Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2404-2854CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Monday, April 22, 2024 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:30 PM     Agenda Item     10.QUASI-JUDICIAL. 739 Sutter Avenue [22PLN-00201 and 24PLN-00005]: Appeal of the Director's Decision to Approve a Streamlined Housing Development Review Application to Allow Deconstruction of An Existing 8 Unit Residential Rental Development and Construction of 12 Three-Bedroom Condominium Units. The Project Also Includes a Request for Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for a Condominium Subdivision. Zoning District: RM-20. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. For more information contact the Project Planner at HYPERLINK "mailto:Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org" \h Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 22, 2024 Report #:2404-2854 TITLE QUASI-JUDICIAL. 739 Sutter Avenue [22PLN-00201 and 24PLN-00005]: Appeal of the Director's Decision to Approve a Streamlined Housing Development Review Application to Allow Deconstruction of An Existing 8 Unit Residential Rental Development and Construction of 12 Three-Bedroom Condominium Units. The Project Also Includes a Request for Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for a Condominium Subdivision. Zoning District: RM-20. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. For more information contact the Project Planner at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council take the following action(s): 1. Find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332; 2. Adopt the attached Record of Land Use Action, thereby: a. Denying the appeal and upholding the Director’s approval; and b. Approving the Vesting Tentative Map EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On March 19, 2024, the Planning and Development Services Director tentatively approved the applicant’s request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review Application. The proposed residential for-sale townhome project, located on a 0.38-acre parcel at 739 Sutter Avenue, includes 12 residential for-sale units, two of which are to be provided at below market rate to low income (50-80% of AMI). The project would replace an existing 8-unit residential rental development that is currently occupied. The project is a housing development project in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act and qualifies for a Density Bonus based on the percentage and income level restrictions on the provided units. The project is also eligible for three concessions as well as unlimited waivers, or changes to the objective development standards, to accommodate the development in accordance with the State Density Bonus allowances (California Government Code §65915) and PAMC Chapter 18.15. In accordance with the approval process for streamlined housing development review applications, any member of the public may appeal within 10 days of the Director’s tentative decision. Staff received timely appeals from two members of the public, one on behalf of the San Carlos Neighborhood Association and one on behalf of Milan Saini, a resident of Sutter Avenue. The concerns expressed in these appeal letters are detailed further in this report. Adoption of the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) in Attachment B would deny the appeals and uphold the Director‘s decision to approve the project. Three members of the Council must vote to pull this item from the consent agenda in order to hold a hearing to discuss the project. If Council approves the Streamlined Housing Development review application, staff also recommends simultaneous approval of the associated Vesting Tentative Map application, the findings for which are included in the RLUA. BACKGROUND The Planning and Development Services Director issued a tentative approval on the applicant’s request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review Application on March 19, 2024. Two timely requests for hearing were filed, one on behalf of the San Carlos Neighborhood Association (Attachment C) and one by a resident on Sutter Avenue (Attachment D). In accordance with the municipal code, this request is placed on the Council’s consent agenda within 45 days of the request for hearing. Streamlined Housing Development Review applications are subject to the findings set forth in Section 18.77.073 of the zoning code. The findings of approval of this application are included in the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. Request for Hearing-San Carlos Neighborhood Association The San Carlos Neighborhood Association provided the letter in Attachment C to request a Council hearing on the Director’s decision to approve the Streamlined Housing Development Review application. The letter focuses on the following key concerns: •Fire Safety: The requester states that the project does not have sufficient setback from the property line for proper fire access and states concerns that the project relies on ground ladder access versus aerial access for fire service. •Privacy: The requester states that the project does not adequately protect the privacy of neighboring residents by providing third floor balconies that face the rear of the site (toward San Carlos Court). The requester asks for the applicant to increase the size of all the trees along the rear to provide mature screening at the time of planting and requests that all third-floor balconies be removed. •Trash: The requester states that the trash design is not adequate and that the receptacles should have two-foot spacing between each bin. They further state concerns regarding restriction to street parking during trash service hours. •Density Bonus Law: Express concerns that the project is inconsistent with State density bonus allowances as set forth in Chapter 18.15 of the Code because the project does not provide at least five additional housing units beyond what is existing. •CEQA Analysis: The requester expresses that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of analysis for the proposed project and that the project does not qualify for a Class 32 categorical exemption. Request for Hearing-Milan Saini Milan Saini, a Sutter Avenue resident, stated his concerns in an e-mail provided in Attachment D. In a second e-mail on March 26, 2024, he submitted a second objection letter. This second letter did not raise new objections but elaborated on the initial comments and included signatures from other neighbors. The comments focus on the following key concerns: •Lack of Transparency in Planning Process: The requester states that they have not received communication or acknowledgement on previously raised objections. •Neighborhood Compatibility: The requester states that there is no three-story development on the street and that this approval will initiate additional development on Sutter Avenue. He states that the density and scale of the proposed development are incompatible with the current aesthetic, architecture, and overall neighborhood character •Precedent: The requester expresses that if this project is approved, the city would be required to approve successive applications. •Cumulative Projects: The requester states that the project’s impact must also take into consideration other projects that would follow and that, together, would increase traffic congestion and strain existing parking resources on the neighborhood. The high-density projects when taken collectively will lead to overcrowding in the neighborhood, potentially decreasing the quality of life for existing residents, including more noise and light pollution, disrupting the peacefulness of my neighborhood. •Decreased property values: The requester expresses concern that the high-density projects on the street could potentially decrease property values in the surrounding areas due to overcrowding, increased traffic, and changes to the neighborhood character. If three or more City Councilmembers want to hold a public hearing to consider the application, a vote is needed to pull the item from the consent calendar. If pulled, staff would return at a future date for a hearing on the application. Streamlined Housing Development Review applications are subject to findings set forth in Section 18.77.073 of the zoning code. The findings to approve the proposed project are included in the tentative approval letter in Attachment E and reflected in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. Vesting Tentative Map The proposed project includes an associated request for approval of a Vesting Tentative Map application (24PLN-00005) to allow twelve residential condominium units on a single, existing, 16,720 square foot (sf) parcel at the subject property. Approval of the map also includes acceptance of proposed utility easements on the parcel, which are required per City of Palo Alto Utility standards. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map is included in Attachment F. The process for evaluating a vesting tentative map application is set forth in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and California Government Code 66474. The process for approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for a condominium subdivision is outlined in PAMC Sections 21.12.010 and 21.13.020. Tentative maps require Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review to evaluate whether the amended subdivision is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (in particular, Government Code 66474), Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and State Law. The PTC’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final approval. On March 27, 2024, the PTC recommend (6-0, Hechtman absent) that Council find the project exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332; and recommend approval of the Vesting Tentative Map to City Council based on the finding and subject to the conditions of approval included in the PTC staff report. The PTC also recommended that Council consider removing the parking restrictions during refuse pickup hours referred to in the conditions of approval #5 and as shown in Sheet A0.5 of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) plan set. This condition of approval is not included in the Vesting Tentative Map conditions, but is part of the Streamlined Housing Development Review conditions of approval. The proposed parking restriction during trash service is a standard Condition of Approval (COA) used in many areas of the City and was made a requirement of the project by the Office of Transportation to ensure that carts, when placed out for service, do not block the vehicle lanes. While some of the Commissioners viewed the parking restrictions as a special privilege for residents of the proposed development, its primary purpose is to ensure safety during trash pickup times. In addition, although the site is fully parked with two spaces per unit, staff notes that the parking restriction may equally be viewed as a burden on the residents of the development, as they too would not be able to utilize street parking closest to their homes during trash pickup times. ANALYSIS A detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and relevant state regulations is included in the November 2, 2024 ARB staff report.1 The project was found to be consistent with the relevant plans, policies, and regulations set forth in local and state law. 1 The staff report for the November 2, 2023 Architectural Review Board Study Session is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2023/arb-11.02-739-sutter.pdf Responses to Comment San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association (SCCNA) Following is a response to key issues raised by the SCCNA. Some of these comments were raised in early comment letters. Therefore, responses were also provided in previous staff reports and in staff’s formal response to two letters provided by the SCCNA’s attorney during the review process. Staff’s formal response to the previous letters is included in Attachment E. Fire Safety The requester states that the project does not have sufficient setback from the property line for proper fire access. However, the project not only meets the 10-foot setback requirement required for RM-20 zone districts but exceed the requirements by providing a 12-foot minimum setback, which greatly exceeds the requirement for adequate fire access (typically five feet on the ground level). There are existing overhead lines across the project frontage that restrict the site from being accessed by fire trucks with aerial ladders. Therefore, under existing and proposed conditions, the project would provide ground ladder access on two ends of each building for fighting fires. The project is also required to include a commercial grade fire sprinkler system. The project has been reviewed by the City of Palo Alto Fire Department and recommended approval based on the plans, as revised to accommodate the above referenced measures. Therefore, staff has reviewed the project and determined that the project design has adequate fire safety measures in compliance with the fire code. Privacy The requester states that the project does not adequately protect the privacy of neighboring residents by providing third floor balconies that face the rear of the site (toward San Carlos Court) and asks for the balconies to be removed. The project has been redesigned through the public process to reduce impacts to San Carlos Court residents. The initial design during the preliminary Architectural Review process (21PLN-00222) included rooftop decks on both the front and rear building. In response to resident comments. The rooftop decks on the rear building were removed prior to submitting a formal application. The rooftop decks on the front building were also removed following the ARB’s review in response to both board member comments and additional neighbor comments. The project was also redesigned to meet the objective standards set forth in PAMC Section 18.24.050(2)(A through E). This included: •modifications to the balcony material (obscure versus glass) and height (taller railings to meet line of sight restrictions) •modifications to the window design (reduced glass and transparent glazing), •greater setbacks from the balcony from the property line to bring the project outside of the rear daylight plane and meet the visibility line of sight restrictions, •increasing the height of the fence to the maximum allowable, •and modifying the planting plan to provide a continuous row of vegetation for screening purposes. The requester asks for the applicant to increase the size of all the trees along the rear at planting to provide mature screening at the time of planting. Staff believes that the proposed planting plan with 24-inch boxed trees is appropriate to provide for screening over time; although staff understands that the proposed trees, which shall measure 8 feet in height at planting does not provide full vegetation screening at planting, these are a fast-growing species capable of providing screening over time. Trash The requester states that the trash design is not adequate and that the receptacles should have two-foot spacing between each bin. They further state concerns regarding restrictions to street parking in front of this site for trash service hours. The trash service has been reviewed by the City’s Zero Waste Division as well as its waste hauler and Greenwaste, to ensure that the design meets the City and Greenwaste standards for waste disposal. The project meets these requirements. The plan set inadvertently refers to these waste receptacles as bins, which are larger metal receptacles, versus carts, which are the smaller plastic receptacles more typically used by low density residential uses. Bins require at least two- foot spacing between each for service. Carts require 6 inches between. Therefore, the proposed carts are adequately spaced in accordance with the Greenwaste requirements. The proposed parking restriction during trash service is a standard COA used in many areas of the City and was made a requirement of the project by the Office of Transportation to ensure that carts, when placed out for service, do not block the vehicle lanes. Density Bonus Law The requester expresses that the project is inconsistent with state density bonus allowances as set forth in Chapter 18.15 of the code because the project does not provide at least five additional housing units beyond what is existing. The requester’s accurately notes that the municipal code includes a definition of development as “all developments pursuant to a proposal to construct or place five (5) or more additional dwelling units on a lot or contiguous lots including, without limitation, a planned unit development, site plan, subdivision, or conversion of a non-residential building to dwelling units.” However, this provision conflicts with current state density bonus law, which provides only that the proposed development must be five units or more to be eligible for state density bonus. In cases where the City’s local ordinance conflicts with state density bonus law, the state law shall prevail. This inconsistency will be addressed in an ordinance updating the municipal code later this month. CEQA Analysis As detailed in staff’s response to the August 30, 2023 and November 1, 2023 letters from Silicon Valley Law group, the city disagrees with the assertion that a Class 32 exemption would not be applicable to the proposed project. Staff’s response to these letters is included in Attachment E. Response to Milan Saini Comments Following is staff’s response to key issues raised by Milan Saini in his comment letter. Lack of Transparency in Planning Process The requester provided a letter on July 11, 2022 expressing concerns about the proposed development, specifically indicating concerns about the increased density, the inclusion of low- income units, and that the project would affect property values. The objection letter was signed by four residents within the 700 block of Sutter Avenue. Staff inadvertently did not respond to this letter. Nevertheless, the status of the project has been updated continuously on the project webpage throughout the process and includes plan sets, links to staff reports, and the environmental documents. A notice was mailed to all residents within 600-feet of the project site prior to the November 2, 2023 ARB study session in accordance with the code requirements. Staff has confirmed that the requester was included on those mailings. The requester was also noticed at the tentative decision process, all in accordance with the City’s standard process in accordance with the code. Therefore, review of the project has been transparent and multiple opportunities to comment were provided throughout the public process. Neighborhood Compatibility, Precedent, and Cumulative Projects Approval of the proposed project does not assure approval of any subsequent project. Each application is reviewed on an individual basis based on the relevant policies and regulations in effect at the time that it is submitted. No other applications, either preliminary or formal, have been filed to redevelop nearby properties. Therefore, staff cannot speculate as to the cumulative impacts of a subsequent project (or projects) that may be proposed in the future. The commenter notes that the density and scale of the proposed development are incompatible with the current aesthetic, architecture, and overall neighborhood character, but does not elaborate further as to how the project is inconsistent except to say that the existing street does not include three-story development. Although there are no three-story developments existing in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the site is zoned RM-20 and allows for 30-foot buildings. Decreased Property Values The applicant expresses the view that high-density projects on the street could potentially decrease property values in the surrounding areas due to overcrowding, increased traffic, and changes to the neighborhood character. However, this opinion is not substantiated by facts. Moreover, the project may only be denied based on findings that the project does not comply with applicable objective standards, or that the project will result in a specific, adverse, impact upon the public health or safety, which cannot feasibly be mitigated or avoided. Vesting Tentative Map The proposed Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning, as discussed further below. A density bonus waiver from the street width also applies to the Vesting Tentative Map. Comprehensive Plan Consistency The proposed Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in that the site is designated primarily as “Multifamily” land use category and will be developed as a multifamily development on that portion of the site. The map facilitates the redevelopment of a parcel within the City’s urban service area which is consistent Policy L-1.2 of the Comprehensive Plan. The associated development to be constructed on the lot would add new residential units that contribute to the housing inventory including two affordable housing units, consistent with Goal 2 of the Housing Element, which states “assist in the provision of safe, attainable, and sustainable housing, especially affordable housing, to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community.” Consistencies with other Comprehensive Plan policies are included in Attachment B of this report. Zoning Consistency The site is zoned primarily as RM-20 (multi-family residential). The proposed multi-family development is a permitted use within the RM-20 Zone. The size of the parcel would not change and is consistent with code requirements for the RM-20 Zone District, which has a minimum lot size of 8,500 sf and minimum dimensions of 70 feet in width by 100 feet in depth. Staff finds that the proposed Vesting Tentative Map complies with these code requirements for parcels. Private Street Width The proposed project includes new private streets that do not meet the minimum width of 32 feet set forth in PAMC 21.20.240. The applicant requested a waiver from this development standard in accordance with State Density Bonus Law to allow for a private street that is 20 feet in width. Approval of this waiver was tentatively granted as part of the tentative approval of the proposed development under the Streamlined Housing Development Project review. The waiver also applies to the subdivision map process. The proposed improvements, including the street width, were reviewed by all departments as part of the streamlined housing development review process. Reviewers included, but were not limited to, City of Palo Alto Fire Department, Public Works Engineering, Office of Transportation and the Building Department. The proposed project, with the proposed 20-foot street width, meets all safety requirements, including, but not limited to, fire safety and traffic safety. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The developer would be required to pay all applicable development impact fees estimated to total $279,177.12 for the subdivision and the proposed improvements, plus the applicable public art fees, as documented in the conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action. The project is a cost recovery project; therefore, staff time is charged to the applicant for the processing of this application. A request for appeal requires a $700 deposit from an appellant. Each of the respective appellants have paid their required fee. In accordance with the fee schedule, if the Council chooses not to hold a public hearing to discuss the appeal, these fees would be returned to the appellants. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on April 12, 2024, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 11, 2024, which is 11 days in advance of the meeting. Throughout the review process the San Carlos Neighborhood Association has been actively discussing their comments on the project with staff and at public hearings. Silicon Valley Law Group sent a letter on August 30, 2023. Key comments raised in that letter expressed concerns about privacy, safety, and indicated their disagreement with the conclusion that the project would be eligible for a Class 32 (in-fill) exemption due to significant impacts related to traffic, air quality, and noise among other impacts. Staff met with residents on September 12, 2023 to discuss their concerns. Silicon Valley Law Group submitted a second letter on behalf of the neighborhood association on November 1, 2023. Prior to approval of the proposed project, staff responded formally to these comments. The initial letters are included in Attachment D. Staff’s response to those letters is included in Attachment E. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (infill development). The documentation to support this exemption is included on the project webpage, a link to which is provided in Attachment F. The City disagrees with the assertions in the hearing request letter as they relate to the applicability of the Class 32 exemption. The documentation provided includes substantial evidence to support the conclusion that a Class 32 exemption applies to the proposed project and is the appropriate level of environmental analysis for this project. Specifically, it provides documentation to support the conclusion that there would be less than significant impacts related to air quality, traffic, water quality and noise. The CEQA documentation also includes a cultural resources analysis, which concludes that the project is not eligible for any register (National, State, or local). Attachment E includes the City’s formal responses to questions raised by the San Carlos Neighborhood Association with respect to the CEQA analysis. The request for hearing does not include any new information. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location map Attachment B: Record of Land Use Action Attachment C: Request for Hearing from San Carlos Neighborhood Association Attachment D: Request for Hearing from Milan Saini (Sutter Avenue Resident) Attachment E: Letter to SVLG in Response to Formal Letters Provided in the Review Process Attachment F: Project Plans and CEQA APPROVED BY: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director 24 Safeway 125.6' 161.0' 130.7' 52.8' 108.5' 130.7' 35.4' 86.1' 1.6' 125.6' 133.0' 125.6' 133.0' 125.6' 82.5' 42.5' 10.5' 119.4' 135.0' 119.4' 95.7' 27.5' 81.0' 109.9' 125.6' 133.0' 125.6' 133.0' 70.0' 61.0'70.0' 61.0' 70.0' 60.0'70.0' 60.0' 70.0' 57.3'70.0' 57.3' 70.0' 57.0'70.0' 57.0' 97.4' 114.3' 97.4' 114.3' 90.0' 60.0'90.0' 60.0' 107.4' 61.0' 107.4' 61.1' 70.0' 135.0' 70.0' 135.0' 70.0' 31.0' 70.0' 31.0' 0' 50.0' 42.0' 10.0' 43.6' 247.5' 171.0' 77.5' 7.0'39.0' 136.5' 49.7'176.2' 80.3' 153.4' 44.3' 32.5' 61.0' 7.4' 60.0' 164.0' 126.2'120.8' 62.3' 190.5' 172.0' 52.0' 172.0' 54.2' 156.6' 287.9' 289.4' 70.0' 123.4' 70.0' 123.4' 44.5' 103.3' 44.5' 103.3' 60.0' 110.8' 105.6' 803 125.6' 60.3' 31.4' 125.6' 94.9'125.6' 94.9' 125.6' 94.9'125.6' 94.9' 125.6' 94.9'125.6' 94.9' 44.5' 103.3' 44.5' 103.3' 44.5' 103.3' 44.5' 103.3' 44.5' 115.0' 115.0' 40.0' 109 40.0' 109.6 102.8' 42.0' 102.8' 42.8' 95.9' 42.3' 95.9' 44.6' 88.8' 44.0' 88.8' 46.6' 81.4' 46.0' 81.4' 51.5'73.2' 50.8' 73.2'60.0' 31.4' 45.0' 125.6' 125.6'125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 43.6' 43.6' 125.6' 523.6' 136.5' 38.9' 7.0' 44.5' 32.5' 138.5' 72.0' 153.4' 94.2' 2875 735 733 745 734 730 746 724 718 720 2811 707-721 723- 737 718 729 723 70 717704- 718 702 767 771 779 755-759 761 763 708 704 706 775 750 752 754 760 749 733 744 739-753 726- 738 722-724 736 732 731 741 730 724 730-738 740-748 720-728 737 SUTTER AV ENUE ORTH PLACE (PVT) COLORADO AVENUE SUT CLA SAN CARLOS COURT PC- 2197 R-2 -1 RM-20 R-2 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0'88' Attachment A: Location Map 739 sutter CITYOF PALOALTOINCORPORATED CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2023-10-18 11:38:02 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) R-1 1 3 2 6 2 ACTION NO. 2024-__ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 739 SUTTER AVENUE: STREAMLINED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP [22PLN-00201 AND 24PLN-00005] At its meeting on _________, 2024, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) approved the Streamlined Housing Development Review for a 12-unit residential ownership development and Vesting Tentative Map for the development of a one-lot subdivision to create 12 residential condominium units. making the following findings, determinations and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. On ____ 2022, Grace Li applied for a Streamlined Housing Development Review application for a 12-unit townhome style development, including the following density bonus waivers and concessions in accordance with state density bonus law: •Waiver 1: Floor area ratio (1.4:1 where 1.25:1 is allowed) •Waiver 2: Maximum site coverage (50 percent where 35 percent is allowed) •Waiver 3: Minimum front yard setback (5 feet where 20 feet is required) •Waiver 4: Minimum interior side yard setback (4.6 feet where 10 feet is required) •Waiver 5: Side lot line daylight plane (10 feet, 82 degrees where 10 feet, 45 degrees is required) •Waiver 6: Private street width (20 ft minimum where 32 feet is required) •Waiver 7: Minimum finished ground floor height (0.5 feet where 1.5 feet is required) •Waiver 8: Upper floor stepback (stepback of 6 feet for 33% of the east façade on building 1 where 6 feet for 70% of the façade is required at 33-37 feet in height) •Waiver 9: Façade break (1-foot by 4-foot break with minimum 8.9 square foot area where 2-foot by 4-foot break with 32 square foot area is required) •Waiver 10: Individual residential entry width (4.5 feet for Building 2 entry stoops where 5 feet is required) •Waiver 11: Landscaping screening (no trees along the west interior side yard [shared drive aisle] where one tree every 25 feet is required) •Waiver 12: Landscape coverage (34% where 35% is required) •Waiver 13: Sidewalk width for shared path from public right-of-way to bicycle parking (4 ft minimum with 1.5 ft shoulders where 8 ft minimum with 2 ft shoulders is required). •Concession 1: Building height (33.5 feet maximum height where 30 feet is allowed) B. On January 4, 2024, Grace Li applied for a Vesting Tentative Map for the development of a one (1) parcel, 12-unit condominium subdivision project, including a density 2 3 2 6 2 bonus waiver from street width requirements to permit a minimum 20-foot wide private street. (“The Project”). C. The project site is comprised of one existing lot (APN No. 127-35-200) of approximately 16,720 square feet. The site contains a single multi-family development with eight (8) residential rental units. Single family residential uses abut the site to the north. Multi- family residential units abut the site to the east, west, and across Sutter Avenue to the South. D. Following staff review, the Architectural Review Board reviewed the project at a study session on November 2, 2024 to provide feedback on the design. E. Following the Architectural Review Board hearing, the applicant resubmitted revised plans on February 8, 2024 which were tentatively approved by the Director of Planning on March 19, 2024 F. On March 27, 2024 Silicon Valley Law Group, on behalf of the San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association, requested a hearing on the proposed project in accordance with the appeal process set forth in PAMC 18.77.073(e). G. On March 27, 2024 Milan Saini requested a hearing on the proposed project in accordance with the appeal process set forth in PAMC 18.77.073(e). H. Following staff review of the Vesting Tentative Map, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval on March 27, 2024, subject to conditions of approval. I. On ___________, 2024 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which evidence was considered and all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the City Council’s policies and procedures. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City, acting as the lead agency for the Project, has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guideline section 15332, which provides an exemption for infill development projects. Documentation to support the exemption is available as part of the public record on file with the Planning and Development Services Division. Section 3. Streamlined Housing Development Review. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Streamlined Housing Development Project Review Process Findings as required in Chapter 18.77.073 of the PAMC. Neither the Director, nor the City Council on appeal, shall approve an application unless it is found that: Finding #1: The application complies with all applicable and objective standards in the Comprehensive Plan, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and other City plans or policies. 3 3 2 6 2 The proposed project complies with all applicable and objective standards in the Comprehensive Plan and the Palo Alto Municipal Code as detailed in the staff report and in Attachments D, Zoning Consistency, and E, Objective Standards Consistency, except where waivers or concessions are requested pursuant to state density bonus law. In accordance with The Housing Accountability Act as set forth in California Government Code 65589.5(j)(3), the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. Therefore, for the project is compliant with the objective standards. A summary of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in this table. The project is required to comply with the Comprehensive Plan to the extent that the requirements are objective. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Multi-family Residential which allows for densities ranging from 8 to 40 units per acre The project adheres to the Comprehensive Plan by providing multi-family housing on a multi- family use site. The proposed density is 31 units per acre which is consistent with this comprehensive plan land use designation. Housing Element Policy 4.3 Implement development standards, objective design standards, and architectural and green building standards that encourage new high-quality rental and ownership housing. The project complies with the implemented standards except where requests for waivers or concessions in accordance with state density bonus law is provided. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-2.8: When considering infill development, work to minimize the displacement of existing residents The project Is an infill project. While existing rental tenants would be required to either purchase or relocate, the project replaces more units than it removes. The applicant will comply with relocation assistance requirements for project of less than 10 units as set forth in PAMC Section 9.68 for no-fault just-cause eviction. Policy L-9.2 Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. The project incorporates the parking into each unit and does not include a surface parking lot. The drive aisle is internal to the site. Policy L-9.4 Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide The project maintains sidewalks and improves the streetscape with landscape planting along the 4 3 2 6 2 and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches and other amenities that promote walking and “active” transportation. project frontage. The project provides bicycle parking along the frontage, bringing the site into conformance with City requirements for bicycle parking. Transportation Element Policy T-3.7 Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, gathering spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art and interesting architectural details. The project includes direct connections to the sidewalk that help to activate the frontage along Sutter Avenue in addition to new street trees and plantings. Policy T-3.9 Support citywide sustainability efforts by preserving and enhancing the tree canopy where feasible within the public right-of- way, consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan, as amended. The project meets the tree canopy replacement requirements through on site planting. The project includes removal of two trees and replaces with 24 new trees where 7 24-inch box trees are required in accordance with the canopy replacement requirements. Finding #2: Approving the application will not result in a specific, adverse, impact upon the public health or safety, which cannot feasibly be mitigated or avoided in a satisfactory manner. As used in this Section, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The proposed project would not result in a specific, adverse, impact upon public health or safety. The project complies with all applicable safety requirements with respect to fire safety for the building itself (e.g. ladder access, sprinklers) as well as emergency vehicle access to the site. The traffic report concluded that the project would not create any conflicts with respect to traffic safety. The project also does not introduce any new changes to streets (e.g. new curves in a roadway) or impacts to line-of-sight that would create a safety hazard as detailed in the transportation analysis. SECTION 4. Vesting Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474). The City Council cannot make these findings for the following reasons: 1.That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: The site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described below. 2.That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: There is no adopted specific plan for this project site. The proposed vesting tentative map and related improvements is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it facilitates housing development on a site designated for multi-family use within the urban services area, consistent with Goal 2 of the Housing Element and Goal L1.2 of the Land Use Element. The proposed density (31 DU/AC) is consistent with the allowable density (20 to 40 DU/AC) in the multi-family land use designation as outlined in the Land Use Element. The project replaces 5 3 2 6 2 eight existing residential rental units with twelve residential condominium units, including two units that will be offered at a rate affordable to low income (50-80% of AMI). The project improves the city’s jobs housing imbalance consistent with the Transportation Element’s goals and policies. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: The Project site is suitable for multi-family residential development in that it’s located within the multi-family zone district on a site designated on the City’s Land Use Map for multi-family use. The existing parcel meets the minimum code requirements for the RM-20 zone district with respect to lot area, width and depth. The parcel would not change with approval of this condominium subdivision. The proposed number of condominium units complies with the applicable densities set forth in the land use element. 4.That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The project would create a total of twelve (12) multi-family residential units which is 31 dwelling units (DU) per acre. This density complies with the maximum allowable residential density as calculated for the total site area under the comprehensive plan (40 DU/acre = 31 DU). Although it exceeds the allowable density set forth in the zoning district, the project exceeds this density in accordance with state density bonus law (Assembly Bill 2345) which allows for increased density based on the percentage of BMR units (25% of the base project) and their affordability level (low income). Building, Palo Alto Fire Department, Planning, Transportation, and Public Works Engineering have reviewed the requested density bonus waiver to permit a minimum 20-foot street width to ensure that all necessary requirements for safety, including but not limited to, fire safety and traffic safety (e.g. curb cut location, back-up space, turning radius, etc.) have been met. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: The project is located within the built environment that does not contain quality habitat for fish or other wildlife on the site or within the vicinity of the site. The nearest stream is a channelized portion of Matadero Creek approximately 350 feet north from the project site. The adopted Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes Map N-1, which identified sensitive animal and plant species within the Palo Alto quadrangle, a large geographic area that includes the urban portions along the bay and within the foothills, based on information in the California natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Based on this map, and the urban nature of the site, the subject property does not contain any habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species and has not historically supported any of these species. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: 6 3 2 6 2 The subdivision of this parcel and associated improvements would not have the potential to result in serious health problems. The proposed multi-family use would not include use or storage of hazardous materials and the use is located within the urban environment adjacent to other residential uses. The site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to government code 65962.5. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. There are no public access easements over the property currently. Therefore, the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any public easements for access through, or use of, the property. An existing public utility easement along the northern lot line (rear lot line) is no longer necessary and would be vacated in accordance with the conditions of approval of the proposed development application. New public utility easements will be provided to existing and proposed electrical utilities as part of this subdivision map as required in accordance with City of Palo Alto Utilities standards. SECTION 5. Vesting Tentative Map Approval Granted. Vesting Tentative Map Approval is filed and processed in accordance to PAMC Section 21.13.020 and granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 6. Final Map. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by BKF Engineers titled “Vesting Tentative Map 739 Sutter Avenue For Condominium Purposes City of Palo Alto, California,” consisting of nine (8) pages, stamped as received February 23, 2024, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of the Vesting Tentative Map is on file in the Department of Planning and Development Services, Current Planning Division. Prior to the expiration of the Vesting Tentative Map approval, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Title 21 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]). 7 3 2 6 2 SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval Streamlined Housing Development Review. PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "739 Sutter Avenue by Ge Sun Palo Alto, California Streamlined Housing Development Review Set” stamped as received by the City on February 8, 2024 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. Landscaping along the rear lot line between the project and single-family residential uses shall be planted at a minimum height of 8 feet and maintained as a landscape screen for the life of the project in accordance with the code requirements for objective standards. 6. NOISE THRESHOLDS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 7. OPEN AIR LOUDSPEAKERS (AMPLIFIED MUSIC). In accordance with PAMC Section 9.12, no amplified music shall be used for producing sound in or upon any open area, to which the public has access, between the hours of 11:00pm and one hour after sunrise. 8.NOISE REPORT AT BUILDING STAGE. An analysis of the proposed project’s compliance with the City’s noise requirements for the proposed HVAC was prepared as part of the documentation to support a Class 32 categorical exemption. At the time of building permit issuance for new construction or for installation of any such mechanical equipment, if the proposed equipment exceeds the anticipated noise level that was analyzed or is proposed in a location that is closer to the property line, the applicant shall submit an acoustical 8 3 2 6 2 analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating projected compliance with the Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall be based on acoustical readings, equipment specifications and any proposed sound reduction measures, such as equipment enclosures or insulation, which demonstrate a sufficient degree of sound attenuation to assure that the prescribed noise levels will not be exceeded. 9. EASEMENT VACATION. The public utility easement at the rear of the property, which is no longer necessary, shall be vacated in order to allow for tree plantings along the rear lot line. If the easement must be vacated through separate instrument (instead of through the mapping process), the applicant shall file the necessary forms and fees to process vacation of the easement. 10. SIGN APPROVAL NEEDED. No signs are approved at this time. All signs shall conform to the requirements of Title 16.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Sign Code) and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. 11. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF BURIED ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. No known archeological resources are present on or within the immediate vicinity of the site. However, as noted in the project description and per the City’s standard conditions, in the unlikely event that an archeological resource is unearthed during ground disturbing activities, work in the immediate area should be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the find is Native American in origin, then a Native American representative should also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the find. The qualified archaeologist, and, if applicable, the Native American representative, shall examine the find and make recommendations regarding additional work necessary to evaluate the significance of the find and the appropriate treatment of the resource. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to, invasive or non-invasive testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, preservation in place, or data recovery. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the Director of Planning. 12. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF NESTING BIRDS. As detailed in the project description and per the City’s standard conditions, vegetation or tree removal shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site no more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and/or demolition activities. If nesting birds are found to be present, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) as determined appropriate by the biologist, shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified 9 3 2 6 2 biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). 13. TREE CANOPY REPLACEMENT. Replacement of the tree canopy for the two trees proposed to be removed is required in accordance with Chapter 8 of the municipal code and the City’s Tree Technical Manual. At least seven 24-inch box trees are required for tree canopy replacement in accordance with the City’s standards consistent with the approved landscape plan, which meets or exceeds this requirement. 14. REFUSE. All trash areas shall be covered and maintained in an orderly state within private garages to prevent water from entering into the garbage container. No outdoor storage is allowed/permitted except when brought out to the street for pickup as shown in the plan set. Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping. 15. BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING. This project is proposed as a state density bonus project and is also subject to the affordable housing requirements set forth in Section 16.65.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In accordance with the City’s requirements and the proposed project in accordance with state density bonus law, the project is required to contain no less than two (2) below market rate units dedicated as low income (50-80% of AMI). A Regulatory Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the two (2) BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. All BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. 16. RENTER PROTECTIONS. The project is subject to the renter protection requirements set forth in PAMC Section 9.68.050 for no fault evictions for rental properties with less than 10 units. This includes either rental fee waiver for the last month or relocation assistance as detailed in the municipal code. Notification requirements in accordance with the code is required. Documentation showing compliance with these code requirements must be provided to the project planner prior to issuance of a demolition/deconstruction permit. 17. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE. Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $279,177.12 plus the applicable public art in private development fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit(s). 18. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. 10 3 2 6 2 IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 19. ENTITLEMENT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the entitlement. If within such two-year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, the Planning entitlement shall expire. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. 20. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. 21. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 22. PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS, FORMS, AND DOCUMENT. Applicant shall be advised that most forms, applications, and informational documents related to Public Works Engineering conditions can be found at the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Forms- and-Permits 23. OVERVIEW AND GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION PROJECTS. Developer shall familiarize themselves with the guidelines described in the November 2007 revision of the document titled “Overview and Guidelines for the Review of Subdivision Projects”. Particularly Section II (items 5 through 12) and Section V (items A through C). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development- 11 3 2 6 2 services/file-migration/current-planning/forms-and-guidelines/overview-and-guidelines- for-the-review-of-subdivision-projects.pdf 24. MAP THIRD-PARTY REVIEW. The City contracts with a third-party surveyor that will review and provide approval of the map’s technical correctness as the City Surveyor, as permitted by the Subdivision Map Act. The Public Works Department will forward a Scope & Fee Letter from the third-party surveyor and the applicant will be responsible for payment of the fee’s indicated therein, which is based on the complexity of the map. 25. STREETWORK PERMIT. The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements. 26. GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT. A Grading Permit is required per PAMC Chapter 16.28. The permit application and all applicable documents (see Section H of application) shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering. Add the following note: “THIS GRADING PERMIT WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE GENERAL GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OTHER BUILDING AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.” 27. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STATEMENT. The grading plans shall include the following statement signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record: “THIS PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT”. 28. LOGISTICS PLAN. A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit. 29. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work that encroaches onto the City right-of-way. 30. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet. 12 3 2 6 2 31. C.3 THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION: Applicant shall provide certification from a qualified third-party reviewer that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. 32. Submit the following as part of the building permit application: a. Stamped and signed C.3 data form (April 2023 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SCVURPPP-C.3-Data-Form- _-updated__4-12-2023_clean_fillable.pdf b. Final stamped and signed letter confirming which documents were reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11. 33. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed by the applicant team prior to building permit final. 34. C.3 FINAL THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, the third-party reviewer shall submit to the City a certification verifying that all the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were installed in accordance with the approved plans. 35. PAVEMENT RESTORATION: The applicant shall restore the pavement along the entire project frontage, curb-to-curb, by performing a 3.5” grind and overlay. The exact restoration limits will be determined once the resulting road condition is known following completion of heavy construction activities and utility lateral installations, at minimum the extent will be the project frontage. TRANSPORTATION 36. SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING ACCESS. Provide at least a six-foot-long, 5-foot wide paved area for the short-term bicycle parking area bicycle parking. 37. ON STREET PARKING FOR TRASH PICKUP. Due to the width of Sutter Avenue, on-street parking may need to be restricted to one side of the street for all or a portion of the roadway segment along the project frontage during trash pickup hours. Applicant shall install required parking restriction signs for trash pick-up hours as part of the project. The parking restriction signage plan shall be reviewed by the Office of Transportation as part of the building permit application. WASTE-GAS-WATER UTILITIES 13 3 2 6 2 38. UTILITY DISCONNECT. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit the applicant shall submit a request to disconnect utility services and remove meters. The utilities demo is to be processed within 10 working days after receipt of the request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 39. SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION. At the time of building permit application the applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., fire in g.p.m., and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new loads and the combined/total loads. Show on the plans by adding a text note: THIS IS AN “ALL-ELECTRIC” BUILDING PROJECT NO NEW GAS SERVICE OR GAS HOOKUPS WILL BE INSTALLED. 40. UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS. At the time of building permit application the applicant shall also submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations, and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities, especially storm drain pipes, and electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water, and gas. 41. AUXILIARY WATER SUPPLY. On the building permit and relevant utility applications, the applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc.). 42. UTILITY LATERALS AND MAINS. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services, laterals as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services/laterals. 43. RPPA. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 44. RPDA. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly (RPDA backflow preventer device, STD. WD-12A or STD. WD-12B) is required for all existing and new fire water connections from 14 3 2 6 2 Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPDA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the City’s fire service, within 5’ (feet) of the property line or City Right of Way. 45. BACKFLOW PREVENTER. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the city inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 46. CAPACITY FEES. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 47. FIRE WATER LATERAL. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the building permit plans. The applicant shall provide the engineering department with a copy of the plans for the fire system including all fire department's requirements. 48. METERS. Each unit or building shall have its own water meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 49. SEWER LATERAL. A new sewer lateral is required, and a profile of the sewer lateral is required showing any possible conflicts with electric/communications duct banks or other utilities. 50. WATER LATERAL. All existing water and wastewater services/laterals that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per the latest WGW utilities standards. 51. SEPARATION. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas, or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas, and wastewater mains/laterals/water services/or meters. New water or wastewater services/laterals/meters may not be installed within 10’ of existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water and wastewater services/laterals/meters except as otherwise approve in conjunction with utilities and urban forestry, including as shown on the approved plans. 52. COPY OF PLANS. The applicant shall provide to the WGW Utility Engineering department a copy of the plans for the fire system including all fire department's requirements prior to the actual service installation. 15 3 2 6 2 53. UTILITY INSTALLATIONS. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater PUBLIC WORKS ELECTRIC UTILITIES 54. UTILITY EASEMENT REQUIRED. Prior to energization, a public utility easement is required to provide access to the proposed transformer. This can either be provided through separate instrument and documented on the tentative and final map or dedicated through the tentative and final map process. 55. UTILITIES APPLICATION. Changes to existing electric utilities equipment on site, such as the transformer, will require a utilities application. Submit a utilities application and obtain City of Palo Alto Utilities Electrical Engineering approval for the modifications to the electrical system. 56. UTILITY DISCONNECT. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services proposed for removal, including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and, as applicable, removed. 57. UTILITIES SHOWN ON LANDSCAPE PLANS. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 58. PERMIT. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 59. UNDERGROUND SERVICES ALERT. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 60. CITY STANDARDS. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE 61. REQUIRED DECONSTRUCTION. In conformance with PAMC 5.24, deconstruction and source separation are required for all residential and commercial projects where structures (other 16 3 2 6 2 than a garage or ADU) are being completely removed, demolition is no longer allowed. Deconstruction takes longer than traditional demolition, it is important to plan ahead. For more information, visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction. 62. SALVAGE SURVEY FOR REUSE. A Salvage Survey is required for deconstruction permit applications. The survey shall be conducted by a City approved reuse vendor. The survey submittal shall include an itemized list of materials that are salvageable for reuse from the project. The applicant shall source separate and deliver materials for reuse. Certification is required indicating that all materials identified in the survey are properly salvaged. Contact The ReUse People to schedule this FREE survey by phone (888) 588-9490 or e-mail info@thereusepeople.org. More information can be found at www.TheReusePeople.org. Please upload a completed copy to the deconstruction permit. 63. SOURCE SEPARATION FOR RECYCLING. The applicant shall source separate deconstruction materials into specific categories for recycling. Additional staging areas for source separated materials will need to be considered. All materials shall be delivered to one of the City approved materials recovery facilities listed in Green Halo, all records shall be uploaded to www.greenhalosystems.com. For more information, refer to www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction. PUBLIC WORKS WATER QUALITY 64. Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) associated with refuse management (including actions related to refuse pick-up and the enclosure itself) shall be followed to ensure pollution prevention and preventing potential discharges to the City’s storm drain system. Stormwater BMPS include, but are not limited to, power washing the pavement on both the private property and in the right-of-way and sidewalk a minimum of once per year before the wet season begins on October 1st; utilizing a power washing contractor that is a Recognized Surface Cleaner by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA); disposing of wash water according to the Recognized Surface Cleaner certification requirements; and removing any potential trash build-up on a regular basis. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY 65. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full- sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. 17 3 2 6 2 b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T- 2, T-3, etc) and included in the sheet index for the plans submitted for building permit. 66. PLANS--SHOW PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing around each Regulated Trees, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T- 1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans; or using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 67. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. The following notes shall be included on the site plan for the plans submitted for building or grading permits: i. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. ii. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-654-3351"; iii. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” iv. Note #4. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496- 5953.” v. Note #5. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496- 5953) for any work on Public Trees” 62. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION 63. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, 18 3 2 6 2 roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 64. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 65. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 66. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 67. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. POST CONSTRUCTION 68. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. SECTION 8. Conditions of Approval Vesting Tentative Map. Planning 19 3 2 6 2 1. PROJECT PLANS. The Vesting Tentative Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map titled “Vesting Tentative Map 739 Sutter Avenue For Condominium Purposes City of Palo Alto, California”, prepared by BKF Engineers and submitted February 23, 2024, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of this approval. 2. DENSITY BONUS UNITS. The project seeks a waiver of the minimum street width requirements to permit a minimum 20-foot wide private street. In order to qualify for a waiver from this development standard the project shall provide a minimum of two (2) dwelling units at rates affordable to low income households, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. 3. FINAL MAP COVER PAGE. At such time as the Final Map is filed, the cover page shall include the name and title of the Director of Planning and Development Services. 4. STANDARD CC&R REQUIREMENTS. Section 16.38 of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code provides that all condominium and other “community housing projects” shall submit Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) to the City Attorney for approval before issuance of the Final Map. The City Attorney has developed the following standard covenants which shall be included in all CC&R’s. a. PROPERTY SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY ZONING ORDINANCES. The property, including all common areas, private streets and, parks within the property, shall at all times comply with the City’s Zoning Code and shall not be used for any purpose other than as permitted in the City Zoning Code. b. MODIFICATIONS TO PROPERTY. Any alterations, modifications, or other improvements to the property shall comply with all applicable City Codes. c. MAINTENANACE AND LANDSCAPING OF COMMON AREAS. The Association is responsible for maintenance and landscaping of all parts of the community housing project which are held in common and such maintenance shall be performed to the standard of maintenance prevalent in the neighborhood. (See PAMC Section 16.38.030(a)). d. TERMINATION OF MANAGER OR MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS. The association may terminate the contract of any person or organization engaged by the developer to perform management or maintenance duties three months after the association assumes control of the community housing project or any time thereafter. (See PAMC Section 16.38.030(b).) e. PROTECTION OF STORM WATER FACILITIES. Neither the association, its residents, nor their agents, employees, representatives, invitees, licensees, 20 3 2 6 2 customers, or contractors shall alter or modify any storm water facilities in any way including but not limited to placing, maintaining, constructing, or planting any improvements, landscaping or other items, including without limitation decks, stairs, walls, irrigation systems, trees, or any vegetation on any storm water facilities. f.TRASH DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING AREAS SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY ORDINANCES. All trash disposal and recycling areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and shall comply with all applicable City Ordinances. g. PROHIBITION AGAINST AIR AND WATER POLLUTION. Neither the association, its residents, nor their agents, employees, representatives, invitees, licensees, customers, or contractors shall use the property in any way which emits pollution into the atmosphere in excess of environmental standards set forth by City, State, and Federal laws, ordinances, and regulations. Neither the association, its residents, nor their agents, employees, representatives, invitees, licensees, customers, or contractors shall discharge garbage, trash, waste, or any other substance or materials of any kind into any private or public sewer or waterway on the property in violation of any regulations of any private or public body having jurisdiction over such matters. h. AMENDMENTS TO ORGANIZATION DOCUMENTS REQUIRE CITY APPROVAL. Any amendments or modifications to the organizational documents shall be submitted to the city attorney for approval. No amendment or modification to the organizational documents shall be effective without prior written consent of the city attorney. i. CITY’S RIGHT TO ENFORCE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS. The City is hereby granted the right, but in no event the duty, to enforce the covenants and restrictions set forth in this section of the organizational documents. The association shall recognize that it has the primary responsibility for enforcement of the organizational documents and unequivocally guarantees to institute and expeditiously prosecute any required legal action to obtain compliance with all provisions set forth in the organizational documents. j. NO WAIVER OF CITY’S RIGHTS. No failure of the City to enforce any of the covenants or restrictions contained in the organizational documents will in any event render them ineffective. k. CITY’S REMEDIES TO CURE A BREACH OR VIOLATION. Remedies available to the City to cure any breach or violation of the organizational documents shall be cumulative to any other provisions of law. The City’s failure to exercise any remedy provided for in the organizational documents shall not, under any circumstances, be construed as a waiver of the remedy. 21 3 2 6 2 l. SEVERABILITY. Invalidation of any one of the City’s required covenants or restrictions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. 5. ADDITIONAL CC&R REQUIREMENT. The CC&Rs shall also include a provision that dictates the responsibilities of tenants for the trash pickup for the townhomes as shown in the approved plan set. 6. FINAL MAP EXPIRATION. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto and its representatives, shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works Engineering Division within two years of the Vesting Tentative Map approval date or this approval will expire. A one-year extension may be granted in accordance with the allowances set forth in the municipal code. 7. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. The Property Owner or their designee shall pay all applicable development impact fees associated with the proposed development and subdivision prior to issuance of the building permit(s), as detailed in the Streamlined Housing Development Review Approval. 8. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. Public Works Engineering 9. PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS, FORMS, AND DOCUMENTS. Applicant shall be advised that most forms, applications, and informational documents related to Public Works Engineering conditions can be found at the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering- Services/Forms-and-Permits 10. OVERVIEW AND GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION PROJECTS. Developer shall familiarize themselves with the guidelines described in the November 2007 revision of the document titled “Overview and Guidelines for the Review of Subdivision Projects”. Particularly Section II (items 5 through 12) and Section V (items A through C). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development- services/file-migration/current-planning/forms-and-guidelines/overview-and- 22 3 2 6 2 guidelines-for-the-review-of-subdivision-projects.pdf 11. MAP THIRD-PARTY REVIEW. The City contracts with a third-party surveyor that will review and provide approval of the map’s technical correctness as the City Surveyor, as permitted by the Subdivision Map Act. The Public Works Department will forward a Scope & Fee Letter from the third-party surveyor and the applicant will be responsible for payment of the fee’s indicated therein, which is based on the complexity of the map. 12. STREETWORK PERMIT. The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements. 13. GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT. A Grading Permit is required per PAMC Chapter 16.28. The permit application and all applicable documents (see Section H of application) shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering. Add the following note: “THIS GRADING PERMIT WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE GENERAL GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OTHER BUILDING AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.” 14. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STATEMENT: The grading plans shall include the following statement signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record: “THIS PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT”. 15. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work that encroaches onto the City right-of-way. 16. LOGISTICS PLAN: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit. SECTION 9. Terms of Approval. 1. Streamlined Housing Development Review. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. 2. Vesting Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Vesting Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]). Unless a Final 23 3 2 6 2 Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Vesting Tentative Map approval, the Vesting Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. An extension of time may be granted by the city council after recommendation of the planning commission, upon the written application of the subdivider, prior to the expiration of the Vesting Tentative Map approval, or any previous extension granted. Such extension(s) shall be subject to the maximum limitations set forth in the Subdivision Map Act. // // // // // // // // // // // // // INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: 24 3 2 6 2 ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Development Services PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by Dahlin Group titled “739 Sutter Avenue by Ge Sun Palo Alto, California Streamlined Housing Development Review Set” consisting of XXX pages, dated and submitted February 8, 2024. Those plans prepared by BKF Engineers titled “Vesting Tentative Map 739 Sutter Avenue For Condominium Purposes City of Palo Alto, California,” consisting of nine pages, dated February 20, 2024 and submitted February 24, 2024. ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com March 27, 2024 Via Hand Delivery and Electronic Mail: jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org, veronica.dao@cityofpaloalto.org and vinhloc.nguyen@cityofpaloalto.org. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning City of Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project, 22PLN-00201 – Appeal Pursuant to Title 18.77.073 of Palo Alto Municipal Code Dear Ms. Gerhardt: Silicon Valley Law Group (SVLG) has been retained by the San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association (SCCNA) to prepare this letter pertaining to the proposal to develop a 12-unit, three-story, over 35-foot-tall, multi-family residential project at 739 Sutter Avenue in Palo Alto (21PLN-00222/22PLN-00201) (the “Project”). SCCNA opposes the development of high-density housing on said parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 125-35-200). This letter is in support of our appeal of your March 18, 2024, approval of the above referenced project. On behalf of SCCNA, we request that the Project be heard by the City Council. We further request that the City Council not place this matter on the consent calendar, but instead place it on an agenda for a separate hearing. I. Introduction SVLG submitted letters dated August 30, 2023, and November 1, 2023, which set forth the reasons why the Project was not adequately reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a project with potentially significant environmental impacts. It is our position, that at a minimum, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/MND) must be prepared. A Class 32 Categorical Exemption was instead incorrectly prepared against our objections. Our August 30, 2023, letter is attached as Exhibit 1, and our November 1, 2023, letter is attached as Exhibit 2. We reiterate the concerns set forth in these letters and incorporate them herein. As we stated previously in our previous letters, there can be no question that an increase in multi-story high-density residential units on the Project site, all of which will be 3-bedroom, will result in significant traffic, and construction-related noise and air quality impacts and public safety issues. One of the main criteria for the preparation of a Categorical Exemption (CE) is Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept March 27, 2024 Page 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10655899.DOCX that new construction would not result in the development of more than six total dwelling units (Class 3, Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines). The proposed Project is clearly in violation of this CEQA requirement. In addition, the other criteria for a CE are not met: the Project is not consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; and approval of the Project will result in significant effects relating to traffic and noise. Under Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18.77.073(e), an appeal of the approval must show: (A) the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition the project be developed at a lower density; and (B) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to subsection (d)(2)(B)(i), other than disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. II. Discussion 1. The project will have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety. As set forth in our previous letters, the Project will have an adverse impact on public health and safety. Our letters explain that the plans for the site appear to show potential conflicts between automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle travel pathways. The CE for the project states that emergency access is not required for the site based on access from Sutter Avenue. However, the CE also states that “due to existing overhead lines, aerial ladder access is not included in the proposed fire safety plan for this site.” If fire access is supposed to be provided from trucks on Sutter Avenue, yet overhead lines do not allow aerial ladder access, how are fires supposed to be adequately fought? As described above, the nearest distance between the 3-story project and the neighboring homes is 12 feet. If a fire is not immediately extinguished, multiple residential homes could be burned to the ground, especially for a project with such reduced setbacks and heights in excess of what is allowed in the Municipal Code. This is a significant CEQA impact due to inadequate emergency access, not adequately studied in the CE. This must be corrected by the preparation of an IS/MND. In addition, the proposed method of providing emergency fire services to the back of the site, in particular, the use of only ground ladders, is not supported in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. For example, Policy S-2.13: “Minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through rapid emergency response, proactive code enforcement, public education programs, use of modern fire prevention measures and adequate emergency management preparation.” The use of ladders only rather than aerial access to 32-foot-tall structures proposed for the back of the site cannot be considered to be rapid or modern fire prevention measures. Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept March 27, 2024 Page 3 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10655899.DOCX The February 2023 fire in Palo Alto that damaged AJ's Cleaners, Philz Coffee, Bill's Cafe and Palo Alto Fine Wine & Spirits highlights the real fire danger posed in a densely populated area. We are concerned that the fact that there is only 12 feet from 7 unit, 3 story Building 2 project to the San Carlos Court homes creates an unacceptable increased fire risk. We believe it is critical that the City evaluate these risks, in addition to the other public health issues we have raised in our previous letters, in an IS/MND. 2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other than disapproval of the Project. The Project as approved does not mitigate the numerous issues we have raised and should not be approved. 3. The Project does not consider the impact on the members of the SCCNA. The current plan shows no reference to the four neighboring R1 homes on San Carlos Court being on substandard lots of sizes less than 5,000 square feet, which caps their buildable height to only one story. The proposed third floor balconies and choice of trees for screening along the back fence do not take the nature of the substandard lot homes into proper consideration and create a situation for invasion of privacy as they are currently designed. Essentially, the homeowners on San Carlos Court will lose all their privacy given the third-floor balconies. This is not only a privacy issue, it is also a public safety issue. A. Appropriate trees should be planted for privacy. The trees depicted in the Project plans do not accurately reflect the actual trees that will be proposed - there will be no such trees in between the buildings. The planting list (page 46 of Cycle 6) suggested twenty-four 24"-box sized Podocarpus in total (See screenshot below). These trees are not tall enough to serve as rear screening between the R20 zone development and the R1 zone residentials. Considering the height of Building 2 is 32 feet, and the distance between the San Carlos Court substandard homes and the three stories is 12-32 feet from the nearest to the furthest, we strongly request the developer consider a better solution on the rear screening by updating the plants to 48”-box sized Laurus Nobiles Saratoga trees as recommended by Vavuris Landscaping (a licensed landscaper) in the letter attached as Exhibit C. It is suggested that the hedges would need to be grown to 12-15 feet high to preserve privacy for both the existing homes and the new residences. Current plant does not meet the requirement. (Recommendation letter attached for further reference.) Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept March 27, 2024 Page 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10655899.DOCX Any design should be consistent with 18.16.060 Multiple Family Context-Based Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards which states: C. Respecting privacy of neighboring structures, with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties (Figure 2-3); D. Minimizing sight lines into and from neighboring properties (Figure 2-3); Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept March 27, 2024 Page 5 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10655899.DOCX Figure 2-3 The developer should plant trees that will create a proper screening wall of foliage that will provide privacy. In addition, the plan shows benches being added along the fence between rear Building 2 and the San Carlos Court single-story residential homes. We consider this inappropriate and creates more privacy concerns. We request the benches along the rear fence be removed. Instead of benches, we urge the developer to add more trees that are tall enough for rear screening. B. The third-floor balconies should be removed. The rendering shown in the application package shows the problems with the Project. We strongly request the developer to remove the balcony on the third floor. The Project plans highlight our concerns: page 4 of the application depicts a person actually standing on the far left balcony and looking into our yard, and even taking pictures! https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/new- development-projects/739-sutter/c6_739-sutter-ave_plans.pdf The lack of privacy presents a threat to the safety of the homeowners. The occupants of the Project will look directly into the SCCNA members’ homes. As stated below, additional measures must be implemented. The 3rd floor balconies of the Building 2 put all San Carlos Court homes under the full views from the project. We request the developer to remove the balconies from the Building 2. Below is an image of the relationship between the homes and the 3 stories. There would be no privacy for San Carlos Court neighbors. Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept March 27, 2024 Page 6 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10655899.DOCX In addition, the developer seems to encourage people to take photos from the balconies which shows no respect to the surrounding neighbors. (Page 4 of Cycle 6. See a screenshot below) Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept March 27, 2024 Page 7 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10655899.DOCX C. Current trash staging plan defies existing city policy and raises serious enforcement questions. As stated in the “Trash Staging Area Exhibit”, (Page 6 of Cycle 6, see a copy below), the notion that the City will allow the plan to block the public from parking on the street during “refuse service hours” appears to defy existing city policy. The refuse plan is also incorrect because it does not show the required 2-foot separation between trash containers. When that is included, the entire frontage of the plan is insufficient in size. Currently, cars park on the street there. Where would those cars go? Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept March 27, 2024 Page 8 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10655899.DOCX Any design should be consistent with 18.16.060 Multiple Family Context-Based Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards which states: 4. Density Bonus Law The Project is not adding five or more units as required un the City’s Density Bonus Law (Palo Alto Municipal Code. 18.15.020(j)). How is this not a violation of the City’s Code? 5. The Project Requires a Full CEQA Evaluation and does not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (CE) CEQA requires an analysis of the potential for the Project to cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept March 27, 2024 Page 9 ____________________________________________________________________________  1 N. Market Street   Suite 200   San Jose   CA  95113    408.573.5700    Fax 408.573.5701    www.svlg.com  10655899.DOCX  the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect. This includes the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Housing Element policies. As stated in the recently approved 2023-2031 Housing Element, “The single-family neighborhood site development regulations are intended to ensure that much of what Palo Alto cherishes in its residential areas, such as open space areas, attractive streetscapes with mature landscaping, and variety in architectural styles, are preserved and protected.” The Project is not consistent with any of the policies that promote the protection of existing single-family residential neighborhoods, thus is inconsistent with the CEQA Guidelines. At a minimum, this must be discussed in an IS/MND. In conclusion, we continue to believe there is substantial evidence to show that the project is not consistent with a Class 32 Categorical Exemption as defined by Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. For all the above reasons, we request that the 739 Sutter Avenue project be denied until an adequate CEQA document is prepared. Accordingly, we request that the Project be brought before the City Council so it has the opportunity to fully evaluate the impacts of the Project. Respectfully Submitted, SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP _____________________________ Laurie Berger cc: Claire Raybould, Senior Planner, City of Palo Alto San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association Ed Kraus, Silicon Valley Law Group Mayor Lydia Kou Vice Mayor Greer Stone Council Member Patrick Burt Council Member Ed Lauing Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims Council Member Greg Tanaka Council Member Vicki Veenker EXHIBIT A August 30, 2023 Via Federal Express & Electronic Mail: claire.raybould@cityofpaloalto.org Claire Raybould Senior Planner City of Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project, 21PLN-00222 Dear Ms. Raybould: Silicon Valley Law Group (SVLG) has been retained by the San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association (SCCNA) to prepare this letter pertaining to a proposal to develop a 12-unit, three-story, over 35-foot-tall, multi-family residential project at 739 Sutter Avenue in Palo Alto (21PLN-00222) (the “Project”). SCCNA opposes the development of high-density housing on said parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 125-35-200) and requests that the City deny the application. SCCNA also requests that the Project be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a project with potentially significant environmental impacts. A Class 32 Categorical Exemption, as you currently propose in your communications to SVLG and SCCNA, is not the appropriate CEQA document for a project that would result in potentially significant traffic, air quality, noise, water quality, historic, safety, and aesthetic impacts to the adjacent single-family residential uses on San Carlos Court. 1. The Project is Inconsistent with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, General and Comprehensive Plans, Housing Element and the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. We believe the design of the Project is inconsistent with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, General and Comprehensive Plans, and 2023-2031 Housing Element, further disallowing the use of a Class 32 Categorical Exemption for the project. The Project includes inadequate driveway widths for adequate fire and emergency personnel access to the site, putting the project and all surrounding development in jeopardy should a fire occur. The lack of landscaping on the northwestern side of the project adjacent to the existing residential development on San Carlos Court is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The location of private open space areas on the top floors of the proposed structures appear very dangerous and unsafe, as well as intrusive to the Letter to Claire Raybould August 30, 2023 Page 2 10637881.DOCX existing neighborhood. This Project creates significant privacy concerns given that the windows, sliding glass doors and decks of the Project face the San Carlos Court properties. In addition, the removal of existing trees creates privacy concerns. We would like additional information regarding the size of the new trees that will be planted. Further, the plan set shows no meaningful elevations of the back of the project to show exactly how intrusive the proposed 35-foot, 4.5-inch-tall residential buildings will be to the existing one- and two-story residences on San Carlos Court. There is no “stepping back” of the structure to respect the existing single-family neighborhood and backyards. Private open space areas are not shown in sufficient detail to give the public and decision-makers any indication of the severity of the intrusion to the neighborhood. There is no shade and shadow, daylight plane, or lighting analyses included in the application as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The plans do not appear to specify a distance to confirm the line of sight. It is also unclear how far back the developer is committed to recessing the decks and whether the rear building will have rooftop open space. We believe the health, safety, and welfare of the existing residents will be adversely affected by the Project as proposed. Therefore, an adequate evaluation of potentially significant impacts has not been completed – all of which constitute a violation of CEQA. We must also point out that developments of this density and height do not currently exist in this area of the City and the Project is out of character for the neighborhood. 2. The Project Requires a Full CEQA Evaluation and does not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption There can be no question that an increase in multi-story high-density residential units on the Project site, all of which will be 3-bedroom, will result in additional traffic accessing the site and creating impacts on neighboring streets – especially since the project is not transit- oriented, that is, located in an area of readily available transit or a Caltrain Station. This is especially true if the Project includes an inadequate amount of parking. Further, the plans for the site appear to show potential conflicts between automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle travel pathways. Bicycle parking is not shown on the site plan. Therefore, the Project has the potential to result in significant traffic, access, and safety impacts and mitigation is not provided. This is a violation of CEQA. Long-term noise impacts will be significant, especially with private open space areas and air conditioning/heating units ostensibly located on the back side of the northernmost building adjacent to existing single-family homes. Where and how will storm drainage and storage and waste collection facilities be located on such a densely developed site? Construction-related traffic, noise, and air quality impacts must also be evaluated in the CEQA document and feasible mitigation measures included in the project to protect the surrounding residents, especially children, from detrimental impacts. Toxic air contaminants and greenhouse gas emissions produced during construction could be significant and must be evaluated. The City has identified a need for a historic evaluation of the existing buildings on the project site Letter to Claire Raybould August 30, 2023 Page 3 10637881.DOCX because they were built over 45 years ago. No such evaluation has been completed and impacts and mitigation measures must be included in a CEQA document. CEQA requires an analysis of the potential for the Project to cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect. This includes the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Housing Element policies. As stated in the recently approved 2023-2031 Housing Element, “The single-family neighborhood site development regulations are intended to ensure that much of what Palo Alto cherishes in its residential areas, such as open space areas, attractive streetscapes with mature landscaping, and variety in architectural styles, are preserved and protected.” The Project is not consistent with any of the policies that promote the protection of existing single-family residential neighborhoods, thus is inconsistent with the CEQA Guidelines. 3. The Project includes too many variances, waivers, and concessions. According to the most recent plans submitted by the applicant on July 21, 2023, the project requires no fewer than 14 waivers or concessions. This is excessive for a project that is proposed to be consistent with “Density Bonus Law.” We believe that the project is allowing more variances, waivers, and concessions than allowed by City Ordinance and State Law. The drawings in the revised plan set that demonstrate all the proposed waivers are disturbing. It appears that the City is brushing aside many of the significant issues, including driveway widths, inadequate landscaping and open space, significant reduction in setbacks, light intrusion, density, parking, and building heights. For example, to reduce setbacks by more than half in the front and side yards makes the project not only significantly inconsistent with the existing neighborhood, but also creates a significant aesthetic impact to the existing single-family neighborhood. Coupled with the proposed increase in building heights, impacts to the surrounding neighborhood will be significant and property values of the homes on San Carlos Court will be detrimentally affected. Further, it does not make sense that constructing a shorter building will cost less than a taller structure, as stated in the revised plan set. The revised plan set does not include adequate justification for the proposed waivers. We cannot find an Exhibit B in the plan set that is supposed to be a “waiver/concession justification letter.” The plan set sheets do not provide such justification. We would like to receive that document as well as the historical analysis prior to any approval actions for the project. In conclusion, we caution the City against allowing so many waivers for a project that will significantly affect the existing single-family neighborhoods. This practice is ill-advised because it ignores the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as many of the virtues of living in Palo Alto. We believe there is substantial evidence to show that the project is not consistent with a Class 32 Categorical Exemption as defined by Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. For all Letter to Claire Raybould August 30, 2023 Page 4 10637881.DOCX the above reasons, we request that the 739 Sutter Avenue project be placed on hold until an adequate CEQA document is prepared. Respectfully Submitted, SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP ____________________________ Laurie Berger cc: San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association Ed Kraus, Silicon Valley Law Group Mayor Lydia Kou Vice Mayor Greer Stone Council Member Patrick Burt Council Member Ed Lauing Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims Council Member Greg Tanaka Council Member Vicki Veenker EXHIBIT B ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com November 1, 2023 Via Hand Delivery and Electronic Mail: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project, 21PLN-00222/22PLN-00201 Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board: Silicon Valley Law Group (SVLG) has been retained by the San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association (SCCNA) to prepare this letter pertaining to a proposal to develop a 12-unit, three-story, over 35-foot-tall, multi-family residential project at 739 Sutter Avenue in Palo Alto (21PLN-00222/22PLN-00201) (the “Project”). SCCNA opposes the development of high-density housing on said parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 125-35-200) and requests that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) deny the application. This is our second letter related to the Project. Our first was addressed to Claire Raybould, Senior Planner and sent on August 30, 2023. Unfortunately, planning staff has neither provided a detailed response to our letter nor revised the plan set sufficiently to address our concerns. In addition, and most alarming, we find that the project was not adequately reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a project with potentially significant environmental impacts. Therefore, at least an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/MND) must be prepared. A Class 32 Categorical Exemption was instead incorrectly prepared against our objections. Our August 30, 2023, letter is attached as Attachment 1, and we reiterate the concerns set forth in that letter and incorporate them herein. 1. The Project Requires a Full CEQA Evaluation and does not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (CE) As we stated previously in our August letter, there can be no question that an increase in multi-story high-density residential units on the Project site, all of which will be 3-bedroom, will result in significant traffic, and construction-related noise and air quality impacts. One of the main criteria for the preparation of a CE is that new construction would not result in the development of more than six total dwelling units (Class 3, Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines). The proposed Project is clearly in violation of this CEQA requirement. Letter to Architectural Review Board November 1, 2023 Page 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10642460.DOCX A. Consistency with Plans and Policies The CE also states that the project is consistent with all applicable General Plan and Zoning policies and recommendations. Yet, the staff report for the project states that the only way it meets these requirements is through the granting of fourteen waivers and concessions by the City. This is not how an analysis of consistency per CEQA should be completed. It should be stated for the edification of the public and decision-makers, that the project is inconsistent with these important policies. CEQA requires an analysis of the potential for the Project to cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect. This includes the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Housing Element policies. As stated in the recently approved 2023-2031 Housing Element, “The single-family neighborhood site development regulations are intended to ensure that much of what Palo Alto cherishes in its residential areas, such as open space areas, attractive streetscapes with mature landscaping, and variety in architectural styles, are preserved and protected.” The Project is not consistent with any of the policies that promote the protection of existing single-family residential neighborhoods, thus is inconsistent with the CEQA Guidelines. At a minimum, this must be discussed in an IS/MND. Further, the only goals and policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan that are discussed are Goals L-2 and L-3. The Project is not consistent with Policy L-1.3 which states: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. In addition, the project is not consistent with Policy L-1.11 which states: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. Neither of these policies, or others in the Comprehensive Plan that the Project is inconsistent with, are discussed in the CE. In the staff report, staff recommends that the ARB study “whether minor adjustments to the application would result in closer adherence to the objective design standards contained in Chapter 18.24, Objective Standards, consistent with the streamlined review pursuant to 18.77.073 for housing development projects.” Again, this analysis should have been included in the preparation of at least an IS/MND. The CE does not discuss this inconsistency with Palo Alto Goals and Policies. This is a violation of CEQA. Letter to Architectural Review Board November 1, 2023 Page 3 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10642460.DOCX B. Traffic Impacts As stated in the CE prepared for the Project, the single-family residential neighborhood immediately adjacent to the northwest boundary of the site (sidewalks are within three feet of the fence-line) will be significantly affected by a project that would be better located in a transit- oriented area. There will be an increase in the number of residents adding to existing traffic concerns. There is no discussion of how far away employment opportunities are located. The number of trips at nearby intersections is immaterial to the determination of traffic-related air and noise impacts and must be revised in at least an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project. C. Construction-related Noise Impacts and Aesthetics Construction-related noise is inadequately addressed and studied in the CE. According to the website for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), only 8 hours of exposure to 90 dBA is allowed and only two hours of exposure to 100 dBA sound levels is allowed for workers. To subject the adjacent residential uses to construction noise levels as high as 97 dBA for a 15-month construction period can cause long-term hearing loss, especially in children. Many residents are now working from home and this level of noise all day long will interrupt their ability to effectively work and support their families. This important information would not have been taken into account when the City determined what threshold to use for noise impacts during construction. This is not discussed or evaluated in the CE and an IS/MND must be prepared to fully understand this impact and identify sufficient feasible mitigation measures to mitigate this impact. Sufficient mitigation could include a reduction in construction hours, installation of noise barriers, use of more noise-abating equipment rather than heavy construction equipment, etc. In addition, we were under the impression that all roof decks were being removed from the units on the northwest side of the proposed building. This is stated on the Final Waiver plans for the site. Yet, the CE evaluates the noise generated by the roof decks in this location. This leaves residents confused as to what the future condition will be related to noise intrusion from the Project. Further, according to the staff report, the applicant declined to have a standard shade and shadow analysis completed for the Project. This must be completed to determine obvious impacts to the single-family residences on San Carlos Court. Is the applicant trying to hide these impacts? As shown in the rendering below, the Project will have a significant aesthetic impact on the San Carlos Court homes. This rendering shows how the Project will be viewed from San Carlos Court – in addition to the other impacts described above, the current homeowners will lose their privacy and face security concerns given that the residents of the Project will look right into the existing homes and yards. Letter to Architectural Review Board November 1, 2023 Page 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10642460.DOCX D. Construction-related Air Quality and Hazardous Materials Impacts Air quality impacts must also be evaluated in the CEQA document and feasible mitigation measures included in the project to protect the surrounding residents, especially children, from detrimental impacts. The analysis completed for the CE does not include a discussion of the use of Tier 3 and 4 heavy equipment or greater to reduce air quality impacts during demolition and construction. This must be required of the Project just as it is in similar development projects in the Bay area by the Bay Area Air Management District (BAAQMD). There is no discussion in the CE of the potential for lead, asbestos, or PCBs to be in the demolition materials. Given the age of the existing structures, this should have been analyzed by qualified hazardous materials experts in a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Exposure of adjacent residents to these harmful contaminants is yet another impact not disclosed in the inadequate CE. Impacts could especially affect children, the elderly, and those with respiratory conditions. The transport of such materials off-site is also an impact in addition to the potential for such materials to be in the soils. This analysis must occur as part of the preparation of at least an IS/MND in accordance with CEQA. The analysis of the impacts of toxic air contaminants during construction also do not include an analysis of impacts during demolition. Further, it cannot be assumed that an 8-unit multi-family building can be demolished and all site preparation and grading activities in three days – no matter what the applicant claims! Trenching for underground utilities alone cannot be completed in that short of a timeframe. To assume such a short emission period for PM10 and Letter to Architectural Review Board November 1, 2023 Page 5 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10642460.DOCX PM2.5 emissions renders the analysis inadequate to say the least. The public and decisionmakers must have better information to make an informed decision about how the health of the adjacent residents will be affected. No such evaluation has been completed and impacts and mitigation measures must be included in a CEQA document. 2. Inadequate Emergency Access As we stated in our previous letter, the plans for the site appear to show potential conflicts between automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle travel pathways. Bicycle parking is not shown on the site plan. The CE for the project states that “emergency access is not required for the site” based on access from Sutter Avenue. However, the CE also states that “due to existing overhead lines, aerial ladder access is not included in the proposed fire safety plan for this site.” If fire access is supposed to be provided from trucks on Sutter Avenue, yet overhead lines do not allow aerial ladder access, how are fires supposed to be adequately fought? If a fire is not immediately extinguished, multiple residential buildings in the area could be burned to the ground, especially for a Project with such reduced setbacks and heights in excess of what is allowed in the Municipal Code. This is a significant CEQA impact due to inadequate emergency access, not adequately studied in the CE. This must be corrected by the preparation of an IS/MND. In addition, the proposed method of providing emergency fire services to the back of the site, in particular, the use of only ground ladders, is not supported in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. For example, Policy S-2.13: “Minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through rapid emergency response, proactive code enforcement, public education programs, use of modern fire prevention measures and adequate emergency management preparation.” The use of ladders only rather than aerial access to 32-foot-tall structures proposed for the back of the site cannot be considered to be rapid or modern fire prevention measures. The February 2023 fire in Palo Alto that damaged AJ's Cleaners, Philz Coffee, Bill's Cafe and Palo Alto Fine Wine & Spirits highlights the real fire danger posed in a densely populated area. We are concerned that the fact that there is only 10 feet from the second floor of the proposed Project to the San Carlos Court homes creates an unacceptable increased fire risk. Based on the above, it is critical that the City evaluate these risks in an IS/MND. 3. Too Many Waivers and Concessions According to the most recent plans submitted by the applicant and the staff report, the project requires no fewer than 14 waivers and at least one concession. This is excessive for a project that is proposed to be consistent with “Density Bonus Law” and Palo Alto General and Comprehensive Plans goals and policies. The sheer fact that so many waivers from Municipal Code requirements are required for the Project shows how out of character it is with the existing neighborhood. Yet, these conflicts, are inadequately analyzed in the CE. Again, this Letter to Architectural Review Board November 1, 2023 Page 6 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10642460.DOCX type of development should be in a transit-oriented area of the City where higher densities are expected and supported. The drawings in the revised plan set that demonstrate in red all the proposed waivers are disturbing. It appears that the City is brushing aside many of the significant issues, including driveway widths, inadequate landscaping and open space, significant reduction in setbacks, light intrusion, density, parking, fire safety, and building heights. This is being done at the risk of significantly affecting an existing residential neighborhood – and all for just four additional residential units in the City! To reduce setbacks by more than half in the front and side yards makes the project not only significantly inconsistent with the existing neighborhood, but also creates a significant aesthetic and fire impact to the existing single-family neighborhood. Coupled with the proposed increase in building heights, impacts to the surrounding neighborhood will be significant and property values of the homes on San Carlos Court will be detrimentally affected. Only a few trees can even be seen on the northwest side of the site to attempt to screen the development from the existing homes. This is inadequate and just another example of how the granting of extreme waivers does not respect long-standing existing neighborhoods. The revised plan set does not include adequate justification for the proposed waivers. We find the waiver/concession justification letter to be inadequate for a project that is so out of character with the neighborhood. There are no other projects of this density and height in this area of the City. In fact, the Project site is not even listed as a housing site in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. We assume that was intentional due to the potential impacts to residents right over the fence. 4. Project is Subject to the Current Code Requirement As stated on Page 9 of the staff report, the applicant has not met the letter of the law in terms of submitting application materials in a timely manner consistent with SB 330. The staff report states, “Therefore, the project is not subject to streamline in accordance with SB 330 and is subject to the current code requirements, including the objective design standards set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.24.” Why is the applicant “also eligible to utilize the process set forth in the code for housing development projects under the Streamlined Housing Development Review?” This makes no sense. The developer must be held to the same standards as all other residential developers in every part of the City. We do not understand why this applicant is getting special treatment and the ability to use so many waivers and concessions inconsistent with the Municipal Code at the expense of existing residents. In conclusion, we continue to believe there is substantial evidence to show that the project is not consistent with a Class 32 Categorical Exemption as defined by Section 15332 of Letter to Architectural Review Board November 1, 2023 Page 7 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10642460.DOCX the CEQA Guidelines. For all the above reasons, we request that the 739 Sutter Avenue project be denied until an adequate CEQA document is prepared. Respectfully Submitted, SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP _____________________________ Laurie Berger cc: Claire Raybould, Senior Planner, City of Palo Alto San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association Ed Kraus, Silicon Valley Law Group Mayor Lydia Kou Vice Mayor Greer Stone Council Member Patrick Burt Council Member Ed Lauing Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims Council Member Greg Tanaka Council Member Vicki Veenker ATTACHMENT 1 August 30, 2023 Via Federal Express & Electronic Mail: claire.raybould@cityofpaloalto.org Claire Raybould Senior Planner City of Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project, 21PLN-00222 Dear Ms. Raybould: Silicon Valley Law Group (SVLG) has been retained by the San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association (SCCNA) to prepare this letter pertaining to a proposal to develop a 12-unit, three-story, over 35-foot-tall, multi-family residential project at 739 Sutter Avenue in Palo Alto (21PLN-00222) (the “Project”). SCCNA opposes the development of high-density housing on said parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 125-35-200) and requests that the City deny the application. SCCNA also requests that the Project be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a project with potentially significant environmental impacts. A Class 32 Categorical Exemption, as you currently propose in your communications to SVLG and SCCNA, is not the appropriate CEQA document for a project that would result in potentially significant traffic, air quality, noise, water quality, historic, safety, and aesthetic impacts to the adjacent single-family residential uses on San Carlos Court. 1. The Project is Inconsistent with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, General and Comprehensive Plans, Housing Element and the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. We believe the design of the Project is inconsistent with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, General and Comprehensive Plans, and 2023-2031 Housing Element, further disallowing the use of a Class 32 Categorical Exemption for the project. The Project includes inadequate driveway widths for adequate fire and emergency personnel access to the site, putting the project and all surrounding development in jeopardy should a fire occur. The lack of landscaping on the northwestern side of the project adjacent to the existing residential development on San Carlos Court is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The location of private open space areas on the top floors of the proposed structures appear very dangerous and unsafe, as well as intrusive to the Letter to Claire Raybould August 30, 2023 Page 2 10637881.DOCX existing neighborhood. This Project creates significant privacy concerns given that the windows, sliding glass doors and decks of the Project face the San Carlos Court properties. In addition, the removal of existing trees creates privacy concerns. We would like additional information regarding the size of the new trees that will be planted. Further, the plan set shows no meaningful elevations of the back of the project to show exactly how intrusive the proposed 35-foot, 4.5-inch-tall residential buildings will be to the existing one- and two-story residences on San Carlos Court. There is no “stepping back” of the structure to respect the existing single-family neighborhood and backyards. Private open space areas are not shown in sufficient detail to give the public and decision-makers any indication of the severity of the intrusion to the neighborhood. There is no shade and shadow, daylight plane, or lighting analyses included in the application as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The plans do not appear to specify a distance to confirm the line of sight. It is also unclear how far back the developer is committed to recessing the decks and whether the rear building will have rooftop open space. We believe the health, safety, and welfare of the existing residents will be adversely affected by the Project as proposed. Therefore, an adequate evaluation of potentially significant impacts has not been completed – all of which constitute a violation of CEQA. We must also point out that developments of this density and height do not currently exist in this area of the City and the Project is out of character for the neighborhood. 2. The Project Requires a Full CEQA Evaluation and does not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption There can be no question that an increase in multi-story high-density residential units on the Project site, all of which will be 3-bedroom, will result in additional traffic accessing the site and creating impacts on neighboring streets – especially since the project is not transit- oriented, that is, located in an area of readily available transit or a Caltrain Station. This is especially true if the Project includes an inadequate amount of parking. Further, the plans for the site appear to show potential conflicts between automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle travel pathways. Bicycle parking is not shown on the site plan. Therefore, the Project has the potential to result in significant traffic, access, and safety impacts and mitigation is not provided. This is a violation of CEQA. Long-term noise impacts will be significant, especially with private open space areas and air conditioning/heating units ostensibly located on the back side of the northernmost building adjacent to existing single-family homes. Where and how will storm drainage and storage and waste collection facilities be located on such a densely developed site? Construction-related traffic, noise, and air quality impacts must also be evaluated in the CEQA document and feasible mitigation measures included in the project to protect the surrounding residents, especially children, from detrimental impacts. Toxic air contaminants and greenhouse gas emissions produced during construction could be significant and must be evaluated. The City has identified a need for a historic evaluation of the existing buildings on the project site Letter to Claire Raybould August 30, 2023 Page 3 10637881.DOCX because they were built over 45 years ago. No such evaluation has been completed and impacts and mitigation measures must be included in a CEQA document. CEQA requires an analysis of the potential for the Project to cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect. This includes the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Housing Element policies. As stated in the recently approved 2023-2031 Housing Element, “The single-family neighborhood site development regulations are intended to ensure that much of what Palo Alto cherishes in its residential areas, such as open space areas, attractive streetscapes with mature landscaping, and variety in architectural styles, are preserved and protected.” The Project is not consistent with any of the policies that promote the protection of existing single-family residential neighborhoods, thus is inconsistent with the CEQA Guidelines. 3. The Project includes too many variances, waivers, and concessions. According to the most recent plans submitted by the applicant on July 21, 2023, the project requires no fewer than 14 waivers or concessions. This is excessive for a project that is proposed to be consistent with “Density Bonus Law.” We believe that the project is allowing more variances, waivers, and concessions than allowed by City Ordinance and State Law. The drawings in the revised plan set that demonstrate all the proposed waivers are disturbing. It appears that the City is brushing aside many of the significant issues, including driveway widths, inadequate landscaping and open space, significant reduction in setbacks, light intrusion, density, parking, and building heights. For example, to reduce setbacks by more than half in the front and side yards makes the project not only significantly inconsistent with the existing neighborhood, but also creates a significant aesthetic impact to the existing single-family neighborhood. Coupled with the proposed increase in building heights, impacts to the surrounding neighborhood will be significant and property values of the homes on San Carlos Court will be detrimentally affected. Further, it does not make sense that constructing a shorter building will cost less than a taller structure, as stated in the revised plan set. The revised plan set does not include adequate justification for the proposed waivers. We cannot find an Exhibit B in the plan set that is supposed to be a “waiver/concession justification letter.” The plan set sheets do not provide such justification. We would like to receive that document as well as the historical analysis prior to any approval actions for the project. In conclusion, we caution the City against allowing so many waivers for a project that will significantly affect the existing single-family neighborhoods. This practice is ill-advised because it ignores the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as many of the virtues of living in Palo Alto. We believe there is substantial evidence to show that the project is not consistent with a Class 32 Categorical Exemption as defined by Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. For all Letter to Claire Raybould August 30, 2023 Page 4 10637881.DOCX the above reasons, we request that the 739 Sutter Avenue project be placed on hold until an adequate CEQA document is prepared. Respectfully Submitted, SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP ____________________________ Laurie Berger cc: San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association Ed Kraus, Silicon Valley Law Group Mayor Lydia Kou Vice Mayor Greer Stone Council Member Patrick Burt Council Member Ed Lauing Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims Council Member Greg Tanaka Council Member Vicki Veenker EXHIBIT C Vavuris Landscaping Contractor’s License Number 393-599 570 Matadero Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 208-0724 VavurisLandscaping@yahoo.com March 27, 2024 To Whom It May Concern: I have been a licensed landscape contractor for over 40 years. I was asked for a consultaSon regarding the new development and the effect it will have on the backyards for the 3 homes residing on 734, 746 and 750 San Carlos Ct in Palo Alto. I was informed that the new building will be approximately 30 feet high +/- and 10 feet back from respecSve property lines. With this design it will significantly impact the backyards of these 3 addresses by creaSng an enSrely new microclimate by blocking the morning sun. This could require the homeowners to change the planSng and exisSng landscape to be more suitable to the new micro-climate. To fully understand the impact of this you will need to have a sun-angle study completed. For a suitable screening opSon, the new plants would need to be placed 3 feet from fence line and 8 feet on center running along all 3 addresses and maintained in the future with a semi formal hedge. These hedges would need to be grown to the proper height of 12-15 feet in order to preserve privacy for both the exisSng residences and new building. This potenSally may need to be wri]en into the deeds as a requirement so they cannot be cut down My suggesSon for the screening would be to plant Laurus Nobiles Saratoga standards in 48” boxes to start. Plants would need to be inspected prior to purchase by a qualified buyer to ensure the plants are not rootbound. This is criScal for success of the plants and their future long-term growth in order to adequately provide the screening needed. The developer’s suggesSon of Podocarpus (the largest one being Gracilior species) will not be advisable as long-term will grow too tall and is too costly to maintain with the pruning requirements of this species. All other species of the Podocarpus are too small for screening that is needed. Please feel free to call me directly at (650) 208-0724 Should you have any quesSons or would like to discuss in more detail. Kind Regards, Joe Vavuris Owner Vavuris Landscaping To City of Palo Alto Planning Department Mar 26,2024 Subject: Objections to planned development at 739 Sutter Ave Palo Alto Objection is raised to the planned development at 739 on the following grounds 1. Lack of Transparency in Planning Process: • I have received no communication or acknowledgement on previously raised objections 2. The project is Incompatible with existing neighborhood character: The density and scale of the proposed development are incompatible with the current aesthetic, architecture, and feel of my neighborhood • There is no 3-story building in the neighborhood 3. The approval will open Pandora’s box with more developments of the same type following through, with developers seeing $ signs • The city will have no choice but to approve successive applications once they approve this project 4. With this and other developments, the entire character of the street and neighborhood will change forever 5. The high-density impact has to be seen on not just this project but with others who will inevitably follow • There will be significantly increase traffic congestion and strain existing parking resources in the neighborhood. b. The high-density projects when taken collectively will lead to overcrowding in the neighborhood, potentially decreasing the quality of life for existing residents, including more noise and light pollution, disrupting the peacefulness of my neighborhood 6. Decreased property values: I am deeply concerned that the high-density projects on the street could potentially decrease property values in the surrounding areas due to overcrowding, increased traffic, and changes to the neighborhood character. My investment in my house and my quality of life are extremely important to me, I would like to safeguard against their erosion. Kindly record my objections to the proposed project Sincerely, Milan Saini milansaini@gmail.com 775 Sutter Ave To: City of Palo Alto Mar 26,2024 Planning Department Subject: Objections to planned development at 739 Sutter Ave Palo Alto Objection is raised to the planned development on the following grounds: 1. There was a Lack of Transparency and Meaningful Community Involvement in the Planning Process o The approval process lacked meaningful community engagement. o We filed our initial docusigned objections in 2022, however, we received no communication or acknowledgement on those objections o This probably was an inadvertent oversight within the Planning office and while we understand that these things can happen, we certainly should not be left to bear a permanent and lifelong consequence as a result o We request a more transparent and inclusive process, allowing residents to voice their concerns and explore alternative solutions 2. Approval Will Start a Cascade of New 3 story Developments on the Street o The approval will open Pandora’s box with more developments of the same 3 story developments in the near future o The city will have no choice but to approve future such applications once they approve this project o The combined effect of the collective potential large multi-unit building will significantly impact the existing neighborhood in terms of increased traffic, noise, and congestion. This will fundamentally alter the quiet, residential feel that attracted many of us to this community in the first place. 3. With this and other 3 story developments, the entire identity, character and delicate aesthetic harmony of the street and neighborhood will change forever o Our street is a charming community of two-story houses, known for positive neighborhood qualities - quiet streets, friendly atmosphere, close-knit community. Adding three-story buildings would be a stark contrast, overwhelming the existing architectural style and potentially casting shadows that disrupt the enjoyment of our properties o Our neighborhood was designed for a charming blend of architectural styles, with one and two-story homes that complement each other. A large swath of three-story building would disrupt this harmony, altering the visual landscape and diminishing the unique character of our street while being totally incompatible with the current aesthetic, architecture, feel and character of our neighborhood 4. The Housing Accountability Act is essential for addressing housing needs, but it should not come at the expense of our community’s well-being. o The 3 story high-density projects when taken collectively will lead to overcrowding in the neighborhood, decreasing the peacefulness and quality of life for existing residents o Decreased property values: We are deeply concerned that the high-density projects on the street could potentially decrease property values in the surrounding areas due to overcrowding, increased traffic, and changes to the neighborhood character. Our investment in our house and our quality of life are extremely important to us, we would like to safeguard against their erosion.We implore the City Council to prioritize the preservation of our neighborhood’s identity, aesthetics and appeal over expedient development of low-cost housing. Sincerely, Resident Address Contact Clark McElfresh 703 Clara Dr clarkmcelf@yahoo.com Moshe Frozenfar 767 Sutter Ave mfrozenfar@gmail.com Zihao Wang 771 Sutter Ave wangjason222@gmail.com David Wang 779 Sutter Ave david.z.wang@gmail.com May Mak 772 Sutter Ave maymak@gmail.com Milan Saini 775 Sutter Ave milansaini@gmail.com Peter and Judyt Browne 761-3 Sutter Ave judytsutter@gmail.com 1 March 13, 2024 Laurie Berger, Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 e-mail: Lb@svlg.com RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project Dear Ms. Berger, Thank you for your letters dated August 30, 2023 and November 1, 2023 regarding the proposed residential project at 739 Sutter Avenue. In response to your first letter, staff met with you and your client directly on September 12, 2023, at City Hall. As indicated in that meeting, and as we will detail further in this letter, the City disagrees with the assertion that a Class 32 categorical exemption does not apply to the proposed residential project at 739 Sutter. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that this exemption does apply. This letter summarizes your comments, as further detailed in your follow up letter on November 1, 2023, and the City’s response to those comments. The most recent project plans and the documentation to support the categorical exemption are available on the project website. Comment: The Project requires a full CEQA Evaluation and does not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption, noting that it would clearly result in impacts related to traffic, noise, and air quality. Response: The documented exemption attached, which was made publicly available in October 2023, prior to the ARB study session, provides substantial evidence to support the conclusion that there would be less than significant impacts related to traffic, noise, and air quality, among other criterion listed in the Class 32 exemption requirements. Your comment refers to examples of projects that may be exempt under CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 exemption), incorrectly applying those to the Class 32 exemption. The documented exemption details how the project complies with criteria set forth in the CEQA Guidelines for a Class 32 exemption. Comment: The Project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and relevant policies, including references in the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element that protect single family residential site development regulations as well as policies L-1.3 and L-1.11 which encourage compatibility of infill development with its surroundings and speaks to high quality development standards. Response: The project is a housing development project, as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5 (Housing Accountability Act [HAA]). As a housing development project, only objective Comprehensive Plan policies and standards may be applied to the proposed project in accordance with the HAA. The policies that the commenter references are not objective and therefore were not discussed in the draft findings for approval of the proposed project. Nevertheless, the City disagrees that 2 the project would be inconsistent with those policies; no substantial evidence has been provided to support the conclusion that the project would be inconsistent with these policies. Further, the proposed project provides multi-family housing in a multi-family zone district. It is not located in a single-family residential zone and does not propose modifications to any development standards for the R-1 zone district. In accordance with California Government code 65589.5, “the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision.” Therefore, the use of concessions and waivers under density bonus law is not a basis for finding the project inconsistent with the City’s zoning code or Comprehensive plan. Moreover, the courts recently affirmed that a class 32 exemption still applies in cases where waivers and concessions are granted in accordance with state density bonus law (Wollmer v. City of Berkley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1349-50). Comment: The commenter states that the project would result in traffic impact and states that the CE concludes that the project would be better located in a transit-oriented neighborhood. The commenter states that utilizing traffic counts at intersections to determine air quality and noise impacts is not appropriate. Response: The CE evaluates impacts on the existing environment, including adjacent residential uses, but does not conclude that this project would be better located in a transit-oriented neighborhood. The documentation to support the findings for a Class 32 exemption includes a traffic analysis and concludes that the project would have less than significant impacts related to transportation, including but not limited to, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The analysis of vehicle trip increases at intersections in the report is provided for the purposes of evaluating long-term noise and air quality impacts from traffic on the existing environment. That analysis also concludes that the project would have a less than significant impact related to these criteria. Comment: The commenter states that construction related noise is inadequately addressed and studied in the CE. The commenter also identifies concerns about noise generated from people on roof decks and states that a shade and shadow study is required to evaluate shading impacts. Response: The analysis identifies the maximum noise level that could be experienced at any given point in time during construction as measured at the property line. The commenter incorrectly applies the maximum noise level to all construction activities for the entirety of construction. The analysis in the documentation for the Class 32 exemption has been revised for clarity. The commenter states confusion over whether roof decks are provided. Building 2 was revised based on feedback at the preliminary review hearing to remove all roof decks on that building. Following ARB review of the formal application roof decks on Building 1 were also removed. All references to “decks” in the report have been revised to “balconies” for clarity. The analysis for operational noise impacts does not assess noise that could be generated by future residents using their balconies. Not only would this analysis be speculative, but Assembly Bill 1307 specifically indicates that social noise generated by residents is not an impact under CEQA. 3 The applicant is not required to provide a shade and shadow analysis for the proposed project, nor does the City have any criterion or threshold for significance by which to measure what would constitute a significant impact. The city utilizes development standards, primarily daylight plane and setbacks, to regulate light and air between uses. The project complies with the required daylight plane at the rear of the property and exceeds the required rear setback of 10 feet. Privacy is not an impact evaluated in accordance with CEQA; however, the project complies with all relevant objective standards related to privacy screening and sight-line requirements to reduce privacy impacts on adjacent residential uses as shown in the project plans provided on the project website. Comment: Construction-related Air Quality and Hazardous Materials Impacts. There is no discussion in the CE of the potential for lead, asbestos, or PCBs to be in the demolition materials. Response: Air quality impacts related to construction and operation are evaluated in the documentation for the Class 32 exemption. The analysis has been revised to include a summary of regulations that would apply to the project to protect from lead-based paint and asbestos. The project does not meet the threshold for requiring further PCB analysis. In compliance with EPA guidance, further analysis of PCBs prior to demolition is not warranted for wood-framed, residential buildings. Comment: The commenter states that inadequate emergency access is provided. Response: The project plans have been evaluated by the City’s Fire Department and were found to meet the Fire Department standards in compliance with the City’s regulations. The fire department provides various options for property owners to meet the relevant fire regulations, taking into account site specific constraints such as the presence of overhead utility lines. In the case of the proposed project, emergency access in the event of a fire would be consistent with existing conditions in that the fire apparatus would park on Sutter Avenue and firefighters would access the site with ground ladders. The project has been specifically designed to provide ground ladder access at both ends of the two buildings. Commercial grade fire sprinklers are also proposed for the buildings. The project is therefore consistent with Policy S-2.13 of the code. Staff notes that the height is nominally taller than that allowed in the RM- 20 zone district (33.5 feet for Building 1 and 32 feet at the rear building where 30 feet is allowed) and that the project meets the setbacks and daylight plane requirements adjacent the single-family residential use. Therefore, the project meets the current fire code safety requirements and does not create a greater threat with respect to hazards than the existing conditions. The preparation of an IS/MND to further evaluate this is not warranted. Comment: The commenter states that the project utilizes too many waivers and concessions and states opinions regarding why the project was not added as a housing inventory site. Response: In accordance with density bonus law, the project is eligible for waiver or reduction of development standards that physically precluding development at the densities permitted by state law as well as concessions as detailed in the November 2, 2023 staff report. There is no limit on the number of waivers that may be sought. In response to comments from the Architectural Review Board and members of public, the applicant has revised their plans to reduce the extent of the waivers being requested without reducing the overall density. As noted previously, use of concessions and waivers 4 under density bonus law is not a basis for finding the project inconsistent with the City’s objective standards in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act. The commenter opines that this was not listed as a housing site in the 2030 comprehensive plan because of impacts to adjacent residents. However, the site is identified as a pipeline project in the adopted Housing Element. Sites where projects are on file and identified as pipeline projects in the Housing Element are not also identified as Housing Inventory Sites to avoid double counting toward the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Comments: Project is subject to the current code requirements. Response: As the commenter correctly notes, the current application is not subject to development standards that were in affect at the time the Senate Bill 330 pre-application was submitted because the applicant failed to resubmit plans in accordance with the timelines set forth in SB 330 (180 days for the initial submittal, 90 days for each resubmittal). Therefore, the project is being processed in accordance with the objective standards set forth in the current municipal code. We appreciate your comments on the proposed project. If you have further questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 650-329-2116 or via email at Claire.raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. Regards, Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner, Planning Development Services Attachment F Project Plans Project plans are only available to the public online. Hardcopies of the plans have been provided to Councilmembers. Environmental Document The City, acting as the lead agency, prepared documentation to support a Class 32 (infill development) categorical exemption for the proposed project. The documentation to support the exemption, including all associated technical analyses are included on the project website Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “739 Sutter Avenue” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans, the documented exemption and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/739-Sutter-Ave