HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 418-06FROM:
City Manager’s Report
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING &
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
NOVEMBER 20, 2006 CMR: 418:06
195 PAGE MILL ROAD, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 PARK
BOULEVARD [05PLN-00281]: APPEAL BY COURTHOUSE
PLAZA COMPANY OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S DENIAL OF A MAJOR
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STORY BUILDING
TO INCLUDE 50,467 SQUARE FEET FOR RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT SPACE ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND 104,971
SQUARE FEET FOR TWO FLOORS OF RESIDENTIAL
APARTMENTS TOTALING 84 UNITS, PLUS A SUBTERRANEAN
PARKING GARAGE AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
THE PROJECT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR DESIGN
ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTIONS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT, ENCROACH INTO THE
SIDE AND REAR DAYLIGHT PLANE, REDUCE THE FRONT
AND STREET SIDE SETBACKS AND INCREASE THE LOT
COVERAGE. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community
Environment’s decision to deny the Major Architectural Review Board (ARB)
application, finding that zoning ordinance requirements are not met, as outlined in the
Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
On October 16, 2006, the City Council considered whether to schedule an appeal by
Courthouse Plaza of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s denial of
the project as described in the October 16, 2006 City Manager’s Report (Attachment E).
The Council removed the item from the Consent Calendar and scheduled it for a public
heating so that the Council can more fully consider the project prior to action on the
application.
Project Histor7
Development proposals and applicable regulations for this site over the past two years are
outlined below:
CMR: 418:06 Page 1 of 6
September 30, 2004 - City Council denied a Planned Community (PC)
application for a four-story, research and development and residential mixed use
building, including 45,115 square feet of research and development space and
2,000 square feet of retail on the ground floor, three levels of residential
apartments totaling 177 units, and subterranean parking.
July 7, 2005 - Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed a Preliminary Major
ARB application by the applicant of the revised project for 84 residential units
and 50,467 square feet of nonresidential development. The project was subject to
GM(B) regulations in effect at the time.
August 4, 2005 - Application by Courthouse Plaza Company for major ARB
review of the revised project.
October 11, 2005 - City Council revised the zoning ordinance to remove the "B"
overlay from the General Manufacturing (GM) zone district and to prohibit all
housing and mixed-use (residential and nonresidential) development as permitted
uses. However the Council allowed this project to proceed under the GM(B)
zoning since it was submitted prior to the zone change.
September 7, 2006 - ARB recommended approval of the project with conditions
to the Director of Planning and Community Environment, with regard only to
project design, not zoning compliance (pursuant to GM zoning, as requested by
the applicant).
September 11, 2006 - City Council adopted the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented
Development (PTOD) Combining District. The PTOD regulations became
effective on October 10, 2006.
September 15, 2006 - The Director of Planning and Community Environment
denied the project based on noncompliance with zoning criteria (Attachment D).
September 27, 2006 - Director’s decision appealed by the applicant.
October 16, 2006 - Appeal request considered by the Council. Council removed
the item from the Consent Calendar and scheduled it for a public hearing.
More detailed background information and discussion of project issues are found in the
October 16, 2006 CMR (Attachment E).
DISCUSSION
The staff’s recommendation for denial of the project is based on noncompliance with the
following zoning provisions:
Mixed use development (research and development w/residential) is not permitted
in the GM (General Manufacturing) zone district.
CMR: 418:06 Page 2 of 6
The project exceeds the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permissible within the
GM zone district.
Justification provided for the parking reduction request is insufficient.
The Design Enhancement Exception findings for the requested exceptions from
code regulations related to height, daylight plane, setbacks, and lot coverage are
not supported by the project design. In particular, adequate transitions to Alma
Street are not provided. The massing of the 451-foot long, 3-story wall should be
mitigated with vertical relief and horizontal height variations. Also, the Park
Boulevard frontage is not designed as a pedestrian-oriented fagade, i.e., with
frequent door openings, awnings, and street furniture.
Since housing is not a permitted use in the GM zone district, there are no residential
development standards applicable to the proposed residential portion of the development.
The project site was identified as a housing opporttmity site in the Housing Element of
the Comprehensive Plan with an anticipated RM-40 zoning. Therefore, staff has applied
RM-40 height, setback, coverage, and daylight plane criteria along with the base GM
zoning developments standards to the project. The project would not conform with the
development standards as depicted in Attachment B.
Housing Law (Senate Bill 1818)
The applicant has requested a development concession under Senate Bill 1818. This
relatively new law requires cities to offer incentives or concessions to encourage the
construction of affordable housing (allowances for mixed use, increased FAR or height,
reductions in parking, setbacks, open space, etc.) based on the percentage of affordable
units in a development. The law specifies that:
One incentive or concession is to be granted for projects with at least 10 percent
of the total units for lower income households;
Two incentives or concessions are to be granted for projects that include at least
20 percent of the total units for lower income households;
Three incentives or concessions are to be granted for projects that include at least
30 percent of the total units for lower income households.
The project would include 17% of the total residential units as below market rate (BMR)
units. Given the provisions of SB 1818, the applicant may be eligible for one concession
based on the number of affordable housing units proposed.
The applicant maintains that an allowance for mixed-use and additional floor area should
be combined into one concession. It is the opinion of the City Attorney and Planning
Director that separate concessions would be necessary for each, therefore requiring that at
least 20 percent of the total units be set aside as affordable units for below income
households. Additional concessions would be required for the parking reduction and the
Design Enhancement Exceptions, unless they can be approved on their merits.
Alternative Design
Staff has met with the applicant, his architect, and his attorney to offer an alternative
CMR: 418:06 Page 3 of 6
proposal that would not require compliance with Pedestrian Transit Oriented
Development (PTOD) District regulations, but which would embody some of the PTOD
design concepts for addressing building mass, transitions, and streetscape design. Such an
alternative would also allow the City to approve the zoning in conjunction with SB 1818
provisions (20% BMR component). Similar suggestions have been offered by staff
previously over the past year, but the applicant has chosen not to revise plans
accordingly. Components of the alternative design include:
ao Mixed-Use/Floor Area Ratio
The project shall include 20% of the total number of residential units as below market
rate units to qualify for two concessions (mixed use and FAR) pursuant to SB 1818.
b°Request for Parking Reduction
To justify the applicant’s request for the parking reduction, the following additional
information shall be submitted for review and approval by staff prior to final ARB
review and issuance of building permits:
A parking study demonstrating time-of-day parking for the different land uses; as
well as documenting that the reduced parking request is justified and that "shared"
spaces will be available to accommodate the parking demand.
A Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) program indicating measures
to be implemented and enforced to encourage use of transit or other non-vehicular
transportation modes for residents and employees of the site.
Design and DEEs
To address design concerns about the 451-foot long, 40-foot high wall along the
Alma Street frontage and pedestrian-oriented streetscape design along Park
Boulevard, the project shall be redesigned to include the following:
The rear wall of the building is to be redesigned to conform to the PTOD daylight
plane along the Caltrain right-of-way (16 foot height and 1:1 slope, see
Attachment C diagrams).
The rear of the building is to be redesigned to include at least two breaks in the
451-foot continuous wall at 3 stories, with minimum 50 foot sections of wall
height not to exceed 25 feet in height (see Attachment C diagrams). Similar
breaks should be provided along the Park Boulevard frontage.
The Park Boulevard frontage is to be redesigned to provide a commercial
pedestrian-oriented fagade with frequent door openings, awnings, and street-
furniture (see Attachment C diagrams).
If the Council chooses to approve the modified project as outlined in the Alternative
Design, staff will prepare a Record of Land Use Action for consideration on a future
Consent Calendar.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed project will generate additional General Fund revenues in the form of
development impact fees and additional property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes.
CMR: 418:06 Page 4 of 6
One-time development impact fees are estimated at $659,400. Additional annual
revenues would include property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes.
The owner estimates that after the improvements are complete, the property will be
valued at $50 million or $40 million more than its 2006 assessed value. This represents a
$36,000 increase in annual City property tax revenues. Furthermore, the residents of the
property, along with the employees in the Research and Development portions of the
building, are expected to make purchases that will add in the range of $14,000 to $16,000
in armual sales tax revenues, as well as $12,000 to $14,000 in additional utility user tax
revenues to City coffers. That brings the total annual revenue impact to between $62,000
and $66,000.
On the expenditure side, the project would add 84 new residential units - with a
combined total of 125 bedrooms - to the City housing stock. This will create new
demands for City services such as community services, planning, police and fire. While
quantification of the expenses for an individual project is difficult to project due to the
incremental nature of service delivery costs, staff notes that development impact fees for
Community Services and the Library Departments are designed to cover the incremental
facility needs of the new residents. Similarly, service fees in Utilities, Community
Services and Planning are designed to recoup operating expenses associated with, for
example, the delivery of utility services, classes, sports programs, plan reviews, and
project permits. Police and Fire services to the Palo Alto community, however, are paid
by the General Fund, as are Public Works (roadway and drainage improvements) and
general government services. Although the incremental impacts of this project alone are
not expected to require additional General Fund staffing, when all recent projects under
consideration, including, 901 San Antonio and Hyatt Rickey’s, come on line, the
cumulative impact may require additional staffing for services. The costsof such
cumulative impacts will be reviewed in a broader study or in the context of the upcoming
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment
was prepared for the project. It was determined that the project could have potentially
significant aesthetic, noise, traffic, and hazardous materials impacts. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared and is included as Attachment F. The document
was available for public review and comment during a 20-day inspection period
beginning November 1, 2006 to November 20, 2006. Comments from the applicant are
expected prior to the Council meeting, but no other comments have been received by
staff prior to preparation of the CMR. No action is required for the environmental
document if the project is denied. If the project is approved, mitigation measures related
to Aesthetics may need to be deleted or revised prior to adoption of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration..
CMR: 418:06 Page 5 of 6
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CHRIS
Senior Planner
ALAN RIORDAN
~Lm
Director of Plarming and Community Environment
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Ao
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Draft Record of Land Use Action (Denial)
Project’s Conformance with GM/RM-40 District Regulations
Context-Based Design Diagrams
Director’s Denial Letter of September 15, 2006
City Managers Report, dated October 16, 2006
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
Project Plans (Council Members Only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Hoover Associates
Courthouse Plaza Company
James Janz
Suzanne Bayley
CMR: ###:06 Page 6 of 6
Attachment
ACTION NO. 2006-10
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE ACTION
FOR 195 PAGE MILL ROAD AND 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891, AND 2901 PARK
BOULEVARD: 05PLN-00281(COURT HOUSE PLAZA COMPANY, APPLICANT)
SECTION 1 Background
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds,
follows:
The City Council of the City of
determines, and declares as
A. Court House Plaza Company, property owner, has requested
the City’s approval of a Major Architectural Review application to
allow the construction of a three story building to include 50,467
.square feet for research and development space on the ground floor
and 104,971 square feet for two floors of residential apartments
totaling 84 units, plus a subterranean parking garage and related
site improvements. The application includes requests for Design
Enhancement Exceptions to exceed the maximum allowable building
height, encroach into the side and rear daylight plane, reduce the
front and street side setbacks, and increase the maximum allowable
lot coverage (The Project).
B. The Project would include the demolition of all existing
structures on site. The apartment units would have three unit
types, ranging in size from 964 - 1,420 square feet and would be
distributed throughout the upper two floors. Parking would be
provided in a full underground basement with space for 274
vehicles. An additional 28 spaces (nine in landscape reserve) would
be at grade and located in the courtyard. Access for the surface
spaces and a separate ramp for access to the below grade garage
would both be from Park Boulevard. The project site is
approximately 1,600 feet from the California Avenue commercial
center and Caltrain station.
C. Following Staff review, the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) reviewed the design components of the project during a public
hearing on September 7, 2006 and recommended approval of the
project with conditions to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment (Director), with regard only to the project design, not
zoning compliance (General Manufacturing zoning).
D. On September 15, 2006 the Director denied the project
based on noncompliance with zoning criteria.
E. On October 16, 2006, the applicant’s appeal of the
Director’s denial was considered by the City Council. The Council
removed the item from the Consent Calendar and scheduled it for a
public hearing.
F. On November 20, 2006 the Council of the City of Palo Alto
upheld the Director’s decision to deny the Major Architectural
Park Plaza Page 1
Review board application with findings that the zoning ordinance
requirements and design review criteria were not met.
SECTION 2 Compliance with Zoning Regulations
The Director of Planning and Community Environment and the City
Council have determined that the project as proposed is not in
compliance with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Zoning):
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.01. 030:
No land shall be used, and no facility, structure, or building
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, moved, or used in
any district, as shown upon the zoning map, except in accord with
the regulations established by this title.
A. The project does not conform with the GM(B)(General
Manufacturing) Combining District regulations, which were in effect
when submitted for ARB review on August 4, 2005. At that time, the
GM(B) zone included multi-family residential and mixed-use
(residential and non-residential) as permitted uses. The zoning did
not allow Research and Development use, however, and the floor area
ratio (FAR) was limited to 0.5 (52,485 square feet) whereas the
proposed project has a FAR of 1.5 (104,988 square feet). The
project would not conform to required building setbacks and
daylight planes, or parking requirements, and exceeds the maximum
allowable site coverage and building height.
B. The project does not conform to the development regulations of
the GM zone (the current zoning). The proposed mixed-use
development is not permitted on the site as~residential use is not
allowed in the GM zone. The maximum allowable floor area ratio
(FAR) is 0.5 (52,485 square feet) and a FAR of 1.5 (104,988 square
feet) is proposed. The project would not conform to required
building setbacks and daylight planes, or parking requirements, and
exceeds the maximum allowable site coverage and building height.
SECTION 3 Architectural Review Findings
The Director of Planning and Community Environment and the City
Council have determined that the project as proposed is not in
compliance with the following Architectural Review Findings, as
specified in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d) :
The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and
character in areas between different land uses.
The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, specifically Policy L-49,
which reads "Design buildings to revitalize streets and public
spaces and to enhance a sense of community safety. Provide an
ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies
Park Plaza Page 2
along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood
character; avoid blank walls or solid walls at street level; and
include human-scale details and massing."
The project is not designed to reduce building mass, provide a
transition to Alma Street, or improve the pedestrian streetscape
along Park Boulevard. The proposed project would include a 451-foot
long, 3-story wall along both the Alma Street Elevation and Park
Boulevard frontage. The massing of the walls is not mitigated with
vertical relief and horizontal plane variations. The Park Boulevard
frontage is not designed as a pedestrian-oriented faqade with
frequent door openings, awnings, and street furniture.
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:
I. Those plans prepared by Hoover Associates titled ~Park Plaza"
consisting of 21 pages, dated July ii, 2006.
Park Plaza Page 3
Attachment B
CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.20 GENERAL MANUFACTURING (GM) ZONE
AND 18.26 (RM-40) BY REFERENCE~
195 Page Mill Road & 2825,2865,2873,2891, 2901 Park Boulevard
Mixed-Use (residential and
non-residential)
Floor Area Ratio
Parking for Non residential
Parking for Residential
Guest Parking
Building Height plus 15
foot allowance for
mechanical screening
Prohibited
(.50) 52,486 sq. ft.2
202 Total of
1"49 366 is
16 required
40’
15 feet additional
height for
mechanical screen
Mixed Use
(1.5) 157,502 sq. ft.
293 spaces provided
9 spaces in landscape
reserve
38’-8"
59’-4" w/mechanical
screen located at comer
of Park Blvd. and Page
Mill Road
Does not conform
Concession requested per
SB1818
Does not conform
Concession requested per
SB1818
Does not conform
20°A reduction for shared
parking requested
Does not conform
DEE Requested
Daylight Plane 10 feet at each side Entire building length of Does not conform
and rear lot line both sides and rear DEE Requested
and an angle of 45 encroach
degrees
Maximum Site Coverage (.45) 47,237 sq. ft.(.49) 51,729 Does not conform
DEE Requested
Front Setback 20 feet*9 feet Does not conform
DEE Requested
Rear Setback 10 feet 0 ft.Does not conform
DEE Requested
Street Side Setback 10 feet for the 1st 6 feet Does not conform
story. 19 feet for DEE Requested
2nd and 3rd stories*
Right Side Setback 10 ft.10 ft.Conforms
Usable Open Space (.20) 20,994 sq. ft.(.37) 39,112 sq. ft.Conforms
Street setbacks for buildings in the RM-40 zone district are based on the assumption that the setback
would be the .average Setback of adjacent residential structures. Staff is applying the street setbacks of
the RM-30 zone district to the project since the site has no adjacent residential structures.
Under regulations in effect prior to October 11, 2005, mixed use was allowed in the GM zone at an FAR
of 1.0 (combined for residential and nonresidential). Mixed use in the GM(B) zone was limited to an
FAR of 0.5.
ATTACHMENT C
1:1 slope ~ \ 1:1 ~!ope
\\
REAR SECTION
AS PROPOSED
REAR SECTION
MODIFIED TO CONFORM
TO DAYLIGHT PLANE
DIAGRAM I: Section of proposedprojeet in relation to daylightplane with 16foot height and 1:1 slope (left),
and modified section showing massing conforming to daylight plane.
DIAGRAM2: Rear massing elevation showing uniform building height across the full length of the facade.
/---- break in
V/ massing break in ---"k
massing
DIA GRAM 3: Rear massing elevation showing two breaks in facade o fat least 50 linear feet each not exceeding
a height of 25feet.
break in .......break in massingmassing
DIAGRAM 4: Front massing elevation showing two breaks in facade of at least 50 linear feet each not exceed-
ing a height of 25 feet.
September 15, 2006
Attachment D
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Harold Hohbach
Court House Plaza Company
29 Lowery Drive
Atherton, CA 94027
Subject:195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard
[05PLN-001751
Dear Mr. Hohbach:
On Thursday, September 7, 2006, the Architectural Review Board reviewed the above
referenced application and recommended approval with conditions to the Director of
Planning and Community Environment. However, the Director of Planning and Community
Environment cannot approve the application because (1) the proposed mix of uses are not
permitted in the General Manufacturing (GM) zone district, (2) the project exceeds the
allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permissible within the GM zone district, and (3) the
Design Enhancement Exception findings cannot be made for the requested exceptions from
code regulations related to height, daylight plane, setbacks, and lot coverage.
In addition, the request for concessions under Senate Bill (SB) 1818 is not, in staff’s
estimation, complete or sufficient to support the project under SB 1818. The request does not
provide detailed economic justification that the requested mixed use, FAR and DEE’s are
necessary to provide the affordable housing units. Determination of the adequacy of the
supporting financial analysis is a maj or policy interpretation that should be considered by the
City Council prior to application of SB 1818 to a specific site in the City of Palo Alto.
This Director’s decision shall become final fourteen calendar (14) days following the date of
this letter, unless an appeal is filed pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.78. If an appeal is
received, the decision of the Director will be reviewed by the City Council within 30 days of
receipt of the appeal.
Should you have any questions regarding this maj or ARB action, please contact Christopher
Riordan at (650) 329-2149 or chris.riordan@cityofpaloalto.org.
" Steve’Emslie
Director of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154
Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine
Attachment E
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING &
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 CMR: 396:06
SUBJECT: 195 PAGE MILL ROAD, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 PARK
BOULEVARD [05PLN-00281]: CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO
SCHEDULE AN APPEAL BY COURTHOUSE PLAZA COMPANY OF THE
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S DENIAL
OF A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STORY BUILDING TO
INCLUDE 50,467 SQUARE FEET FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
SPACE ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND 104,971 SQUARE FEET FOR TWO
FLOORS OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS TOTALING 84 UNITS, PLUS A
SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE AND RELATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR DESIGN
ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTIONS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
BUILDING HEIGHT, ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE AND REAR DAYLIGHT
PLANE, REDUCE THE FRONT AND STREET SIDE SETBACKS AND
INCREASE THE LOT COVERAGE.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council decline to hear the appeal by Courthouse Plaza
Company and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision
to deny the Major Architectural Review Board application as outlined in Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
The City’s streamlined review process, including the Architectural Review procedures,
provides for a City Council "call up" of appeals. If the Director’s decision is appealed,
the project is sent to Council on the consent calendar. In the case of Architectural
Review applications, three Council Member votes are required to remove the project
from the consent calendar. The Council’s options under Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section (PAMC) 18.77.070(0 are as follows:
1.Adopt the decision of the Director on the Consent Calendar; or
2.Upon the motion, second and affirmative vote of three Council Members, remove
the item from the Consent Calendar.
CMR: 396:06 Page 1 of 6
Should the matter be removed from the Consent Calendar, the Council then has two
options:
1.The Council may discuss the appeal and adopt findings and take action on the
appeal based upon the evidence presented at the hearing of the Architectural
Review Board; or
2.The Council may set the matter for a new public hearing at a future date,
following which the Council shall adopt findings and take action on the
application.
Once removed from the Consent Calendar, either of the above two options may be
decided by a majority vote of the Council. Staff notes that California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review and conditions of approval have not been prepared for this
project, so any affirmative action should include direction to staff to prepare these
documents prior to final approval.
Pro_iect Description
The project would include the demolition of all existing structures on site, which include
vacant corrugated metal and concretebuildings, and the construction of a 157,387 square
foot, three-story, residential apartment and research and development (R&D) building
with at grade parking and one level of below grade parking, on an approximately 2.5 acre
parcel. The 50,467 square foot first floor would be dedicated for R&D space. Eighty-
four (84) rental apartments totaling 104,971 square feet would be located on the upper
two floors.
The ARB formally reviewed the project on June 1, 2006 and continued the project to a
date uncertain to allow the applicant sufficient time to respond to issues raised by the
Board. On September 7, 2006, the ARB reviewed the applicant’s proposed changes and
recommended approval of the project, including the requested Design Enhancement
Exceptions (DEE’s), to the Director. On September 15, 2006, a written Director’s
decision was issued denying the project as (1) the proposed mix of uses are not permitted
in the General Manufacturing (GM) zone district, (2) the project exceeds the allowable
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permissible within the GM zone district, and (3) the Design
Enhancement Exception findings cannot be made for the requested exceptions. A copy of
this decision is included as Attachment A. On September 28, 2006, an appeal was
formally filed by Courthouse Plaza Company. The letter of appeal is included as
Attachment B.
The applicant requested DEE’s for specific elements of the project. These included
requests to exceed the maximum allowable building height, to encroach into the side and
rear yard daylight plane, to reduce the front and street side yard setbacks, and to increase
the maximum allowable lot coverage. A table showing the requested exceptions is
included as Attachment F.
CMR: 396:06 Page 2 of 6
DISCUSSION
The applicant’s appeal is based on the zoning history of the site, the City’s designation of
the site for housing, on State housing law, and on the applicant’s objections to Pedestrian
and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District zoning requirements.
Each of these issues is addressed below:
Zoning Compliance
This project was formally submitted for ARB review on August 4, 2005. At that time,
the GM(B) (General Manufacturing) Combining District zone development standards
were in effect. Even under the original GM(B) zoning, the proposed project was not in
compliance with the standards of that zoning designation. The GM(B) zone included
multi-family residential and mixed-use as permitted uses but restricted the allowable
floor area. ratio to .50:1. On October 11, 2005, the City Council passed a resolution
removing the "B" overlay from the GM zone district and removed all housing and mixed-
use (residential and nonresidential) development as permitted uses. Because this project
had been submitted for ARB review prior to the changes adopted by the Council, the
Council specifically exempted this project from the changes, allowing it to proceed
through the review process under the GM(B) development standards. The current site
zoning is GM and the applicant chose to submit the project for ARB review pursuant to
the GM zoning.
The proposed proiect does not, however, comply with zoning requirements for the GM
zone, since residential (including mixed use) is not allowed in the GM zone. Also, the
maximum allowable FAR in the GM zone is 0.5, as compared to the 1.5 FAR proposed.
The applicant has argued that residential must be allowed on the site, since it is
designated as a Housing Opportunity Site in the City’s Housing Element. While the City
Attorney concurs, there are currently no standards for allowing mixed use in the GM
zone. Attachment F compares the proposed project to the standards in effect (using the
RM-30 zone for the residential component) for mixed use in the GM zone prior to
Council action to delete residential uses in October of 2005. Several areas of.
noncompliance with zoning under that scenario are identified in Attachment F.
Housing Sites Inventory
The Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes a Housing Sites
Inventory identifying potential housing sites most suitable and likely to be developed for
residential purposes. Included on this list is a 3.92 acre site, which includes the portion
of Page Mill Road north of Park Boulevard (potential public safety building site), and a
portion of the subject property. The anticipated zoning of these parcels was RM-40 with a
combined dwelling unit yield of 120 units.
The applicant’s project includes three parcels, 195 Page Mill Road (APN# 132232-003),
2825/2865/2873/2891 Park Boulevard (APN# 132-32-004) and 2901 Park Boulevard
(APN# 132-32-005) for a total of 2.41 acreS. Of these three parcels, the approximately
.81 acre parcel at 2901 Park Boulevard is not on the Housing Sites Inventory. It is
unclear whether housing would be allowed on this portion of the site, but staff believes
that it may be appropriate based on an earlier (2004) City-initiated rezoning to RM-40,
CMR: 396:06 Page 3 of 6
which was never adopted. The remaining two parcels that are on the Housing Sites
Inventory List are a total of approximately 1.56 acres, which would yield 62 dwelling
units under RM-40 zoning regulations.
Housing Law (Senate Bill 1818)
The applicant has requested a concession under SB 1818. Senate Bill 1818 amended the
State density bonus program and became effective on January 1, 2005, The relatively
new law requires cities to offer incentives or concessions to encourage the construction of
affordable housing (allowances for mixed use, increased FAR or height, reductions in
parking, setbacks, open space, etc.) based on the percentage of affordable units in a
development. The law specifies that:
One incentive or concession is to be granted for projects with at least 10 percent
of the total units for lower income households;
Two incentives or concessions are to be granted for projects that include at least
20 percent of the total units for lower income households;
Three incentives or concessions are to be granted for projects that include at least
30 percent of the total units for lower income households.
The project would include 17% of the total residential units as below market rate (BMR)
units. Given the provisions of SB 1818, the applicant may be eligible for one concession
based on. the number of affordable housing units proposed. However, the City of Palo
Alto (as well as most cities), has not adopted a policy or program to identify what
concessions or incentives are appropriate and the level of discretion available to the City
upon review. The applicant’s request for concessions under SB 1818 is not, in staff’s
estimation, sufficient to support the project under SB 1818, particularly since at least two
concessions (mixed use, FAR, and setbacks/daylight plane exceptions) would be needed.
SB 1818 also allows a city to require financial information and analysis to demonstrate
that the concessions are needed to provide for the affordable units. The applicant has
provided an analysis that lacks specific comparable costs and revenues, as well as a
capitalized income/loss stream for the project. Staff recommends that no project be
approved under SB 1818 without the Council’s review of the project.
Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the recently approved PTOD
Combining District. Staff has recommended that the applicant revise the project to
comply with the PTOD criteria, which would accommodate the residential density, but
would reduce the non-residential portion of the project by half. The intent of the PTOD
is to foster densities and facilities that support concepts such as the use of public
transportation, streetscape design elements that are attractive to pedestrians and
bicyclists, and project design that achieves an overall context-based development for the
PTOD overlay area. When the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended
approval of the PTOD, the Commissioners expressed their expectation that this project
would conform to the PTOD standards. Attachment G compares the project to the
standards adopted by the Council for the PTOD zoning.
CMR: 396:06 Page 4 of 6
On July 24, 2006, the City Council adopted, on first reading, the recommended PTOD
Combining District and criteria for context-based design. Second reading of the
ordinance occurred on September 11, 2006, and the ordinance became effective on
October 11, 2006. On September 11, 2006, the City Council directed staff to initiate
PTOD zoning for the subject property. The Planning and Transportation Commission was
scheduled to consider the rezoning on October 11, 2006, and Council consideration of the
zoning is tentatively set for November 13, 2006.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed project will generate additional General Fund revenues in the form of
development impact fees and additional property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes.
One-time development impact fees.are estimated at $659,400. Additional annual
revenues would include property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes.
First, the owner estimates that after the improvements are complete, the property will be
valued at $50 million or $40 million more than its 2006 assessed value. This represents a
$36,000 increase in annual City property tax revenues. Furthermore, the residents of the
property, along with the employees, in the Research and Development portions of the
building, are expected to make purchases that will add in the range of $14,000 to $16,000
in annual sales tax revenues, as well as $12,000 to $14,000 in additional utility user tax
revenues to City coffers. That brings the total annual revenue impact to between $62,000
and $66,000.
On the expenditure side, the project would create 84 new residential units - with a
combined total of 125 bedrooms - to the City housing stock. This will create new
demands for City services such as Community Services, Planning, Police and Fire.
Development impact fees for Community Services and the Library departments are
designed to cover the incremental facility needs of the new residents. Generally, service
fees in Community Services and Planning are designed to recoup operating expenses
associated with, for example, the delivery of classes, sports programs, plan reviews, and
project permits. Police and Fire services to the Palo Alto community, however, are paid
by the General Fund (GF). Although. the incremental impacts of this project alone are not
expected to require additional GF staffing, when all projects under consideration, such as
this project, 901 San Antonio, and Hyatt Rickey’s, come on line, the cumulative impact
may require additional staffing for services.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An initial study was prepared for this project but was not circulated, as the staff
recommendation to the Architectural Review Board was for denial of the project based
upon the project’s deficiencies with respect to the existing zoning of the property. If the
Council determines that the project should be scheduled for a public hearing, staff should
also be directed to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to final Council action.
CMR: 396:06 Page 5 of 6
PREPARED BY:
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY gON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Ao
Co
Fo
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
Director’s Denial letter dated September 15, 2006.
Appeal letter submitted by Courthouse Plaza Company, dated September 27,
2006.
Location map of subject property.
Letters from the applicant.
Project conformance with GM and RM-30 District Regulations (prepared by
staff).
Project conformance with the California Avenue PTOD (prepared by staff).
PTOD Ordinance (PAMC 18.66).
Verbatim minutes of the September 7, 2006 ARB meeting.
Major ARB staff report dated June 1, 2006 (without attachments).
Major ARB staff report dated September 7, 2006 (without attachments).
Project Plans (Council Members Only).
COURTESY COPIES:
Hoover Associates
Courthouse Plaza Company
James Janz
Suzanne Bayley
CMR: 396:06 Page 6 of 6
Attachment F
Ci~ of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
California Environmental Quality Act
MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date:October 31, 2006
Application Nos.:05PLN-00281
Address of Project:195 Page Mill Road, 2825,2865,2873,2891,2901 Park Boulevard
Assessor’s Parcel Number:132-32-004,005,050
Applicant/Owner:Courthouse Plaza Company
29 Lowery Drive
Atherton, CA 94027
Project Description and Location:
Site Summary
The project site is located on three parcels (APNs 132-32-004,005,050) that will be merged to total 2.52
acres. The site is bounded by Park Boulevard, Page Mill Road, the Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) right of
way and 3405 Park Boulevard. Concrete and metal Butler buildings occupy the site.
The project would include the construction of a three story building to include 50,467 square feet of
research and development space on the ground floor and 106,920 square feet for two levels of residential
apartments totaling 84 units, including a subterranean parking garage with 274 vehicle spaces and related
site improvements.
Summary_ of Building Uses
The proposed three-story building would consist of Research and Development land uses on the ground
floor and residential uses on the upper floors for a total building size of 157,387 square feet (FAR of
1.50).
Residential Use
The project would include 84 residential units. Of these, 13 units will be designated as Below Market
Rate
(BMR) units. The floor plan distribution includes 38 one-bedroom units, 42 two-bedroom units, and 4
three-bedroom units.
Parking
302 parking spaces would be provided on site which includes 19 at grade spaces, 274 spaces in a
subterranean parking garage, and 9 in landscaped reserve. Entrance to the underground facility would be
located on Park Boulevard at approximately the midpoint of the building. The uses on the site require
SAPLANWLADIV~Current PlanningkEIAhMIGDEC.MLWark Pl~za.doc
that 379 parking spaces are to be provided. The project would include both Research and Development
and Residential use. PAMC Section 18.83.120(c) allows an applicant to request a 20% reduction for joint
use facilities and 20% for proximity to transportation alternatives such as the Caltrain andbus lines. The
applicant has requested a total reduction of 86 spaces (23%).
Bicycle parking facilities will be provided as part of each unit’s private storage areas in the parking
garage. Public bicycle parking will also be provided at ground level in the courtyard..
Setbacks, Building Height, and Lot Coverage
The project includes a request for design enhancement exceptions to exceed the maximum allowable
building height, encroach into the side and rear daylight plane, reduce the front and street side setbacks
and increase the lot coverage.
Landscaping
The proposed landscaping plan will include a fountain near the "at grade" vehicle entrance to the
courtyard, a landscaped interior courtyard with decorative paving, and new landscaping on both Park
Boulevard Page Mill Road. Coast Redwoods and Canary Island Pine trees would be planted adjacent to
the rear of the building in the Joint Powers Board right-of-way to help screen the project from Alma
Street.
II.DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine
whether the proposed project located at 195 Page Mill Road, 2825,2865,2873,2891,2901
Park Boulevard could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that
study, the City makes the following determination:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this
case because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the
project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is
hereby adopted.
The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential
environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not
required for the project.
In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project:
MM #1
Revised plans and supplemental information shall be submitted to staff and the ARB for review
and approval prior to submittal for building or grading permits. The development plans and
supplemental information shall address the ARB’s conditions and include the following:
a. The vast plain of paving in the interior courtyard should be broken up by the increased use of
landscaping or site furnishings.
S:kPLAN~LADIV~Current Planning’~EIA~VIIGDEC.ML~Park Plaza, doe
b. The first floor windows on Park Boulevard shall be taken down to the ground to allow for the
possibility of providing front entrances to the first floor Research and Development space on the
ground floor.
c. The lighting on the Park Boulevard fa~;ade shall be increased without the use of uplights which
could shine into the residential units on the second and third floor.
d. The number of reveals on the siding shall be limited to two.
e. The bike lockers and the transformers that are presently in the courtyard shall be relocated.
f. The design of the entrance tower at the corner of Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road shall be
further refined with the possibility of making it wider to make it more accentuated.~
g. The color scheme shall be reviewed to determine if they "scale up".
h. The planting of trees along the rear elevation shall be more uniform.
i. The number of windows on the rear elevation shall be increased with the purpose of providing
more natural light for the hallways.
j. The future Research and Development uses on the ground shall not include the use of hazardous
materials.
MM #2
k. In addition to the ARB requirements, revised plans shall also be submitted to staff and the ARB
for review and approval prior to submittal for building or grading permits to address massing
and streetscape concerns. Redesign the rear of the building to comply with a daylight plane of
16 feet in height as measured at the rear property line with an angle of 45 degrees, and with at
least two breaks in the 450 foot continuous wall at three stories, with minimum 50 foot sections
of wall height not to exceed 25 feet in height.
!. Redesign the Park Boulevard frontage to provide a commercial pedestrian-oriented fasade with
frequent door openings, awnings, and street-furniture.
MM #3
Prior to issuance of any building permit or grading permit, reports documenting the location of
hazardous waste contaminants in the soil and/or groundwater shall be provided to the SCVWD and
RWQCB for review and project approval, if required. Written confirmation from the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional. Board) shall be submitted to the
City, either 1) indicating that no contamination exists; or 2) that the proposed construction and site
activities, including underground parking, dewatering sumps or wells will not result in exposure of
workers or the public to those contaminants and that such construction will not have an adverse
impact on the ongoing or future groundwater cleanup efforts; or 3) mitigation measures to be
reviewed and approved by the Regional Board will provide adequate protection from exposure. A
Risk Management Plan shall be submitted to and must be approved by the Regional Board, if
required.
If contamination does not exist beneath the subject property, the applicant shall provide
information regarding the lateral distance to existing groundwater contamination plumes and an
analysis of the potential impacts to those plumes from construction activity on the subject property,
including the use of dewatering sumps or wells under the proposed underground parking structure.
This information shall be submitted to the Regional Board for approval that the proposed work on
the subject property, including any use of dewatering sumps or wells will not have an adverse
impact on the current and future cleanup efforts. The approval shall verify that dewatering sumps
or wells, if proposed, would not alter the path of the groundwater contamination plume(s) and
could not result in bringing groundwater contamination to the subject property or a possible future
exposure of the public on the subject property to groundwater contaminants.
S:gaLAN~PLADIV~Current Planning~EIA’~MIGDEC.ML’xPark Plaza.doc
MM #4
The project shall include design features to reduce the maximum indoor noise level to as close as
the 45dB standard as feasible through project design. To achieve this, STC rated exterior walls
facing the Caltrain shall have an STC rating of at least 50. Exterior glazing for bedrooms facing
CalTrain shall have a minimum STC rating of 45.
MM #5
The 19 vehicle parking spaces and 12 Class HI bicycle spaces in the surface parking lot will be
designated as visitor parking.
MM #6
A vehicle exiting/pedestrian warning system shall be implemented for the underground parking
garage driveway to eliminate potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists.
MM #7
¯A 130 foot left-turn pocket on northbound Park Boulevard will be implemented. This street
cross-section will include the following travel lanes:
¯7 foot on-street parking;
¯5 foot southbound bicycle lanes;
~10.5 foot southbound travel lane
¯10.5 foot northbound left-turn lane
¯10.5 foot northbound travel lane; and
¯5 foot northbound bicycle lane.
MM #8
A parking study demonstrating time-of-day parking for the different land uses and documenting
that the reduced parking request is justified and that "shared" spaces will be available to
accommodate the parking demand shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by
staff.
MM #9
A Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) program indicating measures to be
implemented and enforced to encourage use of transit or other non-vehicular transportation
modes for residents and employees of the site shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by staff.
Proj Planner Date
Director of Planing and Community Environment Date
SAPLAI’~PLADIV~Cu~rent Planning~EIA~41GDEC.ML~Park Plaza.doe
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
o
9.
10.
Project Title:Park Plaza
Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto - Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Contact Person and Phone Number:Christopher Alan Riordan
Senior Planner
(650) 329-2149
Project Location:195 Page Mill Road
2825,2865,2873,2891,2901 Park Boulevard
Palo Alto, California
Application Number(s):05PLN-00281
Project Sponsor:Court House Plaza Company
29 Lowery Drive
Atherton, CA 94027
Property Owner:Court House Plaza Company
29 Lowery Drive
Atherton, CA 94027
General Plan Designation:Light Industrial
Zoning:GM - General Manufacturing
Description of the Project:
Site Summary
The project site is located on three parcels (APNs 132-32-004,005,050) that will be merged to total 2.52 acres.
The site is bounded by Park Boulevard, Page Mill Road, the Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) right of way and
3405 Park Boulevard. Concrete and metal Butler buildings occupy the site.
Summary of Building Uses
The project would include the construction of a three story building to include 50,467 square feet of research
and development space on the ground floor and 106,920 square feet for two levels of residential apartments
totaling 84 units, including a subterranean parking garage with 274 vehicle spaces and related site
improvements. The total building size would be 157,387 square feet (FAR of 1.50).
Residential Use
The project would include 84 residential units. Of these, 13 units will be designated as Below Market Rate
(BMR) units. The floor plan distribution includes 38 one-bedroom units, 42 two-bedroom units, and 4 three-
bedroom units.
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, ~File No. 05-PLN-00281)-1-
11.
12.
13.
Parking
302 parking spaces would be. provided on site, including 19 at grade spaces, 274 spaces in a subterranean
parking garage, and 9 in landscaped reserve. Entrance to the underground facility would be located on Park
Boulevard at approximately the midpoint of the building. The uses on the site require that 379 parking spaces
are to be provided. The project would include both Research and Development and Residential use. PAMC
Section 18.83.120(c) allows an applicant to request a 20% reduction for joint use facilities and 20% for
proximity to transportation alternatives such as the Caltrain and bus lines. The applicant has requested a total
reduction of 86 spaces (23%). ¯
Bicycle parking facilities will be provided as part of each unit’s private storage areas in the parking garage.
Public bicycle parking will also be provided at ground level in the courtyard.
Setbacks, Building Height, and Lot Coverage
The project includes a request for design enhancement exceptions to exceed the maximum allowable building
height, encroach into the side and rear daylight plane, reduce the front and street side setbacks and increase
the lot coverage. A discussion of these exceptions is included in the Land Use and Planning section of this
report.
Landscaping
The proposed landscaping plan will include a fountain near the "at grade" vehicle entrance to the courtyard, a
landscaped interior courtyard with decorative paving, and new landscaping on both Park Boulevard and Page
Mill Road. Coast Redwoods would be planted adjacent to the rear of the building in the Joint Powers Board
right-of-way to help screen the project from Alma Street.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Location
Noah
East
South
Southwest
West
Zone District
Joint Powers Board Right of Way
GM (AD) General Manufacturing - Automobile
Dealership Combining District
GM General Manufacturing
GM General Manufacturing
GM General Manufacturing
Existing Use
Railroad Tracks
Auto sales and service
Agilent Technologies
Law Offices
Vacant
Other public agencies whose approval is required: Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) due to possible presence of contaminated groundwater
below the site. Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) due to proximity of railroad right-of-way.
Date Prepared: October 31, 2006
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on
the following pages:
X
X
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
X Hydrology/Water Quality
X Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
X Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
X Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation,
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but
it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a s.ignificant 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.
Christou ~r Alan Riordan, AICP
Project Planner
Amy French, AICP
Manager of Current Planning
Date
Date
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)- 3 -
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported bythe 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 effeet may be significant. If there are one or more
"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency
must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section 15063 (3) (D)]. In this case, a brief discussion should
identify the following:
a)Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist.were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site-specific conditions for the project.
6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for.potential impacts (e.g.
general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include
a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be
cited in the discussion.
8)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 projects environmental effects in whatever format is
selected.
9)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
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)- 4 -
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a)
b)
d)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visua! 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?
3,4
3
3,4
3,4
X
X
X
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)
b)
c)
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use.
1,3
3
X
X
X
III.AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a)
b)
e)
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)?
3,5
3,5
X
X
X
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,3 X
concentrations?
e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,3 X
people?
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact
Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
d)
f)
Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and 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 limited 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 migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? ~
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan?
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,2,3
1,3
X
X
X
X
X
X
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)Cause a substantialadverse change in the significance of a 1 X
historical resource as defined in 15064.5?
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1 X
archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1 X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred 1 X
outside of formal cemeteries?
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a)
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
b)
e)
d)
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
1,6 X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Strong seismic ground shaking?X
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?X
Landslides?X
Result in substantial soil erosion or the 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- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
1,6
1,6
1,3
1
1
3
project?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the
a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
b)
c)
X
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)7
d)
h)
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?.
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Sources
3
3
11
3,11
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
X
X
X
X
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 9 X ’~
requirements?
b)9 XSubstantially 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)?
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?
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?
X
X
d)
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?.
X
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)8
f)
h)
i)
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Sources
3
3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
IX.LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
Physically divide an established community?X
X
a)
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat Conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
1,3
1,3
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
1,2
1,2
1,2
X
X
a)
b)
c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
X
X
X
X
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)9
d)
f)
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project
expose people residing or working in.the project area to
excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Sources
1,3
1,3
1,3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
1,3
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,3
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 3
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a)3 XWould the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
XIV. RECREATION
a)
b)
Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
1,3,4
1,3,4
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
X
X
a)
b)
c)
a)
e)
g)
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
1,8,10
1,8,10
11
3~8,10
1,3,8,
10
X
X
X
X
X
Result in inadequate parking capacity?X
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 9,12 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b)9,12 XRequire 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?
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)11
! d)
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
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?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
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?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Sources
9,12
12
12
12
12
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
SignificantUnless
Mitigation
lncorpora~d
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)
b)
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?
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?
* Project contains mitigation that would reduce impacts to less than significant.
X
SOURCE REFERENCES:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Adopted July 20, 1998
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance)
Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development.
Park Plaza Apartments Building Plans, Hoover Associates Architects
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996 (updated 12/99)
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)12
8.
9.
10.
11.
12~
State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List
Park Plaza Apartments TIA, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc, June 2004
City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division
City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
City of Palo Alto Fire Department
City of Paio Alto Utilities Department
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Location Map
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281 )13
Evaluation of Potentially Significant and Other Relevant Environmental Impacts
I. Aesthetics
(a-c) Visual Character- The areas most sensitive to visual impacts are those along Park Boulevard, Alma Street, and
nearby residential areas. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy L-48 instructs, "Design buildings to revitalize
’ streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of
entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood
character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing."
The site is located approximately 200 feet from single-family residential neighborhoods located on the north side of
Alma Street. Separating these homes from the project site is the Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) right- of-way and
Alma Street. Single-family residential is also located on Olive Avenue, approximately 300 feet from the project
site. Multi-family residential is located on Park Boulevard, approximately 200 feet east of the project site.
Residents of Olive Street and the multi-family project could be expected to use Park Boulevard to access the
California Avenue Caltrain station, Page Mill Road, and the downtown district on and around California Avenue.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan does not identify the project site as a scenic resource and the site is not located
within any major identified view shed or view corridor.
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the proposed project on September 7, 2006 and recommended
approval with conditions to the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director). The ARB discussed
design aspects that relate to the project in terms of scale, massing, colors and materials, neighborhood context, as
well as design details that are integral to the success of the project. The conditions of approval were that the
following items, which have been added as a mitigation measure, were to return to the ARB for review prior to
submittal of a building or grading permit.
a.The vast plain of paving in the interior courtyard should be broken up by the increased use of landscaping or
site furnishings.
b.The first floor windows on Park Boulevard shall be taken down to the ground to allow for the possibility of
providing front entrances to the first floor Research and Development space on the ground floor.
c.The lighting on the Park Boulevard fagade shall be increased without the use ofuplights which couJd shine
into the residential units on the second and third floor.
d.The number of reveals on the siding shall be limited to two.
e.The bike lockers and the transformers that are presently in the courtyard shall be relocated.
f.~The design of the entrance tower at the comer of Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road shall be further refined
with the possibility of making it wider to make it more accentuated.
g.The color scheme shall be reviewed to determine if they "scale up".
h.The planting of trees along the rear elevation shall be more uniform.
i.The number of windows on the rear elevation shall be increased with the purpose of providing more natural
light for the hallways.
j. The future Research and Development uses on the ground shall not include the use of hazardous materials.
To break up the mass of the building along the Caltrain right-of-way, the following conditions were added by staff
and have been added as mitigation measures.
k. Redesign the rear of the building to comply with a daylight plane of 16 feet in height as measured at the rear
property line with an angle of 45 degrees, and with at least two breaks in the 450 foot continuous wall at three
stories, with minimum 50 foot sections of wall height not to exceed 25 feet in height.
1.Redesign the Park Boulevard frontage to provide a commercial pedestrian-oriented fagade with frequent door
openings, awnings, and street-furniture.
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)14
On September 15, 2006, the Director of Planning and Community Environment denied the project because it did
not conform to the GM zone district development regulations and the findings for the requested DEE’s could not
be made. Further discussion of the preceding is contained in the Planning and Land Use section of this report.
The proposed project is required to meet the City of Palo Alto development standards and to ensure that the new
construction would be compatible, harmonious and appropriate to the site and surrounding development. At a
height of 43 feet, the proposed building will bring a considerably taller structure to the site than what currently
exists. The building massing, fenestration, rooftop mechanical systems, and architectural details should be designed
within the context of the immediate office/industrial neighborhood while respecting the nearby residential
neighborhoods. Final review by the ARB will assure the consistency of these elements.
Glare- Primary sources of light and glare in the daytime are reflections from windows and light colored surfaces.
While some amount of glare could be expected during the daytime, it would be similar or even less than that which
is created by other nearby buildings. No unusual sources of daytime glare from the project would be expected.
Nighttime sources of light and glare can include vehicle headlights, streetlights, decorative outdoor landscaping or
safety equipment, and interior lighting. Nighttime lighting would be expected to be similar to other lighting around
the area. Adjacent properties are commercial, and few people would be affected by nighttime lighting on these
properties. There is no proposed exterior lighting and only four proposed small "hallway" windows on the rear
elevation facing Alma Street, therefore, lighting impacts on Alma Street residences would be minimal.
Lighting impacts from the residential uses throughout the building are not expected to be a significant impact. The
project applicant did not provide details of lighting fixtures or a photometric plan during the review bythe ARB to
access lighting impacts on the area near the building. The ARB added a condition of approval to their
recommendation that included a photometric plan to be reviewed by the ARB prior to submittal of a building
permit to ensure that lighting levels are appropriate for the site and not detrimental to the surrounding land uses.
This review would reduce any light or glare impacts to a less than significant level.
Residual Impact:The following mitigation measures when incorporated into the project and reviewed by the ARB
would reduce the aesthetic impacts of the project to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
MM #1
Revised plans and supplemental information shall be submitted to staff and the ARB for review and
approval prior to submittal for building or grading permits. The development plans and supplemental
information shall address the ARB’s conditions and include the following:
a. The vast plain of paving in the interior courtyard should be broken up by the increased use of
landscaping or site furnishings.
b.The first floor windows on Park Boulevard shall be taken down to the ground to allow for the
possibility of providing front entrances to the first floor Research and Development space on the ground
floor.
c.The lighting on the Park Boulevard facade shall be increased without the use of uplights which could
shine into the residential units on the second and third floor.
d.The number of reveals on the siding shall be limited to two.
e.The bike lockers and the transformers that are presently in the courtyard shall be relocated.
f.The design of the entrance tower at the corner of Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road shall be further
refined with the possibility of making it wider to make it more accentuated.
g. The color scheme shall be reviewed to determine if they "scale up".
h. The planting of trees along the rear elevation shall be more uniform.
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)15
i. The number of windows on the rear elevation shall be increased with the purpose of providing more
natural light for the hallways.
j. The future Research and Development uses on the ground shall not include the use of hazardous
materials.
MM #2
k. In addition to the ARB requirements, revised plans shall also be submitted to staff and the ARB for
review and approval prior to submittal for building or grading permits to address massing and
streetscape concerns. Redesign the rear of the building to comply with a daylight plane of 16 feet in
height as measured at the rear property line with an angle of 45 degrees, and with at least two breaks in
the 450 foot continuous wall at three stories, with minimum 50 foot sections of wall height not to exceed
25 feet in height.
1.Redesign the Park Boulevard frontage to provide a commercial pedestrian-oriented favade with
frequent door openings, awnings, and street-furniture.
(a-e)
Agricultural Resources
The proposed project site is located in a developed urban area and 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 for agricultural use
and is not regulated by the Williamson Act.
Residual Impact: No impact
Mitigation Measures: None
IH.Air Quality
a,b,c)The City of Palo Alto utilizes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) thresholds of
significance for air quality impacts, as follows:
Construction Impacts: The proposed project will involve grading, paving, and landscaping which has the potential
to cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in airborneparticulate matter. Dust related impacts are
considered potentially significant but can be mitigated with the application of standard dust control measures.
Demolition and new construction activities could have a significant impact to air quality through the release of
respirable particulate matter concentrations. Although there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the subject
site, the project is subject to City Building Department regulations that require approval of adequate dust abatement
plans for construction activities for both demolition and new construction prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The dust abatement plan requirements would reduce the potential significant air quality impacts relating to
demolition and new construction of the project to less than significant.
Long Term/Operational Impacts: Long-term and operational project emissions would stem primarily from motor
vehicles associated with the proposed project. As discussed in the Transportation/Traffic section of this
Environmental Impact Assessment, the project is not expected to result in a significant number of new vehicle trips.
Motor vehicles are the major source of ozone precursors and contributors to carbon monoxide generation in the
Bay Area. The trips generated by the proposed use do not require a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District. Therefore, long-term air-quality impacts related to motor vehicle operation are expected to be
less than significant.
d)Sensitive receptors are defined as children, elderly, or ill people who can be adversely affected by air quality
problems. The project is adjacent to a rail line, commercial, and automotive service uses and not immediately
adjacent to housing or other sensitive, receptors. Research and development and residential land uses would not
create substantial pollution concentrations in the area. City development standards and specific conditions of
project approval would reduce potential negative air quality impacts of the project to less than significant.
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)16
e)The proposed project would consist of commercial and residential uses and an underground parking garage. These
uses do not typically create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed project is
not expected to create objectionable odors when the project is complete.
Residual Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None
Biological Resources
Trees- No protected trees, including Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) or Coast
Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) exist on the site.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No Impact
None
V.Cultural Resources
a-d)The project site is a developed area, and no archaeological or paleontological resources are expected to be
uncovered. The site itself is considered to be located in an area of "moderate sensitivity" as identified in the
Comprehensive Plan due to the proximity to the San Francisco Baylands and nearby creeks. Although existing
and historic development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists than now-buried Native
American artifacts could be uncovered during construction of the project.
The 1998-2010Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update EIR included in it mitigations that areas of moderate
sensitivity shall be "subject to surface survey and/or subsurface probing if(a) the area is unimproved land, (b)
the project will entail excavation more than five below the existing grade on unimproved land, or (c) mass
grading is anticipated for large commercial, transportation, or utility projects". Although the project would
entail excavation of one level of underground parking, no archeological or paleontological resources are
expected to be uncovered and therefore no subsurface probing or testing is necessary prior to construction of
the project. 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:
Residual Impact:
Less than significant ......
None
VL Geology and Soils
A geotechnical report, dated May 10, 2004, was prepared by Jo Crosby and Associates. A copy of the geotechnical
report canbe found in Attachment C of this report.
a)
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)
i. The entire state of California is a seismically active area. The City of Palo Alto is located within an area that is
very geologically active. The San Andreas Fault, long considered to the major seismic risk in California, passes
though the City (approximately 5 ½ miles to the southwest of the project site). The Comprehensive Plan states that
the San Andreas Fault is capable of producing an earthquake with an 8.4 magnitude that would cause very violent
groundshaking in much of Palo Alto. No known faults cross the project site; therefore fault rupture is very unlikely,
but theoretically possible. All new construction would be subject to the provisions of the most current Uniform
17
Building Code, which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event
of an earthquake. Therefore the project would result in a less than significant impact.
ii. Seismic ground shaking could occur on the site and could impact structures and occupants of the project area
due to seismic activity associated with regional faults such as the San Andreas, and thrust faults across Palo Alto to
the San Andreas and the Hayward Fault.
iii. The goal of Policy N-51 of the Comprehensive Plan is to "Minimize exposure to geologic hazard, including
slope stability, subsidence, and expansive soils, and seismic hazards including ground shaking, fault rupture,
liquefaction, and land sliding". The risk from seismic events would be reduced to a level that must be accepted by
people living in a seismic active area, and therefore this would be considered a less than significant impact.
b)No changes to the site topography will occur as a result of the proposed project. Grading activity will be limited to
the soil removal for the construction of the underground-parking garage. A final grading and drainage plan for the
project is subject to the approval of the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
application of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control measures as part of the approved grading and
drainage plan and the recommendations from the Geotechnical Report is expected to mitigate and grading-related
impacts to a less than significant level.
e)The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waster-water disposal systems.
Residual Impact:Implementation of the construction techniques and recommendations contained in the report by Jo
Crosby & Associates, dated May 10, 2004, would be added as a project condition of approval.
Additionally, the Building Division and the Department of Public Works would review the
project. Implementation of the recommendation contained in the Geotechnical report and the
review by the City of Palo Alto would reduce geological impacts to a less than significant level
Mitigation Measures: None
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a,b,c)The project will not involve the use or storage of hazardous materials. A condition of approval by the ARB would
prohibit the use of hazardous materials in connection with the research and development use.
d)The Geotechnical Report prepared by Jo Crosby and Associates did not identify toxic materials on the property;
however, the report states that a toxic plume of contaminated groundwater underlies the site. This contamination
was caused by historic discharges from nearby electronic manufacturing plants. The toxic plume has been known to
exist since at least 1981 and is commonly referred to as the Hewlett-Packard-Varian plume, The extent of the
plume and its contaminants are well known and documented, and a number of developments have been built in the
area, including residential uses, over this plume.
Excavation for the underground garage and foundation for the building would not exceed 20 feet. The geotechnical
report states that groundwater was located at soil depths below twenty feet. The planned excavation is less than 20
feet so making contact with the groundwater would not be expected.
e,f)
g)
The project site is not located within two miles of either a public or private use airport.
The project will not affect circulation patterns in the vicinity of the project and, therefore, will not interfere with
either emergency response or evacuation.
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)18
h)The project is in a developed area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Contact with contaminated groundwater is not expected during project construction but there
still is the chance that groundwater could be encountered during project construction.
Given this possible likelihood, the following mitigation measure would be incorporated into the
project conditions of approval to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
Prior to issuance of any building permit or grading permit, reports documenting the location of hazardous
waste contaminants in the soil and/or groundwater shall be provided to the SCVWD and RWQCB for
review and project approval, if required. Written confirmation from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board (Regional Board) shall be submitted to the City, either 1) indicating that no
contamination exists; or 2) that the proposed construction and site activities, including underground
parking, dewatering sumps or wells will not result in exposure of workers or the public to those
contaminants and that such construction will not have an adverse impact on the ongoing or future
groundwater cleanup efforts; or 3) mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Regional
Board will provide adequate protection from exposure. A Risk Management Plan shall be submitted to and
must be approved by the Regional Board, if required.
If contamination does not exist beneath the subject property, the applicant shall provide information
regarding the lateral distance to existing groundwater contamination plumes and an analysis of the
potential impacts to those plumes from construction activity on the subject property, including the use of
dewatering sumps or wells under the proposed underground parking structure. This information shall be
submitted to the Regional Board for approval that the proposed work on the subject property, including
any use of dewatering sumps or wells will not have an adverse impact on the current and future cleanup
efforts. The approval shall verify that dewatering sumps or walls, if proposed, would not alter the path of
the groundwater contamination plume(s) and could not result in bringing groundwater contamination to
the subject property or a possible future exposure of the public on the subject property to groundwater
contaminants.
a,c-f)
b)
g,h,i)
Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction of the building will change the amount of impervious surface area on the site. The existing drainage
pattern of the site will also be substantially altered as a result of the project. City Standard Conditions of Approval
require the incorporation of Best Management Practices for storm water pollution prevention in all construction
operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara ValleyNon-Point Source Pollution Control Program. A drainage
plan for the site, including the roof drainage, shall be submitted with the building permit application to address
potential water quality impacts. A discussion of the projects impacts on potentially contaminated groundwater is
discussed in the previous section (Hazards and Hazardous Materials).
The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge, and will not deplete groundwater supplies.
The site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. A Public Works Department condition of approval
requires that the site be designed to divert overland water flow away from the entrance to the underground garage
ramp. The project applicant is also required to submit a final site grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of a
building permit that conveys site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system and/or
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)19
landscaped area per the adopted Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Conformance to the requirements of the
Public Works Department will reduce flood hazard impacts to a less than significant level.
j)The project site is not an area that is.subject inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Residual Impact:Less than significant
Mitigation Measures:None required
IX. Land Use and Planning
b)The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Light Manufacturing and the zoning district is General
Manufacturing. The project would not, however, be in conformance with the development standards set forth in Palo
Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapters 18.20 (Office, Research, and Manufacturing Districts).
The proposed project does not comply with zoning requirements for the GM zone, since residential (including mixed
use) is not allowed in the GM zone. Also, the maximum allowable FAR in the GM zone is 0.5, as compared to the 1.5
FAR proposed. Housing must be allowed on the site though, since it is designated as a Housing Site in the City’s
Housing Element. However, there are currently no standards for allowing mixed use in the GM zone. Staff has
therefore also applied RM-40 standards to the project in the absence of standards for residential use. The project
includes requests for Design Enhancement Exceptions as listed in the following table:
Front Setback
Right Side Setback
Rear Setback
Site Coverage
Building Height
(mechanical screening
at comer of Park
Boulevard and Page
Mill Road)
Daylight Plane
REQUIRED
20 feet for residential
10 feet for 1 st Story
19 feet for 2nd and 3rd Stories
10 feet for 1 st Story
19 feet for 2nd and 3rd Stories
(.45) 41,989 sq. ft.
55 ft (15 feet allowed above
the 40’ height limit of the
RM-40 zone)
Five feet at side and rear
property lines and angle of
45 degrees
PROPOSED
9ft.
10ft.
Oft.
(.49) 51,729 sq. ft.
59’-4" ft.
Entire bldg, length of
both sides and rear
encroach
Note: RM-40 development standards applied for residential use.
CONFORMANCE
Would not conform
DEE Requested
Would not conform
DEE Requested
Would not conform
DEE Requested
Would not conform
DEE Requested
Would not conform
DEE Requested
Would not conform
DEE Requested
Floor Area Ratio, Residential Density, and Use
The maximum allowable FAR in the GM zone is .50:1 (52,485 square feet). The proposed floor area ratios for the R&D and
residential portions of the project would be .48 (50,467 square feet) and 1.02 (106,920 square feet), respectively. The
project would exceed the maximum allowable floor area allowable on the site by 104,988 square feet.
Building Height and Daylight Plane
The maximum allowable building height in the GM Zone district is 50 feet however, since RM-40 development standards
are applied to the residential use, the maximum building height is reduced to 40 feet. Fifteen feet of additional height is
allowed for rooftop mechanical and elevator equipment and screening. The proposed building measures approximately 37’-
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)20
8" to the top ofthe roof. A 20’-8" tall mechanical equipment enclosure would be located on the roof at the intersection of
Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road for a total height of 59’-8". The mechanical equipment enclosure would exceed the
allowable height exception for mechanical equipment by 4’-4".
Housing Law (Senate Bill 1818)
The applicant has requested concessions (relief from zoning requirements) under Senate Bill (SB) 1818. SB 1818 amended
the State density bonus program and became effective on January 1, 2005. The relatively new law requires cities to offer
incentives or concessions to encourage the construction of affordable housing (allowances for mixed use, increased FAR or
height, reductions in parking, setbacks, open space, etc.) based on the percentage of affordable units in a development. The
law specifies that:
One incentive or concession is to be granted for projects with at least 10 percent of the total units for lower income
households;
Two incentives or concessions are to be granted for projects that include at least 20 percent of the total units for
lower income households;
Three incentives or concessions are to be granted for projects that include at least 30 percent of the total units for
lower income households.
The project would include 13 (15%) of the total residential units as below market rate (BMR) units. Given the provisions
of SB 1818, the applicant may be eligible for one concession based on the number of proposed affordable housing units. To
be eligible for two concessions the project would need to set aside 17 (20%) of the residential units as BMR units.
Parking
Based on the parking requirements contained in Chapter 18.83 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the project will require
379 parking spaces. 302 parking spaces would be provided on site which includes 19 at grade spaces, 274 spaces in a
subterranean parking garage, and 9 in landscaped reserve. Entrance to the underground facility would be located on Park
Boulevard at approximately the midpoint of the building. The uses on the site require that 379 parking spaces are to be
provided. The project would include both Research and Development and Residential use.
Ci_ty Council Review
The project will be reviewed by the City Council, which Will consider the applicant’s requests for concessions under SB
1818, parking reductions, and Design Enhancement Exceptions to encroach into the required building setbacks, daylight
plane, and exceed the maximum allowable site coverage and building height. The project would be in conformance with the
zoning ordinance if the City Council approves the requests subject to Mitigation Measures 1-2 (Aesthetics) and 5-9
(Transportation and Traffic).
Residual Impact:Mitigation Measures 1-2 (Aesthetic impacts) and Mitigation Measures 5-9 (Transportation
and Traffic) would reduce the Land Use and Planning impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures: None.
X.Mineral Resources
a,b)The project site is not located in a designated mineral resource recovery site. No impacts to mineral resources
are expected.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)21
XI. ’ Noise
a,b,c,d)Noise sensitive receptors are those areas that are more sensitive to ambient noise levels than other areas~ The
proposed project, with 84 residential units, would be considered a sensitive receptor. The two significant sources of
noise are vehicle traffic from roadways (primarily arterial roads) and railroad operations. Other sources of noise
include the daily activities that take place in the area.
The City Noise Element of the Comprehensive Plan and California State Title 24 standards specify a limit of 60
dBA DNL (Average day-night level, also call Ldn) for exterior residential uses and 45 dBA DNL for interior living
spaces. The 60 dBA DNL for the City noise element is a guideline with the understanding that a 60 dBA DNL is a
goal that cannot be reached in all residential areas. The California Building Code requires that mechanical
ventilation of air conditioning be provided for every room exposed to this sound level (60 dBA).
The proposed project site is exposed to noise levels of 70 dBA DNL based on the Comprehensive Plan Noise
Exposure Contour Map. These ambient conditions include noise from nearby land uses, traffic noise from Alma
Street and Page Mill Road and rail noise from Union Pacific Railroad/Cal Train line. According to a noise
assessment study conducted by Charles M. Salter Associated, Inc. in June 2004 the existing noise environment on-
site is due primarily to vehicular traffic and the CalTrain line. The noise study identified noise levels from 65 dBA
(auto traffic noise) to 74 dBA (train noise). Noise levels indicate that building design measures are required to
reduce noise level exposure for the project residents.
The site is exposed to traffic noise emanating from Alma Street, Park Boulevard, and Page Mill Road; and to noise
generated by trains on the adjacent CalTrain right of way. Based on the Noise Exposure Contours Map (N-3)
contained in the Comprehensive Plan, the subject property is exposed to noise levels of 70 Ldn.
Noise: Significance Criteria
The Comprehensive Plan defines severe noise levels that would cause a significant impact.
According to these criteria, the project would have a significant noise impact if it would result in exposure of
people to short term construction noise and long-term severe noise levels.
A "severe" noise impact is determined under Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39, which describes the
application of noise and land use compatibility guidelines to residential developments:
PolicyN-39: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments, Use the guidelines
in the table "Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment" to determine compatibility.
The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an La, of 60 dB. This level is a
guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing
development. However, 60 L,t, is a guideline, which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas
within the constraint of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where
outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g. backyards in single family housing developments and recreational
areas in multiple family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ld, of 60 dB or
lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be
reduced to as close as the standard as feasible through project design.
The indoor noise level as required by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards must not
exceed and Ldn of 45 dB in multiple family dwellings. This indoor criterion shall also apply to new
single family homes in Palo Alto.
Interior noise levels in new single family and multiple family residential units exposed to an exterior Ldn
of 60 dB or greater should be limited to a maximum instantaneous noise level of 50 dBin the bedrooms.
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)22
Maximum instantaneous noise levels in other rooms should not exceed 55 dB. Noise exposure can be
determined based on the noise contour map included in this plan, or more detailed noise measurements,
if appropriate.
Noise: Environmental Impact
Sound levels of greater than 60 dBA could be generated at the building fagade at any time during the day from vehicle
traffic or operations associated with the CalTrain railroad. This is a potentially significant impact.
As noted in the significance criteria above, the outdoor noise standard is generally an Ld, (average 24-hour noise level) of
60 dB. However, the City recognizes in some areas providing an Ld, of 60 dB or lower is not feasible. An example of this
area would be adjacent to CalTrain. The proposed project has a building wall facing the CalTrain facing which would be
exposed to an Ld, of 70.
The standard requires interior noise levels be maintained at an Ld. of 45 dB or less. Further, if the exterior noise level is
greater than 60 dB, then maximum instantaneous noise levels generated by repetitive, commonly occurring events should be
maintained at 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other rooms. The study conducted by Charles M. Salter Associates
recommended that windows in residential units have a minimum STC (sound transmission class) rating of 38 for units
facing the CalTrain tracks. The Page Mill facing fagade, the Park Boulevard fagade, and the side facing Stanford European
would have a minimum STC rating of 35, 32, and 35 respectively.
Project related traffic would not cause a noticeable increase in noise on any public streets. However, the demolition of
existing structures and construction of the project would temporarily increase current noise levels in the vicinity of the site.
Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation, removal of pavement, and
construction vehicles. Construction hours would be limited to Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., as per City requirements. All construction truck traffic shall conform to the City of Palo Alto Tracks
and Traffic Ordinance (10.48) that details city truck routes.
Measures designed to minimize the noise impacts will be designed into the project. For example, the noise assessment
recommends Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings for exterior windows and along the CalTrain tracks to meet the State
Building Code Requirements. The project would include a minimum of STC 50-rated exterior walls facing CalTrain and
bedroom windows would have a STC 45 rating.
The exterior building fagade would act as a sound barrier for the courtyard facing facades. The noise study estimates that
the DNL would be below 60. The courtyard building facades will not be required to have sound rated glass,
e,f)The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Residual Impact:Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the noise related impacts to
a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure:
MM #4
The project shall include design features to reduce the maximum indoor noise level to as close as the 45dB
standard as feasible through project design. To achieve this, STC rated exterior walls facing the Caltrain
shall have an STC rating of at least 50. Exterior glazing for bedrooms facing CalTrain shall have a
minimum STC rating of 45.
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)23
XII Population and Housing
a,b,c)Population in Palo Alto’s sphere of influence in 1996, according to Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan was 58,000
people. This is projected by the City’s Comprehensive Plan to increase to 62,880 by 2010. The project, by
adding to the housing stock by 84 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 a total of 188
people. The projects cumulative impacts for the purposes of CEQA are also considered to be less than
significant, as the impact 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 incremental increase in population generated by the proposed project would not be
considered a significant impact. The project site is included as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing
Element and the population increase is therefore expected.
The project would remove an existing 50,468 square feet of vacant commercial space and Research and
Development space to be replaced with 50,468 square feet of Research and Development space. This
replacement of the existing R&D on the site would not be expected to increase population in the area.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Less than significant impact.
None required
XIII Public Services
Fire
The proposed project would not impact fire service to the area and the site is not located in a high fire hazard
area. The conditions of approval for the project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures.
Police
The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The expanded facility would not
result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities.
Schools
Based on the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) student generation rates (Stanford Sand Hill Road
Corridor Projects EIR, page 4.12-26) of 0.276 elementary students per residential unit, 0.088 middle school
students, and 0.095 high school students, the project would generate 23 elementary students, 7 middle school
students, and 8 high school students. Currently, enrollment in the PAUSD is approaching capacity. School
overcrowding is not considered a significant effect however, under CEQA [Goleta Union School District v.
The regents of the University of California (35 Cal.App.4th 1121 (1995)]. Rather, the increase in students from
a project is only significant if such an increase would create significant environmental effects, such as impacts
from the construction of a new school. Due to demand, the PAUSD is examining options to increase capacity,
including re-opening currently closed schools. However, the project’s cumulative impacts for the purposes of
CEQA are considered to be less than significant, as the impact from the project alone is not considerable. It
should be noted that the PAUSD has implemented a school impact fee.
Parks
Impact fees to address impacts on parks were adopted by the Palo Alto City Council in March of 2002. Prior
to receiving a building permit, the project applicant will be required to pay aone-time development impact fee
for parks of $466,536.00. The fee will be used to offset impacts on park facilities as a result of this project.
Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact.
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)24
Other Public Facilities
Impact fees to address impacts on community centers and libraries were adopted bythe Palo Alto City Council
in March of 2002. Prior to receiving a building permiL the project applicant will be required to pay a one time
development impact fee for community centers and libraries of $167,328.00. The fee will be used to offset
impacts on community centers and library facilities as a result of this project. Therefore, the project would
result in a less than significant impact.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant impact.
None required
XIV. Recreation
a,b)Palo Alto follows the National Recreation and Park Association Standards as guidelines for determining
parkland needs. This requires two acres of parkland for each 1,000 people. The project could generate 188
additional persons, resulting in a demand of 0.19 acres of parkland. Impact fees to address impacts on parks
were adopted by the Palo Alto City Council in March of 2002. Prior to receiving a building permit, the project
applicant will be required to pay a one-time development impact fee for parks of $466,536.00. The fee will be
used to offset impacts on park facilities as a result of this project. Therefore, the project would result in a less
than significant impact.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant impact
None required
XV.Transportation and Traffic
a,b)A traffic report for the project was prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. in May 2006. The report was
prepared based upon a proposed project that included 84 residential units and approximately 50,468 square feet
of Research and Development space that would replace 50,468 square feet of vacant Research and
Development/Commercial space. The study was conducted following the guidelines set forth by the City of
Palo Alto and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the congestion management agency for
Santa Clara County.
Field observations by Fehr and Peers of the key intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project were
conducted in September 2005. During the AM peak hour conditions, thePage Mill Road/Park Boulevard
intersection operates with low delays (i.e vehicles wait less than 10 seconds) for the eastbound stop-controlled
approach as vehicles exit Page Mill Road and turn either left or right onto Park Boulevard. Over the entire PM
peak hour, the intersection operates at Level of Service (LOS) conditions with delays less than 25 seconds.
Trip Reduction Factors
The project will include both residential and employment land uses and is allowed atrip reduction factor based
on the smaller trip generator. The proposed project may use a three percent reduction in the total estimated
number of apartment-generated trips. In addition, because the proposed project is comprised of residential and
employment facilities located within a 2,000-foot walking distance ofa Cal Train Station, reductions of nine
percent and three percent, respectively, are allowed. The nine percent reduction is allowed for a residential
land use located near a Cal Train station, and the three percent reduction is allowed for employment land use
located near a Cal Train station. For the purpose of the TIA, no trip reduction was used for Park Plaza
residents that also would work in the R&D space. The use of the above trip reduction factors would reduce the
daily and peak hour project trip generation by approximately 12 percent. The proposed project is estimated to
generate 577 net new Weekday daily trips, 40 net new AM peak-hour trips (8 inbound and/32 outbound) and
56 net new PM peak-hour trips (37 inbound/19 outbound).
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)25
Project Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the LOS calculations for the With Project Condition were compared to the results of the Year
2008 Without Project Condition to identify significant project impacts. Based on the City of Palo Alto
significance criteria for what would constitute as a significant project impact, the following six intersections
were studied and it was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on any of
them.
Foothill Expressway/Page Mill Road
Hanover Street/Page Mill Expressway
El Camino Real/Page Mill Expressway
Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway
Park Boulevard/Page Mill Road
E1 Camino Real/Charleston Road
Residential Street Segment Analysis
The proposed projects impacts on the local street Olive Avenue and Sheridan Avenue were also evaluated
based on significance criteria developed by the City of Palo Alto. Based on the City of Palo Alto, a project
would significantly impact a residential street if the proposed project would cause any change in traffic that
would increase the Traffic Infusion of Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more on a local or
collector residential street.
Based on the City of Palo Alto significance criteria, the proposed project would not cause the TIRE index to
increase by 0.1 or more on Olive Avenue or Sheridan Avenue. Therefore, the project would not significantly
impact the local or collector streets of Olive Avenue or Sheridan Avenue.
Conclusions
*The proposed project would not significantly impact any of the six study sessions.
*The proposed project would not significantly impact the local or collector residential streets of Olive
Avenue or Sheridan Avenue.
The two project driveways on Park Boulevard will operate at acceptable conditions during both the AM
and PM peak hour conditions.
The existing circulation on the Page Mill Road extension would be maintained by providing a 24 foot
roadway width that would facilitate both two-way traffic and emergency response vehicles.
With the 293 off-street parking spaces and nine additional parking spaces in landscape reserve, the
proposed project will provide sufficient off-street parking spaces to serve peak parking demand and wil~
not impact on-street parking on Park Boulevard or the Page Mill Road Extension.
With the supply of 112 bicycle parking spaces, the proposed project will provide sufficient parking to meet
City of Palo Alto parking requirements and peak bicycle parking demand.
The proposed project would not have a significant impact on freeway segments on US 101 or Interstate
280.
The project applicant will pay to the City of Palo Alto Traffic Impact Fees based on the increased land use
and adopted fee structure to improve mobility for all travel modes throughout the City.
Based on the results of the TIA, it is recommended that the intersection remain unsignalized, with STOP
control on the eastbound and westbound Page Mill Road approaches. When the adjacent parcel on Park
Boulevard is developed, it is recommended that the need for a traffic signal be re-evaluated.
Stafffurther concludes that, to assure parking and trip reduction are effective, a parking time-of-day study
and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program should be proposed and implemented.
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)26
c)
d,e)
The project will not result in a change to air traffic patterns.
The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Department and Transportation Division and does not contain
design features that will substantially increase hazards or result in inadequate emergency access.
Based on the parking requirements contained in Chapter 18.83 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the project
will require 379 parking spaces. 302 parking spaces would be provided on site which includes 19 at grade
spaces, 274 spaces in a subterranean parking garage, and 9 in landscaped reserve. Entrance to the underground
facility would be located on Park Boulevard at approximately the midpoint of the building. The uses on the
site require that 379 parking spaces are to be provided. The project would include both Research and
Development and Residential use. PAMC Section 18.83.120(c) allows the Director of Planning and
Community Environment, at his discretion, to approve up a 20% reduction for joint use facilities and up to a
20% for proximity to transportation alternatives. The applicant has requested a reduction of 23% or 86 spaces.
Residual Impact:Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the traffic and parking
related impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
MM #5
The 19 vehicle parking spaces and 12 Class III bicycle spaces in the surface parking lot will be
designated as visitor parking.
MM#6
A vehicle exiting/pedestrian warning system shall be implemented for the underground parking garage
driveway to eliminate potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists.
MM#7
A 130 foot left-turn pocket on northbound Park Boulevard will be implemented. This street cross-
section will include the following travel lanes:
o 7 foot on-street parking;
¯5 foot southbound bicycle lanes;
¯10.5 foot southbound travel lane
¯10 foot northbound left-turn lane
¯10.5 foot northbound travel lane; and
¯5 foot northbound bicycle lane.
MM #8
A parking study demonstrating time-of-day parking for the different land uses and documenting that the
reduced parking request is justified and that "shared" spaces will be available to accommodate the parking
demand shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by staff.
MM #9
A Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) program indicating measures to be implemented
and enforced to encourage use of transit or other non-vehicular transportation modes for residents and
employees of the site shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by staff.
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
a-g)The proposed project will increase the demand on existing utility and service systems. The project would require
new and expanded electrical, communication, water, and sewer connections. However, the improvements would be
considered minor improvements to the existing systems, and is therefore a less than significant impact. The project
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)27
could create minor discharges of pollutants in the form of automobile and landscaping maintenance. However,
conditions of approval associated with the project would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. The
project would also require new solid waste disposal services from the Palo Alto Sanitation company, but would not
require new :equipment or substantial alteration to present service and is therefore a less than significant impact.
The project would not be expected to greatly increase water demand. No new sources of water would need to be
found. The City uses an average of 13 million gallons a day (mgd) in 1996 and the projected water demand in the
City is not expected to exceed 13.7 mgdthrough 2007. Currently, the City has a guaranteed allocation of 17 mgd
through the year 2006 from the Hetch Hetchy water system. Therefore, the project would result in a less than
significant impact.
Residual Impact: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: None required
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources. The
uses are appropriate for the site and the development would not result in an adverse visual impact. There is nothing in
the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on
human beings, or other life or environmental impacts, subject to the implementation of mitigation measures 1-8.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS INITIAL
EVALUATION/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED OCTOBER 30, 2006, PREPARED
FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS PARK PLAZA (05PLN-00281), PALO
ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED
Applicant’s Signature Date
Summary of Mitigation Measures
MM#1
Revised plans and supplemental information shall be submitted to staffand the ARB for review and approval prior
to submittal for building or grading permits. The development plans and supplemental information shall address
the ARB’s conditions and include the following:
a. The vast plain of paving in the interior courtyard should be broken up by the increased use of landscaping or site
. furnishings.
b. The first floor windows on Park Boulevard shall be taken down to the ground to allow for the possibility of
providing front entrances to the first floor Research and Development space on the ground floor.
c. The lighting on the Park Boulevard faqade shall be increased without the use of uplights which could shine into
the residential units on the second and third floor.
d. The number of reveals on the siding shall be limited to two.
e. The bike lockers and the transformers that are presently in the courtyard shall be relocated.
f. The design of the entrance tower at the corner of Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road shall be further refined
with the possibility of making it wider to make it more accentuated.
g. The color scheme shall be reviewed to determine if they "scale up".
h. The planting of trees along the rear elevation shall be more uniform.
28195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)
i. The number of windows on the rear elevation shall be increased with the purpose of providing more natural
light for the hallways.
j. The future Research and Development uses on the ground shall not include the use of hazardous materials.
1VUVI #2
k. In addition to the ARB requirements, revised plans shall also be submitted to staffand the ARB for review and
approval prior to submittal for building or grading permits to address massing and streetscape concerns.
Redesign the rear of the building to comply with a daylight plane of 16 feet in height as measured at the rear
property line with an angle of 45 degrees, and with at least two breaks in the 450 foot continuous wall at three
stories, with minimum 50 foot sections of wall height not to exceed 25 feet in height.
I. Redesign the Park Boulevard frontage to provide a commercial pedestrian-oriented facade with frequent door
openings, awnings, and street-furniture.
MM #3
Prior to issuance of any building permit or grading permit, reports documenting the location of hazardous waste
contaminants in the soil and/or groundwater shall be provided to the SCVWD and RWQCB for review and project
approval, if required. Written confirmation from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Regional Board) shall be submitted to the City, either 1) indicating that no contamination exists; or 2) that the
proposed construction and site activities, including underground parking, dewatering sumps or wells will not result
in exposure of workers or the public to those contaminants and that such construction will not have an adverse
impact on the ongoing or future groundwater cleanup efforts; or 3) mitigation measures to be reviewed and
approved by the Regional Board will provide adequate protection from exposure. A Risk Management Plan shall be
submitted to and must be approved by the Regional Board, if required.
If contamination does not exist beneath the subject property, the applicant shall provide information regarding the
lateral distance to existing groundwater contamination plumes and an analysis of the potential impacts to those
plumes from construction activity on the subject property, including the use of dewatering sumps or wells under the
proposed underground parking structure. This information shall be submitted to the Regional Board for approval
that the proposed work on the subject property, including any use of dewatering sumps or wells will not have an
adverse impact on the current and future cleanup efforts. The approval shall verify that dewatering sumps or wells,
if proposed, would not alter the path of the groundwater contamination plume(s) and could not result in bringing
groundwater contamination to the subject property or a possible future exposure of the public on the subject
property to groundwater contaminants.
MM #4
The project shall include design features to reduce the maximum indoor noise level to as close as the 45dB standard
as feasible through project design. To achieve this, STC rated exterior walls facing the Caltrain shall have an STC
rating of at least 50. Exterior glazing for bedrooms facing CalTrain shall have a minimum STC rating of 45.
MM #5
The 19 vehicle parking spaces and 12 Class III bicycle spaces in the surface parking lot will be designated as
visitor parking.
MM #6
A vehicle exiting/pedestrian warning system shall be implemented for the underground parking garage
driveway to eliminate potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists.
MM #7
A 130 foot left-turn pocket on northbound Park Boulevard will be implemented. This street cross-section will
include the following travel lanes:
7 foot on-street parking;
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05-PLN-00281)29
5 foot southbound bicycle lanes;
10.5 foot southbound travel lane
10.5 foot northbound left-turn lane
10.5 foot northbound travel lane; and
5 foot northbound bicycle lane.
MM#8
A parking study demonstrating time-of-day parking for the different land uses and documenting that the reduced
parking request is justified and that "shared" spaces will be available to accommodate the parking demand shall be
prepared and submitted for review and approval by staff.
MM #9
A Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) program indicating measures to be implemented and
enforced to encourage use of transit or other non-vehicular transportation modes for residents and employees of
the site shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by staff.
195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, & 2901 Park Boulevard, File No. 05 -PLN-00281)3 0