HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 408-06City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:NOVEMBER 13, 2006 CMR: 408:06
SUBJECT:3270 W BAYSHORE ROAD [06PLN-00000-00149]: REQUEST BY WEST
BAYSHORE ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF CLASSIC COMMUNITIES,
INC. FOR APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
MAP FOR A PROPOSED 96-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
PROJECT. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: AN INITIAL STUDY
HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS
BEEN APPROVED FOR THIS PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
REQUIREMENTS. ZONE DISTRICT:RESEARCH,OFFICE AND
LIMITED MANUFACTURING (ROLM).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City
Council approve the proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, in order to merge two parcels
(approx. 6.5 acres) and create 96 condominium units at 3270 West Bayshore Road for the
purpose of constructing previously approved residential buildings, based upon findings and
conditions contained within the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
Background information related to the approved development project and proposed map are
included within the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). The project to develop 96
for-sale condominium units at 3270 West Bayshore Road was initially received by the City on
September 6, 2005. It received a recommendation of approval by the Architecture Review Board
on March 16, 2006, and was approved by Council on June 19, 2006.
The action by the Council to approve the Vesting Tentative Map is necessary prior to Final Map
approval and issuance of Building Permits. The only decision point for this item is the approval
of the Vesting Tentative Map as presented. The site design and architecture were previously
approved by Council on June 19, 2006.
CMR: 408:06 Page 1 of 3
DISCUSSION
The Vesting Tentative Map drawings, provided as Attachment E, contain all information and
notations required to be shown on a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12),
and conforming to the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways,
and similar features (PAMC 21.20). The map also conforms to the previously approved site
plan, which was approved by Council on June 19, 2006. The attached Planning &
Transportation Commission staff report (Attachment B) addresses the map’s consistency and
compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan & Subdivision ordinance.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On October 25, 2006, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) conducted a
public hearing on the project, recommended (6-0-0-1) that the City Council approve the Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map as submitted and requested a correction to the draft Record of Land Use
Action. The draft Commission minutes and corrected draft Record of Land Use Action are
attached to this report (Attachment C and A, respectively). Two members of the public spoke
during the public hearing regarding the project’s Below Market Rate (BMR) program, and staff
clarified that the Council had approved a BMR letter agreement for this project-during the appeal
hearing on June 19, 2006.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There will be an economic impact on the City from the proposed 96 unit residential
condominium project at 3270 West Bayshore Road. The current parcels, which contain
warehouses that have been empty for some time, will generate incremental revenues for the City.
Based on the anticipated number and type of housing units, occupied square feet, and current
projections of home sale prices (naturally, these will be dependent on the housing market at time
of sale), the following range of General Fund incremental, annual revenues are projected:
Low High
Property taxes $ 81,000 $103,000
Sales taxes 18,000 22,000
UUT 23,000 29,000
Ongoing estimated revenues $122,000 $154,000
In addition to ongoing revenues, the General Fund is expected to receive the following one-time
revenues:
Low High
Documentary Transfer taxes $313,000 $390,000
Impact fees 581,000 581,000
One-Time estimated revenues $894,000 $971,000
The City will realize additional one-time documentary transfer taxes if the current property
owner sells the parcels to the developer. At this time, staff does not have knowledge of the
timing and value of this transaction (if it occurs).
CMR: 408:06 Page 2 of 3
The developer of this project will allocate 10 of the 96 units as Below Market Rate (BMR) units.
The BMR requirement for the 96 unit project is 19..Consequently, the developer will be paying
approximately $4.5 million to the City in In-Lieu BMR fees.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues related to both the
development and the subsequent map, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), was circulated for a 20-day public review period from December 14, 2005 to January
12, 2006 and was adopted by Council on June 19, 2006. A copy of the environmental document
is provided in Attachment D.
PREPARED BY:
Associate
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Director of Planning and
"~MILY HA~S 0N
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
A.Draft Record of Land Use Action
B.Planning & T{ansportation Commission Staff Report, October 25, 2006 (w/o attachments)
C.Excerpt of the Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Minutes, October 25, 2006
D.Negative Declaration
E.Vesting Tentative Map Plan Set (Council only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Scott Ward, Classic Communities Inc.
West Bayshore Associates
James Baer, Premier Properties Management
Stephany McGraw, Midtown Resident’s Association
Smita Joshi, Palo Verde Resident’s Association
Susan Fineberg, Local Resident
Peter Gilli, Deputy Zoning Administrator, City of Mountain View
Gregory Frank, Monta Loma Neighborhood Association
CMR: 408:06 Page 3 of 3
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 3270 WEST BAYSHORE ROAD
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
06PLN-00000-00149 (CLASSIC COMMUNITIES INC., APPLICANT)
At its meeting on November 13, 2006, the City Council of the
City of Palo Alto approved the Vesting Tentative Map to merge two
parcels (approx. 6.5 acres) and create 96 condominium units, making
the following findings, determinations and declarations:
SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo
Alto (~City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows:
A. Classic Communities, Inc, on behalf of West Bayshore
Associates have requested the City’s approval of a Vesting
Tentative Map to merge two lots, each approximately 3.25 acres,
into one approximately 6.5 acre lot, for the purpose of subdividing
the lot into 96 condominium units. A total of 30 separate
residential structures are proposed for the site, including a
community multi-purpose building and i0 below-market rate units.
B. The approximately 6.5 acre parcel is located adjacent to
the intersection of West Bayshore Road and Loma Verde Place.
Approved for construction on the site is 208,790 square feet of
residential space that received City Council approval on June 19,
2006~ This approval included a condition that the two lots
comprising the site be merged and then subdivided prior to the
issuance of building permit.
C. The Vesting Tentative Map plan set includes information
on the existing parcels and onsite conditions (Sheet 3); the layout
of new private streets and walkways, including the various
buildings with individual units and guest parking spaces (Sheets 4
and 5); utility information (Sheet 6); cross-sections of new
streets and walkways (Sheet 7), and finally details on the proposed
West Bayshore soundwall (Sheets 8, 9 & i0). These drawings are in
compliance with the applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations
required to be shown on a Vesting Tentative Map (per PAMC sections
21.12 and 21.13), as well as conform to the design requirements
concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar
features (PAMC 21.20). The plan set also conforms to the approved
ARB site plan. Because the request is to create more than four
condominium units, this request cannot be processed
administratively through the Director and requires review by the
Commission and City Council approval (PAMC 21.08.010).
D. Following Staff review the Planning and Transportation
Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project and recommended
Page 1
approval on October 25, 2006. The Commission’s recommendations are
contained in CMR: and the attachments to it.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency
for the Project prepared an Initial Study resulting in a Negative
Declaration and determined that the Project could not have a
significant effect on the environment.
A Negative Declaration is appropriate as many of the impacts on the
surrounding community generated by this project are expected to be
less intensive than the existing permitted use. In terms of
traffic, noise and pollution, it has been recognized that
residential land uses are considered less-intensive versus
similarly situated commercial/industrial uses. In areas where
community impacts are expected to increase, such as community
facilities and schools, it is staff’s determination that the
impacts of this particular development will be successfully offset
by a combination of the applicable development impact fees, the
site planning of the project, and the collaboration between the
Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and the City of Palo Alto
with regards to the expected number of new students in this
development, which have been incorporated into the PAUSD’s student
projections.
SECTION 3. Vesting Tentative Map Findings. A legislative
body of a city shall deny approval of a Vesting Tentative Map, if
it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code
Section 66474):
i. That the proposed map is not consistent withapplicable
general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451:
The site does not lie within a specific plan area and
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans :
The site does not lie within a specific plan area and
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
generally encourages housing and the conversion of non-residential
to residential land use. The Housing Element identifies the
jobs/housing imbalance and supports conversion of job uses to
housing. Housing Element Policy H-3 states ~Continue to support the
re-designation of suitable vacant or underutilized lands for
housing or mixed uses containing housing." The East Bayshore/San
Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor is cited as an employment center in
the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, policy L-47 points to the East
Meadow Circle area as a potential site for higher density housing.
Page 2
3. That the site is not physically suitable’for
of development :
The site will be improved with new residential
buildings and related site improvements. Physical changes on the
site would include the removal of the existing paving, landscaping
and vacant buildings. Site improvements to accommodate new
residential buildings and associated landscaping would first be
subject to acquiring a building and grading permit.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development :
The sites are each currently occupied by a large vacant
commercial building. All existing buildings will be removed to
allow the construction of 30 new residential structures totaling
208,790 square feet in size. City departments have reviewed the
new residential structures, project site’as well as all potential
environmental impacts and have determined that the site is
appropriate for the new development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habi tat :
An Environmental Assessment was prepared for the
application to construct the new residential structures and it was
determined that no physical changes are being made to the site that
would cause environmental impacts.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:
No physical changes are being made to the site that
would cause serious public health problems. The proposed
improvements consist of a purely residential development, and it
has been determined through the Environmental Assessment (Section
2), that no public health problems should arise.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may
approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or
for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This
subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that
the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
Page 3
The Vesting Tentative Map will not conflict with pre-
existing easements.
SECTION 4.Vesting Tentative Map Approval Granted.
Vesting Tentative Map approval is granted by the City Council under
Palo Alto Municipal Code (~PAMC") Sections 21.12.090 and the
California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions
of approval in Section 6 of this Record.
SECTION 5.Final Map Approval.
The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City
Council of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial
conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by BKF
Engineers, Surveyors, and Planners titled ~Classics at Sterling
Park Vesting Tentative Map", consisting of i0 pages, dated and
received July 19, 2006, except as modified to incorporate the
conditions of approval in Section 6.
A copy of this map is on file in the Department of Planning
and Community Environment, Current Planning Division.
Within two years of the approval date of the Vesting
Tentative Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any
part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in
Chapter 21.08.010, to be prepared in conformance with the Vesting
Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16.210
and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]) ~
SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
I. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Vesting
Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC
Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall
be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works
Engineering Division within two years of the Vesting Tentative
Parcel Map approval date (PAMC 21.13.020[c]) .
SECTION 7.Term of Approval.
Vesting Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the
Vesting Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a
Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]).
Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are
fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Vesting
Page 4
Tentative Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the
Vesting Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall
terminate. Thereafter, no Final Map shall be filed without first
processing a Vesting Tentative Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[d]).
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Deputy City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Vesting Tentative Map prepared by "BKF Engineers, Surveyors, and
Planners", received July 19, 2006.
Page 5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Paul Mennega
Associate Planner
DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community
Environment
AGENDA DATE: October 25, 2006
SUBJECT:3270 W Bayshore Road [06PLN-00000-00149]: Request by West
Bayshore Associates on behalf of Classic Communities, Inc. for
approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for a proposed 96-
unit residential condominium project. Environmental Assessment: An
Initial Study has been completed and a Negative Declaration has been
approved for this project in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements; Zone District:
Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend
approval of the proposed Vesting Tentative Map, in order to merge two parcels (approx. 6.5
acres) and create 96 condominium units at 3270 West Bayshore Road, to the City Council,
based upon the findings and conditions contained within the draft Record of Land Use
Action (Attachment A).
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION:
Background information related to the approved development project and proposed map are
included within the draft Record of Land Use Action. The Vesting Tentative Map drawings,
provided as Attachment F, are in general conformance with the approved architectural plans
and approval conditions, and comply with the requirements set forth in Chapter 21
(Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Code requirements on this
application from various City departments have also been incorporated into the draft
conditions of approval. The full set of approved architectural review plans and project
City of Palo Alto ,Page 1
....~" ~i:: ~,~’; ~detailS/materials binder are available "£~p0n?request. The only action required of the
Commission is a recommendation on the Vesting Tentative Map. The site design and
architecture were approved by the City Council, upholding the decision of the Director of
Planning and Community Environment’s decision on appeal.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
Consistency With Comprehensive Plan
The proposed Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in
that residential use is allowed within the Research/Office Park land use designation, as well
as the Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing zone district. Policies and programs of
the Land Use and Communty Design and Natural Environment Elements were addressed
with the prior Major Architectural Review o the project.
Subdivision Ordinance Compliance
The proposed lot merger is in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance,
in regard to Vesting Tentative Map requirements (PAMC 21.12) and design (PAMC 21.20).
However, because the number of proposed lots (condominiums) exceeds four, the map
cannot be processed administratively through the Director of Planning and Community
Environment and requires review by the Commission and City Council (PAMC 21.08.020).
Per section 21.13.030 of the PAMC, approval of a "vesting" tentative map "... shall confer a
vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances,
policies and standards in effect at the time that an application is determined to be complete
by the city, provided that any fees required as a condition of approval of a vesting tentative
map, unless otherwise specified, shall be payable at the rates in effect at the time building
vermits are issued." (PAMC 21.13.030[a])
The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the
design of the residential buildings to be located on the lot, which have already been
reviewed and approved by the City Council on June 19, 2006 (see ’Timeline’ below).
The Vesting Tentative Map plan set includes information on the existing parcels and onsite
conditions including the future residential buildings, vehicle parking spaces, landscaping and
site drainage. These drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be
shown on a Vesting Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12), as well as conform to the
design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features
(PAMC 21.20). The plan set also conforms to the approved site plan. No conditions of
approval were placed on the vesting tentative map by City Council.
TIMELINE:
Action:
ARB Application Received:
Date:
September 6, 2005
City of Palo Alto Page 2
ARB Application Deemed Complete:
First ARB Hearing:
Second ARB Hearing:
Third ARB Hearing:
Director’s Approval of ARB Application:
Vest. Tentative Map Application Received:
Appeal Hearing of Director’s Decision by Council
Vest. Tent. Map Application Deemed Complete:
Commission Meeting on Vesting Tent. Map:
Action by Council on Vesting Tent. Map:
December 5, 2005
December 15, 2005
February 2, 2006
March 16, 2006
March 23, 2006
June 5, 2006
June 19, 2006
October 10, 2006
October 25, 2006
November 13, 2006 (tentative)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues related to both the
development and the subsequent map, as required by the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), was circulated for a 20-day public review period from December 14, 2005 to
January 12, 2006. A copy of the environmental document is provided in Attachment E.
ATTACHMENTS:
No
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Draft Record of Land Use Action;
Council Approved Record of Land Use Action;
City Manager Report, dated June 19, 2006;
Council Hearing Minutes (Commission only);
Negative Declaration (Commission only);
Vesting Tentative Map Plan Set (Commission only).
COURTESY COPIES:
Scott Ward, Classic Communities Inc.
West Bayshore Associates
James Baer, Premier Properties Management
Stephany McGraw, Midtown Resident’s AssociatiOn
Smita Joshi, Palo Verde Resident’s Association
Susan Fineberg, Local Resident
Peter Gilli, Deputy Zoning Administrator, City of Mountain View
Gregory Frank, Monta Loma Neighborhood Association
Prepared by: PaulMennega, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning
Department/Division Head Approval:
Curtis Williams,
Chief Planning and Transportation Official
City of Palo Alto 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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
EXCERPT
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
REGULAR MEETING AT 7:00 PM, ITEM 2:3270 West Bayshore
Chair Holman: Item number two is a public hearing for 3270 West Bayshore Road, a request by
West Bayshore Associates on behalf of Classic Communities for approval of a Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map for a proposed 96-unit residential condominium project. Would Staff care to
make a presentation?
NEW B USINESS
Public Hearings: ......
o 3270 West Ba~,shore*: Request by West Bayshore Associates on behalf of Classic
Communities, Inc. for Planning and Transportation Commission review and
recommendation to City Council for approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for
a proposed 96-unit residential condominium project. Environmental Assessment: An
Initial Study has been completed and a Negative Declaration has been approved for this
project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
requirements. Zone District: Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM).
Mr. C. Williams: Yes. Commissioners I would like to present to you Paul Mennega who is an
Associate Planner who I don’t think has made a presentation to you before but some of you may
know Paul. He is the Project Planner on this case and will present it to you. Thanks.
Mr. Paul Mennega, Associate Planner: Good evening. This Vesting Tentative Map application
follows from previously approved design of a 96-unit condominium development located at 3270
West Bayshore Road.
The design elements of this project including residential structures, landscaping and site planning
all received final approval from City Council on June 19, 2006. The Vesting Tentative Map
itself involves the merger of two existing parcels totaling approximately 6.5 acres in size and
then the subsequent creation of 96 for sale condominium units.
A timeline of the progress at 3270 West Bayshore is included in the Staff Report prepared for
this heating. Highlights of this timeline include Director’s approval of the design elements of
this project on March 23, 2006 and subsequent City Council approval on June 19, 2006.
This application has been reviewed by the necessary City departments to ensure compatibility
with the Comprehensive Plan and compliance with all applicable regulations. City Staff requests
that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend approval of this Vesting Tentative
Map.
City of Palo Alto October 25, 2006 Page 1 of 13
In terms of environmental review a Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental
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
issues, related to .both the development and the subsequent map as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act was circulated for a 20-day public review period from December 14,
2005 to January 12, 2006. Don Larkin, City Attorney, will now speak to this item. I would then
like to invite the applicant, Scott Ward, to give a brief presentation and answer any questions you
may have. Thank you.
Mr. Larkin: Thanks. The Chair asked me to clarify a couple of things. The first is we haven’t
seen many Vesting Tentative Maps at this stage and there was some confusion as to what that
actually meant. When an applicant files a Tentative Map they have an opportunity to basically
market as a Vesting Tentative Map the same as any other Tentative Map with the exception that
a Vesting Tentative Map vests all of the existing regulations at the time of the approval of the
Tentative Map so that way if the City was to come along later and adopt new fees ornew
regulations that those would not apply to this map once the Tentative Map is approved.
Procedurally it is no different from any other Tentative Map the process is that it goes for public
hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission and before the City Council and
then the Final Map would go only to City Council and it would go on the Consent Agenda.
The Commission’s purview with regard to the review of this Map is limited, as I have said
probably in-artfully before, to the lines on the paper and that is really what we are talking about.
The design of the project and the project itself has already been fully approved. There are
elements that the Commission can comment on and that is any dedications and public
improvements that are a part of the Map or any maintenance issues that are going to arise as part
of the subdivision those are all areas that you can talk about. In terms of the design of the project
and in terms of the features that have already been approved those are outside of the purview of
this hearing.
Chair Holman: The applicant has 15 minutes to make a presentation. I do not have a card so if
the applicant would come forward. My apologies I thought this was for a member of the public.
So Scott Ward you have 15 minutes.
Mr. Scott Ward, Representing Classic Communities: Good evening Chairperson Holman and
Commissioners. I won’t be utilizing the entirety of the 15 minutes allocated to me. I am here
tonight to urge you to adopt the Staff recommendation to recommend to the Council approval of
the Tentative Subdivision Map for the proposed development.
42
43
44
45
46
As you know, on June 19 the City Council considered and on an eight to one vote denied the
appeals of the Director’s approval of the project issued on March 21, which was made pursuant
to approval by the Architectural Review Board, which was made on March 16. With this vote
the Council affirmed the ARB’s determination and the Director’s Decision to uphold the ARB
approval, validated the finding that the proposed development could not have a significant effect
on the environment, and acknowledged and abided by a zoning ordinance amendment that was
enacted in October of 2005 which established RM-30 residential use as a principally permitted
use of the property.
City of Palo Alto October 25, 2006 Page 2 of 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
As a result of the Council’s action the conformity of the proposed development with the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning has been established and the project design has been approved.
The proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is consistent in every respect with the
approved project design.
The action that you are asked to take tonight will simply enable the property to be subdivided in
the manner required to accommodate the approved project design.
In our opinion there are no grounds for denial of the Tentative Subdivision Map based on the
merits of the map itself, based on previous actions taken by Council, ARB and the Director with
respect to the proposed development, based on the findings tests that are stipulated in the
Subdivision Map Act and based on recent Commission review and approval of Tentative Maps
for similarly entitled properties.
Classic Communities was very gratified by the Council’s recognition of and support for the
merits of the proposed development. I realize you don’t observe much about the project from a
Tentative Subdivision Map so if you so desire I have a handoutfor you which presents the site
plan and elevations for these buildings if that would be helpful to you but we are focused on the
map itself tonight of course. The merits include the fact that the proposed project is conforming
with all of the many development standards for the RM-30 zoning district with the exception of a
very limited number of Design Enhancement Exceptions. Those standards include density,
building coverage, floor area ratio, front, rear and side yard setbacks, building height and parking
requirements.
The existing zoning in fact allows a maximum of 30 units per acre for a total of 195 units on the
property. The density of the proposed development at 96 units is less than half of the maximum
allowed. In fact, the proposed density of 14.75 units per acre is almost 20 percent lower than
two residential projects that this Commission approved not too long ago that were at a density of
17.25 units per acre.
Thirdly, the approved development improves the adjacent under-utilized if not derelict City-
owned Sterling Canal property into an attractive pedestrian/bike path, which can and should be
the first leg of a significant pedestrian/bike route extending from Greer Park to the Baylands.
Fourth, the proposed development requires a number of improvements that offer the prospect of
humanizing West Bayshore Road and making it into something other than only a vehicular
expressway. These improvement include the construction of a sound wall separating West
Bayshore from the highway, orientation of the residential units to front on West Bayshore,
retaining the mature trees that align the West Bayshore and Loma Verde frontages, and
providing a dedicated right turn lane at the West Bayshore - Loma Verde intersection.
Moreover, the proposed project will by virtue of the change in use reduce the number of
vehicular trips generated by this site. Incidentally, neither the improvement of Sterling Canal nor
the West Bayshore frontage improvements were required by code. They are voluntary on our
part designed to improve the quality not only of this development but of the neighborhood as a
whole.
City of Palo Alto October 25, 2006 Page 3 of 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
Fifth, the project has a very well conceived plan which integrates into the existing neighborhood
providing a density and height gradient extending from Sterling Canal to the West Bayshore
edge and by providing ingress and egress from both West Bayshore and Loma Verde making it
possible to access the development from West Bayshore without traversing the Midtown
neighborhood. The plan also organizes the homes around two large open space areas and
features an unusual diversity of home types including single family units, town-home units, and
condominium units.
Sixth, the proposed development has the highest level of below market rate units of any recently
approved project. Since the site is over five acres the BMR obligation is 20 percent, not 15
percent of the units, and this obligation is being met through a combination of onsite units and in
lieu fees as requested by the City. In addition to the ten BMR units to be provided onsite and in
lieu fee of approximately $4.5 million will be paid and these funds will likely leverage
significant more monies to underwrite a large scale targeted all BMR development.
Finally, the proposed development has the fewest Design Enhancement Exceptions of any of the
recently approved residential developments. For instance while ten percent of the units in this
development have tandem garages approximately 65 percent of the units in 928 and 1101 East
Meadow projects have tandem garages. Developing a project of this scale with only two units
with daylight and setback encroachments is a significant design accomplishment in and of itself.
Moreover, these encroachments have no impact on any residential property adjacent to the site
they affect only the commercial property to the north, which has not objected to the
development.
We appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments and urge you to support the Staff
recommendation and we are prepared to answer any questions that you may have of us.
Chair Holman: Are there any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Garber..
Commissioner Garber: Have you done any analysis that there is a net add or loss of earth to the
property? Just scanning your site plan it looks like there is a net add is that true?
Mr. Ward: That is true.
Commissioner Garber: Has the Staff evaluated that and!or conditioned the coming or taking of
that earth?
Mr. Mennega: The Public Works Department have been reviewing it for flood plane and flood
zone compliance has reviewed the proposed addition, essentially the raising of the finished floor
level of the proposed residential units. The project as proposed meets all City requirements.
Commissioner Garber: So does the first floor then extent, is there a flood plane issue? The first
floor is at or above that plane?
Mr. Mennega: Correct. The site is in the AE8 flood zone and is approximately four feet I
believe below the base flood elevation per FEMA requirements so they will be required to bring
City of Palo Alto October 25, 2006 Page 4 of 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
the finished level of the first floor of the residential units, the residential portion of the units not
necessarily the garages up above that flood elevation.
Commissioner Garber: Are the adjacent properties also raised up now or are they at the current
level of the street?
Mr. Mennega: I would say the immediately adjacent properties are probably at the current level
which would be below. They were done before the requirements were in place so they are
probably at but I can’t say for certain all of them are but I would say the majority of the adjacent
properties are.
Commissioner Garber: I have others but I will wait my turn.
Chair Holman: Are there any more questions for the applicant? Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I understand from the drawings in particular drawing TM07,
Section C-C that in order to address the flood plane issues that you are berming around the
property and that you are lifting the finished floor to above the eight foot elevation because of
the AE8 zoning. What I am wondering is that since part of that appears to be at the existing
grade what is the height difference between the existing grade and the very top of the buildings
along Sterling Canal.
Mr. Ward: I am not sure I understand the question. We are raising existing grade approximately
three and a half to four feet over the entire site.
Commissioner Keller: What I would like to know is of the buildings along Sterling Canal
compared to existing grade which I understand from the drawing is at the grade at the back of the
building closest to Sterling Canal what is the height of the building compared with the. height of
the existing grade? Does that make sense? How tall is the building compared with existing
grade?
Mr. Ward: There are two building types along the Sterling Canal edge one of which is
approximately 27 feet in height the other is approximately 30 feet in height, plus the building
itself, then with the grade change you would add the three and a half to four feet to get to height
from existing grade.
Commissioner Keller: So I take it from your answer that the height of the top of the building
minus the existing grade is less than 35 feet?
Mr. Ward: Correct. That has been checked and rechecked.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert.
City of Palo Alto October 25, 2006 Page 5 of 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
Vice-Chair Lippert: Can you describe for me very briefly, you have vehicle access to the site but
then you have some pedestrian access that goes to.Sterling Canal. Can you just talk a little bit
about what that connection is going to be?
Mr. Ward: It will be an arbor that is approximately ten feet tall with a gate that will be an open
gate and those arbors and the pathways connect to the onsite open space areas. So there was a
continuous open space network associated with the offsite access to Sterling Canal. We will
improve Sterling Canal, which is approximately a 50-foot wide swath of City-owned property to
make it a fully functional pedestrian and bike path.
Vice-Chair Lippert: With regard to those connections, this is private property and there is
potential for an exchange between say the public and the residents there. Will there be any
barriers preventing just anybody to walk into the development and go into the open space area?
Mr. Ward: There will be, as I say there will be a gate there. The question is is it a locked gate or
not a locked gate and then do the residents of this development have keys to that lock and I think
that question is open-ended at this point. We haven’t resolved that at this point.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Then I have one other question. You have this I will call it a
driveway because it is not really a street that comes down and bisects the site in half and then
you have a path that goes up and T’s and goes into two of the units. Did you look at bringing
that straight through so that there is a way to sort of cut through the site?
Mr. Ward: To bring the street section through?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Not the street itself but the pedestrian portion of that.
Mr. Ward: Well, at one point we did have a third connection there and we weren’.t able to
maintain that connection. We could look at reintroducing it but I think that is an element of
project design that we would have to amend the map to do that.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Let me tell you what I am looking at here and then you can tell me if it is
appropriate or not.
Mr. Ward: Okay.
Vice-Chair Lippert: What I am looking at here is that this is private property but this is really a
really large site so much so that I am questioning whether these should be dedicated right-of-
ways just looking at that and thinking that. If that were the case then there might be some
dedicated open space and connections and those would be those pedestrian thoroughfares
connecting to this Sterling Canal. If this canal did not exist here and this was private property
abutting private property I wouldn’t even go there but Sterling Canal has the potential of being
an asset to this community.
Mr. Ward: Understood. I will defer to Staff.
City of Palo Alto October 25, 2006 Page 6 of 13
1 Mr. Larkin: Dedications are a subject that is a subject of Map. It is a difficult subject because
2 for example grading is a subject of the Map, building heights aren’t but it is kind of a domino as
3 you start making changes to the Map that affect the already approved project. It can have a
4 domino effect that isn’t very pleasant but if you want to discuss dedications that is within the
5 purview of the Commission.
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
46
Vice-Chair Lippert: Right and that is the reason why I am asking these questions and I am
asking it very carefully because I don’t think that the City might want to undertake the dedicated
fight-of-ways in terms of the streets but the dedication of those walking paths are very desirable.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma, did you have a question for the applicant? Commissioner
Garber, did you?
Mr. Ward: You would have to take the dedication of the streets along with walking paths
otherwise you have a public path that leads to a private street and we would certainly resist that.
Unless the City wants to hold us harmless and wants to take it as a dedication and assume all the
responsibility associated with that we are not in a position to build a private street and then have
all the responsibility and liability associated with public access. If I understand the question
correctly.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Our purview here though is to either approve or not approve the Vesting
Tentative Map and my line of questioning really started out with that street that was bisecting it
and that carrying through in terms of pedestrian.
Mr. Ward: You are saying that one of the pedestfian paths would be connected to a spine public
fight-of-way that would be intersected by private streets?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Correct.
Mr. Ward: I guess .....
Mr. C. Williams: Madam Chair, if I could interrupt, I don’t think we should be engaging in a
dialogue with the applicant. If you have questions to answer that’s fine but back and forth as far
as trying to resolve, we should finish the public heating first and then come to the Commission
for suggestions.
Chair Holman: Right. I think Commissioner Garber had a question for the applicant.
Commissioner Garber: What limits the height of your sound-wall?
Mr. Ward: The ten foot sound-wall accomplishes the ...
Commissioner Garber: Is it a state requirement?
Mr. Ward: No, it is not a state requirement.
City of Palo Alto October 25, 2006 Page 7 of 13
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 Garber: It is a line on the drawing.
Mr. Larkin: It is a line on the drawing but it is part of the ARB approval.
Commissioner Garber: So it is a public benefit that is being provided as part of this.
Chair Holman: I just had that conversation with another Commissioner. Okay, thank you very
much. I do have one card from a member of the public, Joy Ogawa. You have five minutes.
Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: Thank you. I thought I heard the applicant state that this 96-unit
project is on more than five acres and therefore should have a 20 percent BMR requirement,
which should mean 19 units, right? And they are only providing ten plus $4.0 million in in lieu
fees at the request of Staff. I am wondering why is Staff suggesting requesting that in lieu fees
be paid instead of having BMR units. Are they making policy in terms of we are going to have
in lieu fees instead of BMR units? Is that the direction of the City? The City has done that
recently which I find extremely troubling and that is to separate out instead of having integrated
BMR units which how the BMR program is supposed to work. Comparable BMR units
integrated within the development. We are now heading into segregation. It almost seems to be
the developers just automatically go that route practically. We have segregated lower income
units that are you know, get the riff-raff out of the luxury homes area and we will just give you
money or whatever and you can go and segregate out the BMR units and locate them in some
lower quality location with more noise, more pollution, smaller units, lower quality buildings and
we will just squeeze them all into some low income development and keep the riff-raff
segregated from the higher quality homes. There are excuses that are made for that and one of
the excuses is well, we can stretch our dollar that way and oh gee, most BMR people can’t afford
to even buy the BMR homes when they are larger units anyway so we are really doing lower
income people a favor by segregating them out. We get higher numbers so that we can tell
ABAG we have more units so as far as ABAG is concerned we are doing better by providing
larger number of units. They may be of lower quality, they may be segregated but oh well. So
there is an overall policy concern that I am concerned about. There is also the specifics of this
particular instance where I thought I heard the applicant say that it was Staff’s request that $4.0
million of in lieu fees be paid instead of all the required BMR being provided. I just want to
know where that is coming from.
I am also very concerned about how the BMR in lieu fees are being used at this point. So I am
very much concerned about how this kind of shift in policy is affecting our low income housing
in the city and really leading towards segregation of higher income and lower income. I think
that is a very sad direction to be heading in. Thank you very much.
Chair Holman: Thank you. I have one other speaker card from Lynn Chiapella. If anybody else
would like to speak to this I request you turn your card in now please.
Ms. Lynn Chiapella, Palo Alto: I totally agree with what Joy Ogawa is saying. I think if you
were to look at the history in Palo Alto particularly of the BMR units by the time you collect the
City of Palo Alto October 25, 2006 Page 8 of 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
fees and then get around to building the BMRs, this you can verify, frequently thd~0ney that
has been contributed doesn’t even provide a BMR unit. So while today you think to yourself, oh
boy, $4.0 million isn’t that a lot of money we can just build a whole bunch of stuff with that. By
the time you actually approve it in many cases it has doubled. I can remember at one time most
developers went for the in lieu fee it was so cheap compared to providing a unit particularly over
time if you think of the income or the sales of that unit. So I think it is a very slippery slope
when you decide to take money in place of units. I also think that eventually you do end up with
kind of a segregated kind of society. I know that most of you don’t live in areas where these
things happen perhaps you maybe live in single family enclaves but I think that you really need
to look at a bigger picture and you need to really think strongly about how soon will this be built,
does the $4.0 million really provide those missing units whether they are five units or nine units.
I don’t know whether he is missing nine units or five units actually. I don’t know if he should be
building 19 as Joy Ogawa mentioned or 15 but in any case the $4.0 million will not go, in this
city for the kind of things you build, very far. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you. I will close the public comment. Staff?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, I would like to respond to the BMR issue. I am not familiar enough with
all the details to tell you exactly how and why it broke down this way. I do know that the
Housing Staff believe and Julie can answer that. Let me then also indicate that this letter
agreement was part of the package that Council approved. The Council is familiar with this and
has said that this is adequate.
Ms. Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager: I just wanted to point out to the Commission
that the money from this, the $4.5 million that Mr. Ward discussed, was something that was
negotiated with Staff. That money is to be used for the development of the Alma substation
affordable project and the Council is well aware of that. When the discussion for the acquisition
of the Ole site adjacent to the substation property was discussed by Council a month and a half
ago they were aware that the way that the City was going to purchase that property was through
the use of the money from this project.
Mr. C. Williams: I also wanted to acknowledge I forgot to bring my copy down but that
Commissioner Keller had sent a few questions on this item and I can go ahead and respond to
some of these.
There were questions about the sound-wall. In fact several of these I think we would generally
not respond to because they are part of the design and not part of the Map. The sound-wall I did
want to note is required to come back to the ARB for a noticed public hearing before it is
designed. There were questions about its relationship to 101 and potential reconstruction. I
don’t know if Paul you had mentioned you had some background on that.
Mr. Mennega: Yes, the engineering of the sound-wall has essentially been finalized as much as
it can at this point with Staff in regards to will it be on City land versus CalTrans land and how it
is going to interact with potential for flooding and all of the various engineering issues have
essentially been dealt with. The aesthetic design of the wall including the ultimate height of the
City of Palo Alto October 25, 2006 Page 9 of 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
wall is an issue that will come back to the ARB. It is a separate project that wil! come in in the
near future.
Mr. C. Williams: Then there were questions about impacts on school facilities and other
facilities. Those were major issues of discussion at the Council level and I think our part of the
reason why the Council is looking at trying to move forward quickly with the Comprehensive
Plan Update and to address some of these things because they are difficult to address on a single
project basis and we are going to be working on addressing those specifically through that. Did
you have a comment?
Mr. Larkin: Yes. It is illegal to address with regard to a specific project school impacts.
Mr. C. Williams: Okay. So the remaining questions were to breakdown some of those fees I
think you had in here a total amount of fees. If you are still interested I think Paul could get you
at a later date a breakdown of how those fees and what each one of them goes to.
Mr. Mennega: One item of clarification. An error in the Attachment A, the Proposed City
Council Action, Section 3, Item 3 on page 3 states the site will be improved with new office
building and that should say, and in the updated version which will go to Council says
’residential structures’ versus ’office building.’
Mr. C. Williams: Thank you for that correction. That is a correcting that we will make as this
moves forward to the Council.
Commissioner Keller: There is an additional sheet of questions.
Mr. C. Williams: We did get those. You have asked the question about the height of the
buildings along Sterling Canal. Then the other two related to the raising of the grade level and
flooding impacts and those were evaluated by the Public Works Department and determined not
to be significant impacts.
Chair Holman: Okay, given that are there questions for Staff or are we ready for comments.
Commissioner Burt, do you have any questions for Staff?
Commissioner Burt: One on the in lieu fee aspect. Is it even within the purview of our
discussion tonight to comment on that?
Mr. Larkin: Only because it is something that the Council has already provided direction on it
tangential to the Map and the final BMR agreement gets adopted at the same time as the Final
Map but it really is outside the scope of the Tentative Map process.
Commissioner Burt: Well, recognizing that then and without any intention to have this have a
bearing on approval of this Tentative Map I would just like to comment on the record that the
Commission and the Council and the Staff might want to look in the future at occasions such as
this where we have two different community interests. One is funding something like the Alma
affordable housing site, which is going to serve a very valuable community interest, and then the
City of Palo Alto October 25, 2006 Page 10 of 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
other is wanting to integrate affordable housing throughout the community. Maybe what we
should be looking at is a split formula rather than taking all of the affordable housing funds from
a given site and moving them offsite maybe we ought to have a concept, and it looks like Julie
has a good comment to add to this, of having some portion be able to be allocated for offsite and
retain a certain amount onsite.
Ms. Caporgno: That is exactly what we did. There are ten units that are going to be integrated
into the project and then nine more units that should have been in the project that is the $4.5
million that will go to the Alma substation project. Actually it kind of leverages the project.
You are losing nine BMR units in the project but you will be getting a 55 unit substation project
because we wouldn’t have the funding available to build that project without this $4.5 million.
Commissioner Burt: Great. I didn’t appreciate that and that sounds like an excellent outcome.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, you had a question?
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I understand that because this is a Vesting Map that it locks in the
regulations that might be imposed in the future. I understand that the City Council has adopted a
Quimby Act and I would like to know whether the Quimby Act applies to this property and how
if so how?
Mr. Larkin: It doesn’t because the Quimby Act by its terms would exempt this project based on
the date of application and the date it was deemed complete.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: About a year ago we had looked at in our Zoning Ordinance Update of the
LM, GM and ROLM districts. Is this based on last year’s amendments to that Zoning Ordinance
or was this conceived prior to that?
Mr. C. Williams: This was conceived prior to that. In fact part of those amendments was to
require a conditional use permit for residential use in this zone and that is one of the reasons I
think why the Council was comfortable with moving the project forward was because it was in
the process before those amendments took place.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, that is what I wanted to make sure of. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Are we ready for comments among Commissioners or a motion? Commissioner
Tuma? Commissioner Garber.
MOTION
Commissioner Garber: I will move that we accept the Staff’s recommendation.
SECOND
City of Palo Alto October25, 2006 Page 11 of 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
Vice-Chair Lippert: I will second that.
Chair Holman: Would you care to speak to your motion, Commissioner Garber?
Commissioner Garber: No, I think it has been discussed fully prior to this moment and I think
our questions have been answered.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert do you want to speak to your second?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes. I agree with Commissioner Garber’s comments here. I just wanted to
add that I only have one minor concern and that this wind up as a gated or perceived to be a
gated community. One of the things that I think that the developer and architect have done very
well is to make pedestrian connections between the public fight-of-way and the piece of land
strong. What I would encourage is that they actually be strengthened and I would discourage
gating or closing of those pedestrian accesses.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Yes, I would like to make a friendly amendment that the Attachment A,
Section 3, Item 3, page 3 be amended as per the Staff’s comment of change.
Commissioner Garber: I would accept that.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I will accept that as well.
Commissioner Keller: Secondly I think that some people in the community might feel that we
had been objecting to the amount of housing being developed and I think what is important to
realize is that we here on the Commission are required to approve things based on the regulations
in force that apply to the project~ So now similar properties along West Bayshore cannot be
converted to residential without a conditional use permit but this project is sort of grandfathered
in before that. So the interesting thing that I would like to encourage people from the community
is that if you complain about a project what you should really get involved in is at the time that
the Zoning Ordinance Update happens and at the time that the rules are put in place because
those are the ones that we have to make decisions by and I think that is an important thing for
people to consider.
Chair Holman: I just have one comment and I think it is a procedural one. I think Commissioner
Lippert’s comments earlier about the pedestrian access and our late access to this Vested
Tentative Map is a bit of a challenge let’s say.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, Commissioner Sandas absent)
So with that we will vote on the motion as amended by Commissioner Keller. Does Staff have
the amendment? Okay. So we will vote on the motion. All those in favor say aye. (ayes)
Opposed? That passes on a six to zero vote with Commissioner Sandas absent.
City of Palo Alto October 25, 2006 Page 12 of 13
We will take a seVen-minute break before we take up item number three.
City of Palo Alto October 25, 2006 Page 13of13
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Classic Communities Infill Residential Development
City of Palo Alto, Planning Division .
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5~ Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Application Number(s):
Paul Mennega, Associate Planner
(650) 617-3137 .
3270 West Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
05PLN-00000-00320
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Classic Communities Inc:
1086 East Meadow Circle
Palo Alto, CA 94303
General Plan Designation:Research/Office Park (RO)
8.Zoning:Limited Industrial / Research Park Zoning District (LM)
Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
The project is the merger of two parcels (approximately 6.5 acres) for the development of 96
condominium residential units, consisting of two and three-story townhouse units in thirty
buildings, private streets, park utilities, private open space and common landscape areas. Two
vacant office buildings totaling 100,000 s.f. would be demolished.
10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings)
The project site (Site), consisting of two separate parcels for a total area of 287,886 square feet
(approximately 6.5 acres), is bounded to the north and south along West Bayshore Road by
existing commercial properties, also zoned as Limited Industrial!Research Park (LM). Highway
101 is located directly adjacent to the east of the site across West Bayshore Road.
Directly adjacent to the Site’s westerly boundary, separating the proposed development from
single-family zoned lots along Maddux Drive, is Sterling Canal. This parcel, zoned LM in the
area adjacent to the proposed development, is owned by the City of Palo Alto and contains a
3270 West Bayshore Road, File NO. 05PLN-00320
Page 1 of 21
subterranean storm drain that connects into the channelized Matadero and Barron Creek systems
located to the northwest and southeast respectively. The City maintains an easement along this
section of the Sterling Canal for maintenance purposes.
11.¸Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement).
Approvals are required from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board
Date Prepared: December 6, 2005
Public Review Period: December 14, 2005 -January 12, 2006
ENVIRONlVIENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the proposed project,
but none are "Potential Significant Issues" and mitigation is incorporated as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resom-ces
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 2 of 21
X
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.
Project Planner
12/06/2005
Date
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. :Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or
more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 3 of 21
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (C) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a)Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c)Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously
prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or
pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected,
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
I.AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing
Sources
3
3
3
Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant ~ Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
X
X
X
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 4 of 21
d)
Issues and Supporting Information
ReSources
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
X
II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to 1 Xthe Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson 1, 2 X
Act contract?
c)Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in 1 X
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air -
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
a)
b)
determinations. Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation
Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
1, 3
1, 3
1, 3
X
X
X
c)
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 5 of 21
Issues and Supporting Information
,, ~.Resources
d)
e)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Sources
Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant 1, 3
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting 3a substantial number of people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 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 1, 13
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,1policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not 1limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or 1
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological 1, 9, 13resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,1Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
Potentially
Significant
~ issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impa..ct
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 6 of 21
Vo
b)
c)
d)
VI.
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical 1, 2
resource as defined in 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an 1, 3archaeological resource pursuant to
15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or 1, 3
site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of 1, 3
formal cemeteries?
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverseeffects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for 1, 4the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?1, 4
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,1, 4including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?1, 3
Result in substantial soil erosion or 3, 11the loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-1, 11
or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as 1, 11defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less;Than’
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
Impact~
X
X
X
b)X
c)
d)
X
X
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 7 of 21
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e)Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal 1, 3, 11systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through 3
the routing transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b)Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and 3accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste 1, 3
within one-quarter mile of. an
existing or proposed school?
d)Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5.1, 3
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e)For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or 1,3public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people 1, 3
residing or working the project
area?
~,) Impair implementation of or 7, 10
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
WOuld the project?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 8 of 21
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are 1, 3
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards 8, 12
¸1,8
1, 5, 8
or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c)Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d)Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade
3, 5
3
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 9 of 21
g)
h)
i)
J)
a)
b)
c)
b)
XI.
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources
water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or 3, 5
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede 3, 5
or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involve flooding, including 1, 3
flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 1,3mudflow?
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
Physically divide an established 3community?
Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local 1, 2
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural 1
community conservation plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would 1be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local 1
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
NOISE. Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards 1, 3, 15established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 10 of 21
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~!(~lssues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive ground borne vibration 3, 15
or ground borne noise levels?
c)A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project 1, 3, 15vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d)A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels 3, 15
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 1, 3, 15the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project " ~
expose people residing or working in 1, 3, 15
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new 1, 3homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the 1, 3construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the 1,3construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental 3, 7, 10
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation.
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 11 of 21
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b)Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Sources
3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
XV.
a)Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
3, 6, 14
3, 6, 14
6
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 12 of 21
No
Impact
X
X
X
Is~ue~ and Supporting Information
Resources
safety risks? "
d) Substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e)Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking
capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of
-which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c)Require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
d)Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e)Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid
6
1, 6
8
8
8
12
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 13 of 21
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to 12
solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) - Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impact
X
X
X
X
SOURCE REFERENCES:
.1.Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 & Maps L-7, L-8, L-9, N-l, N-2, N-3, N-5, N-6, N-8, N-
10, T-7, T-8
2.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18- Zoning Ordinance
3.Planner’s knowledge of the site and project and design drawing by BasseniardLagoni Architects,
submitted September 6, 2005
4.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
5.City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division, comments on project
6.City of Palo Alto Transportation Division, comments on projec~
7.City of Palo Alto Fire Department, comments on project
8.City of Palo Alto Utilities Department, comments on project
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 14 of 21
9.City of Palo Alto Public Work’s Arborist’s comments on the project
10.City of Palo Alto Police Department, comments on project
11.City of Palo Alto Building Division, comments on the project; Uniform Building Code
12.City of Palo Alto Public Works Environmental Compliance, comments on the project
13.Arborist Report, prepared by Michael L Bench, Consulting Arborist, December 17, 2004
14.Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr & Peers, September, 2005
15.Environmental Noise Assessment, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., September 27, 2005
ATTACHMENTS
A. Arborist Report, prepared by Michael L Bench, Consulting Arborist, December 17, 2004
B. Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr & Peers, September, 2005
C. ~Environmental Noise Assessment, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., September 27, 2005
EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: -- Explain choice of impact category.
I.Aesthetics
The project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding development. The project
proposes buildings at 2 to 3 stories, intending to comply with the LM (RM-30) zone district’s
maximum height allowance of 35 feet. The landscape plan for the project includes extensive
landscaping and common areas. The project is subject to review by the Architectural Review
Board, which will ensure a design that is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its
surroundings.
The redevelopment of the site may result in a negligible increase in light and glare generated
from the additional lighting of the site and glazing on the building. With the City’s standard
conditions of approval, the light and glare impacts of the project will not be significant. The
conditions of approval will require the shielding of lighting such that the light does not extend
beyond the site, is directional, and that the source of light is not directly visible.
Mitigation Measures: None
II.Agricultural Resources
The site is not located in an area of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The Site is not zoned as an
agricultural use, and it is not under a Williamson Act Contract.
Mitigation Measures:None
III. Air Quality
It is not anticipated that the project would affect any regional air quality plan or standards, or
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The extent of the
effects on air quality will be during the period of site preparation and construction.
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 15 of 21
The City of Palo Alto utilizes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQM1))
thresholds of significance for air quality impacts, as follows:
Construction Impacts: The proposed project will involve demolition, grading, paving, and
landscaping which has the potential to cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases
in airborne particulate matter. Dust related impacts are considered potentially significant but can
be mitigated with the application of standard dust control measures.
Long TerrrdOperational Impacts: Long-term and operational project emissions would stem
primarily from motor vehicles associated with the proposed project. The project is not expected
to result in a significant number of new vehicle trips. Therefore, long-term air-quality impacts
related to motor vehicle operation are expected to be less than significant.
The proposed project consists of residential use. This use does not typically create objectionable
odors affecting a substantial number Of people. The proposed project is not expected to create
objectionable odors when it is complete. The project would be subject to the following City’s
standard conditions of approval:
The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize
dust related construction impacts:
All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily.
All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two
feet of freeboard.
All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be
swept and watered daily.
Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance
of a demolition permit.
Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
The standard conditions would result in impacts that are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:None
IV. Biological Resources
The site is developed with some mature landscaping that will be removed and replaced with new
landscaping. No endangered, threatened, or special status animal or plant species have been
identified at the project site.
Mitigation Measures:None
V. Cultural Resources
3270 West Bayst~ore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 16 of 21
The project site is located in an area of moderate sensitivity, as indicated in the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. A one-story building .is located on the site. If approved, the
project would contain conditions in the form of instructions in the case of the discovery of any
cultural resources during demolition or construction. The following standard conditions would
result in impacts that are less than significant.
If during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are
encountered, construction shall cease and the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s
office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native
American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease
immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American
Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make
further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. The Director of
Planning and Community Environment will decide the significance of an archaeological
discovery and necessary mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measures:None
VI. Geology and Soils
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site located in a strong
seismic risk area, subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic
ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land are possible, but not likely at
the site. No known faults cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at the site is very unlikely,
but theoretically possible. All new construction will be subject to the provisions of the most
current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk
and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake.
Site soil modifications are not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts.
Project conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a final grading and drainage
plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and
building permits.
Mitigation Measures:None
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project site is not designated as a high fire hazard within the City and is not designated as
wildland. The new construction and site design shall be required to comply with the City’s
building permit approval standards and fire equipment and fire protection coverage standards as
conditions of project approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
No known conditions exist on the site regarding existing materials that may be deemed harmful
or hazardous. The site is not located near any known hazardous materials facilities.
Mitigation Measures:None
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 17 of 21
VFii~ ~ Hydrology and WaterQuality
The site is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (designated AE8) in an area within the 100 year flood
zone as shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. Flooding in the area is caused by a
combination of high tide in San Francisco Bay and storm water runoff. The project proposes to
place fill on the site to raise the structures above the 100 year base flood elevation. Because the
base flood elevation is directly related to the tide elevation in the Bay, construction of this
project will not increase the elevation of flood water adjacent to the project. As part of this
process the project will apply for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (CLOMR-
F) prior to Start of construction of the project. Prior to occupancy, the project will apply to
FEMA for a Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-F).
During demolition, grading and construction, storm water pollution could result. Runoff from the
project site flows to the San Francisco Bay without treatment. Non-point source pollution is a
serious problem for wildlife dependant on the waterways and for people who live near polluted
¯ streams or baylands. City development standards and specific conditions of project approval
reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant.
As a conversion of commercial and light industrial uses to residential develbpment, the project
would result in an decrease in the amount of impervious surface area on the site and reduce the
peak storm water discharge. The implementation of Best Management practices to treat post
construction runoff will likely further reduce the peak storm water discharge from the site.
Construction of this project will not impede or redirect flood flows. Flood flows follow the
existing flow path to the City’s public storm drain system (one of the criteria used by FEMA in
their review of the CLOMR-F and the LOMR-F.
Mitigation Measures:None
IX. Land Use and Planning
The site is designated for Research/Office Park (RO)use in the City of Palo Alto’s
Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. This land use provides for areas for the conduct of office,
research, and educational activities not requiring sales or display area generally associated with
retail use in developments characterized by low building intensity, large site size, and landscaped
grounds. Residential uses that would benefit from the proximity to employment areas are
allowed. The proposal is consistent with the recommendations for this designation.
The project replaces two existing office buildings with 96 condominium units and does not
conflict with any land use plans for the site..The project complies will all massing, height, and lot
coverage standards for the LM zoning district, and has applied for an exception for a small
setback encroachment that is not seen by City staff as detrimental. This project complies with the
Comprehensive Plan policies for Research/Office Park.
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 18 of 21
The project is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, which will ensure a design
that is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its surroundings.
Mineral Resources
The project will not impact known mineral or locally important mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures:None
XI. Noise
The primary source of noise on the site is from traffic on US Highway 101. This results in a
small reduction in project-generated traffic noise. By incorporating sound rated windows into the
project in selected locations the interior noise levels would be reduced to the City and State
standards. By incorporating a solid barrier along portions of the site’s perimeter, exterior noise
levels could be reduced to a level that slightly exceeds the City’s exterior noise goal. Where the
City determines that providing an Ldn of 60dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level
in outdoor areas intended for recreational use shall be reduced to as close to the standard (60dB)
as feasible through required design changes. The Architectural Review Board would review
these design changes. Common open space and play areas would be located on the site that are
meet the City’s noise goals for recreational areas.
The reduction in the number of daily trips generated by the project would decrease from
approximately 1,107 to approximately 784 from the number estimated if the existing offices
were in use.
Demolition and Construction Activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise
levels. In addition there may be increases in ground-borne vibrations resulting from demolition
and construction. Therefore, standard conditions of approval, incorporated as part of an approved
demolition and construction management plan, would be required to be secured before building
permit issuance.
The project site is not located within any public or private airport zone. Project related traffic
would not cause a noticeable increase in noise on any public streets. However, the construction
of the project would temporarily increase current noise levels in the vicinity of the site. All
development of the site shall comply with the Palo Alt0 Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC,
as amended, and shall be required to follow standard construction techniques and best
management practices.
City development standards and the following standard conditions of project approval reduce
potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant.
Implementation of and compliance with the City of Palo Alto’s Noise Ordinance is required
(PAMC 9.10). In addition, construction hours shall be established as per the construction
management plan to minimize disturbance to surrounding residents, visitors, and businesses.
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 19 of 21
Mitigation Measures:None
XII. Population and Housing
Population in Palo Alto’s sphere of influence in 1996, 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 the proposed 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 215 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 2.85 students from 19
below market rate units (19 units at a ratio of. 15 children per unit), 9.9 students from 11
detached single family residences (11 units at a ratio of .90 children per unit), and 16.5
students from 66 townhouse units (66 units at a ratio of .25 children per unit), the project
would generate 29.25 additional students~ Current enrollment in the School District isbeyond
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. 4th
1121(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
The project would be subject to a community facili.ties fee payable in full prior to the issuance of
a building permit. This fee is adjusted annually and includes impact fees for parks, community
centers and libraries.
City development standards, development fees and specific conditions of project approval reduce
potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:None
XIV. Recreation
There would not be a significant change to the demand of recreation services as a result of the
proposed project. The project includes multiple common areas for recreation including both
private and public open space areas.
Mitigation Measures:None
XV. Transportation/Traffic
This project site is located at the comer of West Bayshore Drive and Loma Verde Avenue,
approximately 100 feet southwest of US Highway 101. The amount of traffic generated by the
proposed 96 residential condominium units is estimated at 784 daily, 67 AM and 78 PM peak-
hour trips. Using General Office rates, the amount of traffic generated by the existing buildings
(totaling 100,500 s.f.) is 1,107 daily, 156 AM and 150 PM peak-hour trips.
As a conversion in office space (100,500 s.f.) to residential uses (96 condominiums), the project
would result in a decrease in vehicle trips associated with the project. There would not be a
significant rise in the level of traffic congestion at surrounding intersections or require a
Congestion Management Program traffic impact analysis. No traffic impacts are expected as a
result of this project.
Mitigation Measures:None
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and
service systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. As standard conditions of
approval, the applicant shall be required to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to
show that the on-site and off site water, sewer and fire systems are capable of serving the needs
of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. Trash and recycling
facilities are proposed in the project to accommodate the expected waste and recycling streams
that would be generated by the expected uses within the building.
Mitigation Measures:None
3270 West Bayshore Road, File No. 05PLN-00320
Page 21 of 21