HomeMy WebLinkAbout0278.095--------------
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
AG£NDA DATE: Ja.ell. 1995
DEPA . .1UMENT: Planning IDd
C9m manit}' EBvirollment
CMR:178:95
SUBJECf: 725-753 Alma Street Planned Comm.nity Zooe Change
BEQIl.ESI
. This report transmits 10 Council an Ordinance rezooingproperty at 725-753 Alma Street
from C[).S(P) (Servi<oe Commercial wilh • Pedestrian Combining District) 10 PC (Planned
Community J)' ... "1rict), and an application lOr • Design Enhancement Exception (DEE), to
c<>nstrU"..t a 5-1evel mixed use buil<fmg. The building is proposed 10 be 107 Single Room
(kcupancy (SRO) dwelling units constructed on three tloors above an entry 1evellob!>y and
leased Office space (up 10 1,800 square feet). Seventy 10 seven/y·fom parking spaces are
ioc!uded 00 two levels oC structured parking. File Dumbers for this apprlC3tion are 94-ARB-
237, 95-ARB-21. 9S-ZC-2. 9S-F1A-2. 95-0EE-1.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The stall; Arcbitectural Review Board (ARB) and Pianning Commission recommend 10 the
City Council:
L Certification oCthe atta<:hed mitigated negative declaration (95-ElA-2), finding that
the proposed project will not result in any significant environmenW impacts. if
certain cooditions of approval are imposed;
2. Approval oCthe Design Enhancement Exceptioo (DEE) allowing f{l( a portion oCthe
buikfmg to exeeed the allowed 5O-foot height limit by 4 feet; and
Staff recommends to the City CoonciJ'
3. Adoption oCthe attached oramance. iocluding fiIKfmgs and cooditions, rezoning the
property at 725-753 Alma Street from CO-s(p) (Servi<:e Commercia! wilh •
CMlt:278:9S P.age 1 of 24
• _0"
o
Pedestrian Combining District) \0 pC (Planned Community District) ano..in, !he
deve10pment of !!Ie 107 room Single Room Occupanq (SRO) mlw! use proj<ct.
The Planning Commission and ARB differed witll st.fJ regarding r=>rnmended woditions
of8pproVal. Both !he staff cooditio<".s of approval and !he mocfdied Plonnin, Commission
cooditions ofapproval are addressed in this report. They are included IS AII4<!unents C and
D respectlvely~ The ar.aclled Planning Comntission staff report dated May 10, 1995 "",,;des
a discussion of!!le staff COl'ditions. The Planning Cormnission minutes for !!Ie May 10, 1m
meeting pro>ide deta!1ed infonnation on !he Commission's actions.
The all4<hed PC Ordirulnce incorporates the ooginal staff recommended cooditioos of
approval. Due \0 !!Ie issues required \0 be resolved by tlIe Cooncil, !he Ordinanu .. ·m
require revisloo. The fin.aI Ordinance will return \0 C<JW\Cil on C<ln<;ent Calendar, if !he pC
zOne clIange is approved.
Should the COuncil de<:ide \0 IOHew !!Ie Planning Cormnissioo's recommendation regarding
the proposed roitigatloo measure coocemlng paint fumes [Coodition II(C) in the attached
Planning Commission recommended conditions of approval). the 1011ov.ing additioaal
finding must be added 10 !he Council actloo:
4. The Coun~il finds that the mltigatloo measure .. described in the Negative
Declaratloo is undesirable, in IlW it requires upfron! instailatloo of costly mecl1anical
equipment v.1li<:h may be unnecessa.ry. The Council finds that • Sllbstilute roitiga..."on
measure is av",lable, which would be equall)' effi:ctive in mlti~.ting poIe1Itial
significant effects on the environment \0 • less !han significant level That measure,
which is made a conditloo of project approval by inclusion in the Oromance, is
enumerated as Condition II(C) ""1 the P1anoing Commission Recommended
Conditions of Approval.
POLICY IMWCATIONS
The key policy issues are: I) the need for additional housing in Palo Alto, parti..."Ularly for
very \ow-income workin~ individuals, and 2) the possible incompatibility of such housing
with the eJdsting businesses in !he area, especially the automotive service businesses. It is
staft's <>pinion that the tw<> land = can co-exht, both in the South of f ores! Area as a
wbole, and on this particular block. Staff acknowledges that this proposed project br'ongs
together on one City block !he juxtaposition of a City policy, constructloo 0( new housmg
near services and ora."lSit, and an often expressed desire \0 retain commercial and aut<>
sen-ices in me South ofF<rist Area.
CMIU18c9S Page 2 of 24
-'
.~ .
• •••
.,
. .
-. The neighborhood surrounding the Alma site B presently I mixture of auto senice; office;
retail; and bigh density, maztet ntc ownership housing. Wble there are acknow!edg.<I
existing problems with insufficient parking, oois=, traffu: and other issues typical of mixed
~ areas, the ovenD attractioos of the oeighbo<hood seem 10 bala"ce the difficulties; and
businesses and residents 00 the whole are <<>-existing successfully.
Publje BeD.fit: The Public Benefit of this PC zooe is housing fur low and very low income
inc:Ih iduals.
Compn:II •• <jyc PI .. Compti,"«: The SRO proposal is consistent with the Policies and
Programs of the C.on.prehensive Plan as outlined en pages) 2-) 4 of the i'1-<1epth report.
EXEctmyE SUMMARY
PAHC's obj<:ctive is 10 create I 'n""'~ housing product which provides attractive, perm""""!,
and very affordable living lOr very low-income, primarily single, adults. The project
contains 44,112 square feel of SRO liSe, inclucmg )07 units (106 SRO rooms and a one
bedroom manager's apartment). SRO office, lobby and coounon spaces lOr residents
including Iaund<y, counseling offICe, reading room, v"",fLng machines and two outdoor
balconies. The lop Ihree floors of the five-level butlcmg are exclusively residential units and
common areas. The main entrance level incbJdes up 10 1,800 square reet of leased <>ffi<:e
space, the SRO lobby, manager's <>ffi<:e, counseling room and parking. The leased <>ffi<:e
space is intended fur occupancy by Palo Alto Housing Olrporation (P AHC) as their main
office; however, ills designed SO thai it coold be leased 10 another commercial tenant.
Additional information on zoning, density, mass and bulk, parking, and public benefit
findings is contained in !he Planning Commission staff report dated March S, J 995, attached
10 lhis report.
At !he NovembeT 28, 1994 City Council meeting, the Council re~ested staff to respond 10
five issues related to the impact of the project on adjacent businesses, parking, resident
requirements and !he adequacy of the aIJey _ These are addressed in the in-depth report onder
Discussion.
The project has been reviewed and recommeDded lOr approval with conditions by !he
PIannlng Commission and the ARB. The fl.istoric Resources Board (HRB) also miewed
!he project at the suggestion of the State Historic Preserntioo Officer, because the project
might UIllize kderaJ funds.
The recommended conditions of approval by the Planning O>mmission differed from that
of staff lOr Cooditions 2(A), 4, 6, 7, 8, IO(A) and II(A). For C.ooditions 2(A), 6, 8, and
II(A)., the changes do not represent significant poI.ic) issues or can be addressed in the final
Page 3 of 2'
~'--,
;
ARB review; staff does DOl object 10 the revised :'!anning Commission conditions. The
~!Iowing is. summary of the IIIrre remaining conditions [4, 7 and 100A)j on which staffand
the Planning Commission differ:
Conditjog 4· Mecbanical venhlalion A me<:hanical ventll.tion system will probably be
required fur most rooms due 10 ntlc 24 Noise requiremen!.<; however, iI may DOl be required
fur all rooms. Staff reromm.Dded inclusion 0(. mechanical ventilation system 10 allow
fresh alr 10 all rooms. even if the door. and windows arc closed. Primarily fur C<lSt saving
reasons. the Commission revised the condition to allow P AHC flexibility to delete the
mechanical ventIlation if iI is DOl required 10 meet Title 24 Noise requirements.
Cornfrtjoo 1: Garai" Access Staff recommended thai both levels of the proposed project
garage be a=:ssed from Alma Street, in order 10 furtit the impacts 00 the adjacent businesses
and day-to-day operations in the aDey. The sponsoc, to contain constructi<m. costs, proposes
a split a<:eess plan (known as the ·Sponsor> Preferred Plan") with the upper garage level
a=:ssed via Alma and the lower leve! accessed via the alley. Gue>ts, staff and persoos using
band">eapped spaces would all use the AIm. entrance, whIle parong on the lower level would
be restrl<:led 10 assigned tenant spaces. The Planning OJrnmlssion and ARB felt that the
Sponsors Preferred Plan was I!l<lI"e desirable because it had less impact en AIm. Street and
00 the financial feasibility of the proj .... --t.
Coodjtjog IQ(A): Mjti&®<m lOr I'll!ential Fumes Staff recommended that, prior 10
occupancy, • resolution 10 the possible impact 0( fumes from the adjacent automotive
painting operations at Ellison's body shop should be finalized. The Planning Commission
fell that P AHC sbooJd be give!> suffi<;ien( leeway 10 operate the project fur ODe year 10 see
if mitigation is actually necessary, and, if there are any problems, if P AHC can solve them
by other methods.
"SCAI. iMP. \cr
An anal)'sis of the fiscal impact of the project is contained in • separate Cit-j Manager's
Report (CMR.:302 :95) 10 be considered by the Council in relation 10 the financing of the
project and pun;base 0( the land. Background on the implication 0( the =ommeoded
c:ooditions 00 the financing of the proje.."t is contained in the Planning Commission staff
report and in the minutes from the meeting. Aka attacbed is • Jetrer dated May 5, 1995, from
the Palo Mo Housing Corporation. which outlines their COIl<erns about the cost 0( the
project and the conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A Mitigaled Negative Declaration has heel! prepared and is attached. All potentially
significant impacts of the project can be mitigated 10 • level of less than significant. For
CMR.:278:9S Page. of 24
-7-~:'~"-< __ .· ----.--------;--:-"---'<~-----~---.-. .,-------
c '''-. •
':-~-:~ ~~~'i," ~. ' ,
. ': ...
'0\; :_+3'2~\: ..
. .
.'
/
.... ".
further discussion of !he environmental impa<,'ts, please see !he attached Plonning
eoouru .. ioo staffreports lL'ld !he Mitigated Negative Declaration.
PREPARED BY, James E. Gilliland, Assistant PIonning Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW, -;fbt/J.,deUu~7
KENNETII R SCHRF.iBER
Di.-ectoc of Plonning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~1i\~11
BERNARD M. STROJNY7"\('
Assist.ant City Manag ..
CMll:27B:9S rage 5 0[24
._. .0',
:
! l-
Pog., of 24
-. ~.-.. 'il
.,--
City of Palo Alto
City l\Ianager's Report
SUBJECf: 7lS-7S3 Alma Street Plauued Community ZoDe a.onge (ID-lhpllt)
RECOMMENDATIONS
The stall; Archirectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning Commission recommend 10 !he
City Council:
I. CertificaIioo of!he at1acbed Mitigated Negative DeclaratiOll (95-ElA-2), finding that
the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, if ceru.m cooditions of approval are imposed;
2. Approval of!he Design E.nhancemcnt Exceptioo (DE£) allowing for a portioo of the
building 10 exceed !he allowed 5{).. fool height limit by 4 reet; and
Staff recommends 10 !he City Council:
3. Adoptioo oflbe at1acbed Ordinance, ioclU<fmg fin<fmgs and cooditions, ",zoning the
property at 725-753 Aim. Street flom CD-s(p) (Service Com..'CICial "ith •
Pedestrian Combining District) 10 PC (planned Communi!)' District), allowing the
developmeat oflbe 101 room Single Room Oceupancy (SRO) mixed lISe project.
The PIaruling Commission and ARB differed with staff regarding recommended cooditioos
of approval. BoIh tbe staff recommended cooditions of approval (AI'.a<:1unent C) and the
modified Planning Commissico recommeoded cooditioos of approval {Attacbment O} are
addressed in !his report. The CoonciI may adopt either set or further modify the conditions.
The attached Planning Commissico staff report dated May 10, 1995 provides a discussion
of the staff cooditioos. The Planning C=issioo minutes for the May 10, 1995 meeting
provide detalled information on the Commissico', actions.
1be attached PC Ordinance incorporates the criginal staff recommended conditions of
approval to the PIlmnlng Commission. Due 10 the is.-ues required 10 be resolved by the
Council, !be Oromance will require revision. The final OrdInance will return 10 Council on
Coosent Calendar, iflbe PC zone "hange Is approved.
SbooId the Council decide 10 JOlIow !he Planning ComIrlss;oo's recommendatico regarding
the proposed mitigatioo measure concerning paint fumes [CondItion II(C) in the Planning
Page 1 of 24
------~-----'. --
.--"
" ,
" " "
· ~".
o
Commission =ommended conditions of approval], the following ad&tionaI fiIl<fmg must
be added \0 the Cotlocil action:
l1le CoonciI finds that the Human Health mitigation measure (IS b.). as described LO
the ~legativ. Dedaratioo is undesirable. in that it requires upfrOOl instaI1ation of
COSIly mecbanica! equipmenl whicb may be unnecessary. The Cotlocil finds thaI •
substitute mitigation measure is aVB11able whicb would be equally effective in
mitigating potential significanl effects on the enviromncnt \0 • less than significa.ot
level. That measure, wbioh is made • condition of project approval by inclusion in
the Ordinance, is enumerated as Coodition II (C) in the Planning Commissioo
Recommended Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND
This report addresses a proposal by the Palo Aho Hoosing C«p<>ration (PAHC) !Or •
Plar<.ned Community zone cbange necessary 10 allow construction of a mixed-use building
containing 107 units ofvery low-income, SRO housing. up 10 r ,800 ~uare reel of leased
office space. and up \0 74 p<!rl<ing spaces on • 17.64()-~uare-foot vacanl site at 725-753
Alma Street, in proximity 10 services and 10 transit
Pralm DegriptioQ
P AHC', objective is \0 creale a "new" housing product which provides attractive, dignified,
permanent. secure a .. d very aHOrdable living for very low-income. prirnar"Y single. adults.
Tbe project contains 44,tl2 square lCct ofSRO usc including 107 units {I 06 SRO rooms and
a one bedroom manager', apal1rnenl). SRO office, lobby and corrunoo spaces !Or residents
inclIl<flDg laundry, coor.seling office, read"mg room. veIl<fmg machines and two outdooc
bakooies. Tbe Iop!bree floors oflhe live-level buikfmg an: exclusively residential units and
common areas. The main enlrar!ce level includes up \0 1,800 square feet of leased ofIke
space. the SRO lobby, manager's office, counseling office and parlting" The leased office
space is intended !Or occupancy by PAHC as their main office; how""'er, it is designed so
tba! it could be leased 10 another commercial tenant
AMitiooa! informat>oo on zoning, density, mass and bulk, parl<l.g, and public ~fil
findings is contained in the Planning C<Jmmissioo .1alf report daled March ~, 1995, altacbed .
\0 1hi. report.
PrQJ<d History
The lO!1owing Se<:tioo summarizes previous public review and ARB, Planning Commission
and City Council actions regaralllg the proposed project and the F easibillty Study.
P0i8e I of 24
.' '
.. ', .
. -::r:' .. '~" ...... .-
.-~ .
Plann;n, Cnmmjssjon Action O!! fwib;I;t,v Study On October 26, 1994, the Planning
Coounissioo ",,,'.ewed a study entitled "Feasibility Study of SRO Housing Development al
753.\Ima Street" prepared by PAHC under cootrac\ 10 the Cily. The Planning Commission
voted (3-2-2) to recommend llIat the City Council I) approve in coocept the acquisition of
the site at 725-753 Alma Street for SRO type housing, and 2) direct staff 10 prepare
docwnentation necessary for exercising the option 10 purchase the site.
Commissioners Schmid!, Cassel and Ojakian voted in favor, Glazier and Beecham were
opposed, while Schlnk and Camsco were absent. Commissionoc Glazier was opposed
because be felt thai j;.JrIber study was needed 011 several areas of concern, particularly !he loss
of the site for use as temporary parking for Whole Foods employees. Commissioner
Beecham was opposed because be did not believe that the resHkntial use would be
compatible with nearby automotive uses.
Cit,v Counctl Actjon on feasibmt,v Study On Nowmber 28. 1994, the City Council, 011 a 9-
10-0 vole. I) approved cooceptual support fOr the a<:quisition orthe 725-753 Alma Street site
fOr SRO housing, 2) d"uecIed srafIlo prepare Ibe appropriate environmental documentation
Ie pennit exercising the c,ption 10 purchase, and 3) directed sraffto prepare a funding and
devolopmenlagreement with PAHC. The City Cooncil included five specific arrectioos \0
staff as part of their motion. These items are enumerated and addressed in Ibe Discussion
sectiolL
mbj1eC!!l!'!lJ Review RNrd fARB) PreljrnjDOQ' Reyjcw On 1 anuary S, 1995, the ARB
conducted • preliminary review ofth. project and expressed general support fOr the pr"ject.
The design issues that the ARB alSC\lSSed included: I) the project's consistency with the
U<ba.n Design Guide; 2) potential scale problems "ith the bwlding's southern elevation
which adjoins the hist<Jric BMW auto repair bwldings; 3) traffic circulation ,.ithin Ibe
parking garage; and, 4) the need fOr • Design Enhaocement Excepti® (DEE) \0 allow
portions or !he parapet \0 exceed the SO-foot height runit by" feet.
Plannjoe Commission Prcliminary Planned Community Zone Reyjew On March ~,1995,
by a 6-1 vote (Commissioner Glazie£ voting no), the Planning Commission voted to support
the staff recommendation, which was 10 review and cOIIceptually endorse the project as
described in the PC zone application and forward it 10 ARB lOr their w,iev.'. The majority
of the Commissioners found the project \0 be appropriately sited, wen designed and a
desirable facility that would be a community asset. They expressed support fOr the Planned
c.,....munity zoning and the project's cOIISisteocy with the City's des;'" fOr additional
affordable bousing.
Four Commissioners expressed some con<:ertlS about the project, although ooJy
Commissioner Glazier ,'oted against the proposaL Commissioners Carrasco, Glazier and
Page, 004
.,..-----------........ "~---
':~<,,~ -, >
"\ "
-'
Schink were concerned about !he cost of!he project, especiall) !he cost per squan: foot of
residential spa«. C<>mmlssioner Glazier voted "no" hased on bis concern that the project
was 100 .,..,ensive. Commissiooer Carrasco was concerned about enviroomental issues and
stated that he reserved judgement abot.'1 those issues I!Iltil he had an opp<l!".uni!), to review
the Negative Declaralion. He qucstiooed the adequacy ofllle project's parking and the size
of the JlI"liect in Iem1s clthe kJtaI Dumber ofunits. Coounlssioner $chink was of the opinion
that the project had been designed with 100 mucb parking and thaI an analysis should be
made ofl!te.Bi:c:t dtat .runinaling one level of parking woold bave on reducing the projec(s
cons!ruction costs. C<lmnllssiooer 8ce<;ham stated that be coold Dol suppor1 tr.e proposed
staff finding dtat the prnj<lct was consistent with aajOining land uses. He stated his concern
that the presence of. residential usc may affect the Iong-tenn viabili!)' of the existing auto
uses in the area.
ArclJitccturaJ ~ FinaJ Rey" Qf flanned Commimio' Zone Cbaoae On April
20, 1995, the ARB conducted. fJlal review of !he project (excerpt minutes attached). On
• S-O vote !he ARB recommended appro\'B! of the mitig.W Negative Declara6on, the
Design Enhancemefil Exception and the Planned Community Z<>ne cbange. The ARB
member. expressed enthusiastic suppor1lOr the proposed project and !he design. The ARB
requested that the windows adjacent 10 the Independent Palo Alto BMW b;:-Mmg(799 Alma
Street) be recessed to provide additiooal articulation and shadows. Final plans, including !he
garage layout, final materials and coI~ irrigation plans, lighting and pboto!nd<ic plans, as
wen as details of the deck talling, arc to retur" lOr ARB review and approval prior to
issuanc<: of a buMmg permit
AI the April 20Ih meeting, the ARB expressed concerns about the gamge layout with
particularroncems about possible dead ends in the circulation. At the May 4, 1995 ARB
meeting. the ARB reviewed !he Alma Access Garage Plan recommended by staff and the
Spoosor's Preferred Plan. The ARB recommended approval of the Spoosor'" Preferred Plan.
which acc ..... the garage from buth Alma Street and the ailC). The ARB felt L'>al baying
all cars exit to Alma Street was a greater problem due 10 safe!)' hazards on Alma tJu" the
limited problems from blockage that would resuh by using the aIlcy lOr ac<:ess 10 one level
of assigned resident pw'llig.
Historic ResQurce Boord Review Because the City is considering using federal housing
funds as 0 port;on of the City's subsidy lOr the project if it is approved, a federal
environmental review under Na60naI F.nvirorunental Policy Act (l><UA) procedures is being
prepared by stalt An federally funded development projects must be reviewed by the State
His"«ric Preservation Officer (SHPO) regard'mg the project's effect on any National Register
eligible properties. The SHPO requested that the City obtain the input of the Historic
Resources Board (HRB) !XI this matter.
CMJU78,95 Page JO of 24
. '
. :";'\: i .•..
. " ".
"} , t ,
t
• 1
41
I
f "
A , ..... '.-J>'
On April .9.1995, the HRBdeIennined \hat thc adi=l former service station at 795-199
Alma Street, • Category 2 sit: on the local historic inver-tot)', was eligible for inclusion 00
thc Natiooal Register. The site is now oe<:Upied by Independent Palo Alto 8M'...... On MBy
'. 1995, !he ARB considere<l the effe<:! \hat !he proposed prvject might have on t.~e
characteristics of the hisloric building that make it eligible for inclusioo 00 !he National
Register. The HRB was net able to come to .. coosensus on whether the proposed SRO
would have an effe<:! on 795-199 Alma Of what 1M nature r: that effect would be. A mOOon
10 find lhaIthe SRO would have no advme effect failed 00 • 3 to 4 vDte. A sinnlar motion
10 find adverse effects \hat <:ouId be mitigated 11-. rw1t..l 00 a 3 10 "vote. The HRB d"trected
staff 10 forv.'ard!he individual Board Memb..n' com.t!<nts 10 the SHPO. as stated in the
minutes of the meeting. '
Thete were t/m:e priocipal (:OOCems e~<l by BRB members. 11leJi were: I) !he
irrfluence an ad"JOining non-automotive tan.! use might have on the continued lISe of 755-
m Alma for automotive purposes, 2) the seal. of thc SRO, especially the stairwell wall \hat
foces 1he former service station, an<! 1) possible physical effects relaled to construction and
water ruooff The project architect adequatel)' addressed concern number 3 by dcscnbing
the garage design an<! coostruc!lon methpd.
If federallimding is sough!, staff will transmit thc HRB corrunents and a staff assessment to
the State Historic Preserv1Ition Officer lOr be< consideration in making be< comments. The
n:suJt.s 0( the consultation with thc SHPO will be incorporaled into the fedcraI environmental
review document. These sleps an: I pari of the process specified under federal re gul.atioos
whicb must be completed prior to • commitment 0( any fede.al funds for project
developmenL 11 is a separa!e process from the development review under 1M PC zone
appfieation, altboogh. since it. <:ouId possibly adversely impact the funding. !he Council may
WlID1 to comment
fWmjo i C.ommjs..'iiop Fica! Review ofPtanne4 CpmmllDjty Zone Chan i' On May] 0, 1995,
I!!e PlMning Comrnissioo recommended approval of the Planned Community Zone ~bange
00 a5-1<>-! vole. Bee<:ham owose<f. Glazier absent. lbe majority of!he Commissioners
lOund the prnjcct \0 be appropriately sited, weD designed and I desirable facility that would
be a community 1Sset. They expressed support for the public benefit oflow income bousing
and lhe projecf. consistency "ith City policies encouraging additional affordable bousing.
~;ooer Beecham was opposed because be could not support the proposed staff
finding \hat lhe project was coosistenl with the adjoining land uses. The Commission made
seve.al changes to the stafl" recommended conditions of approval. The conditior.s of
approval are a&lressed in the Discussion section.
-: -
. ,
o
PO! ley IMP! lCATIONS
The :tey policy issues are: I) the need lOr additional housing in Palo Alto, particularly lOr
very low-income working individuals, and 2) the po5sible incompatibility of such housing
with the existing businesses in the area, espedaJly the automotive service businesses. It is
stafl'. opinioo that the two land uses can co-exist, boIh in the South of Forest Are ....
whole. and on this particular block. Staff aclmowledges that this proposed project brings
Iogedler on one City bJock the juxtaposition 0( a City policy, construction of SRO bousing
and housing near services and transit, and an often expressed desire 10 retain commercial and
auto services in the Sou1l> elFortSt Area.
The neighborhood surrounamg the AIm. site is presently I mixture 0( auto service, offICe,
retail and bigh density, mar\et rate ownership housing. New cooOOminium pro~ts bave
been built immediately aaJOining auto service businesses. An example is the residential
project on Forest Avenue next 10 the transntission repair shop. Wlule there are
acknowledged existing problems with insufficient parking, noise, traffic and other issues
typical 0( mixed-use areas, the overall attractions 0( the neigbborbood seem \0 balance the
difficulties; and businesses and residents on the whole are c<H:xisting successfully.
I'!!b!ic Bep.fit:
A PC zone is re<juired lOr this project because DOne of the CiI)'s COIlventional zoning di<lricts
IICCOItlIDOdate this housing type. The rurrelll20ne (CD-SIPJ district) would DOl permit the
proposed density, the reduced (XIlking standard or the increased FAR. nor woold any 0( the
CiIy'. cooventiooaJ zoning a1Slricts accommodate this housing prototype. Approval elth.
requested PC zone change would re<juire tbat public benefit findings be made. The poblic
benefits 0( the project should go heyood the minimum Code requirements and complian«
with the Compreben..<o've Plan. Staff belleves that the project provides sufficient public
be""fit, based OIl the provision 0( 1 07 housing units affordable \0 vcry low-income
households.
eompreb.erujyc PIa, Compiiance:
Th. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Service Com.'Ilercial (CS),
whicII aIIow. 10< a variety eluses including residential and mixed lISe. The SRO proposal
is COIlSistent with the IOIlowing Comprehensive Plan policies and programs:
Employmgt EkmeDt;
• Polic)r1: Encourage Ihe coostructioo of more housing primarily at or near industrial
(){ com..rnereial sites.
Program J: EstabI1sb procedures and incentives to encourage affordable
housing in commercial and industrial zones.
Page 120(24
\
'.
~ ... ... ,
• POOq 6: Maintain at Jeast the present number of multiple-family rental WIits whIle
wading 10 increase the overall supply of rental bousing.
• PoliQ! 7: EIIcoorage 8Ild foster the development of new and existing Musing units
atb-dabl. to Iow-, moderate-, 8Ild middle-income household .. especially those
households with chiIdreD.
Program J J: Continue support for the Palo Alto Housing C<XpOOltion in the
provision of Iow-, moderate-, and middle-income housing, with primary
emphasis on !he Iow-am! moderate-income sect<l<S.
Program 15: Provide zoning flexibility 10 encourage the development of
smaller units affordable 10 Iow-and moderate·inCome p....-sons.
Program J 7: Evaluate commercial and industrial properties with intenlioo of
rezoning \0 housing where appropriate.
• PolU;y JQ: Encourage presenation, rehabilitalioo 8Ild construction of SRO botels.
Program 11: Wad with SRO botel owners and local housing assistance groups
10 obtain kdetaI, state, and local subsidies and loans 10 maintoin and upgrade
existing SRO .. \0 COIlSIrUct new SRo., and 10 provide social services 10 SRO
residents.
Program 13: Consider <oo.I,..,](;tioo ofnew SRO botels in. suitable \ocatioos.
• PoliQ! 11: Encourage and participate in Iow-8Ild moderate·income housing
programs financed by local and oIher levels of government.
• Polt<;y /1: Encourage innovative housing financing tecbniq<.'eS 10 make more
housing affordable.
Program 3Q: Use kderal and state tax credits. mongage revenue boocIs, 8Ild
mongage credit certitkales 10 reduce the cost of housing financing.
• Polt<;y II: Support the mixing of residential uses in commercial and industrial
areas.
Page 13 0124
..
_t.
•
'f
'-\ ' .•. ,;:,;;c..<-
o
Program 35: Woe'< will! local employers 10 encourage the de~.\Qpme"t cf
housing lOr persoos working in Palo Alto,
DISCUSSION
Oty Cggpsj! luue. On N~em~ 28, 1994, ",hen the City Council, 00 .9-10-0 vote,
&pproved conceptual supp.x11Or the acquisition of the 725-753 Alma Street site lOr SRO
housing, the Council d"U"eCIed stafflo address lh'" issues of concern. These issues, as stated
in the CoonciI's motion and staff recommendations are as foll<Jw.,
I. "Explore the feasibility and desirability cf some type cf ~e1opment agreement ()I"
cov"nant against nuisance with the property ownet'Slbusines:;es such as Ellisoo's Body
Shop and Towing. "
RECOMMENDATION: This proposal was re\iev.ed b) the staff and the City Attorney's
Office and was found DO! 10 be practical in either obtaining an agreement {)I" in being
effective in remedying any IOreseeab!e problems, Since EDison's is not applying for any
development approval, the development agreement process is inapplicable, A covenant
• acquiescing in nuisance" could theoretkany be entered into by P AHC, fuc the beneflt
of <'lIisoo's. How"""', 10 be Iegatly vafHl, such • covenanl would have \0 be very specific
as 10 the activities of Ellison's that ",'ould be covered. Fwthermore, the concept raises
poficy questions as 10 MleIher lIle City should require ooe property owner \0 consent \0
future "nuisances" which might be created by • neighb«. Inasmuch as the prOJ>CSCd
project incorporates adequate design and conditions 10 address the compatlbtlity of the
adjacent land uses, staff recommends tbat this idea is =sary and need not be
pursued further.
2. "Explore structuring the financing in such • way thaI if the demand fuc the SRO units did
not result in the parl<ing spaces being filled cp, that those unused parking spaces would
be~allable fuc pubfic use,"
RECOMMENDATION: The tax credit subsidies, whkh an: the principal funding source
fuc the project, must be nsed fuc the exclusive use of the residents. ParJdng within the
projecs, lOr olher commercial uses or !he genenl public, would need • separate source of
upfroot fundi'll! and could not be part of the parting required by the City fuc !he project.
Vnfurtunately, any CotJVers1oo of required parting 10 public parting at • future date could
also affect the stales o.f the investors' tax credits. Other avatlable funds foe !be project
(such as City housing reserve funds. HOME or CDBG funds) would bave similar
n:sIrictions. Based on parl<ing demand .1 sirmlar SRO projects, staffbelieves that !bere
, ' '" ,
--
Pa&e 14 of2e
,,---------------
<
, " •
,
"
"
"
will be unused Si'aces, but the Dumber will not be significant Staff and PAHC will
coo.tinue 10 '"'''PI,,", this issue as !he financing package is finalized,
l. "Consider and respond with • rational and enforcat>le plan for possible conditions 10 be
lriggered if and when parking demand from the SRO residents exceeds supply.'
RECOMMENDATION: A. stated above, staff is confident thaI the project as proposed
will provide sufficient parking 10 meet its demand. llt>wever, P ABC is cogrlzant of their
future respoosibility as the owner and manager of!he project to review and respond 10
parking problems shoold these occur in !he future. P AHC has evaluated several po5sible
actioru they cooId implement iflhe projects parking demand should exceed the supply.
These include: 1) shared use oflhe office, staff and visitor parking with resident parking;
2) ublizini available City parking at parking lots such as the Holiday Inn and
Cowper/Webstet garage (Ihis site is outside the assessment distric1 and, under current
assessment distric1 policies, would nO! be eligible 10 utilize assessment district lots); 3)
• preferem:e for tenants without car; or • probibitioo on rerting 10 new tenants with cars;
4) charging fOr residenl parking (Ihis option has been dis<arded as it would likely result
in tenants parking on neighborhood streets; also, additional tenant charges create
problems fOr compliance with the rent limitations under the tax credit and HOME
regulations); and S) a preference fOr tenants who work in the local area.
1be Planning Commission specifically asked the City Attorney's Office 10 research the
legality of. requirement that prospective tenants be employed and'o< employed within
walking distance of the project. The City Altocney's Office advises !hat • GOIldition
requiring residents to be employed. or employed locally, could be subject 10 legal
challenge, Planning staff also opposes Ihis option since one purpose of locating housing
011 a site, such as this, is so !he residents will ""' .. the ability, if they choose, to commute
by public transit 10 job< in other areas.
P AHC is coocerned about occupancy restrictions which could impede the marteting o!
the project 0< affect OIlgoing management, however, fAHC plans to use their standard
preference fOr appficants who live a wed< in Palo Aha in selecting tenan:s fOr the SRO.
PAHC intends 10 conduct specilk outreach effOrts, throogh !ocaI businesses h"kely 10
employ lower paid wed<ers, to attract applicants who work in the area. Since it would
be difficult to define a legally accep!able and enforceable condition of approval c< a
lriggering mechanism regarding the selectioo of1erulnts, staffrecommends that PAHC
should bave flexibility, bod! in marketing and renting the units, and to resolve any
problems wi1h parking shortages, if they should 0<CUr. No further City action is
recommended,
CMIU7809S Page IS of 24
, 1
0 .....
." ~-
o
4. "That staff and PAHC coosider the feasibility and impUcation of. syste,n that would
provide foe priority placement of residents without cars in the SRO units".
RECOMMENDATION: Sine<: staff coosiden that the project provides an appropriate
Dumber of parlcing spaces, staff does Do( benev. that there is sufficient justification foe
the City \0 regulate the tenant selection criteria used by PAHC. Since any tenant
preferences will need to be pubtic information, there is reason \0 beoo'e that this type of
measure would be inelfe<;tive in that applicants might state that they do DOl have a car and
then pari< on the street whkh would serve 10 worsen neighborhood parldng conditions.
However, shooId it becoole ~.pparent !hat par!<ing usage will exceed the spaces available
as the project is renting up, P AHC can implement any of the measun:s described above
under issue Dumber three. Staff does not recommend any further City action, altboogh
P AHC should continue 10 develop their management plan that will aDow foe flexibility
and implementation of chan.ges 10 their parldng requirements as needed.
5. "That staff coordinate with P ABC \0 study """d reconcile the effect of the project 00 the
I S foot wide alley" _ The; issue is addr .. sed in the following section and dirC\."1ly
addresses Cornfrtioo 1 of the Cooditions of Approval.:
I)egzjptjoo pCE';S;nB Alley Cood"Iljcns: The alley is platted aI only IS feet wide. It is
!echnica1ly one-way, ",;th lraffic flow from north \0 south. At the north end, the alley is
periodically blocked by loaall1giunloaall1g tru<:ks. It may also be blocked occasiooally
at the south end b the same purpose. Any vehicle parked or SIOjlped in the alley would
block 1hrough !raveL In gene-ral, 1his aclhity is appropriate in alleys. Currently, along
much of the project site, the alley effectively functions as 21 feet wide because the
e";.s!ing, vacant auto service bUllding on the project site is set back 6 feel from the
property line. The project plans show the SRO set back 2.5 feet from the aney property
r.ne, so that the actual aV311able width along t'>e site, .fu:r constnJction of the project, will
be redueed !rom the current minimum of 21 f<et \0 11.5 feet. The access is usually clear
during evenings, nig.Ojts and weekends when most of the busin ..... are closed.
DesaiVioo pCPast ! b;c of Alley: During the 4Y. year period that the site was informally
used as a parking lot, access 10 the parlcing was exclusively vi. the alley. Ae<:orOmg to
the Whole Foods' manager. about 80-\ 00 can parked on the site 00 • daily basis, <l< about
40 \0 SO cars per shift. (\Vbole Foods operates three shifts per day; however, only two
of the shifts used the site foe parldng.) This indicates that from 160 \0 200 !rips per day
were made \0 and from the site .ia the alley, with about 80-100 trips per day being made
when businesses ac!jacent to the alley were open. A review of Police Department files
did not produce any rewrd of lKOCidents <l< reports of other traffic-related problems in the
alJcy area during the years the site was used as temporary parldng. However, some of the
boslness owners thai ut11i2e the aney, and L'>e Wbole Foods manager, \old staff of past
,
. "">,
-' 0·-......
;,..--""--.' ..
-----j',"
\---.~
'/ -,
;0--'~
·~.-.
.-.
(").
,-__ '7
problems between the employee par\<ers and other alley users such as delivery vehicles,
tow trucks and other parkers. From the information available, it appears that the past
problems in the alley were a ",,,,tier of lIJUl<)yance and conflict between alley users and
no( • Iraf5c safety issL'<l.
Alma AruM Plan: Staff recommends that h!!!h garage levels be accessed via Alma 10
avoid the possibility of confli1:ts between SRO residents and the neighboring business
uses oflhc alley. This recommendation is based on the inadequate width of the alloy (IS
feel versus !be required 20 feet fur • two-way alley). espe<:ially at each end, due 10 the
walls ofexlsting buildings and the p1acemenL oflrasb ~les. The period:'C blocking
of the alley by vehicles fur Ioadingfunloacfmg purposes is an appropriate activity in •
commercial alley and should not be restricted. When the aIley is blocked, ICCesS 10 or
from the lower level of the v-oject's parking would no( be possible. Drivers might be
forced 10 drive the wrong way through the alley or 10 leave their cars 10 ask. the other
driver to meve out of the way_ It is possible tlut bod! ends of the aIley coold be blocked
at 11> .• same time. This would result in an inconvenieoce 10 both SRO IrafIi<: and
neighboring businesses. Such conflicts could result in calls to the Police Department with
no guarantee that Police enforcement 1O'oold be elfectke, since, due to response times,
tl:.is type ofproblem has generally cleared up by the time the Police arrive.
The 'Alma Access PIa.~. (mduded in Ihc COOn<:il packet) was prepared by PAHC in
response 10 a staffrequest and is the staff recommended garage plBIL This plan has an
internal ramp so that.n verucIcs would enter and exit via Alma.. The plan provides 74
par\<ing spaces. The plan has some deficiencies, inclu<fmg dead-end aisles and restricted
sight distances; however, stalfbelieves these can be addressed in the final ARB review.
The intemal ramp results in the loss of24 percent of the commercial office spa<:< and I
less desirableoffi<:e layout. The reductioo in office space from 1,750 square ket 10 1,327
square ket is enough 10 call into q~ the use fulness and ieasability of the space,
which, in tum, wou1d have I significanl impact 00 the project's projected operating
income. This alternative wiU also add over 5300,000 10 the C<>DS'Iuction cost due to
excavatioo and shoring costs.
~. Preferred Plan: In this plan, Ihc upper level is accessed from Alma and woold
provide parldng for all visitors, pernoru; with hand"Kapped permits, SRO staff; the leased
office and some residents. The lower level would be solely fur assigned resident parking
and would be accessed via the aIley. Wltlt the Sponsor's Preferred Plan, • lola! of 7()
spaces are provided. 4 less than the Alma Access Plan; however, there is BO .... ea that
could be designated for motorcycle parking.
Staff believes that the Sponsor's Preferred Plan is • significant improvement over the
ooginal plan that was in the Feasibility Study, as it provides more logical BOd cooveoient
CMIU1S,OS Page 11 ofl4
. ,
" . ...-" ..
. "'-:
a«ess 10 the projoct's parking lOr visitors and persons with disabilities. Staff does DO!
believe that the differe!lce In 14 or 10 parking spaces is significlUlt. The plan partially
addresses staffs coocems about use of the aJ\ejIlOr access 10 the project. However,!here
would StI11 be the potential lOr conflicts between SRO residents and <>!her users of the
alley, and wrong· .... y driving In the alley if one end of the alley were bl""ke.i.
Copdffiop.l of AN'PY,J
Althe May 10,1995, Planning Commission meeting, the Commis<Ion modified !he staff
recommended c:oodItioos of approval. Attachment C is the staff recommended .conditions
of approvBl. with • few minor revisions respood"mg 10 app['ClIn1 coocerns. Attachment 0 is
the revised c:oodItioos as recommended by the Planning Commissioo. For clarity the
attachments in<:lude shading lOr new language added and strike outs lOr language deleted.
1"be attached PC Oromance inrorporales the original staff recommen<led coodWoos of
approval to the Planning Commission. Due 10 the issu.. ... required to be resoh'ed by the
Council, the Oramaoce will require revision. The final Oromance will return to Council on
Consent Calendar if the PC zone change is approved.
The recommended conditIons of approval by the Planning Commission differed from thai
of staff lOr Conditions 2(A). 4, 6, 7, S, IO(A) and 11{A). For Condition 2(A), 6, 8, and
II (A). the changes do DO! repr<sent significant polIc)' issues or an be addressed In the final
ARB review. staff does 001 object 10 !he revised Planning Commission comfitions. The
fOllowing is an analysis of!helbneremainiJlgcooditions I4, 7 and 100A)lon which staffand
!he Planning Commission differ:
OONDI!QN.4·MfOiANlCA!.\'ENJJ!,AOON
A mechaiIlcal ventilation system will probably be required for most rooms under Title
24 requirements, which requires that interior noise levels in habitable space sball be 45
db ONL or less. By having I mechanical ventil.tion system, the noise level may be
measured with the window closed, aIthoogb the resident may choose 10 leave the window
open.' It is possible that some of !he units opening 10 the Interioc courtyard may not
require • closed window to measure 45 db ONL or less. A fuI1ber discussion of the noise
" impacts is contained onpage 16 oCthe Planning Commission staffreport ofMay 10,1995
and in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
For several reasons, in<:luding noise fi"om other 1lJlits, odors from .djacenl uses, the lack
of cross ventilatioo lOr each room if doors are closed, and !he privacy afforded the
resident by closing ,..;"""",. and doors, staff suppofts the original staff recommended
language. which will require that aD units have some lOrm of mechanicaJ venblatIoo. The
word central is deleted 10 add l\ex;billty. The Commission's revised language was
Pose 18 of 24
~"--~': ---c-·~, ,--
~ .~, .
; ."
" .
"/
. -"1 •
intended 10 aDow more I\exibt1ity in the method that might be used 10 ventIlate each
room, such as through the wall units and 10 aDow omission of mechani<:a1 ventIlation 10
some rooms if DOt required 10 meet Title 24 ooise requirements, which could reduce
costs.
Staff Coodjtjoo #4 A <emro! mechanical air venlllation system IIlllSl be included in the
project 10 provide • souru: of ftesb air b each residential unit.
PIIPoini' Cqrnmission Cootfitiot"Jl4 If a mechanical ventilation system to provide a
Source of fresh air fOr each unit is determined by the City 00110 be required in order 10
satisfY Title 24 ooise ~iremenls, applicant sball neve!lheless provl<!: adequate space
and infrastructure fOr the future installation ofmechanical ventIlation eq"ipment
CONDITION #7-GARAGE ACCESS
See Ille sectioo "Discussion of City Courh---iJ issues is' O!l page 16 fOr further infonnation
on this condition. The Planning Commission and the ARB did no( suwort the staff
recommendation that the projeL'I be accessed 001)' from Alma Street The Commission
'arid the ARB fek tlta! lite imp",-,,! of tlte 40 vehicles accessing the garage ,ia tlte alley
would DOt be significant. They fell thaI accessing both garage levels from Alma Street
would have a more significant irr:pact on traffic safety on Alma Street.
StaffCoodjtioo #1 A revised garage plan actessing both levels ofllte 8""'ge from Alma
Street shall be subjecllo review and approval by the ARB.
Plano;", Commj$Sjoa and ARB Cooditjog i7 The project shall include. g""'ge plan
with parkin8 accessed from Alma Street and the alley, as reviewed and approved by the
ARB.
Should the Council adopI the Planning Commission and ARB Coodition n. then staff
recommends the fOllowing additional conditions. These conditions would apply if the
project has some alley access,
SlaifCooQrtjqn f?fA> Arrange fOr lite instaJ!ation of 'One Way' and 'No Stopping Any
Tune" signs. along the alley, as determined by lite Transportation Division.
Staff Condition 7{A) is intended 10 reduce the -mpact !hat • new project will ha,e on
operations in lite aney. The Planning Commission did 001 recommend inclusion ofL'Us
cood'rtion, since !!ley fek that lite aI1ey could serve !he needs ofboth the adja<:ent business
users and the SRO residents, would give alley users more options 10 001;".., the alley
inlOrmaII)' as I tw<>-way alley, and Illa! instaJ!ation of "One Way" and 'No Slopping Any
CMR:27S,95 Pa&e 19 0(24
.,. " ,
'-
",
,
".""' .'
CD
Tune" signs (the latter woold preclude llSC ofth. aIle) foe Ioading/unloadj,~g functions)
woold impact the adjacent businesses. If the project were approved with one garage level
access on the olley, unlells directed oIhetwisc by Ibe City C<>U!lCil, the Transportation
Division would implement the above sign.ge changes IS part of its ministerial
responsibtlity, e1{eI'. if condition 7(A) were 001 approved.
Staff Condition t7(B) AppIkaDl shall improve the entire length of the alley, 10 standards
detennined by the Departmen! of Public Worb and Transportation Division. as a one
way aDey_
pjannina Commission Coodjtioc t7fB): Applicant shaD improve the alley only for the
length of the oDey ad";oining the project site, and any other portions diSlurbcd by utility
installation 10 serve the project.
Staff recommends improvement 10 the entire alley as would normally be required of any
development project. The Pl2nning Commission reoommended that the applicant be
required 10 improve the alley only for the length affected by the proje<:t, whi<;h could
in<:1ude the southern portion of the alley wbere stQ(!11 &-ainago instllna6<>n and
undergrounding electric utilities will probably affect the aDey, but probably does not
in<:lude the north end of the alley, where DO construction or undergrounding is expeded
10 take place_
llNIllDON 'I ()(A): MITKlAT!ON FOR POTENTIAl, HIMES
The mitigated negative declaration prepared foe the project recommended three
mitigation measures I<> the possible Human Health impacts from the adjacenl auto
painting operations at Ell isoo's, They were I) spnnsor 10 install • mechanical fr<:sb air
ventilation system foe all SRO units IS recommended by CharIe5 & Braun, engineers; 2)
sponsor shall m,.-tall, at sponso<'s expea... an exhaust sta<:k and fan system, as
recommended by Charle5 & Braun, 10 vent emissions from Ell isoo paint booth
operations; and 3) sponsor 10 install 5&0 windows which arc operable bUi which can be
coovert.."<I1o inoperable. j,e, seaIcd in the future ifrequired. The consultant ,,'ho prepared
the air quality analysis lOr Ihe original Feasibility Study of the project. could DOt state
unequivocally that the project would IY.Jt be &ffecled by tbe odors that fllight eman.t~
from Ellison's, and in twn, the presence of odors fllight indicate the presence of palo!
soIvcms in the air, The mitigalioo measures were intended \0 eliminale any possible risks
and any possible nuisance problems,
The Commissk>D felt that the requiremenllo install the exhaust sta<:k prior 10 occupancy
was prematurely address"'g & problem that may DOt exist-In. Planning Commission
recommended that P AHC be given some d'lSCl'eOOn \0 implement management controlled
.,
.. _f, -'.
"
-.: -~, ",
, .. " ;,"
•
" " _~ 'i ".
• .' -~ c " .to ".".
--.. -:, -.. -.'" _ .. '" .' .~.:-
options prior 10 • requiremeni for installation of !he sUck. The Commission
RCQltlmended &hat die project be constnIc1ed withoot the stack and withoot I requiremO!lt
for mec:hanicaI venb1atioo l>ased 00 possible fumes. The Commission placed a cooditioa
t!Jat die project owner be required 10 submit a repOO 10 t!>e Cily one year at\er <><eupane)'
el die bwlding. 10 assess any problems that might OOe occurred related 10 Ihe odor5 from
painting operatioru; and t!,e solutioos that P ABC had implemented in ""'portS<'. The Cily
coold lhen make a more infonned determination whether or 001 die property owner would
have 10 I) insta1I an eJ<baUSl sUck and fan system at EUisoo's, 2) seal all windows or 3)
implement an o1ternative meilSUre.
Additional d"lSCUSSion on Ihe issue is contained in !he Planning Commission staff report
dated May to, 1995, star1lng on Page 1&. Staff supports the cooclusioo of the mitigated
negative declaration and recotr.mends L'u>t the appropriate mitigation for the poIeGlial .
impact from odors, be determined prior 10 issuance ell building permit.
Staff Condition ) O(A> Prior 10 occupanC)' tI!< property owner shall submit eviden<:e to
the Diretlor of Planni.,g and Community Envirorunent. demoostrating that one of the
following bas been implemented: (I) an exhaust stack and fan system, as recommended
by Charles 8£ Braun, to "en! ernissions from Ellison's paint booth emissions, Itas been
installed; (2) all windows 10 the project's resid..'"I1tial units have been sealed; {)I" (3) an
a1ternati,. mitigation measure has been prop<JSed by • qualif.ed expen and bas been
revkwed and IiPJ'CO'/ed by !he City as an amen<lment to the PC zone under Chapter 18.63
or Ch>pter 18.99, as 'lppropriate, and implemented by the property o ... ner.
The Planning Coounlssion reeommellded as a sub5titute coodition the lOIIowing wl1icb
becomes Condition 11 (C) because the timing is cbanged from prior to occupancy to ODe
year at\er o.::cupancy.
Plannjnr <;ommfssjon Cnnditjon lIfe) The p<operty c-..ncr shaIT comply "'ith the
IOlIowing cooditioo m order 10 mitigate the possible impact of fumes from the adja;:ent
. automotive painting operation at Ellison's Body Sbop:
{lJ One year fOllowing occupancy of the residential portion of the project. the
property owner shall submit to the Direclol" el Planning and Community
Environment ("Directo<") I written report as provided in this comfrtion. For the
purpose ellhis toodition, "occupancy" CIeans rental of90 percenl of the units.
(2) The written report <hall include an of the following inf«matioo:
CMllo211109S I'ajje 21 0/ 2<
o
(a> A cIe1&led log of any and all odor ~omplaints =eived during the year
by the project sponoor/property owner frcm residents of the pro}""t
regaIding odon entering tho project from outside sources.
(b) A desaip60n of actioo(s) taken in response 10 any and all such
complaints.
(c) A description of any and all complaints =oived by the Bay Area Air
Quality Managemenl District (BAAQMD) during the year, ~g
odors or other airborne emissions alleged 10 have emanated from
sources located on the same block as the project. The description shaI1
include both verified and unverified complaints, and the address(es) of
Ibe complainanl(s). 10 the extent such information is available from the
BA.-'QMD.
(3) If; upon review of the repon.and any other avallable relevant information, the
DirecIor determines that the loCation of the project adja<:enllo automotive uses
has resulted in significant odor ~omplaiDts from the project un. ... lated to any
violatior> of emissions standards by the automotive uses, then the Director shall
require the property owner 10 take one of the following actions within one
hundred eighty (180) days:
(I) Install an exhaust stack and fan system, as re<:ornmetl<kd by Cbarles II<
Braun 10 vent emissioos from Ellison's paint booIh emissioos;
(b) Seal all windows to the project's residential units, and ensure thaI a
mecbankal ventllatioo system 10 the units is operational; or
(c) Implement an alternative mitigation measure, as proposed by a
qualified expert, and as reviewed' and approved by t.'Ie City as an
amendment lethe PC zone under Cbapter IS.6! orCbapter 18.99, as
appropriate.
(4) 10 the Director's d"1SCretioo. at the end of the one-year reporting period. the
property owner may be required 10 submit an additiooal report following the
second year of occul""K'Y, 10 be reviewed in ,,"ordance with paragraph (3).
(S) N~ of any detenninatior. made by the Director pursuant'" paragraphs (3) or
(4) ofthls rondition.baIi be given in writing in acrord with the provisioos of
Chapler 18.93, and any aggrieved or affec1ed petliOIlS may appeal such
determination in a<:cC<d with the provisions of that Cb.pt ... ·. _
•
" ~ e
. -
AIJERNATIVES
. . . "-~ .-.,-.
-.
The Council could recommend denial of the projea or could recommend modifications 10
1he project.
m:q,J, IMPACT
All analysis of1he Iiscal impact of!be project is cootained in • sep.rate CMR (CMR:302:9S)
10 be coos:idercd by !be Council in relation 10 111< linan<:ing of1l1e project and purchase of !be
land. Background 00 the impIkatioo oftbe =ommended cooditions on 1I1e finllllCing of the
project is cooIained in the Planning C<munission staff report and in 1he minutes from !be
meeting. Also attached is a leuer dated May 5, 1995, from the Palo Alto Housing
C«poration whkb outlines 1I1eir coocerns abcut the cost of the project and the conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAl, ASSE. .. WENI
A M'mgated Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attBcbed. All potentially
sigrtificanl impacts of the project can be mitigated 10 • level of less Ihan signilkant. For
fur1her discussion of 1he environmental impacts. ple.se see the attached Planning
Commission s1aff report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
STEPS FOI.LOWING APPROYAL
Sbould Council approve 1I1e PC ZOO< change. staffwill return 10 Council on consent Calendar
at 1I1e next avaHable meeting with the adopted conditions and the final !ext of Ibe PC
Orclinance. CMR:302:95 has been prepared lOr Council discussion of1l1e status of tile sire
op6oo, t"" timing of 1I1e acquisitioo and an update on project costs and funding sources.
AUACBMENTSIEXHlBITS
A. Planned Community Zone Findings
B. Design Enhancement Exception Fincfmgs
C. Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval
D. Planning Commission Recommended Conditions of Appcoval
E. Draft Ordinance wv.b Lo.:ation Map
f. M'mgated Negative Declaratioo
G. Letter fi-om Palo Aha Housing C<Jq>Orntion, dated 515195
AUACHMFNfS FOR COUNCil, MEMBERS Om, y,
May 10. 1995, Planning Commis""",, S!4IT Report wi1I1 Attachments
May 10, 1995, ExcetpI Planning Commission Minutes
CMI<o218,gs
'." I' ..
, .
FaF13 of 24
. .
o --.~ -;',. '
o
Marcl! 8, 1995, Plann 1r.g Commission Staff Report v.'ithout Attachments
March 8, 1995, Excelpl Planning Coounission Minutes
ARB Minutes of April 20, 1995
Development Program Statement from App&ant
Project Plans including' Alma Access Plan' lOr garage
COURTESY COPIES:
Planning Commission
Architectural Review Board
Palo Alto Housing Corporation, 540 Cowper, Snit. 201, Palo Alto CA 94301
Charles J, Keenan ill wd Mark T, Gates, Jr, c/o Keenan Lar.d Company,
700 Emersoo Street, Palo Aho CA 9430 1
IndepeodeDl BMW, 799 Alma Street, Palo Alto CA 94301
Earl and Cye Ellison. 705 Aim. Street, Palo Aho CA 9430 I
University Park Assoc, do Vlrgirila &: Don Fitton, 821 Waverley Street,
Palo Aha CA 94301
Patricia &: Earl Schmidt, 201 Homer Avenue, PaIoAhoCA 94301
Rose &: Bill Thoits, 744 High Street, Palo Alto CA 9430 J
Palo Alto Plaza Homeo"netS Assn, Attn: Cathy Tomar\, Property Mana!!er,
P.O, Bo" 4370, Mountain VleW CA 94040
E. A. Maas, II East Main Street, l<>s Gatos CA 95030
Bill Me <:ann, 685 High Stree!, tl2F, Palo Aha CA 9430 I
League ofWomea VOIers, 451 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto CA 9430 1
Midpeninsul. Citizens lOr Fall' Housing, 451 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto CA 9430 J
Carol Lamon!, 6! 8 Kings!ey Avenue, Palo Alto CA 9430 1
Thomas S. Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, PaIoAho CA 94301
Palo Alto HardVoare, 875 Aim. Street, Palo Aho CA 9430 I
Innovative Housing, 457 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301
Santa Clara County Manufacturing Groop, 5201 Great Americ. Parkway. Snite 426,
Santa Clara CA 95054·1 176
Julie Barney, 34 J 8 Waverley Street, Palo Alto CA 94306
Taber Food Servkes, !nc, af> Edward Gerard Fike, 4224 El Caruinf> Real,
Palo Alto CA 94306
Who!e Foods Madet, 774 Emerson Street, Palo Alto CA 94301
:
~<,-.--: .
, ,
Paj:e 2. or 24
'. ,'.
~, .
".-.
:-. ~.
--.-; ...
.-, ..
. .. -.
ATTACHMENT A
Planned Community Zone Findings -725-753 Alma
'The City O:luncil bc~by finds wilh respect to lhe subje<:t property that:
C.) 'The sile is so situated, and !he uses proposed fur !he subje<:t property are of such
cbaracteristics !hat !he application of general d"1S!ricIs or comb\nlng <f1S!ricts "ill no( prov'.de
sufficient flexibility to aJlow the proposed development, which "ill provide housing fur low
and very low-income persons. The incn:ascd density and decreased parking requirement "ill
allow a greater number of smaller units suitable to • low-income working person. thus
servi.ng a larger number of persons neeOmg this type of housing. and ... ilI reduce !he costs
per unit. lhus making !he llIIits affordable 10 persons with low and very low mcorne'ii.
(b) The project will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by applicatioo of the
regulations of genernl districts or combining distric!s, in thai housing fur low-and very Iow
income pe;sons is • public need, considering the expense of housing in Palo Alto, and that
Ibis type of stnAll, affordable urut is "'" being provided in the communiI)' by 04ber projects.
(c) 'The uses permitted and the site development regulalions applicable within the
district are consistenI with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and existing and potential uses
011 acfJOining sites or within tbe gene:ral vicinity, in !hat lIle permitted uses ( housing fur Iow
and very low-income persoos and office space) will have minimal traffic oc DOise impacts
011 !he surrounding oeigbborbood. and tha! !he development project proposed 10 be
construc!ed on !he subject property will further the policies and programs of!he Housing
Element by increasing the supply of rental housing, providing smaller, aflixdaNe units.
providing housing which meets lhe special needs of working individuals, and by raking
adv&,"'.age of financing ~vil1able from o'.ller levels of government
Additional fiodina;
The ro&\\'ing additiooal finding shall be made if tbe C.ouncil accepts !he Planning
Conunission reconunendo!ioo regard'"mg any potential adverse land use ()[ health impacts
resuhing from !he proximity of the project 10 autOOlOlive serv',.;e uses:
'The Council finds lhaJ the (fumes) mitigation measure as descn"bed in the Neg_tive
Dedaration is UDdesirable. in lhat it requires upfront instaDation of costly mechanical
equipment which may be unnecessary. The Council finds that a substitute mitigation
measure is avw1ab!e whkh would be equally effective in mitigating potential significant
effects "" the environment to a less lhan significant level Thai measure, which is made a
I
..•.
".-1
. ,
~tion of pro~ approval by inclusion in the Ordinan<:e, is enumerated as Condition
II(C} in the Planning Commission recommended conditions < ( approval.
2
·> .,--• -. -
t '" .
. '.
---.'.
ATfACHMEN.L8
Design Enhancement Exception Findings -725-753 Alma
The City OJuncil hereby finds wl1h '''peet 10 the subject property that:
(I) There are excep600al or cxtraonfmary conditions applicable 10 the property involved
1hlII do no( generally apply 10 property in the same district in th.t the site fronts 011 • major
thoroughfare and I'llllroad !racks and is in an area where increased buil<ftng size has been
detennined in the (kl>an Desigo Guide 10 be ac<:epIable.
(b) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure,
or improve the neighborhood character oflhe project and Pf"'Crve an e,osting or proposed
architectural style, in I manner which would 001 otherwise be accomplished through strict
appflcatioo of the minimum requimnents of Title 18 and the standards for review set forlh
in the ARB Ordinance in Ihal the si~ and buil<fmg bave • broad exposure 10 Alma Streellhat
would be enhanced by being brole. up into smalIcr segments that vary in heighL
(c) The ex£eption is related 10 I minor architectural feature or site improvement that will
D{)( he detrimen!al or injurious 10 property or improvements in the vicinity and wiU no! be
detrimen!allo the public health, safety, general welfure or convenience in that the exception
is bei.g granted for an increased heigbt of only fuur feet 10 • sman portloo of the parapet at
the center of the Alm. Street facade of the building.
1
"
.. -~"-'
.,
ATTACHMENT C
Staff Rec;ommcnded Condition. or Apprpy.1 . 725-753 AIma.
I. final plans including materials and wlors, garage plans, complete lighting and
photometric plans, Ik!aiIed landscaping and irrlgatioo plans encompassing on· and off·site
plantable areas, and signs shaI! be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board
("ARB"} prio< 10 issuance of building permits. All UIllity meter>, lines, transfurmers,
bacldl<J", prevcnter>, electric panel switchboards, and any o!ber required ul>'!ities shall be
showD on the final plans and sbaII show Iba! DO c:ooflict will occur between the utilities and
landscape Il1lIterials ane; sbaII be screened in a manner ~hich respects the hwlding design and
sctbacl; requirements.
2. The final plans shall include the fuIlowing-.
(Al A revised design inciu<fmg a third-floor common utcben and outdo<x deck;
(B} An acoustically-cffcctiv ... dlling, at least four feet high, OIl the ftrst floor deck;
and
(C) Rocessing of the windows on the cast and south elevatioos.
3. All residential unit windows shall have appropriate STC ratings as descnl>ed in the
acoustical consultant', rOport and TrtIe 24 of the CarOOmia Buil<fmg ec.de. WtIk.'ow. which
will be affected by noise from the compressor on the adjacent property 10 the north shall meet
appropriate S TC ratings 10 reduce such noise 10 45 dB DNL or Ies, as measured on the
interior with the window dosed.
4. A ee!!Ir8! mechanical air ,'enI11.tion system must be included in the project 10 provide
• soorce of fresh air b each residential unlL
S. All residential unit windows shall be of. type whicb is convettible 10 inoperable status
(Le~ sealed).
6. Up 10 four additiooal street ~ of minimum 24 inch bo" size shall be planted along
the block Irootage; species, location, and number shall be determined by the City Arborist.
7. A revised garage plan accessing boll! levoTs of the garage from Alma Street shan be
sul:jev"llo review and approval by the ARB.
1
. "-_.,",
..
,
--""
.'
;
o
8, Prior 10 ~ of a grading and excavation pennit; A detaIled gradIng plan shaD !>e
submitted for rev1ew and awro"a1 by the City Public W ods Deportment and the Building
Inspectioo Division and shaD in<:1udc standard !fee prolectioo measure< for the oo-site trees
10 be retained Excavation of soils duri!lg construction shall !>e subject 10 the
recommendations of the Regklnal Water Quality Control Bo .... d ("RWQCB"), 0< oCher
t.$p .... ~~~~'":w:y, reganfmg monitoring and proper remcval. RWQCS,'.Or CIIbei:
C .. ~~4~..y~L .'ii"~ shaD!>eobtained for the constructioo of the proposed huilOlIlg
and !Illy procedures requirtd by the RWQCB,)ii'~~ 0geI!cy. fOllowed during
excavation and grad"mg. Any contaminated soil or groundwater encountered during
excavation sball !>e remc:diated or disposed of in 0CC<lrdance with ijljllicable State or local
laws and procedures.
9. Prior 10 ~ of. build'mg permit;
(A) All lot lines sbaD!>e removed pursuant 10. Certifi<:.te of Compliance.
(B) final plans sbaD be revised as required to comply ... llb the ARB approvals
referenced above, whlch will in<:lude additional standard cooditions.
(C) The applicant shall submit. formal drainage plan for the site 10 the Public
Works DepartmenL The plan shaD include coonection of the projec(s stQffil
drain system 10 the City storm drainage line at the intersection of Homer and
High.
. 1.1>, Prior 10 occupancy:
(A) The property owner shaD submit e>idence 10 the Director of Planning and
Community Environment, demonstrating that one of the following has been
implemented (I) an exhaust stack and tan sy.t""" as recommended by Charles
&: Braun 10 vent emissions from Ellisoo's paint booth emissioos, has been
installed; (2) all ",indows 10 the project's residential units have been se.aled; or
(3) an alternative mitigation measure has !>een proposed by • qualified expert
and has been reviewed and approved by the City as an amendment 10 the PC
zone uncle! Chapter 1M! or Chapter J 3.99, as appropriate, and implemented
by the property owner.
(B} The sidewalk along the Alma Street frontage of the property. and cum and
gutter, shaH be replaced as determined by the Department of Public Works in
«de< 10 ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety.
1I, following occupancy:
2
",., -
•
~--'--,' ---
,-
(A) The property C>WD<I" shall make an annual payment of $3 7.19, first CO!l"=ing
one year after occurancy, 10 !he owner of the sol.,. system located at 744 High
Street, as compensation for increased u!l1ity costs due 10 slladmg caused by !he
pro~ Payment shall be made only if!he solar system is in use. This
coodffioo shaD be of no furce and effect after fifteen years or at such time as, the
sol ... system is DO longer operatiooal, whichever event first occurs.
(B) For the firsllWo years followL,g project occupa:>Cy, the property owner ,llall
meet on • regular basis, at IeasI once annually, with o"net'S and tenants of
propertie~ located on the block wherein the subject property is situated. The
purpose of !he meeting sball be 10 discuss and seek to resolve any common
coocems regar<fmg such issues as parking.
3
ATIACHMFm..D
PlagDing Commis.qoD Recommegded Condjtion. of Approval-
725-753 "Ima
I. Final plans inclu<fmg materials and eolors, garage plans, eomplete lighting and
pholomettic plans, de!aiIed landscaping and irrigation plans encompassing on-and off-site
plantable areas, and signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Ardilteclural Review Board
("ARB") prior '" isSUllIlCe of building permi~ All utIlity meters, lines, translOm!ers,
baektlow preventers, el«!ri<: panel switchboards, and any other required utilities shall be
shown 011 !he final plans and shall show !hal DO C{)nllict wiU occur between the utJ1ities and
landscape materlaIs and shall be screened in • marmer which respects the bw1amg design and
setback requirements.
1. 'The final plans shaU include the following:
(B) An acoustically..,ffective ruling. at least lOur feet high, on the flfSt floor deck;
and
(C) Recessing of the windows on the east and SQUib elevations.
3. AIl residential unit windows shall have appropriate SIC ratings as described in the
acoosticaI c""sultane. report and Title 24 of the California Building Code. Wmdows which
will be affected by noise from the compressor 011 the odjacent property \0 the north shall meet
appropriate SIC ratings \0 reduce such noise 10 4S dB DNL or less os measured ()Q the
interior with the window closed.
4. A «:Mia:! mecbeniea! air .eutilstion ,,:Item Bid M ifteIutkd ift tfte prejeet 116 po • ide
a SOUiCC «fresh aU fer eaeh re!liderttiat tlftit.J!tinecb ai1iW \'e11ti~syslein to provi4c
t ~ of fiesIIJ'ir~ e;o !I111lit ~ deferiiIiIied by'tbe city DoC to be n:quircd in <>nIer \0
II8Iis1Y Tille 2_4 !...;.eRqllhtllic:nts, Ipplic:a.at shall ncvedbe1ess provide adequate space b'
~~. htilf!'1''''¥i<f ofnleduipic.al vmmeJinnequipmellt.
S. All residential unit window. shall be of a type which is convertible 10 inoperable status
(l.e~ sealed).
15. Up kJ Mar a&fi&Nml :theet Ifees efmfrtitl'l1:H'.t'l24 ineh &ex sift: sftaH be J5ltbltcd aJor.t!
the block fi ODtttF" "pedes; Jeeation; BUd rawnbCi lMfl be determm(e 'b~ the Cit) AiM: ist:
-.-,
-, ,
. ,-=, -.-.. .
Q
j~ Ii fe"bed pi age pfan aeee3Jif4 botit: Ie.cts ofthc: garage &om .\-Ima St!eet shaH be
.'*':jcet ,. ,e,ieM "",d oppto."Ol b, \be ~. J¥pro~ shall include & gamge plan,...;th
~@I1.·I~'-,.e6¥i.AiDIa~~_alley,'!S.~c,dIlDd~by.~~,
(AJ ~ihii!l imp<oYe the .aIIe): <XIIy fOl!he letigfh 0( the 8Iley a4joininglhe
~ ~Ji!i!! any ~ p<¥Iioiis ~ by iltiIity instaIlatio!Ilo serve !he P«!ieCf.
(8) .!'Jil!B'i "P!(,S;n 1b.:.8;0 garage ~~ .assi~ 30 !hal usen knoW\101Ii9I
~toJ!sC,
8_ Prior 10 issuance of. grading and .. cavatioo permit: A detalled gracfmg plan shall be
subniitted fOr =iew and approval by t."-e Cily Public Wods Department and the Build"mg
~000 Division abd sbaJl inclttdc !ltalltlmd flee prl5£ection ft}"fi3t!1"eJ for the 6ft site trees
te be retained. Ex:ea.atieft or S6ib dtllirl& eon3hucliea shall ~ lb~jeet to tbe
JeeOdlfne:r:stlatiom of tile Re~r'lBl Vlater QuaHl) Control Beard f'R"'Q(J8"} regwd:~t!
monitOi in, aud prepcr lemo, at R\VQCe ekztiwree 3"411 r,e ~f:ftmcd for ~_ C6Mb udkH'I
,,(tire pmpcscd btrilcfinS and am, proeedtfleJ J'CqdHea try the R\YQCS faBM.,ed' dutir"
c:w:ea ~ a6ea an~ !!atf'nl!. Any contaminat~ soil or groundwater encountered during
excavation sball be remedialed oc disposed of in acco<dance wilb appl;';.ble State or local
I.ws and procedures.
9_ Prior 10 issuance 0(. buMmg permit:
tA) All lot lineS shall be removed pursuant 10 • Certificate of Compliance.
(B) Fi."1llI plans shan be ""iscd as required to comply with tbe ARB approvals
referenced above, 1A'hich will include additional standard cooditioos.
(C) The applicattt shall ;ubmlt • formal drainage pion fo< Ibe site to the Public
Works DepartmenL The plan shall inclade connection oftbe project's storm
drain system 10 tbe Cily storm drainage line at tbe lnt=tion of Bomer and
High.
{A) Tbc ptoput) "'fe:aef :J1o.aH 3't!brnit c.ideDeC 'too tJ,e Baceler Cif P18ftIlin,; and
Ceiidbmhty De. e'k¥mcul; ~elltelm abn! that otiC of tiie f.6&. iii! has beeft
iMplemcn!ed:: (I) aft C)dmwt stack aad fafi .., stun; a lee6!nme~ '" 6hatks
a: B18ttli ~ .etlt cr:nis:iieM left! EllbM:' paint booth emis:lioM; !1M beer!
if IEaBed':; t2~ ali ... indQ4\! \0 'Ell<! i*(Jeet~! residential tlttfts ht"', bceft !etde4, Of
(3) 11ft al1czmtti., mmgftOOn I!\I:ImttC htti ~ "4ep6Jed b) • qll8Hfiec! expct1:
and hAs ken Ie .;m. eli abd appro. cd b, eM: C~ u an wnendmcnt te the PC
2
':;,.
~, ---", '
. "-.. -.
•
•
-.
(B)
i.f:: . ~ "",'. .-~
~ o"-r.}
'-,.
:mne tlm4er Chapter 18.68 or Chapter 18.99. ~ apptopr;dte; I!fld imp!ememcd
Th< sidewalk along the Abnl Strm ftootage of the property, and curb and
gutte.-, shall be replaced as detennined by the Department of Public Worb in
onIe1 \0 ensure pedesbian and vehicular safety.
II. following occupancy:
(A) The pr~. o"aet JltaB: rnae aft aftnt!&!pD)MCn! "F537.19, first con:tmet1eHtJ
ene JCIti Ai OCCt1l'tluc .... to the c"ael elttx:!018f s,:Jtem leoeatcd at 7.tllip
S4!eet; as couo:pedStltion fer i1'lcz CIS 3d t2ltlit) eo:Jts dtJe to Jhatfl1'!! eawed b) the
ptejeel: PI) mene shaH ~made em, if file 3CtT1If s,.melft iJ in~. This
eoadition mmt ~ orne. bee and ,fleet after fiLa ; e:tl1 1 fir at ,aell time as eM.
~l8r ",stem is w leages: operlltiol'lf!t. ,.,hlehe.er e.eut first ecettn.
--{B) Foe the tint twoYeaD following project occupancy, the properly ,,'wner shan
mecloo a regular basis, at least once annually, with o"'eeTS and tenants of
properties IocaIed on the block wherein the subject proper!)' is situated. The
purpose of the meeting shall be \0 discuss and seek 10 resolve any common
c:oneerns regarding sueb issues as parking.
(C) The ~ own« ~ c~ wi'.h the ful\Qwing condition in order \0
JIl!ti~ the possible iIi!pacC. of fUmes ftom the adjacent a\Jto!nOOve painting
~.JtE!l~'~ EIO!iY~:
(I) poe ycarJollolv!ng ~ of1be resick:iJ;W portion of the project,
IlHf~ OWDeSabio1I submJt \0 the Dino<:ror of Planning 2nd
Cojninuillty ~ ("Diredoc'1a writIeii report as provided in
tru.s:.~ fo(the purpose of Ibis OODditioo. ·occupancy" meIII)S
~of~~the~~
(2) J:beWriltef!.reporI ~ iDc~'an of the roDowing information:
(a) ,.. ~ log bhriyaJid all odor COJDj>laicts received durlng
1}:Ie'yc:arb)' II!C JiIO.i= ~ -from residelll( of
!be ........... re........ <:>don eormn-(he • ect ftom ooISide, • .,.-......, ,~ ..... g ." g proj ,.
~yes.;
(1)) A~of acIioo(s) ~ in response 10 any and aD such
c:omplainb,
(3)
" " ' :,,-:-..
, -:::-,~~~,:~-
• -> ••
. , -
o
-: .
-" .-
(e) "~~~.QfJDY:~.p ~~by ~ .. aa,
~fo'Qo!8IIIyf!"!"~.~ (BMQ.~) c!uring IflC
~~iN.~~~~t)I~.emissioM~~~
.... y;Odntt't' ~ toc::a!eIfOl\ die silDe1>lOckas Ibi:: i>iim~/tifi:.~~sJj!llf ~ b(II.h~ed ~
1iI1':"'!I''i'¥'~~~~'')l!ftbccoinpl~.).
!<!~r',j~~.1tlfilliPIlf91i;l~1al>Ie nom !he BMQMD'
1~,-~lC:.~:of.~!~ iiiIII. iaJy oCher-available .~~
~~·~.Pit,"'"d.~ 'll I""! .~!be ~ oftbc ~
~ •• ~t\!""!'!"'~."~~.ilf~~compltill!?
Iitil't1be PfOlej:t.~.tO.fIIiY ~?f ~ions s!Jindarcls bY
~~I'~1isCS; ~! ~.~1Iball ~ die property ov.'Ii<!"
ro fake ooeprCbe ~8!'Iioos Within Oilc.'"",<lred eigbly (l~)
claY'"
Ca)
(b)
IIls!all iii exhauststacl< and fan system, as recommended by
ctarles & Bmm \0 vent emissioos from FlIison', paint booth
emissiQIIs . •
Seal aU windows \0 !he project's residential mUts. and ensure
Iha! • mcchankaI ventilation system \0 !he nnfts is operai;ooal;
()[
(c) 1mp1eJ!l1!nl ac:aJtcmjlljvc-miligillioll iDeaS1iri; as proj>osc<I bya
quaIi:fi.;d~ IiDd IIS~ and "I'P!!vm by die C'J!y ~.~
~.~ ~~.~",*" Cbaprcr 1M3 ()[ ~
J3~.""",,,0(iiiItfti
(4) !ntl!it~~_~_~"""'of!heone:-ye..rreporling~
Ihlo'jlropeitj ;~)iia;~ !1IiFi!~.fI:l~~i>iVn additiclt!8I. rtj>(iI!
1lJt\oWirtg~~ytII!;~~.lObc·~.in-~
j!Ii1h paragf8jlh1l).
m llIoli!?¢., 9f .~""J J!'i,!,,~ lIia!Ie . by the. Dircc:kJ< f9<:ru&nt fa
~(3)~{4J~~'~ sIuIIJ.be gIvm in Wrilingi!>
ic~®t~lth ¥JIir:1?";:~l'i:~\1.93. and anY aWieVe4<i:
~JlCt~~~.~. ~:-'!1il~ in&cc<jrd~dIe
~oflbat~·
4
•• >
OI<DINANCl! NO. -;;:~=;;-;=;:;-""
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AKENDL>JG sBt"nON 1B .OS .040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MliKICIPAL COOB (THE ZONING MAP} TO CHANGB THE
CLASSIFICATION OP PROPERTY KNOWN AS 725-753 AI."!A
SNEn FROM CD-SIP} TO PC
-.
WliB.RBAS" the Planning CO!mlissioo" after a duly not.iced
pubUc hearing held May lO. 1995. and the Architectural Review
Board, upon conslderatioa at its meeting of Ap~il 20~ 1995, have
recommended that Section 19.0B.040 {the ZOning Map) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code he ame~ed as hereinafter set forth; and
~I the City Council. after due consideration of the
recaunendations .. finds that t.he proposed amendment is in the publIc
in~ere3t and will pr~e the public health, safety and welfare.
WW. THEREFORE. the Council ¢f the City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTiON 1. Section 19.09.040 of the Palo ~to MUnicipal
Code .. the -Zoning Map.· is hereby amended by cha.hging the 'Zoning of
certain property known as 725·753 Alma Street (the -subject
propert.y-) from ·CD-S(Pl Service CQ11llercial with a Pedestrian
Combining District.. to 'PC Planned Coamunity .. • Tbe 8u2:lject.
property is sbown on the map labeled BXhibit ·A·. attach~ bareto
ana incorporated herein by reference.
SPIOR 2. The City Coun<::il hereby finds with respect to
~e sUbjec~ proper~y that:
Ca} Tbe site is so situated~ and tbe uses proposed for
the eubject property are of su~h characteristics tbat the
applica~ion of general distric~8 or combining districts viII ~
provide sufficient flexibility to allow t-he proposed development~
weich ~ll provide housing for low-and very low-income persons_
'l1le increased density and decreased parking requirement will ali"",
a greater i1UDK:>er Of smaller units suitable to a lOW'-income working
person.6 t.hus serving a 1arger nunlber of peraoos needing this type
of housing, and will reduce the costs per a~it6 thus making the
unit-a affordable t.o persons W'lt.h low and very low in-comes.
(b) The project vill result in public benefits not
~hervise attainable by application of the regulations of general
districts or coobining districts. in that h"".l.ng for low· and very
low~lnoome persoos is a public n~ed. consIdering the expense of
bousing in Palo Alto6 and that this type of small. affordable unit
is I>CX being provided in the community by other proj ects.
1
·>
."
o
eel Tbe uses permitted and the site devel~ent
regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the
Palo Alto comp~ehenBive Plan~ and eXisting and ~ential uses CD
ad.joining sites or within the general vicinity. in that the
permitted uses (bousing fer low-and very lov-income persons and
office ~ceJ will have minimal traffic or noise impacts on the
surrounding neigllborbood, a:nd that t.he develcpnent project proposed
to be CODBtructed on the subject property ~ll further the policies
and programs of the Housing Blement by increasing the supply of
rental IY.>us.ing, providing smaller. affordable units .. providing
houSing whicb meets the special needs of working individuals. and
taking advantage of financing available from ocher levels of
g'OVernmen t .
SECTION 3~ Those certain plans entitled ·Palo Alto SRO .. ~
prepared by Rob Wellington Quigley, FAIA. Architecture-Planning,
dated as received by the City on March 9, 1995. a copy of which is
on file ill the Planning-Division office.. and to 'Which copy
reference is hereby made concerning the full particulars tbereof,
are hereby approved as tbe Development Plan for the subject
property, pursuant to section 18. 68 ~ 120 ~ Said Development Plan is
approved for the following uses. and subject to-the following
coodi tloruo,
{a} permitted Pses. The uses shall be limited to
residential units affordable to low-and very low-income persons
and accessory uses incidental thereto. and a maxllDwn of l~SO~
square teet of leasable office s~ce~
{b}
permitted.
Conditiopal Pees_ No conditional uses shall be
{e) Site DeyelcgMmt RegulatiooB. All improvements and
development shall be sUbstantially in accordan~e with the approved
Development Plan. The following are site development regulations
"hlcb establish rules for modifications or additions c.o any
building" accesSI.Jry structure or landscaping OIl the subject
property. Definitions of terms used shall be in accordance with
Chapter 18.0. (Definit.ions} of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
(i~ Final plans in<:luding materials and
colors" garage plans Jl complete lighting and photometriC plane:~
detailed landscaping a:nd irrigation plal'S eI>COllJla88ing on-and off
site plant-able areas, and signs shall be reviewed and approved by
the Architectural Review Board t"ARB"1 prior to iSBUall<:e of building
permits. All ctillty meters.. lines" transformers.. backflow
preventers l electric panel switchboards.. and any ocher required
utll ittes "hall be shoWn on the final plans and shall show that no
conflict ~11 occur between the utilities and landscape materials
2
..
..
and shall be ecreened in a rr.a.n:tler which respects the buildiog
design and setback requirements.
(iiI ~n &ddi~iou to ~he information described
~ve. and all-information ~berwlse required under Ti~le 16 and
Title 11 of ~he Municipal Code, the final plans shall include the
following:
IA) A revised design including a third·
floor cammon kitchen and outdoor deck;
(e} An acoustically· effective railing, at
least four feet high, on tbe first floor deck; and
IC) Recessing of the windows on the east
and south elevations.
(iii} ~l residential unit vindovs shall have
approprl.te STC ratings as described in the acoustical cOQSultant?s
report and Title 24 of the California Building Code. Windows which
w111 be affected by noise from the CODil-ressor on the adjacent
property to the DOrt:h shall meet appropriate STC ratings t.o reduce
such no!ae to 4S dB DNL or less as measured on the interior vitb
the window closed.
(iv) A mechanical air ve~t11atioo system must
be included In the project to provide a source of fresh aIr tor
each residential unit.
(v) All residential unit wiodows shall be of
a type whIch is convertible to inoperable status Ii> e >, sealed),
ivi I
Dlfni.." .. 24-inch box siz.e
species. location.. and
Arborist.
Up t.o focr additional street
shall be planted .long the block
number shall be determined by
t.rees of
frontage;
the City
(4J iar1dns ,00 'mdios Require;r.ente. The parking and
loading requIrements governing the sUbject property shall be in
accordance with the Development Plan, except as follows: A revised
garage plan acceSSing boeh levels of t.he garage from ~ma Street
shall be _tted and subject to final review and approval by the
ARB.
(e) Special Requ!r~nts.
{I} Prior to issuance of a grading and
excavatioc permit, a detailed grading plan shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City PUblic Works Department and t.he
Building Inspection Division and sball include standard t.ree
3
protect1o~ measures for the on-site trees to be retained.
Excavatf.on of soils a.J.ring construction sball be subject to the
recomme~tiona ot the ~egional Water Quality Control Board~ or
otller responsible agency. regarding 1!IOIlitoring and proper removal.
~~ or other responsible ageooy~ -clearance ahall be obt.ained for
the eonstru<:t!on of the proposed building and any procedures
required b}" the AWQCB foll"""" ~uring excavation and grading. My
contaminated &011 or groundwater encountered during excavation
shall be remediated or 4isposed of in accordanc~ with applicable
State or local laws and procedures.
(i1' Prior to issuance of a building permit:
(A] All loc lines .hall be removed
pursuant to a Certificate of Compliance.
(B) Final plans shall be revised a8
required to cClIPly vith the ARB approvals referen~ed above,. -which
vill In<:lnde additional standard cooaitions.
Ie) The applicant sball eulxnit a formal
drainage plan tor the site to th_~ .pvblic \io.r'ks DepartmeIlt. The
plan sha11 include connection of the project's 8to~ drain system
to tbe City stor.m drainage line at ~he intersection of HOmer and
Sigh.
liU)
(I.) The property ovner shall submit
evidence t" the Direct.or of Planning and Coauunity :s.nvirorunent~
demonstrating that one of the following has been implemented, Ii)
an exhaust stack and fan system.. as recommended by CharI es 5:: Brauu
t.o vent eIr.issions frem Bllisooos paint booth emissions,. has been
installed,. (ii) all windows to the project~s residential units have
been sealed} or (iii) an alternative mitigation measure has been
proposed by a qualified expert and has been renewed and approved
by tbe City as an amendment to t!>e PC zone under Cbapeer 18.68 or
Cbapeer 18.99. aa appropriate. and implemented by the property
owner.
(S) The eidevalk aloIlg the Alma Street
froocage of the property, and curb and gu~ter, shall be replaced as
determined by t.he Department of Public Works in order to ensure
pedestrian and vehicular safety_
(iv) Following oc<:upan<:y:
(A) The propert.y owner st~ll make an
annual paymen·t of $31.19,. first comnenciog one year aft.er
oc~upancy. to the owner of the solar system located at 744 High
'~4 110:008007,
~.<.;.:.--.
. -----.....
.-
Street. as oanpensatlon for increased utility costs due to sha-ding
caused by the project. Pa~nt shall be ma~e only if the solar
system is in us.,. This cooditioo shall be of DO force and effect
after fifteen years or at such time as the solar system Is no
laager operatioaal~ wnlchever event firs~ occur8~
(5) For the first two year. following
project occupa..n....~~... t.be property owner shall :ilIeet. on a regular
basis. at least once annually.. with owners and tenants of
properties located on the hlock wherein the subject property is
situated. The puzpose o-f the meeting shall be to disCUS8 and seek
~o resolve any common ooocernB regarding such issues as parking.
tf) peyelgpment schfldu1e. Constru~tlOQ of ~be project
shall be C<lIIIlIen<led on or before December 31. 1997. and shall be
eanpleted and ready for occupancy on or before Decen:ber 31,
1999.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project;. as
wdti9ated~ V~11 ~ have a significant environmental effect.
SiCTION S. This ordinance shall be effect.ive on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoptioc.
INTRODOCBO:
PASSBO:
AYES:
BOSS:
ABSTENTIONS :
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROV3i) AS ro FORK:
City Attorney
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning
and Community Bnvironment
5
,.-~. -
\"<.. \.
~ --;
'.-
.. _--
Site Location
725-753 Alma St
-6raph'k: .Attachmc~t t.o
Staff '"'ron;
PF ~<;l
2830
Zone Change from CO-5{P} to PC (Planned Community) and
EI1'hanceme:nJ. EKU'p:t1o,., to <!Ifto ... con:!5tructiol"T "f101 unft.s of
5inaft-f.oom Occufan~ Housing
------..:.-
",
(n'ironmental Documents -City of Palo Alto
ENY! 800M[NTAL ASSESSMOIT
ProJect DescrirtionlTitle; Palo AltotiQwsinq Corporation SRO at 125-153 Alma
stwL The lkllIsinq Cocpor~tiQ!lJS prQ~;nq to coo~ruct Jill SRO iSingle
R:>Om occuDinCiL"",,1Jjij(ijJriitsft1 a 17 640 sauaretocit rectaMular Site
. corrpr!si"gtocee lots .
locatlonlAd<1<ess; 725-753 Alma Street palo Alto. 0. 943D]
Sponsor! ng k;<ency / App 1 i cant; Pa loA 1 to Hous i 00 Corporat i 00
~ss and Telephone of Applicant: 540 Cowper Street Suite 201. Palo Alto.
CA 94301
.'oollCation for: Planned ConInunity Zon<e Chanae' Arcl1itectural Review' Design
Enhancement (xceotior
Ce_9 .• zoning change. subdivisioo of reaperty. architectural review. use
permit)
looing at Pro~t location: CD-S.(Pl Fee Receipt No.: 95-067
NeHeF (f DHERMlNATlQN
Based upon review of the reo~ files. the undersigned me<rtJer of the FlaMing
Depa rtment has cone I uded:
III Mitigated ~tjve Declaration: The pro~t has no signlficant environmen~impacts that can not be mitigated to • Jevel of less than
slgrMicant impact. No £/lvironmental 1I1'!Ji!ct Re;>o!'t is required. The
reasons for • Mitigated Negative 1Je,:1arati·0I1 are included in the Initial
Stucfy attached hereto. The sponsor has agreed to the mitigatioos as
~,"icfenced by their slgnatwe hereto:
[:I The pro~t may have a significant enviroomental il1'!Ji!ct. Ar
cnv; rorrnet'lta 1 Inpact Rerort >p'11 be reepared /
Planning Department OffiCia~~£4&.e.-..0 ~
flaming O1rector; k __ -~ Date; '1"'iIIj~
The pro~t !las teen approved. Date;
The pro~t has been <fen; ed. Date;
Fi le r>kl.: 9S-EiA·2
' ..
· --'~
rtC),gree to the mlt fgdt ions as stated in the attached fn,jrOOmental As~/llf-'1t recOOll1ending a Mitj~ated Negilti,~ Declaration fOt" tile prDposed
Single R~ Occupancy reSidentIal project at 725-753 Alma Street. Palo Alto.
'--~ .-
I
,
.-;" .~ --
o
001 ROIKNTAl DOCUMENTS -PALO AI. TO
I.
u.
INITIAL ST\lly* ..
Project TitlefAddress: PiJO Alto Housing C""watlon SRO. 725-753 Alma Stred
. Project ~rfpUon: The .Palo Alto. ~sing COf'po<"'atior. is .proposing to .
construct a lIlixe<! use prO,leCt contalMlng "ery 1()O( ",come Slngle Room Occupancy (SRO)
housina and 1,763 sqware feet of commercIal office space on a 17.640 square foot
rectangular site comprising three interior lots. (Assessor Parcel Numbers 120·27·BG,
81. and &2) Which front Alma Street and abut a 15 foot public alley along their rear
property line. The project includes 40.900 square feet of SRO use inclc:ding 106 SRO
rQOOlS •• roe·bedroom manager's apartment. lobby. office and coomon spaces inclc:ding
he'lldry. counseling and meeting room. readi ng room. "ending machines and an outdoor
balcony. The commercial office space is intended to be lease<! to the sponSOf' for
use as their main cOf'porate office. However. it is deSigned so that it could be
leased to any commercial office tenant.
There is 28.589 SQUare feet of parking on two levels "ith a total of 74 parking
spaces. There are 7 spaces fOf' the office use (Which equals the alllOU!1t required by
City parking standards), 12 spaces for SRO 'isitors and staff and 55 spaces for SRD
residents. Residents parking is provided at a ratiO of .S spaces per unit. The
upper level parking is located OIl the same revel as the coomercial office space and
the SRD pedestrian entrance and lobby. It ~ontains 32 stalls. including 3 for
~andicapped including vans. and is proposed to be accessed solely from t~~ alley.
The lower parking level is IOOStly below grade and is proposed to be accessed solely
fra.Alma Street. It ~ont.ins 42 stalls. There is no internal connectiOll proposed
between the two parking levels.
An alternative garage deSign. recommended by the Transportat i OIl. Di,isiOll of the
Department of Planning and (OIIITlunity En,irOllment. is analyzed in this document. The
alternatf"e would have an internal ramp <CGnnection between the two garage le""ls so
that all vellicles could enter and exit the facilit, wia Alma Street. A secondary
access from the upper garage level to the alley could still be included under this
alternatf,e. ThiS plan requires the lower garage level to be built fully below
grade Which requires about 6 additional feet of exc."tion. The constroction
schedule would increase by 4 weeks. The nU1l'b€r of parking spaces """ld remain the
same. but the efficiency and coovenience of the la,"'Jt of tne lower level would be
inferior _ith aisles coming to dead ends. The addition of the internal ramp would
require the reconHguration of bicycle storage. restrooms. the counseling office and
coomercial office areas on the upper parking level. There "",,10 be reduced space
for these fuoctions. The coomercial office space would be reduced slightly.
!II. EnvirorlllEnhl Settfng: The proposed site is located oid·block or. Alma Street. a
major r~th . south arteri.l. between Forest and Homer Streets. Immediately
adjacent to the site to the !Io<thwest is Ellison·s. an auto body and paint shop. To
the Northeast and across the illey is a one story office building. Behind the site.
fronting on High Street are a vacant auto glass shop. two automotive repair
businesses .• furniture refinishing shop. and an office use. Immediately adjoining
the site. to the Southeast. Is another autOfllOtive service business at m Alw.a '
~-ElA-2
3 CE29
. ' -,,'--'I
Street and to the west is the Alma Street thorrn4lfare and the Joint Powers Soard
railroad tracks. right-of-way and parking. The three parcels comprising the site
are currently •• cant but >'ere previously used for about tlo/O.and a half years as
te<ll;lOfary parHng for etJi>loyees of the nearby lhJle foods ~arket and prior to that
~s t~ary parking for about 2 years for etJi>loyees <If Digital Corp. Previous use
. was as a usee! car lot and for auto repa1r and mainten.nce.
A further ~riptiOfl of the project and the setting is included in the ~arch 8.
19% st.ff report to the Planring CamJiSsfcn. .
o
U. Env1ronaent~l Impact Checl:.1fst (EJcplan~tlon of all PSI. PSIIl and LSI an5'olers ire In
5«tfon Y)
legend: P.S.I. -Potentially Significant Impact
P.S.M.I. -Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
l.S.I. -less than Significant lopact
N.1. -No lopact
• M.~ed from J.jlpendix I. Cal iforniaGuidel foes for l'ilplementatlon of CEOo\. Decerri>er H.
1976 Updated Kay 1982. June 1983
L Ellih. 'o'i 11 the proposa 1 resu 1t in: f.....U... PSI1I. u...L. !l
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes _1
In ~eologic substructures?
b. Disruptions. displacements. c~ac-
tion or overccvering of the sci .
_1_
t-Change in topography or groond
surface relief features?
_X_
d. The destructioo. coverfng or modi·
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features? _I
e. AIly increase in wind or water erosion
of solls~ either on Of off the site? _I
f. ~ure of people or property to
~}~jC hazards suc~ as ea~a~es.
aods ides. muds 11 des. ground • i1 ure
or simil.r hazards? _1_
~. Changes in s"iltatloo. depositier. or
erosler .mlch may modify tt~ channel
of a ri',er or the bed of a bay or
in1eH _I
2. ".ir. 'o'ill t.he proposal result"-in:
•• Substantial air emissioos or de-
terioration of ambient air qualitJ? _1_
b. The creation of objectiooable odors? _I
c. Alteratier of air "moverr~nt. moisture
terperature. or any change in cli-
~te. either locally or Tegier.1? -L
~\ElIJ'5lAL "-ElA-Z
Al"RB.. U. t99i sell' ,.
e ® "
f2J... P S.M. I. Ul lLL.
3. \!ilir. Inll the proposal result in:
•• Changes 1n absorption rates. drainage
patterns. or the rate and 'I!OJnt of
_X_ surface water runoff?
b. AlteratiOlls t(J the course or flcr.. of
flood Ioaters? _I
c. Discharge into surface waters. or fn
any alteratioo of surface water
quality. including but not limited to
t~rature. disso1ved ()xygen or
tur idity? _1_
d. Alteratior of the directi<>n or rate
of flcr.. ()f ground waters? ....!...
e. tXjl()Sure of peep i e or prorrt! to
water related hazards sue as flood·
ing or tidal >Iilve? _I
f. Change in the quantity of ground
waters. either through dlrect
additions or 'o'itlldrawals. or through
interceptions of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations? _I
4. fI~!!t Life. ~111 the proposal result in:
i. Change in the diversity of species. or
number of any species of plants (in·
Cludi~ trees. shrubs. grass. crops,
micro ora and aquatic plants)? _I
b. Reduct f on of the numbers a f any
un ique. ra re or endangered spec i es
of plants? . _I
c. Introduction of new species of
plants into an area. or in a barrier
to the nor'IIal replenishment of
existing species? _I
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop? _I
P:\EiA\ElA7nAI. .,..,...:
AP1R.. I!, l~ • Of 29
.'
-...
0
fd.J.... P .S.H I, u..L !,.L. s. ooi!l!sll Lif~. Will the proposal result in:
;1-Change in the diversity of species.
or OUIIber of any ~ies of animals
(b;rds. land anima s including
reptiles. fish and shellfish. benthic
_I organisms. insects or microfauna)?
b. Reductioo of the I1U1Ibers of any
unique. rare or endangered species
of animals? _I
c. Introduction of new species of
animals into an area, Of result fn
a barrier to the 1I1igratioo or rove·
ment ~f animals? --_I_
,j, Oeterioration in existing fish or
wildlife Mbitat! _I
6. !!m&. liill the proposal result in:
i. Increases in existing noise levels! _1_
b. EJ<pOSure of peep 1 e to severe noi se
levels? _1-
7. light and Glare. 1/;11 the proposal
produce new Hg/1t glare? _L
B. land Use. Wi 11 the proposa 1 resu lt in
a substantial alteration {)f tf1e present
or planned land use of an are.? _X_
9. Enero~!NatW:i 1 Besourcf~.
propcsal result in:
Wi 11 the
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy: _I
b. SUbstantial increase in demand upon
exlsting sources of energy. or
requi re the deve 1 upment {)f I1N
sources or energy? _X
c. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources? _1_
d. Substantial de~letion of anj nonre-
newable natura resource? _1_
':\ElA\EIA1S31.L .,.£lA->
APRIL 13. "'" 7~"
,
.' -",' ..
0
~ P.S,M,I U..L !l .
10. BilLe f UPset. Does the proposa I
involve a risk of an ex€losion or the
release of ~azardous su stances (in-
<luding. but not limited to. oil.
pesticides. chemicals or radiation) in
_1-the event of an aC(i~lt or upset?
11. PQ?ulationlHousin9,
a. 'IIi 11 the proposal alter the 1 ocatl on.
di stri bot ion. dens i ty. or growth rate
of the human population of an area? _1_
b. ~ill the proposal effect existing
housing. or (reate a demar>d for
addit lona I hoos I ng? _x_
12. I/il I the
substantial additional
ar II1Ov€'l-nent? -..!..
b. {ffeets on existing parking facili·
ties. or c!emand for new park ing? _I_
e Alterations to present patterns of
ci rcu 1 atlon or movement of peep 1 e
and/or goo<Is? __ x_
d, Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles. bicyclists or pedestrians? _X_
!3~ Public Seni·ces. '0111 the proposal have
an effect upon. or result in a need fO<' new
or altered governmental services in any of
the folloong areas:
a. fire protection? _1_
b. Po lice protect i on? _1_
-c. Schools? ....L
el. Parks or other recreational
facilities? _1_
~. Maintenance of ~<blic facilities.
including Nads. ....L..
f. Other governl1enta 1 se "i ces? _X_
,. \EIA \ElA1nAL 'S,ElM
APKIL 13, l.99!! Ion>
==-.,..,.,..~~--';,;--"-.---' .
;> "{"-
",'
" ;-~'
,
• C",
!C. Utiljties. Vill the pr~al result in a
need for new S}stems. or substantial
ilterations to the following utilities:
a. Power 01' natura 1 gas?
b. Cornmuolcations s}Stems?
c. ... ater?
d. Sewer or sept! c tank'
e. St~ water drainage,
f. Solid waste and disposal?
15. Human Health. Win the p"~al result
in:
a, Creation of an} health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
orental health)?
b. [xposLH'e ()f people to potent i a 1
health hazards, .
16. Aestllet fcs. Wi 11 the pr~ 1 result
in the oostructlon .e!"" any scenic '(isla
or .iew-open to the ~liC, or 'Wi11 the
proposal result In t creatiG' of an
aesthetical1J offensive site open to
public view?
17. Recreat i or. Wi 11 the pr~a 1 resu It
in an impact upon the ~a it1 or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
18. {ult~r~l ~r&~~~
a. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of/or the destructior
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in ad·
verse physical or aesthetic effects
to a prehistoric or hIstoric
bui 1 di ng, strUl:ture; or objectl
~. \£lA 1.EIA?5lAt.
APIUL 13. ,..,
@
LS...L
"
P.dJi.L
_X_
.:..... ,c;,.
• ,: J
.,..'.'/.
l..d..L !.L
_I
_I
_X
_I
_X_
_I
_X
_x_
J..
_I
_X_
95-ElA·l
!OF~
,'-.-
0
P.S.L P. S.H L LU... !...L. -
c. Does the pr~sal have the potential
to cause a .ysical change Which
would affect unique cultural .alues? _X
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? _I
19. ~anda1orl Findit!!l:! of Sjgnlfic~oce.
a. Does the R:;0ject have the potential to
degrade t qua lit)' of the eM I rooment .
substantially reduce the ~abitat of •
fish or wildlife species. cause a fish
or wildlife pop<Jlation to drop belOl<
self'sustaining levels. threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal cOI11IJUnlty.
reduce the num.'er or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples
of the.maJor periods of California
history or prehistory? _I
b. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term. to tne dis-
adValltage of long·terlll. enviroroJl€ntal
goals? (A snort·teno impact 00 the
environment is one 'Wf];ch occurs in a
relatively trief. definitive period
of time ..t1ile long· term impacts vi11
endure \reI 1 into the f"ture.) _1_
c. Does the project have impacts wllich
are individually limited. but
cumulatively corsiderable? (A pro-
ject may iJT'!lact on two or !OOf'e
separate resources Iot,ere the i""act
or e~h r€SOurce is relatively
sma 11. but Where the effect of the
total of tho<~ impacts on the
environment 15 sIgnificant.) _X
d. Does the ~Ject have environmental
effects ~ ich .nIl cause substantial
adverse effects on human bejn~s.
either directly or indirectl,.. -L
Y. Ex;> lanaUcn of PSI. PSilI and lSI answers ia environmental check 1 i st.
See attaclled.
,: \ElIt \EtA7S3!d. 05-EIA.'
APIJL ll. 19115 11: OF 29
1. ELrtt. lb.c.O
lapacts:
, " --~
o
,","
."'."-;
A geotechnical fn"l~tfgatfon preeared for the applicant by lowr.ey Associates
dated March 3. 1995 states tnat veneath the a,phalt pavement the site is
covered by 3 to 6 feet of fill .nth localized poc~ets ranging from 1 to e feet
<:Ieep. Ground ....ater was encountered in l""""y's borings at d"Pths ranging froo
33 to 36 feet.
Excavation: Construction of the lower level of the parUng garage .n 11
req.J[re that the site be exca.ated to a rexi""" depth of 8 feet bel"" existing
grade. 4 •• 00 cubic yaras of excavated material .n11 need to be removed to an
off·site location for disposal. The alternative parking garage plan .nth
access toAlrna Street from both levelS requires that the lower garage level be
constructed completely bel"" grade. This alternative would require an
additional 6 feet on excavation and a corresponding increase in the 'lOOUMt of
... teri.l tc; be removed froro the site.
As tr~ site is located .nthin a buiit. urban environment. such impacts are not
considered sIgnIficant. A detailed grading p1an shail be required for review
and approval by the City Public liocks Department a"oj the Cit! Sui lding
Inspection Division prTor tc; issuance of the Grading a'Xl E,cavatim Permit.
~~~~~~~U No sells ana1ysis cf the site was conducted by (Rel:>Orl:s <:Iated August II. 1993. October 5. 1993 and l'Iarcll
1 and groundWater were taten from different areas of
199J. investigation la.ney detected petroleum oil
'~'C~'·;.A locations in the former pari.ing area at 753 Alma.
_c()<"lCeI1tr,atlon~ 030 billion} of ground water
ri;.~~:;r=,~: at one boring. The level of '" remedial work in the opinion of
... ;,; •. i~;: .. ,;~ was performed by Lowney and additional soil
where the soil contamination nad been
did not detect contamination. Lowney
on appears to be distributed in localized
fi 11. A third set of soil samples >lere ta"en by Lawney
r Harch 13. 1995 repo..-t. Le>< levels of gasoline
~illion) and xylenes (at O.O~ opmJ were found at . ;~t~~:;~t;~~~;~l' investigation to deter~ine the extent and source of o be conduct ed.
I.klder the purcnase aweement for the pr~,tJ. the seller is obligated to
remediate all contamination identified in the lawney reports in accordar~e
.nth ill applicable governmental requlr..-ents. prior to close of escr()\{ on Ve
acquisition of the pr~rty. In order to construct the prCJl)OSed project. most
cf the existing on·site il1pO<"ted fi 11 .nll have t<> be excavated and reroved.
Recommendations cf the R-"9ional Water Quality Control Soard regarding
monItoring of the excavated SOils during construction shall be obtained prior
to issuance of the Grading and Excavatler Penllit for the construction of the
proposed building and followed during excavation and grading .
. _---;,-----....,.-.---'
~~< .. -""
" ..
-'j .•
o
Seismjc, Tne project site is located in an area of moderate seismic ris\.
subject to very strOO9 groond shaking in the event of an earthquake. All n ....
construction 'oIill be subject to the provisions of the rost current Unif""'"
Building Code (UBel standaras of constroctiar. portions of which are directed
at redUcing seismiC risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event
of an earth'l'Jake.
Mitigotfoo )leasures: None required
Related ProJect Conditions:
• A constructiar Jogistics plan shall he submitted for revi .... and approval to
the Public Works Engineering Department and Transportation Oi.islar prior to
issuance of a building permit. All truck routes shall conform with the City
of Palo Alto Trucks and Truck Roc~e Ordinance. (Chapter lO.48). and the route
map which outlines true. routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto.
The Plan shaH also include: 1) a par<ing plan for construction workpJ's. 2}
construction access pcints and security areas. 3) site{s) for storage of
construction materials and equipment. 4) shoring for underground excavatiar.
5) constructiar of temporary walkways. barricades and fences. and 6}
restOfatior'/replacement of City streets. curbs. gutters and sidewalks.
• A detailed grading plan shall ~e required for review and approval hy the
Cit, Public ~or<s Department and the City Building Inspection Oi,ision prior
to issuance of the Grading and [,cavation Permit.
• £xcavatioo of soils s~all be subject to any recQl1JTlEndatiOl1s of the Regional
.... ter Quality Control 8oaro regarding monitoring and proper remo"al. RWOCB
clearance snall be Obtained prfor to issuance of the Grading and £XCa,atior
Pennit fOf' the construction of the p<"opcsed building and any procedures
required by the RIoIlCB follO'oled c!uring e>c.vatiar and grading, Any
contaminated sot I ()/' wound water encountered during excavation s11an be
oi.spcse<l of in accordance with app1icable State and local laws and procedures.
Such procedures are designed to ersure less than significant environmental
irrpacts.
• A 11 new-construct j on to be subject to the prov;;i ons of the current Unj fonn
Buildlng Code.
2. Air Cal
1lI1p<lcts: Demol itiar and cOl1structiar at the project Site will temporarily
result 1n an increase in dust e.-missions over eXlsting anibient air conditi"oos.
>'ith the Cit,'s required standard conditiars of approv.l. the air i~ts of
the project will not be Significant,
Mitfgation Measure: None required
Related Project Conditions: Tne standard conditions of appro •• l wi 11 require
that: 1) exposed earth surfaces be watered frequently. during the late
morning and it the end of the day • .nth frequency of watering increasing on
---~-----.,.-----------
+ ---•
-..,::-....r :.' ...
:, ~ -<:..-~
':. ,-~ .
. .....
w1~ days: 2) spillage resultIng from hauling operations along or across any
publlc or private property be felOO'l,d i_diately: 3) overfilling of trucks by
the contractor ls pr~ibited. and; 4) true's be covered during the
transportation of excavated or demolished materials from the site.
3. Water (c)
Iopacts:
Stirfac o ~K)Qff' Since the site is currently completely covered by asphalt or
by structures. the project w1ll not iocrease the arrount of imperv;oos surface
on the sIte .00 w111 not increase total site runoff. Ru.'1Off may actually
cleerease sine'! the proposed project includes landscaping areas and pl.ntings
which w11l absorb some rain which presently runs off the site. Ha.iever. Site
~unoff w111 be concentrated to a greater deg,ee than under present conditions
because of water collection from the roof and cleeks. By requiring that the
sponsor connect Site drainage to the City's storm drain system. ar~ effect of
the concentratIon of site runoff on City streets and gutters w1ll be avoided.
Mit1gat1on Heasures: None required
Related ProjeCt Conditions:
• The applicant shall submit. formal drainage plan for tre site to the
Public Works !)epartment. The plan shall include COi';;l€<:tion of the project's
stOflll drain slst ... to the (itl stona &,.inage 1 ine .t the intersection of
HOmer and High. The plan shall include an explanation by a certified engineer
which explain the calculations of antiCipated site runeff_ • • The 9arage entrance on Alma Street shall be designecJ to provide sufficient
freeboard t() j)<'event rain water from the sidewaH from floong oo.m into the
subsurface garage level.
6. Nojse <a III
Iopacts,
During the l( month constructioo period there w111 be
ambIent noise levels_ Under the alternative gar'ge
0",'.,"00 of construction period noise wouid be extended for !
CoolStrlJrtinn activities w111 be subject to the Pilo A1t"
~~::.;:ts'~P'-i~ITr~~~~A "Noise Assessment Study" including a, le"ls at the site was compieted by EdWard l.
in .,,,,,,e,·. and february of 1995 and is contained in a
.. " .. u"e. 21. Based on these measurements, the existing
exposure ilong the Al~a Street property line is 69 dB DNL. with
increase to 70 dB ~L under future traffic conditions. Existing
or noise on the i11ey [east) side of the site varies from 69 dB DNL to
DNL w1Ul the hig/)est ncise at the northeast corner of the site. Under
P;\ElA lElA 1SJAL
APIIJL n, 1995
..
9:i-EIA-J
LlOF"
,
·.
. ..
tut.".e conditicos. the noise exposure along the east property line win vary
fran 65 to 76 ell 0Nl. The projected future nvise levels along the .11ey
(east) side of the project are higher. and increase bj a greater rate. than
prolected noise .10r>9 Alma because the noise consultant made a wO<"st case
assUmptiOll that ElliS?"'S >ould chan~e to 24 h~r per.day operations in the
future. This aSSlJl1!lt1oo was hased on conversatlons \(1th Mr. E1115OO. OIo'ler of
the buSiness. regardir<;j Ms future plans. The measured exterior nOise levels
are typical of urban settir<;js. ho.<ever. without appropriate ~itigat ions tt>
redUCe the interior noise levels of the project. the nOlse levels could be
considered potentially s;~'ificant.
Changing of the automot;ive service use to 24 rour operation ..00ld constitute
an e.<pansiOll of the automC>tive service use under Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAHC). Expansion of an automotive service use in the COoS
district. requires a Conditional L'se Penllit (CUP) with a hearing before the
lonlr<;j Administrator. The loning Administrator lMy deny tr", CUP or awove
.. 1th 0<" without conditions on the automotive service operator including
restricting hours of operation or noise limitations. The CL~ application
lo'OOld be su~ject to f"'~lher e"virormenta! assessmeT1t. The City )las not in the
past acted favorably QI1 applications for 24 Mue operation of autOlOOtive
sen'; ce uses.
The major soorces of ncise for the prOVOsed reSidents are vehicular traffic on
Alma Street. ~ailroad operations ana the operations of the adjacent commercial
service businesses. The latter sry.~ces of noise are primarily from the use of
power tools at Ellison·s. the Ca,", furniture Stripping aod ~OIf"ts Auto Service.
One noise source that is quite close to the SRO windowS is El1isons'
coopressor of1ich is located at the nortlleast cerner of the site near the
alley}. Gtrer noIse sources are to...-truck operatioos (primari ly at
fl1ison·~). E11isons' paging system and delivery trucks loadir~ and unloading
in the alley. The SRO rooms and the outdoor deck wIlich face Alma Iii 11
primarily be affected bj Alma Street traffic and train noise. The rooms
facing the alley wi 11 be influenced roore by noise (roo the auto ,",rvice uses
since the project itself will act. to some degree. as a noise buffer frOOl the
Alma traffiC and train ncise for those rooms. The rooms wflich face the
illterior landscape courts wi 11 be less affected by the above noise sources
except for units directly adjacent to tne south property line.
As multj·famity housing. the project "ill be requi red to c""Ply with the
California Buildir<;j Code. Tltle 24. of1ich requires that interior noise levels
in ~abitable space. attributable to exterior nofse sources. s~all not exceed
45 dl> Om.. 'IoIith meriO<" noise levels of 69 db Om. to 76 db OOL i" oriler te>
meet fnteriO<" nois~ standards. w1""~S ... ith appropriate Sound Transroissioo
Class (STC) ratings as described in the aC~Jstica1 consultants report • .n11
r","d to be installed. During the periods of ~ig~est noise. residents .nIl
need to leep their .nndows closed to avoi1 being expcsed to higller than
desirable noise levels (per Title 24 standards). Thus. some form of
mechanical ventilation ..nich bl-ir~s i~ fresh .ir from the outside of tre unit
must be provided. The project design includes a mechanical air "enti1.tion
systetll. wIllch meets the vent;laticr requif_nts specified in the Uniform
Buildir<;j Code. This system wi 11 dr .. ~ fresh air frOIlI the southern eod of the
-:;----.. --.. -.-. -.-'"
. ,
~-EIA--:Z
14 Of 29
I
~. -~\ --... -
_;.1 ::.. o·
landscape courts and distribute th~ aIr to all units. Residents wJOld an.ays
be able te> open their a.T1 windows during periOOs of low noise levels « at any
time. if the exterie>r noise was not of a ce>neern to t~em per;onally.
The compressor utilized by Ellise>n·sis identified by the acoustical
cOflsultant as an important source of noise to<" SRO units located within SO
feet of the nOI"theast (e>roer of Hoe site. The compressor is located behind
Ellise>n·s in a fenced enclosure immediately next to the property corr~r with
the site. The compresse>r is a self cootained unit with noise attenuatioo
panels in place. Noise levels from the compresse>r were measured at 11 d8A at
the ~rtl line. 'N11i1e other noises frOO! the coorercial operatie>ns near the
site occur intermittently. Elllson·5 compressor ;s operating during most of
~is business hours.
The nortroeast c«ner of the building has lh.oeI1 designed so tnat the janite>r and
trash areas fe>r the each floor are located in the ce>rner. This will provide a
buffer ZC>ne between tr~ noises emanating from the rear of Ellisoo·5 facility
and the SRO roans. In additioo. the project sporsor snall include windcws
with appropriate STC ratings te> reduce tne effect of the cooyressor {)11 those
units within 50 feet of the compressC>r to less than 45 db DNL. Due to the
existing acoustical attenuatie>n on the compressor and the building design.
noise impacts of the compresSe>r are not cC>nsidered as a significant impact.
Noise EXPOSure In Usable Open SPace Areas: The project has two exterior deds
(e>ne of 142 square feet 00 the first residential floor and anC>ther of 61
square feet 00 the third ~esidentjal noor) and a 768 square feet entry
cou.-tyard at tile building entrance 011 Alma Street. The interie>r landscape
courts are not planned to be used ~:; residents. but are designed fe>r plantings
and visual open space· only. This is a managemeT1t decision based 0<1 the
architect·s experfence in similar proJeCts he has desigr~d ~re U~ of the
courts fe>r residents· activitIes led to complaints about noise from
conversatfe>ns and loss of prj,acy from tenants living In the units abutting
the courts.
Noise levels in the entry courtyard and C>n the first floor decK would be the
noise levels described above for tne Alma Street p.-operty line. The tnird
floor deck noise levels would be somewhat lower. The e>utdoor areas available
to residents are spaces .mich wiH have noise 'evels that exceed the 65 d8A
acceptable da}1ime limit by up to 5 dB and the 55 dBA acceptable nighttime
limit by 6 dB as stated in the Noise flement of the Compre~iv. Plan. To
.cMeve acceptable exterior noise levels 00 the fi rst floor decl:. a 4 foot
hign. acousticaHy effective deck railing. ;s described in the coosult.nt·s
report would have to be coostructed. No pracUe.' methods to reduce noise
leve's in the entry courtyard ~ave been identified. Noise leve1s on the
exterior decks and patiOS are not coosfdered a significant impact and 00
mitigatiC>ns are rec'Jll1l1€nded.
~itigat1on Measures:
• The project shall be cO!1structed to comp1J with the interie>r noise
standards Title 24 of Californii Building Code. All reSidential unit windows
, ,",' , . .. "-.~ .
,
. -~
'-'. , . .. .. '
lL~t have appropriate STC ratings as described in the acoustical consultant's
report and in compliance with Title 24.
• A central mechanical air ventilation system ~ust be included in the project
to provide a source of fresh ,ir to each residential unit.
Related Project Conditions:
• At least a 4 foot hi~h. acousticall1 effective dec. railing .s described in
the consul tant' s report sha 11 be constructed on the fi rst floor deck faci ng
Alma to reduce noise levels fa< persons sitting on the deck. .
• Windows ""ieh are expected to be affected by coopressor noise must meet
appropriate STC ratings to reduce such noise to less than 45 db ON!. as
measured on the interior with the "ioIindi:Jw closed.
7. li g!Jt and Glare
llIpacts;
Nighttime Ugnt: The proposed four story building will resl'H in light froo
residents' Yindows du.-ing evenlng and nighttime hours \oIl1ere now there is no
iight from the site. The height of the highest SRO wind""" ranges from 40 to
aboot 45 feet above grade. The closest residences are the Palo Alto Plaza
condal1iniums northeast of the site at forest and High Streets. The locatiOl1
and siting of those condos is such that most of their windows do not face
towards the SRG Site. P~ver. residents of the Plaza conOos .mieh face
forest Yin be able to see the lights from the SRO units \oIl1ich front (l(1 the
alley. Other residential areas are two to three blocks away to the southeast
-.I1ere the .iew of light from the SRO "ioIindows >IOUld tend to be shielded by
street trees and other large structures such as the Bekins stcrage building at
liooJer and High Streets. It is recommended that all exterior ligt,ting be
shielded and directional in. order to ~i"irnize light and glare impacts on
adjacent properties. A final lighting plan shall require re;i€>f and approval
of the ARB as part of the final landscape plan prior to the issuance of •
building permit. Ilf9<lcts from lighting are not considered as significant.
Shadows: The proposed bu; 1 dj og wi If cast dayt i me shad"", 011 the bu n di ng at
744 Jhgh Street. ThIs building is currertl! vacant. but was fonnerly occupied
by Bill's Auto Glass. ~ recently moved his business to San Carlos. 744 High
Street has roof IIlOUnted solar panels ""len were used for water heating.
heating an office and heating epoxy. A solar analysis and modeling (dated
.l1arch 13. 1995) of the proposed building's shading and the effect upoo the
energy output of the 744 Hi gh St reet . s sol a r co 11 ectors,""s comp 1 eted by
Robert A. JoIarcial. a solar energy consultant. The builoing .. 'ill cast shadows
on the solar collectors in the late afternooo during the """ths of September
to Hacc11. During September through NoveOOer and during January through Milrch
there wi 11 be shading for less than three hours per day. During the mooth of
December, there vi 11 be shading for less than four hours per day (from between
2 pm until sunset. Despite the shading. since there is an electric badup
heating elemert the busir~s will not be .ithout hot water and heat. but there
~-ElA-2
16 OF 2!1
!.
.nIl be i ~inimal increase in electric energy consumption and utilit] costs.
The reduced solar access cl<Je to the project equals an estlmated increased
usage of 539 ~wh of electricity per year which would cost an additiona) $37.19
per year ·1n energy expenses. The consultant also estimated the loss in •• lue
of the solar syste;a from the reduced solar acc~s based on the system's
existing depreciilted value. remai!·.lng useful Ii feand current operattng
efficiency as a one-time 6o11ar 10ss of $12.36. lhe consultant noted thilt the
existing solar ~~at;ng system has a much ~reater effie1ercy loss than the
minimal loss due to the increased shado\ols. .
l~ his report. Karelal reviews five possible measures which CQuld be
j~lemented to reduce the effect of shading <>f the solar panels. They are:
I. Raise the height of the solar panels by 10 feet ond move them to a
sunnier location. Th.1s alternative would cost about $10.000 and the panels
would still receive SJme shading.
:iI. Raise the solar panels 3 feet and move them to a sunnier location 00
the 744 High Street rcof at an estimated cost of 12.000 to $3.000. This would
reduce the period of .nnter time dai ly shading by about half an hour. oIlich
would have a negHgible effect 00 the """JIlt of energy olltput of toe panels.
3. Relocating the solar panels to the SRO rooftop. The cost of this
~jon ;s estimated at 510.000. and while the panels WDuld not have any
shading. there would be energy ~~ses due to the long piping runs oIlich would
~ required.
4. Provide financial compensation for the increased utility costs due
to the shading of 537.19 per year and for the OIle-time estimoted loss in •• lue
U7l.36} of the solar systerl due to the reduction in futUf'e energy <XJtput over
Its' remaining 15-20 useful 1ife.
5. Retrofit the solar system at an estimated cost of 54. DOD thr()(jJh a
reconfigUf'ation of its-pll111bing system. which would increase the system's
efficiency by about SO, thus more than compensating for the 6: reduction in
perfomance of the syste!ll due to effect of s'hading frOOI the project.
Since tr.e i~act <>f the shadows can be offset by • one time paJlW1t of In.36.
the effect of the shadows cast by the building is not c~,sidered a significant
i~ct.
Mitig.tion !Ie.sures: None requi red
Related Project Conditions:
• The final lighting plan shall be reviewed and awoved by the ARB .
• The project spanSO<' shall ma~e an annual payment of 137.19 t(; the owner of
the $<lIar system at 744 High Street as compensation for the ircreased utility
costs due to the sha~ing. Payment shall or1y be made if the solar system Is
i~ use and shall be for the 15 years remaining life of the solar system or
. " ;
-, .. ~ ",":.) :-
.-'.;;
fS.ElA-2:
17 Of" 29
until t~~ serar system is non-operational, .mic~ever is first.
8. land lise
lilipacts: land ~ Policies; The prO!losed project will result in an
alteration ona use en the site in cOIlllariSOl1 to t~e existing condition
.mlch is a vacant parking area a'OO vacant aute; service building. The
COmprehensive Plan land use desig"otion for t~e site is Service Comnercial.
The purpose of this land use category, as stat~ in the Cooprehensive Plan, is
to "provide City-wide and regional serVlces that rely on c",tomers making
trips by caf anc! do not necessarl1y benefit from being located in high volume
pedest;;an areas such as shopping centers and U.e Downtown" _ fne laOO Use
thapter of the Comprehensive' Plan states that the '1918 Zoning Ordinance
modified the commercial district regulations to encourage t~e mixing of
housing in commercial areas as called for in t~e Plan's Housing and Employment
Sect i ons". although the defi ni t i O!1S for commercial uses do not i rd ude
housing. However. several Comprehensive Plan policies expressly encourage the
~ixing of residential uses with commercial and/or light industrial actfvities
In general aOO within COIrll1ercial and industrial districts in particular.
Examples are Employment Element PoliCY 2: ·Encourage the construction of more
housing primarily at or near industrial or comrrercial sites"; Housing Element
Pollcy 7. Program 17: "Evaluate coonercial and industri,l prO!lerties with the
intention of rezoring to housing where appropriate"; and Housing Element
Poli,~ 10, Program 14: "Support the mi'ing of residential uses in commercial
and l~trial ~rea~·_
ZO!lina: The existing zoring of the site is CO-StP). Downt~ Senice
Commercial .nth a Pedestrian Combining District. The CD (Commercial Downtown}
district is ;ntendEd to accOITOKXfate a wide range of commercial uses as wel' as
pro";ding for residential US€S .00 neigt,borliood service needs. Housing is a
permitted use in the CO-S zone and is subject to the RM-30 residential site
development regulatiors. Since the propcsed project does not meet the RH-3lJ
density aOO site developments regulations, the applicant ~as appl'ed for
rez.o"ing of the site to Planned Coornunity (PC} zoring. lIhi le the Housing
Element of the Comprehensive Plan clearl, encourages the coostructior of 000f
SROs (Policy 10), the City did not coosider it necessary to adO!lt zoning
regulatiors specifically to facilitate SROs Since the PC zooe contains
sufficient flexibility to all()olj for their development.
land lise Campatibilih; The neighborflood of the project site has develO!Jed as
• ilixed use area .mict) forms a transllion from the downtown commercial core
and the Sooth of forest J University Park residential area. Existing
development on t~~ site·s bloc~ is primarily auto related but there are two
office us.es. The surroonding bloc!:s are more varie-;! with • ~jxtlJ('e of office,
retail including. major supermar'et, auto services, a fitness center and high
density. market rilte l-,oosin9_ Mar!:et rate o-.nerslJip coodominiums have been
located successfullJ next to auto service busir.esses in many cities including
Palo Alto. lIitigation measures incorporated into the project's design and
proposed in this en";roonental assessment will mitigate the three identified
impacts which are ~entially_significant -,fumes, noise and transportation so
t~at the proJect..,l1 not be lncornpatlble ..,th the other eXlstlng land uses in
P:\£lA\ElA7S3AL
AJl'1UL U. 1995
. .
•
"
'\
the area. In order to further alle,iate any future problems related to
.:~tibilitl of the uses in the block illlllediatel, surrourding the project. it
is recoomended that the project ~pon5or meet on a regular basis Iotith 0WMl'S
and operators of bL'Slne55es in the block surrounding the proposed project,
lIitigatlon reasures: None irxjicated for land use. see Noise. Transportation
and Humar. 1iealth, '
Related Project Conditions: The project sponsor shaH meet on • regular
basis. at least once a year. Iotith property owners and users in the blOCK
Imroet\iately adjacent t<> the project to assess problems and fornJlate
solutions.
11. fggyletionlHoyslng.UJ!l
Impacts:
pOO!llation: The site Is currently .. cant and has been v.acant since 1978 {per
l<M1ej Phase I Site Assessment!. TIle proJ€<;t Iotill produce an increase in the
population on the site and in the illlllediate area. The sponsor has not yet
decided if they Iotill permit two person households to occupy the SRO units.
However. even if two persons are allowed to rent. it is unlikely that more
than 25~ of the unit will be occupied by soch households. TIlis estimate is
based on the population of similar projects in Sunnyvale and San Diego. TIlus
the I\ilximlJJ! population in the project ,"ou1<l be less than 140 persons ~ased
upon 25% of the units being QCcup'ed by two persons, !he actual popUlation
>IOU1d be nonnall.'l be less at any 9iven time of the day or night since some
proportfon of the residents >IOUld not be at home, \/hiTe th1s will be i!
not1ceable change on this particular block. the surrounding area has several
uses ..tIich attract large numbers of peeple during both daytime and evening
hoors, TIlese include Reach fitne'Ss. I(;.ole foods ~ariet and the two
restaurants at Homer and Emerson, The amount o·f population change IS not
c()flsldered slgnificant given the site's loc.ticn Iotithin the dawntOoTl business
district area and the iIlixed use character of the neighbornood,
Density: TIle proposed development "ill provide 107 res'ident!.l units of 250
square feet eaen on a site that is presentl} .acant. While the density is 264
urits per acre. SRO housing. especially I"" income SRO housing. 15 not
comparable to typical multl,family housing in the impacts of a given leve1 of
density due to the small size <Jf the units. th~ lower incidence of auto
OIoonersMp and the typical occupancy by one. adult person. Wt1i 1e the proposed
density \s greater than that permitted In the City·s hig~~t residential
zoning district of RK,40. the City's zoning districts dq not specificall,
considef the app<opriate def1sity for SRO units. The proposed proJ€<;t"s
density is. however. conSistent with older existing SROs and studia apartment
bUildings in the <!(omtcrwn area, The Comprehensive Plan tand lise £Iement.
Multiple family ~esignation text states that the ·penoitted number of housing
UflitS 'oIi11 vary by .rea_ <lepending en the existing land use. proximity to
major streets and public transit. dist,,,,e to shopping and en,ironmental
problems of the area ... ~igher densities may be allowed wre measUf"a1Jle
community benefit is to be deri,ed . .mere services and facilitfes are
.",'.
'./," .
.-.' . ,~"-... --'>
f'
available to serve lncreased density. and ~ere the effect of the increased
:!ensity will be compatible with the Plan". The proJect complies with the
above criteria for permitting higher density as stated in the Comprehensive
Plan. While the project will increase the denSity of populatior in the area.
the effect is not considered significant.
'. .
Effect on Housing Growth & the Housing lIarket: Since this proJect Is SR{)
housing and is also a 1eep1y subsidized housing proJect for very low incOl1'e
renters. it Is not expected to encourage the develop~nt of oth~r new housil)!J
in the area in the wey that the development of h1 gh lncome housmg 00 the 51te
lIight affect the local housing market. The project's effect on property
.alues of existing ~arket rate housing in the area is expected to be neutral
based on .. rious published studies of the impact of subsidized housing on
housing market values. The project would increase the supp1J of housing for
very low illcOO'e individuals. The need for an increased number of affordable
housing units is identified in the Housing Element of the ComprehenSive Plan
and the (it,'S adopted Comprehensive Housing Affordabilit1 Strategy (CHAS).
The need for affordable rental units for very 1~ income single households is
particularly noted in the CHAS.
Mitigation Measures, None Required
12. Transport.tlonlCircllhti,on Ca.b c.d>
Impacts:
Traffic: A parting and traffic study prepared by Barton-Ascman AsSOCiates
for the feasibility Study estimated that the nuw~er of vEnicle trips generated
by the project would be about 200 trips per da/. This amount represents less
t~,an one percent of Alma Street-s capacity and would not be corsidered a
significant increase in the amount of dai1, traffic on Alma Street. forest
ilyenue or Homer ilvEIlue.
Parking: The (~tJ of Pilo Alto does r~ nave a specific parking requirement
for SRO housing. The proposed projKt provides fewer parking spaces for
residents than waul d be required if the project ..ere conSidered as either
IlJJltiple-family housing or a hoteL The PlaMed COO1l1unity Zooe Ordi nance
requires projects to provide parking based on the requirements of the Farking
Ordinance unless it is sholm by relevant data that less parking will meet the
needs of the project. The proposed perking for the offlce use corrplies 'aith
Cit! perking standards with 1 spaces for office parking (I space for each 250
square feet of office). There are 12 spaces for shared use by SRO guests and
the SRO staff. plus there will ~ one space reserved <Of the reSident vanager.
The City's standard for multi-fami1! guest parking is IOl of the units plus
one.
Comparison ilf parking requirements for SR{) housing ,.,;th other similar projects
in the State indicated that parking requirements range from zero per urit to
one per unit. ProJects located near .ass transit and services are usually
required to provide less parking with the range geing rrom .2 to .5 spaces per
unit. Auto ownership statistics from the recently corrpleted SRO in downtown
.~ " "-c--\\'
.
~r '. " ' , .
Sumyvale shew a te!1.nt auto oomership ratio of ,32 autos to units, The
Stn1yvale project was cO<1structec! with 28 resident spaces (a .24 ratfo). 6
staff spaces and no guest parHng for 119 SRO units, Since t~.ere are 'ore
resident autos than on-site spaces. arrang~nts are being made for ,park!ng in
a public lot across the street from the proJect. The Sunnyvale proJeCt 15
also a subsidized project for very 1"" ir.ccme persons and has a similar
location near a Caltraln stat 1011'. bus lines. shopping. 'jobs and in a suburban.
do.r1t(Ojfl area, The Alma project proposes _5 spaces per unit fa total of 54
spaces) plus 13 guest ar~ staff spaces Which. based on available data. is
expected to be adequate for the 107 units,
The sponsor has studied several optlO<1S that might impact the parling demand
of the project, These include: 1) a preference for tenants witOoot.cars or a
prohibition on renting to new tenants with cars; 2) eharg,ng for res,dent
parting (thiS OPtion has been discarded as it would 1itely result in tenants
parting on netghbo.-hoOO streets;: 3) a preference fO<' tenants w!;o...,..t fn the
local area (this option is not corsiclered supportable ~s it woold go against
the purpose of locating the f,cility close to ""'ss transit ~t1ich aI1o.'5
tenants to access jobs in other areas) and/or 4} leasing parking at other City
oomed parking lots "ith .,cancies such as tr., Holiday Inn lot or the C~er·
\lebster garage, Shoule! any of tr.,se options be cO<1sidered feasible 0<'
necessary by the City. they could be included in the conditions of approval
for the project; however they are not necessary as mitigations to the project.
The project is pro,lu,hg parting corsistent .nth the Falo ~lto Zoning
Ordinance for the office space. so no mitigation is required, Based on
available data and experiences of ot~.er faci lities of this type. the parl<ing
provided for the resjdential port jon of the project is also adequate and no
mitigatiCl1s are required, '
Prior Temoorary Use of Site for Parkjno' The project was "sed most recently.
for the two and one-half years from ~~JSt. 1992 until February. 1995. as a
parUng lot. on a tro<1th-to-ronth rental basIs. by 1/1l01e Foods Grocery fC!<
their employee parking, Frjor to that use. the site was leased for two years
by Digital Corporation for e;rployee parl:tng. As is. the site can hold fr(llD 40
to 55 cars e!epending DO how tightly they park, Under the zoning ordinance.
parking is not allowed as a principal use in the Downtown Ser,ice Commercial
District; it may be ~llowed as a conditional use, However. the parking use on
the site was occurring ,,4thoot benefit of • (lJP from the C,tJ,
toss of the site for parking for area businesses is not eO<1sidered a project
impact and. under Citl regulations. there is not any requir~.ent that the
sponsor replace or .itjgate the lost parking, MY development of the site
>IOUld have resulted 1M the loss of the site as parking for other lx.'Sinesses.
1tIhc1e foods is ,tt€mDting to find another site for their employee parling. in
the meantime. sjnee the beginning of february. tne employ€es that pre'li()IJsly
used the site now rust park 011 the street or in the ~le Foods lot opposite
thei r store,
Access-The project as proposed has the upper garage level. which holds 32
cars accessed entire1J from the alley including all theee handicap acceSSible
'" .... , 'c"-/~> .. ," '},
, . .:..~j<.-<:.:,:'.,:~
-"-, ~:;; .-'
,
~ElA-:Z
II OF 19
" ....... r
-,'.-
spaces. The upper level Is designed with an 8,5 foot cei1ing clearance
necessary for a handicapped .an, The lower garage level. holding (;> cars. is
accessed entirely via Alma !;treet. The design does nDt include an internal
connectioo bet~ the two garage leve15. All resident and employee parking
would be assigned so that residents and office tenants .111 lnow which
entrance to use. The guest parking spaces for the offices and residential
portioo of the project must be co-equal with the required guest handicap
space.
The sponsor did a studY of a garage with an internal ramp. The alternative
garage would have about t~e same niJ!!'ber of parking spaces. but has an inferior
layoot on the lower level with dead-end aisles and a dead end aisle on the
upper 1 eve 1 if secondary access to the all ey is not .. ",inta I ned. As noted
under The Earth sectioo. thiS design would necessitate adciitioral excavatior.
The internal ramp would require a redesign of the SRO lobby area and office
area. The'sponscr does rot prefer this alternative based 00 I} an estimated
additional construction cost of S350.000. 2) added safety problems on ATma
Street and 3) consideration that the alley f'JOCtioned adequatel}, during the
time it was used informall}, for parking by Iomle foods eJII)loyees.
The alley is technlcall}, one·way. but it is not sigr~d for one-way traffic and
has been informal1}' used ~s a two·way alley. It·s official .,idth is 15 feet.
but at ~ach end the width is restricted by dumpsters to about 11 feet. A
single parked truc~ or car In these narrow ends would bloc< access ta or from
the upper parling level ~f the project. In the area where the project is
proposed. the alley effecti,ely fur.ctions as 20 feet wide because {If
encroacllment over tne existing property 1i ne of the p.-oj€ct site. Businesses
that adjOin the alley currently use the alley for loading. deliveries. parking
tow trucls and employee parking. At times during business hours. the narrow
portions {If the alley are blocked by these actiwities_ The access is usually
clear during evenings. nights and weekends when most of the businB6ses are
closed. Some of the business owners that utilize the alley have reported
problems in the pest between the employee parkers and other alley users soch
as delivery vehicles. towtrucls and other parlers. The Police Decartment
files did not produce any record of accidents {)I" reports ()f other traffic
related problems in the .lley area during the years the Site was used as
temporary parking_ from tne information a,ailable. it appears that the
problems in the alley have been a .otter of annoyance and conflict between
alley users and not a traffiC safety iSSue.
!Juring the four and a half year period that the site .... 5 informally used as a
parking lDt. access was "xclushe1y via the alley. According to Io.'hole Foods'
manager. about 80-100 cars parked on tne site ~1 a daily baSis or about 40 to
5() cars per shift. (\/hole Foods operates three shifts per day. however. only
two of the shifts used tne site for park;ng.} This indicates that from 160 to
200 trips per day were made to and from the site via the alley.
The number of trips via the alley with the project as proposed would be less
th.an the daily trips when the Site was used informally as a parkir~ facility.
since onlJ 32 spaces are on the upper garage level. The number of trips would
be less than 100 per day. Therefore. the frequency of coofl ict between alley
.....
'.-
.'
users would be less with the project than it was ""en the site was informally
. used as a parkIng facility. Improvements to the alley such as signage.
surfacing. the enforcement of no parking and tr.e designation of appropriate
loading areas would help to further reduce corflicts between users.
As currently designed. access to 32 spaces of parkfng frOOl the alley would not
be a significant environmental impact. however. due to concerns about the
width of the alley and the potential for traffic cOf,f)icts. the City
fran$pC'-tation Division has strongly recommended that the entire project
garage be accessed from Alma Street. This is based on concerns about the
inadequate Yidth of the alley U5 feet e,isting versus 20 feet required fO("
two-way traffic). the blOCKage of the alley by trash containers and delivery
vehicles. and the limited enforcement ability of the Police Depart~~nt. due to
response times (i.e. the problem has generally cleared up by the time the
Police would arrive). The alternative solution would require that both garage
levels be accessed from Alma Street. ~;th the pcssibility of a secondary
access to the alley.
The Transportation Division does note that if the garage access remains as
proposed (separate entraoce for each level J. it is important that par"ing
spaces be assigned so that users know ""ich entrance to use. The project has
been designed to moderate the alley access by havi ng or.11 32 of the 74 parl:ing
spaces accessed from the alley. The project is designed to be setoack 2.5
feet fram the rear property line and includes an enclosed trash area fO<' the
project. This wil1 result in the alley being 17.5 teet wide at the project
with no obstructions antiCipated frUll the project. Since most of the alleys
in the dawnt"", area were laid Ollt a number of years ago. they do not
generally meet current design standards. The impact {)f the project on
operations in the alley will be less than the informal parking use and is not
considered iI significant impact.
The proposed Alma Street 9arage entrance .a, have SO!I"~ impact on traffic
J!IO\Ie<Teflt and safety an Alma Street. Of particular concern are left ttM"n
rovements into and out of the garage entrance. This impact. althcugh not
significant. can be further reduced by not allowing left turns oot of the
garage onto Alma; however. this restrictior. ~ich is not easily enforced by
City pol1ce ~rs. shoold orly be instituted by the spoosor if a problem
develops. This restriction could be implemented by the sponsor vith a Sign at
the garage exit. Another measure would be to prohibit left turns into the
garage from southbound ~lma. This last measure~ld be difficult to enforce
un1ess there loIaS a median barrier in A11!"<I Street. [t )/(luid also need to be
applied to the other adjacent businesses. a:; well. This type of traffic
coctrol measure h~ nat been found necessary at other locations or Alma where
there are 13rge apartment complexes an~ much faster traffic. Neither is
recoomended as a ~itjgation.
If an alternative garage design with principal access from Alma. is selected
as the approved project then there would be an additional 200 vel";cle
IOOvements between the site and Alma. compared to none now and in the past.
The resence of the tr_ffic ligl1ts at Homer/Alma and HamlltonlAlma pl"OVide a
brea in the traffic flaw Which .uuld allow vehicles to enter and exit the
.. ',
'--'-"-_:"'-.:'~
'."" :
'" .. <~' ,
, ~:I ".-,.'
:. ,~ "., ." ... :
.. o .
<
., .
go rage safely. The e.><peCted nUl!ber of vehicle movements is not coosidered to
be significant.
lhtigation Mea,;ures: None required
Relllted Project Cooditions,
• Guest par'ing spaces for the office and residenti.l portion of the project
rust be co-equal vith the required guest ~andicap accessible space.
Related Project Cooditi<lns fO<' Project vith Primary Access to • Parking level
fr()ll the Alley:
• Jr~ sponsor shal, improve the entire length of the alley. to standards
detenoined by the Department of Public Works and Transportation Oivi5iOl1. as a
one-way aney.
• The project sponsor" sl1all meet on a regular basis. at least once a year.
vith property <:>oners and users of the alley adjacent to the SRO to assess
problems and formulate solutions.
• The sponsor shall arrange for the installation of "no parking-and "no
loading" signs_ as determined by the Transportation Division along the alley.
13. Pub]>c Servi~es <a.b.d)
Impacts:
fire Protection' The b'.Ji1di~ vill be required to comply with current fire
Cooe requirements and the Cit,-s standard cooOitlons of approval for
stroct'Jl"es of this type including the in~talTation of a complete fire
sprinkler systeB that is ~itored 24 hours a day_ The fireDepart.~nt can
provide adequate fi re protect i on servi ces to t~,e project.
Police Protectfpn: Security systems and personal safety concerns have been
integrated into the physical design of the project. Tt"<!re is only one
pedest';an entrance to the buil~ing. ""ich is tt"<! SRO lobby entrance on ,l,lma
Street. All persons IIIJSt enter and pass by the front desk to get to the
e1e";ator. The sponser has inclu~ed tt"<! cost of 24 hour staffing nf the front
desl< in the project's qJerating budget. The resident ",nager viH have an
office 'otlich connects t() the lobby and also ~., wim»,s 'otlich loolr. out over
the A,ma Street sfdewal. tc provide 'eyes on the street". The project sponsor
phns to use the coomerci.l (lffice next to the SRO lobby as their "",",
corpO<'ate offices. Tl'~ir presence in tt~ build, ng should help insure good
IJanagernent. The parking garage entrarees ",n also be secured wi tl1 gates
""iel1 separate resident parking from the visitor parking areas within the
garage. The elevator is located and designed so that all persors must enter
the SRO lobby to access the elevator. The elevator win be progralllll€d to stop
at the lobby -.flen going to and frO!ll the residential floors and the lower
garage level so that tt"<! des. persor can see who is coming and gcing. All
...,.rgency exits and stairways vin be alanned and secured.
95-ElA·:Z
24 DE 29
..
•
Parks and Recreation· Several par's and public open spaces are within wallting
distance of the ~oject including (i,ic Center Plaza. [1 Camino Park. Johnson
Park. Cogswell Plaza. Scott Par. and the Stanford Univers'tJ arboretwo. The
Senior CeI1ter and the Oo.I1town Ub,ary are also nearby. Given the expected
characteristics of the project's residents. the recreation and open space
resourc,:~ in the neighborhood are considered adequate.
Mitigation lllE!asures: None required
14. Utilities Cd)"
lillpacts:
StQf!l\ \later Drainage: To avoid the possibil itl of storm water runoff from the
building and the site draining into the alley. the sponsor will be required to
construct a pipe c~1neCting the Site runoff to the City's storm drainage
s1stm at the intersection of KooJer and High Streets. See discussiao above
under 3. "'ater.
15. HlJ!;an Iit.lt. (b)
lillpacts:
As part of the feasibility Study. Kleinfelder, Inc .. a firm specializing in
air quolitJ analysis. prepared a report titled "Air Impact Analysis: Proposed
SRO facHity", dated August 26, 1994 ..mich evaluat~d potential air quality
impacts to residents of tne p<"oposed project. The air quality report
("~leinfelder Report") IS attached as Appendi~ £ to t~ Feasibility Study.
While the Kleintelder Report considered the possible effect of other local
sources of air pollutants upar. residents (including trafn operations and
traffic on .l,lma Street) only the inpacts from the adjacent fllison's Auto Body
Shop were j~tifled as potentially significant,
Auto body operatioos such as Ellison's operate under t~ jurisdictiao of the
Bay Area Ai r Quality Management District (BMCf1[l). fllisoo's has a BAAO!'{)
penllit for painting operations and. according to BMIJ1D records. camp 1 i es "" th
t~ District's record <eeping and rep,Jrting requirements regarding the
quantity and content <If paint used. T~ BMI)iO regulates the cootent of
volati Ie Qrganic conpounds (YOC) in the paints used in auto painting
facilities. They also regulate odors froo painting shops and other industrial
and eonmer1:ial sources under the public nuisance 1 .... of the C<!lifornia Health
& Safety Code and under tneir "Regulation 7" p<"ovisions, ... business is
subject to substantial nnes jf its operations pl'odoce objectionable odors
.""ich generate significant nLmbers of verified cOIIlllaints. The BNQID has
earplianee inspectors ..mich con be quickly dispatched to investigate
complaints. BAAQMD staff reported that they do get complaints about auto body
shops but that the problems are not confined to complaints from residentia~
neighbors, TheY flave hac! complaints from coornen ial operators located near
body shops also. Kleinfelde, found no recent Notices of Yiolation in the
Oistrict's files regarding Ellison's.
ti-ElA--Z
'>elF 29
o
j
,~:t·
.'-"'":";'-;;:.-~ >
Kleinfelder considered Ellison·s paint filter and ventilation system to be •
typical of those found in other body shops. however. his topcoat painting
booth was judged better than "",t booths in its eoclosU<'es and efficieocy at
capturing paint particulate emissions. Ellison·s uses approximate'y 3.5
gallons of paint per oay.
The lleinfelder Report coocludes that 'locating the proposed SRO facility
adjacent to Ellison·s oithout additional mitigation [emphasis added) .nIl
likely result in air quality impacts on the SRO residents' (p.~3). The
emissions Which are of concern are paint solvent vapors (,olatile orga~ic
c~s. VOCs) from the t~-coat painting and paint cleanup processes.
Other emissions from Ellison S oper.tions are particulates from sanding. Which
llelnfelder considers of 'mil'lC<' importance" and particulates from primer and
top-coat painting Which are controlled by filters in the paint booth
ventilation system.
~~~~~~~~~~fc. to BM()ID records. the paint and sol,ent emissions ac"tOl1e. butyl acetone and propylene. "These compounds
cOlnpo"",js. based cur rent EPA and (a 1 iforni a
not recognized by California
irr;xlftanee in risk assessment and
~(:~~~;:~~,e~~~;{~~ Level (A[L) values for use in sl . 5/-58). (leinfelder also states
exposure concentrations {)f these ·s.~;r;:~~fd~nt~. Si nee ;nfornation is not a,ailable
"felder conclu6Es that there ~ be a
I"S emissions_ In other W()('"ds. sixe
SRO residents to paint solvents
residents shoold be p..-otected from
the preseoce of VOCs in the air
sollient odors, (leinfelder recOlTJl1ends
level of insignificaoce which .nIl
the nui saoce factor of the solvent
VOCs in the solvents.
Several feasible alternatives ..,asures are identified by (leinfelder that
could be chosen to mitigate the odors and. therefore, potential health risks,
from paint sol,ents. The following is excerpted from the lleinfelder
discussion on the feasibility of the potential ~itigation measures:
1] Seal SRQ .nnoo.'S and provide a central air sureh. This mitigation
measure .nll require that .nndows that open to t e outside <Jf the
structure. especially those .nndows 00 the norttr.<est end of the building
(near Ellison's). will be closed and sealed. Fresh air would be
supplied to these rooms from a central air supply .nth air intakes on
the soothe,st side <Jf the bLJi1ding (opposite side from fllison·s). TI-Jis
reasure ·would likely be sufficient to mitigate the odor problem.
flexibility ""J be ;oclu<led in this measure. allowing that any Ioiindow
may be sealed, pending oosenation of odors at that location.
lr -
~ElA-% 2,,,,.29
\.," ..
.'
2) Pro.ide a tal) stack. This measure would require that the emissions
from the two exhaust stads (primer and topcoat exhausts) 1<IOO1d be
combined to a common duct. The exhaust duct would carry the exhaust gas
horizontally across the El1ison's roof to the wall of the SAO ... The
dUct would then c.rry e~~aust g;ses upward. to an e:~vation above the
upper roofline of the SAO facility. An additional exhaust fall will
1ikel] be required in order to maintain existir.g air fiowrates.
3) Install emissiO!1 control devices EmlssiO!1s of VOCs from ttJe palnt
e",~atJSt stack my be CO!1trolled vith an activated carbon adSO<"ption
system. Such systems are not COOIilO!1 on smaller paint operations sCJCIl as
those in an auto body shop.... The cost of such a system is a major
disadvantage. The cost of design and installatiO!1 of ttJe entire system
15 rO\l91l11 estimated at S2DD.DDD. The boner and fan for ttJe system
r~yresent additional operatiO!1 and utility costs.
4) filter lir at jntakes to SRQunits. Aithough this measure nas been
considered and discussed. , .. < h"e determined tMt the options not
technically feasible.
The above recoolllendatiO!1s have been reviewed ,.;th BAl>JMD planners and their
chief permit enginffr and BAAQMD has stated that the proposed measure exha"'t
stacl:. system "IS as good i system as is feasib1e"_
The sponsor has proposed • corneination of the exhaust stacl:. and the mechanical
fresh ai, "e!1tllatiOO as ~jtigatioo for this ilTl'act. The sPDcsor .1sc
propcses to .instan windaw systems on tile SRO units .mich are capable of being
sealed shut at a later time which Kleinfelder has indicated may be included as
• flexibility measure pending Observation of odors at an individual location.
Engineering studies have been cwpleted to determine the necessary tJeight and
diamet~r of the stact and the required exhaust velocity (Charles &-&aun
letter _ March. 1995), The engineers conclude that the proposed exhaust 'stad,
and fan may allow ttJe SRO residents te> open ttJeir windOwS for ventllation
,.;thout noticing any odors from paiot solvents_ However_ without an actual
>lind and model study of the site conditions. the engineers"; 11 not guerantee
tnat paint solvent IlJIJes -.ill never be noticed bjl any of the SRO residents.
To pro'ide baclt-up Ilitigatior,. the Charles & Braun recOlTlllend 0) that the
fresh air mechanical ventilation system be installed (they have determined <I
location for ttJe air intake) and (2) t~,at proviSion be made in ttJe SAO's
systelll for tr.e future irostanation of an activated carbor filter system .. Ilich
could filter out VOCs.
Since this will be a rectal fael I it! with on-site 24 hour management. ttJe
project sponSO<"";11 be able to exercise control over the assigning of roons
to 1ndividua1s and sealing of indioidua1 room windOwS depending on localized
odors. The project sponsor believes that any cOfl"lll'ints relate,j to odors can
be llandled by ttJe management on a case-by-case basis. The project sponSO<"
intends to advise prospective tenants of the possibil ity of odors that may
emanate from the adjacent facilities. advise tenants of alternatives for
relocation ()f another unit. or seal indil'idUi!l vinro..s as needed.
~·ElA.~2
21 OF 29
•
.... .".
Mltfgation measure:
• Sponsor to install, mechanical fresh air ventilation system for all SRO
units as recamnende~ by Charles & Braun: .
• Sponsor shall inst.l1, at sponsor's expense, an exhaust stac~ and fan
system as reconrnended by Charles & Braun to vent emissions froo Ellison pdint
booth operations:
• Sponsor to install SRO ",1000«5 .mieh are operable but .mich can he
converted to inoperable, i.e, sealed in the future if r~jired.
Alternative Measure:
• If pel"lllission can not he OOtained to install the stac!:, the sponsor snall
be required to seal all tne win~ in. the SRO or provide an alternative
solution satisfactory to the City as reconrnend€d by an expert lnaw1edge,ble in
~fi~. .
6. Aesthetics
llIpacts:
~ The bui lding "ill have il limited effect on wi",,'5 towards Stanford and
trot ,oothi1ls fran the win~ and decks of SOOl€ Palo Alto Plaza condos.
However. as described in t~~ section on light and Glare aQ(we. there are only
a few condos .mic~ have winOCws and dec's .micn face the project and the; r
wi~ are not the primary win~ of those units. The condo units will
still be able to see around the SRO project anti to see Stanford and the
footl1i11s fran their other windows. The project will not bled wil'.'WS from any
ot"~r res ;dent fa 1. coomerc fa 1 or open space a rea. Impact 5 on • i ews are
cons; dered 1 es 5 than 5 ign; fi cant.
Moss a~ Bulk: The lII<1SS and bulk of the ounding will be. wisually
noticea 1. cnange in the South of forest Area. A massing study has been
prepared lly the arc~itect showing tne proposed building and the surrounding
cOIJ1Tercl.1 area. The bui1di'19 is similar ;n height. mass and bulk to other
larger buildings in the area, namely the Diglt.1 buildir~ at Alma and Hamilton
and the Betins Storage building at High and Homer. The building is within the
SO·foot height limit except for a small portion of the parapet at the center
of the Alma Street elevation .mien win require a Desi gn Enhancement [xeeption
(DE[). The projeCt has ~1 designed to minimize the impacts of mass and bulk
by breaking up the Alma elevatiOO (and to a Jesser degree the alley elevatioo}
into small segments. Variations im the parapet height have been incorporated
into the design t(l add wisual interest and to rna,e the buHding appear as
several separate. but adjoining structUf"es. Generally .. the desi'Qfi complies
witi'> the City's adopted Oowntoo Urban Desion Guide for the Alma Street
subareit. The proJect Is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board
...r.ieh is charged with ensuri.'19 that butldings prOOlOte .;sua1 environments
.mieh are of high aesthetiC quality and variety and .mien. at the same time,
are considerate o·f each other. Design issues related to i""acts on the
';\ElA\EZA1S3AL
APRJl. U. 1995
'. -.
•
•
".,"-
adjoining historic gas station at 799 ""ma are discussed bel<)o{ under 18.
CultUf'al Resources. .
Mitigation aeasure:
ReviN by the ArchlteetUf'il Re·,ie>! Board.
18. eyltural Resources Cbl
Impacts:
,--.-..
£ffeets on Historic ~ The lrm1ediately adjoining property to the
south of the pi"ojeet Is a former ser,ice statioo at 799 Alma Street occupied
by the Independent BItI Repair. The ser,;ce station is • small Spanish
Co,onial Revival complex of >Illite stucco bui ldings ltith low pitched red tile
roofs. It lias consUucted in 1929 {)!1 its present site and is described in the
inventory as ". handsome survivor of the early years of the automohile era".
799 Alma is not listed on the ~ational Register. however. it is included in
Palo ... lto·s local inventory of historic structures as a C.tegory II building.
Category II is the second highest designation in the City's inventory. The
inventory describes Category II as "A "Hajor Buj Jdfng" of regiona} inport.nce.
These buildings are meritoriOUS wrks lJf t~e best architects. OiJtst.nding
exanpJes lJf an arenitectrK'} style. or i71ustrdte stylistic development of
architecture in the State or region. A major building may na'e same exterior moai ficat ions. but the original character is retatned. "
The project has been designed in consideration of the adjacent ~istorjc
service station 1n that t11e upper floors of the building have been set bad
froo the sflared property Hne. The courtyards ..mich open to the south help
soften the effect of t11e SRO project on the smaller. one story service
statioo. The project flas been c!esi!l<'~ so as not to c~te vith the design
of the service station. This allows tre service station tc> continue to 1101d
the comer of tr.e block and be the visual focus as one travels northOOund on
Alma Street. it is also typical In an urban area tc> have a siregle story
service station or ilUtomotfve facility adjacent tt) building of roue!: greater
mass and !xJ1L In respoose to cOIl1l1ents froo AHS .-embers at the preliminary
ARB meeting held on January 5. 1995. the architect revised the plans to remove
a portion of the upper comer of the stairwell on the south<estern corner c,f
the southern elevation near Alma and added an outdoor. lanascaped ba1ceny to
soften the visual effeet of the building and help step it 00wn to the scale of
the !\1storic service statiar,.
Mitlg.tion Measure: None required
Relat-ad Project Conditions: Revie>! by the Architectural Revie>! Board.
95-ElA.-l
29 OF 29
•
0..-"
Q Jo-~ 't.achment G
Yalo Alto Housing corporation
$40 cowper Street .. Sutle 20 I • Palo Alto. Cal1fomkl 94~ 1 .. '4 J 5} 32 r --9709 • f'ai{ l41 ~ 321-4341
MlyS.lm
Planning Commission
Cily 0( Palo Alto
P.O.80. 10250
Palo. Alto, CA 94303
Re; 725-753 Alma StrceI
Dear Chairman OjaJcian and PI""nlnt Commi","" Member.:
On May 10~ 1995 .. c:he Coomissloo will consider the second, more: detailed approv-.J
0(_ Plaruled Commurdty zone fa< the Palo Alto Housing Corpooadoo', (PARe) SRO project
at 751 Alma Street. At that lime, the environmen<aJ analysis and the proposed zoning
ordinance lVill be before you. We corne to the Planning Commission now to report that the
mitigations and condirioos contaIned in the staff recommendatiOf!, combined with negative
ne",' on Ille fund"m~ fyon~ may PJ4ke the project infeasible. Altl10ugb PARe is reluctant 10
bring disagreements .... ith staff forw.ard k'! coofuse issues for the Commlsslon. v.'e must ask t.'1e
Comr.!ission 10 lake action on behalf of aflOrdable boosl.'g and modif} certain of L'lese
reqcirement5+
Ther-e are two major a..reas of cftffkuTty + First. the Palo Alto process~ no:-essitati.'1g
a.n.a1ysis 10 the point 0( ~rfection has added major;: ¢0'StS to tbe project in a flJnrung climate
that is fucusing more on costs than in the past. Second, P ARC is being asked 10 warrant an
absence of future problems, 10 the point ",'bere all t1JeoreticaIly possible issues an: solved
before the} ~O!! occur ... ,Ill DO allowance foe any management of potential ";tuatioos.
As the Commission !las already noted, the 5RO project is not. "bare bones" proje.."t
to bet..n with because it requires a parking structure at least panIally underground. Ho",e .. ,ier~
the k>lJowlng coocfitions nave increased Ille CostS beyond Lie brealcing point
• Ccmrnunity kitcnen and ""tdoor deck. PARC tool: this out for cost =>ons; City
staff wishes III put it back in. Cost: Approximately S6.0C(l and loss of renlal income from one
unit.
.. Recessed windows 00. tile Eas:: elevation are required by tile ARB f.or aesthetic
!e3SO!lS. Cost; Approximately $1,200.
• AD arborist .. s report regar<fmg L"'1e condition of cxiS"Jng trees and in.staI1atioo of
street trees. Cost: $6,QOO and 51,500 per tree.
• Garage. City transporufion staff recornmeod iI1at access 10 the 5RO 'OI"a&e be onl}
from Alma Street am! not from tile alley. Cost; Appro1imately S300,QOO due 10 additional
excavation and s1Ioring, with add",tiooalloss of leas<: income from reduced offIce~. If
lICteSS is 10 be allowed from !be .. ~ey, !he 511.0 must bear the cost 0( paving and signing the
entire aDey.
• Connection of the .storm drainage $0 High Street and Homer is required even
lhoug1l. no:>dclition.al run-offwill be experienced on-site. Cost: Approximately S45,QOO.
,-, ' .
• • _";_ --" c '."_
~. -;"
. -.-
• El<t.aust stack. The ,tate of the art desig. '" dispe!'e the sman amount of paint
fumes emitting from Ellison·, 1.uto Body u no ... estimated at S35~(0). pi;.!' recurring
maintenana and operafulg costs .
• Impact of shacflng 00 solar ~Is at Bill's Auto Glass. This impact requires a
mitigation payment even thougb the business bas recently bee. reloca'ed. Co<t: 5558.
Tbc:re "" otllet costly conditions tIlat arise from interpretation of codes sucb as
accessibility requirements ($110,000). mechanical ventilation (580,000), bilee lockers, and a
flo", monitoring study for potential upgrade of the sanitary """er main (5 I 00 per fu cal foot).
PARe bas eoosistently maintained th>.t fumes, noise, and parking issues = be
effectively !IW1aged in stages, if and wbea they occur. The City', approach bas bee. 10 cure
Ihe worst case scenario with up front requirements so tha! the auto uses caJ\ DO( poss1Dty affe.ct
SRO residents. The approprute review under C'n"ironmenta1law is whether the project
impacts the. eslvironment,. DO( ",,'f'.ether the environment impacts the project. We understatld
lhallbe City has a po!i:kal «>mmitment \0 the auto ",Nice 0'" in the area. We know also
that the:: City lias iI commitment to provide aff.ordable hou'Slng. This may '\I.'eD be !he last
opportunity f9r suck b_ing in the do-..-n '0"'0.
Costs relate directl,Y to rents. Rents relat~ directly lO lPPf'O'\o'a] of loans and taX credits.
Oanges 'Me being proposed 'in me tll cTedit 'SJSlem -•• ,'hics ... oo1~ place c',,'en more emphasis
on cost, with DO allo\lo'ahce fOr the difference in costs berween ex.pen sf\..'e and less ex-pensive
areas oC tlIe state. P AHC is prepared to cut costs. Our arcbi1ect and COfitraclOf are at work
analyzing every possibility. How.,.r, we muSllook 10 the COl \0 belp raL'lcr than binder u.
in !hat effort.
We l>.ave attached PARCs proposed revisions 10 !he P1.anned Communil)l zone
ordInana whlcl! are necessary if this project is 10 be feasible. These also make reference 10
increasing the flexibili<y of tile Iang~e referencing office space and Regional Water Q,Jality
Cootrol Board clearance c
P AHC represtr.tatives will be at L'lt' meeting to malce a presen t4600 and an,N'er
questions.
Sin=eIy,
PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPOR-I. noN
~T
&
•
r
i
o
Pr~ Planned Community Zone Onfl1lan<:'
Cll Permitted Uses
Cbanll'lO: "and leasable office space of appro><ima.e1y 1700-1800 square feet.'
(e) Sit, ~ment R,gulations
(i) Delete: (A) and (C)
("') Change: "fOur" 10 "two'
Delete: "A revised gangt pta!! accessing beth le\'efs cf tM garage from lJrna
Street shall be subr.Utted aJ'1.d subJect fQ fi..,al re .. ic.,.,· iltId approval by tlle ARB,-
Insert "The project sflaD include. garage plan with parking accessed tram
Alma Street and Lie arrey. as re\;ewed ilnd approved by We All3,"
{e} Special R.eauiremenls.
(t) CM,nge to read: "Prior to issuance of a grading and e.\Civation permit,. I
detailed gmding plan shan b. submitted lOr n,""", and approval ~y Ill' City Publi<:
Works Depart.--nent and BuilcfLng Inspection Division.. Arty contaminated' ~ ()(
ground water encountered during CJl:cav;uiorl s11aD be remedia!ed Of disposed of in
~orda.'}ce with appilc:abJe State 0( local [aws and proced'ures,~
(Ii) Delete: "The plan shall incluc!e cc>nnectioo oftl1e project'. "arm drain
.,."em 10 tl1e Cily stom! drainage Ii.,. at the intersection of Homer and High.'
(tii) Change: "'Prior-to OCCUp8Ik.y· t-o ''If a Dulsa.nce "issue deve1oj)i:""
(lY) Delet, (A)
~d""rtkms of Approvai for $oonsq(I Preferred Garage Plan.. Staff repon at page 14..
(8) Cbanse \0 read; "The sponsor shall improve the po<tio<1 oftt.e alley
along"'" rear property lin< 10 Cily Public won. Deparunenl standards lOr proper
dtainage
Concft1jons ofAPl'fl"'al. -Staff Report at page 24"
Same c~ang .. at:
2(A) and (C)
6. 1. I. 9(C). I(), 11(11.)
-.. "
"."
'c"