HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 270-08City of Palo Alto
Manager’ Report
8
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:JUNE 16, 2008 CMR: 270:08
SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO CHANGE THE ZONE DESIGNATION
FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.45 ACRES, LOCATED AT 2995
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC 3779) TO
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN) ZONE DISTRICT WITH A
RETAIL SHOPPING (R) COMBINING DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the Council:
Approve the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B) and;
Adopt the Ordinance to change the zoning classification of 2995 Middlefield Road from
Planned Community (PC-3779) to Neighborhood Commercial Zone District (CN) with a
Retail Shopping Combining District (R) (Attachment A).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, Old Trace Middlefield Partners, represented by Eric Corrigan, is requesting that
the City consider rezoning the property at 2995 Middlefield Road, as shown on the location map
(Attachment C), from Planned Community (PC-3779) to Commercial Neighborhood. The
applicant is requesting the change from a designation that specifically allowed a gas station to a
more general commercial designation to accommodate a broader range of retail and commercial
uses. The applicant intends to submit an application for review of the removal of the gas station
and development of a commercial building on the site. A subsequent environmental review
document would be prepared and circulated for any new development resulting from this
rezoning. The subject property was rezoned to Planned Community (PC-3779) on November 9,
1987 from RM-2 (Low Density Multiple Fmnily Residential) to allow the continued operation of
an existing gas station and associated improvements.
CMR: 270:08 Page 1 of 4
The project site is comprised of 0.45 acre of land, located on the north side of Middle field Road,
approximately 65 feet southeast of Matadero Creek. The site is developed with a gas station that
has been inoperative since 2004. The property was purchased by the current owner, Old Trace
Middlefield Partners, from BP West Coast Products, LLC, in December 2007. The conditions of
the property sale include that the new owner cannot re-establish a gas station on the site. The
property is bounded by the Winter Lodge, a community/non-profit recreational use on City-
owned land, on the north, east and west.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On January 30, 2008, the PTC reviewed the proposal. Four members of the public spoke on the
project. One member of the public spoke to the PTC regarding this item, expressing his support
for the proposal and noting that the proposed zoning was suited for the building and site and a
new tenant could then use the building more appropriately.
Sheri Furman, representing the Midtown Residents Association, also spoke in favor of the
rezoning. The third speaker spoke about concerns with the potential impacts, including aesthetics
and parking lot landscaping. The fourth member of the public stated that the site should be
zoned residential given that the majority of the properties surrounding the subject site are
residentially zoned.
The PTC voted 3-2-1-0 (Keller and Garber voted no and Tuma absent) to recommend that the
City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt an ordinance to change the
zoning designation from Planned Community (PC 3779) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN)
with a Retail Shopping Combining District (R). The staff report and minutes of the PTC meeting
are attached (Attachments G and H).
The PTC expressed concern about the unique configuration of the subject parcel. The site is
surrounded on the north, east and west by City-owned land, which has a zoning designation of
Public Facility (PF) and is occupied by the Winter Lodge. The driveway for the site is located
between t~vo driveways that serve the surrounding Winter Lodge. The PTC voted 5-0-1 (Tuma
absent) to request City staff to engage the applicant and Council to investigate better utilization
of the property and the Winter Lodge property. The purpose would be to maximize built area of
retail and office, to reduce the number of driveways and to accommodate a use that would be
compatible and benefit the Winter Lodge. Per Linda Jensen, executive director of Winter Lodge,
and Bill Fellman of the City’s Administrative Services Department, the Winter Lodge had
attempted to purchase the property from the original owner but was unable to come to an
agreement due to costs. City staff will continue to work with the applicant on the subsequent
development application to maximize retail uses and reduce driveways should the rezoning be
approved.
In response to the PTC’s motions and concerns regarding utilization of the subject site and the
adjacent Winter Lodge property, the applicant has notified staff that although they are not
interested in selling the property to the City, they are interested in working with staff to
reconfigure the site to maximize efficient use of the property (see Attachment I). The applicant
has indicated that if the rezoning is approved, he will work with staff to reduce the number of
driveways as part of any new development proposal. The goal is to redesign the subject site so
that driveways can be shared with the Winter Lodge, which will reduce the number of driveway
cuts. The reduction in the number of drive~vay cuts offers an opportunity to increase circulation
CMR: 270:08 Page 2 of 4
efficiency, maximize buildable land, and provide for greater design compatibility with the
adjacent Winter Lodge.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Between $1,000 and $1,500 in sales and utility users’ tax is projected from this project. All
planning and other fees associated with the rezoning and building are cost reimbursed. Other
city costs to support this facility such as public safety are marginal and will not impact the
budget.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is Neighborhood Commercial. The proposed
zone district and Combining District are consistent with the land use designation. Any future
development wil! be required to comply with the development standards and requirements of the
Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Retail Shopping Combining Districts (R).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental
issues related to the rezoning, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
was circulated for a 20-day public review period that began January 18 and ended on February 7,
2008. A revised Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed and circulated
analyzing the addition of the Retail Shopping Combining District (R) for a 20-day public review
period that began April 7 and ended on May 1, 2008. A copy of the revised environmental
document is provided as Attachment B. Key mitigation measures include the requirement of
obtaining written approval from the Santa Clara Valley County Department of Health prior to
any development approvals and any construction activity. The Draft Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration must be adopted prior to the Council decision on this project application.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EL~NA LEE
Senior Planner
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Interim Director of Pla~m/irrg and
Community Environmeiit,~,~> ~ ~
Interim Deputy City Managers
CMR: 270:08 Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENTS
No
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Draft Ordinance
Draft Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Location Map
Plalmed Community (PC-3779) Zoning District
Neighborhood Commercial District (CN) Regulations
Retail Combining District (R) Regulations
January 30, 2008 Planning & Transportation Commission staff report w/o attachments
Plarming & Transportation Commission Minutes of January 30, 2008.
Correspondence from Old Trace Middlefield Partners, dated May 6, 2008
COURTESY COPIES
Project Applicant and Owner
Sheri Furman, Midtown Residents Association
CMR: 270:08 Page 4 of 4
NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO
CHANGE THE ZONE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.45
ACRES, LOCATED AT 2995 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, FROM
PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC 3779) TO NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL (CN)ZONE DISTRICT WITH A RETAIL
SHOPPING (R) COMBINING DISTRICT
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 January 30, 2008, has recommended that the City Council of the City
of Palo Alto ("Council") rezone the 0.45 acres of land at 2995 Middlefield Road from "Planned
Community (PC 3779)" to "Neighborhood Commercial (CN)" with a Retail Shopping (R)
Combining District.
B. The Council has received the facts presented at the Commission’s public hearing,
including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the director of planning and
community environment or other appropriate city staff;
C. The Council finds that a change in the Zoning Map from "Planned Community
(PC 3779)" to "Neighborhood Commercial (CN) with a Retail Shopping (R) Combining
District" is consistent with the subject site’s Comprehensive Plan designation of Neighborhood
Commercial and designation of the CN zoning with a Retail Shopping (R) Combining District
will enable the property owner to have a greater range of commercial uses onsite and thereby
retain the business within City limits, subject to completion of architectural review and
compliance with the CN and R combining district regulations, which require all uses to be
conducted in such a manner as to preclude any nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized
offensive conditions;
D. The Council finds that rezoning the parcel to Neighborhood Commercial District
(CN) with Retail Shopping (R) Combining District is in accord with the Neighborhood
Commercial land use designation of the site, as defined in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
(PACP).
E. The Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on June 16, 2008,
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.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo
Alto to place 2995 Middlefield Road, 0.45 acres of land, within the "Neighborhood Commercial
District (CN) with a Retail Shopping (R) Combining District."
080528 syn 0120274
NOT YET APPROVED
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:
Deputy City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
080528 syn 0120274
ATTACHMENT B
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Circulation Period: April 16-May 6, 2008
Rezoning from Planned Community (PC-3779) to Commercial
Neighborhood (CN) with Retail Shopping Combining District
(R), to allow a greater range of commercial uses.
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5~ F!oor
Palo A!to, 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 anaended (Public Resources
Code 21,000, et sec.) that the following project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
File Number ! TAZ
07PLN-00269
project Name
Zone Change for 2995 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto
Owner
Old Trace Middlefield
Project Location
2995 Middlefield Rd. Palo Alto, CA
APN(s)
127-53-020
I Project Type
Zone Change
Applicant
] Old Trace Middlefield
Date
4-08-08
Project Description
The project involves the rezoning of one parcel from Planned Community (PC~3779) to Commercial
Neighborhood District (CN) with a Retail Shopping Combining District (R), to allow a greater range of
commercial uses. The applicant intends to submit an application for review of the removal of the gas station
and development of a commercial building on the site. A subsequent CEQA review document would be
~pared and circulated for any new development resultina from this rezonin~.
Purpose of Notice
Notice is hereby given that a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment for the project listed above. In accordance with A.B.
866, this document will be available for review and comment during a minimum 20-day inspection period.
Public Review Period: I Begins: April 16, 2008 ! Ends: May 6, 2008
Public Comments regarding the con-ectness, 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 con-maents should be addressed to the City of Palo Alto. 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 Elena Lee at (650) 617-3196
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study may be viewed at the following locations:
(1) Palo Alto Planning Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
(2) Palo Alto Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue, PaIo Alto, CA 94301
Responsible Agencies sent a copy of this document
Santa Clara Valley County Department of Environmental Health
.1 Mitigation Measures included in the project to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than
significant level:
Mitigation Measure G-l:
Prior to the issuance of approvals for any development proposals, the applicant shall be required to
obtain written approval from either the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board that the proposed project shall not impact the
contamination investigation!remediation activities and that the existing contamination will not
adversely affect the proposed project, the construction workers or anyone that subsequently works
or lives at the site.
Mitigation Measure H-l:
Prior to the issuance of approvals for any development proposals, the applicant shall be required to
obtain written approval from either the Santa Clara County Department of Enviroimaental Health
arid!or the Regional Water Quality Control Board that the deconstruction and development shall not
result in polluted runoff from the site nor impact the contamination investigation/remediation
activities.
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:
Date
Date
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and CommuniO, Environment California
En vironm ental Quality Act
MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date:April 8, 2008
Application Nos.:07PLN-00269
Address of Project:2995 Middlefield Rd.
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 127-53-020
Applicant/Owner:Eric Corrigan
505 Sansome Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Project Description and Location:
The project involves the rezoning of one parcel from Planned Community (PC-3779) to
Commercial Neighborhood District (CN) with a Retail Shopping Combining District (R), to
allow a greater range of commercial uses.
II. DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California
Environnaental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine
whether the proposed project located at 2995 Middlefield Rd. could have a significant effect on
the enviromnent. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby, adopted.
X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the
enviromnent, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case
because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the project
and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby, adopted.
The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential
envirom-nental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required
for the proj ect.
H ’,Middle’old Rezonh~g\P.evised Nliddlefield Rezonmg MND w R doc
In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project:
Mitigation Measure G-l:
Prior to the issuance of approvals for any development proposals, the applicant shall be required
to obtain written approval from either the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board that the proposed project shall not
impact the contamination investigation/remediation activities and that the existing contamination
will not adversely affect the proposed project, the construction workers or anyone that
subsequently works or lives at the site.
Mitigation Measure H-1 :
Prior to the issuance of approvals for any development proposals, the applicant shall be required
to obtain written approval from either the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board that the deconstruction and
development shall not result in polluted runoff from the site nor impact the contamination
investigationiremediation activities.
Project Planner Date
Director of Planning and Community Environment Date
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a zone change from the existing Plarmed Community 3779
(PC-3779) district to Neighborhood Commercial (CN) with a Retail Shopping Combining District (R).
Zone District: PC-3779
1.PROJECT TITLE
Zone Change for
2995 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto
2.LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
o
City of Palo Alto
Department of Plam~ing and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Elena Lee, Senior Plarmer
City of Palo Alto
650-61%3196
4.PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
Eric Corrigan
505 Sansome Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94111
APPLICATION NUMBER
07-PLN-00269
6.PROJECT LOCATION
2995 Middlefield Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Parcel Numbers: 127-53-020
The project site is located in the central section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of
Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and of State Route 82 (El Camino Real), as
shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. It is located on the east side of Middlefield Rd. and at the
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration
northerly terminus of Towle Way. The project site, consisting of one parcel of approximately
20,895 square feet, is approximately 65 feet southerly of Matadero Creek and is within the
Midtown West area but not within the Midtown Commercial Center. The site is bounded by
Middlefield Road to the south and City owned land to the east, north and west, as shown on
Figure 2, ViciniO, Map. The City owned lands are developed with a swim and tem~is club and
skating rink. Multi-family residences are located to the southwest across Middlefield Rd. The
subject property was developed with a gas station. The gas station ceased operations on March
1, 2004. The site is fenced and inactive.
7.GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The General Plan designation is Neighborhood Commercial, per the Palo Alto 1998 - 2010
Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation allows shopping center with off-street parking or
a cluster of storefront stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Typical uses include
supennarkets, bakeries, dntgstores, variety stores, barber shops, restaurants, self-service
laundries, dry cleaners, hardware stores. In specific locations, residential and mixed use
developments may be appropriate. Non-residential floor area ratios will range up to 0.4.
8.ZONING
The subject site is zoned Plarmed Community, PC-3779. The site was zoned in 1984 to allow a
previously nonconforming service station to continue operation. The specific regulations,
development and performance standards are established by Ordinance 3779, in compliance with
the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The revised proposal is to rezone the site Commercial
Neighborhood with a Retail Shopping Combining District to allow commercial uses and
specifically retail type uses only on the ground floor. No specific development project has been
proposed at this time. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with the General Plan
Designation.
9.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project involves the rezoning of one parcel from Planned Community (PC-3779) to Commercial
Neighborhood District (CN) with a Retail Shopping Combining District (R), to allow a ~eater range of
commercial uses. The applicant intends to submit an application for review of the removal of the
gas station and development of a commercial building on the site. A subsequent CEQA review
document would be prepared and circulated for any new development resulting from this
rezoning.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The project site is located on the east side of Middlefield Rd. and at the northerly terminus of
Towle Way. The site is bounded by Middlefield Road to the south and City owned land to the
east, north and west.
1 1.OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration
County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No hnpact" 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 intbrmation sources show
that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).]
2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and constr~lction as well as operational
impacts.
3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an ErR 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).
5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program ErR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier ErR 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 infon’nation sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration
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.
s)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 an.,,,, 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.
No
a)
AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
b)Have a substantial adverse effect on a
public view or view corridor?
c)Substantially damage scenic resources,
including,.but not limited to, taees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scemc 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
mghttime views in the area?
Substantmlly shadow public open space
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
pro. from September 21 to March 217
SoHFees
1, 2,
1,2,3
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Issues Unless
Mitigation
i Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
lmpact
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed zone change project does not include any specific development. The existing site is
entirely developed with an automobile service/gas station, which the applicant intends to remove and
replace with a comrnercia! building on the site upon successful rezoning of the site, approval of a
2995 Middlefield 07PLN’0269 Page 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration
subsequent CEQA document and separate Architectural Review application, which would be submitted
for kachitectural Review Board review after Council adoption of the ordinance for the rezoning. Any
new mixed-use (residential and non-residential) development that could be proposed as a result from this
rezoning, would be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission and City
Council via the Site and Design Review process. These review processes ~vould ensure that the potential
aesthetic impacts from development will be mitigated.
Mitigation Measures:
None
B.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
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 connact?
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?
1,2
1,2
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
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 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
2995 Middiefield 07PLN-0269 Page 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
C.AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
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 connibute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation indicated by the following:
~. 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
mmrons in diameter (PM~0);
ii.Connibute to carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per rmllion (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour (as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO en-~issions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project naffic
would impact intersections or roadway
lil-~Zs 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
!0% or more)?
Result ~n a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federa! or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing en-tissions which
exceed quantitative tlu-eshotds for ozone
precursors)?
Expose sensinve receptors to substantial levels
of toxic air contan-anants?
~.Probability, of contracting cancer for the
Maximally Exposed In&vidual (MEI)
exceeds 10 in one million
ii.Ground-level concenuations of non-
carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the
MEI
1,2,5
Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
1,2
!,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
il,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
1,2
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
g)
Would the project:
Not implement al! applicable construction
emission control measures reconmaended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
Sources
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
X
DISCUSSION:
There is no specific development proposal as part of this project that could potentially affect air
quality. The hazards section of this study describes existing conditions at the gas station. Due to the
conditions of sale, which preclude development of a gas station and any grading in the vicinity of
existing underground tanks, it is not likely that development proposed subsequent to this rezoning
would violate BAAQMD guidelines for emission control, which would need to be followed as a part
of any new development. Any development proposal would be subject to a subsequent
environlnental review, in compliance with CEQA requirements, and mitigation measures would be
imposed as necessary to ensure air quality is maintained. Standard City conditions of approval
would ensure that construction related impacts from dust and debris generated by future
development will be limited to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
None
a)
b)
D.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
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?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
con’maunity 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
linzited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
tbaough direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
MapN 1, 5,
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
X
X
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
)Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildhfe corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
d)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biologmal resources, such as a tlee
preservation policy or as defined by the City of
Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8. ! 0)?
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Corrm~unity
Conservation Plan, or other approved !ocal,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Sources
2-MapNl,
5,
1,2,.3,5
] ,2,5
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
X
Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
X
X
DISCUSSION:
There is no specific development proposal as part of this project. The completely developed site is
in an urban area of the City, with very little landscaping on site. Future development proposals
would be subject to a subsequent environmental review per CEQA requirements and will be required
to comply with Pato Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, the Palo Alto Municipal Code and
Comprehensive Plan.
Mitigation Measures:
~X4~O i3 e
E.CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
a)Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that ts recognized by, C~ty Council
resolution?
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.57
Sources
1,2-
MapL8
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
. Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impact
X
X
c)Directly or indirectly destroy, a unique [
paieontological resource or site or unique !,2-X
geologic feature?MapL8
d)Disturb an), human remains, including those 1,2-!
interred outside of formal cemeteries?MapL8
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues 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?
1,2-
MapL7
!,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
f)
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. However, the site is already
completely developed. Because there is no specific development associated with this project, no impact
would be expected on potential cultural resources. Future development is anticipated, however, and any
development application would be subject to a subsequent CEQA review and the City’s standard
conditions of approval, which will ensure that any, cultural resources affected would be handled
properly, in accordance to local, state and federal regulations.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
a)
F.GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Sources No
Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Expose people or sn’uctures 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-
Prioto 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?
See below
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
2-MapN-
10,5 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?2-MapN5,X
iv) Landslides?2-MapN5,
5 X
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 9 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ib)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c)~esult in substantial siltation?
d)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?
e)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?
B.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 carmot be mitigated tMough the
use of standard engineering design and seismic
safety teclmiques?
2-MapN5,
5
2-MapN5,
5
1,4,5,
X
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.
The rezoning would allow the establishment of new uses in conjunction with approval of an application
for demolition of the gas station and development. However, no specific development proposals are part
of the subject project. Development of any future prqiects would be required to implement any
recommendations of a geotechnical report and associated mitigation measures as may be imposed, and
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 will therefore be less
than significant. No rnitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures:
G.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
enviromaaent tbaough the routing t~-ansport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b)Create a sigmficant hazard to the public or the
environment tha-ough reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions revolving the
1,5,8
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration
1,5,8
c)
X
1,5,8
d)X
d)
X
e)
h)
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
En~t hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Construct a school on a property, that is subject
to hazards from hazardous materials
contan~nation, emissions or accidental release?
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?
For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two n-tiles 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?
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people ,esiding or working the
projec5 area?
Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted enmrgency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
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?
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
soi! and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
MapN9,
s8
1,2,8
1,2,8
1,2-
MapNT, 8
2-MapNT,
8
1,8
X
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed rezoning does not include any specific development proposal but would enable the
submittal of an application for development and uses allowable within the CN zone and R Combining
District. Any future development would be subject to a subsequent CEQA review, the imposition of any
mitigation measures and the City’s conditions of approval to prevent any negative impacts regarding
hazards and hazardous materials. The property is listed with the County of Santa Clara as an active fuel
leak case with the Santa Clara County Environmental Health Departrnent, due to previous leaking
underground storage tanks (UST). The site is currently in the process of remediation with the County of
Santa Clara to remove groundwater contamination. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was
prepared m-~d submitted by the property owner and reviewed by the City’s Fire Marshall. Specific
mitigation measures to implement any recommendations related to removal of the gas station and
development of the site would be imposed as a part of the development project.
2995 Middlel:ield 07PLN-0269 Page 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measure G-l:
Prior to the issuance of approvals for any development proposals, the applicant shall be required to
obtain written approval from either the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health and/or
the Regional Water Quality Control Board that the development project shall not impact the
contamination investigation/remediation activities and that the existing contamination will not adversely
affect the development project, the construction workers or anyone that subsequently works or lives at
the site.
a)
b)
c)
d)
g)
h)
i)
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste
dis chayge re_~9_uirements ?
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 plam~ed uses for which perrrnts have
been granted)?
Substantially, alter the existing drainage pattern
of the s~te or area, inclnding through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result ;.n substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially’ alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site ol- area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff m a manner which would result
m flooding on- or off-s~te?
Create or contribute rur~off water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storrn(vater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as n-rapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, iNury or death revolve flooding,
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Issues Unless
Mitigation
I Incorporated
!,2, 5 I .
2-MapN2
],2
!,2,5
1,2,5,
1,2
!, ’5
iapN6
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 12 Mitigated Negative Declaralion
including flooding as a result of the failure of a 2-MapN6
levee or dam or being located within a 100-year N8
flood hazard area?
j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?2-MapN6,X
N8
k) R~sult in stream bank instability?2-MapN6,!X ’
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located on a site with groundwater contamination due to leaking underground storage
tanks associated with the service station. A clean up program is currently in process to remove
contamination. 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.
This project does not include any specific development proposal and therefore would not impact
hydrology or water quality. Should there be any future development proposals, those projects would be
subject to a subsequent CEQA review and City’s conditions of approval to prevent any negative impacts
regarding hydrology and water quality. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was prepared and
submitted by the property owner.
Mitigation Measure H-l:
Prior to the issuance of approvals for any development proposals, the applicant shall be required to
obtain written approval from either the Santa Clara County Department of Envirom~nental Health and/or
the Regiona! Water Quality Control Board that the deconstruction and development shall not result in
polluted runoff from the site nor impact the contamination investigation!remediation activities.
I.LAND USE AND PLANNING
Sourcesissues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
a)Physically divide an established corrm~unity?
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 plarmed land use in the
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
Conflict with established residential,
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No
Impact
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 13 Mitigated Negative Declaration
1,2,3,5
X
X
X
X
1,2,3,5
1,2 I X
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area’?
Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or
farmland of statewide importance (fam~and) to
non-agricultural use?
Sources
1,2,5
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning designation with a Retail Shopping Combining
District (R) is consistent with the site’s General Plan designation of Neighborhood Commercial, per the
Palo Alto 1998 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan. This ’land use designation allows shopping center with off-
street parking or a cluster of storefront stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Typical uses
include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops, restaurants, self-service
laundries, dr?’ cleaners, hardware stores. In specific locations, residential and mixed use developments
may be appropriate. The project will comply with al! plans for conservation of biological resources as
mitigated, and would not impact farmland. The Retail Shopping Combining District may be combined
with a commercial district to allow only retail, eating and service-oriented commercial development on
tl~e ground floors.
The Commercial Neighborhood zone would allow a variety of commercial!retail uses and mixed
residentiali"non-residential uses to be configured either vertically or horizontally on the property, subject
to CEQA review and approval of pla~ming and building permits. The Retail Shopping Combining
District would require that the commercial or mixed uses to have retail, eating and service-oriented
commercial uses on the ground floor. Commercial uses are restricted in size per Palo Alto Municipal
Code (P.~\IC) Section 18.16.060(f). The maximum allowable residential density within a mixed use
project on the site wouId be seven units. Any mixed use development of more than four residential units
would be subject to the City’s Site and Design Review process, with a Council decision required tbr
approval, whereas projects of four or less units would be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review
Board followed by the Plamaing Director’s decision. PAMC chapters 18.16 and 18.23 would be
applicable to new development, which would be evaluated under context-based design criteria of PAMC
18.16 and performance criteria of P~a2~IC I8.23, including those for parking and late night uses and
activities regulations. Since the sale of the parcel is conditioned so that underground tanks at the front
portion of the site are to not be disturbed, future development may not fully meet the context based
design criteria set forth in PAMC 18.16. Non-residential floor area ratios could have a floor area ratio of
up to 0.4:1, for a maximum of approximately 8,358 square feet on the site. A mixed use project could
have a floor area ratio up to 0.9:1, with the 0.5:1 additional area for residential units.
Mitigation Measures:
2995 Middtefield 07PLN-0269 Page 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration
J.MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b)Result in the toss 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 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:
_~one.
K.NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
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’?
b)Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibrations or ~’ound
borne noise levels?
c)A substantial permanent increase in anabient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
anabient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e)For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1,2,5
1,2,5,
1,2,5
1,2,5
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Issues Unless
Mitigation
, Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
1,2
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration
No
Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private
airs’a-ip, 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 ~esidentia! 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 tire 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?
!)Generate consnq.tction noise exceeding the
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
SOUrCes Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
hnpact
X
X
1,2,5 X
1,2,5 X
1,2,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located within an area having an exterior noise level Ldn of 65dB. There is no
specific development application submitted as part of this project; noise impacts associated with any
development enabled by the rezoning of the site would be less than significant with the imposition of
mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval. No noise impacts are anticipated with
approval of the rezoning. A noise report by a qualified professional would be required with any
application for development. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the
vicinity of a private airstrip. ’Any future development proposal will be subject to enviromnental review
and compliance with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. With the City’s standard conditions of approval
requiring implementation of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, and any recommendations of a noise report
t~r new development, noise impacts from future development will not be significant.
Mitigation Measures:
None
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 16 Mitigated Negative Declaration
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
a)
Would the project:
1,2,5
Induce substaiitial population growth in an
area, either directly (fdr example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, tlwough extension of roads or other
infrastructmTe)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacemen! hpusing elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the consn-uction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Create a substantial imbalance between
employed residents and jobs?Cm-nulatively exceed regional or local
population projections?
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Mitigation
IncorpQrated ,
X
d)1,2 X
e)1,2 ............X’
No
Impact
DISCUSSION:
The land use designation of the site will remain neighborhood commercial. The rezoning would allow
for a limited amount of housing to be developed if the applicant were to request and receive approval for
a mixed use project. The project is for rezoning the site and no specific development proposals are
included. No additional population or housing impacts are anticipated directly from this project or from
a non-residential development that may be proposed. Any future development proposal would be
subject to enviro~zmental rex iew to determine impacts on population and housing, but the population and
housing impacts of any mixed use development with seven housing units would be individually, less than
significant. Any’ cumulative impacts of a mixed use project would be evaluated if such a project were
proposed. The applicant has indicated interest in developing a non-residential project.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Su porting Information Resources Sources No Impact
/ould the project:
a)Would the 1: oject result in substantial adverse
physical imt: ~cts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
~___govern_mental facilities the construction of
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 17 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable servtce
ratios, response times or other perfom~ance
objectives for any of the public services:
Sources
1,2
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other pubhc facihtms?
1,2
1,2
1,2
1~2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
X
x
x
X
DISCUSSION:
The subject site is located within a completely developed area of the City, where public services are
already available. No specific development proposals are associated with this project. ,amy future
development would be subject to environmental and City review to determine potential impacts to
public services and whether mitigations are necessary. The city’s development impact fees would be
imposed upon new development as applicable.
Mitigation Measures:
N. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources No Impact
Would the project:
a)Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facihty would occur or be accelerated?
b)Does ~he project include recreational
facilitms or requne the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
mdght have an adverse physical effect on the
enviromnent?
Sources
1,5
1,5
Potentially II Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 18 Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is for rezoning only and no specific development proposals are included.
Therefore, it would not have any significant impact on existing parks, nor include or require
construction of recreational facilities. Any future development at the project site would be subject to
enviromnental review to determine any recreation impacts and compliance with City standards.
Development of the site could result in increased use of the Winterlodge recreational facility on the
adjacent, city-owned property, by customers of such new development, but this has not been evaluated
for this rezoning project, as a specific use proposal has not been submitted.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation is required.
O.TI~4NSPORTATION 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 naffic
load and capacity of the sneet 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
desi~_nated 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?
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?
1,5
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)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
1,5
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
1,5
X
1,5
e) 1,2
X
0 11,23 ..........I x
X
1,2,5
h)1,2,5 .....
X
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 19 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
volume/capacity ratio (v/c) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
i) Cause a local intersection aheady operating ~t
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by,
four seconds or more?
j) Cause a regional mtersectmn to deteriorate
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay, at such an
mtersecUon already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
cridcal ViC value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F
or connibute n-affic in excess of I% of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
1)Cause an.,,, change in traffic that would
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residenna~
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 lmtited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at turn lanes at
intersections that block tt:n-ough traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impure other
intersecnons, and sPillback queues on ramps.
n) h-npede the development or function of{
plam~ed pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
o} Impede the operation of a transit system as a
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard?
Sources
1.2.5
1,2,5
! ,2,5
1,2,5
1,2,5
1,2,5
1,2, 5
!,5
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
I~corporated
Less Th~n
Significant
Impact
NO impact
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The project is proposing a change from a zoning designation currently supporting a commercial use to
one that supports a broader range of commercial uses on a fairly small site, and the applicant’s intention
is to develop a non-residential project. Based on a trip generation analysis for a 7000 sq. ft. for office
and the trips fi-om the existing gas station, a non-residential project would not increase the traffic impact.
Therefore, it is not anticipated that there would be a traffic impact due to the rezoning. No specific
development proposal is included in this project. Future development proposals would be subject to
subsequent environmental review to determine any potential traffic impacts.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
2995 Ivliddlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 20 Mitigated Negative Declaration
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting information Resources Sources No Impact
Would the project:
a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?1,2
b)Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
constmciion of which could cause significant 1,~.
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 1,2
effects’?
d)Have sufficient watei supplies available to ......
serve the project fiom existing entitlements
and resources or are new or expanded !,2
entitlements needed?
e’-~Reset-{ in a determination bythe wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand m addition to the provider’s existing 1
~_comn~itments?_
f Be served by a landfill w’ith sufficient
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?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
hnpact
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed site is completely developed in an urban area of the City, where utilities and other services
are available. However, there is no specific development proposal associated with this project. Any
future development of the site would be subject to both City review and envirormaental review to ensure
that the proposed development would have a less than significant impact on the immediate environment.
Mitigation Measures:
None
2995 Middiefield 07PLN-0269 Page 21 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Q.MANDATORY .FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially
Significant
Would the project:Issues
a)Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wlldhfe species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, thaeaten 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
com~ection w~th the effects of past projects,
the effects of other cunent projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c)Does the project have env~rom:nental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either &rectly or
indirectly?
1,2-Map
L4,5
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impacl
X
X
No Impact
X
DISCUSSION:
As there is no specific proposal associated with this project, it is not expected that any, of the mandatory, findings
of significance wi]] be apphcable, and the overall impacts from the rezoning are less than significant. ~amy future
development at the site wi!l be subject to both City. departmental review and environmental review to ensure that
any proposed development would have a less than significant impact on the immediate environment.
SOURCE REFERENCES
1.Project Planner’s knowledge of the size and the proposed project
2.Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, !998-2010
3.Palo Alto A(unicipal Code, Title 18 - Zoning Ordinance
4.Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code ((TBC) Standards for Seismic Saj’eO~ and
Windload
5.Locaiion 3,lap,
6.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
7.Palo Alto Tree Technical ~anual, 3/funicipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001
8.Phase ] Environmental Site Assessment 2995 Middlej~eld Road. Project OTP-O2..!A, prepared by
Toxichem Management Systems, Inc., November 24, 2007.
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 22 Mitigated Negative Declaration
PREPARED BY
Amy French, Manager of Current Planning
Elena Lee, Senior Planner
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
Elena Lee April 8, 2008
Project Planner Date
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Date
2995 Middlefield 07PLN-0269 Page 23 Mitigated Negative Declaration
2850
2890
660
656
650 <a
3064
3070
3080
3090
3108
2901
PC-3.%~
3065 3069
3109
2995 Middlefield Road
Zone Change
Map
3085
310t
ATTACHMENT
708
3005
3009
3073
-.a--.] ---a 740
3077
3048
3054’~
3060
3066
3072
~ORD:INANC.E,NO. ~3.779-’"
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE. CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECT)ON 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL
CODE (THE Z.~N-ING MAP) TO REZONE THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS~~IDDLEFIELD ROAD FROM RM-2 TO PC
ATTACHMENT D
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
’\
SECTION 1. Section ]8 08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by rezonin9 the property
known as 2995 Middlefield Road from RM-2 (Low Density Multiple
Family Residential) to PC (Planned Community)° Said property is
shown on a map attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and incorporated
herein by this reference°
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds, with respect to
tNe subject property, that:
a)The proposed rezonin9, which will permit continued
operation of the existing gasoline service statior},
will not have a significant adverse impact on the
physical environment~
b)The application of general or combining districts
to the subject site will not provide sufficient
restrictions on allowable uses to ensure contin-
ued compatibility and neighbo[hood service of the
proposed development;
c)The development plan provides public benefits not
otherwise obtainable by application of general dis-
tricts in that the existing commercial site will be
enhanced by addition of significant amounts of ]and-
scaping, clarified site mccess, and preservation of
a neighbornoo8 serving commercial use; and
d)The use allowed under the proposed PC zone is con-
sistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible
with adjoining sites in that nei@hborhood serving
commercial uses will eliminate or reduce vehicular
trips to community or regional commercial centers
consistent with Policy 8 of the Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element°
SECTION 3. Development Plan. The plans entitled "ARCO
PETROLEUM, 2995 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD", attached hereto as ~Exhibit B",
and incorporated herein by this reference, constitute the
Development Plan. Said Development Plan is approved pursuant to
Section ]8.68.]20 of the Palo AI~o Municipal Code°
SECTION 4. ~R~e.gu! at ions o
(a)Uses. Allowable uses shall be limite@ to an auto-
motive service station 8.ispensin9 petroleum products
and providing incidental automotive repair services,
but excluding major auto repair such as body work, auto
painting, etco The sale of food or grocery items or
alcoholic beverag.es is prohibited, except for pre-
packaged soft drinks, cigarettes and snackfoods either
from automatic vending machines or in shelves occupying
a floor area not to exceed forty (40) square feet;
(b).q~era.~ions.
{i) Hours of operation shall be limited from 6:00 aomo
to ii:00 pomo for dispensin9 of petroleum products°
Automotive repair service hours of operation shall be
limited to the hours from 8:00 aom° to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday-through Friday and from 9:00 aomo to 6:00 pomo on
Saturday and Sunday, and shall be available at least
five days per week.
(ii) Site lighting after hours of station operation
shall be limited to security level lighting only.
The monument sign shall not be illuminated after
hours of operation°
(iii) All site activities shall comply with the pro-
visions of Title 17 (Hazardous Materials Storage) and
Chapter 9.20 (Noise) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code;
(iv) Public access to restrooms, water and air shall
be allowed during normal business hours, with normal
business controls. ~
(C Improvements.
(i) Landscaping and sign modifications consistent with
the approved development plans shall be installed within
ninety (90) days of approval of this ordinance by the
City Council. Landscaping shall be maintained in good
condition by the site operator, and shall be replaced as
necessary in conformance with the species indicated on
the approved landscape plan;
(ii) Landscaping shall be maintained in good
condition by the site operator, and shall be re-
placed as necessary in conformance with the species
indicated on the approved landscape plan;
(iii) A five foot wide landscape buffer shall be
installed by the applicant on the City property
immediately adjoining the rear property line of the
subject site. This area shall be planted and
o
improved as shown on the approved Development
Plan, and shall be automatically irrigated from
the subject property and maintained by the site
operator until active use of the adjoining City
property commences.
(iv) All landscape areas shall, be protected by
concrete curbs°
(v) Wheel stops shall be provided for all
parking spaces located at the rear of the site°
(vi) Parking for patrons hnd employees of the
automotive service facility shall be accommodated
on-site, and shall not occur on adjoining
properties°
(vii)The facia panel over the pump island
canopy shall not be removed°
(viii) Window signs shall not be permitted°
Additional signs beyond those indicated on the
approved project plans shall require approval as
a minor Planned Community zone change°
(iz) The developer shall instal] standard
sidewalk and gutter from the southern access
driveway to the beginning of the access for the
property at 3009 Middlefield Road (currently the
Winter Club)o
(x) The property owner shall quitclaim to the
City t~eir interest in the 7°5 foot portion of
the adjacent City-owned property u~ed for
driveway purposes and deed to the City 7°5 feet
on the southern boundary of the site in return
for a quitclaim deed from the City of the twenty
foot easement existing oh the subject property°
Exchange of quitclaim deeds and transfer of fee
title shall be completed within ninety (90) days
of the approval of the zone change by the City
Council°
(xi) The property owner shall obtain approval
from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
the Palo Alto Fire Marshal for a plan for
investigation and clean up of contamination of
soils and water from the former underground
storage tanks. Upon approval of the plan, the
property owner shall comply with the mandated
clean up measures in an expeditious manner
satisfactorY to the Pa]o Alto Fire Marshal°
(xii) A fence shail be installed.by the
applicant on the perimeter of the north, east and
west property lines of the subject site, as shown
on the approved Development Plan. The fence
shall be five feet in height, except that within
seventy feet of the Middlefield Road property
line, the fence shall be a maximum height of
three feet.
SECTION 5. - Developgent Schedule. Construction, including
the installation of new tanks and delivery systems~ shall begin
within six (6) months of Council approval and be completed within
six (6) months of the issuance of a building permit°
SECTION 6o The Council finds that this project will bare no
significant adverse environmental impact°
SECTION 7o This ordinance shall become effective upon the
commencement of the thirty-first (31st) day after the day of its
passage o
INTRODUCED: October 26, 1987
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
November 9, 1987
Bechtel, Cobb, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Woolley
Fletcher, Sutorius
ABSTENTIONS: None
ASENT: None
ATTE[ :
APPROVED AS ~O FORM:
St.A~sistant City Attorney
City Manager
Director of Planning an6
6ir~dior o{ Pugyic Works
APPROVED
~Mayor
18.16.010
ATTACHMENI
Purposes
Chapter 18.16
NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMUNITY, AND
SERVICE COMMERCIAL (CN, CC and CS) DISTRICTS
Sections:
18.16,010
18,16.020
18,16.030
18.16.040
18,i6,050
18,16.060
18.16.070
18.16.080
18.16.090
18,16.100
Purposes
Applicable Regulations
Definitions
Land Uses
Office Use Restrictions
Development Standards
Parking and Loading
Performance Standards
Context-Based Design Criteria
Grandfathered Uses
18.16.010 Purposes
The commercial zoning districts are intended to create and maintain sites for retail, personal services,
eating and drinking establishments, hotels and other business uses in a manner that balances the
needs of those uses with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods.
(a)Neighborhood Commercial [CN]
The CN neighborhood commercial district is intended to create and maintain neighborhood
shopping areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking,
and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood, under regulations that
will assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas.
Community Commercial [CC]
The CC community commercial district is intended to create and maintain major commercial
centers accommodating a broad range of office, retail sales, and other commercial activities
of community-wide or regional significance. The CC Community commercial district is
intended to be applied to regional/community commercial centers identified by the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
(c)Community Commercial (2) Subdistriet [CC(2)]
The community commercial (2) (CC(2)) subdistrict is intended to modify the site
development regulations of the CC community commercial district, where applied in
combination with such district, to allow site specific variations to the community commercial
uses and development requirements in the CC district.
(d)Service Commercial [CS]
The CS service commercial district is intended to create and maintain areas accommodating
citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian-
Ch. 1 8.1 6 - Page 1 (Supp. No 13 1011/2007)
18.16.020 Applicable Regulations
oriented shopping areas, and which generally require automotive access for customer
convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment, loading or unloading, or parking of
commercial service vehicles.
(Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
18.16.020 Applicable Regulations
(a)Applicable Chapters
The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures
established by other relevant chapters of the Zoning Code shall apply to the CN, CS, and CC
districts, and the subdistrict designated as CC(2), as shown on the city s Zoning Map. The
term abutting residential zones, where used in this chapter, includes the R1, R2, RMD,
RM-15, RM-30, RM-40, or residential Planned Community (PC) districts, unless otherwise
specifically noted.
(b)Applicable Combining Districts
The combining districts applicable to the CN, CS, CC and CC(2) districts shall include, but
shall not be limited to, the following districts:
(t) The retail shopping (R) combining district regulations, as specified in Chapter
18.30(A), shall apply to the area of the CN, CS, and CC districts designated as R
combining district as shown on the city s Zoning Map.
(2)The pedestrian shopping (P) combining district regulations, as specified in Chapter
18.30(B), shall apply to the area of the CN, CS, CC and CC(2) districts designated
P combining district as shown on the City s Zoning Map.
(Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
18.16.030 Definitions
For the purposes of this section, the following terms are defined:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Charleston Shopping Center is defined as all properties zoned CN and bounded by
East Charleston Road, Middlefield Road, and Cubberley Community Center.
M idtown Shopping District is defined as all properties zoned CN in the vicinity of the
intersection of Colorado Avenue and Middlefield Road which border Moreno Avenue,
Bryson Avenue, Colorado Avenue, and San Carlos Court, or which border Middlefield
Road in the area extending from Moreno Avenue to San Carlos Court.
Town and Country Village Shopping Center is defined as all properties zoned CC and
bounded by E1 Camino Real, Embarcadero Road, Encina Avenue, and the Southern
Pacific right-of-way.
Stanford Shopping Center is defined as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El
Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane.
Neighborhoo&serving offices are medical offices, professional offices, travel
agencies, and insurance agencies that fit the definition of a neighborhood-serving use.
(supp. No ~3 mm2ooT)Ch. 18.16 - Page 2
18.16.040 Land Uses
(9 A neighborhood serving use is a use that primarily serves individual consumers and
households, not businesses, is generally pedestrian oriented in design, and does not generate
noise, fumes or truck traffic greater than that typically expected for uses with a local
customer base. A neighborhood-serving use is also one to which a significant number of
customers and clients travel, rather than the provider of the goods or services traveling off-site.
(g)Ground floor shall mean the first floor that is above grade.
(h)Mixed use development shall mean a combination of nonresidential and residential
uses arranged on a site. The uses may be combined in a vertical configuration (within a
building) or in a horizontal configuration (separate buildings).
(Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
18.16.040 Land Uses
The uses of land allowed by this chapter in each commercial zoning district are identified in the
following tables. Land uses that are not listed on the tables are not allowed, except where otherwise
noted. Where the last column on the following tables ( Subject to Regulations in ) includes a section
number, specific regulations in the referenced section also apply to the use; however, provisions in
other sections may apply as well.
(a)Commercial Zones and Land Uses
Permitted and conditionally permitted land uses for each commercial zone are shown in Table I:
TABLE 1
CN, CC, CC(2) AND CS PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES
[P = Permitted Use ¯ CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required]
Accessory facilities and activities customarily associated with
or essential to permitted uses, and operated incidental to the
principal use.
Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted
(3)uses
Tire, battery, and automotive service facilities, when operated
incidental to a permitted retail service or shopping center having
a gross floor area of more than 30,000 square feet.
Business and Trade Schools
Churches and Religious Institutions
Pdvate Educational Facilities
Pdvate Clubs, Lodges, or Fraternal Organizations
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
[Continued on Next Page]
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
CUP
P
P
P
P
18.42
18.42
18.42
Ch. 18.16 - Page 3 (Supp.No 13
18.16.040 Land Uses
Recycling Centers
Warehousing and Distribution
Administrative Office Services
Medical Offices
Professional and General Business Offices
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services but
excluding construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities,
or corporation yards.
Commercial Recreation
Outdoor Recreation Services
Multiple-Family
Home Occupations
Residential Care Homes
Eating and Drinking Services, excluding ddve-in and take-out
services
Retail Services, excluding liquor stores
Liquor stores
Shopping Centers
Ambulance Services
Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels
Boarding and Kennels
Automobile Service Stations
Automotive Services
Convalescent Fadlities
Day Care Centers
Small Family Day Care Homes
Large Family Day Care Homes
Small Adult Day Care Homes
Large Adult Day Care Homes
Banks and Financial Services
CUP
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
p (~)
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
[Continued on Next Page]
CUP CUP
CUP
P
CUP CUP
P P
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
P P
P P
P
P
P
CUP
P
CUP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
P
P
p ~
18.16.050
18.16.050
18.16.050
18.16.060(b)
18.16.060(e)
18.30(G)
(Supp. No 13 101112007)Ch. 18.16 - Page 4
18.16.040 Land Uses
General Business Services
Hotels
Mortuaries
Neighborhood Business Services
Personal Services
Reverse Vending Machines
Farmer s Markets
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that such facilities shall
remain no more than five years.
CUP
P
P
P
CUP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
CUP CUP CUP
CUP CUP CUP
18.16.060(d)
18.16.060(0
18.16.060(0
Parking as a principal use
Transportation Terminals
P = Permitted Use
CUP CUP
CUP CUP
CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required
(1)Residential is only permitted as part of a mixed use development, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 18.16.060(b), or on sites designated as Housing Opportunity Sites in the Housing Element
of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.060(c).
(2)Except drive-in services.
(3)So long as drive up facilities, excluding car washes, provide full access to pedestrians and
bicyclists. A maximum of two such services shall be permitted within 1,000 feet, and each use shall
not be less than 150 feet from one another.
(4)For properties in the CN and CS zone districts, businesses that operate or have associated
activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. require a conditional use
permit.
(b)Late Night Use and Activities
The following regulations restrict businesses that operate or have associated activities at any
time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., where such site abuts or is located
within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties.
(1) Such businesses shall be operated in a manner to protect residential properties from
excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during those
hours.
(2)For properties located in the CN or CS zone districts, businesses that operate or have
associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall
be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of
approval as are deemed necessary to assure that the operations or activities are
compatible with the nearby residentially zoned property.
Ch. 18.16 - Page 5 (Supp. No 13 101112007)
18.16.040 Land Uses
(c)CN District: Special Use Requirements in the Charleston and Midtown Shopping
Centers
The following regulations shall apply to areas of Charleston Center and the Midtown
Shopping Center as defined in Section 18.16.030.
Table 2 shows the uses permitted and conditionally permitted on the ground floor of the
applicable areas of the Charleston Center and Midtown Shopping Centers. Permitted and
conditional uses specified in subsection (a) of this section shall only apply to the ground floor
of the areas of the Charleston and Midtown Shopping Centers as listed in Table 2. Uses
lawfully existing on January 16, 2001 may be continued as non-conforming uses but may
only be replaced with uses permitted or conditionally permitted under this subsection.
TABLE 2
CHARLESTON AND MIDTOWN SHOPPING CENTERS GROUND FLOOR USES
P = Permitted Use o CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required ¯ X = Prohibited Use
Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to
permitted uses.
Churches and Religious Institutions
Private Educational Facilities
CUP
CUP
Recycling Centers CUP
Neighborhood-serving offices that do not exceed 2,500
square feet in floor area.
Neighborhood-serving offices exceeding 2,500 square feet
in floor area.
Administrative office uses and general business office uses
(other than neighborhood-serving travel agencies and
insurance agencies) other than those legally in existence
on January 16, 2001
Medical offices not exceeding 2,500 square feet in area,
professional offices, travel agencies, and insurance
agencies
P
CUP
X
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services but
excluding construction or storage yards, maintenance CUP
facilities, or corporation yards.
[Continued on Next Page]
CUP
CUP
CUP
X
CUP
CUP
18.16.050
18.16.050
18.16.050
18.16.050
(Supp. No 13 10/~/2007)Ch. 18.16 - Page 6
18.16.040 Land Uses
Commercial Recreation
Outdoor Recreation Services
Private Clubs, Lodges, or Fraternal Organizations
Residential uses of any nature
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
Eating and Drinking Services, excluding drive-in and take-
out services
Retail Services, excluding liquor stores
Liquor stores
Ambulance Services
Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels
Automobile Service Stations
Convalescent Facilities
Day Care Centers
Financial Services
Mortuaries
Neighborhood Business Services
Personal Services
Reverse Vending Machines
P P
P P
CUP CUP
CUP CUP
P P
CUP CUP
CUP CUP
P P
CUP CUP
CUP CUP
P P
P P
P P
18.30(G)
CUP CUP
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that such facilities CUP CUPshall remain no more than five years.
P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required X = Prohibited Use
(d)Charleston Shopping Center: Additional Use Restrictions
(1)Any office use first occupying space at the Center on or after January 16, 2001, shall
obtain a written determination from the director of planning and community
environment that it qualifies as a neighborhood serving use, as defined in this chapter,
before occupying its premises. The applicant shall submit such information as the
director shall reasonably require in order to make the determination, and the director
shall issue the determination within 30 days of receiving a complete application. Failure
to submit the required information shall be pounds for determining that a business is
not neighborhood-serving.
Ch. 18.16 - Page 7 (Supp. No 13 101112007)
18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions
(2)
(3)
No more than 7,850 square feet of total floor area at the Center shall be occupied by
office uses at any time.
Prior to approving a conditional use permit for neighborhood-serving offices larger than
2,500 square feet in total floor area, the city shall find that the proposed use will be
neighborhood-serving, that it will be conducted in a manner that will enhance and
strengthen the Center as a neighborhood resource, and that it will not diminish the retai!
strength of the center.
(e)Midtown Shopping Center: Additional Use Restrictions
(1) An existing ground floor office may be replaced with another office if
(a)the new tenant or owner will continue the existing business or practice; or
(b)a conditional use permit is issued for the new office use.
(2)No conditional use permit shall be issued for any new office use on the ground floor
unless, in addition to the findings required for a conditional use permit as specified in
Section ! 8.76.010, the City finds that the proposed use will be neighborhood serving,
that it will be conducted in a manner that will enhance and strengthen the Midtown
Shopping District as a neighborhood resource, and that it will not diminish the retail
strength of the District.
(3)For properties at 711,719, and 721 Colorado Avenue, and 689 Bryson Avenue,
buildings not fronting on Middlefield Avenue, designed and used for office purposes,
and not well suited to other uses are exempt from the provisions of this subsection (b).
(Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions
The following restrictions shall apply to office uses:
(a)Conversion of Ground Floor Housing and Non-Office Commercial to Office
Medical, Professional, and Business offices shall not be located on the ground floor, unless
such offices either:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Have been continuously in existence in that space since March 19, 2001, and as of such
date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being amortized pursuant to
Chapter 18.30(I);
Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, retail services, personal services,
eating and drinking services, or automotive service on March 19, 2001 or thereafter;
In the case of CS zoned properties with site frontage on E1 Camino Real, were not
occupied by housing on March 19, 2001;
Occupy a space that was vacant on March t9, 2001;
Are located in new or remodeled ground floor area built on or after March 19, 2001 if
the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and drinking services,
personal services, and automobile services does not decrease;
(Supp. No 13 101112007)Ch. 18.16 - Page 8
18.16.060 Development Standards
(6)
(7)
Are on a site located in an area subject to a specific plan or coordinated area plan, which
specifically allows for such gound floor medical, professional, and general business
offices; or
Are located anywhere in Building E or in the rear 50% of Building C or D of the
property at the southeast corner of the intersection of Park Boulevard and California
Avenue, as shown on sheet A2 of the plans titled 101 California Avenue
Townhouse/Commercial/Office, Palo Alto, CA by Crosby, Thornton, Marshall
Associates, Architects, dated June 14, 1982, revised November 23, 1982, and on file
with the Department of Planning and Community Environment.
(b)Size Restrictions on Office Uses in the CN and CS Districts
(1) In the CN district, office uses shall be governed by the following regulations:
(A)Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area,
provided:
(i) A lot shall be permitted to have at least a total floor area of 2,500 square feet of
office uses, provided the uses meet all other zoning regulations.
(ii)No lot shall be permitted to have more than a total floor area of 5,000 square feet
of office uses.
(B)
(2)
Such uses may be allowed to exceed the maximum size, subject to issuance of a
conditional use permit in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.76. The maximum
size for any conditional use shall be established by the director and specified in the
conditional use permit for such use.
In the CS district, office uses shall be governed by the following regulations:
No lot shall be permitted to have more than a total floor area of 5,000 square feet of
office uses.
(B)
(Ord. 4923 § 3
Such uses may be allowed to exceed the maximum size, subject to issuance of a
conditional use permit in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.76. The maximum
size for any conditional use shall be established by the director and specified in the
conditional use permit for such use.
(part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
18.16.060 Development Standards
(a)Exclusively Non-Residential Uses
Table 3 specifies the development standards for exclusively non-residential uses and
alterations to non-residential uses or structures in the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS districts. These
developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following
requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided
that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and
approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section
18.76.020.
Ch. 18.16 - Page 9 (Supp.No 13 10/112007)
18.16.060 Development Standards
TABLE 3
EXCLUSIVELY NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Minimum Site
Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (ft)
Interior Side Yard (ft)
Street Side Yard (ft)
Minimum Yard (ft) for
lot lines abutting or
opposite residential
districts or residential
PC districts
Build-To-Lines
Minimum setbacks
from alleys for
structures other than
public parking
garages (ft) (~)
Corner lots, from rear
lot line on the alley
Corner lots, from side
lot line on the alley
All lots other than
corner lots
Maximum Site
Coverage
None Required
0- 10’to
create an
8’-12’
effective
sidewalk
width
(1), (2).
None
Required
0 - 10’to
create an
8’- 12’
effective
sidewalk
width
(1), (2), (8)
0 - 10’to
create an
8’-12’
effective
sidewalk
width
(1), (2), (8)
20’ (2)
None required
None required
I O’ (2)
50% of frontage built to setback~
33% of side street built to setback>~
Not applicable None
20’
Not
applicable
50%None Required
[Continued on Next Page]
Setback lines
imposed by a
special
setback map
pursuant to
Chapter 20.08
of this code
may apply
(Supp. No 13 !01112007)Ch. 18.16 - Page 10
18.16.060 Development Standards
Maximum Height (ft)
(8)
~)
Standard
Within 150 ft. of a
residential zone district
(other than an RM-40
¯ or PC zone) abutting or
located within 50 feet of
the site
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) for Hotels
Daylight Plane for lot
lines abutting one or
more residential zone
districts other than an
RM-40 or PC zone
Initial Height at side or
rear lot line (ft)
Slope
25’ and
2
stories
50’
35’
37’ (4)
35’
50’
35’
0.4:1 2.0:1 0.4:1 18.18.060(e)
N/A -(~2.0:1 2.0:1 18.18.060(d)
-(6)-(6}-(6)-(6)
-(6)-(6}-(6)-(6)
(1)No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet
adjoining the street property line of any required yard.
(2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped
screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in
height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.
(3) No setback from an alley is required for a public parking garage.
(4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures
may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no
more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane.
(5) See additional regulations in subsection (e) of this Section 18.16.050.
(6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone
abutting the site line in question.
(7) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not
apply to CC district.
A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage.
Mixed Uses
Table 4 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use developments. These
developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following requirements
and the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided that more restrictive
regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director
of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
Ch. 18.16 - Page 11 {Supp. No ~3 t0/~/20o7)
18.16.060 Development Standards
TABLE 4
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Minimum Site Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (ft)
Rear Yard abutting residential zone
district (ft)
Interior Side Yard if abutting
residential zone district (ft)
Street Side Yard (ft)
Build-To-Lines
Permitted Setback Encroachments
0’- 10’to
create an
8’-12’
effective
sidewalkwidth ~8~
None required
None
Required
0’- 10’to
create an
8’-12’
effective
sidewalk
width
0’- 10’to
create an
8’-12’
effective
sidewalk
width ~
10’ for residential portion; no requirement for
commercial portion
t0’
Maximum Site Coverage
Landscape/Open Space Coverage
Usable Open Space
Continued on Next Page]
10’
50% of frontage built to setback~’~
33% of side street built to setback{"
Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and
similar elements may extend up to 6’ into the
setback. Cornices, eaves, fireplaces, and
similar architectural features (excluding fiat or
continuous walls or enclosures of interior space)
may extend up to 4’ into the front and rear
setbacks and up to 3’ into interior side setbacks
50% 50% 100% 50%
35%30%20%30%
200 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer units~2~; 150 sq ft
per unit for 6 units or more~
Setback lines
imposed by a
special
setback map
pursuant to
Chapter 20. 08
of this code
may apply
(Supp. No 13 10/1/2o07)Ch. 18.16 - Page 12
18.16.060 Development Standards
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard
Within 150 ft. of a residential zone
district (other than an RM-40 or PC
zone) abutting or located within 50
feet of the site
35’ (~50’37’50’
35’35’ (51 35’ ~5~35’
Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting
one or more residential zoning
districts
Residential Density (net)
Maximum Residential Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Maximum Nonresidential Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)
Total Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
Minimum Mixed Use Ground Floor
Commercial FAR~6~
Parking
Daylight plane height and slope shall be
identical to those of the most restrictive
residential zoning district abutting the lot line
15
0.5:1
See sub-
section
(e) below
0.15:1
30 30
0.6:1
2.0:1
2.0:1
0.15:1
0.25:1 ~)
0.6:1
0.4:1
1.0:1
0.15:1
See Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 (Parking)18.52, 18.54
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not
apply to CC district.
Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2)
does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space);
(3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space
dimension twelve feet.
Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of
the site devoted to commercial use.
For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may
increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential).
For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC)
district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet.
Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, hotels and eating and
drinking establishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in
ground floor regulations.
If located in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District.
A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage.
(1)Residential and nonresidential mixed use projects shall be subject to site and design
review in accord with Chapter 18.30(I), except that mixed use projects with four or
fewer residential units shall only require review and approval by the architectural review
board.
Ch. 18.16 - Page 13 (Supp.
18.16.060 Development Standards
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2)
(3)
Nonresidential uses that involve the use or storage of hazardous materials in excess of
the exempt quantities prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code, including but not
limited to dry cleaning plants and auto repair, are prohibited in a mixed use
development with residential uses.
Residential mixed use development is prohibited on any site designated with an
Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District overlay.
Exclusively Residential Uses
Exclusively residential uses are generally prohibited in the CN, CS, CC, and CC(2) zone
districts. Such uses are allowed, however, where a site is designated as a Housing
Opportunity Site in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Such sites shall be
developed pursuant to the regulations for the multi-family zone designation (RM-15, RM-30,
or RM-40) identified for the site in the Housing Element.
Hotel Regulations
(1)Hotels, where they are a permitted use and generate transient occupancy tax (TOT),
may develop to a maximum FAR of 2.0:1 (except in the CC district, see Section
18.16.060(e) be!ow).
(2)Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to:
(A)No more than 25% of the floor area shall be devoted to condominium use;
(B)No more than 25% of the total number of lodging units shall be devoted to
condominium use; and
(C) A minimum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/condominium building(s).
CC District Shopping Center Floor Area Ratio Regulations
(i)
(2)
The maximum floor area ratio for the Town and Country Village Shopping Center shall
be .35 to 1; and office uses at said shopping center shall be limited to 15% of the floor
area of the shopping center existing as of August 1, 1989. Hotel use shall not be
included as part of the .35 to 1 maximum floor area ratio, but shall not exceed an
additional .25 to 1 floor area ratio, for a maximum site floor area ratio of .60 to 1.
The maximum floor area ratio for mixed use development for the Town and Country
Village Shopping Center shall be limited to .50 to 1; provided that no more than .35 to 1
floor area shall be nonresidential, consistent with part (1) above, and not more than .15
to 1 floor area shal! be residential.
(3)Stanford Shopping Center shall not be permitted to add more than 80,000 square feet of
floor area to the total amount of floor area of the shopping center existing as of June 14,
1996, 1,332,362 square feet, for a total square footage not to exceed 1,412,362. Any
hotel or mixed use development for the Stanford Shopping Center shall only be
included if approved as part of a Development Ageement for the site.
Size of Establishments in the CN District
In the CN district, permitted commercial uses shall not exceed the floor area _per individual use
or business establishment shown in Table 5. Such uses may be allowed to exceed the
(Supp. No 13 101112007)Ch. 18.16 - Page 14
18.16.060 Development Standards
maximum establishment size, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with
Section 18.76.010. The maximum establishment size for any conditional use shall be
established by the director and specified in the conditional use permit for such use.
TABLE 5
MAXIMUM SIZE OF ESTABLISHMENT
(g)
Personal Services
Retail services, except grocery stores
Grocery stores
Eating and drinking services
Neighborhood business services
2,500
15,000
20,000
5,000
2,500
Nuisances Prohibited
All uses, whether permitted or conditional, shall be conducted in such a manner as to
preclude nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized offensive conditions or characteristics,
including creation or emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise, fumes, odors, vibrations, particulate
matter, chemical compounds, electrical disturbance, humidity, heat, cold, glare, or night
illuminations, tMor to issuance of a building permit, or occupancy permit, or at any other
time, the building inspector may require evidence that adequate controls, measures, or
devices have been provided to ensure and protect the public interest, health, comfort,
convenience, safety, and general welfare from such nuisance, hazard, or offensive condition.
Outdoor Sales and Storage
(1)In the CN district, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be conducted
within a building, except for:
(A) Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies occupying no
more than 500 square feet of exterior sales and display area,
(B) Farmers markets that have obtained a conditional use permit, and
(C) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit.
(2)In the CC district and in the CC(2) district, the following regulations shall apply to
outdoor sales and storage:
(A)Except in shopping centers, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be
conducted within a building, except for:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(B)
Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies occupying no
more than 2,000 square feet of exterior sales and display area,
Outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services,
Farmers markets that have obtained a conditional use permit, and
Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit.
Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 square feet shall be subject to a
conditional use permit.
Ch. 18.16 - Page 15 (Supp. No 13 10/!/2007)
18.16.060 Development Standards
(i)
(C)Exterior storage shall be prohibited, except as provided under subparagraph (A)(iv) of
this subsection.
(3)In the CS district, outdoor sales and display of merchandise, and outdoor eating areas
operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services shall be permitted subject
to the following regulations:
(A)
(c)
(B)
Outdoor sales and display shall not occupy a total site area exceeding the gross
building floor area on the site, except as authorized by a conditional use permit.
Areas used for outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, boats, campers, camp
trailers, trailers, trailer coaches, house cars, or similar conveyances shall meet the
minimum design standards applicable to off street parking facilities with respect to
paving, grading, drainage, access to public streets and alleys, safety and protective
features, lighting, landscaping, and screening.
Exterior storage shall be prohibited, unless screened by a solid wall or fence of between
5 and 8 feet in height.
Recycling Storage
All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor
area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior
enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design,
construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval
by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board
and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
Employee Showers
Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any
addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 6.
TABLE 6
EMPLOYEE SHOWERS REQUIRED
Medical, Professional, and General Business
Offices, Financial Services, Business and Trade
Schools, General Business Services
Retail Services, Personal Services, and Eating
and Drinking Services
0-9,999
10,000-19,999
20,000-49,999
50,000 and up
0-24,999
25,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000 and up
No requirement
1
2
4
No requirement
1
2
4
(Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
(Supp. No ~3 m/1/2007)Ch. 18.16 - Page 16
18.16.070 Parking and Loading
18.16.070 Parking and Loading
Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and conditional uses in
accord with Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 of this title. All parking and loading facilities on any site,
whether required as minimums or optionally provided in addition to minimum requirements, shall
comply with the regulations and the design standards established by Chapters 18.52 and 18.54.
(Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
18.16.080 Performance Standards
In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development in the CN, CS, CC,
and CC(2) districts shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the
Zoning Ordinance. All mixed use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter
18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
Editor’s Note
The text of this chapter continues on the next page.
The remainder of this page has been left blank intentionally.
Ch. 18.16 - Page 17 (Supp. No 13 10/112007)
18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria
18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria
(a)Contextual and Compatibility Criteria
Development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent
development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design.
(1) Context
(A) Context as used in this section is intended to indicate relationships between the site s
development to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby
natural features, such as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses
and features are strongly reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies.
(t3)The word context should not be construed as a desire to replicate existing
surroundings, but rather to provide appropriate transitions to those surroundings.
Context is also not specific to architectural style or design, though in some
instances relationships may be reinforced by an architectural response.
(2) Compatibility
(A) Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is
consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design, and when new
construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the
overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained.
(B)Compatibility goals may be accomplished through various means, including but not
limited to:
(i)the siting, scale, massing, and materials;
(ii)the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the buildings
and the spacing between them;
(iii) the pattern of roof lines and projections;
(iv) the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays and doorways;
(v) the location and treatment ofentryways;
(vi) the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features;
(vii) the siting and treatment of parking; and
(viii) the treatment of landscaping.
Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings
In addition to the findings for .Architectural Review contained in Section 18.76.020(d) of the
Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are applicable in the CN, CS, CC and
CC(2) districts, as further illustrated on the accompanying diagrams:
(Supp. No 13 10/112007)Ch. 1 8.1 6 - Page 18
18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria
Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment
The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly
environment, and connectivity through design elements such as:
Ground floor uses that are appealing to
pedestrians through well-designed visibility
and access (Figure 1-1);
Figure 1-1
On primary pedestrian routes, climate and
weather protection where possible, such as
covered waiting areas, building projections
and colonnades, and awnings (Figure 1-2);
Figure 1-2
Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that
contribute to the area s streetscape
environment such as street trees, bulbouts,
benches, landscape elements, and public art
(Figure 1-3);
Bicycle amenities that contribute to the
area s bicycle environment and safety
needs, such as bike racks, storage or
parking, or dedicated bike lanes or paths
(Figure 1-1); and
Vehicle access from alleys or sidestreets
where they exist, with pedestrian access
from the public street.
Ch. 1 8.16 - Page 19 (Supp. No 23 ~0/~/20o7)
18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria
(2) Street Building Facades
Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk
and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian
activity through design elements such as:
Placement and orientation of doorways,
windows, and landscape elements to create
strong, direct relationships with the street
(Figure 2-1);
Facades that include projecting eaves and
overhangs, porches, and other architectural
elements that provide human scale and
help break up building mass (Figure 2-2);
Entries that are clearly defined features of
front facades, and that have a scale that is
in proportion to the size and type of the
building and number of units being
accessed; larger buildings should have a
more prominent building entrance, while
maintaining a pedestrian scale;
Figure 2-1
go
Residential units and storefronts that have |
a presence on the street and are not walled-
off or oriented exclusively inward;
Elements that signal habitation such as
entrances, stairs, porches, bays and
balconies that are visible to people on the
street;
All exposed sides of a building designed
with the same level of care and integrity;
Reinforcing the definition and importance
of the street with building mass; and
Upper floors set back to fit in with the
context of the neighborhood.
Figure 2-2
Property
Build-to Lir~e
Residen!~al
Residen~al
\~--- 12 ft effe~lJve sidewalk
Buildings setback from the property line to create an
effective 12’ sidewalk on Et Camir~o Real. Upper
floors set back to fit in wit~ the c~ntext of the
neighborhood.
<Supp. No ~3 m/~/2007)Ch. 18.16 - Page 20
18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria
No
Do
(3)Massing and Setbacks
Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks
through elements such as:
Rooflines that emphasize and accentuate
significant elements of the building such as
entries, bays, and balconies (Figure 3-1);
Design with articulation, setbacks, and
materials that minimize massing, break
down the scale of buildings, and provide
visual interest (Figure 3-1);
Comer buildings that incorporate special
features to reinforce important intersections
and create buildings of unique architectural
merit and varied styles (Figure 3-1);
Building facades articulated with a building
base, body and roof or parapet edge (Figure
3-2);
Buildings set back from the property line to
create an effective 12’ sidewalk on E1
Camino Real, 8’ elsewhere (Figure 3-4);
Figure
Figure 3-3
Go
A majority of the building frontage located
at the setback line (Figure 3-3); and
No side setback for midblock properties,
allowing for a continuous street facade,
except when abutting low density
residential (Figure 3-3).
12’ Effective sidewalk Figure 3-4
with a setback for --/
Ioutdoor seating
Ch. 18.16 - Page 21 (Supp.
18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria
No
No
No
(4)Low-Density Residential Transitions
Where new projects are built abutting existing lower-scale residential development,
care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties through:
Transitions of development intensity from
higher density development building types
to building types that are compatible with
the lower intensity surrounding uses (Figure
4-1);
Massing and orientation of buildings that
respect and mirror the massing of
neighboring structures by stepping back
upper stories to transition to smaller scale
buildings, including setbacks and daylight
planes that match abutting R-1 and R-2
zone requirements (Figure 4-2);
Respecting privacy of neighboring
structures, with windows and upper floor
balconies positioned so they minimize
views into neighboring properties (Figure 4-
3);
future development
low density medium high
density density
transition
area
Figure 4-1
Minimizing sight lines into and from
neighboring properties (Figure 4-3);
Limiting sun and shade impacts on abutting
properties; and
Providing pedestrian paseos and mews to
create separation between uses.
Design wJr’xlows
to enhar’..ce pr:vacy ComNnation of trees and
Combination of
trees and hedges
for screemng
Existing s~.ngie
family homes
Figure 4-3
(Supp. No 13 10111200V)Ch. 18.16 - Page 22
18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria
Do
(5)Project Open Space
Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents,
visitors, and/or employees of a site.
The type and design of the usable private
open space shall be appropriate to the
character of the building(s), and shall
consider dimensions, solar access, wind
protection, views, and privacy;
Open space should be sited and designed to
accommodate different activities, goups,
active and passive uses, and should be
located convenient to the users (e.g.,
residents, employees, or public)
Common open spaces should connect to the
pedestrian pathways and existing natural
amenities of the site and its surroundings;
Usable open space may be any combination
of private and common spaces;
Usable open space does not need to be
located on the gound and may be located in
porches, decks, balconies and/or podiums
(but not on rooftops) (Figure 5-1);
Figure 5-1
Open space should be located to activate the
street fagade and increase e yes on the
street when possible (Figure 5-1);
Both private and common open space areas
should be buffered from noise where
feasible through landscaping and building
placement;
Open space situated over a structural
slab/podium or on a rooftop shall have a
combination of landscaping and high
quality paving materials, including elements
such as planters, mature trees, and use of
textured and/or colored paved surfaces
(Figure 5-2); and
Figure 5-2
Parking may not be counted as open space.
Ch. 18.16 - Page 23 (Supp. No 13 ]0/[/2007)
18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria
No
(6)Parking Design
Parking is located behind buildings, below
grade or, where those options are not
feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls,
etc.;
Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the
character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that:
........ 1Figure 6"1 I
Structured parking is fronted or wrapped
with habitable uses when possible (Figure 6-
1);
Parking that is semi-depressed is screened
with architectural elements that enhance the
streetscape such as stoops, balcony
overhangs, and/or art;
Landscaping such as trees, shrubs, vines, or
groundcover is incorporated into surface
parking lots (Figure 6-2);
For properties with parking access from the
rear of the site (such as a rear alley or
driveway) landscaping shall provide a visual
buffer between vehicle circulation areas and
abutting properties (Figure 6-3);
Street parking is utilized for visitor or
customer parking and is designed in a
manner to enhance traffic calming;
For properties with parking accessed from
the front, minimize the amount of frontage
used for parking access, no more than 25%
of the site frontage facing a street should be
devoted to garage openings, carports, or
open/surface parking (on sites with less than
100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet);
Where two parking lots abut and it is
possible for a curb cut and driveway to serve
severa! properties, owners are strongly
encouraged to enter in to shared access
agreements (Figure 6-4); and
Parking is accessed from side streets or alleys
when possible.
Figure 6-2 J
Lar, dscaping such as trees, shrubs,
~nes or ground cover is incorporated
into surface parking lots.
Figure 6-3 ]
Figure 6-4 ]
(Supp. No 13 10/1/2007)Ch. ! 8.16 - Page 24
18.16,090
Context-Based Design Criteria
Figure 6-5 ~
--------- Mixed-Use with Surface Parking
Figure 6-7
Mixed-Use with partial
Sub-Grade Parking Podium
loft
Ch. 18.16 - Page 25
Figure 6-8
Mixed-Use with Below-Grade
Parking Podium
(Supp-No t3 I0/t12007)
18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria
(7) Large (Multi-Acre) Sites
Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building
patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that:
[ Figure7-1 ]
New development of large sites maintains
and enhances connectivity with a hierarchy
of public streets, private streets, walks and
bike paths (integrated with Palo Alto s
Bicycle Master Plan, when applicable);
Sites greater than
one acre may have
100% Residential
buildings as part of the
mixed-use concept.
The diversity of building types increases
with increased lot size (e.g., <1 acre =
minimum 1 building type; 1-2 acres =
minimum 2 housing types; greater than 2
acres = minimum 3 housing types) (Figures
7-1 through 7-3); and Figure 7-2
Where a site includes more than one
housing type, each building type should
respond to its immediate context in terms of
scale, massing, and design (e.g., Village
Residential building types facing or
abutting existing single-family residences)
(Figures 7-2 and 7-3).
(Supp. No t3 i0/tra®7)Ch. 18.16 - Page 26
18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria
No
(8) Sustainability and Green Building Design
Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design
should be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the
environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for
compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In
general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and
nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The
following considerations should be included in site and building design:
Optimize building orientation for heat gain,
shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation
(Figure 8-1).
Design landscaping to create comfortable
micro-climates and reduce heat island
effects.
Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit access.
Maximize onsite stormwater management
through landscaping and permeable
pavement (Figure 8-2).
Use sustainable building materials.
Design lighting, plumbing, and equipment
for efficient energy and water use.
Create healthy indoor environments.
Use creativity and innovation to build more
sustainable environments. One example is
establishing gardens with edible fruits,
vegetables or other plants to satisfy a
portion of project open space requirements.
Provide protection for creeks and riparian
vegetation and integrate stormwater
management measures and open space to
minimize water quality and erosion impacts
to the creek environment.
Encourage installation of photovoltaic
panels.
South facing wi~s with
Sun
~nter Sun ~
Figure 8-1
Minimize stormwater runoff to impermeable
areas with landscapir~g, green roofs.
and swales when possible.Figure 8-2
BuikJip~3 integrated PV’s
in the f~rrn of sunshades]
canopies/awnings
Figure 8-3
Epmourage the installation of photovot~ic panels.
(Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
Ch. 18.16 - Page 27 (Supp. No 13 10/1/2007)
18,16.100 Grandfathered Uses
18.16.100 Grandfathered Uses
(a)CN District Office Uses
In the CN district, all office uses existing as of August 1, 1989, which were lawful
conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit
and which, as of such date, exceed 5,000 square feet in size or 25% of lot area, may remain
as legal nonconforming uses and shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to
termination pursuant to Chapter 18.70, provided, however, that in the case of a conflict
between the provisions of this section and the provisions of Chapter 18.70, this section shall
control. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements in
accordance with current applicable site development regulations, provided that any such
remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in increased floor area devoted to
such office uses.
CS District Office Uses
In the CS district, medical, professional or general business or administrative office uses
existing on August 1, 1989 and which, as of such date, were lawful conforming permitted
uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit may remain as legal
nonconforming uses and shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to
termination pursuant to Chapter 18.70, provided, however, that in the case of a conflict
between the provisions of this section and the provisions of Chapter 18.70, this section shall
control. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements in
accordance with current applicable site development regulations, provided that any such
remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in increased floor area devoted to
such office uses.
(Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
(Supp. No 13 !01112007)Ch. 18.16 - Page 28
18.30(A).040 Permitted Uses
Chapter 18.30(A)
RETAIL SHOPPING (R)
COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.30(A).010
18.30(A).020
18.30(A).030
18.30(A).040
18.30(A).050
18.30(A).060
Specific Purposes
Applicability of Regulations
Zoning Map Designation
Permitted Uses
Conditional Uses
Special Requirements
18.30(A).010 Specific Purposes
The retail shopping combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in a commercial
district, where applied in comkination with such district, to allow only retail, eating and service-
oriented commercial devdopment on the ground floors.
(Ord. 3519 § 3 (part), 1984)
18.30(A).020 Applicability of Regulations
The retail shopping combining district may be combined with any commercial district, in accord with
Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.80. Where so combined, the regulations set forth in this chapter shall
apply in lieu of the ccrnparable provisions established by the und~lying commercial district
regulations.
(Ord. 3519 § 3 (part), 1984)
18.30(A).030 Zoning Map Designation
The retail shopping combining district shall apply to properties designated on the zoning map by the
symbol "R" within parentheses, following the commercial designation with which it is combined.
(Ord. 3519 § 3 (part), 1984)
18.30(A).040 Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted in an R district:
(a)Eating and drinking services, except drive-in and take-out services;
(b)Personal services;
(c)Retail services;
(d)All other uses permitted in the underlying commercial district, provided they are not
located on a ground floor.
(Ord. 3519 § 3 (part), 1984)
Ch. 18.30 - Page 3 (Supp. No ~3- ~0/~r2007)
18.30(A).060 Special Requirements
18.30(A).050 Conditional Uses
The following uses may be conditionally permitted in an R district, subject to the is~nce of a
conditional use permit in accord with Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals):
(a) Financial services, except drive-in services, on a ground floor;
(b)All other conditional uses allowed in the underlying commercial district provided they
are not located on a ground floor.
(Ord. 4826 § 86, 2004: Ord. 3519 § 3 (part), !984)
18.30(A).060 Special Requirements
The following special requirements shall apply in the R retail shopping combining di-ict:
Lawful conforming permitted uses or ccnditional uses operating pursuant to a conditional use
permit which were existing on April 26, 1984 may remain as grandfathered uses and shall not
require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70. Such uses shall
be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site for continual use
and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or
replacement shall not result in increased floor area, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or
replacement result in shifting of building fotprint or increased height, lengqh, building envelope,
or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the edsting degree of
noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to
Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals). Ira use deemed grandfithered pursuant to this section
ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered
abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant
to this section which is dmnged to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be eestablished, and
any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered
use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used e~cept to accommodate a conforming use.
(Ord. 4826 § 87, 2004: Ord. 4140 § 15, 1993: Ord. 4016 § 29, 1991: Ord. 3519 § 3 (part), 1984)
(Supp, No 13- 10/I/2007 Ch. 18.30 - Page 4
Attachment F
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANN~G & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Elena Lee
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT: Planning &
Community Environment
DATE:January 30, 2008
SUBJECT:2995 Middlefield Road: Request by Old Trace Middlefield to rezone one
parcel from Planned Community (PC-3779) to Commercial Neighborhood
(CN). Environmental Review: An Initial Study has been completed and a
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the
City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the ordinance (Attachment A)
rezoning the site at 2995 Middlefield Rd. from Planned Community (PC-3779) to the
Commercial Neighborhood (CN) District.
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION
The purview of the PTC is to review the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
and to ensure that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and policies
of the City of Palo Alto. The PTC is to make a recommendation to the City Council whether to
approve or deny the proposed zone change.
BACKGROUND
Project Description
Attached to this staff report is a letter (Attachment F) from Mr. Eric Corrigan, owner of Old
Trace Middlefield, requesting that the City consider rezoning the property at 2995 Middlefield
Road, as shown on the location map (Attachment B), from Planned Community (PC-3779) to
Commercial Neighborhood. The applicant is requesting the change from a designation that
specifically allowed a gas station to a more general commercial designation to accommodate a
broader range of uses. The applicant intends to submit an application for review of the removal
of the gas station and development of a commercial building on the site. A subsequent CEQA
City of Palo Alto Page I
review document would be prepared and circulated for any new development resulting from this
rezoning.
The subject property was rezoned to Planned Community (PC-3779) on November 9, 1987 from
RM-2 (Low Density Multiple Family Residential) to allow the continued operation of an existing
gas station and associated improvements.
Site Description
The project site is comprised of 0.45 acre of land, located on the north side of Middlefield Road,
approximately 65 feet southeast of Matadero Creek. The site is developed with a gas station that
has been inoperative since 2004. The property was purchased by the current owner, Old Trace
Middlefield, from BP West Coast Products, LLC, in December 2007. The conditions of the
property sale include that the new owner cannot re-establish a gas station on the site. The
property is bounded by the Winter Lodge, a private recreational use on city o~vned land, on the
north, east and west.
DISCUSSION
The proposed ordinance (Attachment A) is a rezoning of the subject parcel from Planned
Community (PC-3997) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). The CN district regulations are
provided in Attachment D. The property at 2995 Middlefield Road is zoned PC-3997 for use as a
gas station. The PC 3997 ordinance is provided as Attachment C. This zone change would
allow the currently vacant site to be redeveloped with a variety of commercial uses, providing an
opportunity to improve the area.
The proposed zone change application does yet not include any specific development project.
The applicant intends to remove and replace the existing automobile service/gas station with a
commercial building upon successful rezoning of the site, approval of a subsequent CEQA
document and separate Architectural Review application. Any new mixed-use (residential and
non-residential) development of four residential units or less would also be reviewed by the ARB
followed by the Planning Director’s decision. The maximum allowable residential density within
a mixed use project on the site would be seven units. Any mixed use development of more than
four residential units would be subject to the City’s Site and Design Review process, with PTC
and ARB review and Council decision required for approval.
The CN district is intended to create and maintain neighborhood centered shopping areas,
consisting of retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking and office uses of moderate size.
These uses should serve the immediate neighborhood and meet regulations that will assure
maximum compatibility with the surrounding residential areas. The CN District would allow a
variety of commercial/retail uses and mixed residential/non-residential uses to be configured
either vertically or horizontally on the property, subject to CEQA review and approval of
planning and building permits. The property is located in the Midtown West neighborhood, but
outside of the Midtown Shopping Center (as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan).
The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.16 establishes the development standards
and allowed uses in the CN district. Commercial uses are restricted in size per Section
18.16.060(0. However, the site is subject to setback lines established by PAMC 20.08, such that
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 2
parcels on Middlefield Road in this location have a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Future
development would also be evaluated under context-based design criteria of PAMC 18.16 and
performance criteria of PAMC 18.23, including those for parking and late night uses and
activities. Since the sale of the parcel was conditioned by the prior owner so that the front area,
where remediation for underground tanks is in process, is not to be disturbed, future development
may not fully meet the context based design criteria set forth in PAMC 18.16. However, because
the context-based design section consists of criteria/guidelines, decisions on future development
will have to be evaluated for the project’s conformance to the development standards, as well as
consistency and compatibility with neighborhood context. The development proposal would be
evaluated to determine if it meets the intent of the context based design section because those
criteria are not the same as development standards. A non-residential development could have a
floor area ratio of up to 0.4:1, for a maximum of approximately 8,358 square feet on the site. A
mixed use project could have a floor area ratio up to 0.9:1, with the 0.5:1 additional area for
residential units. A project’s compliance with the CN regulations will be analyzed at the time a
development application is submitted. The purview of the Commission is therefore to determine
only whether the rezoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan and City Policy.
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property is Neighborhood Commercial,
which would be consistent with the proposed CN zone district. The site is surrounded by
Middlefield Road, Matadero Creek and properties that are zoned Public Facility (PF). Those
properties are part of the Winter Lodge, a recreation center with an ice skating rink, tennis courts
and a swimming pool.
Zone Change Process
The process for a property owner-initiated zone change is outlined in the Palo Alto Municipal
Code under Section 18.80. The steps are summarized as follows:
The application for a change in zoning designation may be made with the consent of the
property owner of record.
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, 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.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed change in zoning designation must be consistent with the plans and policies of the
City of Palo Alto. Therefore, the proposed zone change is consistent with the Neighborhood
Commercial land use designation and a change in this designation is not required.
The Comprehensive Plan defines the Neighborhood Commercial designation as follows:
Typical uses in this designation would include shopping centers with off-street parking or a
cluster of streetfront stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Examples include Alma
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Plaza, Charleston Center, Edgewood Center and Midtown. Typical uses include supermarkets,
bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops, restaurants, dry cleaners, and hardware
stores. In some locations, residential and mixed use projects may be allowed. Non-residential
floor area ratios will range up to O. 4.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Policies
Staff believes that the proposed zone change complies with the Comprehensive Plan goals,
policies and programs. The associated policies have been identified as relevant to this site and
include:
Goal L-l: Implement local land use and growth management to provide for a "well-designed,
compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places,
shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces."
Policy L-4: "Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality
of its commercial areas and public facilities."
Policy L-40: "Revitalize Midtown as an attractive, compact Neighborhood Center with diverse
local-serving uses, a mix of one- and two-story buildings, adequate parking, and a network of
pedestrian-oriented streets, ways and gathering places. Encourage retention of Midtown’s
grocery stores and encourage a variety of neighborhood retail shops and services."
Goal B-2: Provide for a "diverse mix of commercial, retail and professional service businesses.
Economic strength stems from a diversity of small and large businesses. Palo Alto should strive
to maintain and enhance diversity and provide the ability of these businesses to provide these
goods and services within the community."
Goal B-3: Encourage "new businesses that provide needed local services and municipal
revenues, contribute to economic vitality, and enhance the City’s Physical Environment."
Policy B-9: "Encourage new businesses that meet the city’s business and economic goals to
locate in Pato Alto."
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental
issues related to the rezoning, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
is in circulation for a 20-day public review period that began January 18 and ends February 7,
2008. A copy of the environmental document is provided as Attachment E.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
A.Draft Ordinance
B.Location Map
C.Planned Community (PC-3779) Zoning
D.Neighborhood Commercial District (CN) Regulations
E.Draft Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
F.Rezoning Request Letter (by Applicant)
COURTESY COPIES
Old Trace Middlefield, Project Applicant and Owner
Sheri Furman, Midtown Residents Association
PREPARED BY:Elena Lee, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY:Amy French, Manager of Current Planning
Curtis Williams, Assistant Director
Cio~ of Palo Alto Page 5
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
t6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
January 30, 2008
EXCERPT
2995 Middlefield Road*: Request by Old Trace Middlefield on behalf of BP West Coast
Products, LLC for a zone change from the existing Planned Community 3779 (PC-3779)
district to Neighborhood Commercial (CN). Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study
will be prepared. Zone District: PC-3779.
Chair Holman: We are ready to address item number two, 2995 Middlefield Road. This
is a request by Old Trace Middlefield on behalf of BP West Coast Products for a zone
change from the existing Planned Community to Neighborhood Commercial zoning.
Would Staff care to make a presentation?
Ms. Lee: Thank you Chair Holman and Commissioners. The project before you is a
zone change application for one 0.45-acre parcel. The property owner is requesting a
zone change from Planned Community (PC-3997) to Commercial Neighborhood to allow
redevelopment of a vacant gas station with a wider variety of commercial uses.
The PC designation for the site allows only an automobile service station. This
application does not include any specific development project. Should the rezoning be
successful the applicant intends to file a separate Architectural Review application to
allow the removal of the gas station and the construction of a new commercial building.
The proposed zone change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and designation
and policies. A draft initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and
circulated for public review on January 18 for a 20-day circulation period to end on
February 7. As of this oral Staff Report Staff has not received many comments on the
Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff has received a few phone calls and emails from
neighbors of the site seeking more information on what the proposed development was as
it has been vacant since 2004.
Staff has also made available at places tonight the attachments referenced in Attachment
F. The attachments include site photos, aerials, and potential site plans for future
proposals not an actual proposal yet. The project was also reviewed by Joe Saccio, the
Deputy Director of Administrative Services, for potential resource impacts. It was
detemained that based on the types of uses for this designation City costs to support this
facility such as public safety are marginal and will not affect the City’s budget. Staff
would also like to note that there was another typo on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. On the first page of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, directly behind the
Notice of Intent to Adopt and in front of the Initial Study in the packet, under Section II,
Determination, there is a reference to the earlier project, 3208, 3230, and 3220 Alexis
Drive. It should be stated to say 2995 Middlefield Road.
Page 1
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
If the Commission finds this project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration other than
the ty-po acceptable Staff recommends that you recommend the Council adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the proposed project.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioners, are there clarifying questions for Staff?
Seeing none. Vice-Chair Garber did you have one?
Vice-Chair Garber: I have questions but can wait.
Chair Holman: Not clarifying it sounds like then. We have four members of the public
to speak. I believe this one is the applicant, actually. Erik Corrigan. You will have 15
minutes.
Mr. Erik Corri~an, Old Trace Middlefield: Actually I don’t really have anything to
present on the subject but I would be happy to answer any question you may have.
Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioners, are there any questions at this time? It looks like
not so thank you. Our next speaker is Sheri Furman to be followed by Ross Tinline and
you will have five minutes.
Ms. Sheri Furman. Palo Alto: Good evening Chairman Holman and Commissioners. I
don’t have that much to say. I realize tonight all we are deciding is on a zone change
from PC to CN. So representing Midtown I think this would be a beneficial zone change
for us.
Annette Ashton and I have met with Mr. Corrigan and discussed his future plans, which
again I know you are not reviewing tonight. I think this change will be very beneficial to
Midtown. We are never going to have a gas station there again and so any CN use and
the things I know he is thinking about would be a good addition to Midtown. So I urge
you to support the zoning change. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Ross Tinline to be followed by Lynn Chiapella.
Mr. Ross Tinline. San Carlos: I am just here in support of Erik to answer any questions if
there are any about environmental issues. Thank you.
Chair Holman: I believe there is a question for you. Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: I am glad you mentioned that because that was actually my
biggest question. Not necessarily pertaining to changing the zoning but when you said
environmental issues what can we look for~vard to in redeveloping that gas station in
terms of taking out the below ground storage tanks if there are any and any issues
surrounding that especially because it is near Matadero Creek? So maybe you can tell us
a little bit about what we can look forward to.
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Tinline: Well, all the underground storage tanks have been removed from the ground
and BP/Arco has pumped millions of gallons of groundwater from beneath the site.
Basically it is a shell of a canopy remaining and BP/Arco is still groundwater monitoring
the site. They are still the responsible party for getting closure from Santa Clara County.
There is some residual oil and grease towards the back of the station that will need to be
dealt with when they teardown the station but things are looking pretty good out there.
Commissioner Sandas: Actually, this might be for Mr. Corrigan as well. I will ask it and
see who needs to answer it. If the zoning gets changed from PC to CN are there any
plans to take down the gas station before any other plans submitted for building?
Mr. Corrigan: You mean filing a separate demolition permit first? I had hoped in the
next couple of months to have an architect put up some drawings for whatever the new
proposed structure is and do the two at the same time.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber has a question for one of you.
Vice-Chair Garber: The applicant, please. Your proposal to change the zoning to CN,
what are the uses that are a part of the CN zone that are of particular interest to you that
present the opportunity for you to want to do this?
Mr. Corrigan: I was planning on putting some ground floor retail with second story
office. I do not intend to put any residential uses on the property.
Vice-Chair Garber: Okay, thanks.
Chair Holman: Lynn Chiapella to be followed by our final speaker, Herb Borock.
Ms. Lynn Chiapella, Palo Alto: I have questions on the impacts. I am looking at A.
Aesthetics. I guess I don’t know how Staff has decided that there might be - I don’t
know how anything could be worse than what we have in that gas station with its neon
lights all night, etc., how they came up with there might be substantial adverse affect on
the public view corridor and questions that it might create a new source of substantial
light or glare as opposed to what we had before, which was neon lights. So I am a little
confused as to what determined this. There are some significant impacts later on under
Noise, Land Use and Planning, and Population and Housing. I don’t know how those
impacts came up. I would hope that this project would have less impact than that which
we had from the gas station, which had fairly significant impacts on both the people who
lived across the street as well as on the traffic and the left turns and the hazardous traffic
situation we had at that site. I miss the Arco but did present problems for the
neighborhood. So I have questions on the impacts here. I can’t figure out how they did
it.
The second part of it is I looked at the property map which you have up there and reread
the PC conditions. As you can see, or maybe not see because something has been taken
out of that which used to exist there. In the back of the larger building in the back were
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
other buildings along that back fence. They seem to be missing now. There is a
condition in here that refers to parking places back there with wheel stops, which since
there were buildings back there for the repair didn’t exist. What did happen, if you look
at the picture and you look at the one in your folder, you will see the parking spaces
along the creek and you will see all of the landscaping along the creek, and if you come
around the corner in the rear you wilt also see the landscaping back there. That was
al~vays the responsibility of the Arco station because it is isolated both from water and
physically from the other business, the ice skating rink. So my question is how is the
City going to pipe the water over there and do all that maintenance, and who is going to
use those parking spaces which now exist if those in fact do not somehow go along with
the site?
In fact they probably will need or would like to have more parking but that was the deal,
he maintained it and he got the parking for maintaining the landscaping. I am very
concerned about that landscaping because it was really hideous for many years before the
PC came up for renewal under various reasons and he put in all that landscaping. The
maintenance by the City is problematic since there is no water. The parking has not been
maintained. If you go and look the City is not maintaining that parking because who is
going to use it except that property? So I think the City costs have been underestimated
and that something has to be done for that rear and the side. My suggestion is it is an
equitable tradeoff to allow the eight parking spaces or whatever is there during the day to
be used by the businesses rather than just have it sit empty as a parking space. Otherwise
the City needs to take responsibility for their property and maintain it and run the water
out there and do all that trimming and do all that stuff that has been taken care of by
Arco. So that would be my concern, what are you going to do about the orphans that you
are leaving behind if you change this PC without consideration of all of that strip. Maybe
it is one-eighth of an acre it is hard for me to judge but it is insignificant if you have to
maintain it. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Our final speaker is Herb Borock.
Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Thank you Chair Holman. You have a letter at places from
the applicant, which purports to describe the history of the property and says that the
previous zoning of this property before the Planned Community Zone was CN,
Neighborhood Commercial. As you can see from the Staff Report and Attachment C the
prior zoning was residential, R-2, from the old multiple family districts, RM-1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5, which had been changed so that RM-2 is now RM-!5. If you take a look at the
proposed ordinance in Attachment A to see a copy of the Zoning Map of the area this site
except for the City’s property where Winter Loge and the former Chuck Thompson are is
completely residential. So it is essentially a spot zoning. It is putting a single
Neighborhood Commercial parcel of tess than half an acre as a commercial use whereas
you have RM-15 and RM-30 next to it essentially.
I can understand neighborhood organizations who have been faced with residential
projects that far exceed the appropriate floor area that should have been approved for
them and seem to have a reaction to having a residential. But it seems strange to be
Page 4
1 zoning this commercial in the middle of this residential area. At the time of the service
2 station there were service station uses zoned and that is why it became a PC but it took
3 away from residential. Now you have a Neighborhood Commercial zone that prohibits
4 residential so you may want to consider the spot zoning nature of this request and also the
5 prior history of RM-2, which is now RM-15 for the property.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Also I note in the allowable uses in the excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance before you
that says hotels are prohibited in Neighborhood Commercial. I believe that is a good
thing and I recall testifying to that effect when the Zoning Ordinance Update was before
the Council. It was my recollection the draft seemed to include hotels in all commercial
zones. So if this is what it is it is better than what I thought it was going to be in ten-ns of
hotels in Neighborhood Commercial. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioners, do we have quest, ions for the applicant?
Vice-Chair Garber first and then Commissioner Keller.
Vice-Chair Garber: As I understand it only a portion of the site is usable given the
underground issues that we have. Could you use the pointer and describe and outline the
area that is actually usable for new structures?
Mr. Corri~an: Well, it is not very close-up. I will try and hold it steady. At the front of
the property right here is where the underground storage tanks were and that was kind of
at this comer. Then the pumps are located right here. They have removed the pumps and
the underground storage tanks but BP/Arco had requested that we specify certain parts of
the property that would be n6 build areas because in the event that the case remained
open or that the county would need to access the ground soil for any continued mitigation
or environmental concerns on the site they ~vould want to have access to that. Then later,
since I have turned in the application, I have had a discussion with BP/Arco where I
pointed out that one of the requirements of the CN zoning is that you are able to build a
structure that meets the built to requirement of the front setback, which would require any
potential building to be oriented towards the front to encourage more pedestrian traffic.
This is in the contextual guidelines. In my discussions with BP/Arco they agreed in our
purchase contract to allow the construction of a building that would go up to the front and
they removed some of what they had in the purchase contract as restricted areas to allow
for a building to be built where the pumps were. So the soil underneath or where the
underground storage tanks were could be still be accessed. Does that answer your
question?
Vice-Chair Garber: I think so thank you.
Chair Hotman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Sir? One of the members of the public mentioned the issue of the
landscape buffer between the subject property and the parking for the Winter Lodge.
That appears to be currently a condition of the PC and it would be an explicit condition of
the CN because the CN zone doesn’t have a condition like that. Do you want to comment
Page 5
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
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
about what kind of landscape buffer might be maintained and whether there would be a
way of accommodating that kind of situation in terms of the setbacks for what you are
going to be building?
Mr. Corrigan: So far I haven’t put together any plans for any specific structure but I have
spoken to Linda Jensen with the Winter Lodge and I would like to cooperate in any way
that I can with any maintenance issues. I was unaware of this particular situation with the
prior zoning.
As I just heard it explained there was a tradeoff of BP/Arco maintaining that landscape
and in return they got the parking spaces. I would be happy to maintain the landscaping
with or without the parking spaces but obviously more parking would be ~eat. I thought
that was Winter Lodge parking.
Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you very much for your comment.
Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, are there questions for Staff?.
Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for the City Attorney. What constitutes the
threshold for spot zoning?
Ms. Tronquet: There is no specific definition of spot zoning. Usually it is something
where an isolated type of zoning is put in an area where it is out of context with the
zoning around it. Here, I don’t think this would constitute spot zoning because of the
nature of the lot. There is a map in your packet where it is easier to see but it is sort of
smack dab in the middle of a PF right now. So it is a little bit unusua! in the sense that it
is surrounded by a variety of types of zoning. So I am not concerned that this would be
spot zoning.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I have a question for Planning Staff. With regard to
livable communities and neighborhood walkability is it desirable to have some sort of
convenience or neighborhood-serving commercial retail in that area?
Mr. Williams: We think it is. You have the Midtown center close by too but there has
been a service facility here too. In this particular instance it is surrounded by the Winter
Lodge site, which is a commercial recreation type of use. So it seems to be an
appropriate adjunct to that in this particular location. If this were surrounded by single
family residential that might be a little different but here it seems to be appropriate.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you for the new zoning maps. One thing that I like about
the old zoning maps that is missing with the new zoning maps is the key map doesn’t
clearly indicate the page number of the page on the zoning. So the page numbers are
missing.
Page 6
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
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Williams: I noticed that myself yesterday.
Commissioner Keller: Going to the substance of my question. If you look at zoning
page 9 it appears that there is PC-3779 which is the subject property, nearby there is an
animal facility some veterinarian at 3517 which is across the parking lot from the Winter
Lodge in the front there on the comer, nearby on the comer of Loma Verde and
Middlefield there is PC-3405 and if I remember correctly at least this subject property
was originally zoned to be residential at some point in time when they were zoning lots of
commercial things to be residential and forcing out the residential. I believe that there
was a petition, I actually remember signing myself, to retain this Arco station and retain
some other things around there as commercial instead of having it go away. In that
regard would you consider this replacement of PC by CN sort of a continuation of the
commercial use there and thereby not a spot rezoning but in some sense a continuation of
the kind of thing that is already there?
Mr. Williams: Yes, I think that is very much the basis for both the request and our
support is that it is really a continuation of a commercial use on this site that supports
generally the neighborhood as opposed to a more regional purpose or a residential zone.
Commissioner Keller: Further, I believe that there are some condos in the RM-15 zone
that are immediately to the logical south if you will of where it says PF and there have
been some issues about the interface of those condos and PF. Would the nature of those
kinds of complaints also apply to the interface of putting housing at PC-3779? Would
that present a conflict with respect to the surrounding PF and that housing?
Mr. Williams: It very well may. Being surrounded by that type of use would not be
generally consistent with the residential use on this site. It could create some nuisances
with the noise and people coming in and out of the site for the residential. I suppose you
could look at it that way.
I also want to point out that you said Comprehensive Plan designation on this site is CN
also. So this is consistent with that aspect of it as well. So regardless of the fact that it
may have at one point been zoned residential, now it is a PC, the Comprehensive Plan has
designated it as a commercial site.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I wish when we retained Arco we had retained
Rodolfo’s.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber.
Vice-Chair Garber: Out of curiosity, what set the quantity of parking at the Winter
Lodge as it exists now? Do we know? Is it simply a result of how much land was
leftover but there is no requirement for ho~v much parking an ice skating rink requires?
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Mr. Williams: Well, there would be, there is something in the code that talks about
commercial recreation and parking requirements.
Vice-Chair Garber: But we don’t know if it is more or less than what is required?
Mr. Williams: No.
Vice-Chair Garber: Also, this parcel if it is rezoned and allows uses such as offices and
residential and has parking requirements that it will generate that means that we will also
have entrances and exits. There is an entrance and exit to the Winter Lodge on either side
of it and then we are adding another entrance and exit presumably on that property itself
that would be correct. Does that present any issues for us?
Ms. Lee: At the time the development proposal is submitted that would be reviewed by
our Transportation Staff to determine whether the existing entrance is adequate or
whether it needs to be modified and also the proximity to the adjacent driveways.
Vice-Chair Garber: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: This site is a bit of an anomaly in that it is centered in this Public
Facility, it is bound by the Public Facility and then public right-of-way on the front.
Would it be appropriate in terms of the constraints that the site has with regard to where
the building can actually be located if it actually had some interface with the Public
Facility given that the Public Facility really is acting as a concession, it is the Winter
Lodge, it is a concession for a skating rink, it is leased out by the City, but if it was a
retail use like a small cafd or restaurant or even a convenience store it would be accessed
not just from Middlefield Road but also possibly from the Public Facility.
Mr. Williams: I think that is a site plan question that we will need to deal with then. I
can see that they may very well look at that type of a connection as well. I am sure the
applicant will want also to have good exposure on the Middlefietd Road side primarily.
Then if there is an opportunity to also make some connection back to the Winter Lodge
that is probably a good idea.
Chair Hotman: Commissioner Keller, question?
Commissioner Keller: Yes, one as a follow up to what Vice-Chair Garber said in terms
of access to the subject property from Winter Lodge I assume that if that were provided
there would have to be appropriate agreement in terms of access in either direction. It
probably makes more sense for access to be towards the bottom side of that figure,
to,yards the logical south rather than towards the logical north.
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
4!
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: If I could interrupt, I think we are getting into another site development
issue and not the rezoning issue. So that is not on the table tonight unlesg it has to do
with how the rezoning would affect that and I can’t imagine that that would be the case.
Commissioner Keller: I am assuming that that material will be covered as part of Site
and Design, is that correct?
Mr. Williams: Yes. It is actually ARB review as opposed to Site and Design.
Commissioner Lippert: If I might follow up with Commissioner Keller’s comment there.
If it remained a PC and it remained a gas station use it would pretty much function the
way it is if we didn’t change the zoning on it. However, if we did change the zoning on it
there are certain guidelines that are outlined that need to be followed. So I think your line
of questioning is appropriate in that there are constraints on this site where if it continued
in the current use and zoning would not be problematic. Whereas if the zoning and use
were changed on the property there would be constraints imposed on the site that would
be difficulties. That is what I was trying to get to with regard to building orientation and
your line of questioning really has to do with access, which is similar so I think it is
appropriate .to bring those to light in the discussion.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: The other question that I have and it is not clear when this
question wil! be addressed. So my question is when will the question be addressed as to
the issue of contextual setback, which is appropriate for CN zoning? Since the contextual
setback from that area appears to be inset. You look at the Winter Lodge it appears to be
inset. You look at the adjacent to Winter Lodge, the veterinarian hospital that is also
recessed. So how would you deal with the concept of build to lines and the concept of
contextual setback? How does the conflict between those two ideas get answered?
Ms. Tronquet: I don’t know whether this will get answered tonight. What you are really
doing with this action tonight is reviewing the proposed rezoning for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and other City zoning policies. So to the extent you are interested in
setbacks, you can review sort of the baseline setbacks and other requirements that are
outlined already in the code for the CN zone and that will give you some idea of sort of
the baseline.
Mr. Williams: The answer is the ARB. The ARB has the authority to look at that
contextual setback and determine if it is appropriate or if it is appropriate in this instance
to be back further.
Commissioner Keller: If we rezone this CN they would deal with the issue of whether
context or build to and how to deal with that?
Mr. Williams: Right.
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
Chair Holman: I have one quick question. We can look at other appropriate zonings for
this parcel would Staff have any comment or difficulty with a CN with an R Combining
District?
Mr. Williams: No we don’t that is a Retail Combining District, which would require that
the ground floor be retail personal services or restaurants, eating and drinking serdces.
So it is generally consistent with what the CN already does. There are a couple of little
tweaks that the CN and also the Midtown CN allow like neighborhood business service
or something like that that is outside those parameters but I think it is the intent of the
applicant to look within that range. We don’t have any problems with the R Combining
District.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Sandas.
MOTION
Commissioner Sandas: I am going to make the motion so that we can stay focused on the
topic at hand. Regarding 2995 Middlefield Road I move that the Planning and
Transportation Commission recommend that the Council adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and approve the ordinance rezoning the site from Planned Community to
Neighborhood Commercial District.
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert: I second that.
Chair Holman: Would you care to speak to your motion, Commissioner Sandas?
Commissioner Sandas: I would. I think that we have had a blighted empty gas station
there long enough. I see that the CN zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
We are talking about a small parcel and neighborhood-serving retail is a benefit to the
community and the neighbors surrounding. In addition, it is a spot along Middlefield
Road that is sort of stitches the seam between the Midtown shopping area and the comer
on Loma Verde at Middlefietd where there is a coffee house and a restaurant and store
and so on and so forth. So not knowing what the project plans are for the future the only
way that we can find those out is to rezone this and I say let’s go.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, would you care to speak to your second?
Commissioner Lippert: I am in support of everything that Commissioner Sandas said. I
just want to add that with its proximity and location to the Public Facility that is nearby I
thirtk it is a really great opportunity to reinvigorate that area a little bit. It adds to not just
serving the neighborhood but everyone xvho comes to use the Winter Lodge facility. Was
it part of your motion to make it CN with the R Combining District?
Page lO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
!9
20
21
22.,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Sandas: No, it is just to do the CN.
Commissioner Lippert: Well, I will ask for a friendly amendment that we add the R
Combining District.
Commissioner Sandas: I can live with that particularly since the applicant has already
spoken to the idea coming forward to put retail on the ground floor.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay, so continuing I like the idea of having a coffee shop or a
small restaurant or convenience store there where people who are there for the day
skating or taking classes can go in get a bite to eat, relax, and then go back to their
workout. People in the neighborhood can also walk to it.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION
Vice-Chair Garber: Yes. I would like to offer a substitute motion, which is an alternative
way of thinking about this particular site. I will offer it and then hope to get a second for
discussion if nothing else so that I can explain what it is I am doing. My substitute
motion would be to not support the Staff’s recommendation and to direct Staff to work
with the applicant and the City to have the City purchase the property and make it a PF
zone thus making the property as well as its adjoining properties all the same zone.
Chair Holman: Is there a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Keller: I will second it for the purposes of discussion.
Vice-Chair Garber: May I speak to the motion? Right at the moment the property’is
surrounded as was noted earlier by the PF Zone or Public Facility Zone. The use of the
property is also further compromised by some of the constraints resulting from the
underground gas as well as some of the requirements that the previous owner has made
on the applicant. It is although sort of roughly a part of the Midtown neighborhood it is
far a~vay or it is not adjacent, I should say. The opportunity I think for the PF zone that
allows both retail as well as office and also under other uses allows significant latitude by
the Director to provide other uses that are similar to those listed as permitted or
conditionally permitted uses, if I am reading page 4 correctly of our recently handed out
code.
In so doing if a purchase by the City of the property and its subsequent changing of zone
to PF were accomplished the City could then enter into a lease agreement with the
applicant for not just this particular area of where the property used to be but could merge
the lots and create a larger leased area than the applicant could currently build out now
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
¯ 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
and create a greater opportunity for retail to occur in this particular area. Therefore
creating a higher density of that use. Further, it could clean up the parking and the exits
and entrances and share the parking with the Winter Lodge as welt as have it be more
inte~ated with the design of the Winter Lodge itself. So I think there are a series of
potential benefits for the City in that it cleans up a property that has a variety of- we end
up with this little not quite a donut hole but it is sort of a C-section here. And it allows
for significantly ~eater flexibility of the planning of the property and it gets the right
uses in where we want them at a geater density than we would otherwise be allowed. So
those are my reasons and I would be curious to see if there would be other support for
that.
Chair Holman: Curtis.
Mr. Williams: I just want to clarify because it might not be clear in that Table. The only
retail that is allowed in that is one in conjunction with a permitted use and the only
permitted uses are parks and facilities owned or leased and operated by the City, the
County, etc., etc. So it would have to really be part of that use as opposed to being a
separate profit-making retail venture. Then the other things like offices are only if they
are supporting non-profit organizations. So it is a very limited scope that is really
intended to be accessory to the use that is there. So I am not sure how it could provide
what they are talking about that would be considered accessory to that.
Chair Holman: I think first why don’t we let Commissioner Keller speak to his second if
he wishes to.
Commissioner Keller: No, I only seconded for the purposes of discussion. So I am
basically giving Vice-Chair Garber the benefit of discussion.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber.
Vice-Chair Garber: Would there be the opportunity for the Council and/or the Director
under the uses, although it says listed as permitted or conditionally permitted uses, to
create the opportunity for those uses that would otherwise be allo~ved under CN to occur
here? I ask because although the Winter Lodge is a not for profit it is a use that is unique
and still exists within that PF zone.
Mr. Williams: I think they woul.d have to amend the PF Zoning Ordinance to allow that,
to basically allow these uses on public lands that are immediately adjacent to those kinds
of facilities or something along those lines.
Vice-Chair Garber: Is there any precedent for that in the City?
Mr. Williams: Not in terms specifically of PF. Actually I don’t know of anything like
that.
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Am,/French, Current Planning Manager: I was just looking at the CN recreational
uses. Conceivably the City could own a CN zoned site and I suppose lease it to or have
the flexibility of having a CUP for outdoor recreation services on the site and then retail
is just permitted.
Mr. Williams: That is the flip side.
Ms. French: That is the flip side, yes. Or going ahead with this rezoning to CN and then
still pursue the City acquisition if the City was so interested but having more flexibility in
a sense.
Chair Holman: I think a pertinent question to ask here is of the applicant if there is any
interest at all in pursuing these discussions with the City.
Mr. Corri~an: I have partners so I would have to speak with them regarding any sort of
purchase of the property.
Chair Hotman: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: One of the things that is interesting to me about this is that there
may be potential to think about boundary line adjustments. So the first question is am I
correct in assuming that the PF zone, which is the Winter Lodge, is not considered
dedicated parkland?
Chair Holman: I don’t want to be City Attorney here but at the same time whether it is
dedicated parkland or not it is City-owned land.
Mr. Williams: I don’t think this is dedicated parkland.
Chair Holman: But it is City-owned so to move the property line would be to forego use
of land that is City-owned, in other words, belonging to the public. Would that be
accurate to say, Melissa?
Ms. Tronquet: Changing the boundary would have to involve some sort of sale I would
think because it would involve a transfer of some amount of property from one party to
the other.
Commissioner Keller: Let me tell you ~vhere I am going with this. What I am thinking
about is that I am not suggesting that the property line necessarily be moved but it does
seem that a redevelopment of this property indicates that it might be worth considering
,whether there might be land swaps or adjustments of the property lines in order to help
accommodate the Winter Lodge’s desire to stay and help possibly benefit the proposed
development. So it seems to me that it may make sense to add to the original motion an
indication that a) the City should consider whether it wishes to buy the subject property,
and b) the City should consider whether appropriate land swaps might ....
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: I think that would be a separate motion. We already have a motion and a
substitute motion on the floor.
Commissioner Keller: The only reason I am talking about this is because it is I think in
the spirit of the kinds of things that Vice-Chair Garber referred. What I am trying to do is
think about ways of accommodating the kinds of things that Vice-Chair Garber brought
out in a different mechanism. So it seems to me that basically encouraging the discussion
about potential land swaps or land purchases .....
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, if I might, if you would either ask the maker of the
substitute motion if he would accept an amendment toward your end but I don’t believe it
would be an amendment to the original motion. We would have to act then on the
substitute motion before we could go back to the main motion. Yes, Vice-Chair Garber.
Vice-Chair Garber: A suggestion, I am happy to remove my substitute motion in favor of
further discussion on the primary motion that may include some of these topics.
Chair Holman: Okay, so we are back to the main motion. Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: I didn’t get an opportunity to ask a question of Staff about
Commissioner Garber’s motion. Wouldn’t it require condemnation of the land in order to
take the land or to force a sale of the land? I’m asking the City Attorney. Then also
doesn’t it represent a downzoning by going from say a PC or CN zone to a PF zone?
Ms. Tronquet: I think the motion was to recommend that the City discuss with the
property owner some sort of sale. So if the City decided to go in the direction that it
really wanted to buy the property and the property owner wasn’t willing to sell it at that
point it would become a condemnation issue but that would only be if the property owner
was not willing.
Chair Holman: Just to clarify one thing ifI might Mr. Corrigan is the current owner so
they have already closed the sale and they own the property.
Commissioner Lippert: Then the second part of that question is the changing of the
zoning from a PC, which has certain values and entitlements to it, to a PF that would
have lesser value or entitlement. Would that not represent a downzoning?
Ms. Tronquet: If the City were to own it?
Commissioner Lippert: No, if we were to pursue rezoning it to PF and it was accepted.
Mr. Williams: You couldn’t rezone it to PF unless the City owned it. All PF properties
have to be owned by public agencies. So it would be in conjunction - both things would
have to happen. So I think at this point it would probably be worthwhile to ask Mr.
Corrigan if he has any thoughts on this. I think we always do that when we are talking
about a significantly different zoning.
Page 14
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 Lippert: Isn’t Stanford University Medical Center zoned PF but it is not
owned by the City.
Mr. Williams: There is a provision in here for that too of public non-profit or something
like that.
Ms. Tronquet: That includes educational facilities.
Mr. Williams: And it includes hospitals too.
Chair Holman: I think Mr. Corrigan has already answered that he has partners. I guess
you could further answer or respond if you would be interested in negotiating with the
City or if you would need more information or whatever you might have to offer.
Mr. Corrigan: Well, ifI may, I thought I was just making a request to go to CN zoning. I
think that we have kind of gone in a couple of different directions that are unrelated to
that request.
Chair Holman: It is in the purview of the Commission if we think that there is some
other more appropriate zoning to explore that. We haven’t lost sight of your request for
zone change but it is in the purview to look at other appropriate zonings. So do you have
any indication or inclination as to whether you would be interested in negotiating with the
City yourself understanding that you have partners if you are willing to state this evening.
Mr. Corrigan: Yes, I am interested discussing any of these going forward. I would have
to talk to my partners for clarification.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber. I am sorry Paula I didn’t see you.
Commissioner Sandas: Thanks. I was going to say where does that leave us here, now,
tonight? Do we continue this item pending a discussion between someone in the City and
the property o~vners? What do we do? I am at a loss here.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION
Vice-Chair Garber: So let me try this again. I am going to make a substitute motion that
we continue this item and ask Staff to investigate an alternative use for the property and
return to the Commission with the results of that conversation/discussion.
Chair Holman: Is there a second?
SECOND
Page 15
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
DO
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: I will second it if the maker will add, ’and also consider potential
boundary line adjustments cooperatively with the applicant.’
Vice-Chair Garber: Yes, that is fine.
Chair Holman: If I might before you speak to your motion. Melissa, please.
Ms. Tronquet: I have another suggestion. My recommendation was going to be that you
make a decision on the question that is before you tonight and in addition make another
motion that would recommend to the Council that they consider what you have just
discussed in terms of inquiring with the property owner about alternative uses so that
both options could go forward at the same time.
Chair Holman: That would be unusual but it satisfies the need. Curtis, go ahead.
Mr. Williams: I wanted to add also that frankly I think we would be somewhat at a loss
as to ho~v to proceed on that without knowing that the Council was supportive of that in
which case they probably maybe would appoint a couple of Council Members to work
with the applicant and see what could be worked out or something like that. I am not
sure, other than asking the applicant and the partners are they interested in any of these
things I am not sure where it would go.
Chair Holman: Again, I haven’t let you speak to your motion if you need to but I wanted
to get a bit of clarity if I might. The motion that you have on the floor is for the City to
explore purchase of the property and rezoning to PF. Do I understand correctly the
motion that is on the floor now?
Vice-Chair Garber: Yes, but that was also amended by the seconder to include the
investigation potentially of land swaps to better utilize the parcel and the adjacent parcel
together.
Chair Holman: I guess I appreciate the intention of the exploration because it is kind of
an island parcel at the same time I guess to support that motion I would have to kfiow
more specifically what the desired results are as a result of that pursuit. In other words,
what are we presenting to the Council to consider? What is the opportunity? What is the
result that you are looking for?
Vice-Chair Garber: The overall result is better utilization of the property in question as
well as the surrounding PF property and there are three potential benefits I think. One,
that the resulting structure that could potentially house retail would be larger than it is
current allowed. Two, that the organization of parking and ingress and egress could be
simplified and made more direct between the two properties or what would become the
one property and Middlefield, resulting in potentially in just one exit egress out onto that
street as opposed to three. Then the third major benefit is that there is a potential for it to
support more directly the Winter Lodge having a more community center sort of plan to
it rather than having a building that would have a back on the Winter Lodge and a front
Page 16
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
on Middlefield. So I think what it really does is present an opportunity to better utilize a
piece of land for the surrounding community.
¯Chair Holman: So you are not intending or considering specific uses there you are just
talking about extending the PF to make better land use utilization.
Vice-Chair Garber: I think what I have learned in the discussion is that whether it is PF
or CN or whatever there may be any number of ways of approaching it and I don’t want
to make part of my motion a specific request that it is PF or CN, etc. until the
opportunities to investigate it are undertaken and some determination as to what zone is
best used is found.
Chair Holman: Okay. Now, City Attorney, typically we would address the substitute
motion before going to the main motion. I think it might be important to know what the
main motion result is before addressing the substitute motion. So would the process be to
ask the maker of the substitute motion to withdraw the motion so we could vote on the
main motion? Would that be your recommendation?
Ms. Tronquet: That would work.
Chair Holman: Okay, Vice-Chair Garber.
Vice-Chair Garber: The maker of the substitute motion withdraws his motion and will
reenter it after the action on the first motion is made.
Chair Holman: And the seconder? Actually if the maker withdraws the motion I think
that is adequate.
Commissioner Keller: I am wondering if it makes sense to do this as an amendment to
the original motion.
Chair Holman: No, no we are not going to do that. I am going to take Chair’s
prerogative here and we are not going to do that.
Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you.
MOTION PASSED (3-2-t-0, Commissioners Keller and Garber voted no with
Commissioner Tuma absent)
Chair Holman: Sorry but it is just too convoluted. Okay, so we are back the main motion
to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the rezoning of the PC-3779 to CN
with the R Combining District. If there are no comments on that motion we will vote on
that motion then. All those in favor? (ayes) Those opposed? (nays) That motion passes
on a three to two with Commissioners Sandas, Lippert, and Holman voting aye and
Commissioners Keller and Garber opposed, and Commissioner Tuma absent.
Page 17
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
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Keller, you have a comment?
Commissioner Keller: I would have been more interested in supporting the motion ifI
were to have allowed the amendment for the City Council and Staff to have considered
the part suggested by Vice-Chair Garber.
Chair Holman: Understood. In the interest of moving us along, back to you Vice-Chair
Garber.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Garber: I would like to move that we ask Staff to engage the applicant and
Council to investigate better utilization of this property and its adjacent property to
accomplish potentially three benefits. One, greater built area of retail and potentially
office; two, to reduce the number of vehicle ingress and egress from the properties to
Middlefield; three, create a better use of that space to support the Winter Lodge as well as
the potential retail and office. Thank you.
SECOND
Commissioner Keller: Second.
Chair Holman: Okay. Do you need to speak any more to your motion?
Vice-Chair Garber: I do not.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, do you need to speak to your second?
Commissioner Keller: No thank you.
Chair Holman: Okay, comments or questions about the motion? Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: I can support the proposal and the reason is the way you have
rephrased it and you have placed it on the backside of the recommendation for a rezone.
I think that by offering it up front it is a little forced.
The Winter Lodge does have significant problems. I think part of it is parking,
landscaping, the lighting, its interface with the neighbors, and it could really benefit a lot
from a little more shall we say ~elbow room’ in order to take some of those negatives off
the neighboring or adjacent properties. I don’t necessarily believe that the City has the
~vherewithal to be able to develop that property and I don’t think it should be the burden
of the current property owner to make that happen either.
So I can support the exploration and looking at this and seeing if there are funds available
in park acquisition for instance. It might be appropriate but that is for the Council to
Page 18
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
decide. I think it is an interesting idea, I am intrigued by it, and I can support the
sentiments there.
Chair Holman: I have just one question I would like to ask just to get it firmly on the
record. If the City were successful in acquiring the land the contamination cleanup is the
burden of the prior owner BP/Arco, right? Okay, I just wanted to confirm that.
Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I want to clarify just to make sure that part of the intent here is
either acquisition of the property by the City or alternatively lot line adjustments
ageeable to both parties that would accomplish the goals that you stated.
Vice-Chair Garber: Yes.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-1-0, Commissioner Tuma absent)
Chair Holman: Okay. I am going to support the motion because I think it is unfortunate
that this wasn’t considered previously when the property was for sale the first time.
However, I think it makes a lot of sense if it can be accomplished to compile this
property. So all those in favor say aye? (ayes) Opposed? That passes on a five to zero
vote with Commissioner Tuma absent.
So we have two motions that we are forwarding to Council. So let me close the public
hearing I don’t believe I had and thank the applicant. Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Considering that the second motion passed unanimously I am
wondering if I can amend my vote on the first motion to a yea?
Commissioner Lippert: No, you can only ask for reconsideration if you voted in support
of it.
Chair Holman: That is true.
Ms. Tronquet: It will be noted in the minutes though.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
Chair Holman: So that concludes item number two. Thank you again to applicant and
Staff.
Page 19
ATTACHMENT H
Old Trace Middlefield Partners
2995 Middlefield Road,
Palo Alto, 94306
May 6th, 2008
Elena Lee
Planner
City of Palo Alto
Dear Elena,
At the January 30th, 2008 planning commission meeting I was asked whether Old Trace Middlefield
partners would consider a potential sale of our property to the City of Palo Alto. My response at that
time was that I would have to check with my partners on the subject, as I am just a limited partner. The
Planning Commission made a motion at the end of the meeting to explore a potential purchase of the
property, or a modification of parcel lines to improve the relationship of the city-owned parcel (Winter
Lodge), and the 2995 Middlefield Parcel.
Commissioner Garber’s motion was as follows
Vice-Chair Garber: I would like to move that we ask Staff to engage the applicant and Council to
investigate better utilization of this property and its adjacent property to accomplish potentially
three benefits. One, greater built area of retail and potentially office; two, to reduce the number
of vehicle ingress and egress from the properties to Middlefield; three, create a better use of that
space to support the Winter Lodge as wel! as the potential retail and office. Thank you.
Since the January 30th meeting, I have discussed the potential purchase with my partners. At this time,
we are not interested in selling the property. We have always had the intention of developing a new
building with retail on the ground floor and some 2°d story office.
Although we are not interested in selling, I have spoken with Linda Jensen of the Winter Lodge, and
would be willing to work with Linda, and the city of Palo Alto to generate a plan to investigate better
utilization of these two properties with Vice-Chair Garber’s objectives.
I look forward to our continued progress on this project.
Sincerely,
Erik Corrigan
Partner, Old Trace Middlefield Partners