HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 223-06TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE, CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MAY 1, 2006 CMR: 223:06
3270 WEST BAYSHORE ROAD [06-AP-03, 04, 05, 06]: APPEALS BY
GINA FALLON ET AL, SUSAN FINEBERG ET AL, WILLIAM
CHAPMAN III, M.D., AND MICHAEL HMELAR OF THE
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION AND DESIGN ENHANCEMENT
EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY CLASSIC COMMUNITIES ON
BEHALF OF WEST BAYSHORE ASSOCIATES FOR THE
DEMOLITION OF TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OF 96 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ONA 6.5 ACRE
PARCEL IN THE ROLM ZONE DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council members schedule a public heating on the appeal
of the Director’s decision to approve a Major Architectural Review application for June
19, 2006.
BACKGROUND
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.070 (f) states, "The appeal of the Director’s
decision shall be placed on the consent calendar of the city council within thirty days.
The City Council may: (1) Adopt the findings and decision of the Director; or (2)
Remove the appeal from the consent calendar, which shall require three votes, and: (A)
Discuss the appeal and adopt findings and take action on the appeal based upon the
evidence presented at the hearing of the architectural review board; or (B) Direct that the
appeal be set for a new hearing before the City Council, following which the City
Council shall adopt findings and take action on the application."
DISCUSSION
Four appeals were submitted within the appeal period through April 6, 2006 following
the Director’s decision on March 23, 2006. Staff believes the concerns presented in the
appeals (attached) of the Director’s decision on the Architectural Review Board and
Design Enhancement Exception applications reflect project and broader policy concerns
which warrant discussion by the City Council. Staff will prepare background materials
CMR:223:06 Page 1 of 2
and an analysis of the appeals, including verbatim meeting minutes, for the June 19,
2006 public hearing. The staff reports for the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
meetings are available on line (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/arb-
meetings/arb-meetings.html) and these reports, minutes and approval letter are on file
with the Planning and Community Environment Department.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Appeal by Gina Fallon et al
Attachment B: Appeal by Susan Fineberg et al
Attachment C: Appeal by William Chapman III, MD
Attachment D: app~ch~ae~. ~
PREPARED BY: C,,,g/~" ’~ ~ ~ "
AMY FRENCH, Manager of Current Planning
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ~~L~~~
Director of Planning and C~onment
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER APPROV~~~S~(~..._~._..~/~~
Assistant City Manager
CMR:223:06 Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Office ofthe City Clerk
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT*
For appeals of.final decisions on Architectural Review Board and Home Improvement Exception applications (rendered
hearing), this appeal form shall be completed and submitted by appellant within fourteen days from date of the Director’s decision.
Appeals of final decisions on Individual Review applications (rendered after public hearing) must be submitted within ten days of the
Director’s decision. Complete form, the current fee and a letter stating reasons for the appeal shall be submitted to front desk staff
of the Planning Division, 5t~ floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, except for 980 Fridays whenCity Hall is closed, when these
items shall be submitted to Planning staff at the Development Center, 265 Hamilton Avenue (glass storefront across from City
Hall on the corner of Bryant and Hamilton).
* Director of Planning includes his designees, which are Planning Managers or the Chief Planning O~icial
Appeal Application No. ~"
Name of Appellant (~(H.A-
Address q # q L.o/~,/~ ~&-"~l.~ P__-f ,~-i/~~, _
street
Receipt No.
Phone (~-~ Z~LZq - O ~ ~ ~
Ci?ZIP
LOCATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO APPEAL:
Street Address
Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant)
Pioperty Owner’s Address
Street City ZIP
The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated
whereby the application o’~ PL ~j,- Oo,~’z~f;
(file number)
, I~e~e~y appealable for
(approved/denied)
Date:Signature ofApI:t
(original project applicant)
the attached letter (in duplicate)
/
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF):
Date Approved Denied
Remarks and/or Conditions:
CITY COUNCIL DECISION (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF):
Date Approved
Remarks and/or Conditions:
Denied
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: ~.~.
1.Letter stating reasons for appeal ~ -"
2.Fee (currently $151.00).-’~-/, ~
Received by:
Received by:
To City of Palo Alto Planning Division:
March 29, 2006
We the undersigned neighbors of South Palo Alto understand the need for more housing
ha Palo Alto as well as the need for increased tax revenue for the city and county. This
document is to point out reasons why the approval of 3270 West Bayshore should be
repealed. We also respectfully submit suggestions for the approval processes we feel
would better serve our community in the subdivision application and approval process.
Application and Approval Process
Planned Growth Given Overall Impact:
Please under,stand we are not against growth as long as it is planned growth. Currently
there are an alarming number commercial to residential projects in various stages of
approval and/or construction in our South Palo Alto area. This has prompted several
neighbors to ask who is responsible for taking into consideration the overall impact of
each of the small projects now being proposed. Unfortunately the answer far too often
was, "not me". I, Gina Fallon, was told by Judith Wasserman in response to this
question, "If a project meets all the zoning requirements and comprehensive plan goals, it
is not possible to deny it because of some possible future problem..." and basically Steve
Emslie confirmed that at our meeting at the Unity Church on Thursday, March 23ra.
As conscientious citizens who want growth that can be sustained by the city’s
infrastructure including schools, parks, police, fire protection, etc., we would like help
understanding the relationship between the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the
Environmental Impact Report under the same name. The EIR is very specific as to the
growth numbers of"dwelling units in the Palo Alto sphere of influence" being 2,454. At
the meeting on March 23rd, stated above, Steve Emslie said we are already at
approximately 2,800 dwelling units that have been constructed and/or approved since
1998 surpassing the growth cap by almost 400 units.
The draft of the EIR, complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
also recommends an additional environmental analysis when the development exceeds
the anticipated growth by 75%. Was that done when the development reached 1840?
Wouldn’t that mean we have a responsibility to stop all projects without building permits
from going any further until this EIR is complete?
School Capacity:
Palo Alto Unified School District has the reputation of being one of the top public school
districts in the nation. For this reason we must consider the cumulative impact of these
numerous commercial to residential conversion in South Palo Alto for both the
neighborhood schools and the traffic conditions resulting from parents driving their
children to "overflow" schools across town. Each of these small projects apply to the
ARB with their 35 projected school age children and get their design passed based on the
laws that prohibit denial based on school impact that doesn’t require a new school built.
However, the ARB is also not responsible for the cumulative number of students across
all projects. Who is7
All the neighborhood schools near the 3270 W. Bayshore, E. Meadow Circle, and CJL
sites are at capacity and mining kids away weekly. The children who would live at the
March 29, 2006
3270 W. Bayshore, E. Meadow Circle, and CJL sites would have to be driven to the only
schools with available space. These schools are Juana Briones, Barron Park and
Escondido, all located on the other side of Middlefield, Alma Street and E1 Camino!
Traffic Capacity:
If these "overflow" school children are driven by their parents to the schools across town,
it will greatly impact the traffic conditions along Loma Verde Avenue, E. Meadow
Avenue and E. Charleston Avenue. There is already a Moratorium on building because
of traffic concerns on E. Charleston Ave. These new projects will have as much impact
as a subdivision actually located on E. Charleston Avenue! Why are these projects not
included in the Moratorium given they have just as much impact as a subdivision actually
located on E. Charleston Avenue?
Notification:
The notification process for such a large project is inadequate. Neighbors who could
stand in their front yards and see the West Bayshore project were not notified by mail,
phone or email. In addition, many other neighbors, outside of the 600 ft notification
radius, will be seriously impacted by this project.
There should be a requirement for public sign posting for a project of this size. Since
there is a sign posting requirement for a single family remodel there should also be one
for a 96 unit subdivision. We also feel the size of the subdivision should be reflected in
the size of the sign posted at the site, i.e. larger project, larger sign. In addition the
notification by letter or email should be proportional to the size of the proposed number
of dwelling units in the project. As a suggestion, there should be a minimum of 600 ft.
and then should be extended and additional 20ft for every dwelling unit over 10. For
example, this product would then require notification to al! that live within 2320 ft. [600
+ (86x20)].
3270 West Bayshore Proiect:
1. Design Enhancement Exception application for tandem garage parking for ten
units:
Arguments against granting exception:
Palo Alto Municipal code 18.76.050(c) (1) states:
Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a design enhancement
exception unless it is found that (OUR COMMENTS IN BOLD):
(1)There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to
property in the same zone district: (THIS SITE IS NOT UNIQUE. THERE
IS ANOTHER SITE JUST ACROSS THE STREET THAT CAN AND
MOST PROBABLY WILL BE CONVERTED FROM COMMERCIAL
TO RESIDENTIAL IF THE 3270 W. BAYSHORE PROJECT IS
APPROVED. THE TWO PROJECTS ON E. MEADOW CIRCLE ARE
ALSO THE SAME TYPE OF CONVERSION BORDERING A
MATURE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THEREFORE THEIR
March 29, 2006
ARGUMENT FOR UNIQUENESS IS UNSUBSTANCIATED. AS FOR
THIS BEING A "GATEWAY" TO OUR MID-TOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD, MY QUESTION IS, "A GATEWAY FROM
WHAT?" A GATEWAY IS NOT NEEDED.)
(2)The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site,
structure, or architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be
accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this
title (Zoning) and architectural review findings set forth in Section
18.76.020(d); and (THIS ENHANCEMENT COULD BE ACHIEVED IN
STRICT APPLICATION OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS BY
LOWERING THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE DEVELOPMENT
ALLOWING FOR BOTH STANDARD GARAGE PARKING AND
PLANTED AREAS FOR LANSCAPING AS WELL AS LIVING AREA
ONLONG THE ON-SITE STREETS. GRANTING THIS TANDEM
GARAGE PARKING WILL ONLY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL
STREET PARKING FOR THE OCCUPENTS SECOND CAR
THEREFORE INCREASING THE PARKING OVERSPILL TO THE
SIDE STREET OF LOMA VERDE AVE. GRANTING THIS
EXCEPTION ALSO INCREASES THE POSSIBLITY OF BUILDING
CODE VIOLATIONS AS RESIDENCE CONVERT THE BACK
PORTIONS OF THE TANDEM PARKING GARAGE TO LIVING
SPACE, THEREFORE PUSHING THEIR FIRST CAR TO STREET
PARKING SO THEY HAVE STORAGE IN THE REMAINING
GARAGE SPACE.)
(3)The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement
that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements to the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare or convenience. (FOR THOSE OF US WHO LIVE ALONG
LOMA VERDE WITHIN 1200 FT. OF THIS PROJECT, GRANTING
THIS DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION WILL CONSTITUTE
A MAJOR DETRIMENT TO OUR CONVENIENCE. IN ADDITION
TO THIS TEN PARKING SPACE EXCEPTION, STAFF GAVE THE
DEVELOPER "CREDIT" TOWARD THEIR VISITOR PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DRIVEWAYS OF THE SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES REASONING THE RESIDENCE WOULD USE THE
GARAGE FOR THEIR OWN PARKING AND THE DRIVEWAY
WOULD BE RESERVED FOR GUESTS. THE LIKELYHOOD OF
THIS HAPPENING IS VERY SMALL GIVEN NO REQIREMENT
FOR GARAGE PARKING AS PRIMARY FOR RESIDENTS IN THE
HOA CC&RS. THEREFORE, COMBINING THESE TWO PARKING
OVERSPILLS, WE WOULD HAVE AT LEAST 25 ADDITIONAL
CARS PARKED ON LOMA VERDE AS PARKING NEEDS
FLUXUATE FOR THIS PROJECT.)
*** Because these conditions are not met, we feel this application should be denied.
2. 3270 W. Bayshore Project’s Consistency with Comprehensive Plan:
a.)We have issue with Attachment A(2) and (12) of Staff Report dated March 16,
2006:
3
March 29, 2006
The design is compatible with the immediate en.vironment of the site in that provides an
extension of the rcsidcatial quarry and character of the area;
The materials, textures, colors and details of constructitm and planl material are an
approp:.iate expression to the design and function and the same are compatib!e with the
adjacent and ne£ghboring structures, landscape elements, and functions in that an
appropriate colors and materials palette has been chosen, as well as a variety of tree and
plant materials to add vibrancy to tt’~e sJle and Io help ils integration with tiae surrounding
properties;
OUR COMMENTS: The architectural design does not provide an extension of
nor is compatible with the residential quality and character of adjacent
neighboring structures. There are no residential homes with corrugated metal
siding or have the general character of cheaply built industrial buildings. The
residential section adjacent to the property is simple wood Ranch style housing
whereas the section across Loma Verde is a wooden modem Eichler subdivision.
Neither would be mistaken for industrial buildings. They do however create an
extension of and are compatible with the commercial adjacent structure which is
why it looks like a "Light Industrial Neighborhood".
The developer’s main goal is to keep costs down and profit high for his project. It
is our duty as residents, ARB and City council to make sure architectural designs
preserve high standard of design and quality of materials in order to maintain
previous consistent levels of property value increase. Our homes in Palo Alto are
our best financial investments and we need to protect the value of those
investments.
o Staff Report Environmental Impact Significance Chart
Issues aud Supporting Information Sources
Resources
VL GEOLOGY AND SOILS,
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse el’lizcts,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fan!! Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on olher
substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-rdated ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of to~soil?
Would the: Er_gj_eet:
1,4
3, 11
Potenlially
Significant
Issues
Potenlially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
X
X
X
X
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
4
March 29, 2006
OUR COMMENTS: This Project should have required an EIR because the staff
report chart doesn’t seem to emphasize the severity of the Earthquake effects of the
area as shown below:
a. "Less Than Significant Impact" looks improbable for VI.a)ii) Strong seismic
ground shaking given according to the Figure 22, Ground ShakJng Potential Map
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft EIR, this parcel was in a
"Violent" Zone. There was only one designation worse than Violent, Very
Violent.
b. "Less Than Significant Impact" looks improbable for VI.a)iii) Seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction given according to Figure 21, Geotechnical
Hazards Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft EIR this parcel
is in the "High Potential for Liquefaction".How can that be considered less than
significant?
Conclusion:
Based on the concerns stated above for both the overall impact of exceeding the expected
residential growth for the city (as stated in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998 to
2010 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated December 1996) and the specific
concerns for the 3270 W. Bayshore project, we respectfully request the City Council of
Palo Alto repeal the ARB approval for the aforementioned project and officially enact a
Moratorium on any more residential subdivision approvals until such time the
Comprehensive Plan 1998 to 2010 and its EIR can be updated to take into consideration
the impact additional growth on our city’s infrastructure.
Signed,
Gina M. Fallon, Primary Appellant
As well as the below signed:
Printed Name Si.qnature Address
March 29, 2006
Printed Name
, !
Signature Address
Attachment B
CITY OF.PALO ALTO
Office of the City Clerk
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT*
For appeals of. final derisions on Architectural Review Board and Home Improvement Exception applications (rendered after public
hearing), this appeal form shall be completed and submitted by appellant within fourteen days from date of the Director’s decision.
Appeals of final decisions on Individual Review applications (rendered alter public headng) must be submitted within ten days of the
Director’s derision. Complete form, the current fee and a leit, er, statlng reasons for the appeaJ shall be submitted to front desk staff
of the Planning Division, 5¯ floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton(Avenue, except for 980 Fridays whenCity Hall is closed, when these
items shall be submitted to Planning staff at the Development Center, 265 Hamilton Avenue (glass storefront across from City
Hall on the comer of Bryant and Hamilton).
¯ Director of Planning includes his designees, which are Planning Managers or the Chief Planning O~icial.
Appeal Application No. C2 ~ -~ ,P -" (-~Receipt No.
NameofAppellant ~,,~U...<’q m Fin ~~Phone(~)............~5 ~ - O~ ~
S~eet Ci~ZIP"
LOCATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO APPEAL:
Street Address .~ ~ W, [~0 ~ ~ ~ O l’P- ~ ~.
!
Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) W/~ ~"T"
Property Owner’s Address
Street City ZIP
The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated ~ ~ r c. [~ ..~, 20 O ~
wherebytheapplicatlonO_5~LH-OOO~Oby,, C [~I,~5 IC ~r~m~, +,’e S
(file number)(original project applicant)
was PPf r’o V, d w/~p~/~’~ is hereby appealed for the reasons stated in the attached letter (in duplicate)/¯
/~pprovedidenied)
Date: ~///.~ //~ ~ Signature of Appellant
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF):
Date Approved Denied
Remarks and/or Conditions:
CiTY COUNCIL DECISION (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF):
Date Approved Denied
Remarks and/or Conditions:
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
etter sta og reasons for eppea 4[
2.Fee (currently $151.00)t~l
Received by:
Received by:
March 31, 2006
This letter states the following reasons for appealing the decision, by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment, to approve the Classic Communities application to build at 3270 West
Bayshore Road:
1)Comprehensive Plan did not foresee the building of any residential units in this area.
2)No EIR was done on.this project, nor was additional analysis triggered at 75% of growth caps.
3)Residentia! units (approved and projected) exceed the growth caps established in the Comp Plan.
4)Cumulative Impacts of the 931 approved and projected units in South Palo Alto need review.
5)Seismic, geologic, soil, and flood hazards on-site should require an EIR before approval.
6)DEE’s are not supported by uniqueness of the site and could be eliminated by reducing density.
We the undersigned residents of Palo Alto, believe that the City needs to prepare an "area plan" to
address development from .,,Q-,, /4,~q-oo~;o to Oregon Expressway along W. Bayshore Road including
E. Meadow Circle. This plan should be undertaken before there is piecemeal development of sites that
may not "fit" with the eventual land use plans and public policies for the area. Planning before building,
will allow City to mitigate the impacts of this growth and tO preserve the desirable qualities of the
neighboring residential areas, the community services (schools, parks, libraries, police, and fire), and the
economic contributions of the industrial and commercial uses in the area. We understand and support the
need for new and affordable housing in Palo Alto, as long as it is planned.
The following concerns have been raised:
1) The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan of 1998 did not foresee the building of any residential units in
this area. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not include any analysis, or mitigations of the
potential impacts caused by the changes of land use or residential developments in this area. (DEIR
page 24, Attachment A)
2) There was no Environmental Impact Report conducted for this project despite the recommendation
in the Comprehensive Plan DEIR that "the City shall initiate additional environmental analysis when
75% of the development anticipated through this EIR is reached." "All developments under the Update
would be required to fall within the development caps put forth through this Update." (DEIR page 441,
Attachment B)
3) Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan could result in 2,454 new dwelling units, so the additional
environmental analysis should have started at 1,840 new residential dwelling units. (DEIR pages 31-34,
Attachment C) To date, 1,996 units have been built or approved and an additional 703 units are
projected. (Approved and Projected Multifamily Residential Projects, Attachment D) This exceeds the
growth cap of 2,454. In a 1998 memo to Members of Council, the City Attorney wrote "This
alternative <growth that exceeds Comp Plan> is not desirable to the City because it would create
increase impacts... The combination of the increased environmental impacts associated with this
alternative are considered by the City to be in excess of its benefits." (Memo from Arie! Calonne to City
Council, July 1998, Attachment E)
4) If the Cumulative Impacts of this project were found to have been significant then a mandatory
finding of significance would have required an EIR for this project. In the Environmental Checklist
Form prepared by the Department of Planning it asks, "Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)" (page 14)
How is it possible that the Environmental Checklist found that there was "No Impact" cumulatively
from the 931 approved or projected new residential units in south Palo Alto? This includes: 150 unit at
Trumark, 96 units at Classic, 226 units at BUILD site, 160 units at CJL, 181 units at Hyatt Rickey’s, 48
units at HP/Mayfield site, and 50 units at Alma Plaza. This is nearly half of the development that has
occurred in the entire City since 1998. At what point do we consider the cumulative impacts of on our
schools, parks, libraries, police, fire, and traffic? We are concerned that these impacts must be
considered, and mitigated, or we will experience a deteriorated quality of life. We are concerned about
the ability of our children to attend neighborhood schools, most of which are at or beyond full capacity.
5) There are known seismic, geologic: soil, and flood related hazards on the project site that have not
yet been addressed in the project plans since the Environmental Checklist Form, prepared by the
planning department, found that "the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment".
Unless these risks are identified and the project plans include measures that would avoid or mitigate
these risks, how do we know that these risks pose less than significant impact? Is the process really
supposed to identify and mitigate these risks, after projects are approved, but before building permit is
issued? Where is there room for public comment or review if these issues are handled after projects are
approved?
The site is located on city maps that indicate it is subject to violent ground shaking potential (Map N-10,
Attachment F). The site is within a designated liquefaction hazard zone and has historic ground
subsidence of between two and three feet (Map N-5, Attachment G).
The site is in a 100-Year Tidal Floodplain, designated as Zone AE, and could be flooded to eight feet
above sea level in the event of overtopping or failure of bayfront levees. To raise the base elevation of
the structure above the flood level, there will be approximately 4.5 feet of fill used on the parcel. To my
knowledge there has been no consideration of whether creating islands of fill will divert floodwater onto
other properties, and increase flood damage on other properties, in the event that the bayfront levees are
overtopped. (Note: the use of fill will not increase flooding of adjacent areas if levees are breeched
since the flood waters will rise to tidal levels.)
In addition, the recent Geotechnical Report from 901 San Antonio, a property located to the south, has
identified highly expansive soils and groundwater contamination that has a natural flow to the north. It
will not be known IF these hazards exist at 3270 W. Bayshore until a geotechnical engineer takes soil
and groundwater samples, httr~:~/www.citv~ft~a~a~t~.~ra/9~sanant~ni~/d~cuments~DRAFT-E~R-9~1SANANT~NI~RD-v~L1.pdf
"The project design, construction and installation of foundations for the proposed residential structures and concrete flatwork
will be based upon a design level geotechnical report. The design level geotechnical report will include specific
recommendations for the placement of fill materials and design of foundations, considering the highly expansive soils found
on the site." (901 San Antonio DEIR, page 190 Attachment H)
"Groundwater is present approximately 8-10 feet below the ground surface and the natural groundwater flow direction is to
the north. A groundwater extraction and treatment system is being operated by the former landowner (Ford Aerospace) to
control VOC <volatile organic compounds> migration in groundwater from this former source area." (901 San Antonio
DEIR, page 133 Attachment I)
6) Design Enhancement Exceptions
A Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) has been requested to reduce the required setback and
daylight plane requirements along the northwestern property line and to allow for 10 tandem parking
spaces where non-tandem parking is required.
Palo Alto Municipal Code states that "Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a
design enhancement exception unless it is found that:
(1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site
improvements involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same zoning district;
(2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the
neighborhood character of the project...in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished
through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review
findings set forth in this chapter.
(3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare or convenience."
In response to the above finding which are required to grant the DEE, we believe that:
(!) The project site is not "unique to the ROLM zone district, as the site is home to three edge
conditions, including proximity to US 101, adjacent to industrial/commercial sites to the north
and south, and, proximity to low-density residential sites to the west." (ATTACHMENT B,
FINDINGS FOR DEE with Notice of Approval dated March 23, 2006, Attachment J) The
other Light Manufacturing sites along W. Bayshore are sandwiched between the existing
residential neighborhood and Highway 101 and have LM sites to the north and south.
(2)Reducing the density on the site would eliminate the need for the DEEs and "create" space for
the setback requirements and non-tandem parking spaces. Reducing the density would also allow
for more internal usable open-space and less paving. There is a reason that this site won’t yield
the required parking spaces and set backs unless DEEs are granted.
(3)The requested exception for tandem parking to "reduce the number of internally facing garage
doors" should not be used as an excuse for poor design. Good design can overcome the
"ugliness" of garage doors. The tandem spaces will inconvenience the neighbors in the vicinity
who wil! have the overflow parking and extra traffic in front of their homes. It will also
inconvenience the residents of the units with tandem parking who will need to either shuffle their
cars, park in the guest spaces or park off-site.
Therefore, we believe that the DEEs should not be granted.
3
Conclusion:
Based on the concerns re-stated below, we respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Council hear this
Appeal and take action against the application submitted by Classic Communities. In addition we
request that the City Council adopt a moratorium on residential projects until such time as the
Comprehensive Plan can be amended and appropriate EIRs can be undertaken that will consider the
impact of additional growth.
1)Comprehensive Plan did not foresee the building of any residential units in this area.
2)No EIR was done on this project, nor was additional analysis triggered at 75% of growth caps.
3)Residential units (approved and projected) exceed growth caps established in the Comp Plan.
4)Cumulative Impacts of the 931 approved and projected units in South Palo Alto need review.
5)Seismic, geologic, soil, and flood hazards on-site should require an EIR before approval.
5)DEE’s are not supported by uniqueness of the site and could be eliminated by reducing density.
Signed,
Susan L. Fineberg, Primary Appellant
As well as the below signed:
Printed Name Siqnature Address
:.3
4
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The traffic imoacts of the narrowing of Middlefield Road, a potential
component of the Midtown Plan, are evaluated in Chapter 6: Special Study
Area Analysis.
7.East Meadow Circle, East and West Bayshore Roads, and North San
Amtonio Road
The Comprehensive Plan Update addresses a broader industrial/commercial
district referred to as the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore
Corridor. This EIR addresses the sub-areas of that larger corridor as
described here for change areas 7, 8 and 16.
As opposed to the high level research and development use of the Stanford
Research Park, this industrial district on the southern edge of town is oriented
toward light manufacturing and warehouse uses. An exception is the Sun
Microsystems facility located on San Antonio Road on the former site of Ford
Aerospace. There has been some discussion of introducing multiple family
housing uses into the area over time. However, this area fulfills an important
role in the City as an employment area and a provider of support services to
the Stanford Research Park and the rest of the community. The
Comprehensive Plan Update assumes no net chang.e in the amount of
development in this area, when compared to that currently anticipated. The.
.=Citw does not intend to actively promote development or land use changes in
this area.
South of San Antonio Road
This area extends along the south side of Middlefield Road from Highway 101
to Middlefield Road adjacent to the East Meadow Circle area (described
above). While this area shares the same zoning as change Area 7, its uses and
parcelization are somewhat different. The parcels in Area 7 are large enough
to accommodate larger scale industry. In Area 8, parcels are relatively small
(with an average size of 17,650 square feet) and contain mostly small
industrial and commercial uses. This area provides an important lower cost
location for service oriented business. The City does not intend to actively
promote development or land use changes in either Area 7 or Area 8;
therefore, the Comprehensive Plan Update projections for these areas assume
only incremental growth in these areas.
Chapter 7
CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS
.As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this
chapter provides an overview of several specific impacts of the proposed
project. Chapter 4: Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, assesses the
effects of proposed Comprehensive Plan Update on the environment and
suggests measures to minimize those effects. A summary table describing the
impacts and mitigation measures is provided in Chapter 2: Summary. The
topics covered in this chapter include: growth-inducing impacts; short-term
uses versus long-term productivity; unavoidable significant environmental
impacts; significant irreversible changes; and cumulative impacts.
A. Growth-Inducing Impacts
I_!_m~lementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update could result in the
development of up to 2,966,500 square feet of non-residential uses, and 2,454
dwelling units within the Palo Alto sphere of influence. The ComprehensivE"
Plan Update would not induce growth except where development incentives
are provided through the Update in special circumstances. Additionally, the
development regulations contained in the Update could have the effect of
hindering some development, since it could be infeasible for some developers
and investors to meet the standards and requirements outlined in the Update.
..All development under the Update would be required to fall within the
development caps put forth-through the Update. Additionally, this Draft EIR
~rther recommends that the City shall initiate additional environmental
n..analysis when 75 percent of the development anticipated through this EIR is
reached. With these considerations, the cumulative growth-inducing impacts
are expected to be less than significant.
441
BRADY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 1996
~
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PI.A.N UPDATE
DR.Aan’~ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
~qAPTER 2: PROJEC"[" DESCRIPTION
/ l
Table 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 2010 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Shopping Center (Retail)
Senior Housing Area
46 Acre Site
5.5 Acre Site at Quarry and ECR
Medical Center (Service)
Welch Road
Area Total
49 Ksf
existing hospital
reused
315 du
vacant
no change
no change
49 Ksf
315 du
existing hospital
reused
160 Ksf
-185 Ksf
388 senior du
630 du
vacant
400 Ksf’
no change
375 Ksf
1,018 du
no change
62 Ksf
289 Ksf
no change
55 Ksf
303 Ksf
Town and Country (Retail)25 Ksf 25 Ksf
Encina otherthan Town and Country no change no change
PAMF (Service)-153 Ksf former uses -153 Ksf former uses
355 Ksf 355 Ksf
Wells Avenue (Service)no change 21 Ksf
Holiday Inn (service)no change no change ......
Train Station/Interchange Area no change no change
(~A retail, ½ service)
Park
Remainder
Area Total
no change
-203 Ksf
150 du
PAMF Site
Residential area between PAMF and SoFA Commercial
Area
Area Total
-203 Ksf -203 Ksf
40 sf du & 100 mf du 150 du
no change
-203 Ksf clinic
40 sf units and 100
mf units
31
CHAPTER 2: PROYECT DESCRIPT/ON
Table 1 continued
Core (½ retail, ¼ service, ¼ other)84 Ksf 86 Ksf
36 du 42 du
North Commercial Area (½ retail, ¼ service, ¼ other)12 K.sf 12 Ksf
36 du 42 du
SoFA Commercial Area (% retail, ½ service, ¼ other)]24 Ksf 25 Ksf
48 du 56 du
Area Total 120 Ksf I 123 Ksf
120 du I 140 du
Area Total no change no change
Area Total (½ retail, ¼ service, ¼ other)5 Ksf 20 Ksf
no residential 20 du
GM Area (½ manufacturing, ½ other)56 Ksf 56 Ksf
LM Area (E. Meadow and E. and W. ]3ayshore:no change no change½ other, ½ service)
Area Total
I 56 Ksf 56 Ksf
GM ~ea (other)17 ~f [17 ~f
CS ~ea (se~ice)13 ~f [13 ~f
~ea Total [30 ~f 30 ~f
Charleston Center (retail)4~ ~f 4.5 ~f
Spangler School no change no change
~ea Total [4~ ~f 4~ ~f
Charleston to ~s Robles ~ se~ce, % retail)14 ~f 39 ~f
68 uni~68 du
Los Robles to Matadero Creek (% service, ½ retail)23 Ksf 38 Ksf
~,_rea Total 38 Ksf I
68 du 68 du
32
BR.ADY AND ASSOCIATES, 124C.
DECEMBER 1996
PALO ALT(~ COMPRIEHENSFVE PI_A_N UPDAT~/ [
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
C~R ~ PROJECT DESCRFP’I-ION
Table 1 continued
¯ ~::~:: "::Growth !by:2010 -2.:
California Avenue Commercial 204 Ksf 89 Ksf
no residential 50 du
395 Page Mill (TIP Site) (other)21 Ksf (existing sf 21 Ksf
remains)50 du
GM along Park (other)44 Ksf -19 Ksf
52 du
Maximart Site no change no change
CS Areas along ECR and Lambert (service)8 Ksf 15 Ksf
Existing Single Family Area (Olive)no change 5 sf du
Multi-Family Area s/o California Avenue -12 Ksf -12 Ksf
97 du 142 du
ECR Frontage in CN (1/,. retail, IA service)8 Ksf CN 8 Ksf
10 du
Area Total [272 Ksf 102 Ksf
97 du 309 du
Area Total 4.4
Area Total 120 du
20 Ksf
20 YLsf conference
space plus 350 hotel
rooms (270 Ksf of
hotel)
290 Ksf total
Ricky’s Hyatt no change -342 rooms
(-143 Ksf)
150 du
100 res. suites
Palo Alto Hyatt Site reuse existing hotel reuse existing hotel
15 du
Elk’s Club no change no change
Fiesta Lanes no change no change
El Camino CS Frontage (service)22 tQsf 22 Ksf
36 du 36 du
Area Total I 22 Ksf I -12! Ksf
36 du
]
201 du
100 res. suites
33
Table 1 continued
{/
Airport no change no change
Landfill -395 trips -395 trips
Embarcadero/Geng ~rea no change no change
Axea
Area Total (other)960 Ksf l 960 Ksf
280 du !,. _~)
Cit3,wide Remainder 128 Ksf
168 du
Citywide Total
Grand Total All Areas
(’Including 960 Ksf and 280 dwelling units
at Stanford University)
1,410,900 sf
1,064 du
-395 trips
2,370,900 sf
1,344 du
-395 daily trips
130 Ksf
, 168d
2,006,500 sf
2,966,500 sf
It should be noted that while 400,000 square feet of development are assumed at the Medical
Center for a conservative estimate of future growth in this EIR, this assumption does not imply
that this level of growth at this location is a policy of the Comprehensive Plan.
Notes:
Service:
Other:
Includes hotels and other lodging, personal services, business services, auto and miscellaneous
repair, amusement and recreation, health services, educational services, engineering and
management, motion pictures, and other services.
Includes construction, transportation, communication, utilities, finance, insurance, real estate,
public administration, and government.
34
FROM CITY ATTORNEY
July 16, 1998
9
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
RE:RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE 1998-2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (FEIR) AND MAKING FINDINGS THEREON PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
AND ADOPTING THE 1998-2010 CITY OF PALO ALTO
~0MPREHEN$IVE PLAN AND LAND USE AND ~IR~ULATION MAP
Dear Members of the Council:
Attached is the above-referenced resolution in connection
with CMR:301:98 (Adoption of City of Palo Alto 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map which was included in the
packet of July 13, 1998.
Respect
PIERRE CALONNE
City Attorney
APC:bdc
Attachment
cc:June Fleming, City Manager
Emily Harrison, Asst. City Manager
Anne Moore, Interim Director of
Planning & Community Environment
980716 bdc 0052028
neighborhood, protecting community character, reducing reliance on
the automobile, increasing the housing supply, protecting and
repairing natural features, balancing residential and commercial
interests, commitment to community participation and regional
leadership. In addition, the existing Comprehensive Plan document
is over ten years old and is in need of updating to reflect current
C±ty values and existing environmental,economic, and social
conditions.
B. Low Development Al%ernativ~
This alternative would result in less development intensity at key
sites within identified change areas throughout the City as
described in detail in Draft EIR Chapter 5, section B.I. This
reauced development intensity would result in reduced enviro~menta!
impacts in several impacts categories. However, this alternative
would not be desirable to the City because it would generate
approximately 800 fewer residential units than the proposed project
and, therefore, would not be as successful as the project in
achieving one of the key themes and visions of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Update, namely, increasing the supply of
housing.
C. High Development Alt~rna%iv~
This alternative would result in greater development intensity at
key sites within identified change areas throughout the City as
described in detail in Draft EIR Chapter 5, section C.I. This
alternative would be beneficial to the City in that it would create
more residential units than the proposed project, and would allow
the construction of substantially more commercia! development at
selected locations, thereby adding benefits to the local economy.
However, this alternative is not desirable to the City because it
would create increased impacts relating to land use compatibility~
conflicts; increased adverse impacts to operation of intersections,
increased traffic on residential and non-residential street
segments, delays for transit, pedestrians, and bicycles, greater
demands for parking, and increased traffic safety impacts;
increased noise along major roadways; increased development exposed
to seismic and geologic risks; increased drainage runoff due to
increased impervious surfaces; increased demands on public services
and facilities; increased demand for neighborhood park acreage;
greater impacts to vegetation and wildlife; greater probability of
impact to undiscovered cultural resources; and greater visual
impacts resulting from new development. The combination of the
increased environmental impacts associated with this alternative
are considered by the City to be in excess of its benefits.
~_T~. Statement of Overridin~ Considerations. The
City Council finds that unavoidable environmental impacts of the
Project, described in Section 4 of this Resolution, are acceptable
when balanced against the benefits of the Project, even afEer
9~0716 ape 0052027
i3
I
1
!
!
!
!
0
cause substantial erosion or siltation.
~.~Expansive Soils
Soils and Geologic Hazards
Highly expansive soils are found throughout the project site. Expansive soils can cause
problems for slabs-on-grade, sidewalks, and other concrete flatwork. The project design,
construction and installation of foundations for the proposed residential structures and
concrete flatwork will be based upon a design level geotechnical report. The design level
geotechnical report will include specific recommendations for the placement of fill materials
and design of foundations, considering the highly expansive soils found on the site.
Implementation of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
construction of the proposed BUILD and CJL projects would not result in
geology and soil hazards that could not be mitigated by the use of standard
engineering design measures. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Groundwater Impacts
Groundwater could be encountered on the site at depths as shallow as four feet. Saturated
conditions may make excavation of the existing mat foundations unstable.
Demolition and construction activities on the site will be carried out based upon specific
recommendations in a design level geotechnical report. The design level geotechnical report
will include specific recommendations regarding on-site excavations, demolition, and
construction techniques where groundwater is encountered. The potential for impacts
resulting from ground water conditions on the site during construction can be avoided by
utilizing standard engineering and construction techniques.
Implementation of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, demolition
of the existing six-story building, and construction of the proposed BUILD and
CJL projects would not expose persons or property to significant impacts
associated with groundwater conditions on the site that could not be mitigated
by the use of standard engineering and construction techniques. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
Seismic Impacts
The site is within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area and moderate to severe
ground shaking is probable during the anticipated life of future development on the project
site. Ground shaking could damage buildings, road, and utilities. The project will be
designed and constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code guidelines to avoid
or minimize potential damage from seismic shaking on the site.
Preliminary estimates show settlement of isolated footings will be on the order of one to one
and one-half inches, and settlement will be on the order of one-half inch to three-quarters of
an inch. In combination with the liquefaction-induced total and differential settlement
buildings proposed on the BUILD Site could settle up to two and one-half inches. The
maximum differential settlement is estimated to be on the order of one and one-quarter of an
inch.
901 San Antonio Road
Comp. Plan Amendment and Rezoning
190 Draft EIR
February 2006
vinyl chloride,~s toluene, xylenes, acetone, and methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) (refer to
Appendix E for a complete listing). The area of soil impacted to an extent that exceeds EPA
Remedial Action Goals extended onto the site approximately 40 feet from the western
fenceline and in the immediate area around Monitoring Well FB-21. The maximum total
VOC concentrations (the sum ofPCE, TCE, and cis-l,2-DCE) found in the soil was 450
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Of all of the VOCs, PCE was generally detected at the
highest concentrations in this area.
In 1995, approximately 6,000 cubic yards of soil was excavated from a soil remediation area
along the eastern fence line and treated on-site using low temperature thermal desorption
(refer to Figure 16). Soils containing VOCs were excavated to a depth of approximately 1.5
feet below the water table (approximately 10.5 feet below the ground surface). The
remediation goal was 0.05 mg/kg for total VOCs in treated soil to be placed back into the
excavation. The soil cleanup goal for soil remaining in place was 1.0 mg/kg for total VOCs.
/’---~round_d_water Contamination --~-----~/
Shallow groundwater across most of the site is contaminated by VOCs, primarily PCE, TCE,
cis-l,2-DCE, trans-l,2-DCE, and viny! chloride. The presence of VOCs in groundwater is
due to on-site releases as well as off-site, upgradient release of VOCs. The highest
concentration of VOCs detected on-site was approximately 7,200 micrograms per liter
(btg/L)~6, found in the former source area along the western fence line. In more recent
samples taken between February 2003 and March 2004, the highest concentrations of PCE
and TCE were found in well F14 on the CJL Site (refer to Figure 16 for well locations). The
concentrations of PCE in this well ranged from 730 p.g/L to 1,100 p.g/L and concentrations of
TCE ranged from 220 btg/L to 280 .ug/L during this period (refer to Appendix E-3).
Groundwater is present approximately 8-10 feet below the ground surface and the natural
groundwater flow direction is to the north. A groundwater extraction and treatment system is
being operated by the former landowner (Ford Aerospace) to control VOC migration in
groundwater from this former source area. The groundwater extraction well is located just to
the north of the site, on the Space Systems/Loral property at 3825 Fabian Way (refer to
Figure 16). Dewatering of the shallow A-zone of groundwater at Building 5 on the adjacent
Space Systems/Loral site has produced a cone of depression, influencing shallow
groundwater flow on the site.
C_omparisQn_to State and Reoional Guidelines
Concentrations of VOCs in some soil and groundwater samples taken on the site in 2003 and
2004 exceed California maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water and/or
RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESL) guidelines for PCE. These MCLs and
screening levels are summarized in Table 25.
~5 Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and Trichloroethene (TCE) undergo biodegradation, or breakdown, to other chemical
constituents over time when in soil or ground water. Some of these compounds, including vinyl chloride, are more
toxic than TCE and PCE. Vinyl chloride degrades to carbon dioxide and water, which are not toxic.
16 One thousand micrograms per liter (1,000 t.tg/L) is equivalent to one milligram per liter (one mg/L).
Draft EIR
901 San Antonio Road 133 February 2006
Comp. Plan Amendment and Rezoning
.li.’,,, !llll(l!lC" Iii lillil Ilic’ tc’--~clc’ltli:~l USe’ rc’(itlC’+~lc’~l t~ Ill+l I.tll:~ ;lf~pilc~ili{l{I lll:il \~ ~l.<,
.il~"<, lli Ili~’ I~( )I.X1 (li~il’!c~ < ;ll~li~:l I~L" C’l)ll\<l.’l’lt’ll l~)l’i’.<.l{ic’rlll;il Ii.+~’ ;tlllll)ill ~l!~.f~l~)’~ ;if
l liu i~’~lii~’~lc’cl-,l~lc’ \~licl ,lil~l ~l~t\li,_’hl I~l~inc¯ c’ncr~l:iii~lc’l’d.~ ~.~ ill ;lll<~w tile. ill~pli~-~iiil h,
pi,~!~c’li\ I~! lilt’ ll~illi ~I ill<’ .,ilc’. I~’~,lillill~ ill iil~i-c’ illlc’illi~l tl.~;ll~lc’ ~G~c’~i .<~l~;icc’. lili:~ t,, i!l
,ill,,:: I~1 I\t~ "~liCilc’~i lillc’ill;li l~;irl~ ~llC’iis, ;ix ~c’ll ~i:~ i~, ~ic cc~ t~llli~ h~ lilt"
~ili~lc’! I illu I~ ~1 lilt’ ILil,~ .\1~ Xlilliic’ill~ll ( "ll~lc~
I ,iiillllllf., ~lii c’\c’~’l,lit,l~ i,, .~!i,~’,’. i~mdc’in p~irkin<,_’ ~ ill ~illt,~,+ thu ~ll~lqiUunl t~, clc-\c-lt~1, :~
l,l~,!c’cl lll~+ll l~’~till,~ ii1 lii,llc’ ~,pc’l~ ~t~icc’ ~in~l It-~ p~i\ ii;<.._’ .’ I~,.illclillU ct>\ t+’l~+l~t’. In
II~c- llrcllilc’cltiitil ~l\tc’,,I lilt’ "’l~i~ill _~’" tiilil.~ is slic’ll llllll ~l l/+.li-r,~\\ ~Lilr~.lQt-~ll+~c’lliil.,_’. i~ lilt’
tttlltllllll ~1 Ill ch~uhlc’-,.,, ictll., ...... ...._,il ,i+,’._c tll/t+l~ tlil\\tl I,, Ill ~+lll~u’l~.’ \t icltll .<"iI,I._C’.~" cl~+, ~1’~ ’,’. ’11
+.’:+.till 11! ;ill lllc’lt.’;.i+’.c’ 1,+ Ilic+ ~+’<C"~ pc’rllic’;.il+lc" ;+ll+t.’;i. t+c’\~++lcl ~. !lill I\ It+’tlllll’t’tl Ill Illlc" i+~-
Attachment C
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Office of the Ctty Clerk
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLAN~I~G.. ~o,~,
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT*
For appeals of final decisions on Architectural Review Boad and Home Improvement Exception applications (rendered after public
hearing), this appeal form shall be completed and submitted by appellant within foudoen days from date of the Directo,r’s decision.
Appeals of final decisions on Individual Review applications (rendered after public hearing) must be submitted within ten days of the
Directffs derision. Complete form, the current fee and a letter stating reasons for the appeal shal! be submitted to front desk staff
of the Planning Division, 5~ floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, except for 980 Fridays when City Hall is closed, when Ihese
items shall be submitted to Planning staff at the Development Center, 265 Hamillon Avenue (glass storefront across from City
Hall on the comer of Bryant and Hamilton).
* Director of Planning includes his designees, which are Planning Managers or the Chief Planning Official.
Appeal Application No.-.
.a eof, allant il/ """
Street City ZiP
LOCATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO APPEAL:
Streel Address -.~
Street City ZIP
The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Envlronmant dated
whereby lhe ap¢cation ~.-~/~Z’/V O0 ~2d by ~
(file number)
(apl~r~ved/denied)
,
(oflglnal project applicant)
, Is hereby appealed for the reasons stated in the attached letter (in duplicate)
/
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF):
Date Approved Denied
Remarks and/or Conditions:
CITY COUNCIL DECISION (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF):
Date Approved
Remarks and/or Conditions:
Denied
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Letter stating reasons for appeal ~
2.Fee (currentJy $151.00)~..~"
Received by: ~ ~
From: Smokey Chapman <smokeychapman@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue Apr 4, 2006 11:06:03 AM US/Pacific
To: City of Palo Alto
Subject: Letter accompanying Appeal of Classic Communities Project
Re File Number 05PLN00320.
This project seeks to replace two handsome, well-landscaped, one-story office
buildings at West Bayshore and Loma Verde, with a 96-unit 3-story housing
project by Classic Communities.
This housing project should be denied for three main reasons (among others):
1. It VIOLATES the city’s Comprehensive Plan.EXHIBIT A
It is AESTHETICALLY horrendous. It is massive. It clashes
violently with its one-story neighborhood, where
residents hate its design. It does not promote harmony
or Jmprov~ the beauty of PaJo AJto. I~ fails to measu.re up
to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Introduction, which
says, "We aspire to create a safe, beautiful City for ourselves,
our children, and future generations."
It fails the ARB GOALS AND PURPOSES of order and harmony;
enhancement of desirability of living in adjacent areas; and
promoting high aesthetic quality environments. EXHIBIT B1, B2
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
3.Deliberations about its impact on the over-crowded Palo Alto
SCHOOL SYSTEM are superficial and erroneous. CUMULATIVE
data are ignored. The Kids-School Imbalance is ignored.
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G1, G2
Respectfully Submitted.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element
Local programs include the City’s Inclusionary Housing or Below Market Rate (BMR)
program. The program was initiated in 1974 as a means of increasing the supply of
housing affordable to individuals and families with low to moderate incomes. It continues
to be an extremely importaa, t part of the City’s strategy to meet its housing needs. The
City also maintains a "Housing Development Fund" that canbe used for acquisition,
construction, and rehabilitation,.~f housing. The funds are primarily available to nonprofit
groups who agree to maintain the long-term affordability of the housing units.
)iOUSING NEEDS
State Housing Element law requires that localities provide f.or their "fair share" of the
region’s housing need. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined
that Palo Alto’s projected need for the period from January 1, 1999 - June 30, 2006 was
1,397 units. This number has been reduced to 616 by the number of housing units
completed and occupied or approved (building permits issued) through the end of 2000.
~l.of these remainiii~i:iJi~must beaffordab!~-tWv~i~-l~5~:7-, 16Wz--~;d-moderattq-rio~g
[__h.o~seholds as described below2_ .......... __-
~!-OLJSING NEEDS BY INCOME LEVEL
In addition to projecting overall housing needs, A.BAG also projects housing needs by
income category. The intent of this action is to equitably distribute households by income
category so that no one City or County is "impacted" with a particular income group. Four
income categories are defined by the federal government and are used by ABAG, as
defined in the following box.
Standard definitions of Household Income (2000)
Very Low-Income: Households with incomes between 0 and 50 percent of County
median family income. 2000 limit for a family of 4: $43,500.
Low-Income: Households with incomes between 51 and 80 percentof County median
family income. 2000 limit for a family of 4: $69,600.
Moderate-Income: Households with incomes between 81 and !20 percent of County
median family income. 2000 limit for a family of 4: $104,400.
Above Moderate-Income: Households with incomes greater than 120 percent of County
median family income: over $104,400,
.Some agencies and programs use different definitions of household income. In Palo Alto,
the following modifications applied in 2000: For the HUD Section 8 rental programs and
the CDBG Program, the 2000 limit for a family of four was $53,853. For the Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit and HUD HOME Programs, the Low-Income maximum is 60 percent
of the County median. The 1997 2000 limit for a family of four was $52,200. For the City
of Palo Alto BMR Program, Moderate-Income for home ownership is 80 tg. 100~ercent of
the County median. The 2000 limit for a family of four was $87,000.
Page 5 of 39
For more details go to the City- of Palo Alto site at:
h ~tp ://www.city~fpal~alt~.~rg/cityagenda/publish/arb~meetings/d~cuments~D~C~6~ l 2 6-~ ~ ~pd f
CLASSICS AT STERUNG PARK"
OUTDOOR SOUND LEVELS AND WALL HEIOHTS (REV.)
FIOURE 2
of us has a vision of what Palo Alto
shouM be like in the future. Although our
,ns are different, they share common
qualities. We aspire to create a safe, beautiful
City for ourselves, our children, h---’~-’-~
generations. We envision a City with diverse
housing opportunities, where the natural
envirqn~en&is-prot¢cted, where excellent
servicestire ~rovided, and where Citizenshave
a say in government; We aspire to create a City
that is economically healthy and a good place
to do business.
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan strives to
b uiM a co here nt vision ’of the City’s future fro m
the visions of a diverse population. It integrates
the aspirations of the City’s residents, businesses,
neighborhoods, and officials into a bold strategy
for managing change.
The Comprehensive Plan is the primary tool for
....guiding the future deve,lopment of the City. On a
daily basis the City is faced with tough choices
about growth, housing, transportation,
~. if.,:.:... :<.. :~.::: ~ 2=.~. :ighborhood improvement, and service delivery.
~(i!ii i:i i ~;17 ! ’ ! i"::!: ;~]~!]ff ~:~:~~:~~~ :by describing lo ng-term
well as polices to
Architectural Review Board
Recruiting Information: if you wish, you can download the notice (72 k), application (16 k),
and supplemental questionnaire (106 k)
See Also; Current Agenda
Kenneth Kornberg 425 Minoca Road, Portola 321-1295 (h)9/30/2006
94028
Grace Lee 130 Portola Road, Ste A 566-9650 (h)9/30/2008
Portola 94028
Clare Malone-Prichard 250 Hamilton Avenue 94301 327-7070 (o)9/30/2008
I David Solnick 212 High Street 94301 328-8065 (o)9/30/2006
Judith Wasserman 751 Southampton Drive 321-2871 (o)9/30/2006
94303
Email: jwarqiteq@aol.com
Chair: Kenneth Kornberg
Vice Chair: David Solnlck
Staff Liaison Chris Riordan, Planner - (650) 329-2149
The Architectural Review Board Is charged with design review of all new construction, and
changes and additions to commercial, Industrial and multiple-family projects. The
~oses are to:
Promote orderly and harmonious development of the city;
¯ Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the City;
¯Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements;
¯Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas;
¯ L.~~q lai~ty and variety and which, at
th~sa~l~-ne~~o~TS-~deJ~l~e of e~"dL’~ other.-"~ v ~ .....
The Board is composed of five members, at least three of whom are architects, landscape
architects, building designers or other design professionals. Terms are for three years and
commence on October 1. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 16.48. In order
to be notified of vacancies and appointment procedures, you may contact the City Clerk’s Office
at 329-2571.
Regular meetings are at 8:00 a.m. on the first and third Thursdays of each month and are
cablecast live on Government Channel 15. Please check the Schedule of City Neetings for exact
dates, times and location.
Mitigation Measures:None
XII. Population and Housing
Population in Palo Alto’s sphere of influence in !996, according to Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan was 58,000 people. This is projected to increase to 62,880 by 2010. The project; by
adding to the housing stock bY 96 units, would cumulatively contribute to population in the
area. The average household size in Palo Alto is 2.24 persons, which would mean the project
could generate an average of 215 people given the2proposed 96 units.
The projects cumulative impacts for the purposes of CEQA are also considered to be less than
significant, as the impact (an average of 21-5 persons) from the project alone is not
"considerable", and is di minimus, as environmental conditions would essentially be the same
whether or not the project is implemented (as per CEQA Guidelines §15355 and §15064). This
small increase in population generated by the proposed .project is not considered a significant
impact. City development standards, development fees and standard conditions of project
approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
XIII.Public Services
Fire
The project site is not located in a high fire or wildlands fire area. The project would be required
to meet Fire Department development standards prior to issuance of a building permit.
Police
The change in use from office to residential would not result in a significant increase in the need
for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities.
Schools
Using the Palo Alto Unified School District student generation rates of .2"76 elementary students
per residential unit, .088 middle school students, and .095 high school students, the project
would generate 35 additional students. Current emollment in the School District is beyond
stated capacity, and so this project would increase overcrowding. However, the California
appellate court has stated that overcrowding is not considered a significant effect under CEQA
[Goleta Union School District v. The Regents of University of California, 35 Cal. App. 4~h
112I(1995)]. Rather, the increase in students from a project is only significant if such a school
would create significant environmental effects, such as impact from constructing a new school.
This increase would not create any environmental impacts: no school would need to be
constructed. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact. As a housing
development project, the project would be subject to school impact fees.
Parks and Public Facilities
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 20 of 21
Good morning
i130106 agenda
Study Besslon: San Franclequlto creek ~ .i
At the beginning of the FAQ, you note that the creek corridor is not designated as a "flood control facility",
What is the prooes~ to designate it such and what are the prod/cons7
This project (p.20 ~f Negative Declaration) is projected Co pzoduce abo<3~ddltlonal students. !s I[
School impact fees are expected to be about $250,0007 Would that pay for about the equivalent of two new
classrooms using recent experlence7
Utilize Seek Extra-Statutory,. ,. Developer Fees
In August of 1995, a state appellate court offered the latest direction
regarding the impact of new development on school facilities under
the California Environmental Quality Adt: ("CEQA," Public
Resources Code §§21000, et seq.). In Goleta Union S .ho 1 Dis rict
~niversi o Cali or ia (1995) 3"7 Cal.App.4th
1025, the issue was whether the Regentshad adequately analyzed
the possible impact on schools of a long-range: highly generalized
plan to expand the campus of the University of California at Santa
Barbara. The Goleta Union School District sued, contending that the
environmental impact report ("EIR") prepared for the project was
inadequate under CEQA because it did not address impacts on
schools or provide for mitigation of such impacts. The trial court
agreed, and found for the District, requiring the Regents to revise
and recirculate their EIR. The Regents did so, addressing the school
facility issue. At a second trial, the court f~und that the revised
EIR’s analysis was sufficient. This ruling was upheld by the
appellate court. On January 24, 1996, the California Supreme Court
denied requests by this firm, the State Department of Education and
other organizations to remove the Goleta case from the State’s
official reporters, meaning that the case will remain valid precedent.
School districts should become familiar with the Goleta case and
how to respond to it, as the case is likely to become as commonly
relied upon by developers as the case of Mira Development Corp. v.
City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1201 has been by school
districts..Some develo ers are rel in on Gol ta o d t at
CEQA ~n of school impacts and
further, that Mira, the case that first clarified that schools were
entitled to mitigation beyond statutory amounts, has been overruled.
In fact, ~hes neither result. It is critical to recognize
that Goi~ly a C~QA cas~ ~-nd does not address Mira or
consider the ongoing ability of a city or county to condition new
development on the payment of extra-statutory fees. Also, Goleta
seems to confirm that an analysis of impacts on schools must be
included in an EIR. ~
The primary confusion caused by the Goleta case stems from its
statement that ",s__chool overcrowding, .does not co~a
~er "-’~’-" ^ "significant effect on the environment uno _.cr_s4~. We take this
s~m’~--~ to confirm what CEQA already requires: ’~d
cause overcrowding o~.c__f_a_c~ty and the overcrowding causes
an adverse-effec{"0n peo~overc~-owding~
~’ under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f).)
Thus, school districts must be certain to describe the negative
effects stemming from overcrowding, rather than simply concluding
that overcrowding will occur, when commenting on a proposed
development project or related EIR. Such negative effects would
include, but are not limited to, ~g qual!ty of education,
increased~ats, i.n~ traffic, and~nt, the
need to construct n~eg~--x~_~d existi~ ones. -
Districts should also be prepared for other arguments developers
may raise and misunderstandings that will undoubtedly arise among
cities and counties as to the effect of the case. Passing and often
vague statements made by the court are particularly likely to
generate fertile ground for debate.
Based on the court’s observation that a five-fold increase in student
population would almost certainly lead to a finding of significant
impacts, developers may argue that only a five-fold increase or
worse would be recognized as significant. Developers are also likely
to contend that a board must take binding action to address how it
will accommodate growth from a particular new development prior
to that project’s approval, since the court made brief reference to the
fact that the Goleta board never took such action. Finally, some may
rely on Goleta for the contention that a city, county or other lead
agency can simply list mitigation options available to a school
district to lessen the impact of new development without having to
address the feasibility of those methods. It is our opinion that none
of these contentions are explicitly supported by the Goleta opinion.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to foresee how the case will be
interpreted in the future.
School districts may wish to consider adopting board resolutions
addressing some of the points raised by Goleta to stem some of the
developers’ arguments. Additionally, Goleta provides even more
reason for districts to adopt long-term, relatively detailed facilities
plans.
If you have any questions regarding a school district’s continuing
ability to seek and receive extra-statutory mitigation, would like to
discuss the impact of Goleta on your particular district, or are
interested in the type of board resolution mentioned above, please
contact any of our offices.
As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its
application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may
vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal
advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior
to acting on the information contained herein.
Generously provided by: Lozano Smith Smith Woliver & Behrens
I Back to Legal Index I FCMAT On-line Resources I
{
Attachment D
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Office of the City Clerk ...............
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT*
For appeals of final decisions on Architectural Review Board and Home Improvement Exception applications (rendered ~f~r public
hearing), this appeal form shall be completed and submitted by appellant within fourteen days from date of the Director’s decision.
Appeals of final decisions on Individual Review applications (rendered after public hearing) must be submitted within ten days of the
Director’s decision. Complete form, the current fee and a letter stating reasons for the appeal shall be submitted to front desk staff
of the Planning Division, 5~" floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, except for 980 Fridays when City Hall is closed, when these
items shall be submitted to Planning staff at the Development Center, 265 Hamilton Avenue (glass storefront across from City
Hall on the corner of Bryant and Hamilton).
* Director of Planning includes his designees, which are Planning Managers or the Chief Planning Official
Appeal Application No. ~,~i ~t.’~ ../Lti2~ .-Z_,~2~_..~-
Name of Appellant ~’}t,(~)~A-~-..,~-.-" 2~f’~f,..~(,.~--..d’)-.~..-
Address
Street City ZIP
LOCATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO APPEAL:
Street Address
Property Owner’s Address
Street City /ZIP
The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated ,¢V~/_../’~.~[;’~ /_~_~
whereby the application dY, J"~Z.~;by ~;-~.J(-.~ (~-;7/Yi"f/"!C;/£!-’]" /-"’-[~.,,.~
(file number)(original project applicant)
was
(approved/denied)
Date:
, 20
, is hereby appealed for the reasons stated in the attached letter (in duplicate)
Signature of Appellant ~/]~~’~’~::~£-~
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF):
Date Approved Denied
Remarks and/or Conditions:
CITY COUNCIL DECISION (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF):
Date Approved
Remarks and/or Conditions:
Denied
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Letter stating reasons for appeal
2.Fee (currently $129.00)"v/
Date:
From:
Steve Emslie
Director
Department of Planning and Community Environment
March 5, 2006
Michael Hmelar
3144 Maddux Drive
Palo Alto, CA. 94303
Cell: 408-640-9021
RE: 3270 West Bayshore Road [05PLN-00320]
I am appealing the decision of the Architectural Review Board’s approval of the 3270,
3290 West Bayshore redevelopment based solely on the motif of the building facades that
faces both West Bayshore Road and Loma Verde. A more homogenous and durable
motif has been requested by the maj ority of the neighbors over the past year with no
formal response from the ARB. The proj ect sponsor, Classic Community, has stated that
the ARB is driving the modern motif. The Architectural Review Board has failed to
represent the concerns of the neighborhood and therefore this issue needs to be escalated
to the City Council to address both the immediate resolution of the stakeholders
surrounding the 3270/3290 West Bayshore redevelopment and to address the systemic
process and expectation deficiencies of the ARB process and respective staff behavior.
Respectfully,
Michael Hmelar
Included:
Letter dated February 1, 2006 to the ARB.
To: Palo Alto Architectural Review Board
Date:
From:
February 1, 2006
Michael Hmelar
3144 Maddux Drive
Palo Alto, CA. 94303
Cell: 408-640-9021
RE: 3270 West Bayshore Road [05PLN-00320]
On January 19th ,2006 the Planning Division mailed a Notification of a Public Hearing of
the Architectural Review Board to my home.
On Monday the 31st of January I reviewed the proposed plan submission on file with
Paul Mermega, the Planning Technician from the City of Palo Alto Development Center.
Most of my questions and concerns where answered by Paul and I thought the time was
well spent.
The only concern I have with the present submission is the proposed design motif of the
building facades that faces both West Bayshore Road and Loma Verde. The Creek side
looks like there has been a significant attempt to integrate with the adjacent community.
I have attached pictures of many of the new high density housing construction efforts in
our community and specifically many of the new and remodel homes in Sterling Gardens
I was at a loss as to why the proposed futuristic buildings are being entertained given the
high quality and time enduring designs being deployed around our community and local
neighborhood.
I had approached Scott Ward of Classic Communities Inc. when he presented this motif
at a Midtown Association meeting, and he was non committal as to who was driving this
design look. The implication was that they where being driven by the inputs from the
ARB.
On Monday’s meeting, Paul Mennga stated that the design choice and influence lays
squarely on Classic Communities and not the ARB. So, if the design choice is being
driven by Classic Communities and only approved by the ARB, then I am formally
requesting that the ARB delay approval of the project until a more acceptable and
harmonious exterior facade for West Bayshore and Loma Verde is developed and
presented to the ARB and local neighborhood. Specifically the material choice,
geometries and roof style do not fit the community.
Page 1 of 9
I respectfully hope you consider the concerns of my neighbor and ensure this project is an
appropriate asset to both the local neighbors and the community in general.
Respectfully,
Michael Hmelar
New Housing on Sand Hill Road across from the Shopping Center:
Page 2 of 9
New Housing on Sand Hill Road across from Shopping Center
Gentrification of the Old Palo Alto Medical Center Site
Page 3 of 9
Gentrification of the Old Palo Alto Medical Center Site
Gentrification of the Old Palo Alto Medical Center Site
Page 4 of 9
Gentrification of intersection of Loma Verde 7 Middle Field-Light Mfg to Residential
Recent Remodels or New Construction in Sterling Gardens
Page 5 of 9
Recent Remodels or New Construction in Sterling Gardens
Recent Remodels or New Construction in Sterling Gardens
Page 6 of 9
Recent Remodels or New Construction in Sterling Gardens on Maddux Drive
Recent Remodels or New Construction in Sterling Gardens on Maddux Drive
Page 7 of 9
Recent Remodels or New Construction in Sterling Gardens on Maddux Drive
Recent Remodels or New Construction in Sterling Gardens on Maddux Drive
Page 8 of 9
Recent Remodels or New Construction in Sterling Gardens on Maddux Drive
Page 9 of 9