nearby sierra drain inlets prior to starting painting and remove covers when job is complete. Use a ground
cloth Io collect the chips il painting requires scraping or sand blasting el the exisling surface. Dispose the res due properly.
Cover or enclose painting operations properly to avoid dri~I. Clean the application equipmenl in a sink ~hat is connecled to lhe sanilary
sewer it using water based paints. Capture all cleanup-water and dispose o[ properly. Store leftover paints if they are to be kept [or the
next job properly, or dispose properly
Regularly train employees on appropriale Best blanagemenl Practices implementalion, storm water discharge prohibitions, and
was[ewa[er discharge requiremenls. Train employees onproper spill contaioment and cleanup.
Landscaping
Whe[e feasible, retain and/or plant native vegetation since it usually requires less maintenance than new vegetation. When p!anling or "
replanting consider using ilowers, trees, sh[ubs, and groundcovers that have low water use. Conside[ alternative landscaping techniques
such as naturescaping and xeriscaping. Use mulch or other erosion conL,ol measures on exposed soils.
Dispose ofgrass clipping% leave% sticks, or other collecled vegetation as garbage at a permitte~l landfill or- by composfing. Do not dispose
of gardening wastes in st~eels, waterways, or storm drainage systems. Place
temporarily stockpiled material away from watercourses and storm drain :
inlets, and beam and/or cover. :
trrigale slowly or pulseirrigate so .the infiltration rate el [he soil is not.
exceeded. Inspecl inigalion system regularly fo[ leaks and (o ensure-lhal
excessive runoff is not occurring, l[ re-claimed waler is used for irrigation,
ensure thai 1here is no runoff from [he landscaped area(s). Use automatic
timers to minimize runoff. Use popup sprinkle~ heads in areas with a Iol el
~tivily or where pipes may be broken. Consider 1he use of mechanisms tha1
reduce waler flow to broken sprinkler heads.
Follow all federal, slate, and local lav,,s and regulations governing the use,
slorage, and disposal of ieriilizers. Follow manufaclurers’ [ecommendations and label dkedions. Employ lechniques to minimize
application (e.g. spray drift) of ferlilizer, including consideration oi~ altemalive applicalion lechniques. Calibrale fed.ilizer disidbutors Io avoid
excessive applica%n. Periodically test soils for delermining proper fertilizer use. Fertilize~ shouid be worked inlo the son ralher lhan
dumped or broadcasl onto the surface. Sweep pavemenl and sidewalk if realizer is spilled on Lhese surfaces before applying irrigation
waler. Use slow release {edilizers whenever possible In minimize leaching.
Whenever possible, use mechanical methods of vegetation removal such as hand weeding ralher than applying he¢oicides. When
conducting mechanical or manual weed control, avoid loosening lhe soi!, which could lead to erosion.
If using pesticides, follow a!l federal, state, and locaf laws and [egulations governing Iheir use, storage, and disposal. Follow
manufac~lurers’ recommendations and label diredions. When appiic~able, use less toxic pesticides that will do lhe iob and avoid use of
copper-based pesficides if possible. Do nol apply pesficides if rain is expected or if wind speeds are above 5 mph. Do not mix oF .~epare
pesticides for application near sierra drains. Prepare the minimum amount of pesticide needed for the job and use the lowest rale that wili
effectively control the targeted pest. Do not apply any chemicals directly to sudace waters and do not spray pesticides wilhin I00 feet of
open waters. Employ techniques to minimize off-target application (e.g. spray drift) of peslicides, including consideration of alternative
applicalion techniques. Purchase only [he amount of pesticide that you can reasonably use in a given time period. Careful soil mixing and
layering techniques using a topsoil mix or compos[ed organic material can be used as an effective measure to reduce weeds and watering.
Check irrigation schedules so pesticides will not be washed away and to minimize non-stormwater discharge.
Integrate pesl management techniques were appropriate. Mulch can be used 1o prevenl weeds where turf is absent. Remove insects by
hand and place in soapy water or vegetable oil. Altemalivety, remove insects with water or vacuum them off the plants. Use species-
specific traps (e.g. pheromone-based traps or colored sticky cards). Sprinkle the ground sudace with abrasive diatomaceous eartl~ ~o
prevenl infestations by soft-bodied insects and slugs. Slugs also can be trap~d in small cups tilled with beer lhat are set in the ground so
that slugs can get in easily. In cases ,,~here microscopic parasites, such as bacteria and fungi, are causing damage to plants, the affecled
planl material can be removed and disposed of (pruning equipment should be disinfecled with bleach to prevent spreading the disease
o[ganism). Small mammals and birds can be excluded using fences, nelting, and tree trunk gua[ds. Promote beneficial organisms, such as
bats, birds, green lacewings, ladybugs, praying maniis, ground beeries, parasilic nematodes, trichogramma wasps, seedhead weevils, and
spiders lhal prey on detrimental pest species.
Patio, Walkway, Driveway
Use dry clean-up methods, such as a broom, mop or absorbent malerial for surface cleaning whenever possible. Do nol sweep or
blow trash or debris into the skeet or gutter. Avoid graffiti abalement activilies during rain events and use the least toxic maleriais
available (e.g. water based paints, gels-or sprays for graffiti removal). Avoid using cleaning products that contain hazardous
substances that can crea[e hazardous wasle.
water must be u<ed for sudace cleaning, use it sparingly. Never discharge washwater into lhe street, a ditch, or storm drain.
’Deform ne how you are going ~o capture the water and where you are going to discharge it before starting the wash iob. Cap;ure and
collecl the washwater and properly dispose of ii (i.e., landscaped areas, privale sewer system, sanitary sewer system}
,,,Provide regular training to employees and/or contractors regarding surface cleaning
Pollution PreventiOn
Parking Area
Clean parking lots on a regular basis to prevent accumulated wastes
and pollutants from being discharged into.slorrn drain systems during.
rainy conditions. When cleaning heavy oily dePOsits, use absorbent
rnatedats on oily spols prior to sweeping or washing. Dispose of used
absolbents appropriately.
Allow Sheet [unoff to flow into biofilters (vegetated sirip and swale)
andloi infiltration devices. Utilize sand.filters or oleophilic collectors for
oly waste in low concentra~.ions. Clean out oillwater/sand separators .
regularly, especially after heavy storms.
Have designated personnel conduct inspections of the parking
facihties and storm drain systems associated with them on a
regular basis, inspect cleaning equipmenb’sweepers for leaks on a
regular basis.
Have spili cleanup materials readily availaNe and in a known location. Cleanup spills immediately and use dry methods ii possible.
Properly dispose of spill cleanup material.
Christmas
Nurseries
Tree & Pumpkin LotstFlower Stands/Plant
Trash/Trash Bins/Dumpsters 1 Illegal Connections and Discharges
Post "No Littering" signs and enforce anti-litter laws. Provide b"ash receptacles in parking lob to discourage litter. Clean out and cover trash ’
receptacles frequently to pi’event spillage. Regularly !nspect~ repair, and!or replace trash receptacles.
Keep dumpsler areas clean: Recycle materials whenever ~ssible. Inspect dumpsters and trash
~ bins weekly for leaks and to ensure thai lids are on lightlyi Replace any lhat are leaking,
corroded, or other,,vise deledorating. Sweep and clean the storage area regularly and clean up
spills immediately.
IF the dumpster area is paved, do not hose it down to a storm drain. Instead, collect ~he. wash
water and discharge it to the sewer if allowed by the local sewer authority. Use dry methods
when possible (e.g., sweeping, use of absorbents). Prevent slormwaler run-on from entering the
dumpster area by enclosing it or building a berm around the area. Prevenl waste materials from
direct contact with rain. Cover dumpsters to prevent rain from washing waste out of holes or
cracks in the bottom of the dumpster.
Routinely sweep, shovel and dispose of litter in the trash. Remove titter and debris from drainage
grates, lrash racks and ditch lines Io reduce discharge to the storm water drainage systems and
walercourses.
Provide regutar training to employees regarding proper waste disposal
Sediment Tracking
o inspect tires prior to entering the roadway. Use dry cleanup techniques to remove rock and sediment From tires prior 1o leaving the
site.
inspect potential sediment tracking Iocalions daily. Visible sediment tracking shall be swept and vacuumed on a daily basis. Be careful
not Io sv.,eep up any unknown subslance or any obiect lhat may be potentially hazardous. Adjust brooms trequenlly; maximize
efi]ciency of s;veeping operalions. After sweeping is finished, properly dispose of sweeper wastes.
Burning Excess Plant Material
o Do not locate stockpiles in areas of concentrated flows ol storm water, drainage systems, inlets or watercourses or adjacen~ to
sensiti’,~e water bodies. Divert storm waler run-on away f~om stockpiles.
implement wind erosion conlrol practices on stockpile material such a [arping or spraying with water.
Slockpi!es should be removed as soon as practicable and materials should be placed so that walerways are not irnpacled.
During rain events, stockpiles shall be covered or proiected.
SanitarylSeptic Waste Management
Sanitary facilities should be localed in a convenient localion and away from drainage Facilities, walercourses, and from traffic
circulation. When subjected to high winds or risk of high winds, temporary sanilaH facilities should be secured to prevent overturning.
,, Wastewater should not be discharged or buried within the project site. Sanitary and septic systems that discharge directly inlo sanitary
sewer system should be properly connected to avoid illicit discharges and comply with the local heal!h agency, city, county, and sewer
_tis[dct requirements. Sanitary and septic facilities should be mainlained in good working order by a licensed service. Regular waste
col achon by a licensed hauler should be arranged be[ore Facilities ovedlow.
o Educale employees, subconl~actors, and suppliers on sanitary and septic waste storage and disposal procedures
Chemical Storage
Place tight-fitting lidsonall containers. Enclose or cover lhe containers where they are stored. Raise the containers off the ground by use
o[ pallet or simila~ method, with provisions for spill control. Contain the material in such a manner that if the container leaks or spills, the
contents will not discharge, flow, or be washed into l~e storm drainage system, surface waters or groundwater.
Place drip.pans or absorbent materials beneathall mounted container taps, and at all potential drip and spill iccations duringflling and
Unloading of conlainers. Any collected liquids or soiled absorbent materials must be reused/recycled or ProPedy disposed.
!nspect storage areas regularly for leaks or spills. Conduct routine inspections and check for external corrosion of material containers. Also
check for sl[uciu~al failure, spills and overfills due to operator error or failure of piping syslem. Look for corrosion, leaks, Cracks, scratches,
and olheE, physical damage that may weaken the container system. Replace :containers thai are leaking, corroded, or otherwise.
deteriorating with ones in good condition, if the liquid chemicals are corrosive, containers made of compatible materials must be used
instead of metal drums. New or secondary containers must be labeled v,,4th the product name and hazards.
Train employees in proper slorage measures. Train employee and contractors in
proper spil~ containment and cleanup. The emp!oyee should have the tools and
knov,,iedge to immediately begin cleaning up a spill if one should occur.
Plant Overwatering
Irrigate slowly or pulse irrigate so the intiltratJon rate of the soil is not exceeded.
Use automatic timers to minimize runoff. Use popup sprinkler heads in areas with
a lot of activity or where pipes may be broken. Consider [he use of mechanisms
thai reduce water flow to broken sprinkler heads. Install and use moisture
sensors and automatic sprinklers for more accurate scheduling of irrigation.
Recycle runoff; blend with flesh water as necessary
Inspect irrigation system regularly for ieaks and to ensure thai excessive runo[[ is
not occurring. If re-claimed water is used for irrigation, ensure that there is no runoff from the landscaped area(s).
Conrad paved or bare soil areas to vegelalion [hat ,,,,,ill retard runoff (turf grasses or other comparable plant materials) wherever
possible.
Group plants with similar water needs together ~o improve irrigation efficiency. Establish plant buffer zones beb,,.,een production areas
and ditches, creeks, ponds, lakes, or wetJands.
"revention
- :-/ Outdoor Loadin l and Unloading i
General Guidelines
Develop an operations pla~ that de@tribes procedures fOrz loading and/or unloading¯
Loadlunload only at designated loading areas. Pave load ~gl areas with concrete instead
Of asphalt, if possible.
Conduct loading and Unloading in. dry..weather if possible. Have employees load and
unload all maleriaJs and Equipment in covered areas suci~ asbu!tdingoverhangs at
loading docks, if feasiSle. Cover designaied loadingiunloading areas to reduce exposure
of materials to rain. Consider placing a seal or doo~: skirt betv,,een delivery vehicles and
buil.ding [o prevenl exposure to rain.
Design Ioading/unloading area to prevent stormwater run-on, which would include grading or berming the area, and posilioning roof
downspouts so they direct stormwater away from lhe !oaring/unloading areas Grade and/or berm ~he loading/unloading area lo a drain
that is connected to a form of containment.
Use drip pans underneath hose and pipe connections and other leak-prone spols during liquid transfer operations, and when making and
breaking connections. Several drip pans should be stored in a covered location near lhe liquid transter area so that Hey are always
available, yet protected from precipitation when not in use. Drip pans can be made specilicaliy for railroad tracks. Drip pans must be
cleaned periodically, and drip coltected materials must be disposed of properly
Sweep up and dispose of any bose debris remaining a~er loading/unloading is completed
Inspection
,=Check loading and unloading equipment regularly forea~.s including valves, purnps, flanges and connections. Look for dust or fumes
during loading or unloading operations.
Designate a responsible party to check under deliver,/vehicles for leaking fluids, spilled materials, debris, or other foreign materials.
Spill Response and Prevention/Training
,, Keep your Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan up-to-date, have an emergency spill cleanup plan readily
available and ensure that employees are familiar with tile plan.
°Train employees (e.g., fork liP, operators) and contradors on proper spill containment and cleanup. Train employees in proper
handling techniques during liquid transfers to avoid spills. Make sure forkli[l operators are properly trained on loading and unloading
procedures.
,,Contain leaks during transfer. Use drip pans or comparable devices when translerring oils, solvents, and painls.
=Store and rnainlain appropriate spill cleanup materials in a location that is readily accessible and known to all.
P rking Lets
Leaking Vehicles
Clean parkinglots on a regular basis to prevent accumulated wastes
and pollutants from being discharged into storm drain Systems.
during rainy conditions. When cleaning heavy oily deposits, use
absorbeni materials on oily spots .prior to sweeping or washing.
Dispose of Used absoibents appropria.~ely. "
Allow sheet runoff to flow into biofiiters.(vegetated sirip and swale)
and/or infiltralion devices. Ulitize sand filters or oleophilic collectors
for oily waste in low concentrations. Clean out oil/water/sand
separators regularly, especially after heavy storms.
Have designated personnel conduct inspections of the parking
tacilities and-storm drain systems associated with them on a regular
bas~s. Inspect cleaning equipment/sweepers [or leaks on a regular
basis.
Have spill cleanup materials readily available and in a known location. Cleanup spills immediately and use dry methods if
possible. Properly dispose of spill cleanup material.
Trash
,,Post "No LJltering" signs and enforce anti-litter laws.
Provide trash receptacles in parking lots to discourage litter. Clean out and cover trash receptacles l:requen[I,/Io prevent
spillage. Regularly inspecl, repair, and/or replace lrash receptacles.
Routinely sweep, si~ovel and dispose of litter in the trash. Remove litter and debris from drainage grates, trash racks arid
ditch lines to reduce discharge to the storm water drainage syslems and wa[ercourses.
Provide regular training to field employees and/or contractors regarding cleaning of paved areas and proper operation of
equipment.
...... . Stormwater-Pollution Prevention
General Guidelines
Develop an operations plan that describes procedures for loading and/or unloading.
Load/unload :only at.designated leading areas: Pave loading areas with concrete instead
of asphalt, if possible. . .. .. ¯ ¯ .
Conduct loading and unloading in dry w~atl~e[ if possible. Have employees toad and
unload all rnalerials and equipment in covered areas such as building overhangs at
loading docks, if feasible. Cover designated Ioadinglunloading areas to reduce exposure
of materials to rain~ Consider placin9 a seal or door skirl beb,’~een delivery vehicles and
building to prevent exposure to rain.
Design !oadinglunloading area to prevent stormwater run-on, which would include grading or berming the area, and positioning roof
downspouts so they direct s~ormwater away from the loading/unloading areas. Grade andlor berm the leading/unloading area Io a drain
that is connecled to a form of conlainmenl.
Use drip pans underneath hose and pipe connections and other leak-prone spots during liquid transler operations, and when making and
breaking connections. Several d~ip pans should be slored in a covered Iocalion near lhe liquid transfer area so lhat they are always
available, yet protecled from precipitation when not in use. Drip pans can be made specifically ior railroad tracks. Drip pans must be
cleaned peliodically, and drip collected materials must be disposed of properly.
Sweep up and dispose of any loose debris remaining after loading/unloading is completed.
Inspection
= Check loading and unloading equipment regularly for leaks, including valves, pumps, flanges and connections. Look for dust or fumes
during loading or unloading operations.
Designate a responsible party to check under delivec., vehicles for leaking f}uids, spilled materials, debris or o her foreign materials.
Spill Response and Prevention/Training
Keep your Spill Prevention Conlrol and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan up-to-date. Have an emergency spill cieanup plan readily
available and ensure thal employees are familiar wilh lhe plan.
Train employees (e.g., fork lift operators) and contractors on proper spill containment and cleanup, q-rain employees in proper
handling techniques during liquid transfers to avoid spills. Make sure forklift operators are properly trained on loading and unloading
procedures
o Contain leaks during ~ransfer. Use drip pans or comparable devices when transferring oils, solvents, and paints.
,,Store and maintain appropriate spill cleanup materials in a localion lhat is readily accessible and known ~o all
.-...Storrnwater. Po|lution Preventi )n ..
. /Parking Lots
Leaking Vehicles
Clean parking tots On a regular basis tO. prevent accumu!ated wastes
and pollutants from being discharged into slorm di-ain systems
during rainy conditions. When cleaning heavy oily deposits, use
absorbe.nl materials on oily spots prior, to sweepiog or washing.
Dispose of used absorbents appropriately.
Allow sheet runoff to flow into biofiliers (vegetated strip and swale)
and/or infiltration devices. Utilize sand fillers or oleophilic collectoB
for oily waste in low concentrations. Clean out oil/water/sand
separators regularly, especially after heavy storms.
dave designated personne! conduct inspections of the parking
facilities and storm drain systems associated with them on a regular
basis. Inspecf cleaning equipment/sweepers for ieaks on a regular
basis_
Have spill cleanup materials readily available and in a known location. Cieanup spills immediately and use dry methods if
possible. Properly dispose of spill cleanup material.
Trash
,,Post"No Littering" signs and enforce anti-litter taws.
Provide trash receptacles in parking lots to discourage litter. Clean out and cover trash receptacles frequently to prevent
spillage. Regularly inspect, repair, andlor replace trash receptacles.
o Routinely sweep, shovel and dispose of litter in the trash. Remove litter and debris from drainage grates, trash racks and
ditch lines to reduce discharge ~o the slorm water drainage systems and watercourses
Provide regular training to field employees andtor conlraclors regarding cleaning of paved areas and proper operation o[
equipment.
ATTACHMENT D
PLANNING &TRANSPOR TA TION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
1
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Paul Mennega
Associate Planner
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: April 11, 2007
SUBJECT:Initiation of rezoning from Public Facilities District (PF) to General
Manufacturing District (GM) for approximately 1.1 acres of land at the
southwest corner of CalTrans right-of-way at San Antonio Avenue and U.S.
101 (Bayshore Freeway), north of terminus of T~-ansport Road.
RECOMMENDA TI ON:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission direct the Director of
Planning and Community Environment to initiate a zone change from Public Facility (PF) to
General Manufacturing District (GM) for the lands located adjacent to U.S. 101 as defined in the
attached parcel map (Attachment A). Additionally, Staff recommends that the Planning and
Transportation Commission direct the Director of Planning and Community Environment to
initiate a comprehensive plan change from for these lands, which currently have no designation,
to Light Industrial.
BACKGROUND:
Ciardella’s Garden Supply, a local Palo Alto business for over 30 years, has been asked to vacate
their current location at 2027 East Bayshore Road. This one acre site, which is zoned General
Manufacturing District (GM), is owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD).
The City has entered into an agreement with the SCVWD to install a new storm-water pump at
this location, necessitating the relocation of Ciardella’s.
The City Council has directed staff to pursue strategies to preserve and enhance the revenue
stream that supports City services. As a long-time contributor to Palo Alto’s revenue stream,
keeping Ciardella’s Garden Supply in Palo Alto is an important goal. Initiating this zone-change
at the proposed site will allow Ciardella’s to remain a local Palo Alto enterprise.
DISCUSS ION:
(.’it3, of Palo Alto,Page 1
The proposed project is a City-initiated rezoning from the PE to the GM zone district for the area
located at the north terminus of Transport Road, located in the existing CalTrans right-of-way
from PF to the GM zone district. This zone change would allow CalTrans to lease the subject
land to Ciardella’s, a local garden supply retailer. Currently, Ciardella’s is located at 2027 East
Bayshore Road, land owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and leased to Ciardella’s.
The General Manufacturing District provides for light manufacturing, research, and commercial
service uses. Office uses are very limited in order to maintain the district as a desirable location
for manufacturing uses. The GM district is intended for application to land designated for light
industrial use in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Adjacent commercial properties are zoned
General Manufa.cturing District in this area. The subject property does not have a Comprehensive
Plan designation, but Staff requests that the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the
subject property be changed to Light Industrial, which would be consistent with both the
immediately adjacent properties and with the proposed GM zone district.
CalTrans A ~reement
Staff has met with representatives from CalTrans, and it is our understanding that CalTrans is
prepared to enter into an agreement with Ciardella’s that will allow them to utilize the lands
indicated on the attached map (Attachment A).
Zone Change Process
The process for a City-initiated zone change is outlined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code under
Section 18.98. The steps are summarized as follows:
The City Council or Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) directs the Planning
Director to initiate a zoning amendment.
The PTC sets a date for a regular or special meeting of the PTC, including a public
hearing and notice to the property owner and surrounding property owners. The
Commission may recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning, modificJation
of the area to be rezoned, application of more or less restrictive zoning, or denial of the
rezoning.
The decision of the Commission is forwarded to the City Council, including the
Commission’s findings and determinations for the requested zone change. Upon notice
and a public hearing, the City Council takes final action regarding the zoning.
The Comprehensive Plan designation follows the same review process as the rezoning
and will be done in parallel to the rezoning.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This action by the Planning and Transportation Commission is not considered a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act. An Environmental Impact Assessment, including an
Initial Study checklist, would be prepared for rezoning this site prior to returning to the
Commission.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Parcel Map
B. General Manufacturing District (GM) Zoning
City of Palo Alto Page 2
C. Light Industrial Comprehensive Plan Designation
COURTESY COPIES:
Larry Ciardella, President of Ciardella’s
Bob Budelli, Vice President of Ciardella’s
Nicolas P. Jellins, Esq.
Jim Bozionelos, CalTrans, Division of Right of Way
Peter Gilli, Deputy Zoning Administrator, City of Mountain View
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Paul Mennega, Associate Planner
Amy French, Current Planning Manager
Department/Division Head Approval:__
Chrti~ @illiam-s, Assistant Director
CTty q/" t-’alo /I lt,o l-’agc 3
N47"50’27"E 297 11’ z
0 40 80 160
SCALE,1",, 80’
EXHIBIT "B"
A LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING, INC.
2495 INDUSTRIAL PARKWAY WEST
HAY’WARD. CALIFORNIA 94545
(5t0) 887-4086
FAX (510) 887-3019
WWW’.LEABRAZE.COM
ZONING CHANGE
CAL-TRANS PROPERTY
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
APN:SCALE: 1"= 80’
JOB NO 20701 47
2070147
Lease Line - Zoning Change
All that certain real property situate in the CITY OF PALO ALTO, COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, lying entirely within the parcel shown as
:’State of California" on the map of Tract No. 1645, which map was filed in Book 66 of
Maps at Pages 18 and 19, Santa Clara County Records, more particularly described as
fol!ows:
Beginning at the most Northerly corner of Lot 15 in Block 4 as shown on said map;
thence along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 15 and its prolongation Southwesterly,
South 47° 30’ 27" West, 297.11 feet to a point of curvature; thence along the arc of a
tangent curve to the left with a radius of 300.00 feet, through a central angle of 35° 20’
44", an arc distance of 126.84 feet; thence North 39° 50’ 21" West, 222.31 feet; thence
North 50° 08’ 35" East, 418.50 feet; thence South 39° 50’ 21" East, 176.32 feet to the
point of Beginning.
Containing 1.8I acres, more or tess.
18.20.010
ATTACHMENT B
Chapter 18.20
OFFICE, RESEARCH, AND MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS
Sections:
18.20.010
18.20.020
18.20.030
18.20.040
l 8.20.050
18.20.060
18.20.070
Purposes
Applicability
Land Uses
Site Development Standards
Perfommnce Criteria
Grandfathered Uses
Conflict with Development Agreement
18.20.010 Purposes
The office research, industrial and manufacturing zoning districts provide sites for office, light
indnstrial, research and development, and limited commercial uses. The specific pro-poses for each
district -are listed below.
(a)Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) District
(b)
The MOR medical office and medical research district provides for medical office, medic~fl
research, and some medical support services in areas characterized by low building intensity,
lmge site size, and landscaped uounds. The MOR district is primarily intended for land that
is designated f\~r research and office park use in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and that
is near hospitals.
Research, Oll’ice and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) District
The ROLM research, office and linfited manufacturing district provides for a limited ~oup
of office, research and manufacturing uses in a manufacturin~research park enviro~m~ent,
where uses requiring larger 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.
Research, Office and Limited Manufacturh~g Subdistrict - Embarcadero [ROLM(E)]
The research, office and limited manufacturing subdistrict [ROLM(E)] modifies the site
development regulations of the ROLM research, office and limited manufacturing district to
apply to smaller sites in m-eas with limited access or with environmental sensitivity due to
their proMmity to the Palo Alto Baylands in the Embarcardero Road area.
(d)Research Park District [RP]
The RP research park district provides for a limited group of research and manufacturing uses
that may have unusual requirements for space, light, and air, and desire sites in a research
park environment. Premium research and development facilities should be encouraged in the
F,:P district. Suppoi-t office uses should be limited and should e~st primarily to serve the
primm3, research and manufacturing uses. The RP district is intended for application to land
designated for research and office park use in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan on sites that
are west of E1 Camino Rea_l and held in large parcels, which may or may not also be subject
to ground leases.
18.20.020 Applicable Regulations
(e)Research Park Subdistrict 5 [RP(5)]
The Research Park site subdistrict [RP(5)] modifies the site development regulations of the
RP research park district to regulate large sites in hilly areas.
General Manufacturing District [GM]
The GM general manufacturing district provides for light manufacturing, rese~ch, and
corm-nercial service uses. Office uses are very limited in order to maintain tlie district as a
desirable location for manufacturing uses. The GM district is intended for application to land
designated for light industrial use in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
(Ord. 4883 § 7 (part), 2005: Ord. 4884 § 2 (part), 2005)
18.20.020 Applicable Regulations
The specific regulations of thJs chapter and the additional regulations and procedures established by
this Title 18 shall apply to all Office Research, Industrial, and Manufacturing districts.
(Ord. 4883 § 7 (part), 2005: Ord. 4884 § 2 (part), 2005)
18.20.030
(a)
Land Uses
Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses
Table 1 lists the land uses permitted or conditionally pern~tted in the industrial and
manufacturing districts.
TABLE 1
INDUSTRIAL/MANUFACTURING DISTRICT LAND USES
[P = Permitted Use o CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required]
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORTUSES
Accessory facilities and aclivities customarily
associated with or essential to permitled uses, and
operated incidental Io the principal use.
Automalic Teller Machines
Home Occupations, when accessory to permitted
residential uses.
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY
USES
Business and Trade Schools
Religious Insfilulions
Colleges and Universities
Private Clubs, Lodges, or Fraternal Organizalions
Private Schools (K-12)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
CUP CUP
CUP I CUP
P
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
[-Fable Continues on Nexl PageJ
Current CodePChaplet 18.88
P t 8.2&030(d)
Current CodePChapter 18.88
P
P
CUP
CUP
18.20.030 Land Uses
HEALTH CARE SERVICES
Ambulance Services
Convalescent Facilities
Medical Office
Medical Research
Medical Support Retail
Medical Support Services
MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING USES
Manufacturing
Recycling Cenlers
Research and Development
Warehousing and Distribution
OFFICE USES
Administrative Office Services
Financial Services
Professional and General Business Offices
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC USES
Sen’ice and Equipment Yards
Utility Facilities
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utilib/services
but excluding construction/storage yards,
maintenance facilities, or corporation yards.
RECREATION USES
Commercial Recreation
Neighborhood Recreational Centers
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single-Family
Two-Family
Multiple-Family
Residential Care Homes
RETAIL USES
Eating and Drinking Services, excluding drive-in and
take-out services
Retail Services
SERVICE USES
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels
Boarding and Kennels
Day Care Centers
CUP
P
P
CUP
P
P
P
CUP
P
CUP CUP
CUP CUP
P P
[Table Continues on Next Page]
Notpermi~ed
Notpermi~ed
CUP CUP
P P
CUP CUP
CUP CUP
P
CUP
CUP
P
P P
CUP CUP
P P
P P
P CUP
CUP
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
i Regulatio~~’ih CI-i~pter:-
18.20.030(c)
18.20.030(b)
18.20.030(b)
18.20.040(b)
Ch. 18.=0 - Page. _~{Supp. No. 10- 9/11/2006)
18.20.030 Land Uses
Family Day Care Homes
Small Family Day Care
Large Family Day Care
General Business Services
Lodging
Hotels providing not more than 10% of rooms
with kitchens
Mortuaries and Funeral Homes
Personal Services
Vehicle Services
Automobile Service Stalions, subject to site and
design review in accord wilh the provisions of
Currenl Code Chapter 18.82
Automotive Services
Off-site new vehicle storage for auto dealerships
located in Palo Alto
TEMPORARY USES
Temporary Parking Facililies, provided that such
facilities shall remain no more than five years.
TRANSPORTATION USES
Passenger Transp0rtation Terminals
P = Permitted Use
P
P
CUP
CUP
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required
(b)Limita- tions on Medical Support Service and Medical Support Retail Uses in the
Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) Zone
(21)
(3")
The intent of this ]instation is to restrict medical support service and medical support
retail uses in the Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) zone in order to
preserve and facilitate space for medical offices and medical research facilities.
Floor area devoted to medical support services and medical support retail uses in the
Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) zonir~g district shall not exceed twenty
percent (20%) of the total gross floor area within the district.
Tile director may requffe a report from the property owner or applicant whenever
application is made to the city to develop new space for medical support service or
medical support retail uses or to convert e;dsting space to such uses. The report shall
identify the gross floor area of buildings on each site within the zoning district and
the gross floor area of medical support selwice and medical support retail uses for
each site. Tile director may, from time to time, establish procedures and standards
implementing this Section 18.20.030(b).
~Sopp., o. ~0 9n~nc~,Ch. 18.20 Page 4
18.20.040 Site Development Standards
(c) Automatic Teller Machines
(l)
(2)
Automatic teller machines may be allowed as an accessory use in the MOR, ROLM,
ROLM(E), RP, RP(5), and GM districts when incidental to a primary use on the site
and when accessible only from the interior of a building.
Automatic teller machines may be allowed as a permitted use in the MOR, ROLM,
ROLM(E), RP, RP(5), and GM districts when incidental to a primary use on the site
and when accessible from the exterior of a building. Staff level Architectural Review
is required prior to issuance of a building permit.
(Ord. 4883 § 7 (part), 2005 Ord. 4884 § 2 (part), 2005)
18.20.040 Site Development Standards
Development in the office research, indusuTial, and manufacturing districts is subject to the following
development standards, provided that more restrictive regulations may be required as part of design
review under Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
(a)Development Standards tbr Non-Residential Uses
Table 2 shows the site development standards for exclusively non-residential uses in the
industrial and manufacturing disuicts.
TABLE 2
INDUSTRIAL/MANUFACTURING NON-RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Minimum Site
Specifications
Site Area (sq.
Site Width (fl.)
Site Depth (it.)
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (it)
Rear Yard (ft)
Inlerior Side Yard (it)
Street Side Yard (ft)
Minimum Yard (fl) lor
site lines abutting or
opposite residenlial
districts
Maximum Site
Coverage
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Parking
Landscaping
MOR ROLM ROLM(E) RP RP(5) GM
25,000 1 acre 1 acre 5 acres
150 100 100 250
50 150 150 2501
Setback lines rmposed by a special setback map pursuant to
Chapter 20.08 of this code may apply.
50 p)
10 (3)
10
20
10 (3)
30%
0.5:1
20
20
20
20
2O
30%
0.4:1 t4)0.3:1
20
20
20
20
30%
0.4:1
100
40
40
70
2O
15%
0.3:1
10
0.5:1
Subject to
Regulations in Chapter:
18.20.060(e)(1)(O)
18.20.060(e)(1)(E)
See Chapter 18.83, Parking 18.83
See Section 18.20.050 (Pedormance Criteria)18.20,050
[Table Continues on Nexl Page]
Ch. 18.20 - Page 5 (Supp. No. 9
18.20.040 ~lte Development Standards
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard
Wilhin 150 ft. ol a
residenlial zone
Within 40 ft. of a
residential zone
Daylight Plane for site
lines having any part
abutting one or more
residential districts.
Initial Height
Slope
MOR
5O
35
35
_ (2)
_ (2)
35 (4)
35
25
35
35
25
RP(5) GM
5O
35
35
ROLM ROLM(E)RP
10
1:2
Subject to
Regulations in Chapter:
For any property designated GM and fronting on East Bayshore Road a minimum setback of 20 leei along ihal honlage is established.
Daylighl plane requirements shall be idenlical Io the daylight plane requiremenls o! the rnosl reslriclive residenlial dislricl abutting lhe
side or rear sile line. Such daylighl planes shall begin at the applicable sile lines and increase at the specilied slope unlil inlersecling
lhe height lirnil o[he~..,ise established lot the MOR dislricl.
In the MOR districl, no required parking or loading space shall be tocaled in lhe lirsl 10 feet adjoining the slreel properly line ot any
required yard.
See subsection 18.20.040(e) below for exceplions to heighl and floor area tim~talions in the ROLM and RP zoning dislricls.
Residential zones include R-l, R-2. RE, RMD. RM-15. RM-30, RM-40 and residential Planned Communib/(PC) zones.
Development Standards for Exclusively Residential Uses
Residential uses shall be permitted in the MOR, RP, RP(5), ROLM, ROLM(E) and GM
zoning districts, subject to the following criteria.
(21)
(3")
(4)
It is the intent of these provisions that a compatible transition be provided from lower
density, residential zones to t-dgher density residential or non-residential zones. The
Village Residential development type should be evaluated for use in transition areas
and will provide the ~eatest flexibility to provide a mix of residence types
compatible with adjacent neighborhoods.
No new single-family or two-family residential development is pe~rnitted in any of
the oft]ce, rese~u-ch and manufacturing districts. Existing single-family and two-
family uses shall be permitted to remain, consistent with the provisions of Chapter
18.94 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities).
MOR District. All multi-family development in the MOR zoning district shall be
pennitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit and compliance with the
development standards prescribed for the P,.M-30 zoning district.
RP and RP(5) Districts. All multi-family development in the RP, and RP(5) zoning
districts that is located witt~in 150 feet of an R-E, R-l, R-2, RMD, or similar density
residential PC zone shall be permitted subject to approvN of a conditional use permit
and compliance with the development standards prescribed for the RM-15 zoning
district, including Village Residential development types. Multi-family development
in the MOR, RP, and RP(5) zoning districts that is located greater than 150 feet from
an R-E, R-l, R-2, RMD, or low density residential PC shall be permitted subject to
(Supp. No. 9- 1/5~006)Ch. 18.20 - Page 6
18.20.040 Site Development Standards
(c)
(d)
approval of a conditional use permit and compliance with the development standards
prescribed for the P&!I-30 zoning district.
(5)ROLM (E) District. All multi-family development in t.he ROLM(E) zoning district
shall be pemfitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit and compliance
with the development standards prescribed for the RM-15 zoning district.
(6)ROLM District. Al! multi-family development in the ROLM zoning district shall be
permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit and compliance with the
development standards prescribed for the RM-30 zoning district.
(7) GM District. All residential development is prohibited in the GM zoning district.
Development Standards for Mixed (Residential and Nonresidential) Uses in the ROLM,
ROLM(E), and GM zmfing Districts
Mixed (residential and nonresidential) uses shall be permitted in the ROLM, ROLM(E), and
GM zoning districts, subject to the following criteria:
It is the intent of these provisions that_. . a co~,~p,*t;b1,~. .... , .~ u-mqsition be ~,,,,~,~;¢~’~¢] from ~,,, ,,~,
density residential zones to higher density residential, non-residential, or mixed use
zones. The Village Residential development type should be evaluated for use in
transition m-eas and will provide the geatest fle,ibility to provide a mix of residence
types compatible with adjacent neighborhoods.
(2)ROLM(E) District. Mixed (residential and nonresidential) development in the
ROLM(E) zoning district shall be pern~tted, subject to approval of a conditional use
permit, determination that the nonresidential use is allowable in the district and that
the residential component of the development complies with the development
standards prescribed for the RM-15 zoning district. The maximum floor area ratio
(FAR) for mixed use development is 0.3 to 1.
ROLM District. blixed (residential and nonresidential) development in the ROLM
zoning district shall he permitted, subject to approval of a conditional use permit,
determination that the noaresidential use is allowable in the district and that the
residential component of the development complies with the development standards
prescribed for the P~I-30 zoning district. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for
mixed use development is 0.4 to I.
(4)GM District. Mixed use (residential and nonresidential) development is prohibited in
the GM zoning district.
In computing residential densities for mixed (residential and nonresidential) uses, the density
calculation for the residential use shall be based on the entire site, including_ the
nonresidential portion of the site.
Floor Area Bonus for Child Care Facilities
Floor area operated as a licensed child care facility shall not be included when calculating
floor area ratios for a site. In addition, the permitted floor area on the site shall be increased
by an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the floor area of the child care facility. The floor
area bonus is not exempt from parking requirements and shall not be granted unless the
director determines that on-site circulation (including for pick-up and drop-off) for the child
care facility is adequate.
Ch. 18.20 - Page 7 (Supp. No 9 -
18.20.040 bite Development Standards
(e)Height and Floor Area Exceptions for Equipment Storage and Access in the RP and
RP(5) Districts
(1) The intent of this subsection is to provide fleMbility in height and floor area
limitations to accommodate equipment needs for research and development and
similar facilities.
(2)
(3)
The maMmum height in the RP and RP(5) zoning districts may be increased to forty,
(40) feet where a) interstitial space is provided between floors to accommodate
mechanical and!or electrical equipment, b) the load for such interstitial space is
limited, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, to preclude conversion to
habitable space, c) the building contains no more than two stories of habitable space
above grade, and d) the portion of any building over 35 feet in height is located a
rni~imum of 150 feet from the nearest property line of a residential zone or residential
PC zone. Interstitial space refers to inte~Tnediate floors used for mechanical or
electrical systems and access for equipment maintenance purposes.
Rooftop and/or basement areas used to enclose mechanical equipment shall be
excluded from floor area calculations, provided that the total of any such excluded
areas does not exceed one-third of the building footprint area. Rooftop equipment or
rooftop equipment enclosures shall not extend above a height of fifteen (15) feet
above the roof, and any enclosed rooftop equipment located adjacent to residential
property shall be set back at least 20 feet from the building edge closest to the
residential site or a minimum of 100 feet from the residential property line, wh_ichever
is closer.
Limitations on Outdoor Uses and Activities.
(A)
(c)
In the GM district, outdoor sales and display of merchandise and outdoor eating areas
operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services are permitted subject to
the following regulations:
Outdoor sales and display shall not occupy a total site area exceeding the gross
building floor area ou the site, except as authorized by’ a conditional use permit.
,,-%reas used for outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, boats, campers, camp
trailers, trailers, coaches, house cars, or similar conveyances shall meet the
minimum standards applicable to off-street parMng facilities with respect to
paving, grading, drainage, access to public streets and alley, s, safety and protective
features, lighting, landscaping, and screening.
Exterior storage shall be prohibited, unless screened by a solid wall or fence of
between five and eight feet in height. This requirement is not applicable to
recycling centers.
(2) In the ROLM and RP districts, all outdoor activities or uses are prohibited except:
(A) Outdoor activities associated with residential use;
(B) Landscaping;
(C) Parking and loading facilities;
(D) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use pem~it;
{S~pp. r%. ~.~ - >’5~0o<Ch. 18.20 - Page
Attachment C
Mixed Use: This category includes Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential!Retail and Residen-
tial!Office development. Its purpose is to increase the types of spaces available for living
and working to encourage a mix of compatible uses in certain areas, and to encourage the
upgrading of certain areas with buildings designed to provide a high quality
pedestrian-oriented street environment. Mixed Use may include permitted activities mixed
within the same building or within separate buildings on the same site or on nearby sites.
Live/Work refers to one or more individuals living in the same building where they earn
their livelihood, usually in professional or light industrial activities. Retail/Office, Resi-
dential!Retail, and Residential/Office provide other variations to Mixed Use with Retail
typically on the ground floor and Residential on upper floors. Design standards will be
developed to ensure that development is compatible and contributes to the character of
the street and neighborhood. Floor area ratios will range up to 1.11_5, although l-~esidential/
Retail and Residential/Office development located along transit corridors or near
muhi-modal centers will range up to 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible in areas resis-
tant to revitalization. The FAR above 1.15 will be used for residential purposes.
Commercial Hotel: This category, allows facilities for use by, temporary overnight occupants on
a transient basis, such as hotels and motels, with associated conference centers and simi-
lar uses. Restaurants and other eating facilities, meeting rooms, small retail shops, per-
sonal services, and other services ancillary to the hotel are also allowed. This category can
be applied in combination with another land use category. Floor area ratio will range up to
1.5 for the hotel portion of the site.
Research/Office Park: Office, research, and manufacturing establishments whose operations
are buffered fiom adjacent residential uses. Stanford Research Park is an example. Other
uses that may be included are educational institutions and child care facilities. Compat-
ible commercial service uses such as banks and restaurants, and residential or mixed uses
that would benefit from tbe proximity to employment centers, will also be allowed. Addi-
tional uses, including retail services, restaurants, commercial recreation, churches, and
private clubs may also be located in l-tesearch/Office Park areas, but only, if they are found
to be compatible v,’ith the surrounding area through the conditional use permit process.
Maximum allowable floor art:a ratio ranges from 0.3 to 0.5, depen.ding tm sile condilions.
Light Industrial: Wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing, processing, repair-
ing, and packaging of goods. Emission of h~mes, noise, smoke, or other pollutants is strictly
controlled. Examples include portions of the area south of Oregon Avenue between E1
Camino Real and Alma Street that historically have included these land uses, and the San
Antonio Road industrial area. Compatible residential and mixed use projects may also be
located in this category. Floor area ratio will range up to 0.5.
Polo Alto Ccmp~ei~ens~ve Plan
School District Lands: Properties owned or leased by public school districts and used for
educational, recreational, or other rion-commercial, non-industrial purposes. Floor area
ratio may not exceed 1.0.
Major Institution/Special Facilities: Institutional, academic, governmental, and community
service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organiza-
tions. Examples are hospitals and City facilities.
ATTACHMENT E
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2_3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
:MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Regular l"kleeting at 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 ttamilton A yen ue
Palo Alto, California 9430.I
ROLL CALL: 7:00 PkI
Commissioners:
Karen ]-lol~nan - Chair
Lee I. Lippert- 1.4Chair
Patrick Burr
~aula Sandas
Arthur Keller
DaMel Gather
Somir Tuma - abstained f’om ]zero ]
Staff:
Curtis Williams, Assistant Director
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City A ttorne.v
Amy French, Current Planning Manager
Pazd Mennega, Associate Planner
Julie Caporgno, Chief P&T OJJicial
Zariah Betten, Executive Secrem~3,
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1.Initiation of Rezoning
2.Zoning Ordinance Update
3.Committee Recommendation Regarding P&TC Report to Council Preparation and Format
APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Special Meeting of March 8 and Regular Meeting of March 14.
Chair Holman: Good evening. I would like to call the Regular Meeting of Wednesday, April 11,
2007 to order. Would the Secretary call the roll, please? Thartk you very much. I neglected to
say it is the Plarming and Transportation Commission.
This is the time on the agenda when anyone who is present who would like to speak to an item
that is not on the agenda may come forward. I do have one card from a member of the public
who would like to speak under Oral Communications. Patricia Pearson, you will have five
minutes.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Alto April l I. 2007 Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
99
2"4
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
DD
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
4_~
44
45
46
Mr. Paul Mennega. Associate Planner: I have been in communication with her. I believe she
would like to speak to an item that is on the agenda tonight.
Chair Holman: That is on the agenda. Okay, we will call you in just a moment. Thank you very
much. Seeing no other cards we will move to agenda item number one.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items
added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
Chair Holman: The Initiation of Rezoning from Public Facilities District (PF) to General
Manufacturing District (GM) for approximately 1.1 acres of land at the southwest corner of
CalTrans right-of-way at San Antonio Avenue and U.S. 101, north of terminus of Transport
Road. Would Staff make their presentation, please?
NEt¥ B USL~rESS
Public Hearings:
Initiation of Rezonin~ from Public Facilities District (PF) to General Manufacturing
District (GM) for approximately 1.1 acres of land at the southwest corner of CalTrans
right-of-way at San Antonio Avenue and U.S. 101 (Bayshore Freeway), north of terminus
of Transport Road.
Mr. Menne~a: Thank you. This request to initiate rezoning involves the changing current
existing zoning designation and Comprehensive Plan designation for the area at the north
terminus of Transport Road located in the existing CalTrans right-of-way. The current zoning
designation is Public Facilities or PF. This request involves initiating a change to the General
Manufacturing District or GM.
The General Manufacturing District provides for light manut~cturing, research, and commercial
service uses. Office uses are very limited in order to maintain the district as a desirable location
for manufacturing uses. The GM District is intended for application to land designated for light
industrial use in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
Adjacent commercial properties are zoned General Manufacturing District in this area. The
subject property does not have a Comprehensive Plan designation but Staff requests that the
Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the subject property be changed to light industrial
which would be consistent with both the immediately adjacent properties and with the proposed
GM zone district.
The property owners of the subject site, CalTrans, are currently working with Ciardella’s to
finalize their agreement on the area of the right-of-way to be used. It is understood that the site
to be utilized by Ciardella’s will be wholly located within the area delineated in the map attached
to the Staff Report. A fully surveyed map provided by the applicants in conjunction with
CalTrans will be required should the Commission choose to initiate the rezoning.
C’~ty oj-Paio Alto Apr:l ! I, zO )/Page
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
10
ll
12
13
14
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
B4
3~
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The motivation behind this initiation request arises primarily due to the expiration of Ciardella’s
lease at the their current location, 2027 East Bayshore Road. A new city pump station among
other improvements has been recently approved for this site. It was recently approved by the
Architectural Review Board. Curtis Williams, Assistant Director of Planning and Community
Environment will now give you some additional background on the historical timeline of the
existing site. Thank you.
Mr. Curtis Williams, Assistant Director: I would just like to respond to a question that Chair
Holman asked yesterday. We are not necessarily here to discuss the history but some
background you had mentioned that a few years ago there was discussion about the Water
District’s improvements to the channel adjacent to Ciardella’s. What happened at that point in
time was that there was an approval of a project for the Water District. There was a portion of
the Ciardella’s site that was used as mitigation for restoration I think it was, so the Ciardella’s
site shrank a little bit but it was still usable and has been since then.
Subsequent to that the City got an easement to develop a pump station there, which went through
and was approved by Council at the time and began design of the pump station. What
subsequently happened it sounds like it was a combination of Water District and the City
needing to move the pump station farther away. The ways the easement is laid out right now it
would encroach somewhat into the Ciardella’s property and I don’t know if it is far enough that
it would have necessitated their moving but in any event it is kind of moot because it was too
close to the creek and wouldn’t allow for Water District purposes for retaining the creek bank.
So the easement is being shifted farther away from the creek and would for all intents and
purposes make it impossible for Ciardetla’s to continue to operate. So that is the project that has
recently gone through ARB for approval of the design of the pump station, which is a very
critical project from a flood control standpoint. So that is sort of the history and I know you
didn’t see the pump station part of it but that is what Joe Teresi of Public Works relayed to me
this morning. He also left with me the Staff Report from 2003 when that project went through
and it is quite voluminous information but 2003 is when you would have seen that earlier creek
charmel project come through.
Chair Holman I really appreciate that, Curtis, because one of the factors that we had considered
at that time was how do we retain Ciardella’s. So I appreciate that background very much.
Do Commissioners have any clarifying questions %r Staff at this time? Commissioner Burr.
Commissioner Burt: What is the term of the lease that would exist between CalTrans and
Ciardella’s?
Mr. Mennega: The Ciardella representatives are here and could probably answer this question
better but my understanding based on our discussions is that initially a one-year lease.
Commissioner Burr: Okay. The size of the land that is being vacated by Ciardella’s is how
much?
Cir),, of Pc~lo Alto ,,Iprd / 1. 2007 P~ge 3 of 66
]
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!8
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
Mr. Mermega_: Approximately similarly sized to the area that they would like to occupy in the
CalTrans right-of-way, which is around an acre.
Commissioner Burr: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Any other clarifying questions from Commissioners? Then we do have two
members of the public who would care to speak to this item. The first speaker is Patricia
Pearson and the second is Larry Ciardella. You will have five minutes each.
Ms. Patricia Pearson. Palo Alto: I support the rezoning of the CalTrans land to General
Manufacturing. I have been a business owner located in the property adjacent to the northeast
boundary of this property. Our address is 4007-4009 Transport Street. We have been doing
business in Palo Alto at this address for 47 years. The buildings in the Transport area were built
without planned parking and parking has been a serious problem. Street parking is used, it is a
first come-first serve basis, and it overflows from anyone that happens to occupy buildings on
Transport Street. We are the last building on the plot plan, it is number 15, and we share the
common northeast boundary of the properly in question that is before you today to be changed to
the General Manufacturing.
i have been in communication with CalTrans since 1985 requesting either to rent or buy the
space or some of the space for parking. We would like to participate in the use of this land to
alleviate our parking problem. I do not want to change the use of our building, which is light
manufacturing 1 just want to provide adequate parking. I think that this use of this land for
improving conditions for the business owners who support Pato Alto is an appropriate use of the
land. Over the past many years CalTrans has at times used this property for staging purposes and
other times it has leased it or let other staging people use the property. It has been a constant
problem of I guess the best word would dumping if you would go out and look at it today you
would see concrete and miscellaneous items that have been put in that property. It would be nice
to see that cleaned up and I would like to participate in the use of the land either through rental or
purchase. So I respectfully submit my request to support the GM zoning. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you. There has been a realization on the part of one of the
Commissioners, Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: Yes, question for the City Attorney. 1 realized in looking at this map that
I rent an office space that is around the corner from this properly at 999 Commercial Street. I
have an office there. So it raises a question in my mind as to whether there is a conflict and
whether I should be participating in this item. 999 Commercial, which is at the intersection of
Commercial and Transport.
Ms. Cara Silver, Assistant City Attorney: It would probably be best for you to recuse yourself
on this one.
Commissioner Tuma: Okay’, given the proximity to an office that I rent I w-ill excuse myself
from this item.
C:O’ qf l)alo Alto Apri! /l, 2007 Page 4 of dd
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
32
35
36
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
Chair Holman: Thank you, Commissioner Tuma. Our second speaker, and sorry for the
interruption but it is prudent to take care of such matters. Our second speaker is Larry Ciardella.
You will also have five minutes.
Mr. LInTy Ciardella, Ciardella Garden Supply, Palo Alto: We have been at our present location
for 42 years. We have been in business for 47 years. I am here to answer any questions if there
are any questions that you might have.
Chair Holman: Corrm~issioners, do we have any questions for him? Commissioner Burr.
Commissioner Butt: We are glad to see that you have a prospective ne~v home. So is the
agreement with CalTrans satisfactory that you feel that you have a likelihood of having a long-
term extension’?
Mr. Ciardella: Yes I do.
Commissioner Butt: Great, thanks.
Chair Holman Other questions? We will keep the public comment period open for a little while
so if we have any further questions we will ask.
Mr. Ciardella: Thank you.
Chair Holman Okay, thank you for coming, appreciate it. I think we have other questions for
Staff. Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: With it being such an odd shaped parcel how would setbacks be applied to
such a parcel where you have narrow little fingers and what would be considered the front
setback, rear, and side yards? Also are there any issues relating to proximiD to the CalTrans
right-of-way?
Mr. Merme~a: The rezoning, it may be not as clear as I would have liked on the map. It is
actually not a separate parcel there. The lines you see on there are probably .just an artifact of the
program ] used to delineate that area. Essentially we will just be initiating a rezoning of that
portion of a larger parcel so the setbacks would only apply on the boundaries, which would be
facing toward Transport. Additionally the agreement between CalTrans and Ciardella’s will
more clearly delineate a section of that larger area that the map includes, the map is not the final
map in terms of the exact specific area that Ciardella’s will have access to. It is a little bit larger
because we did not have that information at the time of preparing the Staff Report. So answering
your question the narrow area probably will not be utilized, the setbacks probably wouldn’t be
effective there.
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to add the GM doesn’t have any setback requirements unless you
are abutting a residential property. So setbacks themselves wouldn’t be an issue but as Paul said
we want to try to more narrowly define what the area is to be rezoned rather than leaving it open
C)~y qflP~lo ,41~o April / l, 2007
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
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
for all of that. Maybe we need to look at that issue whether to try to zone all of that or just focus
in on that area and perhaps the area Ms. Pearson mentioned as well.
Chair Holman: Can I interject just for a second here and then Commissioner Lippert has a
follow up to that. Is it possible to put this map that we have in our packets on the overhead so
you could indicate approximately what we are looking at rezoning? You don’t know?
Mr. Mennegg_a: We don’t have a more clearly defined boundary map then what you have in front
of you at this point. When we ,,vent to press, so to speak, we were still waiting for that detail
from the agreement between CalTrans and Ciardella’s to come to us. We chose to move ahead
with the more larger, more inclusive area and then when moving forward we could get more
specific and have an actual map that would be more clearly delineated.
Chair Holman: So we know it is 1.1 acres we just don’t know exactly where it is going to be.
Mr. Mennega: Precisely.
Chair Holman: Okay, Commissioner Lippert, would you. care to continue?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Isn’t it a little unusual to initiate a rezoning on an area where you don’t
really have a defined boundary? Often times when we do initiate a rezoning there is usually
some sort of map that is either tentative or has been recorded that defines those boundaries. So
in some ways what it is saying is that we should act on faith that ....
Mr. Williams: Well all you are doing is initiating a rezoning right now. So we are trying to get
any issues or concerns you have about that so that when we bring back the rezoning, yes at that
point...when you look at and hold a public hearing and recommend an ordinance it will have to
have very specific delineation of that. Right now we think that there is not a lot of difference
between that area out there and if it moves a little bit this way or that way it is not going to make
a big difference. So it didn’t seem to be that critical no~v and we would like to move Ciardella’s
ahead as quickly as possible so we can get this initiation and then get down to specifying exactly
where that acre or so lands within that boundary.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Keller: Would it be f3ir to say that the purpose of the boundary map at this time
is to delineate the maximmn extent that might be rezoned and that if we initiate the rezoning
process that when you come back to us next time with the consideration of that rezoning that at
that time there w-ill be a map with appropriate parcelization for the rezoning?
Mr. Williams: Yes, that is what we have identified as the maximum area that possibly could be
considered. Then we will come back with a specific map next time.
Commissioner Keller: I understand that the Peninsula Gateway 2020 process of looking at the
general area of 101 from Highway 84 to Highway 85 along the 101 conidor and the access to the
Dumbarton Bridge is part of that process. I understand that part of that consideration includes
Ci~/ c)f Pt~!() ,dllo April 1 I, 2007 [’age 6 of 66
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
37
38
39
40
4!
42
43
44
45
46
some modifications to this interchange in particular to do some sort of rebuilding of this
cloverleaf and to allow for eastbound San Antonio access onto northbound 101. What I am
wondering is to the extent that those modifications to this interchange are compatible with the
type ofrezoning that is being considered.
Mr. Williams: The modifications, I don’t think there is an incompatibility of them as far as the
use goes but as far as the boundary of wheilher those improvements would still allow for enough
land to remain for CiardellWs operation is I think the question. Gayle Likens called VTA they
do have funding for some auxiliary, lanes on 101 and some of that will tie into the improvement
at that interchange. At this point in time we don’t kno~v, Gayle is also trying to get in touch with
CalTrans and wasn’t able to before this meeting, but we will definitely have that information
when we come back to you. As to where that would be and I don~t know if Mr. Ciardella has a
sense of how that might impact his property but the timeframe on that appears to be four to five
years away. So there would be some period of time, some period of years, before something
would happen out there and at this point we don’t know whether that something would at that
point then would necessitate moving them again.
Commissioner Keller: I feel comfortable with the idea of initiating the rezoning process
provided that at the point in time that we actually - I mean starting the initiation or initiating the
rezoning such that when we are considering the actual rezoning that those answers are addressed
by VTA and CalTrans because that is going to affect the viability of this site. Now, certainly if
that is some number of years out and there is some construction going on at this site we certainly
will have bought, let’s assume that five years is correct, we certainly will have bought
Ciardella’s five years of time. At that time there might have to be some sort of agreement
betv<en Ciardella’s and CalTrans in terms of realigning the boundaries of that which may
require further rezonings as appropriate but at least it is helpful to get some clarity on that when
this comes back to us.
Chair Holman: Commissioners, members of the public did speak but I kept that public comment
open and we did have an additional member of the public who wishes to speak. Are
Commissioners agreeable to that? I have Nicholas Jellins, former Mayor of Menlo Park.
Welcome. You also have five minutes should you need it.
Mr. Nicholas Jellins. Menlo Park: Thank you for the opportunity to speak honorable members of
the Palo Alto Planning Commission. My name is Nicholas Jellins and I represent the Ciardella’s
in this particular process. I have been working with them for several months and in fact have
been in touch with the representatives of CalTrans.
We heard the questions from Commissioner Keller and I thought I might be able to add
something or respond to that question more directly. CalTrans of course as a public agency is
concerned that it not give us or limit in any way its ability to use its own property. So any form
of lease that it may enter with the Ciardella’s would stipulate that if for any reason the State of
California and CalTrans wishes to use that property for public use whether to expand the right-
of-way, whether it is the interchange, or the access roads for 101, it will have the right to do that.
So those kinds of concerns are foremost in the minds of the CalTrans land use authorities and
they will not enter into any form of agreement with the Ciardella’s that would in any way inhibit
(2"~1~" of Pulo Alto Aprtl] l, 2007 Page 7 of 66
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2’4
25
26
28
29
3O
31
34
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
:46
their freedom of use. So that is certainly something that they will consider in the agreement or
lease with the Ciardella’s.
Chair Holman: Commissioners, are there any questions for Mr. Jellins? Commissioner Oarber.
Commissioner Oarber: That being the case however it does not sound as though CalTrans has
any problem with someone occupying that space so long as they are not in need of it.
Mr. Jellins: That is correct. And they have looked at their long term uses to further respond to
your questions. They have looked at their long-term uses in particular the plans for expansion of
the interchange. We understand that they are at least a decade away.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burr.
Commissioner Burt: Just a question for Staff.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burr, was your question for Mr. Jellins?
Commissioner Burt: No, I am sorry it was for Staff.
Chair Holman: Are there any other questions for Mr. Jellins? I had one. Ms. Pearson who has
the property at 4007-4009 Transport has spoken tonight as also desiring to use part of this land.
Now my understanding is that Ciardella’s would not be using all of this. Is CalTrans open to
expanding the GM zone and allowing additional use on that?
Mr. Jellins: Candidly I do not know. I do understand that the same CalTrans right-of-way
representative that we have spoken with has spoken with Ms. Pearson and intends to meet with
her in the near future. The exact nature of that meeting is unknown to me and the extent of her
desire to use the property as well is unknown. I think you are correct when you stated that the
Ciardella’s do not intend to use the entirety of the property, how it may be divided or shared
between their use and another use I presume would largely be up to CalTrans as well as their
consideration of the City fathers or mother, parents, in terms of what types of uses should be
permitted at the site.
Chair Holman: Okay, thank you very much. Commissioner Sandas, you have a question for
Staff.
Commissioner Sandas: Staffand Mr. Jellins as well I think. Just to make sure that I understand
everything here. CalTrans owns this piece of property and it is CalTrans’ business to whom they
want to lease it for how. It has nothing to do with the City of Palo Alto. However, what
CalTrans is asking of the City of Palo Alto is to rezone it GM?
Mr. Jellins: Most of that is correct. I think however it is the City of Palo Alto technically that is
asking for the site to be rezoned.
Ctry oj-Pa¢’o Alto Aprii l ~’. 2007 Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
24
25
26
2"7
28
29
30
31
32
DD
34
35
36
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Sandas: Okay, so the City of Palo Alto is asking for it to be rezoned in order that
use of that land can be made by Ciardella’s and they would be leasing it from CalTrans. So in
effect the City of Palo Alto is not giving up anything. My question for Staffwas why on Earth
would we not want to do this? What would we as the City of Palo Alto be giving up and
apparently we are not giving up anything and we are able to retain Ciardella’s this way. Do I
have this right?
Mr. Williams: Yes, and the reason why the City is initiating this is because we do want to try to
assist Ciardella’s to remain in Palo Alto. We value their long-term relationship here and want to
find a home for them if we can and facilitate that. So when it came forth that this was happening
and they were having to relocate and they found this possibility we determined that we as the
City would recommend initiating the rezoning rather than requiring them to pay a fee and go
through the process of initiating it on their own.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burr, you had a question? Is it for Mr. Jellins or can he be
seated’?
Commissioner Burt: It is %r Staff.
Chair Hohnan: Okay, thank you Mr. Jellins.
Mr..lellins: You are welcome. Thank you.
Commissioner Burr: So firstI would like to applaud all the parties for having a creative solution
to a dilemma. I guess Goggle Maps is probably a new way in which we look at things and
suddenly see that there are opportunities. Where we thought we were a completely built-out
facility well maybe there are some Public Facility lands that are available owned by one agency
or another. So having said that I just want to make sure on one thing, we had gone through a
rezoning to have an auto overlay in several areas looking desperately for freeway adjacency.
One of the areas was out at the end of San Antonio and that is still an option for automotive
dealerships. Is the reason that this site is not being considered for an auto dealership primarily
because there could not be a long term lease commitment that an auto dealer would need and
maybe second that it is a bit on the small side? I just want to make sure of that.
Mr. Williams: I think it is both of those reasons as well as the traffic. This will be a very
difficult site if you had a lot of traffic going in and out to handle that kind of a use.
Commissioner Burt: Great, thanks.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert I believe you had one more question.
Vice-Chair Li.Epert: Yes, again it has to do with trying to get my hands around the configuration
and the boundaries of this. "Ihere are several ways of looking at a space. You can either look at
it as a solid object or you can look at it as a whole. There are positive and negative
considerations. With regard to this there are sort of fragments or pieces that sort of come out
Alto April l I, 2007 Page 9 q/-6d
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1-~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
.3.
4O
4t
42
43
44
45
46
from what we might imagine to be the acreage for Ciardella’s. With that are opportunities that
CalTrans might in fact be giving away this piece of land as a lease and discounting these other
pieces. Is there a way that we can influence CalTrans perhaps either leasing or breaking off
those pieces to the City of Palo Alto so that we can improve transportation in that area? Has that
been looked at?
Mr. Williams: I don’t think it has been looked at. I can mention it to Gayle and have her when
she talks to CalTrans ask about that but at this point we have just been focused on the Ciardetla
lease and trusting that essentially they and CalTrans will determine what works for both of them
and starting from that standpoint. If there is additional land there that somehow could help us, I
am not sure it could but I will check with Oayle and see if we can provide that information to
you.
Vice-Chair Lippert: What I am alluding to is that we currently have a one-way street
conlSguration in that area and yet there is a median that separates San Antonio Road from I guess
where Commercial loops around. If CalTrans is basically saying we are willing to [ease the meat
of that land, there is a little piece of salvage that is left. Can anything be worked out in terms of
the rezoning in us being able to make use of that in terms of improving our trafi]c situation?
Mr. Williams: I don’t know. We will look into that.
Mr. Menne£~a: Just in my discussions with the representative from CalTrans, the right-of-way
representative, I think their overarching concern was that the flexibility of this property remain
and that the lease would be open ended in a way that they could if they needed to use the
property for staging, for any other kind of right-of-way developments, they wouldn’t be limited.
Again, just based on my discussions with this one representative they didn’t seem very open to
anything as permanent as potentially as widening a road into their lands. They wanted flexibility
that was really the key thing I was left with.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas, do you want to make a motion’?
’~ iO IION
Commissioner Sandas: I would like to make a motion. I move that the Planning and
Transportation Commission direct the Director of Planning and Community Environment to
initiate a zone change from Public Facility to General Manufacturing District for the lands
located adjacent to US 101 as defined in parcel map Attachment A.
Additionally I move that we direct the Director of Planning and Community Environment to
initiate a Comprehensive Plan change for these lands which currently have no designation to
Light Industrial.
SECOND
Commissioner Keller: I second.
April ] i, 2007 Page t0 qf dd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!8
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
DD
34
35
36
37
38
4O
41
42
44
45
Chair Holman: Motion by Commissioner Sandas, second by Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Sandas, would you care to speak to your motion?
Commissioner Sandas: Just briefly. Reading this and not having a lot of history and background
it seemed to me like a no-brainer in that I thought it was a wonderful thing that the land
belonging to CalTrans was leasable to a local business like Ciardella’s. Having heard and
knowing about the part that Ciardella:s has played in our community for a long time and support
that Ciardella’s gives to community groups I am really happy that they will be able to remain in
the community. So that all I have to say.
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to mention that those thumping noises that we are hearing my
understanding is that is the Police Department~’s weight room and folks working out. So nothing
is crashing and falling apart in City Hall.
Chair Holman: Can we make a motion to have them stop during our meeting?
Mr. Williams: We should ask them. This is the second time this has happened. I do recall
another meeting where we had a lot of that going on.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, would you care to speak to your second?
Commissioner Keller: Yes in response to what Chair Holman just said, maybe we should ask
them to wait until after our meeting is over.
A couple of things. First of all this particular site as its current use is not a very good gateway to
Palo Alto. I am willing to bet that the use of this property by Cmrdell s would be much more
attractive than its current use and I think that would be an improvement for the City of Palo Alto.
Secondly, with respect to Vice-Chair Lippert’s suggestion of providing two-way access on the
service road of San Antonio Road as it approaches Transport Road that is not quite feasible
because it would interfere with the traffic to and from the ~?eeway on San Antonio from
Charleston and the overpass. My vision of geometry is it wouldn’t quite work and if you wanted
it to go to allow that access to over San Antonio you takeaway too much of the property. I have
actually seen some sort of sketches of this interchange as CalTrans was sort of proposing. What
I have seen is that the roadway that comes from 101 onto San Antonio Road westbound would
instead of just heading down towards Charleston it would come to a T-intersection with a right
turn lane. That T-intersection would have a traffic light and would then allow for instead of the
cloverleaf configuration it would allow for traffic to come from San Antonio Road to enter onto.
So it would basically be a T-intersection coming together on both sides to Bayshore Freeway, to
101, and therefore the space of the cloverleaf would in fact be used for the entrance onto 101. At
least that is the drawing that I saw I am not sure that that drawing shall come to be. If that is the
case, my guess, and this is why we want to have a little bit more specificity on top, if that is the
case then there would be very little impingement in that design for this and in fact it might be
possible at some point to realign and possibly expand the space that Ciardella’s had access to.
So that is why I am very in favor of moving forward on this and proceeding with studying the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
t6
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
rezoning issue and at that time having more information so that we can understand better how the
property will be used in the medium term. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Well, I agree with the motion. My biggest concern here is that I think it
does represent a potential gateway to Palo Alto and should have some consideration in terms of
enhancing the experience along San Antonio Road. Specifically, we have just within the last six
months approved or recommended to Council and with the City Council’s approval approved the
Campus for Jewish Life, which is immediately across San Antonio Road. That is going to wind
up being an anchor or a ne~v facility in terms of enhancing that whole part of South Palo Alto.
So my expectation is that a lot of people will wind up using San Antonio Road, that it will be a
destination in terms of coming offofBayshore Freeway, and the experience when you come off
of that freeway should be a point of arrival and with that is appropriate landscaping as well as
widening perhaps San Antonio Road as some sort of grand boulevard for Palo Alto. Perhaps it
has trees in the middle in the median there and perhaps there is opportunity to take San Antonio
avenue and integrate that so that the businesses that cun-ently front San Antonio avenue or
actually on San Antonio way and creating a bit of a traffic calming along there beik~re you speed
onto the freeway. So I do see some great opportunities here as thr as enhancing this interchange.
I am in support of what Ciardella’s wants to do but I think it is a much grander plan in terms of
looking at what CalTrans has in mind.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: Commissioner Lippert, are you perhaps suggesting that while l suspect
that whatever Ciardella’s may end up putting on this property would not require any ARB
review, is that the case?
Mr. Menneg24: It would be a conditional use and at minimum a Staff level review. We would
have to took at the exact proposal to determine if it was going to be a full Board review.
Commissioner Garber: Commissioner Lippert, were you suggesting possibly that you might
want to require ARB to review the project?
Vice-Chair Lip_p_g~: My understanding is if there were structures involved ARB would probably
review those, would they not? If it is merely plantings then ....
Mr. Gardner: There is very little structure involved here. There is a sales office and then mostly
just outdoor location of materials and dividers and things like that. Given the gateway location
of the site I think we feel it would be appropriate to go to the ARB for a full revie~v of the
aesthetics of the site plan.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I don’t have any problem with what Ciardella’s is proposing. But I know
CalTrans and they like to put up sound walls, that is one thing that is not going to be a very
inviting gateway to our city. We can’t stop them from putting up the sound walls but I think part
C’~O, o]-Pulo Alto Apr:l I 1. 2007 Page 12 of 66
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
q9
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
49
44
45
46
of this negotiation in terms of or this proposal or this rezoning here should be looking at what
CalTrans’ overall goals are and them trying to be our partners in this.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, and I would like to try to wrap this up. We are really
talking about the zone change initiation and we going a little far a field here.
Commissioner Keller: Yes, I understand. I would point out to Vice-Chair Lippert that the
drawings I saw included changing San Antonio Road to continue being a four-lane road all the
xvay to 101 including an overpass. So there would be widening of that road as well. Part of what
we need to think about is working with CalTrans to provide appropriate landscaping to that
process and furthermore with respect to sound walls I would not be surprised if the entire stretch
of 101 from San Antonio Road all the way to the northern city line were to have sound walls on
it once the widen it to five lanes in each direction.
Chair Hotman: Okay, I have just one comment to make. I will certainly support the motion and
support Ciarde!la’s and am happy that they will be able to remain and wish this were a more
permanent location, nevertheless I am very, very happy to support their retention here. My only
comment is, and it is just a comment to the motion, that since we don’t k_now where on this
larger parcel Ciardella’s is going to be located, what part of this we are going to be rezoning for
them and hopefully there will be some consideration for Ms. Pearson’s business too on this
parcel, but my comment just has to do with signage. I hope that if the parcel ends up being offset
from Transport for instance that there is some accommodation given to Ciardella’s so people
don’t have trouble finding their business. So keeping that in mind I am happy to support the
motion.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Tuma abstained)
All those in tax, or of initiating the rezoning from PF to GM %r the lands adjacent to US 101 and
defined on the attached map, Attactm~ent A, and to initiate a Comprehensive Plan change to
Light Industria!, all those in favor say aye. (ayes) That passes unanimously on a six to zero vote
with Commissioner Tuma not participating.
Thank you all very much and I will also close the public comment period and thank you to the
members of the public for coming. Much appreciated.
As we have a little bit of change of Staff we will prepare for item number two. I would like to
thank Zariah Betten for restoring our peace for our meetings. The second item is Zoning
Ordinance Update, recommendations to City Council regarding amendment to Title 18 Zoning
Ordinance including an ordinance revising consolidating Chapters 18.22, 18.24, and 18.26 into
the new Chapter 18.13, Multiple Family Residential Districts: I~M-15, RM-30, and RM-40, and
an ordinance revising and renumbering Chapter 18.83, Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations, to nexv Chapters 18.52, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, and 18.54
Parking Facilities Design Standards. Would Staff care to make a presentation?
2.Zonin.R Ordinance Update - Review and recommendations to City Council for:
"~ 07 ,__Cm’ oj’Pcdo Alto /qp,’il ] 1, .:0.Pa~e 13 o166
ATTACHMENT F
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN &JOHNSON
A p R O F [ 5 S I O N A I_L A W C O I(P O R A "I"I O N
6Oi CAI.IFORNiA STREEi"
N l NETI{EN’!’I’I
8AN FRANCIS{20~ CA
4i5.777-2727
September 10, 2007
VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Stephen O’Connell, Associate Planner
Department of Plmming & Comnmnity
Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Rezoning and development of 1001 San Antonio Avenue, approximately 1.1
acres of land at the southwest corner of CalTrans right-of-way at San Antonio
Avenue and U.S. 101 (Bayshore Freeway), north of terminus of Transport Road.
Dear Mr. O’~Connell
We represent Paul and Patricia Pearson, owners of 4007-4009 Transport Street, which is
adjacent to the above captioned property, in April, 2007, the Planning Commission initiated the
rezoning of this property to General Manufacturing (GM) and the application of a Light
Industrial Comprehensive Plan designation to this property, in order to facilitate Ciardella’s
Garden Supply Company’s move to this location. Since that time, Ciardella’s has moved into
the new facility and has completed significant grading and construction work on the site--
apparently with the City’s blessing,~ but without the City following any processes or review as
required by City and State law. We would like to respectfully remind the City that the processes
and the environmental review required under State law exist for the very. important purpose of
ensuring that the City’s actions are fully transparent and in the best interests ofalI City residents,
not just one business owner.
While we do not oppose Ciardella"s relocation to this property generally, we do have
some significant concerns about the environmental effects Ciardella’s operations rnay have on
See attacheci Ciardella’s sign that is currently posted on their old site, indicating the move to this property.
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN &JOHNSON
A P R O F [ S S I O N A L k A W C O R P O R A T I O N
September 10, 2007
Page 2
the surrounding area, as we discussed in detail in our June 6, 2007 letter to the Planning
Commission] Specifically, we are concerned that because of the nature of Ciardella’s business,
there will be significant impacts related to dust and other particulate matter being carried from
the property into the neighborhood3 and that the increase of large truck traffic will exacerbate the
already dogged streets.4
In light of these concerns, we first ask that the City require Ciardella’s to implement
certain mitigation measures, as listed below. We have shared these suggested measures with
Ciardella’s counsel in an attempt to resolve our concerns informally. Ciarde!la’s counsel has
indicated a willingness to work with us, and has conveyed that his client plans to implement
several of the suggested measures, but remains, at best, lacksidasical in his responsiveness.
Regardless of whether Ciardella’s may or may not voluntarily implement the measures we have
outlined, however, as CEQA lead agency the City has the ultimate authority and responsibility to
craft and impose mitigation measures, and xvill be responsible for enforcing them. We, therefore,
ask that the City not only include these measures in any pending or future
approval/environmental review, we also urge the City to remind Ciardella’s that the necessary
zoning change has not yet occurred.
]I-I the meantime, Ciardella’s has moved into the site, and appears to be on the verge of
opening their business without these measures in place and in violation of the existing,
applicable zoning.
2 See attached letter, for reference.
3 We are enclosing a brochure prepared by the Palo Alto Airport and some maps for context. The brochure shows
that the prevailing winds in the area "favor" or run in the direction of the primary runway, Runway 31, which runs
from the northwest to the southeast. ~t also shows that in the early morning hours, the winds ’Tarot" Runway 13,
which runs southeast to northxvest. The same prevailing winds will carry dust, sand and dirt from Ciardella’s at the
northwest to the Pearsons property to the southeast.
a We are also enclosing a letter fiom the Pearson’s tenant, Pearsons Electronics, which shows the existing
congestion on Transport Street.
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN & JOHNSON
A P R O ~ E S S I O N A k LAW CORPORATION
September 10, 2007
Page 3
To mitigate dust impacts, we suggest:
Constructing a solid wall or fence of between five and eight feet in height around all
outdoor storage to reduce wind blown dust emissions, per City code. (Palo Alto
Municipal Code §18.20.040(f)(1)(C))
Ciardella’s counsel indicated that Ciardella’s intends to fence their operations,
and will install a "shade cloth" around their operations. Clearly, a "shade cloth"
is not a "solid wall or fence" as required in the code, and we request that the City
enforce this code section around outdoor storage.
Cover and install wind breaks around onsite dirt piles and other stockpiled
particulate matter, and water and/or employ soil stabilizers to reduce ~vind blown
dust emissions. Incorporate the use of non-toxic soil stabilizers according to
manufacturer’s specifications to all inactive areas of the site, including all unpaved roads
and employee/equipment parking areas. When water is used, maintain a moisture content
in soil and other particulate stockpiles that is high enough to eliminate PM-10 "fugitive"
emissions (wind-blown dust that could otherwise escape into the surrounding air). Install
a water spray system and maintain fine aggregate material (soil/sand) with a moisture
content of approximately 5 percent, because such material with a moisture content of 4.5
percent or more produces virtually no fugitive emissions. Keep concrete debris damp on
the surface, which also effectively eliminates fugitive dust.
Ciardella’s counsel indicated that this condition is acceptable. Ciardella’s
maintains a fire hose on the premises for watering and intends to install sprinklers
at the end of the storage bins for the purposes of regular watering. We request
that the City require watering at specific intervals during the day in addition to
watering as conditious make necessary.
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN & JOHNSON
A P R O ~ E S S I O N A L L A W C O P, P O R A T I O N
September 1 O, 2007
Page 4
Operate any transfer processes involving a free fall of soil or other particulate matter in
such a mmmer as tominimize the free fall distance and fugitive dust emissions.
Ciardella’s counsel indicated that Ciardella’s currently employs this measure and
intends to continue to do so.
Maintain an operational water truck onsite at all times. Water active work areas (e.g.
where soil handling is underway) at least twice daily and more frequently as needed to
prevent generation of dust.
Ciardella’s counsel indicated that Ciardella’s maintains a :fire hose on site for this
purpose. We request that the City require watering at specific inte~’als during the
day in addition to watering as conditions make necessary.
Remove soil from the exterior of vehicles and equipment leaving the site (manually
or by truck wheel-washing systems) to prevent tracking soil out of the leased premises.
Alternatively, a gravel bed may be installed as appropriate at vehicle/equipment site exit
points to effectively remove soil buildup on tires and tracks to prevent/diminish track-out.
Ciardella’s counsel indicated that Ciardella’s has already installed a gravel bed on
the site. Ciardella’s counsel also indicated that Ciardella’s currently removes soil
lrom the exterior of vehicles and equipment leaving the site and intends to
continue to do so. Finally, Counsel indicated that Ciardella’s may install
interlocking paving stones at the entrance to the site, which may be as effective at
minimizing the amount of dust and dirt leaving the site.
Sweep paved streets frequently if soil material has been carried onto adjacent paved,
public thoroughfares from the project site.
Ciardella’s counsel indicated that this measure was unacceptable as proposed, but
also indicated that if materials lnigrating from the site became a proMem,
4
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN &JOHNSON
A P R O ~ E S ~ 1 O N A 1_LAW C O R P O RAT 1 ON
September 10, 2007
Page 5
Ciardella’s would be willing to address this concern. We hope that the City has a
creative solution to this issue. We are especially concerned about future
enforcement.
Reduce uunecessary vehicle traffic by restricting access. Require deliveries from
suppliers to occur in the early morning hours when both traffic on Transport Street is at a
minimum and the prevailing winds are not directed to the immediately adjacent
neighbors.
Ciardella’s counsel indicated that many of Ciardella’s deliveries already occur in
the naorning hours, and that to the extent practicable, Ciardella’s will be willing to
schedule deliveries in the morning. We request that the City require deliveries to
occur in the morning hours.
Cover all truck loads of dirt, sand or other loose material, and maintain at least six
inches of freeboard between the top of the load and the top of the trailer.
Ciardella’s counsel indicated that Ciardella’s already employs this measure and
intends to continue to do so.
Establish ground cover on the site to the extent practicable, through seeding and
watering.
Ciardella’s counsel indicated that Ciardella’s intends to landscape areas of the site
that are not work areas.
Designate a person or persons responsible for Ciardella’s dust control measures, and
clearly post on the exterior wall or fence of the facilities a company telephone number for
citizens to call ~vith dust, noise, or other operational complaints.
Ciardella’s counsel indicated that this is an acceptable condition.
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN &JOHNSON
A P R O ~ E S S 1 O N A E LAW C O R P O R AT I O N
September 10, 2007
Page 6
To mitigate traffic impacts, we suggest:
Reduce unnecessary vehicle traffic by restricting access. Limit hours for deliveries to
the early morning hours when traffic along San Antonio Avenue and Transport Road is at
minimum levels.
As stated above, Ciardella’s counsel indicated that many of Ciardella’s deliveries
already occur in the morning hours, and that to the extent practicable, Ciardella’s
will be willing to schedule deliveries in the morning. We request that the City
require deliveries to occur in the morning hours.
o Configure site to allow for single direction trat’lic flow, e.g. vehicles enter the site only
tiom San Antonio Avenue and exit on Transport Street.
Ciardella’s counsel rejected this measure, stating that CalTrans has already
approved the layout of the site and doubting the feasibility of enforcing a one-way
traffic flow. On the contrary, even ifCalTrans must approve the site for the
purposes of Ciardella’s lease, it is the City’s responsibility to craft mitigation
measures to alleviate traffic impacts and to enforce those measures. We believe
that "Entrance Only" and "Exit Only" signs would be very effective for directing
traffic in a one-way direction. Reconfiguring the site so that there is an entrance
on the San Antonio frontage road (already a one-way street) and an exit onto
Transport Street would alleviate the inevitable back ups that are sure to occur with
the present layout. We request that the City require Ciardella’s to go "back to the
drawing board" on this issue - despite the fact that Ciardella’s has already moved
in.
In addition to the specific mitigation measures described above, we are very concerned
that the City has not proceeded according to law for this project. To our kno~vledge, there has
been no environmental re~,ie~,v as required by CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et
6
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN & JOHNSON
A P R O F E 5 S l O N A I_L ^ W C O R P O R A ~ I O I~
September 10, 2007
Page 7
seq. and Ciardella’s use of the site may have some as of yet unidentified impacts. In addition,
the project applicants have already moved into lhe si~e in clear violation of State law.
Furthermore, the property currently has a Public Facilities (PF) zoning designation. This
designation allows only uses of"facilities owned or leased, arm operated or used, by ... [a]
governmental agency." Palo Alto Municipal Code § 18.32.030(a). The use of this property by
any non-governmental entity, including Ciardella’s, violates the Palo Alto Municipal Zoning
Code.
We appreciate your consideration of the potentially significant environmental impacts of
this project and these proposed mitigation measures, and we look forward to working with the
City to resolve our concerns. However, if the City continues to ignore legally mandated
procedures and environmental review, we may be forced to seek injunctive relief through the
courts. Please ensure that this letter is included with the materials submitted to the Planning
Commission for review of this project.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth L. Bridges
Enclosures
cc: Nicholas P. Jellins, Esq., Jellins & Associates (by electronic mail)
Jim Bozioneles, California Department of Transportation (by facsimile)
Pla~ming Commission, City of Palo Alto
ELL-MAN BURKE I-tOFFMAN &JOHNSON
N I:IETEEblTH FLOOR
,q]5.77B27P-7
ELIZABETtt L. BRIDGES
415.495.7587 DIRI~CT F*~×
VIA U.S. MAIL.
June 7, 2007
Planning & Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning & Community
Environment
250.Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Attn: Paul Mannega, Associate Planner
Re:Rezoning and development of approximately 1.1 acres of" land at lhe southwest
corner of CalTrans right-of-way at San Antonio Avenue and U.S. 101 (Bayshore
Freeway), north of terminus of Transport Road.
Dear Commissioners:
We represent Paul and Patricia Pearson, owners of 4009 Transport Street, which is
adjacent to the above captioned property. On April 11,2007, the Plarming Commission initiated
the rezoning of this property to General Manufacturing (GM) and the application of a Light
Industrial Comprehensive Plan designation to this property. We understand that this rezoning
and Comprehensive Plan designation is the first step in moving Ciardella’s Garden Supply
(Ciardella’s) to this location. The Pearsons have immediate concerns about the environmental
impacts that this rezoning and development of the property will create, and support fnll
environmental review, including the preparation of an environmental impact report, for this
project.
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN &JOHNSON
June 7, 2.007
Page 2
The property cunently has a Public Facilities (PF) zoning designation. This designation
allows uses of "facilities owned or leased, and operated or used, by ... [a] governmental
agency.". Palo Alto Municipal Code § 18.32.030(a). The property, has been used by the
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) in accordance with this designation in the
past. The Pearsons have been informed by Cimdella’s that with CalTrans’ blessing they intend
to begin moving storage facilities and containers to the property in the next few weeks, long
before a rezoning could or will be complete. We would like to respectfully remind the
Commission that any use of this property that is not an operation or use t)), CalTrans or another
governmental agency is a violation of the Palo Alto Municipal Zoning Code.
The Pearsons have also been informed by Ciardella’s that Ciardella’s has to vacate its
cunent location by August 1, 2007 so that the City may install a new storm-water pump where
Ciardella’s is currently located. While we understand the City is concerned about losing a long-
standing local business in this transaction, the City lnay not use that concern to circumscribe or
otherwise give short-shrift to legally required environmental review and processing of the
rezoning and Comprehensive Plan designation and to the review of the conditional use permit
that Ciardella’s operations will eventually require.
The California Environment Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code section
21000 el seq., requires the City to prepare an enviromnental impact report on any project which
may have a significant effect on the environment. Pub. P, esources Code § 2115 !. Under CEQA,
projects are deth~ed broadly, and include the whole of an action that will impact the
environlnent. In accordance with CEQA’s broad definition, the project here is not just the
ELLivLAN BURKE HOFFMAN &JOHNSON
June 7, 2007
Page 3
rezoning and Comprehensive Plan designation, but also the subsequent relocation of Ciardella’s
to the property. See Rz, ral La~,d O~Pne~’s Ass~. v. Cily Cou~cil (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013 (E1R
for City general plan amendment and rezoning inadequate for failure to analyze impacts of
development that would follow). Planning department staff has already recognized that the City
has initiated this rezoning specifically to "allow Ciardella’s to remain a local Palo Alto
enterprise." Thus, the City must consider and analyze the impacts caused by Ciardella’s to this
and surrounding properties. Specifically, and without limitation, the City nmst analyze the
impacts to air quality and traffic.
Ciardella’s is a retail landscaping supply company, storing and selling such products as
topsoil, soil conditioners, bark, pea gravel, drain rock, decorative rock, boulders, natural fiat
stones, interlocking pavers, Delta Bluegrass sod and seasoned oak firewood. Ciardella’s stores
much of its product outdoors, where the product may be picked up and carried by prevailing
winds. At lhis property, the prevailing winds are strong and directed down Transport Street.
Thus, light landscaping products picked up by those winds will certainly be carried off-site to
neighboring properties, degrading the air quality of the area and posing risks to neighbors’ health
and property. In addition, dust, dirt and other particulate matter may be carried to the Bayshore
Freeway, causing air quality impacts not only for neighbors but for the general public passing
through ou Palo Alto’s primary freeway.
Ciardella’s uses large, loud and pollutiug trucks to move its landscaping products to and
from its site. These trucks will have sig-nilScant cumulative impacts on an already congested
neighborhood. We are attaching a letter from Jeff Reed of Pearson Electronics, h~c. dated May
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN & JOHNSON
June 7, 2007
Page 4
l l, 2007, discussing the current condition of extreme congestion in the area. " This is an area of
general manufacturing and "heavy lifting" businesses. There are going to be large trucks coming
and going throughout the day, every day. Adding Ciardella’s trucks to the neighborhood will
compound the already siguificant harmful effects of these large trucks on the traffic, air quality,
noise and safety of the neighborhood.
Only with careful review of the environmental effects discussed above will the City be
able to weigh the impacts of the rezoning and Ciardella’s relocation and be able to make an
infom~ed determination whether they are impacts that can be mitigated, lived with, or are simply
unacceptable in Palo Alto. For this reason, the City must undertake full enviromnenta! review of
this project, including the preparation of an enviromnental impact report.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth L. B ges
ELB/
Enclosure
cc: Larry Ciardetla, Ciardella’s Garden Supply
Bob Budelli, Ciardella’s Garden Supply
Nicholas P. Jellins, Esq., Jellins & Associates
Jim Bozioneles, California Department of Transportation
N:\P\PEARP\PA\Llrs\Itr to PC 06-07-07 4
...............": 6.5..9_85_1 8.B~37~. ~. ~P.age: 1/2 Date: 5/29/2007 1 tB AM
PEARSON ELECTRONICS, INC.
4009 Transporl Slreet
Pato AIIo, Calll’ornla 94303
]elephone: 650-494-6444
FAX: 650-494-6716
www.pearsonetectronics.~om
May 11,2007
Dr. Paul Pearson
Mrs. Patricia Pearson
285 Josselyn Lane
Woodside, CA 94032
Dear Dr. mid Mrs. Pearson:
I am writing you to discuss the ongoing traffic and parking problems that are
occurring near our location at 4009 Transport Street. We frequently have large trucks
that stop to make deliveries to the businesses in this area. These deliveries are,
typically done from the street due to the size of the vehicles and [ have included sorde
pictures for your review,
The traffic problems arise when thereare two vehicles needing to make a delivery, or
if cars need to go around a vehicle making a delivery. 1 gave included ma example of
this in one of the pictures and this sometimes results in traffic being obstructed
because both lanes are blocked. The problem is somewhat manageable for most part,
but there are often times when t-raffle can be backed up in either direction, which is
not only a congestion problem, bill also possibly a safety issue.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and I Iook forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Jeff Reed
President
Date: 51291200? .52:46 AM
PEARSON ELECTRONICS, INC.
4009 Transpor! S!~ee!
Palo Alto, California 94303
Telephone: 650-494-6444
FAX: 650-494-6716
ww’,v.p carson ete clronlcs.~:om
May 11,2007
Dr. Paul Pearson
Mrs. Patricia Pearson
285 Josselyn Lane
Woodside, CA 94032
Dear Dr. ,and Mrs. Pearson:
I arn writing you to discuss the ongoing traffic and parking problems that are
occurring near our location at 4009 Transport Street. We frequently have large trucks
that stop to make deliveries to the businesses in this area. These deliveries are
typically done from the street due to the size of the vehicles and I have included some
pictures for your review.
The traffic problems arise when there.are two vehicles needing to make a delivery, or
if cars need to go around a vehicle making a delivery¯ I have included ma example of
this in one of the pictures andthis sometimes results in traffic being obstructed
because both lanes are blocked. The problem is somewhat manageable for most part,
but there are often times when traffic can be backed up in either direction, which is
not only a congestion problem, but also possibly a safety issue.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and I look tbrward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Jeff Reed
President
Date: 512912007 1 ,.,~2:46 AM
¯ ~Fr~o.m~.6_.50_ 8~51.8~3._7. __.P.age: 1/2 Oa~e: 9/9/2007 9:21:30 PM
! 001- SAN ANTONIO ROAD
PALO ALTO, CA. ~@303
Gardea S~pply.
HIGHWAY ~ Ol
TRANSPORT WAY
FROM SAN FRANCISCO
101 SOUTH
SAN ANTONIO RD WEST
LEFT ON CHARLESTON
LEFT ON COMMERCIAL
LEFT O11 TRANSPORT
TO 1001 SAN ANTONIO RD
FROM SAN JOSE
101 NORTH
SAN ANTONIO RD WEST
LEFT ONCHARLESTON
LEFT ONCOMMERCIAL
LEFT ONTRANSPORT
TO 1001 SAN ANTONIO
FROM EL CAMINO REAL
TAKE SAN ANTONIO EAST
RIGHT ON CHARLESTON
LEFT ON COMMERCIAL
LEFT ON TRANSPORT
TO 1001 SAN ANTONIO RD
SAN ANTONIO RD
SUMMER
WINDS
MIDDLEFIELD RD
PEARSON ELECTRONICS, INC.
4009 rransporl Sl[eet
Palo Alto, California 94303
-Telephone: 650-494-6444
FAX: 650-494-6716
www.pearsoneleclronics.~om
May 1 I. 2007
Dr. Paul Pearson
Mrs, Patricia Pearson
285 Josselyn Lane
Woodside, CA 94032
Dear Dr. ~md Mrs. Pearson:
1 am writing you to discuss the ongoing traffic and parking problems that are
occurring near our location at 4009 Trm~sport Street. We frequently have large trucks
that stop to make deliveries to the businesses in this area. These deliveries are
typically done flom the street due to the size of the vehicles and [ have included some
pictures Ibr your review.
The traffic problems arise when there are two vehicles needing to make a delivery, or
if cars need to go around a vehicle making a delivery. I have included an example of
this in one of the pictures and this sometimes results in traffic being obstructed
because both lanes are blocked. The problem is somewhat manageable for most parl,
but there are often limes When traffic can be backed up in either direction., which is
not only a congestion problem, but also possibly a safety issue.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and I look forward to bearing from you.
Best regards,
J etT Reed
President
007 Transport St, Palo Alto, CA 94303, USA -ogle Maps http://maps.google.coro/maps?q=dOOT+Transport+St,+Palo+Alto,+.
G ~)gte
Address 4007 Transp°rt st
O[:Palo Alto, CA 94303 Download Google Maps [o[ mobile
Text maps to 466453
({9007 Ooogle Map data ~92007
I o11 9/5/2007 3:15
4007 Transport St, Palo Alto, CA 94303, US Google Maps hUp:!/maps.googl, n/maps?q=4007+Transport+St,+Palo+Alto,+.
Address 4007 Transport St
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Savetrees. "-~ " ~
Download Google Maps for mobile
Text maps to 455453
Manic:pa~
Golf Course
¯Sborehhe
~2007 ~oogle
I of ]9/5/2007 2:43
City of Palo Alto ATTACHMENT G
Department of Planning and Community
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5~n Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2441 FAX (650) 329-2154
www. cityofpaloalto.org
Environment
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources
Code 21,000, et sec.) that the following project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
File Number TAg
07-PLN-00276 NA
~cct Name
Rezone and land use designation of Caltrans property
O}vlier
Caltrans
Project Location
100l San Antonio Road, north of Transport Road
Project Description
APN(s)
NA
Project T____yy pe
Rczoning and Land Use
tApplicant
Ciardella’s Garden Supply
Date
9/14/07
Request by Ciardella’s Garden Supply on behalf of Caltrans for rezoning from Public Facilities
District (PF) to General Manufacturing District (GM) and a Comprehensive Plan amendment to
apply a land use designation of Light Industrial (no designation currently exists) for 1.81 acres of
land. The rezoning will allow Ciardella’s to locate and operate a garden supply center on the site.
The project reviewed by the City of Palo Alto [’or this h~itial Study does not include the physical
improvements authorized by Caltrans and recently installed on the site.
I’urpose of Notice
Announcement of public review period and intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Period: I Begins: 9/14/07 I Ends:
Public Comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this negative declaration are
invited and must be received on or before the hearing date. Such comments should be based on specific
environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to the Cky of Palo Alto Planning Division.
Oral comments may be made at the hearing. A file containing additional information on this project may be
reviewed at the Planning Office under the file number appearing at the top of this form. For additional
information regarding this project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, please contact Amy French at
(650) 329-2336
The Mitigated Negative I)eclaration and Initial Stndy may be viewed at the following locations:
( 1 ) City of Pato Alto
(2) County of Santa Clara
Responsible Agencies sent a cop), of this document
Caltrans
Mitigation Measures included in the project to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than
significant leveh
Mitigation Measure #1 : Prior to issuance of building permits and commencement of operations on the site, the applicant shall submit an
Architectural Review application to lhe City for review of the physical improvements associated with the garden supply business.
Mitigation Measure #2: The applicant shall submit a site improvement plan in conjunction with the Architectural Review application.
The plans shall include a solid wall or fence of between five and eight feet in height, and the fence shall be installed in accordance with
Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.20.040(f)(1 )C, which shall reduce wind blown dust.
Mitigation Measure #3: In order to reduce wind blown dust emissions, the applicant shall (a) cover and install wind breaks around did
piles and other stockpiled particulate matter, (b) water and/or employ soil stabilizers, (c) incorporate the use of non-toxic soil stabilizers
according to manufacturer’s specifications to all inactive areas of the site, including all unpaved roads and employee/equipment parking
areas. When water is used, a water spray system shall be installed, moisture content in soil and other particulate stockpiles shall be high
enough to eliminate PM-10 "fugitive" emissions (wind-blown dust that could otherwise escape into the surrounding air) and concrete
debris shall be kept damp on the surface.
Mitigation Measure #4: City standard conditions for minimization of dust during construction shall be in effect for duration of the
operations of Ciardella’s on the subject site. Truck loads of dirt, sand or other loose material shall be covered as required, any transfer
processes involving a free fall of soil or other particulate matter shall be operated in such a manner as to minimize the free fall distance
and fugitive dust emissions, and active work areas (e.g. where soil handling is underway) shall be watered at least twice daily and more
frequently as needed to prevent generation of dust. If soil material is carried out onto the public right of way, Ciardella’s wil! be required
to address the problem.
Mitigation Measure #5: The applicant shall designate a person or persons responsible for Ciardella’s dust control measures, and clearly
post on the exterior wall or fence of the facilities a company telephone number for citizens to call with dust, noise, or other operational
complaints.
Mitigation Measure #6: A landscape plan to be submilted in conjunction with the Architectural Review application, shall indicate trees to
be retained and protected, screen plantings, and ground cover on the site where feasible. The approved plan shall be incorporated into
the building permit drawings.
Mitigation Measure #7: Adequate parking facilities for customers and staff of the Ciardelta’s business, and off- and on-site circulation
shall be provided on the site and shown on plans submitted wilh the Architectural Review application.
Mitigation Measure #8: Deliveries from suppliers shall, to the extent practicable, occur in the early morning hours when both traffic on
Transport Street is at a minimum and the prevailing winds are not directed to the immediately adjacent neighbors.
A reporting or monitoring program must be adopted for measures to mitigate significant impacts at the time
the Mitigated Negative Declaration is approved, in accord with the requirements of" section 21081.6 of" the
Public Resources Code.
Prepared by:
Approved by:
--Signature
/Date/
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request by Ciardella’s Garden Supply on behalf of Caltrans for rezoning from Public Facilities District
(PF) to General Manufacturing District (GM) and a Comprehensive Plan amendment to apply a land use
designation of Light Industrial (no designation currently exists) for 1.81 acres of land. The rezoning will
allow Ciardella’s to locate and operate a garden supply center on the site. The project reviewed by the
City of Palo Alto for this Initial Study does not include the physical improvements authorized by
Caltrans and recently installed on the site.
o
o
PROJECT TITLE
Rezoning and Land Use Designation of 1001 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto, California
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Amy French
Manager of Current Planning
City of Palo Alto
650-329-2552
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
Ciardella’s Garden Supply on behalf of
State of California Department of Transportation
111 Grand Avenue
Oakland, CA 94612
APPLICATION NUMBER
07-PLN-00276
PROJECT LOCATION
Caltrans Property
1001 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration
o
11.
The project site is Caltrans property located at 1001 San Antonio Road at the southwest comer of
the CalTrans right-of-way at San Antonio Avenue and U.S. Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway),
north of Transport Road.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
There is no existing General Plan land use designation for the site.
Light Industrial.
The proposed designation is
ZONING
The site is zoned Public Facilities, regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.32.
The proposed zoning, GM (General Manufacturing) is regulated by PAMC Chapter 18.20.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the rezoning frorn Public Facilities District (PF) to General Manufacturing District
(GM) for approximately 1.81 acres of land at 1001 San Antonio Road. Additionally, the project
includes approval of a resolution for a comprehensive plan land use designation of Light
Industrial for these lands, which currently have no designation. Such designations would allow
for general business service use of the site. Ciardella’s intends to operate their garden supply
business on the site.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The property is surrounded on two sides (north and northeast) by lands owned by the State of
California and in use as Highway 101 right of way areas, and on another two sides (west and
south) by San Antonio Road. To the east immediately adjacent to the project site is 4007-4009
Transport Street, developed with a commercial building.
OTHER PI~L1C AGENCIES
o County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
~ State of California, Department of Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
[A "No Impa~:t" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show
that the impat:t simply does not apply to proje~ets like the one involved (e. g. the project fails
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specil?e factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a pro.ie~:t-spe~:ific 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.
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
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.
"(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies
where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3)
(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a)Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
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.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any,, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, .which could occur
if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the
answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the
basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential
significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration
a)
b)
c)
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Have a substantial adverse effect on a
public view or view corridor?
Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
d)Violate existing Comprehensive Plan
policies regarding visual resources?
e)Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
f)Substantially shadow public open space
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21?
Sources
1,2,6, 10
1,
2-Map L4
2-Map L4
1,2,6
1,2,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
M itigation
Incorporated
X
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The approval of the zone change will allow Ciardella’s to operate a garden supply business on the site.
Physical improvements associated with non-public use of the Caltrans site would be subject to the City’s
approval of an Architectural Review application. With architectural review by the City, the physical
improvements to the site reviewed and authorized by Caltrans will not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. Mitigation measure #1 requires submittal of an
Architectural Review application for structures and landscaping on the site, to address the potential
visual impacts.
The applicant has not proposed lighting of the site to be rezoned. Any security lighting which may be
proposed for the Ciardella’s Garden Supply should be reviewed in conjunction with the Architectural
Review application. It is not anticipated that site lighting would create a significant impact, as standard
conditions of approval require lighting fixtures to be downward directional to prevent significant light
pollution offsite.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure #1: Prior to issuance of building permits and commencement of operations on the
site, the applicant shall submit an Architectural Review application to the City for review of the physical
improvements associated with the garden supply business.
B.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Witliamson Act contract?
c)Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Sources
1,91
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The site is not located in a "Prime Fan-nland", lgntque Fat-roland", 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 for agricultural use, and is not regulated by
the Williamson Act.
Mitigation Measures:
None
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
a)
b)
Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct with implementation
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and/or indirect operational
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 punds per day
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PMI0);
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO)
So u rces
1,6
1,6
Potentially
Significant
lssnes
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
1 nco rpo ra ted
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
I t x
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour (as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels
of toxic air contaminants?
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI)
exceeds 10 in one million
ii.Ground-level concentrations of non-
carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) fbr the
MEI
el)Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
g)Not implement all applicable construction
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
Sources
1,6
1,6
1,6
1,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than No
Significant I mpact
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto uses the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD)
thresholds of significance for air quality impacts.
Construction Impacts: The rezoning would allow for the use of the site for general business services.
Associated with this rezoning is the establishment of Ciardella’s Garden Supply, which would involve
grading and other activities which could cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration
particulate matter (PM10). The creation of the garden supply center on the site would be subject to the
City’s standard conditions of approval related to dust control:
The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust
related construction impacts:
®All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily.
~All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet
of freeboard.
All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept
and watered daily.
® Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a
demolition permit.
~ Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
Dust related impacts from construction are considered potentially significant but may be mitigated with
the application of the standard dust control measures listed above. Construction equipment would also
emit NOx and ROC. However, in order for emissions from construction equipment to be considered
significant, the project must involve the extensive use of construction equipment over a long period of
time. Based on the size of the proposed project, emissions of NO× and ROC are anticipated to be less
than significant.
Long Term Impacts: Long-term project emissions would stem from motor vehicles and from storage
and transport of materials associated with the use of the site by Ciardella’s as a garden supply center. As
discussed in the Transportation/Traffic section of this Initial Study, use of the site by Ciardella’s is not
expected to result in a significant number of new vehicle trips. Long-term air-quality impacts from
traffic are expected to be less than significant. Ciardella’s intends to fence the site, and the fence would
be shown on drawings for Architectural Review by the City. A solid wall or fence would reduce the
amount of wind blown dust emissions leaving the site. Ciardella’s maintains a fire hose on site and
intends to install sprinklers at the end of the storage bins to provide regular watering. Impacts from dust
produced in association with stored and transported materials would be reduced to an insignificant level
(virtually no fugitive emissions) with proper watering. Ciardella’s currently minimize the free fall
distance of transferred materials and intends to continue this practice. Ciardella’s currently covers all
truck loads in an appropriate manner and removes soil from vehicles and equipment leaving the site and
intends to continue to do so. There is a gravel bed on the Caltrans site. Ciardetla’s intends to install
pavers at the driveway entrance to the site to minimize the amount of dust and dirt leaving the site.
Mitigation measures 2 - 5 below address these potential impacts:
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure #2: The applicant shall submit a site improvement plan in conjunction with the
Architectural Review application. The plans shall include a solid wall or fence of between five and
eight feet in height, and the fence shall be installed in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code
18.20.040(0(1)C, which shall reduce wind blown dust.
Mitigation Measure #3: In order to reduce wind blown dust emissions, the applicant shall (a) cover and
install wind breaks around dirt piles and other stockpiled particulate matter, (b) water and/or employ soil
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration
stabilizers, (c) incorporate the use of non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturer’s specifications
to all inactive areas of the site, including all unpaved roads and employee/equipment parking areas.
When water is used, a water spray system shall be installed, moisture content in soil and other
particulate stockpiles shal! be high enough to eliminate PM-10 "fugitive" emissions (wind-blown dust
that could otherwise escape into the sunounding air) and concrete debris shall be kept damp on the
surface.
Mitigation Measure #4: City standard conditions for minimization of dust during construction shall be
in effect for duration of the operations of Ciardella’s on the subject site. Truck loads of dirt, sand or
other loose material shall be covered as required, any transfer processes involving a free fall of soil or
other particulate matter shall be operated in such a manner as to mininaize the free fall distance and
fugitive dust emissions, and active work areas (e.g. where soil handling is underway) shall be watered at
least twice daily and more frequently as needed to prevent generation of dust. If soil material is carried
out onto the public right of way, Ciardella’s will be required to address the problem.
Mitigation Measure #5: The applicant shall designate a person or persons responsible for Ciardella’s
dust control measures, and clearly post on the exterior wall or fence of the facilities a company
telephone number for citizens to call with dust, noise, or other operational complaints.
D.BIOLOGICAL ~SOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
\¥ould the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community, identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, including federally,
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
c)Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by the City of
Sources
1~2-
M apN 1
MapN !
2-MapNl
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
d)
X
1,3,6, 8
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration
No
Impact
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
e)
Would the project:
Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.10)?
Conflict with any applicableHabitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Sources
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION:
The project site includes several existing trees, it has not been found by Caltrans, in conjunction
with their environmental analysis of the site, that there is tree habitat for the candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in the area. No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects and plant
species have been identified at this site by Caltrans. The erosion control plan associated with use of
the site by Ciardella’s includes protection measures for existing, on-site trees. The establishment of
Ciardella’s on the site is not anticipated to have any adverse impact on biological resources and will
require no mitigation. Ciardella’s intends to submit a landscape plan including landscaping for areas
of the site that are not work areas. The architectural review application requirements include the
submittal of a landscape plan including existing vegetation to be retained and protected and new
plantings and ground cover. Per the standard approval conditions of architectural review approval,
the project would result in a less than significant impact to biological resources.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure #6: A landscape plan to be submitted in conjunction with the Architectural Review
application, shall indicate trees to be retained and protected, screen plantings, and ground cover on the
site where feasible. The approved plan shall be incorporated into the building permit drawings.
E.CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supportiug Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
a)Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d)Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
1,2-
MapL8
1
MapL8
MapL8
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 9 Mitigated Negative Declaration
e)
lssnes and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources
Adversely affect a historic resource listed or
eligible for listing on the National and/or
California Register, or listed on the City’s
Historic Inventory?
Eliminate important examples of major periods
of California history or prehistory?
J,g-
MapL7
1
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
hnpact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate archaeological resource sensitivity zone.
Most of the City, area east of Interstate 280 is designated in this zone. Although existing and historic
development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried Native American sites
could be uncovered in future planning area construction.
If archaeological materials are discovered the applicant would be required to perform additional testing
and produce an Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) to be approved prior to
the start of construction.
Mitigation Measures:
None
a)
F.GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Sources No
hnpact
Issues and Snpporting Information Resonrces
Would the project:
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 the 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?
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
See below
2-MapN5,
5
2-MapN5,
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Titan
Significant
I mpact
X
X
iv) Landslides?
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration
X
b)P, esult in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Result in substantial siltation?
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
e)
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major geologic
hazards that cannot be mitigated through the
use of standard engineering design and seismic
safety techniques?
1,5
1,5
2-MapN5,
5
2-MapN5,
5
1,5,6
X
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. According to the Comprehensive Plan the
project site is not in an area that is subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake or
in an area subject to expansive soils, surface rupture, liquefaction, or earthquake induced landslides.
Development of the site would be required to conform to all requirements in the Uniform Building
Code, which includes provisions to ensure that the design and construction of all buildings includes
provisions to resist damage from earthquakes to the extent feasible and acceptable. The potential onsite
exposure to geological hazards is anticipated to be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Substantial or permanent changes to the site topography are not expected. Grading and storage of
materials on site has been authorized by Caltrans. Standard conditions of approval require submittal of a
final grading and drainage plan for the project for approval by the Public Works Department prior to the
issuance of any building permit. The application of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control
measures as a part of the approved grading and drainage plan is expected to avoid any grading-related
impacts.
The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Mitigation Measures:
None
G.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Significant Significant
Less Than No
Significant hnpact
I35 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration
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 w’ithin one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d)Construct a school on a property that is subject
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
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 lbr people residing or working in
the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard lbr people residing or working the
project area?
g)Impair implementation of or physically
inter|Ere with an adopted emergeucy response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
i) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site’?
1,6
1,6
1,6
],2-
MapN9,
6
1,2
1,2-
MapN7
2-MapN7
1,6
[SSHeS Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project will not involve the handling, transportation, use, disposal, or emission of
hazardous materials. The project site is not identified by either the California Environmental Protection
Agency or the California State Water Resources Control Board as a hazardous materials site. The project
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 12 Mitigated Negative Declaration
is not expected to pose airport-related safety hazards. The proposed project will not interfere with either
emergency response or evacuation. The project site is not located in a designated fire hazard area.
Mitigation Measures:
None
H.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would tile project:
a)Violate any water qualily standards or waste
discharge requirements?
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., 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
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or oft: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
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in floodine on- or off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runofl?
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would inapede or redirect
flood flows?
i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam or being located within a lO0-year
flood hazard area?
1,2,5
2-MapN2
1,2,5,6
1,2,5.6
1,6
2-MapN6
2-MapN6
N8
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Potentially
Significant
Issues
M itigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
1 mpact
X
No
I ~npact
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 13 Mitigated Negative Declaralion
j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?2-MapN6,X
N8
k) Result in stream bank instability?
DISCUSSION:
The project site is completely pervious, with recent site improvements having been analyzed for
environmental clearance and authorized by Caltrans. Erosion control plans and measures were reviewed
by Caltrans to ensure that during demolition, grading and construction, no storm water pollution could
result. Non-point source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife dependant on the waterways and for
people who live near polluted streams or baylands. Standard conditions of architectural review approval
would require the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution
prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source
Pollution Control Program, and submittal of a storrnwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) in
conjunction with building permit plans to address potential water quality impacts. City, development
standards and standard conditions of project approval would reduce potential negative impacts of the
prqject to less than significant.
The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge, and will not deplete groundwater
supplies. The prqiect site is not located in a 100-year flood hazard area and would not impede or redirect
flood flows. The project site is not in an area that is subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Mitigation Measures:
None
1.LAND USE AND PLANNING
issnes and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
a)Physically divide an established community?
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
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 community
conservation plan?
d) Substantially adversely change the type or
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
a rea ?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
t,2
Potentially
Signilicant
Unless
Potentially
Significant
Issnes
Mitigation
I ncorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
1,2,3,6
1,2 X
1,2,6
X
1,~,3,(
X
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration
No
Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
t)
Would the project:
Conflict with established residential,
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
Sources
1,2,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is the rezoning and assignment of a land use designation to the subject property,
for the purpose of allowing Caltrans to lease the land to Ciardella’s Garden Supply as a General
Business Service. Ciardella’s, under Caltrans’ authorization, has begun to store materials on the site.
Once the site has been successfully rezoned, business may operate on the site. However, an
architectural review application must be submitted for City review and conditions of approval may
require modification to improvements already installed that had met Caltrans’ environmental review
standards. Mitigation measure #1 requires submittal of an application for architectural review.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
J. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss oravailability of a known
mineral resource that would be 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 general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
t,2
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC),
Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation
signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other
resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally
valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
K. NOISE
Issues and Supporting lnlbrmation Resources Sources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Issnes
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant hnpact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 16 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources
1,2
a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing v.,ithout the prqiect?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
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?
t)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?
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
Result in indoor noise levels for residential
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
Generate construction noise exceeding the
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by l0 dBA or more?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
b)X
1,6
I c) X
1,6
d) X
1,6
e) x
1,2
1,2
1,6
X
X
i)1,6 x
j)1,6 X
k)1,6 X
1)1,6 X
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located in an area with an existing noise level of 75 L.o,~ adjacent to major roadways
and industrial sites. Construction and business operation activities may result in temporary increases in
local ambient noise levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with
further grading and construction, which would be short term in duration. Standard approval conditions
would require the project to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 17 Mitigated Negative Declaration
restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term
construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less
than significant. Long term noise may be produced by trucks hauling materials on and off the site,
associated with Ciardella’s Garden Supply operations. The City’s standard conditions of approval will
be applied to the project to ensure the impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. The project
site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Mitigation Measures:
None
L.POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Snpporting Information Resources Sources
D,"ould the project:
a)lnduce 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
in frastructure)?
b)Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction or
replacement housing elsewhere?
c)Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
d)Create a substantial imbalance between
employed residents and jobs?
e)Cumulatively exceed regional or local
population projections?
1,2,6
l
1,2
1,2
Potentially
Signiticant
Issues
Potentially
Signilicant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
x
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The rezoning could result in the use of the land for any of the permitted uses under the GM zoning,
subject to Caltrans approval of a lease. This small amount of site area adjacent to the freeway is not
conducive to residential use and will not induce population growth. No mitigation is necessary.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
M.PUBLIC SERVICES
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 18 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
a)
Would the project:
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 lbr any of the public services:
Sollrces
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
1.2
1.2
1,2
1,2
X
x
x
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would not impact fire service to the area and the site is not located in a high fire
hazard area. The conditions of approval for the Architectural Review application would contain
requirements to address all fire prevention measures. The site is located within the jurisdiction of the
Palo Alto Police Department. The facility would not by itself result in the need for additional police
officers, equipment, or facilities.
No significant demand for school services would result from the project, which is not expected to
generate any, increase in Palo Alto’s residential population. No significant direct demand for additional
parks would result from the project, which is not expected to generate any increase in Palo Alto’s
residential population.
Mitigation Measures:
None
N. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources No Impact
a)
Would the project:
Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
I ncorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 19 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
b)
Would the project:
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
1,6
1,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would not have an.,,, significant impact on existing parks, nor include or require
construction of recreational facilities. No mitigation is required.
a)
O.TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources No Impact
Would the project:
1,6
Cause an increase in traffic which is
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)?
Result in inadequate emergency access’?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
ncorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
b)
x
1,6
c)
x
1
d)
X
1,6
e) 1 "~
X
f)Result in inadequate parking capacity?1,2,6 X
g)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &1,2,6
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,2,6
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)X
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 20 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay/’or the critical movements by
~’our seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
i)Cause a local intersection already operating at
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
j)Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k)Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F
or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
1)Cause any change in traffic that would
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m)Cause queuing impacts based on a
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage
capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; quet, es at turn lanes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops: queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.
n)Impede the development or function of
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
o)Impede the operation of a transit system as a
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard’?
Sources
,2,6
1,2,6
1,2,6
1,2,6
1,2,6
1,2,6
1,2,6
1,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
IV. Transportation/Traffic
Parking spaces are not shown on plans delivered September !4, 2007. The plans submitted for
Architectural Review ,,,,’ill need to include off-site parking spaces for the proposed garden supply
business. The on-site and off-site circulation, as proposed in the September 14, 2007 plan set, is
undergoing evaluation by transportation staff in anticipation of the processing of the Architectural
Review application.
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 21 Mitigated Negative Declaration
An average of 84 daily vehicle trips are associated with the Ciardella’s location on East Bayshore Road.
Staff has provided estimated trip generation for the project in the chart below. Through empirical
research, data have been collected that correlate to common land uses their propensity for producing
traffic. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied
to help predict future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The magnitude of the
traffic generation by the proposed project was estimated by applying to the size of the development the
applicable trip generation rates. These calculations, in the table below, are calculated on the basis of the
trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled Trip
Generation, seventh edition, 2003. The proposed project is a small commercial development on a
currently vacant lot. It would appear that the anticipated nine morning peak hour trips can be
accommodated via the single, two-way driveway shown on the plans submitted September 14, 2007.
There would be no significant traffic impacts resulting fl-om the project due to its small size. The
Ciardella’s morning deliveries are a practice of their business operation. The neighboring property,
owner requests that the city require the applicant to schedule deliveries for the morning to the extent
practicable. A mitigation measure is provided below to address the concern.
Proposed
Traffic Generation
Land Use Rate~
Nursery
(Garden
Center)
1 Size expressed in acres
Daily
Rate~
96.2t
Daily
Trips
96
AM Peak Hour
Peak-Hourly
Hour Trips
Rate2
8.74 9
PM Peak Hour
Peak-
[
Hourly
Hour Trips
Rate2
9.85 10
2 Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation 7~h Edition, 2004, Nursery (Garden Center) (817)
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure #7: Adequate parking facilities for customers and staff of the Ciardella’s business,
and off- and on-site circulation shall be provicted on the site and shown on plans submitted with the
Architectural Review application.
M~tigatiun ~,""" " "~ .,,,,ea,-,u, e #8: Deliveries from suppliers shall, to the extent practicable, occur in the early
morning hours when both traffic on Transport Street is at a minimum and the prevailing winds are not
directed to the immediately adjacent neighbors.
a)
P.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources No Impact
Would the project:
Exceed waste~vater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality,
Control Board?
Potentially
Significant
1 ss u es
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
1,2 X
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 22 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting lnfor~nation Resources
Would the project:
b)Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
constrtiction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c)Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which cot, ld cause significant environmental
effects?
d)I-lave sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, 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 inadequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
~)Be served by a landfill with st, fficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
h)Result in a substantial physical deterioration
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
Sources
1,2
1
1
1
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Siguificant
Impact
No Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed prqject would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service
systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Standard approval conditions of
Architectural Review will require the applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to
show that the on-site and off site water, sewer and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the
garden supply business and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. Trash and recycling facilities
will be required with the establishment of the garden supply center to accommodate the expected waste
and recycling streams that would be generated by the expected uses within the building.
Mitigation Measures:
None
Q.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 23 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
a)Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality, of the environment,
substantially reduce tile habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b)Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that tile incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with tile effects of past projects,
tile effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c)Does tile project have environmental effects
which ,,’,,ill cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Sources
1,2-Map
L4,6
1,2,6
1,5,6,
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
M itigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No Impact
X
DISCUSSION:
The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic
resources. The uses are appropriate for the site and the development would not result in an adverse
visual impact. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements
that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts.
SOURCE REFERENCES
1.Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2.Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
3.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 - Zoning Ordinance
4.Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards
5.California Department of Transportation Letter dated September 9, 2007
6.Project Plans submitted September 14, 2007 (dated June 12, and July 20, 2007)
7.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
8.Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001
9.important Farmland in California Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land
Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2004.
10.Agricultural Preserves Map, California Department of Conservation, Di vision of Land Resource
Protection, 200!
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 24 Mitigated Negative Declaration
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in
the 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 prqject 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 nmst analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards, and (h) 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.
Amy French ,/~___~
Planning MaWdggr
September 14, 20{~7
Date
X
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Date
135 Hamilton Avenue 07PLN-00120 Page 25 Mitigated Negative Declaration
ATTACHMENT E
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
ROLL CALL: 6:05 PM
DRAFT EXCERPT
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Special Meeting at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton A venue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Commissioners:
Karen Holman - Chair
Daniel Garber - V-Chair
Patrick Burr
Paula Sandas
Arthur Keller
Lee Lippert
SamirTuma
Staff:
Curtis Williams, Assistant Director
Donald Larkin, Assistant City Attorney
Amy French, Current Planning Manager
Steven O’Connell, Contract Planner
Lisa Green, Admin. Associate
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1. 1001 San Antonio Road
2. 3401, 3415, and 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza)
APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Regular Meeting of August 8
Chair Holman: Good evening, I would like to call the Special Meeting of Wednesday,
September 19, 2007 of the Planning and Transportation Commission to order. Would Secretary
call the roll, please? Thank you.
This is the time on the agenda if anyone would like to speak to an item that is not on the agenda
they are welcome to speak. We have no cards so we will go to agenda item one.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items
added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
Chair Holman: This is 1001 San Antonio Road. A request by Ciardella’s Garden Supply for
rezoning from Public Facilities District to General Manufacturing District for 1.81 acres of land
at 1001 San Antonio Road and a Comprehensive Plan amendment to apply a land use
designation of Light Industrial is also requested. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared. Does Staff have a presentation?
Page 1 of 85
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
NEW BUSINESS
Public Hearhtg:
1001 San Antonio Road% Request by Ciardella’s Garden Supply for rezoning from
Public Facilities District (PF) to General Manufacturing District (GM) for 1.81 acres of
land at 1001 San Antonio Road at the southwest comer of the CalTrans right-of-way at
San Antonio Avenue and U.S. Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), north of Transport
Road. A Comprehensive Plan amendment to apply a land use designation of Light
Industrial (no designation currently exists) is also requested. Environmental Assessment:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared.
Ms. Amy French. Current Plannin,~ Manager: Good evening Chair Holman and Commissioners.
This project before you is the rezoning and assignment of a land use.
Chair Holman: I am so sorry, Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: Before we get started on this matter I maintain my primary place of
business in very close proximity, 999 Commercial Street, and therefore I will have to recuse
myself from this matter.
Ms. French: Okay, back to the project. It is a rezoning and assignment of a land use designation
as the site currently has none to the CalTrans site about 1.81 acres to allow CalTrans to lease the
site to Ciardella’s Garden Supply. The business is considered a private general business service.
It would be a permitted use under the GM zoning as proposed. Ciardella’s has been forced to
move from their East Bayshore location that is owned by the Santa Clara County Water District
in order for the City to establish the pump station on the Water District’s land.
The site has been in use as a construction storage yard for CalTrans contractors working on
CalTrans projects. The current zoning, Public Facilities, does not permit or conditionally permit
a use such as Ciardella’s unless it is operated by a governmental agency.
As highlighted on the map on the overhead the 1.81 acre site to be rezoned includes a roughly
43,000 square foot area, in yellow, that is not proposed to be use by Ciardella’s that could
potentially be available for lease by CalTrans to the adjacent property owner, the owner of 4007-
4009 Transport Street, who is interested in using it for parking purposes. That would be a
separate negotiated lease between CalTrans and that property owner who is represented by
several letters that have been included in the packet as well a letter that was emailed to you
today. The GM District land uses include temporary parking facilities for no more than five
years subject to obtaining a conditional use permit if that were to go forward.
At places is a memo to the Commission answering six questions posed by Commissioner Keller.
The memo also includes responses to the emailed letter submitted by the attorney for the owner
of 4007-4009 Transport Street. ,
Page 2 of 85
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
Staff is confident that the adjusted mitigation measure as noted in the at places memo will
address the potential traffic impacts of the project and also the mitigation measure requiring
architectural review of final plans for physical improvements to the site will result in
improvements that do meet the City standards.
Staff recommends the Commission support Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, rezoning and land use designation for Light Industrial to allow Ciardella’s to move
forward submit and architectural review application and plans for City review and approval so
that they may operate their business on the CalTrans site. Staff is available to answer any further
questions and the applicant is here to present their proposal.
Chair Holman: Commissioners, are there any clarifying questions? Seeing none, the applicant
will have 15 minutes to make a presentation and if there are any members of the public who
would like to speak to this, I see one card coming. If the speaker for the applicant could fill out a
card that would be great too. If you would identify yourself, please.
Mr. Nicholas Jellins. Counsel for Ciardella’s Garden Service: Good evening members of the
Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission. I really have nothing of any substance to
add to Staff’s report. We concur with the recommendation and are available to answer any
questions that you may have.
Chair Holman: Seeing none, thank you very much. I have two cards from members of the
public one from Liz Bridges to be followed by Patricia Pearson. You will have five minutes.
Ms. Liz Bridges. San Francisco: Good evening Commissioners. I am Counsel for Patricia
Pearson who is a neighbor to this site. She owns property at 4007 and 4009 Transport Street. I
think I want to start by saying that the Pearson’s aren’t opposed to this project. They don’t want
to stop it outright but they are very concerned about the legitimate environmental impacts that
this project has already had and will continue to have on their business and on their tenants in
this neighborhood.
So far we haven’t seen adequate environmental review and I will reference my three letters that
are included in your packet. We outline our concerns in detail there and I don’t want to run
through them again in detail now but I hope you will take a look at them. I do want to highlight
a couple of our major concerns. First I would like to say that we are really concerned about the
dust impacts. If you have been out to this site, and I actually have some pictures of the site that I
would like to share with you, you will see that dust is a major problem.
So far Ciardella’s has raised the grade of the site and we were out there just a little while ago and
watched the swirling dust going on. One of Ms. Pearson’s tenants has a paper supply company
and they have an open warehouse door that faces the Ciardella’s site and currently they are
getting dust in their paper products. They can’t send out product at that level.
I do appreciate that Staff and the City are including many of our mitigation measures that we
proposed to mitigate the dust impacts. That will go a long way to mitigating this impact however
it is not our only concern. We are also concerned about the traffic impacts. It is an industrial
Page 3 of 85
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
area, there are large trucks on Transport Street and along the frontage road along San Antonio,
and there is very little parking during the day. As of yet the City has not conducted a traffic
study and without knowing what the baseline conditions are at the site there is no way to know
how bad it is going to be. So we would ask that the City conduct a full traffic study before going
forward.
In addition, we are very concerned about the drainage. Ciardella’s as mentioned before has
raised the elevation of the site and I don’t think there are pictures there but I have some pictures
here of the rock bed that they have put on the site. With the increased level on the site it looks
like when the storms come in the winter the water is going to drain off onto my client’s property
and create a big muddy mess. We are very concerned about that. As far as we know the City
hasn’t done any environmental review of the conditions that exist on the site as of yet because
they have said that CalTrans is taking care of it. However, CalTrans hasn’t done the adequate
environmental review either. You will see that in your letter that is provided by CalTrans in your
packet.
There are other concerns that we have. There are noise concerns about the trucks that are out
there, obviously Ciardella’s needs to comply with all noise ordinances of the City. Apparently
they have been storing manure in their large open bins and the neighbors are complaining
because it stinks. So there are a lot of environment, legitimate environmental concerns that my
clients have about going forward with this project that have not yet been addressed. We would
really ask that the Commission consider these impacts and craft appropriate mitigations to deal
with them.
We understand that the Commission and the City are very concerned with keeping Ciardella’s. It
is a long time business owner in the city. Obviously that is a very legitimate concern and
Ciardella’s had to move out of their current location. That is fully understandable. However,
there are other property owners in the neighborhood that are facing these impacts. My client
specifically is concerned that she may lose her tenants if these conditions continue and to some
extent she won’t be able to rent out her buildings. So we hope that the Commission will consider
the impacts that this one business will be having on the other businesses in the area.
I would also like to give to the Commission two letters from the tenants at 4007 and 4009
Transport Street documenting their concerns.
Finally, I would like to say that my client is here tonight if you would like to ask her any
questions or if you have any questions for me I am happy to answer them. Thank you.
Chair Hohnan: Commissioner Keller I believe has a question for you. Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Yes, did you see today’s document?
Ms. Bridges: I just got a chance to glance at over it.
Commissioner Keller: Do you have any response to the City Staff’s analysis of this issue?
Page 4 of 85
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
1 Ms. Bridges: Well, you know one of the things that pops out at me on this, and I haven’t had a
2 chance to review this as just saw it coming in, is the utilities concerns. We were out there onsite
3 just a little while ago and how many employees does Ciardella’s have? How many do they have
4 to accommodate with this bladder that is going to be regularly relieved? Do they need more
5 water hookups, electricity, or gas? This hasn’t been addressed. I am happy to review this and
submit more comments.
Commissioner Keller: The second thing is I am wondering, it is not clear what it is you want us
to specifically do other than review more, what action would you suggest we take or not take?
Ms. Bridges: Well, for example on the traffic impacts I would hope that the City would consider
imposing a one-way traffic pattern on the site. One way to do that would be to add a curb cut
along the frontage road along San Antonio, have that be an entrance only and have an exit only
along Transport Street. We haven’t had an engineer draw up plans for that but I would hope that
the City would think about that and consider that as an option to alleviate the traffic. It would
dramatically reduce the number of trucks on Transport Street.
Chair Holman: IfI might, I think one of the communications in our packet gave a long list of
things that the neighbor wanted to see happen.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt has a question for you.
Commissioner Burt: Yes. Could you clarify, regarding the dust is that dust that is in your best
understanding coming from the construction that occurring there now or ongoing operations?
Ms. Bridges: It appears to be from ongoing operations. Obviously there was a lot of dust kicked
up when they were doing this new grading however, we were out there on the site, the
construction is complete, we were out there on the site this evening and the bins are filled with
their materials and there was plenty of dust being kicked up. You could see little tornados of
dust on the property. So it is not in construction now.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Ms. Bridges: Thank you.
Chair Holman: I had one question for you. In your comments you mentioned a neighbor that
~vas an offsite paper company. Is that the office supply company that is providing this letter or is
that another business?
Ms. Bridges: Pearson Electronics was one of the neighbors that submitted a letter that I
referenced in my earlier correspondence and they also submitted a letter this evening.
Chair Holman: But you had mentioned a paper company that had concerns. Is that the same as
the office supply?
Page 5 of 85
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
Ms. Bridges: Correct, that is at 4007 Transport.
Chair Holman: Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much.
Ms. Brid~es: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Ms. Pearson, I do have a speaker card for you if you would care to speak.
Ms. Patricia Pearson, Woodside: Commissioners, if you have questions that you would like to
address to me I will respond to them. I think that Ms. Bridges has presented our interests in her
letters to you and in her discussion this evening.
Chair Holman: Commissioners, any questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much.
Staff, would Staff care to respond to some of the concerns or is there any additional information
that you would like to provide other than what was in the Staff Report in terms of responses?
Ms. French: Well, I am happy to touch base on the highlights of the memo that was at places
tonight. Ms. Bridges noted that one about the utilities popped out at her. There are definitely
some things on the second or the third page of that memo that were directly in response to the
Ms. Bridges’ letter dated yesterday that we forwarded to the Commission earlier today.
The first two pages are in response to Commissioner Keller’s questions. In there it kind of
compares the mitigation measures that were presented in Ms. Bridges’ earlier letters.
Commissioner Burt: Sorry, you said that they were in response to Commissioner Keller’s
questions?
Ms. French: Yes, the first two pages of this memo.
Commissioner Burt: I want to make sure I am looking at the right memo.
Ms. French: I’m sorry, the September 19 rnemo that is at places.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, I understand now which one you are referring to. Thanks.
Ms. French: So sorry. So the first two pages do have some items for Ms. Bridges and Ms.
Pearson to take a look at comparing the proposed mitigation measures that they have in their
letter with the ones that are in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. We do have additional
mitigation measures. The important one being that we will require and architectural review
application that will look at parking onsite, circulation onsite, circulation offsite for the proposed
improvements to the site. So again this Mitigated Negative Declaration was addressing the
rezoning which will allow as a permitted use a garden supply center however the specifics of the
design of that center need to be reviewed by Staff and that has not occurred to date but will
Occur.
Page 6 of 85
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: Do trailers come under architectural review and do we permit them for
sites in the GM zone?
Ms. French: There is a bit of a quandary here in that CalTrans is only allowing temporary
installments on their land. So a roundabout way of answering that question is they are not able
to build something permanent there. We have reviewed through architectural review process
modular buildings in the past and we have taken careful consideration such as the trailers that
they sell for new housing developments and that kind of thing that is considered to be temporary.
We take great care to make sure there is some landscape screening and that things are according
to City standards.
Commissioner Lippert: But those trailers would have to meet the standards for building design
review, correct?
Ms. French: Yes. It is a flood zone and we do have some concern about that. We need to
research the code a little bit more but typically a finished floor elevation of eight feet so there is
some concern about are they going to be able to do that or will they have to put in an ADA ramp
and that kind of thing. So that is to be finalized in plans that they will need to submit to us
before we can authorize the use of the site with those structures.
Commissioner Lippert: I have one other question.
Chair Holman: Before you do that I want to clarify one thing ifI could. Staff what is before us
is, and this is not to minimize anybody’s concerns, but what is before us is the approval or
recommendation for approval of the zone change, the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
zone change, and the comprehensive land use designation change. So while there may be
environmental concerns having to do with a project that is actually not what is before us. IfI am
speaking incorrectly I am sure you will correct me.
Ms. French: That is correct. With the ARB requirement application we have the ability to place
conditions on the project, we have the ability to do further environmental review, and drainage
review, considerations, all of that. So yes, what is under consideration right now is the Mitigated
Negative Declaration surrounding the rezoning. It just so happens that the rezoning would allow
as permitted use general business services. So we tried to the best of our ability to get some stuff
in at the get-go here.
Chair Holman: So following that up just to try to help streamline and formulate our discussion,
is it advisable, Mr. City Attorney, that if we approve the recommendation for the land use zoning
designation change could we condition that or would you suggest that we condition that or just
by reference say these issues need to be resolved?
Mr. Donald Larkin. Assistant City Attorney: I think you could make that recommendation to
City Council that the issues be resolved. It is not part of the rezoning but certainly it is within
Page 7 of 85
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 Commission’s purview to make those recommendations. That would be independent of the
decision on the underlying land use.
Chair Holman: Okay, so hopefully with that clarification if we can focus our discussion along
those lines. Commissioner Lippert you had one more you wanted to follow up with and then
Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Lippert: The question is isn’t it premature for any site work to go on before the
lead agency in this case I guess it would be CalTrans, State of California, completes their
environmental review?
Ms. French: I will answer that to the best of my abilities. The letter that they provided is
apparently what they consider their environmental review. I don’t know if there was other
paperwork that they planned to file with the state. It is a state agency filing with a state agency
and I don’t know if they are subject to other methods of filing or what have you. What we have
from CalTrans is that letter that is in your packet about how they approach leasing the site to this
type of use and the fact that they have reviewed the plans and apparently authorized this work to
be installed prior to our preparing this report.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Two questions. The first question refers to the comments that Chair
Holman said and that is with respect to the concerns of the owners of 4007-4009 Transport will
any concerns that are not addressed as part of this process will those concerns be addressed as
part of subsequent architectural review and granting of an occupancy permit or whatever it is
called?
Ms. French: That is our intent with those mitigations measures is to make it clear to the
applicant that we will have this other process by which we will resolve concerns such as these.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The second question relates to Commissioner Lippert’s
comments and that is it seems like measures are being taken for a business that we are very
supportive of, Ciardella’s, and being relocated because of the work that is being done at the
pump station that is causing them to be kicked out of their current location. I am wondering how
we prevent that from being a precedent for subsequent landowners who wish to do grading or
whatever prior to the appropriate issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Curtis Williams, Assistant Director: In this particular instance we are talking about them
doing it on state property under state authorization. So we have not authorized grading on that
site but the state or CalTrans had a contractor out there before and they moved things around on
the site and did that. So our belief is that there are certain allowances for this right-of-way and
other state right-of-ways to be used for construction materials and those kinds of things, which
are very different than if it were on another property either the City’s or someone that doesn’t
have that authority to be able to grade ahead of time. In those cases it would very much be our
responsibility to look at that, do the environmental review for that. I believe the state would tell
us that they have some sort of blanket exemption for doing this kind of work on their property as
Page 8 of 85
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
long as they are not erecting structures or something like that, as long as it is kind of grading and
construction storage and those types of activities. So it is a very unusual case I don’t think it is
precedent for other sites generally but I can’t say that there aren’t other CalTrans properties that
might have some facility to do that. They already do things like storing equipment and having
contractors coming in and out and there are I am sure some standard requirements about trying to
minimize dust and all of that.
In this case what we have looked at is once Ciardella’s is there the permit for them to operate is
the City’s permit and operate with this use under this zoning. So that is what we really have to
address is that operation not essentially being established on the site, which CalTrans has granted
authority for.
Commissioner Keller: That permit to operate is what enables them to do sales and I assume that
they are not able to do sales until they are given that permit to operate.
Mr. Wi!liams: That is what we have told them and I think we need to be sure that that’s the case.
We need to be sure that we have them abide by all these mitigation measures that Amy has
outlined in the Negative Declaration in terms of dust and noise and all the other issues that have
been enumerated.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: So we clearly have an unusual situation here and part of the problem that is
being created has been driven by the City’s needs to occupy Ciardella’s former site for a critical
function. So we appreciate everybody’s concern in this. Now having said that, there are a
number of complexities. One is the sequence of events that is occurring. It is difficult to follow
what is happening and whether it is right or wrong without seeing a timeline on what is
happening and who has what authority within that timeline. My understanding is that we have
gone forward with Ciardella’s doing major work there prior to having ARB approval, prior to
any kind of an occupancy permit, and that the assumption is that what CalTrans is authorized to
do on their own right-of-way property for their own purposes would necessarily tra.nsfer to an
independent company for whatever purpose they have and whatever outcome. I frankly am less
sanguine about CalTrans concerns for the environmental impacts on Palo Alto than Palo Alto
would be about the environmental impacts on Palo Alto and other businesses and residents in
Palo Alto. So right as of this point in time none of those questions have given me enough
foundation to proceed on the balance. So I am hoping some of that we can take a step backward
and briefly clarify that part.
I have a question also about an occupancy permit. So is the occupancy permit required to
commence business as opposed to begin the process of occupancy, meaning their materials and
all that has been going on?
Ms. French: Well we have two methods of occupancy when it is a permitted use. A permitted
use can get a use and occupancy permit stating that it is a permitted use on the site. They are not
Page 9 of 85
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
able to get that right now because it is not a permitted use on the site. Another form of
occupancy is the final occupancy associated with a building permit. They will need a building
permit to connect the electrical, the phones, the things that they are doing utilities wise, and if
this trailer stays onsite that would need a building permit as well for associated issues.
Therefore, they are not able to get an occupancy permit to operate until they go through both of
these things the rezoning and the building permit.
Commissioner Burt: But it sounds as ifa number of the impacts of their occupancy begin to take
effect upon the act of beginning to move in and that that’s already occurred. So are we saying
that we have no mechanism of control over potential impacts if a business is having both
essentially construction impacts and occupancy impacts without sale yet, which is what is
claimed in a number of the submittals? So I need clarification on what authority the City has
over them moving in before they have an occupancy permit, having apparently some impacts and
what is our control over that?
Ms. French: I would start by saying we haven’t gotten word from Ciardella’s that they are
operating. I might ask Ciardella’s if you are interested in hearing a response from them on what
they are doing out there. There is a possibility that they are performing work for CalTrans.
Commissioner Burt: If I might clarify, there is a distinction between whether they are selling
goods, which I think we should get that clarification I am not necessarily assuming that they are,
and occupying with all the materials that are what they will subsequently sell and the impacts of
bringing those materials in and storing them there may be almost no substantial difference
between those acts and the selling. So what I am concerned about is the impacts that are actually
occurring are they ones that we have authority to control and authorize and make sure that they
are not detrimental, have we authorized it, and to what extent are these impacts construction
impacts versus occupancy impacts even though they may not yet be selling goods.
Mr. Williams: There are two differences there. One is temporary moving-in versus the longer
term. The temporary moving-in if they are having impacts I have to believe we have control
over that in terms of it is within the city limits and if there is dust or whatever we can control it.
We have not authorized it from the standpoint of issuing any kind of permit. I think we have
been hopeful that CalTrans had essentially the site ready for them to move into and that moving-
in was a fairly benign process. Maybe it is not as benign as we considered and we need to be
sure that we are minimizing these impacts now during this process as well as after they operate.
I think our hope was that there wouldn’t be this kind of impact with the move-in process. They
are in a position where first because of the moving the water treatment facility and then because
CalTrans had a construction person on their site longer than anticipated that didn’t allow
Ciardella’s to move any sooner that things are moving quickly and not all the I’s are getting
dotted and T’s crossed.
Commissioner Burt: I am not necessarily blaming Ciardella’s because it needs of Palo Alto as a
community that caused them to need to move. But from these photographs this does not look
benign and if the adjacent neighbor is a paper company it seems like we have an issue and maybe
we as a City need to be as proactive as possible in helping all parties. But there is something
Page 10 of 85
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
amiss here it appears and I have a problem proceeding because we seem to be skipping over a
whole bunch of critical aspects of this.
Mr. Larkin: I was just going to say I think that it is quite possible that there is a code
enforcement issue that is independent of whether or not GM zone is a proper zone for this site.
Certainly if there are things going on that require permits and there is no permit that is a code
enforcement issue under ordinary circumstances the permits wouldn’t begin and this wouldn’t
begin to happen until after the land use issues were resolved. Due to factors beyond peoples’
control the carts seems to have been put in front of the horse and I think there might be some
code enforcement actions or an investigation that needs to take place.
Commissioner Burt: I would just like to add a comment that I hope in this circumstance if there
are things that have gone out of sequence, cart ahead of the horse, that because the City has had a
role in driving these actions with consequences that were perhaps unforeseen that the effort we
take is one of trying to help all parties as opposed to dropping a hammer on parties.
Mr. Larkin: Code enforcement is a hard word but it is only one I know but certainly most code
enforcement doesn’t end up with penalties but with proactive solutions to help resolve problems.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber.
Vice-Chair Garber: I used to have two simple questions but now I need to sort a couple of things
out. Going back first to Amy that there are two states that we are dealing with here. The first
state is that something is happening to a piece of property that is under consideration for a zone
change and that is separate unto itself. There is the next state, which is that some project would
like to happen in that future state which is in this new zoning. To Commissioner Burt’s point
something is happening sort of aside from either of those two things and that is that there is
something happening on the site, which is not benign and is creating a nuisance. There may be a
question as to whether it falls underneath a building inspection or just simply a public nuisance
and the police are called out and something is stopped. Relative to an occupancy permit, an
occupancy permit I believe, you can correct me if I am wrong, cannot be issued until somebody
is actually occupying the site at which point Building and Fire go through and determine whether
the occupancy meets the allowable use underneath the given zoning that it happens to be in at
that time. So what I guess what I see here is not that this is an exception in any way that in fact it
is going through all the right paths or the right gates so to speak, the exception is the attention
that we are giving it because things happening onsite before the work is actually permitted
happens all the time and the people doing it do it at risk that once the work is permitted they have
to undo or redo something to make it be permittable. Again, the added issue here is that stuff is
happening that is causing people to be upset with their actions. That all said, if that all is
straight, I need to be reminded of one thing and that is that the change in zoning that we are
changing the site to is that the same or different than what is adjacent to it right now.
Ms. French: It is the same.
Page l 1 of 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
!9
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
Vice-Chair Garber: So it is the same. Then two, there is nothing about the this particular site
because of its ownership by CalTrans that causes it to be an exception to any of the standard
rules, regulations, building code, etc. for any other site. That is correct?
Mr. Williams: That is correct.
Vice-Chair Garber: There is nothing different about it.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Vice-Chair Garber: Because a number of the things that we are dealing with here which are a
problem now don’t require exceptional mitigations they are prerequisites to doing that work
anyway. The only thing that is the exception here is that stuff is happening and it needs to be
dealt with before all that other stuff comes into place. Okay, so those are my two simple
questions.
I am not making a motion this instant but I will hopefully in a moment. Let me then make a
proposal to my fellow Commissioners that I make a motion about changing the zone and then we
then entertain a second motion to deal with the various issues, which are occurring right now,
and those become suggestions for the Council to consider at a later date. You can give me a
head nod or somebody else can discuss it or whatever else.
Mr. Larkin: The remaining issues, the only thing that is on the agenda for tonight is the rezone.
So if there are suggestions that Commissioners want to make they can make it on their comments
to the motion but it is not a separate motion.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Garber: Thank you for the clarification in which case if I may, Chair, I will make a
motion.
I move that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council
adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve rezoning from Public Facilities
District, PF, to General Manufacturing District, GM, for the approximately 1.81 acres of land at
1001 San Antonio Road. Further, that we recommend to the City Council the approval of a
Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Light Industrial for these lands, which currently
have no designation.
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert: Second.
Chair Holman: Motion by Vice-Chair Garber and second by Commissioner Lippert.
Comnaissioner Garber do you care to speak to your motion?
Page 12 of 85
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
Vice-Chair Garber: I think I already have. I think the issues that we are hearing about what is
happening at the site need to be addressed but outside of the context of addressing the zone
change.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: I concur with my collea~,ue s comments but I want to add a couple of
other comments here. I think that with regard to the concerns of the neighbors I think that there
are two things going on here. The first one ...
Chair Holman: IfI might suggest, let’s deal with the zone change and Comprehensive Plan
change and the concerns maybe we address separately unless you think they are really relevant to
the motion to do the zone change.
Commissioner Lippert: I think it is relevant to the memos and the questions that have been
raised and discussed and questions asked during this clarification.
Chair Holman: City Attorney, I would like your suggestion. Could we deal with the motion to
do the zone change and then subsequently so that we are more cohesively dealing with them deal
with the recommendations or suggestions we would like to make?
Mr. Larkin: Well, recommendations wouldn’t necessarily be formal recommendations because it
is not agendized. What my suggestion would be, I think this might be where Commissioner
Lippert was going, is he wants to approve the zone change with the understanding that certain
things are going to be taken care of prior to the use under the zoning. I think that would be an
appropriate way to address the issue. The issues related to the extraneous problems that aren’t
directly related to the zone change they are not on the agenda so it is only in the context of the
zone change that they would be addressed.
Chair Holman: Right, we are sort of talking around this I think. I was trying to get a vote up on
down on the zone change and then subsequent to that vote then address the concerns that
Commissioners have been addressing during the course of this discussion.
Mr. Larkin: The problem is that those concerns are only relevant in the context of the zone
change so that is how they are available for you to talk about.
Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. Given that Commissioner Lippert I come back to you.
Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. I believe that there are two things going on here. Number
one is that the applicant in this case has gotten sort of a jump on the zoning change here and what
I think is relevant here, and maybe the City Attorney can add to this, is that the state agency,
CalTrans in this case, has authority to do whatever they want on their lands providing it is them
actually doing the work themselves. Once it changes to Ciardella’s or the applicant doing the
work themselves what happens is that they are taking de facto possession of the land as though
they are operating on those lands. The example that I can give you is two-fold. Number one
would be the Pa!o Alto Unified School District, which is exempt from local regulation. As long
Page 13 of 85
1 as they are operating a public school out of one of their facilities they answer to the Office of
2 Local Assistance and the State Architect’s Office with regard to their development. The minute
3 that the school district leases those facilities out to a private entity be it a community center or a
4 school or it becomes another public facility it falls under the purview of the City of Palo Alto and
5 is subject to the rules and regulations of the City. So in this case if the State of California and
6 CalTrans has in fact turned over the site to Ciardella’s whether it is being used for a public
7 facility or for the GM zone we have every right to scrutinize whatever activities are going on
8 there.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
.3.3
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Now, the second part of that has to do with the photographs that were provided to us today.
CalTrans actually has best management practices that are very similar to the City of Palo Alto.
They are not identical but I have worked with them in the past and in fact some municipalities
that can’t afford to write their best management practices quote or cite the CalTrans best
management practices. This is actually done at county level quite often. So while they are not
absolutely identical they are similar enough that they are enforceable and applicable to our own
best management practices. What I believe is that the best management practices in fact are not
being followed and they are not being enforced by CalTrans, and in fact it is being noticed by the
neighbors and perhaps it is a code enforcement issue.
Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: First I would like to ask two hypothetical questions. The first question is
let us suppose that Ciardella’s were to move into an existing property already zoned. In other
words, that we weren’t going through a zoning process but that they were going into a property
that had already been zoned the way we were proposing to zone this property. In that case at
what point in time would the architectural review be going in, and at what point in time would
the permit application happen, and at what point in time would they start doing grading and start
putting concrete things up or whatever they are doing now? So what I am wondering is what
would the timeline be under that circumstance?
Mr. Williams: They would come in and get their permits and then they would begin grading and
then request any building permits associated with the entitlement.
Commissioner Keller: So what I am hearing from you and correct me if I am wrong is that if
they were moving into an ordinary already zoned site then their construction process is
happening actually in advance of what would normally happen. Is that correct in terms of the
normal permit process?
Mr. Williams: Right that is what is happening here.
Commissioner Keller: Right.
Mr. Williams: Again, we anticipated it was CalTrans that was going to be doing work out there
not Ciardella’s but yes.
Page 14 of 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2t
22,,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: Okay. The second hypothetical question is suppose we decide, now I am
not saying we are going to do this and I don’t think we are going to do this, but suppose we were
to decide that the dust or whatever nuisance was going on is such that it would be an
incompatible use and we decide to vote no on the recommendation for rezoning and the City
Council were to decide not to rezone. What then happens?
Mr. Williams: We direct them to move off the site.
Commissioner Keller: Okay.
Mr. Williams: I did want to note, following up a little bit on some of the discussion of the
motion and City Attorney can correct me if I am going a little too far with it, it seems that maybe
if your motion in terms of zoning included directing that the site be brought into compliance with
our regulations before the Council considers the rezoning or something like that that might be
broad enough to provide direction as well as put some limitation on how long this can go on.
Mr. Larkin: That could be done as a recommendation to Council.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber.
Vice-Chair Garber: A question on that recommendation or suggestion by Staff. Would that give
Staff/City any other power that it wouldn’t normally have to address these issues?
Mr. Williams: No, but it would I think provide direction to the applicant that that was something
they needed to quickly and seriously address before moving onto Council and satisfying the
neighbors, working together with the neighbors to get that taken care of.
Vice-Chair Garber: Does that make sense?
Mr. Larkin: It is fine.
Vice-Chair Garber: I would be happy to entertain a friendly amendment.
Chair Holman: Perhaps you can offer the friendly amendment. Staff do you want to just restate
what you said and then ....
Commissioner Lippert: I will offer it as the seconder of the motion I offer a friendly amendment
that a recommendation be forwarded to Council that the site be brought into compliance as part
of this process.
Chair Holman: Does the maker accept that?
Vice-Chair Garber: Yes.
Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Burt.
Page 15 of 85
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 Burt: First a clarifying question. What would happen during the period of time
between now and when it goes to Council? We seem to have some issues that are currently
occurring. What is the intention of either the Staff or the makers of the motion on how that
would be addressed?
Chair Holman: I think City Attorney said that for lack of a better term it is code enforcement
issue now. Do I understand correctly?
Mr. Larkin: I think Staff will need to go back and determine what is happening on the site.
Mr. Williams: I think the intent is to move as quickly as we possibly can to resolve these issues
and get the site cleaned up and the neighbors satisfied regardless of the Council date and that
issue. Just in terms of the motion since the motion is going to the Council that is why we
suggested tying that other part of it to the Council action.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber.
Vice-Chair Garber: Question again. I suspect but I would look to your direction that to make
this action contingent upon these issues being satisfied you wouldn’t be able to do that legally
because they are two separate topics. Is that a correct understanding?
Mr. Larkin: Well, I think the way that the motion is currently phrased is adequate. The message
is clear.
Chair Holman: Amy, did you have something to add?
Ms. French: I guess being in a rock and a hard place position to be able to clarify that when we
are talking about the code enforcement we are talking about kind of nuisance issues at this point
because to have the entire site brought into compliance it is like a chicken-egg problem. We
want to do architectural review but that is not going to happen between now and the Council.
We can’t approve those things. We just have to kind of deal with the nuisance items between
now and then.
Chair Holman: Understood. I think Commissioner Lippert was next and then Commissioner
Burt.
Mr. Larkin: I just want to clarify that Staff isn’t saying at this point that there is a nuisance. This
has been brought to our attention and we need to investigate.
Commissioner Lippert: I don’t want to speak for the applicant or Staff in this case but I think
what we are dealing with is a relatively simple thing. There are a couple of practices that do
need to go on onsite. One would be watering the site and you see as you drive past on the
freeway you see these elevated tanker trucks that are on stilts. It is there to water the site so that
you don’t have the dust and debris blowing up and migrating. That is one. Then the second
thing that is relatively simple is that cyclone fencing with again you see it with like a drift net, it
¯ is like a scrim that has been applied, also helps in ternas of keeping the dust from migrating. So
Page 16 of 85
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
it is a relatively simple thing. It is something that is in the best management practices for the
State of California, and frankly that is one of the reasons why I support the motion. I think we
can go ahead with this.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: The other thing besides that clarifying question the other issues that I
wanted to raise have to do with the Negative Declaration. That is part of the motion is to
approve that. As I look through it and I haven’t given the new information that we have had
tonight, I haven’t had an opportunity to go review all aspects of it, but just under Section C, the
Air Quality aspects that start on page 5 of the Negative Declaration. Just so everybody knows
that is Attachment G in the Staff Report. One is whether it meets the air quality plan under C-a.
Second, under C-e is create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In
each case we have it listed as no impact. Then finally under C-g, it is odd nomenclature, it says
the project would not implement all applicable construction emission control measures
recommended by the Air Quality District and once again it is listed as no impact. I have a hard
time seeing that given the information that we have been provided that now we would consider
this Negative Declaration to be accurate. It might have been thought to be accurate before we
had the reality that we have information on but given this I don’t see how we can find that there
are no impacts. So that is something that I guess I need an explanation on.
The other comment that would go with that is that as I think about this site our inclination I think
would be to compare the occupant and the uses at their former site to this new site. I presume
that that was a point of reference and in ordinary circumstances that would be completely valid.
As a day like today exhibits the old site is sheltered for the most part and this new site is highly
exposed. So all of these potentials for airborne particles are highly exaggerated at the new site
over what the same use was at the old site. That is not necessarily the new occupant’s fault or
anybody’s but it is something that we now have to face up to or may have to face up to as a
change from what was anticipated when we said that there was a Negative Declaration with no
impact. So can I get feedback on the thoughts of whether these assertions in the Negative
Declaration we would still feel comfortable with them given what we now see has occurred.
When we make a Negative Declaration we are anticipating what would happen. Because of this
unusual sequence we actually have right now the opportunity while we are approving a Negative
Declaration to see the impacts of both construction and some of the occupancy. Even though
they are not to our knowledge selling goods they are storing the very goods that are what would
be potential impacts under the occupancy. So we have visibility we wouldn’t ordinarily have we
would be guessing whereas now we have a reality that we are facing.
Mr. Williams: Right, but we don’t have the mitigation measures in effect that we would have
under the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which we believe would address these issues. With
the exception I would say of the odors because I don’t think we had something in there about the
odors. The first item you mentioned about the air plan is a region-wide air plan that isn’t specific
enough to say that this project would violate it. What we have done is focused on, and this is
typical in terms of the projects that create dust generally, is that we identify it as potentially
significant unless mitigation is incorporated with the item D of exposing sensitive receptors to
Page 17 of 85
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
substantial levels of toxic air contaminates and in response to that have provided mitigation
measures like dust control, covering of trucks, and various other features that in standard practice
as Mr. Lippert was saying will address these issues even on this more exposed site. So we are
comfortable with this we are just in a situation right now where somebody is not doing the
mitigation measures that we prescribed. Again, I do think it probably is worthwhile under the
odors one to note that we should address that one as well and provide measures to minimize
odors.
Chair Holman: If I might also, we are running into this thing, which we do sometimes, of there
is a difference between the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the zone change and the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. I think it is very easy to go into that trap, if you
will, but the impacts of this dust are not the impacts of the zone change. It is the impacts of work
going on at the site, which environmental analysis actually hasn’t been done.
Commissioner Burt: If I might clarify. Some of them are construction and some of them
actually appear to be use. So those that are use are a separate subject. So if we have a garden
supply use that is in a new GM zone, or potentially a new GM zone, and that GM zone is out
exposed. What we have in a garden supply, it is not just garden it is also certain landscape
construction supply is we have materials that are only partially contained. So we have
requirements that may or may not be getting followed on the construction aspects but once we
are in the use those same materials that have to be brought in in a covered truck then are stored in
an uncovered manner, potentially. If it is in an open windy area I am just not sure that we have
no impact here. This is part of what is a permitted use in a GM zone and in this particular GM
zone it may be more acute impacts even then other portions of that same GM zone district. So
those are the things I am struggling with.
Chair Holman: Maybe Staff could help because I would like to move this along. Your points
are well made and I did something kind of in the reverse of this just recently on a project. Staff
correct me where I go astray here, we are not changing the zone to garden use we are changing
the zone to GM. So while garden use is one of the allowed uses if Staff could answer one
question we might be able to move along on this. Should there be a determination that a garden
use is not an appropriate use at this location in a GM zone what would happen? Again, because
impacts could not be mitigated.
Ms. French: This use is a permitted use within the GM zone. So there isn’t a conditional use
permit. I think the physical treatment of the site to address potential mitigations is the way to
handle it.
Chair Holman: That is where my question goes.
Ms. French: So having some kind of covering system, which would be proposed in an
architectural review application, would be one system of dealing with site conditions.
Chair Holman: So essentially if it were determined that the impacts of a garden supply use could
not be mitigated because the environmental evaluation has to be done then what would happen?
Although it is a permitted use you still have to do environmental analysis, right?
Page 18 of 85
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
Ms. French: Yes, in this case it would be architectural review because it is a permitted use. I
guess the argument that you are looking at is we are looking at zoning it GM. If GM’s list of
uses that are allowed in GM that includes this general business services there is a whole range of
types of businesses, in this case CalTrans doesn’t have an interest in long-term leases with
people it is year-to-year. That is what Ciardella’s is getting a year-to-year lease. So I think they
are not going to want to have permanent buildings put out there. So the best that could be done
with a garden use like this is to look at ways of doing temporary mitigation, coverings or what
have you, to deal with the wind conditions on the site.
Chair Holman: So the mitigation measures would have to identified and applied or?
Ms. French: Then it would be subject to an environmental review and then if it were an EIR, if it
were overriding consideration to put Ciardella’s on the site for instance, that would go all the
way up to Planning Commission and Council.
Chair Holman: What I am trying to get at is if we can get past the zone change, the
environmental impacts of any landscape supply place there would be addressed and would have
to be addressed. So does that?
Commissioner Burt: I am not sure it does address my concerns because what we have in the
motion is acceptance of the Negative Declaration. If the Negative Declaration declares no
impact rather than one of the higher thresholds and it is looking like it is potentially significant
unless mitigation incorporated or potentially significant issues that we are talking about here and
instead it is two or three checkmarks below that as no impact when we have right in front of us
that there is an impact. So we have a problem with the checklist.
Then when we check things we have then a list of discussion and a list of mitigations but those
mitigations aren’t in the Negative Declaration because the checklist doesn’t seem to accurately
identify the impacts.
Chair Holman: Curtis.
Mr. Williams: I can try one more time here. We believe the mitigation measures are in here.
You may be right, we are happy to check off potentially significant unless mitigation
incorporated for E and G, two of the items that Commissioner Burt brought up. I think E, you
are right, we need to develop a mitigation for odors. All the air quality ones there are mitigation
measures 2, 3, 4, and 5, and 2 is a lot of covering, and windbreaks, and dirt piles, watering, and
soil stabilizers, non-toxic soil-stabilizers, a spray system, and then measure 4 is all the standard
dust control covers, and watering, and such. Five is having a responsible person for all of those.
We believe that those will mitigate everything other than the odor although it probably will help
a lot with the odor too if we have covers and watering and that kind of thing. So we can
strengthen that from the odor standpoint. We kind of thought we were covering it with checking
D as potentially significant because crosses boundaries but if it is preferable to check E and G as
well that is fine. We should be more careful about those and acknowledging that they potentially
do have significant impacts rather than just saying no impact.
Page 19 of 85
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 Burt: So under mitigation measure 3 when it talks about installing windbreaks
around dirt piles and other stockpiled particulate matter does that address covering them? These
are generally three-sided enclosures up to a certain height where you store different materials and
some of those are potentially significant particulates in a windy area. I just want to make sure I
understand, the way I read it it didn’t sound like it necessarily was going to contain the wind
impact of those materials that simply a three-sided enclosure does not necessarily address those
concerns.
Ms. French: We are certainly looking forward to seeing Ciardella’s proposal to meet this
mitigation measure that would include covers to address - this is intended to ask Ciardella’s to
provide solutions to address this mitigation measure in their ARB application.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, if that is clearly the intention then we have a separate issue of what
happens between now and then. I am glad to hear it. I don’t see that clarity in what is written
here.
Ms. French: I am happy to move the checks over into the potentially significant category. No
problem.
Commissioner Burt: Not just the checks but the mitigations.
Mr. Williams: Also the cover issue I think we can expand this. It is talking about covering
trucks in number 4 and I think we should talk about piles of materials as well.
Commissioner Burt: Including piles in the semi-enclosed circumstances.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Commissioner Burt: Those are the sorts of things I am concerned with. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller and Commissioner Lippert. If you have significant things
to add to the discussion otherwise let’s try to wrap up.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Two things, one is it was my understanding that Ciardella’s
was agreeable to these mitigation measures and number 4 indicates minimization of dust during
construction as well as shall be in effect during the operations. There seems to be construction
going on and the mitigation measures do not appear to be adequate in this case. So I have
concerns with the extent to which the mitigation measures should be going on now considering
that Ciardella’s has accepted them.
The second thing is with respect to this site there is a nice windbreak of trees along San Antonio
that covers part of the adjacent area but does not go all the way and perhaps planting some tall
vegetation nearby might reduce some of the winds. I am assuming that the ARB will take that
into account but to the extent that issues like that can be considered by Ciardella’s in the
Page 20 of 85
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
preparation because of this unusual situation of work going on in advance of approval that seems
worthwhile considering. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a question. How does the Zoning Ordinance deal with odors? Is
it specifically mentioned in the Zoning Ordinance as something that is permitted within the GM
zone?
Chair Holman: IfI might while you are looking that up.
Commissioner Lippert: Actually, I have something else.
Chair Holman: Okay, Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. In addition to that I just want a clarification that it is not
construction that is actually going on there is grading going on which is distinct and different
from construction. I believe that grading permits and construction permits are quite distinct and
different.
Ms. French: Grading permits are handled through the Public Works Staff versus construction,
which is handled through Building Staff.
Mr. Williams: The performance criteria that we have in the code specifically talks about for all
commercial industrial uses it may be objectionable by reason of production of emissions of odor,
smoke, dust, or other similar air contaminants. The applicant shall provide information showing
proposed methods to minimize those contaminants.
Commissioner Lippert: So that is embodied in the Zoning Ordinance itself.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Commissioner Lippert: So I guess what I would do is I would entertain or ask Commissioner
Burt if he wants that changed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to offer that as an
amendment to the motion.
Commissioner Burt: Specifically to offer what again?
Commissioner Lippert: Changing those points that were made that Staff offered to make.
Commissioner Burt: Yes, I think we can incorporate Staff’s statements on those aspects without
restating them. That would be great.
If I might ask also was there a grading permit granted and is that being overseen by Public
Works?
Page 21of85
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. French: Nope.
Chair Holman: Now again because it hasn’t been rezoned it is not in the City’s permitting
jurisdiction at this moment.
Ms. French: Yes, CalTrans has approved their engineered grading plans and placement of rock
on the site. That is who approved what is out there now.
Commissioner Burt: Two questions. Are the grading actions that go beyond what CalTrans has
permitted? Second, does the City of Palo Alto have an authority and responsibility to control
grading separately from whatever the CalTrans may grant as the owners of the property? Do we
have a jurisdictional authority and responsibility?
Ms. French: Yes, we have our Public Works engineering looking at this. They are concerned
about the C-3 requirements, making sure because it is greater than an acre that we have all of the
storm water pollution protection plans in place, which may be handled by a bioswail, may be
handled by a storm drain inserts. There are things that we will be requiring associated with the
architectural review and operations of this use on the site that we are going to be in control of
despite the fact that they have under CalTrans authorization placed what they have done on the
site.
Commissioner Burt: So then again we have two aspects to it. We have the operational impacts
of the grading and we have the construction impacts of the grading. Is the construction grading
complete?
Mr. Williams: We need to investigate what is happening out there and who is doing what. I
don’t "know if it is complete or not but if Ciardella’s is doing the work out there, and it sounds
like they are, they should not be doing that without permit. Whatever is out there now should be
cleaned up and covered and watered and whatever so we don’t continue to have problems on it
until they get their permits in place. Again, we originally thought that all that was happening
was CalTrans doing their work on the site and then Ciardella’s moving equipment in there not
Ciardella’s grading on the site. So we have to look into that.
Commissioner Burt: Maybe this is a question for the City Attorney, is it appropriate or
permissible for the applicant to agree to the Commission tonight in order for us to move forward
that we are not going to have additional actions that may be in violation of our permit
requirements?
Mr. Larkin: It is somewhat beyond the scope of what is going on tonight although I certainly
understand the concern. If the Commission wants to ask the applicant questions they said they
were here and available to answer.
Chair Holman: Public comment is still open I did not close it. So if it is permissible we could
ask that question and maybe we could finalize this. Commissioner Burt, did you want to ask that
question?
Page 22 of 85
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
Commissioner Burt: Yes, if the applicant would offer clarifications on these issues that have
been raised.
Mr. Jellins: Thank you very much. This was a very interesting conversation!discussion. I
admire your work and thoroughness in addressing these many issues. With respect to the
conditions identified by the neighbor let’s bear in mind that Ciardella’s has been on the site for
less than a month. In fact about 15 to 20 days. Yesterday and today were the windiest days that
we have had since then. They have been watering the site. It is an unusual condition and
certainly they will attend to maintenance of the site in a manner that creates as little disruption as
possible to the neighboring property owners, let us assure you of that.
With respect to the operations and the construction that has taken place at the site the work was
done with the approval and oversight of CalTrans by a CalTrans approved contractor. All the
work was done within the scope of the engineered grading plan submitted and approved by
CalTrans and overseen by their engineers.
With respect to further operations at the site certainly Ciardella’s intends to comply and be
responsive to the requirements of the City of Palo Alto, Public Works Department, and
Engineering Department.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Mr. Jellins, has there been any work beyond grading like construction of
any bins or anything of that nature?
Mr. Jellins: The bins as indicated in the Staff Report and in particular indicated in the responses
to the third page of the response memo received by the Planning Commission this evening the
movement of the bins and the location of the materials onsite is in the nature of temporary
storage pending review and hopefully approval by the City of Palo Alto of these various actions
that it is now undertaking.
Commissioner Keller: I am confused. Have there actually been vertical structures on the site?
Mr. Jellins: The bins were moved from the East Bayshore location to the current location and
may have been erected. That is correct.
Commissioner Keller: Are those freestanding bins or are they sort of constructed in some way?
Mr. Jellins: They are what are known as concrete lego blocks.
Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Seeing no other questions for the applicant I will close the public
comment. Thank you Mr. Jellins very much.
Mr. Jellins: Thank you.
Page 23 of 85
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
Chair Holman: So Commissioners, are we ready to? One last question, Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Yes. To what extent does constructing the concrete lego blocks or
whatever require a permit from the City if it were appropriately zoned?
Ms. French: I don’t believe the building blocks in themselves require a building permit.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
Commissioner Lippert: Actually, there is a clarification to that. I believe anything under six feet
is not considered a structure.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, Commissioner Tuma conflicted)
Chair Holman: So I will make just the following comment before we vote on this. It is an
unusual situation and rather an unfortunate situation actually in many regards in terms of timing
and indeed when I first came on the Commission one of the first projects we reviewed was the
levee project going behind where the 30-year old Ciardella’s location was. We did everything
we could at that time, Commissioner Burt will remember, to see that Ciardella’s ~vas allowed to
stay where they were including that some mitigation measures were being proposed for the
Ciardella’s site that would force them to move and we moved the mitigation measures to another
location again to allow them to stay. So when this project came in front of us and Ciardella’s
was going to have to move because of a pump station being put on the site I was certainly
surprised and dismayed I have to say. So it is an unfortunate situation and further exacerbated
again the timing because CalTrans didn’t vacate in a timely enough fashion and now we have a
situation because of that that there are mitigation measures haven’t been put into place because
the City hasn’t had the purview that in a perfect situation that it would. So it has been an unusual
and challenging situation for all parties. So I am hoping that Ciardella’s will hang in there. I am
hoping that the neighbors will continue to raise issues that are reasonable and rational as they
have and that those can be mitigated and that everybody can be good neighbors. Not to be a
Polly Anna you are going to be neighbors in all likelihood and I wish City Staff the best of luck
in getting this resolved.
So with that we will vote on the motion as stated previously to approve the zoning change, the
Comprehensive Plan change, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration as commented on by
Commissioners. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? So that passes on a six to zero
vote with Commissioner Tuma not participating.
Thank you all very much. Thank you Staff. Thank you applicant and members of the public for
coming and offering your help in this project.
A five-minute break while we set up. Thank you.
Page 24 of 85
ATTACHMENT F
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request by Ciardella’s Garden Supply on behalf of Caltrans for rezoning from Public Facilities District
(PF) to General Manufacturing District (GM) and a Comprehensive Plan amendment to apply a land use
designation of Light Industrial (no designation currently exists) for 1.81 acres of land. The rezoning will
allow Ciardella’s to locate and operate a garden supply center on the site. The project reviewed by the
City of Palo Alto for this Initial Study does not include the physica! improvements authorized by
Caltrans and recently installed on the site.
PROJECT TITLE
Rezoning and Land Use Designation of 1001 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto, California
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Amy French
Manager of Current Planning
City of Palo Alto
650-329-2552
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
Ciardella’s Garden Supply on behalf of
State of California Department of Transportation
111 Grand Avenue
Oakland, CA 94612
APPLICATION NUMBER
07-PLN-00276
o PROJECT LOCATION
Caltrans Property
1001 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration
o
0
The project site is Caltrans property located at 1001 San Antonio Road at the southwest corner of
the CalTrans right-of-way at San Antonio Avenue and U.S. Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway),
north of Transport Road.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
There is no existing General Plan land use designation for the site.
Light Industrial.
The proposed designation is
ZONING
The site is zoned Public Facilities, regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.32.
The proposed zoning, GM (General Manufacturing) is regulated by PAMC Chapter 18.20.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the rezoning from Public Facilities District (PF) to General Manufacturing District
(GM) for approximately 1.81 acres of land at 1001 San Antonio Road. Additionally, the project
includes approval of a resolution for a comprehensive plan land use designation of Light
Industrial for these lands, which currently have no designation. Such designations would allow
for general business service use of the site. Ciardella’s intends to operate their garden supply
business on the site.
11.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The property is surrounded on two sides (north and northeast) by lands owned by the State of
California and in use as Highway 101 right of way areas, and on another two sides (west and
south) by San Antonio Road. To the east immediately adjacent to the project site is 4007-4009
Transport Street, developed with a commercial building.
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
*County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
¯State of California, Department of Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
[A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show
that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).]
2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-leve!, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration
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 hnpact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4)"(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies
where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3)
(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8)The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur
if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the
answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the
basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential
significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration
a)
b)
c)
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Have a substantial adverse effect on a
public view or view corridor?
Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings ~vithin
a state scenic highway’?
d)Violate existing Comprehensive Plan
policies regarding visual resources?
e)Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which xvould adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Substantially shadow public open space
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) betxveen 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21 ?
Sources
1,2,6, 10
1,
2-Map L4
2-Map L4
1,2,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The approval of the zone change wil! allow Ciardella’s to operate a garden supply business on the site.
Phys!cal improvements associated with non-public use of the Caltrans site would be subject to the City’s
approval of an Architectural Review application. With architectural review by the City, the physical
improvements to the site reviewed and authorized by Caltrans will not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. Mitigation measure #1 requires submittal of an
Architectural Review application for structures and landscaping on the site, to address the potential
visual impacts.
The applicant has not proposed lighting of the site to be rezoned. Any security lighting which may be
proposed for the Ciardella’s Garden Supply should be reviewed in conjunction with the Architectural
Review application. It is not anticipated that site lighting would create a significant impact, as standard
conditions of approval require lighting fixtures to be downward directional to prevent significant light
pollution offsite.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure #1: Prior to issuance of building permits and commencement of operations on the
site, the applicant shall submit an Architectural Review application to the City for review of the physical
improvements associated with the garden supply business.
B.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c)Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultura! use?
Sources
1,91
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
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 Progam
of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by
the Williamson Act.
Mitigation Measures:
None
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
a)
Would the project:
1,6
Conflict with or obstruct with implementation
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and!or indirect operational
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 punds per day
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PM~0);
ii.Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO)
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
b) X
1,6
X
No
Impact
X
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
c)
Would the project:
Sources
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour (as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or ~vould cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
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 ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels
of toxic air contaminants?
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI)
exceeds 10 in one million
ii.Ground-level concentrations of non-
carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the
MEI
Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Not implement all applicable construction
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air QualiO, Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
1,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
d)
1,6 X
X
X
e) X
1,6
g)1, 6 X
DISCUSSION:
¯The City of Palo Alto uses the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD)
thresholds of significance for air quality impacts.
Construction Impacts: The rezoning would allow for the use of the site for general business services.
Associated with this rezoning is the establishment of Ciardella’s Garden Supply, which would involve
grading and other activities which could cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26107 Page 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration
particulate matter (PM10). The creation of the garden supply center on the site would be subject to the
City’s standard conditions of approval related to dust control:
The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust
related construction impacts:
¯All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily.
¯All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet
of freeboard.
¯All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept
and watered daily.
¯Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a
demolition permit.
¯Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
Dust related impacts from construction are considered potentially significant but may be mitigated with
the application of the standard dust control measures listed above. Construction equipment would also
emit NOx and ROC. However, in order for emissions from construction equipment to be considered
significant, the project must involve the extensive use of construction equipment over a long period of
time. Based on the size of the proposed project, emissions of NOx and ROC are anticipated to be less
than significant.
Long Term Inapacts: Long-term project emissions would stem from motor vehicles and from storage
and transport of materials associated with the use of the site by Ciardella’s as a garden supply center. As
discussed in the Transportation/Traffic section of this Initial Study, use of the site by Ciardella’s is not
expected to result in a significant number of new vehicle trips. Long-term air-quality impacts from
traffic are expected to be less than significant. Ciardella’s intends to fence the site, and the fence would
be shown on drawings for Architectural Review by the City. A solid wall or fence would reduce the
amount of wind blown dust emissions leaving the site. Ciardella’s maintains a fire hose on site and
intends to install sprinklers at the end of the storage bins to provide regular watering. Impacts from dust
produced in association with stored and transported materials would be reduced to an insignificant level
(virtually no fugitive emissions) with proper watering. Ciardella’s currently minimize the free fall
distance of transferred materials and intends to continue this practice. Ciardella’s currently covers all
truck loads in an appropriate manner and removes soil from vehicles and equipment leaving the site and
intends to continue to do so. There is a gavel bed on the Caltrans site. Ciardella’s intends to install
pavers at the driveway entrance to the site to minimize the amount of dust and dirt leaving the site.
Mitigation measures 2 - 5 below address these potential impacts:
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure #2: The applicant shall submit a site improvement plan in conjunction with the
Architectural Review application. The plans shall include a solid wall or fence of between five and
eight feet in height, and the fence shall be installed in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code
18.20.040(f)(1)C, which shall reduce wind blown dust.
Mitigation Measure #3: In order to reduce wind blown dust emissions, the applicant shall (a) cover and
install wind breaks around and covers on dirt piles and other stockpiled particulate matter, (b) water
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration
and/or employ soil stabilizers, (c) incorporate the use of non-toxic soil stabilizers according to
manufacturer’s specifications to all inactive areas of the site, including all unpaved roads and
employee/equipment parking areas. When water is used, a water spray system shall be installed,
moisture content in soil and other particulate stockpiles shall be high enough to eliminate PM-10
"fugitive" emissions (wind-blown dust that could otherwise escape into the surrounding air) and
concrete debris shall be kept damp on the surface.
Mitigation Measure #4: City standard conditions for minimization of dust during construction shall be
in effect for duration of the operations of Ciardella’s on the subject site. Truck loads of dirt, sand or
other loose material shall be covered as required, any transfer processes involving a free fall of soil or
other particulate matter shall be operated in such a manner as to minimize the free fall distance and
fugitive dust emissions, and active work areas (e.g. where soil handling is underway) shall be watered at
least twice daily and more frequently as needed to prevent generation of dust. If soil material is carried
out onto the public right of way, Ciardella’s will be required to address the problem.
Mitigation Measure #5: The applicant shall designate a person or persons responsible for Ciardella’s
dust control measures, and clearly post on the exterior wall or fence of the facilities a company
telephone number for citizens to call with dust, noise, or other operational complaints.
Mitigation Measure #3 will also address the potential impacts for obiectionable odors, to a less than
si~aificant impact.
D.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department ofFish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, including federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native xvildlife nursery sites?
Conflict xvith any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
l~2-
M apN 1
1,2-
MapN1
2-MapN 1
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
d)
X
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration
No
Impact
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
e)
Would the project:
preservation policy or as defined by the City of
Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.10)?
Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Sources
1,3,6, 8
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION:
The project site includes several existing trees. It has not been found by Caltrans, in conjunction with
their environmental analysis of the site, that there is tree habitat for the candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in the area. No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects and plant
species have been identified at this site by Caltrans. The erosion control plan associated with use of
the site by Ciardella’s includes protection measures for existing, on-site trees. The establishment of
Ciardetla’s on the site is not anticipated to have any adverse impact on biological resources and will
require no mitigation. Ciardella’s intends to submit a landscape plan including landscaping for areas
of the site that are not work areas. The architectural review application requirements include the
submittal of a landscape plan including existing vegetation to be retained and protected and new
plantings and ground cover. Per the standard approval conditions of architectural review approval,
the project would result in a less than si~aificant impact to biological resources.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure #6: A landscape plan to be submitted in conjunction with the Architectural Review
application, shall indicate trees to be retained and protected, screen plantings, and ground cover on the
site where feasible. The approved plan shall be incorporated into the building permit drawings.
E.CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
a)Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d)Disturb any human remains, including those
Sources
1,2-
MapL8
1,2-
MapL8
1,2-
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 9 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources -Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
interred outside of formal cemeteries?MapL8 X
e)Adversely affect a historic resource listed or
eligible for listing on the National and/or X
California Register, or listed on the City’s 1,2-
Historic Inventory?MapL7
f)Eliminate important examples of major periods 1
of California history or prehistory?X
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate archaeological resource sensitivity zone.
Most of the City area east of Interstate 280 is designated in this zone. Although existing and historic
development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried Native American sites
could be uncovered in future planning area construction.
If archaeological materials are discovered the applicant would be required to perform additional testing
and produce an Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) to be approved prior to
the start of construction.
Mitigation Measures:
None
F.GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources No
Impact
a)
Would the project:
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 the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
~known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
Strong seismic ground shaking?ii)
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
See below
2-MapN5,
5
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration
iv) Landslides?2-MapN5,
5 X
b)
1,5 X
c)1, 5 X
d)
e)
g)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Result in substantial siltation?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property’?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
Expose people or property to major geologic
hazards that cannot be mitigated through the
use of standard engineering design and seismic
safety teclmiques?
2-MapN5,
5
2-MapN5,
5
1,5,6
1,5,6
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. According to the Comprehensive Plan the
project site is not in an area that is subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake or
in an area subject to expansive soils, surface rupture, liquefaction, or earthquake induced landslides.
Development of the site would be required to conform to all requirements in the Uniform Building
Code, which includes provisions to ensure that the desi~a and construction of all buildings includes
provisions to resist damage from earthquakes to the extent feasible and acceptable. The potential onsite
exposure to geological hazards is anticipated to be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Substantial or permanent changes to the site topography are not expected. Grading and storage of
materials on site has been authorized by Caltrans. Standard conditions of approval require submittal of a
final grading and drainage plan for the project for approval by the Public Works Department prior to the
issuance of any building permit. The application of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control
measures as a part of the approved grading and drainage plan is expected to avoid any grading-related
impacts.
The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Mitigation Measures:
None
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources [ Sources I Potentially ! Potentially I Less Than ! No I
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration
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)Construct a school on a property that is subject
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
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 ~vithin 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) hnpair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emeraency evacuation plan?
h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where witdlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
i) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
1,6
1,6
1,6
1,2-
MapN9,
6
1,2
1,2
1,2-
MapN7
2-MapN7
1,6
Significant
Issues
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant
Impact
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project will not involve the handling, transportation, use, disposal, or emission of
hazardous materials. The project site is not identified by either the California Environmental Protection
Agency or the California State Water Resources Control Board as a hazardous materials site. The project
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 12 Mitigated Negative Declaration
is not expected to pose airport-related safety hazards. The proposed project will not interfere with either
emergency response or evacuation. The project site is not located in a designated fire hazard area.
Mitigation Measures:
None
no
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Sources
Would the project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
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., 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
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
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a maturer which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water ~vhich would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storrnwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam or being located ~vithin a 100-year
flood hazard area?
1,2,5
2-MapN2
1,2,5,6
1,2,5,6
1,6
2-MapN6
2-MapN6
N8
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 13 Mitigated Negative Declaration
j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?2-MapN6,X
N8
k) Result in stream bank instability?
DISCUSSION:
The project site is completely pervious, with recent site improvements having been analyzed for
enviromnental clearance and authorized by Caltrans. Erosion control plans and measures were reviewed
by Caltrans to ensure that during demolition, grading and construction, no storm water pollution could
result. Non-point source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife dependant on the waterways and for
people who live near polluted streams or baylands. Standard conditions of architectural review approval
would require the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution
prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source
Pollution Control Program, and submittal of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) in
conjunction with building permit plans to address potential water quality impacts. City development
standards mad standard conditions of project approval would reduce potential negative impacts of the
project to less than significant.
The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge, and will not deplete groundwater
supplies. The project site is not located in a 100-year flood hazard area and would not impede or redirect
flood flows. The project site is not in an area that is subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Mitigation Measures:
None
I.LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
a)Physically divide an established community?
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
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 community
conservation plan?
d) Substantially adversely change the type or
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
e) Be incompatible ~vith adjacent land uses or with
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
Sources
1,2
1,2,3,6
1,2
1,2,6
1,2,3,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
Ciardella’s Revised 9126/07 Page 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
f) Conflict with established residential,
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or
farmland of statewide importance (famaland) to
non-agricultural use?
Sources
1,2,6
1,2,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is the rezoning and assignment of a land use designation to the subject property,
for the purpose of allowing Caltrans to lease the land to Ciardella’s Garden Supply as a General
Business Service. Ciardella’s, under Caltrans’ authorization, has begun to store materials on the site.
Once the site has been successfully rezoned, business may operate on the site. However, an
architectural review application must be submitted for City review and conditions of approval may
require modification to improvements already installed that had met Caltrans’ environmental review
standards. Mitigation measure #1 requires submittal of an application for architectural review.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
J.MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a kno~vn
mineral resource that would be 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 general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
1,2
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC),
Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation
signifies that there are no ag~egate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other
resources. There is no indication in the 20!0 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally
valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
K.NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 16 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources
a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
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?
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
I) Generate construction noise exceeding the
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
1,2
b) X
1,6
c) X
1,6
d)X
1,6
e) X
1,2
1,2
1,6
1,6
1,6
1,6
1,6
1,6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located in an area with an existing noise level of 75 Ldn adjacent to major roadways
and industrial sites. Construction and business operation activities may result in temporary increases in
local ambient noise levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with
further ~’ading and construction, which would be short term in duration. Standard approval conditions
would require the project to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 17 Mitigated Negative Declaration
restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term
construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less
than significant. Long term noise may be produced by trucks hauling materials on and off the site,
associated with Ciardella’s Garden Supply operations. The City’s standard conditions of approval will
be applied to the project to ensure the impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. The project
site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Mitigation Measures:
None
L.POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
a)
Would the project:
1,2,6
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)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Create a substantial imbalance bet~veen
employed residents and jobs?
Cumulatively exceed regional or local
population projections?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
b)
d)1,2 X
e) 1,2
x
DISCUSSION:
The rezoning could result in the use of the land for any of the permitted uses under the GM zoning,
subject to Caltrans approval of a lease. This small amount of site area adjacent to the freeway is not
conducive to residential use and will not induce population growth. No mitigation is necessary.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
M.PUBLIC SERVICES
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 18 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
a)
Would the project:
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
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would not impact fire service to the area and the site is not located in a high fire
hazard area. The conditions of approval for the Architectural Review application would contain
requirements to address all fire prevention measures. The site is located within the jurisdiction of the
Palo Alto Police Department. The facility would not by itself result in the need for additional police
officers, equipment, or facilities.
No significant demand for school services would result from the project, which is not expected to
generate any increase in Palo Alto’s residential population. No significant direct demand for additional
parks ~vould result from the project, which is not expected to generate any increase in Palo Alto’s
residential population.
Mitigation Measures:
None
N. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources No Impact
a)
Would tile project:
Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 19 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
b)
Would the project:
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
1,6
1,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would not have any significant impact on existing parks, nor include or require
construction of recreational facilities. No mitigation is required.
O.TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources No Impact
Would the project:
a)Cause an increase in traffic which is
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)?
b)Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c)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?
d)Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?e)
g)
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
1,6
1,6
1,6
1,2
1,2,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
h)
X
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 20 Mitigated Negative Declaration
i)
J)
k)
m)
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
SOUFCeS
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
Cause a local intersection already operating at
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F
or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
Cause any change in traffic that would
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
Cause queuing impacts based on a
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage
capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at turn lanes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.
Impede the development or function of
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
Impede the operation of a transit system as a
result of congestion?
Create an operational safety hazard?
1,2,6
1,2,6
1,2,6
1,2,6
1,2,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
X
X
X
X
n)1,2,6 X
o)1,2,6 X
p)1,6 X
DISCUSSION:
IV. Transportation!Traffic
Parking spaces are not shown on plans delivered September 14, 2007. The plans submitted for
Architectural Review will need to include off-site parking spaces for the proposed garden supply
business. The on-site and off-site circulation, as proposed in the September 14, 2007 plan set, is
undergoing evaluation by transportation staff in anticipation of the processing of the Architectural
Review application. The proposed two-wag entrance driveway to the site is at the end of Transport, and
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 21 Mitigated Negative Declaration
it is anticipated that, although the number of peak hour trips is minimal, impacts from traffic increases
due to the establishment of Ciardella’s on the site would be reduced to less than significant if the
eastbound traffic uses the San Antonio Road spur.
An average of 84 daily vehicle trips are associated with the Ciardella’s location on East Bayshore Road.
Staff has provided estimated trip generation for the project in the chart below. Through empirical
research, data have been collected that correlate to common land uses their propensity for producing
traffic. Thus, for the most conm~on land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied
to help predict future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The magnitude of the
traffic generation by the proposed project was estimated by applying to the size of the development the
applicable trip generation rates. These calculations, in the table below, are calculated on the basis of the
trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled Trip
Generation, seventh edition, 2003. The proposed project is a small commercial development on a
currently vacant lot. It would appear that the anticipated nine morning peak hour trips can be
accommodated via the single, two-way driveway shown on the plans submitted September 14, 2007.
There would be no significant traffic impacts resulting from the project due to its small size. The
Ciardella’s morning deliveries are a practice of their business operation. The neighboring property
owner requests that the city require the applicant to schedule deliveries for the morning to the extent
practicable. A mitigation measure is provided below to address the concern.
Traffic Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Rate~Daily Daily Peak-Hourly Peak-Hourly
Rate2 Trips Hour Trips Hour Trips
Rate~-Rate~-
Proposed 8.74 9.85Nursery196.21 96 9 10
(Garden
Center)
1 Size ex ~ressed in acres
2 Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation 7th Edition, 2004, Nursery (Garden Center) (817)
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure #7: Adequate parking facilities for customers and staff of the Ciardella’s business,
and off- and on-site circulation shall be provided on the site and shown on plans submitted with the
Architectural Review application. Eastbound traffic to the site accessing the proposed garden supply
center business shall use the San Antonio Road spur (bearing right at the split on San Antonio).
Mitigation Measure #8: Deliveries from suppliers shall, to the extent practicable, occur in the early
morning hours when both traffic on Transport Street is at a minimum and the prevailing winds are not
directed to the immediately adjacent neighbors.
P.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 22 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
a)Exceed ~vastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional 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 which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c)Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d)Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e)Result in a determination by the waste~vater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill ~vith sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g)Comply ~vith federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
h)Result in a substantia! physical deterioration
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
Sources
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service
systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Standard approval conditions of
Architectural Review will require the applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to
show that the on-site and off site water, sewer and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the
garden supply business and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. Trash and recycling facilities
will be required with the establishment of the garden supply center to accommodate the expected waste
and recycling streams that would be generated by the expected uses within the building.
Mitigation Measures:
None
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 23 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially No Impact
Would the project:
a)Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b)Does the project have 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)?
c)Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
1,2-Map
L4,6
1,2,6
1,5,6,
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic
resources. The uses are appropriate for the site and the development would not result in an adverse
visual impact. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements
that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts.
SOURCE REFERENCES
1.Project Plaamer’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2.Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
3.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 - Zoning Ordinance
4.Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards
5.California Department of Transportation Letter dated September 9, 2007
6.Project Plans submitted September 14, 2007 (dated June 12, and July 20, 2007)
7.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
8.Palo Alto Tree Teclmical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001
9.Important Farmland in California Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land
Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2004.
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 24 Mitigated Negative Declaration
10.Agricultural Preserves Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource
Protection, 2001
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in
the 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.
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.
X
Amy French
Planning Manager
Amended September 19~ 2007 at PTC hearin~
Date
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Date
Ciardella’s Revised 9/26/07 Page 25 Mitigated Negative Declaration