13. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement contains all of the terms of the Parties and supersedes all prior Agreements and understandings related thereto. This Agreement can be changed or amended only by a written instrument signed by the Parties. Due to the specialized nature of the work, this Agreement is non-assignable by both Parties.
14. Disputes.
The signatories to this Agreement shall expend their best efforts to amicably resolve any dispute that may arise under this Agreement. Any dispute that the signatories are unable to resolve shall be submitted to the Director of the USGS or his/her designee and the City of Palo Alto, Public Works Department of the Collaborator or his/her designee for resolution. If no resolution is reached, the Parties agree that the courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over any claims arising out of work under this agreement.
15. Miscellaneous Provisions.
(a) Anti-Deficiency Act. Pursuant to the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341 (a)(1)(A) and (B) and 31 USC § 1517(a), nothing herein contained shall be construed as binding the USGS to expend in any one fiscal year any sum in excess of its appropriations or funding in excess or what it has received for the collaborative work outlined in the SOW or involving the Federal government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose unless otherwise allowed by law.
(b) Import/Export. The use and dissemination of Information and materials exchanged under this Agreement will be in accordance with all U.S. laws and regulations, including those pertaining to national security and export control. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a license to export Information or to permit any disclosure in violation of law, regulation, or Department of Interior policy. The exporting Collaborator is responsible for obtaining any export licenses that may be required by U.S. Federal law.
(c) Third Parties. The Parties acknowledge and agree to allow disclosure of Proprietary Information or Background Intellectual Property to third parties (such as, students, contractors, subcontractors and or consultants) or external collaborators for the purposes of carrying out this Agreement. If a Party engages a new third party to perform any portion of the SOW after the Effective Date of this Agreement, such Party will notify the other Party and provide information about the third-Party involvement within 7 days of engagement. No contractors shall be listed as ineligible in the System for Award Management (sam.gov), unless waived by the Department of the Interior. However, these participants are not Parties to the Agreement. The Parties agree that they will comply with and advise any third parties they have engaged to conduct the Agreement activities to comply with, all applicable Executive Orders, statutes, and regulations. The Parties agree that they will ensure that third party participants are under written obligation not to disclose Proprietary Information or Background Intellectual Property, except as required by law or court order, before the third parties have access to any Proprietary Information or Background Intellectual Property. No foreign personnel shall be engaged by the Collaborator as a contractor, consultant, grantee or third-party collaborator for the performance of any work under this TAA without first identifying the individual, his country of origin, and the work to be performed to USGS so that USGS may determine whether the agency requires advanced approval by an Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 140 of 410
FBMS # (FOP 11.2 A) 24ZCTAAPAHLPPPR
TAA Template April 2023 ARS # 2024ZC00-13333
THIS AGREEMENT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
authorized agency official before working with the foreign contractor, consultant, grantee or third-party collaborator, and whether any data, technology or products shared with or used by a foreign contractor, consultant, grantee or third-party collaborator as part of the technical assistance under this agreement are in accordance with all U.S. laws and regulations, including national security export controls and U.S. Department of State regulations and policies.
16. Survivability.
The following provisions shall survive the termination of this Agreement: 7.
Publications/Reports, 8. Proprietary Information/Intellectual Property/Background Intellectual Property and 14. Disputes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the last date listed below.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY COLLABORATOR
By: ___________________________ By: ___________________________
Name: A. Keith Miles Name: Ed Shikada
Title: WERC Center Director Title: City Manager
Date: _________________________ Date: ____________________________
Attest:
By: ___________________________
Name: Brad Eggleston
Title: Public Works Director
Date: _________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ___________________________
Name: Caio Arellano
Title: Chief Assistant City Attorney
Date: _________________________
Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 141 of 410
FBMS # (FOP 11.2 A) 24ZCTAAPAHLPPPR
TAA Template April 2023 ARS # 2024ZC00-13333
THIS AGREEMENT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
Attachment A: Statement of Work
The Palo Alto Horizontal Levee
Pilot Project:
Post‐ Restoration Science and
Monitoring
May 1, 2024 - April 30, 2029
Research Team:
Susan De La Cruz and Isa Woo: USGS Western Ecological Research Center, San Francisco Bay Estuary Field Station
Karen Thorne and Kevin Buffington: USGS Western Ecological Research Center, Davis Field Station
Marie-Noële Croteau: USGS Geology Minerals Energy and Geophysics Science Center Francis Parchaso: USGS Water Mission Area
Carrie Givens: USGS Upper Midwest Water Science Center
I. BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION:
The City of Palo Alto is leading a Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project (PAHLPP) at the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve. This innovative pilot project is intended to use green infrastructure rather than hard grey structures to promote multiple ecosystem benefits including wind/wave attenuation, flood protection, and use of treated wastewater for plant irrigation in addition to enhancing marsh-upland transition zone habitat and high tide refugia for tidal marsh inhabitants. The horizontal levee may include freshwater marsh, wet meadows, and riparian/scrub ecosystems. This restoration will transition into a brackish marsh zone that transitions into the salt marsh of the adjacent Harbor Marsh. This project will restore a rare habitat type in the San Francisco Bay estuary and also provide flood protection and human recreation opportunities. Furthermore, a gentle sloping transition zone will also enhance the ability to enhance marsh resiliency to sea level rise.
Additionally, USGS scientists will monitor metals, bacterial pathogens, and the benthic macroinvertebrate community at an intertidal site near the PAHLPP and near the outfall of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The latter site has been monitored for the last 30 years. Initially, exceptionally high concentrations of copper and silver were found in mud-dwelling animals, and the RWQCP was identified as a point source for these metals. The Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 142 of 410
FBMS # (FOP 11.2 A) 24ZCTAAPAHLPPPR
TAA Template April 2023 ARS # 2024ZC00-13333
THIS AGREEMENT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
elevated metal concentrations also coincided with reduced reproductive activity in resident clams (Limecola petalum, formerly Macoma balthica and Macoma petalum), and the benthic community showed signs of environmental stress. Metal concentrations in both sediments and clams have declined significantly in the 1980s as the Palo Alto RWQCP implemented more advanced wastewater treatment and source control programs. Since the 1990s, metal concentrations have continued to slowly decrease and even stabilize, except for silver, which continues to be 2-3 times higher than the regional background. Overall metrics suggest improved environmental conditions at the site. Continued efforts to document changes in pollutant concentrations, forms, and types over time is critical to assess ecosystem health.
II. PURPOSE:
The overall purpose of this agreement is to provide technical assistance to the City of Palo Alto to quantify the effectiveness of the PAHLPP restoration in comparison to appropriate reference sites.
These assessments are focused on assessing the habitat for endangered species such as the salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM; Reithrodontomys raviventris) presence and habitat functions; monitoring of benthic community for bacterial pathogens and contaminants; and understanding tidal marsh processes in terms of elevation, channel morphology, and vegetation. The science and monitoring will be conducted by four USGS Science Centers with the following 3 objectives.
III. OBJECTIVES:
Our objectives are divided into three components: 1) Determining Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse presence and assessing habitat function for seed resources and high tide refugia; 2) Monitoring of contaminants and pathogens; 3) Understanding wetland processes (elevation, vegetation).
These objectives will be addressed in the following three studies.
Study 1: Determine Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse presence and assess habitat function for seed resources and high tide refugia (Woo and De La Cruz)
The SMHM is an endangered species that is endemic to the San Francisco Estuary. Many Federal, state, and regional management, recovery, or restoration plans have emphasized the importance of habitat restoration and enhancement for SMHM recovery; yet few studies have addressed the direct benefits of these management actions for SMHM. Most studies on SMHM focus on SMHM presence either by live trapping or via fecal pellets with subsequent genetic analyses to identify species (Aylward et al. 2023). Yet, species presence alone provides limited information on how individuals use or benefit from specific restoration actions. Here, we propose a step-wise and methodical approach in assessing critical habitat functions in terms of food and habitat resources for SMHM. This study dovetails with UC Davis proposed work on fecal pellets for SMHM detection. We propose a tiered approach to assess the effectiveness of the PAHLPP at augmenting food resources and providing high tide refugia for SMHM using the Opportunity, Capacity, and Realized Function framework set forth by Simenstad and Cordell (2000) and used by USGS to characterize restoration effectiveness at the Nisqually River Delta (Ellings et al. 2016, Davis et al. 2018, Woo et al. 2018). Opportunity is defined by habitat suitability which will be measured by SMHM live trapping for presence. Capacity is defined by Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 143 of 410
FBMS # (FOP 11.2 A) 24ZCTAAPAHLPPPR
TAA Template April 2023 ARS # 2024ZC00-13333
THIS AGREEMENT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
the restoration’s production of food resources (i.e., seed quantity, diversity, and biomass per unit area during fall). Realized Function is the integration of Opportunity and Capacity in terms of evidence that SMHM is consuming the additional food resources provided by the restoration.
Evidence that SMHM is consuming food from the PAHLPP will be measured by reconstructing diet from droppings (saved from live trapped individuals). Habitat functions in terms of high tide refugia will also be quantified via focal observations of predation during king tide events.
Task 1.1 Opportunity: SMHM Presence
Opportunity is defined by habitat suitability
which will be measured by SMHM live
trapping for presence.
Task 1.1a. Does the PAHLPP provide habitat
for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse measured by
live‐trapping?
A single pre-restoration small mammal
trapping session occurred in Fall 2023 and
will be repeated annually for post-restoration
comparisons. Our study sites will be focused
on the PAHLPP site and adjacent marshes
and a reference site north of PAHLPP
(Figure 1). Droppings will be collected and
archived for later analyses of diet (via dietary
DNA). Salt marsh harvest mouse surveys
will be led by permitted biologist (State
permit: Woo SC-183120006. Federal Permit USGS: TE020548-15). All SMHM protocols will be followed.
Task 1.2: Habitat Capacity
Task 1.2a. Does PAHLPP produce food resources for SMHM? We will quantify the availability of seed resources in the PAHLPP compared to nearby reference site as a metric of the restoration’s structural capacity to provide food resources. This survey will be conducted after the SMHM trapping session, annually in the Fall, so that any diet information gathered during live-trapping can be related to the on-site production of seed resources, and later analyses of consumption (via dietary DNA analyses on droppings, currently not funded).
Task 1.2b. Does PAHLPP provide plant cover compared to reference? We will assess the pre- and post- restoration habitat of the PAHLPP to provide plant cover during king tide events compared to the reference marsh. To do this we will integrate water levels (via a water level logger), with vegetation height surveys supplemented by Objective 3 surveys of elevation and vegetation (see Objective 3) to model pre- and post- restoration to assess the amount of vegetative cover at varying high tide levels.
Figure 1. The Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project and reference site to compare Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse
presence and food resources.
Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 144 of 410
FBMS # (FOP 11.2 A) 24ZCTAAPAHLPPPR
TAA Template April 2023 ARS # 2024ZC00-13333
THIS AGREEMENT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
Task 1.3: Habitat Functions
Task 1.3a. Do SMHM consume seeds from PAHLPP
In order to facilitate analyses of dietary DNA (via droppings), we will establish a localized DNA library or supplement existing DNA libraries to include the full suite of onsite plant species, common tidal marsh vegetation, and common invertebrates. This would allow for more accurate dietary reconstruction from small mammal droppings.
Task 1.3b. Does PAHLPP provide high tide refugia compared to reference? King tide events are extreme high tides that occur in winter and flood the marsh to the extent where very little vegetative cover remains. Small mammals that live within marshes with abrupt upland transition zones may be exposed to greater predation risk because of the lack of vegetated cover during king tides. To quantify this, we will conduct focal observations on avian predators during king tide events at the PAHLPP and reference site, for pre- and post- restoration.
Task 1.3c. Optional Subtask: DNA analyses: Dietary reconstruction from collected and archived fecal pellets (additional $46,000 required)
This optional task is not currently funded, and would require an additional $46,000 to conduct DNA analyses on collected and archived fecal pellets of the small mammal community. These pellets have been collected and preserved in molecular grade ethanol to facilitate analyses until an additional funding source is identified.
Task 1.4: Project Management and Reporting
Task 1.4a. Project/Data Management; endangered species permits; Data analyses; Reporting Results from this work will be included in the final report as described in section VII of this Agreement. Project update reporting in the form of email will be provided annually by April 30, to cover activities conducted during the previous calendar year.
Project communication will occur with periodic email updates to coordinate research activities.
An email update of the work activities completed will be provided annually. Basic summary information will be provided in a form of an email, presentation slides, or teams meeting.
Project management also includes permitting reports for endangered species reporting, data entry and basic data analyses.
Study 1 Budget Subtotal
Total post-restoration budget for Study Objective 1: Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Trapping and functional assessment of habitat is $ 324,216.
Study 2: Monitoring of benthic community and bacterial pathogens, as well as legacy and emerging contaminants (Croteau, Parchaso, Givens)
The goal of this study is to assess aquatic ecosystem responses (including long-term responses) to contaminants, in particular metals and bacterial pathogens, as well document recovery after contaminant assault and physical disturbances at two sites in South San Francisco Bay, i.e., 1) legacy monitoring site, and 2) new site located within the horizontal levee perimeter. Specific goals include:
Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 145 of 410
FBMS # (FOP 11.2 A) 24ZCTAAPAHLPPPR
TAA Template April 2023 ARS # 2024ZC00-13333
THIS AGREEMENT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
1) Continue monitoring metals in sediments and in resident clam species, as well as benthic invertebrate community composition at the legacy site.
2) Continue DNA analyses initiated in 2021 to assess the influence of wastewater effluent on the microbial communities at the legacy site.
After the construction of the horizontal levee, the study will also characterize metal exposures and colonization by benthic invertebrates at a (new) site located within the horizontal levee perimeter.
Study objectives- Objectives are mostly a continuation of previous agreements with the City of Palo Alto, except the addition of a new site nearby the horizontal levee. They include the following tasks with details provided below:
Task 2.1: Measure metals of regulatory interest in sediment and in tissues of a local sentinel species
Task 2.1a. Sample for metals
Contaminants will include toxic metals monitored since the mid-1970s (e.g., Cu and Ag), metals used in clean energy technology (e.g., Cr, Co, Ni, Co, Mn and Zn), selenium, and mercury, although mercury analyses will be done at a lower frequency. Samples will be collected 6-times per year. Methods used will be similar to previous agreements (Cain et al. 2023).
Sediments will be collected at low tide from the exposed mudflat. Samples will be scraped from the visibly oxidized surface layer of the mud, which represents recently deposited sediment and detritus, or sediment affected by recent chemical reactions with the water column. The sediment also supports microflora and fauna, a nutritional source ingested by M. petalum. Sediment will be obtained to conduct all proposed analyses (Table 1) and to archive approximately 10 grams for any unforeseen future needs. Clams (approximately 60-100 individuals) will be collected by hand from the same areas.
Table 1. Chemical and physical
data, and analytical methodology for monitoring the near‐field discharge of the Palo Alto RWQCP
Constituent Matrix Method
Ag, Al, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, Ti, Zn Sediment/tissue ICP‐OES Nb Sediment ICP‐MS
Hg Sediment/tissue Atomic fluorescence spectrometry
Se Sediment/tissue ICP‐MS coupled to hydride generation Particle size Sediment Physical separation
Total organic carbon (TOC) Sediment IRMS*
Microbial load Water/Sediment Cultivation on R2A media Microbial community
(microbiome)
Tissue 16S rRNA sequencing
Antimicrobial gene markers Water/Sediment Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) *Continuous Flow Isotope ratio Mass Spectrophotometry (IRMS)
Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 146 of 410
FBMS # (FOP 11.2 A) 24ZCTAAPAHLPPPR
TAA Template April 2023 ARS # 2024ZC00-13333
THIS AGREEMENT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
Sample preparation- Sediments will be sieved through 100 μm mesh in ultra-clean (18 Mohm- cm) deionized water immediately upon return to the laboratory. Both the fraction of sediment passing through the sieve (silt/clay fraction) and the fraction retained on the sieve will be dried and weighed. Particle size distribution will be defined as the proportion of the total sediment mass divided between these two fractions.
Replicate aliquots of sediment (< 100 μm fraction) will be digested with concentrated nitric acid in heat blocks. This method provides a “near-total” extraction of metals from the sediment and is comparable to the recommended procedures of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for leachable metals and to the procedures employed in the Regional Monitoring Program. Another set of replicate subsamples from < 100 μm fraction will be directly extracted with dilute (0.6 N) hydrochloric acid (HCl) for 2 hours at room temperature. This method extracts metals bound to sediment surfaces and is operationally designed to obtain the leachable, anthropogenic contribution to the sediment concentration (Luoma and Bryan 1982).
Clams will be depurated for 48 h at 15° C in clean ocean water diluted to the salinity on the mudflat at the time of collection. Following depuration, the length of each clam will be determined, and shell and soft tissue will be separated. Soft tissues will be composited into 8 samples, each containing animals of similar shell length. Samples will be dried and digested by nitric acid in heat blocks. Samples for mercury and selenium analysis will be composited as above into 3 samples, homogenized and stored at -80° C. Metal content of a standard sized clam will be calculated for each collection to facilitate comparisons of metal exposure over time.
Analytical methods- Digested tissue and sediment samples will be evaporated to dryness and reconstituted in either 1% nitric acid or 5% hydrochloric acid. Elements, except Hg and Se, will be analyzed by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrophotometry (ICPOES) (Table 1). Tissue and sediment samples for total mercury will be digested in nitric acid, followed by BrCl oxidation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry according to the EPA Method 1631. Similarly, tissue and sediment samples for selenium analysis will be digested in nitric acid, followed by hydrogen peroxide oxidation, hydride generation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (HG-ICP-MS) according to existing methods. Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations will be determined using a continuous flow isotope ratio mass spectrophotometer (IRMS) at UC Davis. Before the analysis, sediment samples will be acidified with 12 N HCl vapor to remove inorganic carbon.
Quality control will be assessed by frequent analysis of blanks, certified reference materials with each analytical run, and internal comparisons with prepared quality control standards. Method detection limits (MDL) and reporting levels (MRL) will be determined using existing procedures.
Task 2.2: Characterize the benthic community composition
Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 147 of 410
FBMS # (FOP 11.2 A) 24ZCTAAPAHLPPPR
TAA Template April 2023 ARS # 2024ZC00-13333
THIS AGREEMENT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
Task 2.2a. Collect, sort and identify benthic invertebrates The benthic community structure will be characterized to support assessments of benthic community dynamics in relation to contaminant exposures. Data will allow evaluating relationships between metal exposures and biological metrics (benthic community structure, condition index).
Three replicate samples will be collected using 8.5 cm diameter x 20 cm deep cores for the benthic community monitoring study. Benthic samples will be washed on a 0.5 mm screen, preserved in 10% formalin for two weeks and then transferred to 70% ethyl alcohol with Rose Bengal stain. A minimum of 10 individual M. petalum of varying sizes (minimum of 5mm) will be collected for the analysis of reproductive activity (if additional funds are available).
Benthic samples will be sorted and individuals identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, and individuals for each species will be enumerated. Note that as a cost-saving measure, taxonomy of some phylum (for example, annelids) will be coarser.
Task 2.2b. Collect, preserve, dissect and assess reproductive status of clams (additional funding source required)
Clams collected for reproductive analysis will be immediately preserved in 10% formalin at the time of collection, to stabilize samples for archiving, until additional funds becomes available. If additional funding becomes available, in the laboratory, the visceral mass of each clam will be removed, stored in 70% ethyl alcohol, and then prepared using standard histological techniques.
Thin sections of clam reproductive tissue will be examined with a light microscope to characterize sex, developmental stage, and condition of gonads.
Task 2.3: Characterize the microbial community in water, sediment and clams.
Task 2.3a. Measure microbial load in sediment, water and in clams
Measures of microbial load in water, sediment and clams will allow assessing the influence of wastewater effluent on the microbial community (microbiome) as well as provide insights on microbial-mediated processes. Triplicate sediment samples will be scraped from the visibly oxidized surface layer of the mud using a sterile spatula and added into sterile Falcon tubes.
Triplicate water samples will be collected from pools at the mudflat surface using sterile Falcon tubes. Clams (20-25) will be collected by hand, as described in task 2.1.a. In the laboratory, clams will be rinsed with sterile MilliQ water, transferred into a sterile jar filled with DNA-RNA shield solution. Samples will be shipped on ice overnight to the Michigan Bacteriological Research Laboratory. Altogether, data for this project will increase the understanding of aquatic ecosystem responses to anthropogenic contaminants, in particular metals and bacterial pathogens.
Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 148 of 410
FBMS # (FOP 11.2 A) 24ZCTAAPAHLPPPR
TAA Template April 2023 ARS # 2024ZC00-13333
THIS AGREEMENT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
Task 2.3b. Characterize the microbial community and assess presence of bacterial pathogens and antimicrobial gene markers
Using next-generation amplicon sequencing targeting a universal Bacteria 16S rRNA gene, we will characterize and compare the microbial community composition, or microbiome, of the surface water, sediment, and clams. Microbiome variation will be evaluated temporally and spatially and in regard to other measured environmental variables, metal analysis, and benthic community metrics. This collective analysis should provide details on how metal concentration and exposure influence the microbiome of these separate environmental compartments with the potential of influencing clam health and physiology. Note that if funds from other tasks can be leveraged, the presence of bacterial pathogen and antimicrobial gene markers will also be evaluated.
Note that if funds from other tasks can be leveraged, the presence of bacterial pathogen and antimicrobial gene markers will also be evaluated.
Task 2.4: Project Management and Reporting
Task 2.4a. Project/data management, reporting
Project update reporting in the form of email and/or meeting will be provided annually by the end of spring to cover activities conducted during the previous calendar year. Data will also be summarized in the form of a USGS ScienceBase data release.
Study 2 Budget Subtotal
The annual budget for Study 2 is $330,000. It includes salary for project management and reporting, as well as field work, sample processing, analytical and taxonomical analyses. Note that specimens will be collected and preserved for task 2.2, but additional funding will be required to pay for external analyses.
Study 3: Understanding wetland processes for Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project: long‐term monitoring (Thorne)
The city of Palo Alto is constructing a horizontal levee and irrigated ecotone to create a transitional freshwater wetland slope with a variety of habitat types proposed. The horizontal levee may include freshwater marsh, wet meadows, and riparian/scrub ecosystems. This restoration will transition into a brackish marsh zone that transitions into the salt marsh of the adjacent Harbor Marsh. This project will restore a rare habitat type in the San Francisco Bay estuary and also provide flood protection and human recreation opportunities.
Objectives: Assess the physical and biological conditions pre and post construction for the Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project and the adjacent Harbor Marsh. Here we propose to monitor the Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project restoration and the adjacent Harbor Marsh to understand the ecological outcomes following the restoration efforts. We also propose monitoring a control site (e.g., Laumeister marsh) to compare desired restoration outcomes to an existing non-restored marsh ecosystem. The following monitoring activities meet the Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 149 of 410
FBMS # (FOP 11.2 A) 24ZCTAAPAHLPPPR
TAA Template April 2023 ARS # 2024ZC00-13333
THIS AGREEMENT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
recommendations from the Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (ESA, 2023; Table 2 Summary of Monitoring Schedule). Pre-construction monitoring (Q1 and Q2 of 2024) has been funded under a separate agreement, so the work below will focus on Post-restoration monitoring.
Study questions:
1. How does habitat elevation and accretion processes respond to restoration?
2. What is the vegetation composition (native and invasive species) pre and post restoration? Does vegetation cover and species diversity change following restoration?
3. How do soil properties, such as bulk density and percent organic matter, evolve post- restoration?
4. What is the pore water (soil) salinity pre and post restoration and how does this compare to an area without freshwater inflow?
5. How do these measurements compare to a marsh site without restoration efforts? Study site: Will include the Project boundary (3.56 acres) and the adjacent Harbor Marsh. All tasks below will include sampling in both locations.
Task 3.1. Elevation monitoring and soils development
Task 3.1a. Install and monitor SETs, sample soils for nutrient analysis Accretion and Elevation: Surface elevation tables with marker horizons (SET-MH) will be installed immediately following construction (Q4 2024) in the restoration site and salt marsh to monitor surface deposition (accretion) and total changes in elevation (Figure 2). SET-MH quantify the relative contributions of surface and subsurface processes to elevation change (i.e., root growth, decomposition, compaction, water flux), shallow subsidence (accretion – elevation), and shallow subsidence between shallow (root zone) and deeper (to >10 m) portions of the soil profile. Two SET-MH will be deployed in the upland restoration and two SET-MH in the salt marsh. We will deploy each SET with three feldspar marker horizon (MH) plots. This information will be paired with existing SET-MH deployed in Laumeister Marsh in 2022. These will be measured biannually (Q1 and Q3, 2025-2028). All SET-MH locations will be surveyed using a Real Time Kinematic GPS (RTK GPS) with horizontal and vertical accuracy of ~ 2 cm.
Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 150 of 410
FBMS # (FOP 11.2 A) 24ZCTAAPAHLPPPR
TAA Template April 2023 ARS # 2024ZC00-13333
THIS AGREEMENT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
Figure 2. Proposed locations for Surface Elevation Table‐Marker Horizon installation.
Soil development: Along a transect perpendicular to Harbor Road we will measure soil properties within all habitat types (freshwater marsh, wet meadow, riparian/upland scrub, and salt marsh) to the SF Bay edge. Three shallow (10 cm) soil cores will be collected each year at each habitat type. We will measure soil properties, including soil salinity, bulk density, percent organic matter, and macronutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous). All soil core locations will be surveyed using a RTK GPS. Core data was already collected at Laumeister Marsh in 2022 for comparison.
Analysis: Accretion and elevation change rates (mm/yr) will be calculated for each data collection period and over the project timeline. These rates of change will be compared to Laumeister Marsh to assess if accretion rates are the same, greater, or less than a non-restored salt marsh. Soil core data will be summarized by year and overall trajectory of change for the site. Comparison to Laumeister Marsh and other existing data will be done.
Task 3.2. Vegetation establishment and change
Task 3.2a. Monitor vegetation development with annual surveys, invasive species surveys (x2), habitat analysis
Vegetation cover: Three transects will be established that span from the top of the horizontal levee through Harbor Marsh to the SF Bay. Twelve points will be selected along the transect, three each in the upland grassland, wet meadow, brackish marsh and salt marsh habitat classes within the project area. A PVC pipe will mark the north corner of each 0.5 x 0.5 m plot to ensure data are comparable through time. Quadrat vegetation surveys will document all plant taxa present, percent cover by species, percent cover by native, non-native, and invasive species, and height (avg. and maximum by species). Also a visual assessment of vegetation health and vigor will be done. This will be conducted each year during peak growing season (Q3).
Invasive plant surveys. Locations of perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), and other highly invasive plants will be surveyed and recorded in monitoring years 2 and 5. Surveys will occur twice in each monitoring year (e.g., late spring, Q2; Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
21 Packet Pg. 151 of 410
FBMS # (FOP 11.2 A) 24ZCTAAPAHLPPPR
TAA Template April 2023 ARS # 2024ZC00-13333
THIS AGREEMENT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
and late summer, Q3) to capture species with different seasonal growth periods. Stands of target invasive plants will be mapped to estimate total coverage with the project limits and track invasive plant colonization and establishment for comparison between monitoring years. Surveys will include documenting percent cover and location.
Habitat type extent: Delineation of habitat types by area will occur both in the field and with remote imagery in monitoring years 3 and 5 (monitoring year 1 is the first growing season following construction completion and plant installation). Habitat types include freshwater marsh, wet meadow, riparian/upland scrub, brackish salt marsh, and invasive species and will be summarized by percent cover. We will estimate this using field surveys and paired satellite imagery to develop a change analysis over the course of the monitoring period.
Analysis: Plant species richness and dominance will be compared through time, including vegetation percent cover by habitat type. This will be done at the quadrat scale (Task 3.1) and project scale (Task 3.3). Also, the change in extent and composition of invasive species through time will be done. This will be compared with study site characteristics (e.g., elevation, soil properties) to understand change and success. A map of photopoint locations will be provided and photos will be summarized and presented.
Task 3.3. Tidal channel and soil water quality.
Task 3.3a. Record surface and pore water levels and salinity Marsh channel water quality: Effluent volumes are important to monitor, but to correlate to vegetation establishment and evolution measurements of marsh channel water quality is needed.
We will install two sensors (Solinst Edge loggers) to measure water level and salinity near the restoration and in Harbor Marsh. Biannually (Q1 and Q3), a handheld water quality meter (e.g., YSI Water Quality Meter) will measure pH, ammonium, nitrate, and temperature in the channels.
Marsh pore water quality: The water quality in the root zone influences vegetation health and vigor. We will establish two pore water wells near the restoration site and in Harbor Marsh and download data biannually. Wells will include Solinst Edge loggers to measure water level and salinity. A handheld water quality meter (e.g., YSI Water Quality Meter) will measure pH, ammonium, nitrate, and temperature.
Analysis: Water quality parameters will be correlated to vegetation distribution and species composition. This will also be related to health and vigor of the vegetation. Water level data will be used to calculate percent time flooded for the restoration and Harbor Marsh to correlate with accretion and elevation change measurements. Also, using water level data and RTK GPS data (from above) we will calculate the local tidal datums for the project and Harbor Marsh sites.
Task 3.4. Project Management and Reporting
Task 3.4a. Project/data management, synthesis, analysis, reporting Administrative tasks: Manage the contract, budget, and allow the development of any billing or invoices as needed. Acquisition of necessary permits and trainings will be done. Data analyses will be ongoing throughout the year. All data will follow DOI data quality guidelines, with Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
22 Packet Pg. 152 of 410
FBMS # (FOP 11.2 A) 24ZCTAAPAHLPPPR
TAA Template April 2023 ARS # 2024ZC00-13333
THIS AGREEMENT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
appropriate data quality measures implemented. All data will be reviewed and inspected to ensure it is complete, correct, accurate, structured correctly, and formatted correctly per the scope of work.
Reporting: will be done annually. A summary report as outlined in the Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (ESA, 2023; Section 4 Reporting) will be provided to the Collaborator by January 15 after monitoring years 1-5
covering the previous year’s work. Peer-reviewed scientific journals will be submitted.
Presentations to funder, stakeholders, and other interested parties will be provided both virtual and in-person, when requested. Final project reporting will be provided by April 30, 2029.
Study 3 Budget Subtotal
Total post-restoration budget for Study 3, Understanding wetland processes for Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project long-term monitoring is $ 270,529.
IV. TERM AND PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE/MILESTONES
This agreement is to cover post-construction monitoring activities from May 1, 2024 to April 30, 2029. As funding becomes available, this agreement may be modified and expanded to incorporate an expanded scope for post-restoration research and activities.
V. COLLABORATOR ROLE AND EXPERTISE
The Collaborator’s role is to conduct the pilot project using a horizontal levee concept to function as green infrastructure, providing levee protection as well as enhancing wildlife habitat.
Specific Collaborator Tasks: The Collaborator will facilitate access to the PAHLPP site, provide updates on construction timelines and activities that may influence research and monitoring activities, and facilitate coordination amongst other research groups at the PAHLPP.
VI. USGS ROLE AND EXPERTISE
This interdisciplinary team of USGS scientists from four USGS Science Centers possesses the depth and breadth of expertise to assess the PAHLPP for endangered species benefits, marsh processes, metal contaminants, and pathogens. The Western Ecological Research Center (De La Cruz, Woo, Thorne) has expertise in wetland ecology, restoration, and monitoring to assess wetland structure and function as well as expertise and permitting for handling the salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM, Reithrodontomys raviventris). The Geology Minerals Energy and Geophysics Science Center (Croteau) has metal contaminant expertise and has led the interdisciplinary team including Water Mission Area (Parchaso, expertise in benthic invertebrate ecology) and Upper Midwest Water Science Center (Givens, expertise in environmental microbiology) for the long-term monitoring of metals and the benthic macroinvertebrate community.
Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
23 Packet Pg. 153 of 410
FBMS # (FOP 11.2 A) 24ZCTAAPAHLPPPR
TAA Template April 2023 ARS # 2024ZC00-13333
THIS AGREEMENT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
VII. ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES/EXPECTED RESULTS
USGS will work with Collaborator to identify the information needed for their reporting requirements, so that we can provide timely and management-relevant information throughout the project including annual project summary updates. Annual summary reports will be completed by April 30, summarizing the activities and results of the previous calendar year. Any other interim updates can be provided upon request in the form of email update, presentation slides, or teams meeting.
A final project report will be completed by April 30, 2029 for all tasks covered by this agreement and accompanied by a USGS Data Release, in which all data will be publicly available at sciencebase.gov. Data releases may occur separately by each objective. USGS will work with Collaborator to identify final reporting requirements and reporting structure, which may include separate reports by objective. In some instances, the final report may be structured as draft manuscripts to be submitted to peer-reviewed journals, a USGS Scientific Investigation Report, or a USGS Open File Report.
Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
24 Packet Pg. 154 of 410
FBMS # (FOP 11.2 A) 24ZCTAAPAHLPPPR
TAA Template April 2023 ARS # 2024ZC00-13333
THIS AGREEMENT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
Budget
Total budget for the post-restoration research and monitoring is $924,745.00.
1 Supplies include: live traps, sterilized bait, sanitation supplies for traps, molecular grade ethanol for DNA preservation, jars, vials, labels; hydrology instruments, Surface Elevation Table supplies 2 Please note that your budget exhibits may be modified annually to offset uncontrollable changes in USGS Bureau overhead rates.
Item 9
Attachment A - Technical
Assistance Agreement
with US Geological Survey
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
25 Packet Pg. 155 of 410
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: April 22, 2024
Report #:2404-2854
TITLE
QUASI-JUDICIAL. 739 Sutter Avenue [22PLN-00201 and 24PLN-00005]: Appeal of the Director's Decision to Approve a Streamlined Housing Development Review Application to Allow Deconstruction of An Existing 8 Unit Residential Rental Development and Construction of 12 Three-Bedroom Condominium Units. The Project Also Includes a Request for Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for a Condominium Subdivision. Zoning District: RM-20. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. For more information contact the Project Planner at [email protected].
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council take the following action(s):
1. Find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332;
2. Adopt the attached Record of Land Use Action, thereby:
a. Denying the appeal and upholding the Director’s approval; and b. Approving the Vesting Tentative Map
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 19, 2024, the Planning and Development Services Director tentatively approved the applicant’s request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review Application. The proposed residential for-sale townhome project, located on a 0.38-acre parcel at 739 Sutter Avenue, includes 12 residential for-sale units, two of which are to be provided at below market rate to low income (50-80% of AMI). The project would replace an existing 8-unit residential rental development that is currently occupied. The project is a housing development project in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act and qualifies for a Density Bonus based on the percentage and income level restrictions on the provided units. The project is also eligible for three concessions as well as unlimited waivers, or changes to the objective development standards, to accommodate the development in accordance with the State Density Bonus allowances (California Government Code §65915) and PAMC Chapter 18.15.
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 156 of 410
In accordance with the approval process for streamlined housing development review applications, any member of the public may appeal within 10 days of the Director’s tentative decision. Staff received timely appeals from two members of the public, one on behalf of the San Carlos Neighborhood Association and one on behalf of Milan Saini, a resident of Sutter Avenue. The concerns expressed in these appeal letters are detailed further in this report.
Adoption of the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) in Attachment B would deny the appeals and uphold the Director‘s decision to approve the project. Three members of the Council must vote to pull this item from the consent agenda in order to hold a hearing to discuss the project. If Council approves the Streamlined Housing Development review application, staff also recommends simultaneous approval of the associated Vesting Tentative Map application, the findings for which are included in the RLUA.
BACKGROUND
The Planning and Development Services Director issued a tentative approval on the applicant’s request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review Application on March 19, 2024. Two timely requests for hearing were filed, one on behalf of the San Carlos Neighborhood Association (Attachment C) and one by a resident on Sutter Avenue (Attachment D). In accordance with the municipal code, this request is placed on the Council’s consent agenda within 45 days of the request for hearing.
Streamlined Housing Development Review applications are subject to the findings set forth in Section 18.77.073 of the zoning code. The findings of approval of this application are included in the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B.
Request for Hearing-San Carlos Neighborhood Association The San Carlos Neighborhood Association provided the letter in Attachment C to request a Council hearing on the Director’s decision to approve the Streamlined Housing Development Review application. The letter focuses on the following key concerns:
•Fire Safety: The requester states that the project does not have sufficient setback from the property line for proper fire access and states concerns that the project relies on ground ladder access versus aerial access for fire service. •Privacy: The requester states that the project does not adequately protect the privacy of neighboring residents by providing third floor balconies that face the rear of the site (toward San Carlos Court). The requester asks for the applicant to increase the size of all the trees along the rear to provide mature screening at the time of planting and requests that all third-floor balconies be removed.
•Trash: The requester states that the trash design is not adequate and that the receptacles should have two-foot spacing between each bin. They further state concerns regarding restriction to street parking during trash service hours.
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 157 of 410
•Density Bonus Law: Express concerns that the project is inconsistent with State density bonus allowances as set forth in Chapter 18.15 of the Code because the project does not provide at least five additional housing units beyond what is existing. •CEQA Analysis: The requester expresses that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of analysis for the proposed project and that the project does not qualify for a Class 32 categorical exemption.
Request for Hearing-Milan Saini
Milan Saini, a Sutter Avenue resident, stated his concerns in an e-mail provided in Attachment D. In a second e-mail on March 26, 2024, he submitted a second objection letter. This second letter did not raise new objections but elaborated on the initial comments and included signatures from other neighbors. The comments focus on the following key concerns:
•Lack of Transparency in Planning Process: The requester states that they have not received communication or acknowledgement on previously raised objections. •Neighborhood Compatibility: The requester states that there is no three-story development on the street and that this approval will initiate additional development on Sutter Avenue. He states that the density and scale of the proposed development are incompatible with the current aesthetic, architecture, and overall neighborhood character
•Precedent: The requester expresses that if this project is approved, the city would be required to approve successive applications.
•Cumulative Projects: The requester states that the project’s impact must also take into consideration other projects that would follow and that, together, would increase traffic congestion and strain existing parking resources on the neighborhood. The high-density projects when taken collectively will lead to overcrowding in the neighborhood, potentially decreasing the quality of life for existing residents, including more noise and light pollution, disrupting the peacefulness of my neighborhood. •Decreased property values: The requester expresses concern that the high-density projects on the street could potentially decrease property values in the surrounding areas due to overcrowding, increased traffic, and changes to the neighborhood character.
If three or more City Councilmembers want to hold a public hearing to consider the application, a vote is needed to pull the item from the consent calendar. If pulled, staff would return at a future date for a hearing on the application.
Streamlined Housing Development Review applications are subject to findings set forth in Section 18.77.073 of the zoning code. The findings to approve the proposed project are included in the tentative approval letter in Attachment E and reflected in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B.
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 158 of 410
Vesting Tentative Map
The proposed project includes an associated request for approval of a Vesting Tentative Map application (24PLN-00005) to allow twelve residential condominium units on a single, existing, 16,720 square foot (sf) parcel at the subject property. Approval of the map also includes acceptance of proposed utility easements on the parcel, which are required per City of Palo Alto Utility standards. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map is included in Attachment F.
The process for evaluating a vesting tentative map application is set forth in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and California Government Code 66474. The process for approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for a condominium subdivision is outlined in PAMC Sections
21.12.010 and 21.13.020. Tentative maps require Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review to evaluate whether the amended subdivision is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (in particular, Government Code 66474), Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and State Law. The PTC’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final approval.
On March 27, 2024, the PTC recommend (6-0, Hechtman absent) that Council find the project exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332; and recommend approval of the Vesting Tentative Map to City Council based on the finding and subject to the conditions of approval included in the PTC staff report. The PTC also recommended that Council consider removing the parking restrictions during refuse pickup hours referred to in the conditions of approval #5 and as shown in Sheet A0.5 of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) plan set. This condition of approval is not included in the Vesting Tentative Map conditions, but is part of the Streamlined Housing Development Review conditions of approval. The proposed parking restriction during trash service is a standard Condition of Approval (COA) used in many areas of the City and was made a requirement of the project by the Office of Transportation to ensure that carts, when placed out for service, do not block the vehicle lanes. While some of the Commissioners viewed the parking restrictions as a special privilege for residents of the proposed development, its primary purpose is to ensure safety during trash pickup times. In addition, although the site is fully parked with two spaces per unit, staff notes that the parking restriction may equally be viewed as a burden on the residents of the development, as they too would not be able to utilize street parking closest to their homes during trash pickup times.
ANALYSIS
A detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and relevant state regulations is included in the November 2, 2024 ARB staff report.1 The project was found to be consistent with the relevant plans, policies, and regulations set forth in local and state law.
1 The staff report for the November 2, 2023 Architectural Review Board Study Session is available online at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2023/arb-11.02-739-sutter.pdf
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 159 of 410
Responses to Comment San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association (SCCNA) Following is a response to key issues raised by the SCCNA. Some of these comments were raised in early comment letters. Therefore, responses were also provided in previous staff reports and in staff’s formal response to two letters provided by the SCCNA’s attorney during the review process. Staff’s formal response to the previous letters is included in Attachment E.
Fire Safety
The requester states that the project does not have sufficient setback from the property line for proper fire access. However, the project not only meets the 10-foot setback requirement required for RM-20 zone districts but exceed the requirements by providing a 12-foot minimum setback, which greatly exceeds the requirement for adequate fire access (typically five feet on the ground level). There are existing overhead lines across the project frontage that restrict the site from being accessed by fire trucks with aerial ladders. Therefore, under existing and proposed conditions, the project would provide ground ladder access on two ends of each building for fighting fires. The project is also required to include a commercial grade fire sprinkler system. The project has been reviewed by the City of Palo Alto Fire Department and recommended approval based on the plans, as revised to accommodate the above referenced measures. Therefore, staff has reviewed the project and determined that the project design has adequate fire safety measures in compliance with the fire code.
Privacy
The requester states that the project does not adequately protect the privacy of neighboring residents by providing third floor balconies that face the rear of the site (toward San Carlos Court) and asks for the balconies to be removed. The project has been redesigned through the public process to reduce impacts to San Carlos Court residents. The initial design during the preliminary Architectural Review process (21PLN-00222) included rooftop decks on both the front and rear building. In response to resident comments. The rooftop decks on the rear building were removed prior to submitting a formal application. The rooftop decks on the front building were also removed following the ARB’s review in response to both board member comments and additional neighbor comments.
The project was also redesigned to meet the objective standards set forth in PAMC Section
18.24.050(2)(A through E). This included:
•modifications to the balcony material (obscure versus glass) and height (taller railings to meet line of sight restrictions)
•modifications to the window design (reduced glass and transparent glazing), •greater setbacks from the balcony from the property line to bring the project outside of the rear daylight plane and meet the visibility line of sight restrictions, •increasing the height of the fence to the maximum allowable, •and modifying the planting plan to provide a continuous row of vegetation for screening purposes.
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 160 of 410
The requester asks for the applicant to increase the size of all the trees along the rear at planting to provide mature screening at the time of planting. Staff believes that the proposed planting plan with 24-inch boxed trees is appropriate to provide for screening over time; although staff understands that the proposed trees, which shall measure 8 feet in height at planting does not provide full vegetation screening at planting, these are a fast-growing species capable of providing screening over time.
Trash
The requester states that the trash design is not adequate and that the receptacles should have two-foot spacing between each bin. They further state concerns regarding restrictions to street parking in front of this site for trash service hours.
The trash service has been reviewed by the City’s Zero Waste Division as well as its waste hauler and Greenwaste, to ensure that the design meets the City and Greenwaste standards for waste disposal. The project meets these requirements. The plan set inadvertently refers to these waste receptacles as bins, which are larger metal receptacles, versus carts, which are the smaller plastic receptacles more typically used by low density residential uses. Bins require at least two- foot spacing between each for service. Carts require 6 inches between. Therefore, the proposed carts are adequately spaced in accordance with the Greenwaste requirements.
The proposed parking restriction during trash service is a standard COA used in many areas of the City and was made a requirement of the project by the Office of Transportation to ensure that carts, when placed out for service, do not block the vehicle lanes.
Density Bonus Law
The requester expresses that the project is inconsistent with state density bonus allowances as set forth in Chapter 18.15 of the code because the project does not provide at least five additional housing units beyond what is existing. The requester’s accurately notes that the municipal code includes a definition of development as “all developments pursuant to a proposal to construct or place five (5) or more additional dwelling units on a lot or contiguous lots including, without limitation, a planned unit development, site plan, subdivision, or conversion of a non-residential building to dwelling units.” However, this provision conflicts with current state density bonus law, which provides only that the proposed development must be five units or more to be eligible for state density bonus. In cases where the City’s local ordinance conflicts with state density bonus law, the state law shall prevail. This inconsistency will be addressed in an ordinance updating the municipal code later this month.
CEQA Analysis
As detailed in staff’s response to the August 30, 2023 and November 1, 2023 letters from Silicon Valley Law group, the city disagrees with the assertion that a Class 32 exemption would not be applicable to the proposed project. Staff’s response to these letters is included in Attachment E.
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 161 of 410
Response to Milan Saini Comments
Following is staff’s response to key issues raised by Milan Saini in his comment letter.
Lack of Transparency in Planning Process
The requester provided a letter on July 11, 2022 expressing concerns about the proposed development, specifically indicating concerns about the increased density, the inclusion of low- income units, and that the project would affect property values. The objection letter was signed by four residents within the 700 block of Sutter Avenue. Staff inadvertently did not respond to this letter. Nevertheless, the status of the project has been updated continuously on the project webpage throughout the process and includes plan sets, links to staff reports, and the environmental documents. A notice was mailed to all residents within 600-feet of the project site prior to the November 2, 2023 ARB study session in accordance with the code requirements. Staff has confirmed that the requester was included on those mailings. The requester was also noticed at the tentative decision process, all in accordance with the City’s standard process in accordance with the code. Therefore, review of the project has been transparent and multiple opportunities to comment were provided throughout the public process.
Neighborhood Compatibility, Precedent, and Cumulative Projects Approval of the proposed project does not assure approval of any subsequent project. Each application is reviewed on an individual basis based on the relevant policies and regulations in effect at the time that it is submitted. No other applications, either preliminary or formal, have been filed to redevelop nearby properties. Therefore, staff cannot speculate as to the cumulative impacts of a subsequent project (or projects) that may be proposed in the future.
The commenter notes that the density and scale of the proposed development are incompatible with the current aesthetic, architecture, and overall neighborhood character, but does not elaborate further as to how the project is inconsistent except to say that the existing street does not include three-story development. Although there are no three-story developments existing in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the site is zoned RM-20 and allows for 30-foot buildings.
Decreased Property Values
The applicant expresses the view that high-density projects on the street could potentially decrease property values in the surrounding areas due to overcrowding, increased traffic, and changes to the neighborhood character. However, this opinion is not substantiated by facts.
Moreover, the project may only be denied based on findings that the project does not comply with applicable objective standards, or that the project will result in a specific, adverse, impact upon the public health or safety, which cannot feasibly be mitigated or avoided.
Vesting Tentative Map
The proposed Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning, as discussed further below. A density bonus waiver from the street width also applies to the Vesting Tentative Map.
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 162 of 410
Comprehensive Plan Consistency
The proposed Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in that the site is designated primarily as “Multifamily” land use category and will be developed as a multifamily development on that portion of the site. The map facilitates the redevelopment of a parcel within the City’s urban service area which is consistent Policy L-1.2 of the Comprehensive Plan. The associated development to be constructed on the lot would add new residential units that contribute to the housing inventory including two affordable housing units, consistent with Goal 2 of the Housing Element, which states “assist in the provision of safe, attainable, and sustainable housing, especially affordable housing, to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community.” Consistencies with other Comprehensive Plan policies are included in Attachment B of this report.
Zoning Consistency
The site is zoned primarily as RM-20 (multi-family residential). The proposed multi-family development is a permitted use within the RM-20 Zone. The size of the parcel would not change and is consistent with code requirements for the RM-20 Zone District, which has a minimum lot size of 8,500 sf and minimum dimensions of 70 feet in width by 100 feet in depth.
Staff finds that the proposed Vesting Tentative Map complies with these code requirements for parcels.
Private Street Width
The proposed project includes new private streets that do not meet the minimum width of 32 feet set forth in PAMC 21.20.240. The applicant requested a waiver from this development standard in accordance with State Density Bonus Law to allow for a private street that is 20 feet in width. Approval of this waiver was tentatively granted as part of the tentative approval of the proposed development under the Streamlined Housing Development Project review. The waiver also applies to the subdivision map process. The proposed improvements, including the street width, were reviewed by all departments as part of the streamlined housing development review process. Reviewers included, but were not limited to, City of Palo Alto Fire Department, Public Works Engineering, Office of Transportation and the Building Department.
The proposed project, with the proposed 20-foot street width, meets all safety requirements, including, but not limited to, fire safety and traffic safety.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The developer would be required to pay all applicable development impact fees estimated to total $279,177.12 for the subdivision and the proposed improvements, plus the applicable public art fees, as documented in the conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action.
The project is a cost recovery project; therefore, staff time is charged to the applicant for the processing of this application.
A request for appeal requires a $700 deposit from an appellant. Each of the respective appellants have paid their required fee. In accordance with the fee schedule, if the Council chooses not to hold a public hearing to discuss the appeal, these fees would be returned to the appellants.
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 163 of 410
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on April 12, 2024, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 11, 2024, which is 11 days in advance of the meeting.
Throughout the review process the San Carlos Neighborhood Association has been actively discussing their comments on the project with staff and at public hearings. Silicon Valley Law Group sent a letter on August 30, 2023. Key comments raised in that letter expressed concerns about privacy, safety, and indicated their disagreement with the conclusion that the project would be eligible for a Class 32 (in-fill) exemption due to significant impacts related to traffic, air quality, and noise among other impacts. Staff met with residents on September 12, 2023 to discuss their concerns. Silicon Valley Law Group submitted a second letter on behalf of the neighborhood association on November 1, 2023. Prior to approval of the proposed project, staff responded formally to these comments. The initial letters are included in Attachment D.
Staff’s response to those letters is included in Attachment E.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (infill development). The documentation to support this exemption is included on the project webpage, a link to which is provided in Attachment F.
The City disagrees with the assertions in the hearing request letter as they relate to the applicability of the Class 32 exemption. The documentation provided includes substantial evidence to support the conclusion that a Class 32 exemption applies to the proposed project and is the appropriate level of environmental analysis for this project. Specifically, it provides documentation to support the conclusion that there would be less than significant impacts related to air quality, traffic, water quality and noise. The CEQA documentation also includes a cultural resources analysis, which concludes that the project is not eligible for any register (National, State, or local). Attachment E includes the City’s formal responses to questions raised by the San Carlos Neighborhood Association with respect to the CEQA analysis. The request for hearing does not include any new information.
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 164 of 410
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location map
Attachment B: Record of Land Use Action
Attachment C: Request for Hearing from San Carlos Neighborhood Association Attachment D: Request for Hearing from Milan Saini (Sutter Avenue Resident) Attachment E: Letter to SVLG in Response to Formal Letters Provided in the Review Process Attachment F: Project Plans and CEQA
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 165 of 410
24 Safeway
125.6'
161.0'
130.7'
52.8'
108.5'
130.7'
35.4'
86.1'
1.6'
125.6'
133.0'
125.6'
133.0'
125.6'
82.5'
42.5'
10.5'
119.4'
135.0'
119.4'
95.7'
27.5'
81.0'
109.9'
125.6'
133.0'
125.6'
133.0'
70.0'
61.0'70.0'
61.0'
70.0'
60.0'70.0'
60.0'
70.0'
57.3'70.0'
57.3'
70.0'
57.0'70.0'
57.0'
97.4'
114.3'
97.4'
114.3'
90.0'
60.0'
90.0'
60.0'
107.4'
61.0'
107.4'
61.1'
70.0'
135.0'
70.0'
135.0'
70.0'
31.0'
70.0'
31.0'
0'
50.0'
42.0'
10.0'
43.6'
247.5'
171.0'
77.5'
7.0' 39.0'
136.5'
49.7'176.2'
80.3'
153.4'
44.3'
32.5'
61.0'
7.4'
60.0'
164.0'
126.2' 120.8'
62.3'
190.5'
172.0'
52.0'
172.0'
54.2'
156.6'
287.9'
289.4'
70.0'
123.4'
70.0'
123.4'
44.5'
103.3'
44.5'
103.3'
60.0'
110.8'
105.6'
803
125.6'
60.3'
31.4'
125.6'
94.9'
125.6'
94.9'
125.6'
94.9'
125.6'
94.9'
125.6'
94.9'
125.6'
94.9'
44.5'
103.3'
44.5'
103.3'
44.5'
103.3'
44.5'
103.3'
44.5'
115.0'
115.0'
40.0'
109
40.0'
109.6
102.8'
42.0'
102.8'
42.8'
95.9'
42.3'
95.9'
44.6'
88.8'
44.0'
88.8'
46.6'
81.4'
46.0'
81.4'
51.5'
73.2'
50.8'
73.2'60.0'
31.4'
45.0'
125.6'
125.6'125.6'
60.0'
125.6'
60.0'
125.6'
60.0'
125.6'
60.0'
125.6'
60.0'
125.6'
60.0'
125.6'
60.0'
125.6'
60.0'
125.6'
60.0'
125.6'
60.0'
43.6'
43.6'
125.6'
523.6'
136.5'
38.9'
7.0'
44.5'
32.5'
138.5'
72.0'
153.4'
94 .2'
2875
735
733
745
734
730
746
724
718
720
2811
707-721
723- 737
718
729
723
70 717
704- 718
702
767
771
779
755-759
761
763
708
704
706
775
750
752
754
760
749
733
744
739-753
726- 738
722-724
736
732
731
741
730
724
730-738
740-748
720-728
737
SUT
TER AV
ENUE
ORTH PLACE (PVT)
COLORADO AVENUE
SUT
CLA
SAN CARLOS COURT
PC-
2197
R-2
-1
RM-20
R-2
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources.
Legend
Project Site
0' 88'
Attachment A:
Location Map
739 sutter
CITY
OF PALO ALTO
I
N
C
O R P O R A
T
E
D
CAL I FORN IA
P a l o A l t o
T h e C i t y o f
A
P
R
I L
1 6
1 8
9 4
The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2023-10-18 11:38:02
(\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb)
R-1
Item 10
Attachment A - Location
Map
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 166 of 410
1 3
2 6
2 ACTION NO. 2024-__
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 739 SUTTER AVENUE: STREAMLINED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP [22PLN-00201 AND 24PLN-00005]
At its meeting on _________, 2024, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) approved the Streamlined Housing Development Review for a 12-unit residential ownership development and Vesting Tentative Map for the development of a one-lot subdivision to create 12 residential condominium units. making the following findings, determinations and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.
A. On ____ 2022, Grace Li applied for a Streamlined Housing Development Review application for a 12-unit townhome style development, including the following density bonus waivers and concessions in accordance with state density bonus law:
•Waiver 1: Floor area ratio (1.4:1 where 1.25:1 is allowed) •Waiver 2: Maximum site coverage (50 percent where 35 percent is allowed) •Waiver 3: Minimum front yard setback (5 feet where 20 feet is required) •Waiver 4: Minimum interior side yard setback (4.6 feet where 10 feet is required) •Waiver 5: Side lot line daylight plane (10 feet, 82 degrees where 10 feet, 45 degrees is required)
•Waiver 6: Private street width (20 ft minimum where 32 feet is required) •Waiver 7: Minimum finished ground floor height (0.5 feet where 1.5 feet is required) •Waiver 8: Upper floor stepback (stepback of 6 feet for 33% of the east façade on building 1 where 6 feet for 70% of the façade is required at 33-37 feet in height) •Waiver 9: Façade break (1-foot by 4-foot break with minimum 8.9 square foot area where 2-foot by 4-foot break with 32 square foot area is required) •Waiver 10: Individual residential entry width (4.5 feet for Building 2 entry stoops where 5 feet is required)
•Waiver 11: Landscaping screening (no trees along the west interior side yard [shared drive aisle] where one tree every 25 feet is required)
•Waiver 12: Landscape coverage (34% where 35% is required) •Waiver 13: Sidewalk width for shared path from public right-of-way to bicycle parking (4 ft minimum with 1.5 ft shoulders where 8 ft minimum with 2 ft shoulders is required).
•Concession 1: Building height (33.5 feet maximum height where 30 feet is allowed) B. On January 4, 2024, Grace Li applied for a Vesting Tentative Map for the development of a one (1) parcel, 12-unit condominium subdivision project, including a density Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 167 of 410
2 3
2 6
2 bonus waiver from street width requirements to permit a minimum 20-foot wide private street. (“The Project”).
C. The project site is comprised of one existing lot (APN No. 127-35-200) of approximately 16,720 square feet. The site contains a single multi-family development with eight (8) residential rental units. Single family residential uses abut the site to the north. Multi- family residential units abut the site to the east, west, and across Sutter Avenue to the South.
D. Following staff review, the Architectural Review Board reviewed the project at a study session on November 2, 2024 to provide feedback on the design.
E. Following the Architectural Review Board hearing, the applicant resubmitted revised plans on February 8, 2024 which were tentatively approved by the Director of Planning on March 19, 2024
F. On March 27, 2024 Silicon Valley Law Group, on behalf of the San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association, requested a hearing on the proposed project in accordance with the appeal process set forth in PAMC 18.77.073(e).
G. On March 27, 2024 Milan Saini requested a hearing on the proposed project in accordance with the appeal process set forth in PAMC 18.77.073(e).
H. Following staff review of the Vesting Tentative Map, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval on March 27, 2024, subject to conditions of approval.
I. On ___________, 2024 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which evidence was considered and all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the City Council’s policies and procedures.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City, acting as the lead agency for the Project, has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guideline section 15332, which provides an exemption for infill development projects. Documentation to support the exemption is available as part of the public record on file with the Planning and Development Services Division.
Section 3. Streamlined Housing Development Review. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Streamlined Housing Development Project Review Process Findings as required in Chapter 18.77.073 of the PAMC. Neither the Director, nor the City Council on appeal, shall approve an application unless it is found that:
Finding #1: The application complies with all applicable and objective standards in the Comprehensive Plan, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and other City plans or policies.
Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 168 of 410
3 3
2 6
2 The proposed project complies with all applicable and objective standards in the Comprehensive Plan and the Palo Alto Municipal Code as detailed in the staff report and in Attachments D, Zoning Consistency, and E, Objective Standards Consistency, except where waivers or concessions are requested pursuant to state density bonus law. In accordance with The Housing Accountability Act as set forth in California Government Code 65589.5(j)(3), the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. Therefore, for the project is compliant with the objective standards.
A summary of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in this table. The project is required to comply with the Comprehensive Plan to the extent that the requirements are objective.
Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for
the site is Multi-family Residential which allows
for densities ranging from 8 to 40 units per acre
The project adheres to the Comprehensive Plan
by providing multi-family housing on a multi-
family use site. The proposed density is 31 units
per acre which is consistent with this
comprehensive plan land use designation.
Housing Element
Policy 4.3 Implement development standards,
objective design standards, and architectural and
green building standards that encourage new
high-quality rental and ownership housing.
The project complies with the implemented
standards except where requests for waivers or
concessions in accordance with state density
bonus law is provided.
Land Use and Community Design Element
Policy L-2.8: When considering infill
development, work to minimize the displacement
of existing residents
The project Is an infill project. While existing
rental tenants would be required to either
purchase or relocate, the project replaces more
units than it removes. The applicant will comply
with relocation assistance requirements for
project of less than 10 units as set forth in PAMC
Section 9.68 for no-fault just-cause eviction.
Policy L-9.2 Encourage development that
creatively integrates parking into the project,
including by locating it behind buildings or
underground wherever possible, or by providing
for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other
alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize
the amount of land devoted to parking while still
maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant
local economy and sufficient parking to meet
demand.
The project incorporates the parking into each
unit and does not include a surface parking lot.
The drive aisle is internal to the site.
Policy L-9.4 Treat residential streets as both
public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide
The project maintains sidewalks and improves
the streetscape with landscape planting along the
Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 169 of 410
4 3
2 6
2 and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy
street trees, benches and other amenities that
promote walking and “active” transportation.
project frontage. The project provides bicycle
parking along the frontage, bringing the site into
conformance with City requirements for bicycle
parking.
Transportation Element
Policy T-3.7 Encourage pedestrian-friendly design
features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street
parking, gathering spaces, gardens, outdoor
furniture, art and interesting architectural details.
The project includes direct connections to the
sidewalk that help to activate the frontage along
Sutter Avenue in addition to new street trees and
plantings.
Policy T-3.9 Support citywide sustainability
efforts by preserving and enhancing the tree
canopy where feasible within the public right-of-
way, consistent with the Urban Forest
Management Plan, as amended.
The project meets the tree canopy replacement
requirements through on site planting. The
project includes removal of two trees and
replaces with 24 new trees where 7 24-inch box
trees are required in accordance with the canopy
replacement requirements.
Finding #2: Approving the application will not result in a specific, adverse, impact upon the public health or safety, which cannot feasibly be mitigated or avoided in a satisfactory manner. As used in this Section, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
The proposed project would not result in a specific, adverse, impact upon public health or safety. The project complies with all applicable safety requirements with respect to fire safety for the building itself (e.g. ladder access, sprinklers) as well as emergency vehicle access to the site. The traffic report concluded that the project would not create any conflicts with respect to traffic safety. The project also does not introduce any new changes to streets (e.g. new curves in a roadway) or impacts to line-of-sight that would create a safety hazard as detailed in the transportation analysis.
SECTION 4. Vesting Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474). The City Council cannot make these findings for the following reasons:
1.That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451:
The site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described below.
2.That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans:
There is no adopted specific plan for this project site. The proposed vesting tentative map and related improvements is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it facilitates housing development on a site designated for multi-family use within the urban services area, consistent with Goal 2 of the Housing Element and Goal L1.2 of the Land Use Element. The proposed density (31 DU/AC) is consistent with the allowable density (20 to 40 DU/AC) in the multi-family land use designation as outlined in the Land Use Element. The project replaces Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 170 of 410
5 3
2 6
2 eight existing residential rental units with twelve residential condominium units, including two units that will be offered at a rate affordable to low income (50-80% of AMI). The project improves the city’s jobs housing imbalance consistent with the Transportation Element’s goals and policies.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development:
The Project site is suitable for multi-family residential development in that it’s located within the multi-family zone district on a site designated on the City’s Land Use Map for multi-family use. The existing parcel meets the minimum code requirements for the RM-20 zone district with respect to lot area, width and depth. The parcel would not change with approval of this condominium subdivision. The proposed number of condominium units complies with the applicable densities set forth in the land use element.
4.That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development:
The project would create a total of twelve (12) multi-family residential units which is 31 dwelling units (DU) per acre. This density complies with the maximum allowable residential density as calculated for the total site area under the comprehensive plan (40 DU/acre = 31 DU). Although it exceeds the allowable density set forth in the zoning district, the project exceeds this density in accordance with state density bonus law (Assembly Bill 2345) which allows for increased density based on the percentage of BMR units (25% of the base project) and their affordability level (low income). Building, Palo Alto Fire Department, Planning, Transportation, and Public Works Engineering have reviewed the requested density bonus waiver to permit a minimum 20-foot street width to ensure that all necessary requirements for safety, including but not limited to, fire safety and traffic safety (e.g. curb cut location, back-up space, turning radius, etc.) have been met.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat:
The project is located within the built environment that does not contain quality habitat for fish or other wildlife on the site or within the vicinity of the site. The nearest stream is a channelized portion of Matadero Creek approximately 350 feet north from the project site. The adopted Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes Map N-1, which identified sensitive animal and plant species within the Palo Alto quadrangle, a large geographic area that includes the urban portions along the bay and within the foothills, based on information in the California natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Based on this map, and the urban nature of the site, the subject property does not contain any habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species and has not historically supported any of these species.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:
Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 171 of 410
6 3
2 6
2 The subdivision of this parcel and associated improvements would not have the potential to result in serious health problems. The proposed multi-family use would not include use or storage of hazardous materials and the use is located within the urban environment adjacent to other residential uses. The site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to government code 65962.5.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
There are no public access easements over the property currently. Therefore, the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any public easements for access through, or use of, the property. An existing public utility easement along the northern lot line (rear lot line) is no longer necessary and would be vacated in accordance with the conditions of approval of the proposed development application. New public utility easements will be provided to existing and proposed electrical utilities as part of this subdivision map as required in accordance with City of Palo Alto Utilities standards.
SECTION 5. Vesting Tentative Map Approval Granted. Vesting Tentative Map Approval is filed and processed in accordance to PAMC Section 21.13.020 and granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of this Record of Land Use Action.
SECTION 6. Final Map. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by BKF Engineers titled “Vesting Tentative Map 739 Sutter Avenue For Condominium Purposes City of Palo Alto, California,” consisting of nine (8) pages, stamped as received February 23, 2024, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of the Vesting Tentative Map is on file in the Department of Planning and Development Services, Current Planning Division. Prior to the expiration of the Vesting Tentative Map approval, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Title 21 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]).
Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 172 of 410
7 3
2 6
2 SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval Streamlined Housing Development Review.
PLANNING DIVISION
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "739 Sutter Avenue by Ge Sun Palo Alto, California Streamlined Housing Development Review Set” stamped as received by the City on February 8, 2024 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval.
2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments.
3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit.
4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention.
5. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. Landscaping along the rear lot line between the project and single-family residential uses shall be planted at a minimum height of 8 feet and maintained as a landscape screen for the life of the project in accordance with the code requirements for objective standards.
6. NOISE THRESHOLDS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. In accordance with PAMC Section
9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane.
7. OPEN AIR LOUDSPEAKERS (AMPLIFIED MUSIC). In accordance with PAMC Section 9.12, no amplified music shall be used for producing sound in or upon any open area, to which the public has access, between the hours of 11:00pm and one hour after sunrise.
8. NOISE REPORT AT BUILDING STAGE. An analysis of the proposed project’s compliance with the City’s noise requirements for the proposed HVAC was prepared as part of the documentation to support a Class 32 categorical exemption. At the time of building permit issuance for new construction or for installation of any such mechanical equipment, if the proposed equipment exceeds the anticipated noise level that was analyzed or is proposed in a location that is closer to the property line, the applicant shall submit an acoustical Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 173 of 410
8 3
2 6
2 analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating projected compliance with the Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall be based on acoustical readings, equipment specifications and any proposed sound reduction measures, such as equipment enclosures or insulation, which demonstrate a sufficient degree of sound attenuation to assure that the prescribed noise levels will not be exceeded.
9. EASEMENT VACATION. The public utility easement at the rear of the property, which is no longer necessary, shall be vacated in order to allow for tree plantings along the rear lot line. If the easement must be vacated through separate instrument (instead of through the mapping process), the applicant shall file the necessary forms and fees to process vacation of the easement.
10. SIGN APPROVAL NEEDED. No signs are approved at this time. All signs shall conform to the requirements of Title 16.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Sign Code) and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning.
11. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF BURIED ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. No known archeological resources are present on or within the immediate vicinity of the site. However, as noted in the project description and per the City’s standard conditions, in the unlikely event that an archeological resource is unearthed during ground disturbing activities, work in the immediate area should be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the find is Native American in origin, then a Native American representative should also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the find. The qualified archaeologist, and, if applicable, the Native American representative, shall examine the find and make recommendations regarding additional work necessary to evaluate the significance of the find and the appropriate treatment of the resource. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to, invasive or non-invasive testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, preservation in place, or data recovery. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the Director of Planning.
12. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF NESTING BIRDS. As detailed in the project description and per the City’s standard conditions, vegetation or tree removal shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible.
If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site no more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and/or demolition activities. If nesting birds are found to be present, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) as determined appropriate by the biologist, shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 174 of 410
9 3
2 6
2 biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest).
13. TREE CANOPY REPLACEMENT. Replacement of the tree canopy for the two trees proposed to be removed is required in accordance with Chapter 8 of the municipal code and the City’s Tree Technical Manual. At least seven 24-inch box trees are required for tree canopy replacement in accordance with the City’s standards consistent with the approved landscape plan, which meets or exceeds this requirement.
14. REFUSE. All trash areas shall be covered and maintained in an orderly state within private garages to prevent water from entering into the garbage container. No outdoor storage is allowed/permitted except when brought out to the street for pickup as shown in the plan set.
Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping.
15. BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING. This project is proposed as a state density bonus project and is also subject to the affordable housing requirements set forth in Section
16.65.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In accordance with the City’s requirements and the proposed project in accordance with state density bonus law, the project is required to contain no less than two (2) below market rate units dedicated as low income (50-80% of AMI). A Regulatory Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the two (2) BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. All BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement.
16. RENTER PROTECTIONS. The project is subject to the renter protection requirements set forth in PAMC Section 9.68.050 for no fault evictions for rental properties with less than 10 units. This includes either rental fee waiver for the last month or relocation assistance as detailed in the municipal code. Notification requirements in accordance with the code is required. Documentation showing compliance with these code requirements must be provided to the project planner prior to issuance of a demolition/deconstruction permit.
17. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE. Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $279,177.12 plus the applicable public art in private development fee, per PAMC
16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit(s).
18. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020.
Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 175 of 410
10 3
2 6
2 IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED
FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
19. ENTITLEMENT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the entitlement. If within such two-year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, the Planning entitlement shall expire. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration.
20. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Raybould at [email protected] to schedule this inspection.
21. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
22. PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS, FORMS, AND DOCUMENT. Applicant shall be advised that most forms, applications, and informational documents related to Public Works Engineering conditions can be found at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Forms- and-Permits
23. OVERVIEW AND GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION PROJECTS. Developer shall familiarize themselves with the guidelines described in the November 2007 revision of the document titled “Overview and Guidelines for the Review of Subdivision Projects”.
Particularly Section II (items 5 through 12) and Section V (items A through C). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development- Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
21 Packet Pg. 176 of 410
11 3
2 6
2 services/file-migration/current-planning/forms-and-guidelines/overview-and-guidelines- for-the-review-of-subdivision-projects.pdf
24. MAP THIRD-PARTY REVIEW. The City contracts with a third-party surveyor that will review and provide approval of the map’s technical correctness as the City Surveyor, as permitted by the Subdivision Map Act. The Public Works Department will forward a Scope & Fee Letter from the third-party surveyor and the applicant will be responsible for payment of the fee’s indicated therein, which is based on the complexity of the map.
25. STREETWORK PERMIT. The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements.
26. GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT. A Grading Permit is required per PAMC Chapter
16.28. The permit application and all applicable documents (see Section H of application) shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering. Add the following note: “THIS GRADING
PERMIT WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE GENERAL GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OTHER BUILDING AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN FOR
REFERENCE INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.”
27. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STATEMENT. The grading plans shall include the following statement signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record: “THIS PLAN HAS
BEEN REVIEWED AND FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT”.
28. LOGISTICS PLAN. A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit.
29. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work that encroaches onto the City right-of-way.
30. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet.
Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
22 Packet Pg. 177 of 410
12 3
2 6
2 31. C.3 THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION: Applicant shall provide certification from a qualified third-party reviewer that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11.
32. Submit the following as part of the building permit application:
a. Stamped and signed C.3 data form (April 2023 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SCVURPPP-C.3-Data-Form- _-updated__4-12-2023_clean_fillable.pdf
b. Final stamped and signed letter confirming which documents were reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11.
33. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed by the applicant team prior to building permit final.
34. C.3 FINAL THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, the third-party reviewer shall submit to the City a certification verifying that all the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were installed in accordance with the approved plans.
35. PAVEMENT RESTORATION: The applicant shall restore the pavement along the entire project frontage, curb-to-curb, by performing a 3.5” grind and overlay. The exact restoration limits will be determined once the resulting road condition is known following completion of heavy construction activities and utility lateral installations, at minimum the extent will be the project frontage.
TRANSPORTATION
36. SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING ACCESS. Provide at least a six-foot-long, 5-foot wide paved area for the short-term bicycle parking area bicycle parking.
37. ON STREET PARKING FOR TRASH PICKUP. Due to the width of Sutter Avenue, on-street parking may need to be restricted to one side of the street for all or a portion of the roadway segment along the project frontage during trash pickup hours. Applicant shall install required parking restriction signs for trash pick-up hours as part of the project. The parking restriction signage plan shall be reviewed by the Office of Transportation as part of the building permit application.
WASTE-GAS-WATER UTILITIES
Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
23 Packet Pg. 178 of 410
13 3
2 6
2 38. UTILITY DISCONNECT. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit the applicant shall submit a request to disconnect utility services and remove meters. The utilities demo is to be processed within 10 working days after receipt of the request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed.
39. SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION. At the time of building permit application the applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., fire in g.p.m., and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new loads and the combined/total loads. Show on the plans by adding a text note: THIS IS AN “ALL-ELECTRIC” BUILDING PROJECT NO NEW GAS SERVICE OR GAS HOOKUPS WILL BE INSTALLED.
40. UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS. At the time of building permit application the applicant shall also submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations, and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities, especially storm drain pipes, and electric and communication duct banks.
Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water, and gas.
41. AUXILIARY WATER SUPPLY. On the building permit and relevant utility applications, the applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc.).
42. UTILITY LATERALS AND MAINS. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services, laterals as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services/laterals.
43. RPPA. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive.
The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans.
44. RPDA. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly (RPDA backflow preventer device, STD. WD-12A or STD. WD-12B) is required for all existing and new fire water connections from Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
24 Packet Pg. 179 of 410
14 3
2 6
2 Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPDA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the City’s fire service, within 5’ (feet) of the property line or City Right of Way.
45. BACKFLOW PREVENTER. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the city inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.
46. CAPACITY FEES. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation.
47. FIRE WATER LATERAL. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required.
Show the location of the new water service on the building permit plans. The applicant shall provide the engineering department with a copy of the plans for the fire system including all fire department's requirements.
48. METERS. Each unit or building shall have its own water meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans.
49. SEWER LATERAL. A new sewer lateral is required, and a profile of the sewer lateral is required showing any possible conflicts with electric/communications duct banks or other utilities.
50. WATER LATERAL. All existing water and wastewater services/laterals that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per the latest WGW utilities standards.
51. SEPARATION. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas, or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas, and wastewater mains/laterals/water services/or meters. New water or wastewater services/laterals/meters may not be installed within 10’ of existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water and wastewater services/laterals/meters except as otherwise approve in conjunction with utilities and urban forestry, including as shown on the approved plans.
52. COPY OF PLANS. The applicant shall provide to the WGW Utility Engineering department a copy of the plans for the fire system including all fire department's requirements prior to the actual service installation.
Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
25 Packet Pg. 180 of 410
15 3
2 6
2 53. UTILITY INSTALLATIONS. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater
PUBLIC WORKS ELECTRIC UTILITIES
54. UTILITY EASEMENT REQUIRED. Prior to energization, a public utility easement is required to provide access to the proposed transformer. This can either be provided through separate instrument and documented on the tentative and final map or dedicated through the tentative and final map process.
55. UTILITIES APPLICATION. Changes to existing electric utilities equipment on site, such as the transformer, will require a utilities application. Submit a utilities application and obtain City of Palo Alto Utilities Electrical Engineering approval for the modifications to the electrical system.
56. UTILITY DISCONNECT. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services proposed for removal, including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and, as applicable, removed.
57. UTILITIES SHOWN ON LANDSCAPE PLANS. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials.
In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements.
58. PERMIT. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips.
59. UNDERGROUND SERVICES ALERT. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete.
60. CITY STANDARDS. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling.
PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE
61. REQUIRED DECONSTRUCTION. In conformance with PAMC 5.24, deconstruction and source separation are required for all residential and commercial projects where structures (other Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
26 Packet Pg. 181 of 410
16 3
2 6
2 than a garage or ADU) are being completely removed, demolition is no longer allowed.
Deconstruction takes longer than traditional demolition, it is important to plan ahead. For more information, visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction.
62. SALVAGE SURVEY FOR REUSE. A Salvage Survey is required for deconstruction permit applications. The survey shall be conducted by a City approved reuse vendor. The survey submittal shall include an itemized list of materials that are salvageable for reuse from the project. The applicant shall source separate and deliver materials for reuse. Certification is required indicating that all materials identified in the survey are properly salvaged. Contact The ReUse People to schedule this FREE survey by phone (888) 588-9490 or e-mail [email protected]. More information can be found at www.TheReusePeople.org.
Please upload a completed copy to the deconstruction permit.
63. SOURCE SEPARATION FOR RECYCLING. The applicant shall source separate deconstruction materials into specific categories for recycling. Additional staging areas for source separated materials will need to be considered. All materials shall be delivered to one of the City approved materials recovery facilities listed in Green Halo, all records shall be uploaded to www.greenhalosystems.com. For more information, refer to www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction.
PUBLIC WORKS WATER QUALITY
64. Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) associated with refuse management (including actions related to refuse pick-up and the enclosure itself) shall be followed to ensure pollution prevention and preventing potential discharges to the City’s storm drain system. Stormwater BMPS include, but are not limited to, power washing the pavement on both the private property and in the right-of-way and sidewalk a minimum of once per year before the wet season begins on October 1st; utilizing a power washing contractor that is a Recognized Surface Cleaner by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA); disposing of wash water according to the Recognized Surface Cleaner certification requirements; and removing any potential trash build-up on a regular basis.
PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY
65. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full- sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule.
Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
27 Packet Pg. 182 of 410
17 3
2 6
2 b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T- 2, T-3, etc) and included in the sheet index for the plans submitted for building permit.
66. PLANS--SHOW PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing around each Regulated Trees, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T- 1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans; or using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure.
67. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. The following notes shall be included on the site plan for the plans submitted for building or grading permits:
i. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”.
ii. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-654-3351";
iii. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.”
iv. Note #4. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496- 5953.”
v. Note #5. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496- 5953) for any work on Public Trees”
62. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
63. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
28 Packet Pg. 183 of 410
18 3
2 6
2 roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor.
64. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry.
65. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC
8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City ([email protected]) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11.
66. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor.
Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section
2.25. 67. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
POST CONSTRUCTION
68. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery.
SECTION 8. Conditions of Approval Vesting Tentative Map.
Planning
Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
29 Packet Pg. 184 of 410
19 3
2 6
2 1. PROJECT PLANS. The Vesting Tentative Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map titled “Vesting Tentative Map 739 Sutter Avenue For Condominium Purposes City of Palo Alto, California”, prepared by BKF Engineers and submitted February 23, 2024, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of this approval.
2. DENSITY BONUS UNITS. The project seeks a waiver of the minimum street width requirements to permit a minimum 20-foot wide private street. In order to qualify for a waiver from this development standard the project shall provide a minimum of two (2) dwelling units at rates affordable to low income households, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
3. FINAL MAP COVER PAGE. At such time as the Final Map is filed, the cover page shall include the name and title of the Director of Planning and Development Services.
4. STANDARD CC&R REQUIREMENTS. Section 16.38 of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code provides that all condominium and other “community housing projects” shall submit Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) to the City Attorney for approval before issuance of the Final Map. The City Attorney has developed the following standard covenants which shall be included in all CC&R’s.
a. PROPERTY SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY ZONING ORDINANCES. The property, including all common areas, private streets and, parks within the property, shall at all times comply with the City’s Zoning Code and shall not be used for any purpose other than as permitted in the City Zoning Code. b. MODIFICATIONS TO PROPERTY. Any alterations, modifications, or other improvements to the property shall comply with all applicable City Codes. c. MAINTENANACE AND LANDSCAPING OF COMMON AREAS. The Association is responsible for maintenance and landscaping of all parts of the community housing project which are held in common and such maintenance shall be performed to the standard of maintenance prevalent in the neighborhood. (See PAMC Section 16.38.030(a)).
d. TERMINATION OF MANAGER OR MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS. The association may terminate the contract of any person or organization engaged by the developer to perform management or maintenance duties three months after the association assumes control of the community housing project or any time thereafter. (See PAMC Section 16.38.030(b).) e. PROTECTION OF STORM WATER FACILITIES. Neither the association, its residents, nor their agents, employees, representatives, invitees, licensees, Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
30 Packet Pg. 185 of 410
20 3
2 6
2 customers, or contractors shall alter or modify any storm water facilities in any way including but not limited to placing, maintaining, constructing, or planting any improvements, landscaping or other items, including without limitation decks, stairs, walls, irrigation systems, trees, or any vegetation on any storm water facilities.
f. TRASH DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING AREAS SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY ORDINANCES. All trash disposal and recycling areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and shall comply with all applicable City Ordinances. g. PROHIBITION AGAINST AIR AND WATER POLLUTION. Neither the association, its residents, nor their agents, employees, representatives, invitees, licensees, customers, or contractors shall use the property in any way which emits pollution into the atmosphere in excess of environmental standards set forth by City, State, and Federal laws, ordinances, and regulations. Neither the association, its residents, nor their agents, employees, representatives, invitees, licensees, customers, or contractors shall discharge garbage, trash, waste, or any other substance or materials of any kind into any private or public sewer or waterway on the property in violation of any regulations of any private or public body having jurisdiction over such matters. h. AMENDMENTS TO ORGANIZATION DOCUMENTS REQUIRE CITY APPROVAL.
Any amendments or modifications to the organizational documents shall be submitted to the city attorney for approval. No amendment or modification to the organizational documents shall be effective without prior written consent of the city attorney.
i. CITY’S RIGHT TO ENFORCE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS. The City is hereby granted the right, but in no event the duty, to enforce the covenants and restrictions set forth in this section of the organizational documents. The association shall recognize that it has the primary responsibility for enforcement of the organizational documents and unequivocally guarantees to institute and expeditiously prosecute any required legal action to obtain compliance with all provisions set forth in the organizational documents. j. NO WAIVER OF CITY’S RIGHTS. No failure of the City to enforce any of the covenants or restrictions contained in the organizational documents will in any event render them ineffective.
k. CITY’S REMEDIES TO CURE A BREACH OR VIOLATION. Remedies available to the City to cure any breach or violation of the organizational documents shall be cumulative to any other provisions of law. The City’s failure to exercise any remedy provided for in the organizational documents shall not, under any circumstances, be construed as a waiver of the remedy.
Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
31 Packet Pg. 186 of 410
21 3
2 6
2 l. SEVERABILITY. Invalidation of any one of the City’s required covenants or restrictions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect.
5. ADDITIONAL CC&R REQUIREMENT. The CC&Rs shall also include a provision that dictates the responsibilities of tenants for the trash pickup for the townhomes as shown in the approved plan set.
6. FINAL MAP EXPIRATION. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto and its representatives, shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works Engineering Division within two years of the Vesting Tentative Map approval date or this approval will expire. A one-year extension may be granted in accordance with the allowances set forth in the municipal code.
7. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. The Property Owner or their designee shall pay all applicable development impact fees associated with the proposed development and subdivision prior to issuance of the building permit(s), as detailed in the Streamlined Housing Development Review Approval.
8. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
Public Works Engineering
9. PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS, FORMS, AND DOCUMENTS. Applicant shall be advised that most forms, applications, and informational documents related to Public Works Engineering conditions can be found at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering- Services/Forms-and-Permits
10. OVERVIEW AND GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION PROJECTS. Developer shall familiarize themselves with the guidelines described in the November 2007 revision of the document titled “Overview and Guidelines for the Review of Subdivision Projects”. Particularly Section II (items 5 through 12) and Section V (items A through C). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development- services/file-migration/current-planning/forms-and-guidelines/overview-and- Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
32 Packet Pg. 187 of 410
22 3
2 6
2 guidelines-for-the-review-of-subdivision-projects.pdf
11. MAP THIRD-PARTY REVIEW. The City contracts with a third-party surveyor that will review and provide approval of the map’s technical correctness as the City Surveyor, as permitted by the Subdivision Map Act. The Public Works Department will forward a Scope & Fee Letter from the third-party surveyor and the applicant will be responsible for payment of the fee’s indicated therein, which is based on the complexity of the map.
12. STREETWORK PERMIT. The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements.
13. GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT. A Grading Permit is required per PAMC Chapter
16.28. The permit application and all applicable documents (see Section H of application) shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering. Add the following note:
“THIS GRADING PERMIT WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE GENERAL GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OTHER BUILDING AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ARE
SHOWN FOR REFERENCE INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.”
14. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STATEMENT: The grading plans shall include the following statement signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record: “THIS PLAN HAS
BEEN REVIEWED AND FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT”.
15. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work that encroaches onto the City right-of-way.
16. LOGISTICS PLAN: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit.
SECTION 9. Terms of Approval.
1. Streamlined Housing Development Review. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect.
2. Vesting Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Vesting Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]). Unless a Final Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
33 Packet Pg. 188 of 410
23 3
2 6
2 Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Vesting Tentative Map approval, the Vesting Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. An extension of time may be granted by the city council after recommendation of the planning commission, upon the written application of the subdivider, prior to the expiration of the Vesting Tentative Map approval, or any previous extension granted. Such extension(s) shall be subject to the maximum limitations set forth in the Subdivision Map Act.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
34 Packet Pg. 189 of 410
24 3
2 6
2 ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and
Development Services
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by Dahlin Group titled “739 Sutter Avenue by Ge Sun Palo Alto, California Streamlined Housing Development Review Set” consisting of XXX pages, dated and submitted February 8, 2024.
Those plans prepared by BKF Engineers titled “Vesting Tentative Map 739 Sutter Avenue For Condominium Purposes City of Palo Alto, California,” consisting of nine pages, dated February 20, 2024 and submitted February 24, 2024.
Item 10
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
35 Packet Pg. 190 of 410
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
36 Packet Pg. 191 of 410
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com
March 27, 2024
Via Hand Delivery and Electronic Mail: [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected].
Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning
City of Palo Alto
Planning and Development Services Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project, 22PLN-00201 – Appeal Pursuant to Title
18.77.073 of Palo Alto Municipal Code
Dear Ms. Gerhardt:
Silicon Valley Law Group (SVLG) has been retained by the San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association (SCCNA) to prepare this letter pertaining to the proposal to develop a 12-unit, three-story, over 35-foot-tall, multi-family residential project at 739 Sutter Avenue in Palo Alto (21PLN-00222/22PLN-00201) (the “Project”). SCCNA opposes the development of high-density housing on said parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 125-35-200). This letter is in support of our appeal of your March 18, 2024, approval of the above referenced project.
On behalf of SCCNA, we request that the Project be heard by the City Council. We further request that the City Council not place this matter on the consent calendar, but instead place it on an agenda for a separate hearing.
I. Introduction
SVLG submitted letters dated August 30, 2023, and November 1, 2023, which set forth the reasons why the Project was not adequately reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a project with potentially significant environmental impacts. It is our position, that at a minimum, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/MND) must be prepared.
A Class 32 Categorical Exemption was instead incorrectly prepared against our objections. Our August 30, 2023, letter is attached as Exhibit 1, and our November 1, 2023, letter is attached as Exhibit 2. We reiterate the concerns set forth in these letters and incorporate them herein.
As we stated previously in our previous letters, there can be no question that an increase in multi-story high-density residential units on the Project site, all of which will be 3-bedroom, will result in significant traffic, and construction-related noise and air quality impacts and public safety issues. One of the main criteria for the preparation of a Categorical Exemption (CE) is Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
37 Packet Pg. 192 of 410
Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept
March 27, 2024
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10655899.DOCX
that new construction would not result in the development of more than six total dwelling units (Class 3, Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines). The proposed Project is clearly in violation of this CEQA requirement. In addition, the other criteria for a CE are not met: the Project is not consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; and approval of the Project will result in significant effects relating to traffic and noise.
Under Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18.77.073(e), an appeal of the approval must show: (A) the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition the project be developed at a lower density; and (B) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to subsection (d)(2)(B)(i), other than disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.
II. Discussion
1. The project will have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety.
As set forth in our previous letters, the Project will have an adverse impact on public health and safety. Our letters explain that the plans for the site appear to show potential conflicts between automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle travel pathways. The CE for the project states that emergency access is not required for the site based on access from Sutter Avenue. However, the CE also states that “due to existing overhead lines, aerial ladder access is not included in the proposed fire safety plan for this site.” If fire access is supposed to be provided from trucks on Sutter Avenue, yet overhead lines do not allow aerial ladder access, how are fires supposed to be adequately fought?
As described above, the nearest distance between the 3-story project and the neighboring homes is 12 feet. If a fire is not immediately extinguished, multiple residential homes could be burned to the ground, especially for a project with such reduced setbacks and heights in excess of what is allowed in the Municipal Code. This is a significant CEQA impact due to inadequate emergency access, not adequately studied in the CE. This must be corrected by the preparation of an IS/MND.
In addition, the proposed method of providing emergency fire services to the back of the site, in particular, the use of only ground ladders, is not supported in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. For example, Policy S-2.13: “Minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through rapid emergency response, proactive code enforcement, public education programs, use of modern fire prevention measures and adequate emergency management preparation.” The use of ladders only rather than aerial access to 32-foot-tall structures proposed for the back of the site cannot be considered to be rapid or modern fire prevention measures.
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
38 Packet Pg. 193 of 410
Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept
March 27, 2024
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10655899.DOCX
The February 2023 fire in Palo Alto that damaged AJ's Cleaners, Philz Coffee, Bill's Cafe and Palo Alto Fine Wine & Spirits highlights the real fire danger posed in a densely populated area. We are concerned that the fact that there is only 12 feet from 7 unit, 3 story Building 2 project to the San Carlos Court homes creates an unacceptable increased fire risk.
We believe it is critical that the City evaluate these risks, in addition to the other public health issues we have raised in our previous letters, in an IS/MND.
2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other than disapproval of the Project.
The Project as approved does not mitigate the numerous issues we have raised and should not be approved.
3. The Project does not consider the impact on the members of the SCCNA.
The current plan shows no reference to the four neighboring R1 homes on San Carlos Court being on substandard lots of sizes less than 5,000 square feet, which caps their buildable height to only one story. The proposed third floor balconies and choice of trees for screening along the back fence do not take the nature of the substandard lot homes into proper consideration and create a situation for invasion of privacy as they are currently designed.
Essentially, the homeowners on San Carlos Court will lose all their privacy given the third-floor balconies. This is not only a privacy issue, it is also a public safety issue.
A. Appropriate trees should be planted for privacy.
The trees depicted in the Project plans do not accurately reflect the actual trees that will be proposed - there will be no such trees in between the buildings.
The planting list (page 46 of Cycle 6) suggested twenty-four 24"-box sized Podocarpus in total (See screenshot below). These trees are not tall enough to serve as rear screening between the R20 zone development and the R1 zone residentials.
Considering the height of Building 2 is 32 feet, and the distance between the San Carlos Court substandard homes and the three stories is 12-32 feet from the nearest to the furthest, we strongly request the developer consider a better solution on the rear screening by updating the plants to 48”-box sized Laurus Nobiles Saratoga trees as recommended by Vavuris Landscaping (a licensed landscaper) in the letter attached as Exhibit C.
It is suggested that the hedges would need to be grown to 12-15 feet high to preserve privacy for both the existing homes and the new residences. Current plant does not meet the requirement. (Recommendation letter attached for further reference.)
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
39 Packet Pg. 194 of 410
Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept
March 27, 2024
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10655899.DOCX
Any design should be consistent with 18.16.060 Multiple Family Context-Based Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards which states:
C. Respecting privacy of neighboring structures, with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties (Figure 2-3); D. Minimizing sight lines into and from neighboring properties (Figure 2-3);
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
40 Packet Pg. 195 of 410
Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept
March 27, 2024
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10655899.DOCX
Figure 2-3
The developer should plant trees that will create a proper screening wall of foliage that will provide privacy. In addition, the plan shows benches being added along the fence between rear Building 2 and the San Carlos Court single-story residential homes. We consider this inappropriate and creates more privacy concerns. We request the benches along the rear fence be removed. Instead of benches, we urge the developer to add more trees that are tall enough for rear screening.
B. The third-floor balconies should be removed.
The rendering shown in the application package shows the problems with the Project.
We strongly request the developer to remove the balcony on the third floor. The Project plans highlight our concerns: page 4 of the application depicts a person actually standing on the far left balcony and looking into our yard, and even taking pictures! https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/new- development-projects/739-sutter/c6_739-sutter-ave_plans.pdf
The lack of privacy presents a threat to the safety of the homeowners. The occupants of the Project will look directly into the SCCNA members’ homes. As stated below, additional measures must be implemented.
The 3rd floor balconies of the Building 2 put all San Carlos Court homes under the full views from the project. We request the developer to remove the balconies from the Building 2.
Below is an image of the relationship between the homes and the 3 stories. There would be no privacy for San Carlos Court neighbors.
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
41 Packet Pg. 196 of 410
Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept
March 27, 2024
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10655899.DOCX
In addition, the developer seems to encourage people to take photos from the balconies which shows no respect to the surrounding neighbors. (Page 4 of Cycle 6. See a screenshot below)
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
42 Packet Pg. 197 of 410
Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept
March 27, 2024
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10655899.DOCX
C. Current trash staging plan defies existing city policy and raises serious enforcement questions.
As stated in the “Trash Staging Area Exhibit”, (Page 6 of Cycle 6, see a copy below), the notion that the City will allow the plan to block the public from parking on the street during “refuse service hours” appears to defy existing city policy.
The refuse plan is also incorrect because it does not show the required 2-foot separation between trash containers. When that is included, the entire frontage of the plan is insufficient in size. Currently, cars park on the street there. Where would those cars go?
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
43 Packet Pg. 198 of 410
Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept
March 27, 2024
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10655899.DOCX
Any design should be consistent with 18.16.060 Multiple Family Context-Based Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards which states:
4. Density Bonus Law
The Project is not adding five or more units as required un the City’s Density Bonus Law (Palo Alto Municipal Code. 18.15.020(j)). How is this not a violation of the City’s Code?
5. The Project Requires a Full CEQA Evaluation and does not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (CE)
CEQA requires an analysis of the potential for the Project to cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
44 Packet Pg. 199 of 410
Letter to Planning and Dev. Services Dept
March 27, 2024
_______________________________________________________________ _____________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10655899.DOCX
the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect. This includes the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Housing Element policies. As stated in the recently approved 2023-2031 Housing Element, “The single-family neighborhood site development regulations are intended to ensure that much of what Palo Alto cherishes in its residential areas, such as open space areas, attractive streetscapes with mature landscaping, and variety in architectural styles, are preserved and protected.” The Project is not consistent with any of the policies that promote the protection of existing single-family residential neighborhoods, thus is inconsistent with the CEQA Guidelines. At a minimum, this must be discussed in an IS/MND.
In conclusion, we continue to believe there is substantial evidence to show that the project is not consistent with a Class 32 Categorical Exemption as defined by Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. For all the above reasons, we request that the 739 Sutter Avenue project be denied until an adequate CEQA document is prepared. Accordingly, we request that the Project be brought before the City Council so it has the opportunity to fully evaluate the impacts of the Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP
_____________________________
Laurie Berger
cc: Claire Raybould, Senior Planner, City of Palo Alto San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association
Ed Kraus, Silicon Valley Law Group
Mayor Lydia Kou
Vice Mayor Greer Stone
Council Member Patrick Burt
Council Member Ed Lauing
Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims
Council Member Greg Tanaka
Council Member Vicki Veenker
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
45 Packet Pg. 200 of 410
EXHIBIT A
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
46 Packet Pg. 201 of 410
August 30, 2023
Via Federal Express & Electronic Mail: [email protected]
Claire Raybould
Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
Planning and Development Services Department
250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project, 21PLN-00222
Dear Ms. Raybould:
Silicon Valley Law Group (SVLG) has been retained by the San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association (SCCNA) to prepare this letter pertaining to a proposal to develop a 12-unit, three-story, over 35-foot-tall, multi-family residential project at 739 Sutter Avenue in Palo Alto (21PLN-00222) (the “Project”). SCCNA opposes the development of high-density housing on said parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 125-35-200) and requests that the City deny the application.
SCCNA also requests that the Project be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a project with potentially significant environmental impacts. A Class 32 Categorical Exemption, as you currently propose in your communications to SVLG and SCCNA, is not the appropriate CEQA document for a project that would result in potentially significant traffic, air quality, noise, water quality, historic, safety, and aesthetic impacts to the adjacent single-family residential uses on San Carlos Court.
1. The Project is Inconsistent with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, General and Comprehensive Plans, Housing Element and the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan.
We believe the design of the Project is inconsistent with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, General and Comprehensive Plans, and 2023-2031 Housing Element, further disallowing the use of a Class 32 Categorical Exemption for the project. The Project includes inadequate driveway widths for adequate fire and emergency personnel access to the site, putting the project and all surrounding development in jeopardy should a fire occur. The lack of landscaping on the northwestern side of the project adjacent to the existing residential development on San Carlos Court is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The location of private open space areas on the top floors of the proposed structures appear very dangerous and unsafe, as well as intrusive to the Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
47 Packet Pg. 202 of 410
Letter to Claire Raybould
August 30, 2023
10637881.DOCX
existing neighborhood. This Project creates significant privacy concerns given that the windows, sliding glass doors and decks of the Project face the San Carlos Court properties. In addition, the removal of existing trees creates privacy concerns. We would like additional information regarding the size of the new trees that will be planted.
Further, the plan set shows no meaningful elevations of the back of the project to show exactly how intrusive the proposed 35-foot, 4.5-inch-tall residential buildings will be to the existing one- and two-story residences on San Carlos Court. There is no “stepping back” of the structure to respect the existing single-family neighborhood and backyards. Private open space areas are not shown in sufficient detail to give the public and decision-makers any indication of the severity of the intrusion to the neighborhood. There is no shade and shadow, daylight plane, or lighting analyses included in the application as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The plans do not appear to specify a distance to confirm the line of sight. It is also unclear how far back the developer is committed to recessing the decks and whether the rear building will have rooftop open space.
We believe the health, safety, and welfare of the existing residents will be adversely affected by the Project as proposed. Therefore, an adequate evaluation of potentially significant impacts has not been completed – all of which constitute a violation of CEQA. We must also point out that developments of this density and height do not currently exist in this area of the City and the Project is out of character for the neighborhood.
2. The Project Requires a Full CEQA Evaluation and does not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption
There can be no question that an increase in multi-story high-density residential units on the Project site, all of which will be 3-bedroom, will result in additional traffic accessing the site and creating impacts on neighboring streets – especially since the project is not transit- oriented, that is, located in an area of readily available transit or a Caltrain Station. This is especially true if the Project includes an inadequate amount of parking. Further, the plans for the site appear to show potential conflicts between automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle travel pathways. Bicycle parking is not shown on the site plan. Therefore, the Project has the potential to result in significant traffic, access, and safety impacts and mitigation is not provided. This is a violation of CEQA.
Long-term noise impacts will be significant, especially with private open space areas and air conditioning/heating units ostensibly located on the back side of the northernmost building adjacent to existing single-family homes. Where and how will storm drainage and storage and waste collection facilities be located on such a densely developed site? Construction-related traffic, noise, and air quality impacts must also be evaluated in the CEQA document and feasible mitigation measures included in the project to protect the surrounding residents, especially children, from detrimental impacts. Toxic air contaminants and greenhouse gas emissions produced during construction could be significant and must be evaluated. The City has identified a need for a historic evaluation of the existing buildings on the project site Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
48 Packet Pg. 203 of 410
Letter to Claire Raybould
August 30, 2023
10637881.DOCX
because they were built over 45 years ago. No such evaluation has been completed and impacts and mitigation measures must be included in a CEQA document.
CEQA requires an analysis of the potential for the Project to cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect. This includes the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Housing Element policies. As stated in the recently approved 2023-2031 Housing Element, “The single-family neighborhood site development regulations are intended to ensure that much of what Palo Alto cherishes in its residential areas, such as open space areas, attractive streetscapes with mature landscaping, and variety in architectural styles, are preserved and protected.” The Project is not consistent with any of the policies that promote the protection of existing single-family residential neighborhoods, thus is inconsistent with the CEQA Guidelines.
3. The Project includes too many variances, waivers, and concessions.
According to the most recent plans submitted by the applicant on July 21, 2023, the project requires no fewer than 14 waivers or concessions. This is excessive for a project that is proposed to be consistent with “Density Bonus Law.” We believe that the project is allowing more variances, waivers, and concessions than allowed by City Ordinance and State Law. The drawings in the revised plan set that demonstrate all the proposed waivers are disturbing. It appears that the City is brushing aside many of the significant issues, including driveway widths, inadequate landscaping and open space, significant reduction in setbacks, light intrusion, density, parking, and building heights.
For example, to reduce setbacks by more than half in the front and side yards makes the project not only significantly inconsistent with the existing neighborhood, but also creates a significant aesthetic impact to the existing single-family neighborhood. Coupled with the proposed increase in building heights, impacts to the surrounding neighborhood will be significant and property values of the homes on San Carlos Court will be detrimentally affected.
Further, it does not make sense that constructing a shorter building will cost less than a taller structure, as stated in the revised plan set.
The revised plan set does not include adequate justification for the proposed waivers. We cannot find an Exhibit B in the plan set that is supposed to be a “waiver/concession justification letter.” The plan set sheets do not provide such justification. We would like to receive that document as well as the historical analysis prior to any approval actions for the project.
In conclusion, we caution the City against allowing so many waivers for a project that will significantly affect the existing single-family neighborhoods. This practice is ill-advised because it ignores the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as many of the virtues of living in Palo Alto.
We believe there is substantial evidence to show that the project is not consistent with a Class 32 Categorical Exemption as defined by Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. For all Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
49 Packet Pg. 204 of 410
Letter to Claire Raybould
August 30, 2023
10637881.DOCX
the above reasons, we request that the 739 Sutter Avenue project be placed on hold until an adequate CEQA document is prepared.
Respectfully Submitted,
SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP
____________________________
Laurie Berger
cc: San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association
Ed Kraus, Silicon Valley Law Group
Mayor Lydia Kou
Vice Mayor Greer Stone
Council Member Patrick Burt
Council Member Ed Lauing
Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims
Council Member Greg Tanaka
Council Member Vicki Veenker
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
50 Packet Pg. 205 of 410
EXHIBIT B
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
51 Packet Pg. 206 of 410
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com
November 1, 2023
Via Hand Delivery and Electronic Mail: [email protected]
Architectural Review Board
City of Palo Alto
Planning and Development Services Department
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project, 21PLN-00222/22PLN-00201
Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board:
Silicon Valley Law Group (SVLG) has been retained by the San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association (SCCNA) to prepare this letter pertaining to a proposal to develop a 12-unit, three-story, over 35-foot-tall, multi-family residential project at 739 Sutter Avenue in Palo Alto (21PLN-00222/22PLN-00201) (the “Project”). SCCNA opposes the development of high-density housing on said parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 125-35-200) and requests that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) deny the application.
This is our second letter related to the Project. Our first was addressed to Claire Raybould, Senior Planner and sent on August 30, 2023. Unfortunately, planning staff has neither provided a detailed response to our letter nor revised the plan set sufficiently to address our concerns. In addition, and most alarming, we find that the project was not adequately reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a project with potentially significant environmental impacts. Therefore, at least an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/MND) must be prepared. A Class 32 Categorical Exemption was instead incorrectly prepared against our objections. Our August 30, 2023, letter is attached as Attachment 1, and we reiterate the concerns set forth in that letter and incorporate them herein.
1. The Project Requires a Full CEQA Evaluation and does not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (CE)
As we stated previously in our August letter, there can be no question that an increase in multi-story high-density residential units on the Project site, all of which will be 3-bedroom, will result in significant traffic, and construction-related noise and air quality impacts. One of the main criteria for the preparation of a CE is that new construction would not result in the development of more than six total dwelling units (Class 3, Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines). The proposed Project is clearly in violation of this CEQA requirement.
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
52 Packet Pg. 207 of 410
Letter to Architectural Review Board
November 1, 2023
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10642460.DOCX
A. Consistency with Plans and Policies
The CE also states that the project is consistent with all applicable General Plan and Zoning policies and recommendations. Yet, the staff report for the project states that the only way it meets these requirements is through the granting of fourteen waivers and concessions by the City. This is not how an analysis of consistency per CEQA should be completed. It should be stated for the edification of the public and decision-makers, that the project is inconsistent with these important policies.
CEQA requires an analysis of the potential for the Project to cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect. This includes the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Housing Element policies. As stated in the recently approved 2023-2031 Housing Element, “The single-family neighborhood site development regulations are intended to ensure that much of what Palo Alto cherishes in its residential areas, such as open space areas, attractive streetscapes with mature landscaping, and variety in architectural styles, are preserved and protected.” The Project is not consistent with any of the policies that promote the protection of existing single-family residential neighborhoods, thus is inconsistent with the CEQA Guidelines. At a minimum, this must be discussed in an IS/MND.
Further, the only goals and policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan that are discussed are Goals L-2 and L-3. The Project is not consistent with Policy L-1.3 which states:
Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern.
In addition, the project is not consistent with Policy L-1.11 which states:
Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts.
Neither of these policies, or others in the Comprehensive Plan that the Project is inconsistent with, are discussed in the CE.
In the staff report, staff recommends that the ARB study “whether minor adjustments to the application would result in closer adherence to the objective design standards contained in Chapter 18.24, Objective Standards, consistent with the streamlined review pursuant to
18.77.073 for housing development projects.” Again, this analysis should have been included in the preparation of at least an IS/MND. The CE does not discuss this inconsistency with Palo Alto Goals and Policies. This is a violation of CEQA.
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
53 Packet Pg. 208 of 410
Letter to Architectural Review Board
November 1, 2023
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10642460.DOCX
B. Traffic Impacts
As stated in the CE prepared for the Project, the single-family residential neighborhood immediately adjacent to the northwest boundary of the site (sidewalks are within three feet of the fence-line) will be significantly affected by a project that would be better located in a transit- oriented area. There will be an increase in the number of residents adding to existing traffic concerns. There is no discussion of how far away employment opportunities are located. The number of trips at nearby intersections is immaterial to the determination of traffic-related air and noise impacts and must be revised in at least an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project.
C. Construction-related Noise Impacts and Aesthetics
Construction-related noise is inadequately addressed and studied in the CE. According to the website for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), only 8 hours of exposure to 90 dBA is allowed and only two hours of exposure to 100 dBA sound levels is allowed for workers.
To subject the adjacent residential uses to construction noise levels as high as 97 dBA for a 15-month construction period can cause long-term hearing loss, especially in children. Many residents are now working from home and this level of noise all day long will interrupt their ability to effectively work and support their families. This important information would not have been taken into account when the City determined what threshold to use for noise impacts during construction. This is not discussed or evaluated in the CE and an IS/MND must be prepared to fully understand this impact and identify sufficient feasible mitigation measures to mitigate this impact. Sufficient mitigation could include a reduction in construction hours, installation of noise barriers, use of more noise-abating equipment rather than heavy construction equipment, etc.
In addition, we were under the impression that all roof decks were being removed from the units on the northwest side of the proposed building. This is stated on the Final Waiver plans for the site. Yet, the CE evaluates the noise generated by the roof decks in this location. This leaves residents confused as to what the future condition will be related to noise intrusion from the Project.
Further, according to the staff report, the applicant declined to have a standard shade and shadow analysis completed for the Project. This must be completed to determine obvious impacts to the single-family residences on San Carlos Court. Is the applicant trying to hide these impacts? As shown in the rendering below, the Project will have a significant aesthetic impact on the San Carlos Court homes. This rendering shows how the Project will be viewed from San Carlos Court – in addition to the other impacts described above, the current homeowners will lose their privacy and face security concerns given that the residents of the Project will look right into the existing homes and yards.
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
54 Packet Pg. 209 of 410
Letter to Architectural Review Board
November 1, 2023
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10642460.DOCX
D. Construction-related Air Quality and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Air quality impacts must also be evaluated in the CEQA document and feasible mitigation measures included in the project to protect the surrounding residents, especially children, from detrimental impacts. The analysis completed for the CE does not include a discussion of the use of Tier 3 and 4 heavy equipment or greater to reduce air quality impacts during demolition and construction. This must be required of the Project just as it is in similar development projects in the Bay area by the Bay Area Air Management District (BAAQMD).
There is no discussion in the CE of the potential for lead, asbestos, or PCBs to be in the demolition materials. Given the age of the existing structures, this should have been analyzed by qualified hazardous materials experts in a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.
Exposure of adjacent residents to these harmful contaminants is yet another impact not disclosed in the inadequate CE. Impacts could especially affect children, the elderly, and those with respiratory conditions. The transport of such materials off-site is also an impact in addition to the potential for such materials to be in the soils. This analysis must occur as part of the preparation of at least an IS/MND in accordance with CEQA.
The analysis of the impacts of toxic air contaminants during construction also do not include an analysis of impacts during demolition. Further, it cannot be assumed that an 8-unit multi-family building can be demolished and all site preparation and grading activities in three days – no matter what the applicant claims! Trenching for underground utilities alone cannot be completed in that short of a timeframe. To assume such a short emission period for PM10 and Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
55 Packet Pg. 210 of 410
Letter to Architectural Review Board
November 1, 2023
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10642460.DOCX
PM2.5 emissions renders the analysis inadequate to say the least. The public and decisionmakers must have better information to make an informed decision about how the health of the adjacent residents will be affected. No such evaluation has been completed and impacts and mitigation measures must be included in a CEQA document.
2. Inadequate Emergency Access
As we stated in our previous letter, the plans for the site appear to show potential conflicts between automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle travel pathways. Bicycle parking is not shown on the site plan. The CE for the project states that “emergency access is not required for the site” based on access from Sutter Avenue. However, the CE also states that “due to existing overhead lines, aerial ladder access is not included in the proposed fire safety plan for this site.” If fire access is supposed to be provided from trucks on Sutter Avenue, yet overhead lines do not allow aerial ladder access, how are fires supposed to be adequately fought?
If a fire is not immediately extinguished, multiple residential buildings in the area could be burned to the ground, especially for a Project with such reduced setbacks and heights in excess of what is allowed in the Municipal Code. This is a significant CEQA impact due to inadequate emergency access, not adequately studied in the CE. This must be corrected by the preparation of an IS/MND.
In addition, the proposed method of providing emergency fire services to the back of the site, in particular, the use of only ground ladders, is not supported in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. For example, Policy S-2.13: “Minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through rapid emergency response, proactive code enforcement, public education programs, use of modern fire prevention measures and adequate emergency management preparation.” The use of ladders only rather than aerial access to 32-foot-tall structures proposed for the back of the site cannot be considered to be rapid or modern fire prevention measures.
The February 2023 fire in Palo Alto that damaged AJ's Cleaners, Philz Coffee, Bill's Cafe and Palo Alto Fine Wine & Spirits highlights the real fire danger posed in a densely populated area. We are concerned that the fact that there is only 10 feet from the second floor of the proposed Project to the San Carlos Court homes creates an unacceptable increased fire risk.
Based on the above, it is critical that the City evaluate these risks in an IS/MND.
3. Too Many Waivers and Concessions
According to the most recent plans submitted by the applicant and the staff report, the project requires no fewer than 14 waivers and at least one concession. This is excessive for a project that is proposed to be consistent with “Density Bonus Law” and Palo Alto General and Comprehensive Plans goals and policies. The sheer fact that so many waivers from Municipal Code requirements are required for the Project shows how out of character it is with the existing neighborhood. Yet, these conflicts, are inadequately analyzed in the CE. Again, this Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
56 Packet Pg. 211 of 410
Letter to Architectural Review Board
November 1, 2023
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10642460.DOCX
type of development should be in a transit-oriented area of the City where higher densities are expected and supported.
The drawings in the revised plan set that demonstrate in red all the proposed waivers are disturbing. It appears that the City is brushing aside many of the significant issues, including driveway widths, inadequate landscaping and open space, significant reduction in setbacks, light intrusion, density, parking, fire safety, and building heights. This is being done at the risk of significantly affecting an existing residential neighborhood – and all for just four additional residential units in the City!
To reduce setbacks by more than half in the front and side yards makes the project not only significantly inconsistent with the existing neighborhood, but also creates a significant aesthetic and fire impact to the existing single-family neighborhood. Coupled with the proposed increase in building heights, impacts to the surrounding neighborhood will be significant and property values of the homes on San Carlos Court will be detrimentally affected. Only a few trees can even be seen on the northwest side of the site to attempt to screen the development from the existing homes. This is inadequate and just another example of how the granting of extreme waivers does not respect long-standing existing neighborhoods.
The revised plan set does not include adequate justification for the proposed waivers. We find the waiver/concession justification letter to be inadequate for a project that is so out of character with the neighborhood. There are no other projects of this density and height in this area of the City. In fact, the Project site is not even listed as a housing site in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. We assume that was intentional due to the potential impacts to residents right over the fence.
4. Project is Subject to the Current Code Requirement
As stated on Page 9 of the staff report, the applicant has not met the letter of the law in terms of submitting application materials in a timely manner consistent with SB 330. The staff report states, “Therefore, the project is not subject to streamline in accordance with SB 330 and is subject to the current code requirements, including the objective design standards set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.24.”
Why is the applicant “also eligible to utilize the process set forth in the code for housing development projects under the Streamlined Housing Development Review?” This makes no sense. The developer must be held to the same standards as all other residential developers in every part of the City. We do not understand why this applicant is getting special treatment and the ability to use so many waivers and concessions inconsistent with the Municipal Code at the expense of existing residents.
In conclusion, we continue to believe there is substantial evidence to show that the project is not consistent with a Class 32 Categorical Exemption as defined by Section 15332 of Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
57 Packet Pg. 212 of 410
Letter to Architectural Review Board
November 1, 2023
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 N. Market Street Suite 200 San Jose CA 95113 408.573.5700 Fax 408.573.5701 www.svlg.com 10642460.DOCX
the CEQA Guidelines. For all the above reasons, we request that the 739 Sutter Avenue project be denied until an adequate CEQA document is prepared.
Respectfully Submitted,
SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP
_____________________________
Laurie Berger
cc: Claire Raybould, Senior Planner, City of Palo Alto San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association
Ed Kraus, Silicon Valley Law Group
Mayor Lydia Kou
Vice Mayor Greer Stone
Council Member Patrick Burt
Council Member Ed Lauing
Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims
Council Member Greg Tanaka
Council Member Vicki Veenker
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
58 Packet Pg. 213 of 410
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
59 Packet Pg. 214 of 410
August 30, 2023
Via Federal Express & Electronic Mail: [email protected]
Claire Raybould
Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
Planning and Development Services Department
250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project, 21PLN-00222
Dear Ms. Raybould:
Silicon Valley Law Group (SVLG) has been retained by the San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association (SCCNA) to prepare this letter pertaining to a proposal to develop a 12-unit, three-story, over 35-foot-tall, multi-family residential project at 739 Sutter Avenue in Palo Alto (21PLN-00222) (the “Project”). SCCNA opposes the development of high-density housing on said parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 125-35-200) and requests that the City deny the application.
SCCNA also requests that the Project be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a project with potentially significant environmental impacts. A Class 32 Categorical Exemption, as you currently propose in your communications to SVLG and SCCNA, is not the appropriate CEQA document for a project that would result in potentially significant traffic, air quality, noise, water quality, historic, safety, and aesthetic impacts to the adjacent single-family residential uses on San Carlos Court.
1. The Project is Inconsistent with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, General and Comprehensive Plans, Housing Element and the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan.
We believe the design of the Project is inconsistent with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, General and Comprehensive Plans, and 2023-2031 Housing Element, further disallowing the use of a Class 32 Categorical Exemption for the project. The Project includes inadequate driveway widths for adequate fire and emergency personnel access to the site, putting the project and all surrounding development in jeopardy should a fire occur. The lack of landscaping on the northwestern side of the project adjacent to the existing residential development on San Carlos Court is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The location of private open space areas on the top floors of the proposed structures appear very dangerous and unsafe, as well as intrusive to the Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
60 Packet Pg. 215 of 410
Letter to Claire Raybould
August 30, 2023
10637881.DOCX
existing neighborhood. This Project creates significant privacy concerns given that the windows, sliding glass doors and decks of the Project face the San Carlos Court properties. In addition, the removal of existing trees creates privacy concerns. We would like additional information regarding the size of the new trees that will be planted.
Further, the plan set shows no meaningful elevations of the back of the project to show exactly how intrusive the proposed 35-foot, 4.5-inch-tall residential buildings will be to the existing one- and two-story residences on San Carlos Court. There is no “stepping back” of the structure to respect the existing single-family neighborhood and backyards. Private open space areas are not shown in sufficient detail to give the public and decision-makers any indication of the severity of the intrusion to the neighborhood. There is no shade and shadow, daylight plane, or lighting analyses included in the application as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The plans do not appear to specify a distance to confirm the line of sight. It is also unclear how far back the developer is committed to recessing the decks and whether the rear building will have rooftop open space.
We believe the health, safety, and welfare of the existing residents will be adversely affected by the Project as proposed. Therefore, an adequate evaluation of potentially significant impacts has not been completed – all of which constitute a violation of CEQA. We must also point out that developments of this density and height do not currently exist in this area of the City and the Project is out of character for the neighborhood.
2. The Project Requires a Full CEQA Evaluation and does not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption
There can be no question that an increase in multi-story high-density residential units on the Project site, all of which will be 3-bedroom, will result in additional traffic accessing the site and creating impacts on neighboring streets – especially since the project is not transit- oriented, that is, located in an area of readily available transit or a Caltrain Station. This is especially true if the Project includes an inadequate amount of parking. Further, the plans for the site appear to show potential conflicts between automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle travel pathways. Bicycle parking is not shown on the site plan. Therefore, the Project has the potential to result in significant traffic, access, and safety impacts and mitigation is not provided. This is a violation of CEQA.
Long-term noise impacts will be significant, especially with private open space areas and air conditioning/heating units ostensibly located on the back side of the northernmost building adjacent to existing single-family homes. Where and how will storm drainage and storage and waste collection facilities be located on such a densely developed site? Construction-related traffic, noise, and air quality impacts must also be evaluated in the CEQA document and feasible mitigation measures included in the project to protect the surrounding residents, especially children, from detrimental impacts. Toxic air contaminants and greenhouse gas emissions produced during construction could be significant and must be evaluated. The City has identified a need for a historic evaluation of the existing buildings on the project site Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
61 Packet Pg. 216 of 410
Letter to Claire Raybould
August 30, 2023
10637881.DOCX
because they were built over 45 years ago. No such evaluation has been completed and impacts and mitigation measures must be included in a CEQA document.
CEQA requires an analysis of the potential for the Project to cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect. This includes the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Housing Element policies. As stated in the recently approved 2023-2031 Housing Element, “The single-family neighborhood site development regulations are intended to ensure that much of what Palo Alto cherishes in its residential areas, such as open space areas, attractive streetscapes with mature landscaping, and variety in architectural styles, are preserved and protected.” The Project is not consistent with any of the policies that promote the protection of existing single-family residential neighborhoods, thus is inconsistent with the CEQA Guidelines.
3. The Project includes too many variances, waivers, and concessions.
According to the most recent plans submitted by the applicant on July 21, 2023, the project requires no fewer than 14 waivers or concessions. This is excessive for a project that is proposed to be consistent with “Density Bonus Law.” We believe that the project is allowing more variances, waivers, and concessions than allowed by City Ordinance and State Law. The drawings in the revised plan set that demonstrate all the proposed waivers are disturbing. It appears that the City is brushing aside many of the significant issues, including driveway widths, inadequate landscaping and open space, significant reduction in setbacks, light intrusion, density, parking, and building heights.
For example, to reduce setbacks by more than half in the front and side yards makes the project not only significantly inconsistent with the existing neighborhood, but also creates a significant aesthetic impact to the existing single-family neighborhood. Coupled with the proposed increase in building heights, impacts to the surrounding neighborhood will be significant and property values of the homes on San Carlos Court will be detrimentally affected.
Further, it does not make sense that constructing a shorter building will cost less than a taller structure, as stated in the revised plan set.
The revised plan set does not include adequate justification for the proposed waivers. We cannot find an Exhibit B in the plan set that is supposed to be a “waiver/concession justification letter.” The plan set sheets do not provide such justification. We would like to receive that document as well as the historical analysis prior to any approval actions for the project.
In conclusion, we caution the City against allowing so many waivers for a project that will significantly affect the existing single-family neighborhoods. This practice is ill-advised because it ignores the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as many of the virtues of living in Palo Alto.
We believe there is substantial evidence to show that the project is not consistent with a Class 32 Categorical Exemption as defined by Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. For all Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
62 Packet Pg. 217 of 410
Letter to Claire Raybould
August 30, 2023
10637881.DOCX
the above reasons, we request that the 739 Sutter Avenue project be placed on hold until an adequate CEQA document is prepared.
Respectfully Submitted,
SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP
____________________________
Laurie Berger
cc: San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association
Ed Kraus, Silicon Valley Law Group
Mayor Lydia Kou
Vice Mayor Greer Stone
Council Member Patrick Burt
Council Member Ed Lauing
Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims
Council Member Greg Tanaka
Council Member Vicki Veenker
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
63 Packet Pg. 218 of 410
EXHIBIT C
Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
64 Packet Pg. 219 of 410
Vavuris Landscaping Contractor’s License Number 393-599 570 Matadero Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 208-0724 [email protected] March 27, 2024 To Whom It May Concern: I have been a licensed landscape contractor for over 40 years. I was asked for a consultaSon regarding the new development and the effect it will have on the backyards for the 3 homes residing on 734, 746 and 750 San Carlos Ct in Palo Alto. I was informed that the new building will be approximately 30 feet high +/- and 10 feet back from respecSve property lines. With this design it will significantly impact the backyards of these 3 addresses by creaSng an enSrely new microclimate by blocking the morning sun. This could require the homeowners to change the planSng and exisSng landscape to be more suitable to the new micro-climate. To fully understand the impact of this you will need to have a sun-angle study completed. For a suitable screening opSon, the new plants would need to be placed 3 feet from fence line and 8 feet on center running along all 3 addresses and maintained in the future with a semi formal hedge. These hedges would need to be grown to the proper height of 12-15 feet in order to preserve privacy for both the exisSng residences and new building. This potenSally may need to be wri]en into the deeds as a requirement so they cannot be cut down My suggesSon for the screening would be to plant Laurus Nobiles Saratoga standards in 48” boxes to start. Plants would need to be inspected prior to purchase by a qualified buyer to ensure the plants are not rootbound. This is criScal for success of the plants and their future long-term growth in order to adequately provide the screening needed. The developer’s suggesSon of Podocarpus (the largest one being Gracilior species) will not be advisable as long-term will grow too tall and is too costly to maintain with the pruning requirements of this species. All other species of the Podocarpus are too small for screening that is needed. Please feel free to call me directly at (650) 208-0724 Should you have any quesSons or would like to discuss in more detail. Kind Regards, Joe Vavuris Owner Vavuris Landscaping Item 10
Attachment C - Request
for Hearing from San
Carlos Neighborhood
Association
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
65 Packet Pg. 220 of 410
To
City of Palo Alto
Planning Department Mar 26,2024
Subject: Objections to planned development at 739 Sutter Ave Palo Alto Objection is raised to the planned development at 739 on the following grounds
1. Lack of Transparency in Planning Process:
• I have received no communication or acknowledgement on previously raised objections
2. The project is Incompatible with existing neighborhood character: The density and scale of the proposed development are incompatible with the current aesthetic, architecture, and feel of my neighborhood • There is no 3-story building in the neighborhood
3. The approval will open Pandora’s box with more developments of the same type following through, with developers seeing $ signs
• The city will have no choice but to approve successive applications once they approve this project
4. With this and other developments, the entire character of the street and neighborhood will change forever
5. The high-density impact has to be seen on not just this project but with others who will inevitably follow
• There will be significantly increase traffic congestion and strain existing parking resources in the neighborhood.
b. The high-density projects when taken collectively will lead to overcrowding in the neighborhood, potentially decreasing the quality of life for existing residents, including more noise and light pollution, disrupting the peacefulness of my neighborhood
6. Decreased property values: I am deeply concerned that the high-density projects on the street could potentially decrease property values in the surrounding areas due to overcrowding, increased traffic, and changes to the neighborhood character.
My investment in my house and my quality of life are extremely important to me, I would like to safeguard against their erosion. Kindly record my objections to the proposed project
Sincerely, Milan Saini [email protected] 775 Sutter Ave Item 10
Attachment D - Request
for Hearing from Milan
Saini (Sutter Ave
Resident)
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
66 Packet Pg. 221 of 410
To: City of Palo Alto Mar 26,2024
Planning Department
Subject: Objections to planned development at 739 Sutter Ave Palo Alto
Objection is raised to the planned development on the following grounds:
1. There was a Lack of Transparency and Meaningful Community Involvement in the Planning Process
o The approval process lacked meaningful community engagement. o We filed our initial docusigned objections in 2022, however, we received no communication or acknowledgement on those objections
o This probably was an inadvertent oversight within the Planning office and while we understand that these things can happen, we certainly should not be left to bear a permanent and lifelong consequence as a result
o We request a more transparent and inclusive process, allowing residents to voice their concerns and explore alternative solutions
2. Approval Will Start a Cascade of New 3 story Developments on the Street o The approval will open Pandora’s box with more developments of the same 3 story developments in the near future
o The city will have no choice but to approve future such applications once they approve this project
o The combined effect of the collective potential large multi-unit building will significantly impact the existing neighborhood in terms of increased traffic, noise, and congestion. This will fundamentally alter the quiet, residential feel that attracted many of us to this community in the first place.
3. With this and other 3 story developments, the entire identity, character and delicate aesthetic harmony of the street and neighborhood will change forever o Our street is a charming community of two-story houses, known for positive neighborhood qualities - quiet streets, friendly atmosphere, close-knit community.
Adding three-story buildings would be a stark contrast, overwhelming the existing architectural style and potentially casting shadows that disrupt the enjoyment of our properties
o Our neighborhood was designed for a charming blend of architectural styles, with one and two-story homes that complement each other. A large swath of three-story building would disrupt this harmony, altering the visual landscape and diminishing the unique character of our street while being totally incompatible with the current aesthetic, architecture, feel and character of our neighborhood
4. The Housing Accountability Act is essential for addressing housing needs, but it should not come at the expense of our community’s well-being.
o The 3 story high-density projects when taken collectively will lead to overcrowding in the neighborhood, decreasing the peacefulness and quality of life for existing residents
Item 10
Attachment D - Request
for Hearing from Milan
Saini (Sutter Ave
Resident)
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
67 Packet Pg. 222 of 410
o Decreased property values: We are deeply concerned that the high-density projects on the street could potentially decrease property values in the surrounding areas due to overcrowding, increased traffic, and changes to the neighborhood character.
Our investment in our house and our quality of life are extremely important to us, we would like to safeguard against their erosion.We implore the City Council to prioritize the preservation of our neighborhood’s identity, aesthetics and appeal over expedient development of low-cost housing.
Sincerely,
Resident Address Contact
Clark McElfresh 703 Clara Dr [email protected]
Moshe Frozenfar 767 Sutter Ave [email protected]
Zihao Wang 771 Sutter Ave [email protected]
David Wang 779 Sutter Ave [email protected]
May Mak 772 Sutter Ave [email protected]
Milan Saini 775 Sutter Ave [email protected]
Peter and Judyt Browne 761-3 Sutter Ave [email protected]
Item 10
Attachment D - Request
for Hearing from Milan
Saini (Sutter Ave
Resident)
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
68 Packet Pg. 223 of 410
1 March 13, 2024
Laurie Berger, Silicon Valley Law Group
1 North Market St., Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95113
e-mail: [email protected]
RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project
Dear Ms. Berger,
Thank you for your letters dated August 30, 2023 and November 1, 2023 regarding the proposed residential project at 739 Sutter Avenue. In response to your first letter, staff met with you and your client directly on September 12, 2023, at City Hall. As indicated in that meeting, and as we will detail further in this letter, the City disagrees with the assertion that a Class 32 categorical exemption does not apply to the proposed residential project at 739 Sutter. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that this exemption does apply. This letter summarizes your comments, as further detailed in your follow up letter on November 1, 2023, and the City’s response to those comments. The most recent project plans and the documentation to support the categorical exemption are available on the project website.
Comment: The Project requires a full CEQA Evaluation and does not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption, noting that it would clearly result in impacts related to traffic, noise, and air quality.
Response: The documented exemption attached, which was made publicly available in October 2023, prior to the ARB study session, provides substantial evidence to support the conclusion that there would be less than significant impacts related to traffic, noise, and air quality, among other criterion listed in the Class 32 exemption requirements. Your comment refers to examples of projects that may be exempt under CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 exemption), incorrectly applying those to the Class 32 exemption.
The documented exemption details how the project complies with criteria set forth in the CEQA Guidelines for a Class 32 exemption.
Comment: The Project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and relevant policies, including references in the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element that protect single family residential site development regulations as well as policies L-1.3 and L-1.11 which encourage compatibility of infill development with its surroundings and speaks to high quality development standards.
Response: The project is a housing development project, as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5 (Housing Accountability Act [HAA]). As a housing development project, only objective Comprehensive Plan policies and standards may be applied to the proposed project in accordance with the HAA. The policies that the commenter references are not objective and therefore were not discussed in the draft findings for approval of the proposed project. Nevertheless, the City disagrees that Item 10
Attachment E - Letter to
SVLG in Response to
Formal Letters Provided
in the Review Process
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
69 Packet Pg. 224 of 410
2 the project would be inconsistent with those policies; no substantial evidence has been provided to support the conclusion that the project would be inconsistent with these policies. Further, the proposed project provides multi-family housing in a multi-family zone district. It is not located in a single-family residential zone and does not propose modifications to any development standards for the R-1 zone district.
In accordance with California Government code 65589.5, “the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision.” Therefore, the use of concessions and waivers under density bonus law is not a basis for finding the project inconsistent with the City’s zoning code or Comprehensive plan. Moreover, the courts recently affirmed that a class 32 exemption still applies in cases where waivers and concessions are granted in accordance with state density bonus law (Wollmer v. City of Berkley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1349-50).
Comment: The commenter states that the project would result in traffic impact and states that the CE concludes that the project would be better located in a transit-oriented neighborhood. The commenter states that utilizing traffic counts at intersections to determine air quality and noise impacts is not appropriate.
Response: The CE evaluates impacts on the existing environment, including adjacent residential uses, but does not conclude that this project would be better located in a transit-oriented neighborhood. The documentation to support the findings for a Class 32 exemption includes a traffic analysis and concludes that the project would have less than significant impacts related to transportation, including but not limited to, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The analysis of vehicle trip increases at intersections in the report is provided for the purposes of evaluating long-term noise and air quality impacts from traffic on the existing environment. That analysis also concludes that the project would have a less than significant impact related to these criteria.
Comment: The commenter states that construction related noise is inadequately addressed and studied in the CE. The commenter also identifies concerns about noise generated from people on roof decks and states that a shade and shadow study is required to evaluate shading impacts.
Response: The analysis identifies the maximum noise level that could be experienced at any given point in time during construction as measured at the property line. The commenter incorrectly applies the maximum noise level to all construction activities for the entirety of construction. The analysis in the documentation for the Class 32 exemption has been revised for clarity. The commenter states confusion over whether roof decks are provided. Building 2 was revised based on feedback at the preliminary review hearing to remove all roof decks on that building. Following ARB review of the formal application roof decks on Building 1 were also removed. All references to “decks” in the report have been revised to “balconies” for clarity. The analysis for operational noise impacts does not assess noise that could be generated by future residents using their balconies. Not only would this analysis be speculative, but Assembly Bill 1307 specifically indicates that social noise generated by residents is not an impact under CEQA.
Item 10
Attachment E - Letter to
SVLG in Response to
Formal Letters Provided
in the Review Process
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
70 Packet Pg. 225 of 410
3 The applicant is not required to provide a shade and shadow analysis for the proposed project, nor does the City have any criterion or threshold for significance by which to measure what would constitute a significant impact. The city utilizes development standards, primarily daylight plane and setbacks, to regulate light and air between uses. The project complies with the required daylight plane at the rear of the property and exceeds the required rear setback of 10 feet.
Privacy is not an impact evaluated in accordance with CEQA; however, the project complies with all relevant objective standards related to privacy screening and sight-line requirements to reduce privacy impacts on adjacent residential uses as shown in the project plans provided on the project website.
Comment: Construction-related Air Quality and Hazardous Materials Impacts. There is no discussion in the CE of the potential for lead, asbestos, or PCBs to be in the demolition materials.
Response: Air quality impacts related to construction and operation are evaluated in the documentation for the Class 32 exemption. The analysis has been revised to include a summary of regulations that would apply to the project to protect from lead-based paint and asbestos. The project does not meet the threshold for requiring further PCB analysis. In compliance with EPA guidance, further analysis of PCBs prior to demolition is not warranted for wood-framed, residential buildings.
Comment: The commenter states that inadequate emergency access is provided.
Response: The project plans have been evaluated by the City’s Fire Department and were found to meet the Fire Department standards in compliance with the City’s regulations. The fire department provides various options for property owners to meet the relevant fire regulations, taking into account site specific constraints such as the presence of overhead utility lines. In the case of the proposed project, emergency access in the event of a fire would be consistent with existing conditions in that the fire apparatus would park on Sutter Avenue and firefighters would access the site with ground ladders. The project has been specifically designed to provide ground ladder access at both ends of the two buildings.
Commercial grade fire sprinklers are also proposed for the buildings. The project is therefore consistent with Policy S-2.13 of the code. Staff notes that the height is nominally taller than that allowed in the RM- 20 zone district (33.5 feet for Building 1 and 32 feet at the rear building where 30 feet is allowed) and that the project meets the setbacks and daylight plane requirements adjacent the single-family residential use. Therefore, the project meets the current fire code safety requirements and does not create a greater threat with respect to hazards than the existing conditions. The preparation of an IS/MND to further evaluate this is not warranted.
Comment: The commenter states that the project utilizes too many waivers and concessions and states opinions regarding why the project was not added as a housing inventory site.
Response: In accordance with density bonus law, the project is eligible for waiver or reduction of development standards that physically precluding development at the densities permitted by state law as well as concessions as detailed in the November 2, 2023 staff report. There is no limit on the number of waivers that may be sought. In response to comments from the Architectural Review Board and members of public, the applicant has revised their plans to reduce the extent of the waivers being requested without reducing the overall density. As noted previously, use of concessions and waivers Item 10
Attachment E - Letter to
SVLG in Response to
Formal Letters Provided
in the Review Process
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
71 Packet Pg. 226 of 410
4 under density bonus law is not a basis for finding the project inconsistent with the City’s objective standards in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act.
The commenter opines that this was not listed as a housing site in the 2030 comprehensive plan because of impacts to adjacent residents. However, the site is identified as a pipeline project in the adopted Housing Element. Sites where projects are on file and identified as pipeline projects in the Housing Element are not also identified as Housing Inventory Sites to avoid double counting toward the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
Comments: Project is subject to the current code requirements.
Response: As the commenter correctly notes, the current application is not subject to development standards that were in affect at the time the Senate Bill 330 pre-application was submitted because the applicant failed to resubmit plans in accordance with the timelines set forth in SB 330 (180 days for the initial submittal, 90 days for each resubmittal). Therefore, the project is being processed in accordance with the objective standards set forth in the current municipal code.
We appreciate your comments on the proposed project. If you have further questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 650-329-2116 or via email at [email protected].
Regards,
Claire Raybould, AICP
Senior Planner, Planning Development Services
Item 10
Attachment E - Letter to
SVLG in Response to
Formal Letters Provided
in the Review Process
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
72 Packet Pg. 227 of 410
Attachment F
Project Plans
Project plans are only available to the public online. Hardcopies of the plans have been provided to Councilmembers.
Environmental Document
The City, acting as the lead agency, prepared documentation to support a Class 32 (infill development) categorical exemption for the proposed project. The documentation to support the exemption, including all associated technical analyses are included on the project website Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll down to find “739 Sutter Avenue” and click the address link
3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans, the documented exemption and other important information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/739-Sutter-Ave
Item 10
Attachment F - Project
Plans & CEQA
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
73 Packet Pg. 228 of 410
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEM
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: April 22, 2024
Report #:2403-2821
TITLE
Review and provide input on Concept Plans for Quarry Road Transit Connection to the Palo Alto Transit Center and Adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Undedicate a portion of El Camino Park; CEQA status - statutorily exempt per Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(12).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review and provide input on concept plans for the proposed Quarry Road Transit Connection and;
2. Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Undedicate a portion of El Camino Park that is necessary for the new transit connection. (Attachment E).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents a proposal for the Quarry Road Transit Connection, aiming to link the Palo Alto Transit Center (PATC) directly to El Camino Real through a currently passive section of El Camino Park. The proposal would facilitate quicker transit exits onto El Camino Real, potentially reducing bus transit times by an estimated 5-8 minutes per trip. This improvement is expected to alleviate congestion within University Circle and along University Avenue by streamlining bus movements and mitigating the need for buses to navigate through densely trafficked areas.
Concurrently, the proposal includes enhancements to pedestrian and bicycle paths within El Camino Park and at the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real. These enhancements are designed to improve safety, access, and connectivity to the broader pedestrian and bicycle network, encouraging greater use of these modes of transportation. The proposal aligns with the upcoming Caltrain electrification project, which will increase train frequency and potentially necessitate corresponding increases in bus and shuttle services to match the enhanced train schedule.
Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 229 of 410
The City Council is asked to review conceptual plans for this proposed transit connection and to consider initiating a process to undedicate a portion of El Camino Park needed for the project's implementation. This would involve seeking voter approval in the Fall 2024 election to repurpose a specified area of the park for the transit connection. This parkland undedication can also be considered within the context of other parkland dedication efforts citywide. The project is supported by various goals and policies outlined in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, emphasizing the improvement of transportation infrastructure and multimodal connectivity.
The estimated construction cost for the proposed project is between $3-3.5 million, with efforts underway to secure funding through external sources, including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The outcome of the electoral process and subsequent design development will dictate the project's timeline and final implementation steps.
BACKGROUND
Transit and Shuttle Service at the Palo Alto Transit Center The Palo Alto Transit Center (PATC) is the mobility hub of Palo Alto and has the second highest Caltrain ridership on the corridor. SamTrans, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA), and Dumbarton Express all run buses to the PATC to complement Caltrain service and connect Palo Alto to San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, and the East Bay, respectively. Additionally, Stanford’s Marguerite shuttle service and other private shuttles provide last-mile connections from the PATC to campus facilities for employees and visitors.
In total, roughly 600 buses serve the transit center daily; roughly half are Marguerite shuttles.
Transfers from Marguerite shuttles account for approximately 40 percent of Caltrain daily boardings at the transit center.
Bus and shuttle services use a combination of 10 bus bays and curbside space at the PATC, including in University Circle. Public transit service is restricted to the use of bus bays – bays are assigned to specific operators and lines – and shuttles use stops along the curb of University Circle. Employer and Stanford Health Care shuttles pick-up and drop-off in a parking area on the Palo Alto side of the station along Alma Street. The station area also accommodates layovers for bus and shuttle service.
Caltrain electrification is currently scheduled to begin in fall 2024. Electrification will increase train service from five (5) to six (6) trains per hour per direction during peak periods and from one (1) to two (2) trains per hour per direction during off peak periods, including weekends. Bus and shuttle services are likely to increase to align with Caltrain service.
The station is also a significant source for bicycle trips on Caltrain. Bicycle equipped passengers at the PATC are estimated to be between 750-800 per day, pre-COVID. Palo Alto is the second highest bicycle ridership stop along the Caltrain corridor at roughly 14 percent of all bicycle Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 230 of 410
boardings and alightings (descending or disembarking from the train), second only to 4th/King in San Francisco. Assuming 10 percent of daily passengers travel in the peak hour, the Palo Alto Transit Center serves roughly 75-80 Caltrain bicycle passengers/hour during the peak hour.
The Proposed Quarry Road Transit Connection
As envisioned in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as Program T3.10.4 (2017), the proposed Quarry Road Transit Connection project would create a direct transit connection between the transit center bus bays and El Camino Real at the Quarry Road traffic signal, through an underused, passive portion of El Camino Park (see Attachment A). The proposed project would allow buses that use the bus terminal to exit via Quarry Road to El Camino Real rather than to circle back through University Avenue. The bus operators have estimated savings of approximately 5-8 minutes per trip could be achieved by avoiding University Circle and directly connecting with Quarry Road at El Camino Real.
The bus route reorganization would have secondary benefits to the University Avenue and University Circle area by eliminating the need for some buses to make constrained turning movements in the corridor. Articulated buses require additional turning radii to access the transit center from University Avenue which regularly causes congestion and delays for vehicular traffic and creates additional conflict points for bicycles and pedestrians at the gateway to Downtown Palo Alto.
The project would also include multiple pedestrian and bicycle improvements within El Camino Park adjacent to or near the proposed transit connection and at the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real. Specifically, the proposed project would:
•Upgrade the crossing of El Camino Real to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists on both sides of Quarry Road, which would reduce crossing time; and •Add safety and accessibility measures at the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real (e.g., curb extensions and tighter turning radii, new pedestrian/bicycle ramps, pedestrian and bicycle refuge islands, and high visibility bicycle markings are currently being considered).Through the above improvements, there would be enhanced visibility of the existing multi-modal path to the transit center and its connections to the existing Class 1 multi-modal path that connects to El Camino Park and into Menlo Park, through the PATC to the Embarcadero Bike Path, and to the Stanford Perimeter Trail. These connectivity improvements would also make the active park facilities in El Camino Park more accessible for bikes, pedestrians and transit riders.
Designs for the transit connection are in the early stages, but all feasible options are under consideration, ranging from a new connection providing full access to buses between the transit center and El Camino Real to an outbound-only transit lane. The Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 231 of 410
conceptual design under consideration is illustrated in Attachment B. The preliminary concept design includes 12.5 foot wide inbound and outbound transit travel lanes (188 feet and 163 feet in length, respectively), with six-inch curbs, separated by a landscaped median that ranges in width between 18-33 feet that would house existing utilities.1 The utilities accommodated in the median are illustrated in Attachment C.
The projected area needed to implement this extension is approximately 0.24 acres, including 0.10 acres of a landscaped median that, although part of the project area, would remain in its current state. Voter approval would be requested to discontinue use for park purposes of a slightly larger area—approximately 0.33 acres total—as minor shifts in the location of the proposed project may be required as project plans are finalized, to better meet access, circulation, and other goals. The additional 0.09-acre area represents a ten-foot-wide buffer around the projected location of the improvements at the current conceptual design stage (see Attachment D). Following completion of project construction, the City would anticipate re-dedicating for park purposes the portion of the discontinued area that was not needed for the project. As such, these figures conservatively reflect the maximum exposure, though pending final design may have a smaller impact
The proposed project could require the removal of approximately 15 trees, and there are an additional three trees in the project buffer area. The project could include lighting, benches, signage and low level, drought tolerant landscape planting, mulch, and additional tree planting. Any lighting and planting would be harmonious and compatible with the existing conditions in El Camino Park.
Other modifications and improvements could include, but are not limited to, wayfinding signs, additional striping and green bike lanes to help identify buffered lanes and highlight any potential conflict areas between buses, transit and bicyclists in the corridor, crosswalk striping, and refuge islands.
ANALYSIS
•El Camino Park consists of approximately 10.75 acres of land and is leased by Stanford to the City under a 1915 lease that currently is set to expire in 2042. The Park has been dedicated by the City by ordinance for recreational and conservation purposes. Palo Alto Ordinance No. 2252 (Sept. 13, 1965); Palo Alto Municipal Code § 22.08.230 & Ex. A-19.
The proposed project would develop a strip of the underused, passive portion of El Camino Park to provide a direct transit connection to the transit center, where bike and pedestrian access are currently occurring. This area of the park does not have playing fields but does provide circulation throughout that serves the park. The project is a park Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 232 of 410
improvement project in that it improves multi-modal movement to and through the park. The proposed transit connection would enhance the use and enjoyment of El Camino Park and the recreational amenities provided to the residents of Palo Alto and the surrounding communities.
Additional Bicycle/Pedestrian Visibility and Bicycle Connectivity High visibility bicycle and pedestrian crossings included in this project will enhance bicycle and pedestrian visibility and bicycle connectivity at the existing El Camino Real intersection connecting the PATC and Quarry Road. The existing bike path from the PATC to the Quarry Road /ECR intersection provides critical east-west access for bicyclists and pedestrians between the Palo Alto Transit Center, Downtown, the Stanford Shopping Center, and the Stanford Medical Center. This intersection is also a gateway for cyclists traveling north and south on the multi-use paths along both sides of El Camino Real, including the City's path to Menlo Park on the east side and the Stanford Perimeter Trail on the west side. Access to these important paths that allow cyclists to travel car-free in all directions would be enhanced by El Camino Real intersection upgrade that includes green bike lane markings and signage.
The proposed Quarry Road Transit Connection project aims to enhance the Palo Alto area through various improvements and modifications. The project's potential impacts and considerations include:
•Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle paths within El Camino Park and at the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real, aiming to improve safety, access, and connectivity. The proposed project includes high visibility crossings and green bike lane markings to facilitate east-west and north-south travel for cyclists and pedestrians, connecting key areas such as the Palo Alto Transit Center, Downtown, the Stanford Shopping Center, and the Stanford Medical Center.
•Potential to augment the park's recreational facilities by improving connections to existing paths, thereby integrating the park more effectively into the regional pedestrian and bicycle network.
•A direct transit connection between the transit center bus bays and El Camino Real could streamline bus traffic, potentially reducing congestion and emissions in the vicinity of the park and improving the overall circulation environment for pedestrians and cyclists. •Activation of underused areas of the park through thoughtful design, which could enhance safety and usability of the space.
•Improved functionality of the Palo Alto Transit Center by facilitating more efficient bus and shuttle service operations, which could benefit public transportation users accessing the park and surrounding areas.
Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 233 of 410
Challenges and considerations for the project include:
•Potential environmental impacts, including the removal of trees and changes to green spaces, which will require thoughtful mitigation strategies. •Funding and budget considerations, as the estimated construction costs range between $3-
3.5 million, with efforts to secure funding through external sources. •Caltrans review and approval of this project will be necessary, which will not occur until after voter approval.
Discontinuance of Parkland Use
Consideration of the required El Camino Park undedication for the Quarry Road Transit Connection proposal can be considered within the city's actions related to adding parkland to the City’s existing parks inventory. The Parks and Recreation Commission has established an ad hoc committee and been working with staff to identify appropriate locations to dedicate city- owned property as parkland. The recent unanimous decision by the City Council on March 4 to dedicate the 0.2-acre Tower Well site as parkland, characterized by its historical water tower and naturalistic elements, is the most recent example of new parkland dedication. The recent dedication, along with ongoing evaluations for further parkland dedications, were considered and discussed by the Stanford Ad Hoc Committee.
The Quarry Road project was presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) meeting at their March 2024 meeting. The PRC had the following questions related to the proposed project:
•Will the trees to be removed be replaced?
•Will the Olympic Grove Redwood Trees be impacted?
•What vegetation currently exists within the project area? •Will the project look at cumulative impacts of other transportation projects in the area?
•Would there be adverse impacts to the fields due to the buses such as vibration? Some members of the PRC noted that the project will create a roughly 1.0 acre of El Camino Park that is separated from the rest of the park by the new access road making that area unusable. They requested that an additional acre of land be dedicated by Stanford to compensate for this area being separated from the rest of the park.
Other comments were related to reducing lighting, ensuring new plantings are native species, and increase in air pollution exposure to field users, especially children. Overall, the commission's feedback highlighted a balance between recognizing the project's benefits and addressing environmental and community concerns.
Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 234 of 410
Article VIII of the Palo Alto City Charter governs dedicated parklands and states as follows:
•All lands owned or controlled by the city which are or will be used for park, playground, recreation or conservation purposes shall be dedicated for such purposes by ordinance. •No land heretofore or hereafter dedicated for such purposes shall be sold or otherwise disposed of, nor shall its use be abandoned or discontinued except pursuant to majority vote of the electorate. Any election and related procedures under Article VIII shall conform to the provisions set forth in general law as it existed January 1, 1965, except that the council may call such election by majority vote. •No substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development upon or with respect to any lands so dedicated shall be made except pursuant to ordinance subject to referendum.
The proposed roadway does not qualify as a park purpose, as it will be used to transit the park rather than access the park itself. Given that El Camino Park has been dedicated by the City for recreational and conservation purposes, a majority vote of the electorate is necessary to discontinue from park use the portion of El Camino Park that would be used to facilitate transit circulation.
Voter approval would be requested to discontinue use for park purposes of approximately 0.33 acres total. The preliminary design concept alternatives have estimated that up to 0.24 acres of parkland would be required to accommodate the proposed transit connection, with an additional 0.09 acres of buffer for project design that would be rededicated for park use after project construction.
If there is no desire to undedicate parkland for the Quarry Road Transit Connection project, the current state of the Palo Alto Transit Center (PATC) and the surrounding areas will remain unchanged. This means that the existing transit operations, including the flow of buses and shuttles through the University Circle and along University Avenue, will continue without the anticipated reduction in transit times. Consequently, the potential benefits of alleviating congestion and improving connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists, as outlined in the project proposal, will not be realized. The parkland will retain its current recreational and conservation designation, and no changes to the physical landscape of El Camino Park will occur as a result of the project.
•Timeline
This item initiates a discussion with the Palo Alto City Council to consider placing the proposed parkland discontinuance on the ballot for the Fall 2024 election. If the ballot measure passes, the City and Stanford will work with the transit agency stakeholders and Caltrans to further develop construction plans and apply for necessary permits.
Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 235 of 410
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The preliminary cost estimate for constructing the proposed project is estimated to be between $3-3.5M but is dependent on ultimate design. These costs will be updated as the design is advanced and construction documents are prepared. Funding is being pursued through MTC but may not be identified until after the ballot measure is considered by voters. According to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, a ballot measure is estimated to be an additional $85,341. This is estimated only based on projected registration and available information. It is subject to change upon final billing of the actual charges after the election.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Stanford University has played a pivotal role in advancing the Quarry Road Transit Connection project, working in close collaboration with City of Palo Alto staff. This partnership has been instrumental in the project's development, ensuring that the proposed changes align with the broader transportation and community goals of the area.
In addition to Stanford's involvement, there has been active coordination with the various public transit operators that service the Palo Alto Transit Center (PATC). These operators include SamTrans, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and the Dumbarton Express, all of which are integral to the regional transit network and have a stake in the project's outcome due to its potential impact on their operations.
Furthermore, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has been engaged in the process, given its role in funding and planning for transportation projects across the Bay Area.
The MTC's involvement is crucial for securing the necessary funding and ensuring that the project aligns with regional transportation strategies and priorities.
This project has also been recently reviewed by the PRC, and the project will be reviewed by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC).
The proposed Quarry Road Transit Connection Project would advance numerous Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, as follows:
•Policy T-1.11 Encourage continued enhancement of the Caltrain stations as important transportation nodes for the city.
•Program T1.11.1 Collaborate with Stanford University, VTA, Caltrain and other agencies to pursue improvements to the Palo Alto Transit Center area aimed at enhancing the pedestrian experience and improving circulation and access for all modes, including direct access to El Camino Real for transit vehicles.
•Program T3.10.3 Provide safe, convenient pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections between the Stanford Shopping Center/Medical Center areas and housing along the Sand Hill Road/Quarry Road corridors to Palo Alto Transit Center, Downtown Palo Alto and other primary destinations.
Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 236 of 410
•Program T3.10.4 Pursue extension of Quarry Road for transit, pedestrians and bicyclists to access the Palo Alto Transit Center from El Camino Real. Also study the feasibility of another pedestrian and bicycle underpass of Caltrain at Everett Street. •Policy T-8.2 Coordinate with local and regional agencies and Caltrans to maintain and improve transportation infrastructure in Palo Alto, including the Multi-Modal Transit Center.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project comes within the statutory exemption for “facility extensions not to exceed four miles in length which are required for the transfer of passengers from or to exclusive public mass transit guideway or busway public transit services.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(12).
Due to its fixed location, Caltrain qualifies as an “exclusive public mass transit guideway” service. The proposed project would extend the existing transit center facility by approximately 210 feet, through the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real, to facilitate the transfer of passengers to Caltrain, among other public transit services. Staff continues to investigate whether any additional CEQA exemptions also may apply to the proposed project.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Transit and Multi-model Connections
Attachment B: Conceptual Site Plan
Attachment C: Utilities in the Landscaped Median
Attachment D: Project Buffer
Attachment E: Resolution of Intention to Call an Election to Submit the Question of Discontinuance of a Portion of El Camino Park as Dedicated Parkland APPROVED BY:
Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official
Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 237 of 410
6 | P a g e March 2024
Attachment A: Transit and Multi-model Connections
The proposed project includes the improvements shown conceptually above as “Future Quarry Road Transit Way” and the pedestrian/bike crossing on the southern leg of El Camino Real at Quarry Road. The figure above is not intended to identify the exact proposed location of these improvements.
Other potential improvements depicted above as “Future Path” and “Long-Term,” including the “Future Everett Ave. Tunnel Connection,” are not part of the proposed project and are illustrated here only for context.
Item 11
Attachment A - Transit
and Multi-model
Connections
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 238 of 410
7 | P a g e March 2024
Attachment B: Conceptual Site Plan
Item 11
Attachment B -
Conceptual Site Plan
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 239 of 410
8 | P a g e March 2024
Attachment C: Utilities in the Landscaped Median
Item 11
Attachment C - Utilities in
the Landscaped Median
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 240 of 410
9 | P a g e March 2024
Attachment D: Project Buffer
A 10-foot-wide project buffer is illustrated in red.
Item 11
Attachment D - Project
Buffer
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 241 of 410
NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Call an Election to Submit the Question of Discontinuance of a Portion of El Camino Park as Dedicated Parkland and Setting June 10, 2024 for a Public Hearing for Protests
R E C I T A L S
A. The area known as El Camino Park is dedicated for park, playground, recreation, or conservation purposes, as codified at Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) section 22.08.230. A legal description of El Camino Park is codified as Exhibit A-19 to PAMC Title 22 and is attached as Exhibit A to this resolution.
B. Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto requires that “[n]o land heretofore or hereafter dedicated for such purposes shall be sold or otherwise disposed of, nor shall its use be abandoned or discontinued except pursuant to majority vote of the electorate. Any election and related procedures under Article VIII shall conform to the provisions set forth in general law as it existed January 1, 1965, except that the council may call such election by majority vote.” The Charter includes the “provisions set forth in general law” in Appendix A to the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
C. The City intends to ask the voters whether a portion of El Camino Park shall be discontinued as dedicated parkland. The area proposed for discontinuance is described and shown in Exhibit B to this resolution and is approximately 0.33 acres.
D. The City intends that the area to be discontinued would be used to build a road connecting the adjacent Palo Alto Transit Center with El Camino Real. This would allow buses to shorten the drive time to and from the Transit Center and would encourage use of public transportation, among other benefits.
E. The project would also include multiple pedestrian and bicycle improvements adjacent to or near the proposed transit connection, including at the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest or convenience requires the discontinuance of the use of the land described in Exhibit B as a public park, and the City Council intends to call a special election to submit the question of discontinuance to the city electors.
SECTION 2. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing shall be held on June 10, 2024, at 5:30 pm, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the Council Chambers of City Hall, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at which the Council shall hear protests to the proposed discontinuance and give any objections due consideration, provided that any such protest must be made in writing and delivered to the Office of the City Clerk at any time before the hour set for the hearing and in compliance with the protest guidelines attached as Exhibit C; 1 107_20240410_ts24
Item 11
Attachment E - Resolution
of Intention
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 242 of 410
NOT YET APPROVED
i. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City Clerk and the City’s Park Superintendent or City Manager are directed to give notice of the public hearing in the time and manner provided in Appendix A to the City Charter.
SECTION 3. Environmental Review. The City Council finds the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project comes within the statutory exemption for “facility extensions not to exceed four miles in length which are required for the transfer of passengers from or to exclusive public mass transit guideway or busway public transit services.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(12). Due to its fixed location, Caltrain qualifies as an “exclusive public mass transit guideway” service. The proposed project would extend the existing transit center facility by approximately 210 feet, through the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real, to facilitate the transfer of passengers to Caltrain, among other public transit services.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk
_____________________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________
Assistant City Attorney
_____________________________
City Manager
_____________________________
Director, Community Services Division
_____________________________
Director, Chief Transportation Official
2 107_20240410_ts24
Item 11
Attachment E - Resolution
of Intention
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 243 of 410
NOT YET APPROVED
Exhibit A
Legal Description of El Camino Park as Codified in Exhibit A-19 to Title 22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
EXHIBIT A-19 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EL CAMINO PARK
Beginning at the most northerly corner of that certain 1.194 acre parcel of land described in that certain sublease between the City of Palo Alto and Southern Pacific Railroad Company, dated October 2, 1939; thence S. 17° 13' 57" E. along the westerly line of said parcel 143.13 feet; thence S. 51° 41' 59" E. 421.31 feet; thence northeasterly along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 13.64 feet, through a central angle of 90 00' for an arc length of 21.42 feet to a point of reverse curve; thence southeasterly along a curve to the right, having a radius of 13.64 feet, through a central angle of 90° 00', for an arc length of 21.42 feet; thence S. 51° 41' 59" E. 122.41 feet; thence southerly along a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 75 feet, through a central angle of 87° 29' 32", for an arc length of 114.53 feet, to a point of reverse curve; thence southerly along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 300 feet, to a point of reverse curve; thence southerly along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 300 feet, to a point of compound curve; thence continuing southerly along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 68 feet, through a central angle of 20° 03' 52" for an arc length of 23.81 feet, to a point of reverse curve; thence southwesterly, along a reverse curve to the right having a radius of 33.40 feet, through a central angle of 77° 52' 04", for an arc length of 45.39 feet, to a non-tangent point on the northeasterly line of El Camino Real; thence northwesterly, along said northeasterly line, the following courses and distances: N. 51° 13' 12" W. 566.52 feet; N. 42° 20' 20" W. 80.45 feet; along a curve to the left, having a radius of 1333 feet through a central angle of 8° 24' 00", for an arc length of 195.43 feet; N. 51° 08' W. 68.39 feet; along a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 900 feet, through a central angle of 11° 08' 21", for an arc length of 174.97 feet; N. 39° 59' 39" W. 317.82 feet; along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 72 feet, through a central angle of 73° 09' 21", for an arc length of
91.93 feet; N. 45° 58' 59" W. 436.48 feet; N. 41° 16' 13" W. 151.00 feet; along a curve to the right, having a radius of 102 feet, through a central angle of 16° 19' 30", for an arc length of 29.06 feet, to a point of compound curve, along a curve to the right, having a radius of 12 feet, through a central angle of 90° 08' 53", for an arc length of 18.88 feet; N. 31° 10' 38" W. 85.53 feet; N. 51° 31' 10" W. 123.49 feet; N. 49° 31' 31" W. 69.11 feet to a point in the centerline of San Francisquito Creek; thence leaving said northeasterly line of El Camino Real, and running along the centerline of said creek S. 85° 56' 59" E. 164.52 feet and N. 62° 31' 01" E. 77.22 feet, to a point on the southwesterly line of the Southern Pacific right-of-way; thence southeasterly along the southwesterly line S. 51° 35' 10" E. 7.93 feet; S. 51° 41' 59" E. 797.87 feet and S. 46° 56' 10" E. 602.08 feet; thence S. 38° 18' 01" W. 60.00 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom the following described portion of Palo Alto Avenue: Beginning at the northerly terminus of the above described as "having a radius of 12 feet, through a central angle of 90° 08' 53", for an arc length of 18.88 feet"; thence easterly along a compound curve to the right, having a radius of 182 feet, through a central angle of 19° 27' 55", an arc length of
61.83 feet; thence N. 81° 46' 56" E. 59.63 feet; thence N. 84° 40' 59" W. along said right-of-way line 86.96 feet; thence S. 84° 40' 05" W. 192.23 feet; thence westerly along a curve to the right, having a radius of 382 feet, through a central angle of 7° 50' 24", an 3 107_20240410_ts24
Item 11
Attachment E - Resolution
of Intention
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 244 of 410
NOT YET APPROVED
arc distance of 52.27 feet; thence S. 31° 10' 38" E. 85.53 feet to the point of beginning.
Also excepting therefrom that portion thereof described in Resolution No. 5802 of the City of Palo Alto recorded July 16, 1980 in Book F442 of Official Records at Page 707, records of Santa Clara County, California. Also excepting therefrom that certain 0.551 acre parcel described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the southwesterly line of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company's right-of-way, 230 feet in width, (as described in that certain easement of Leland Stanford to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, dated November 23, 1892, and recorded October 28, 1915, in Volume 435 of Deeds at page 244, Santa Clara County Records, in which the bearing of said line is called North 51 28' West, which is also the southwesterly line of that certain easement (Palo Alto Agreement No. 224) granted by the Southern Pacific Railroad Company to the City of Palo Alto by Agreement dated October 2, 1939, and recorded November 27, 1939, in Book 954 of Official Records, page 567, Santa Clara County Records), with the center line of University Avenue produced southwesterly, as said University Avenue exists 75 feet in width (said intersection being the most easterly point of Parcel 1 as described in that certain lease of the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University of the City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto Lease No. 3) dated June 10, 1915, and recorded by Stanford University on September 23, 1915, in Vol. P of Leases at page 333 et seq., Santa Clara County Records, in which the bearing of said line is called North 51 45" West); thence North 51 45' West along said southwesterly line a distance of 467.50 feet to the intersection of said line of right-of-way with the center line of Lytton Avenue (prolonged); a distance of 81.00 feet to a point on the southwesterly most line of Parcel No. 2, City of Palo Alto Agreement No. 46, dated October 2, 1939, and recorded October 30, 1939, in Book 951 of Official Records, page 580, Santa Clara County Records, which point is the true point of commencement; thence South 51 45' East, along said southwesterlymost line, a distance of 25.00 feet; thence South 38 15' West a distance of 120.00 feet; thence North 51 45' West a distance of 200.00 feet; thence North 38 15' East a distance of 120.00 feet to a point on the above mentioned southwesterlymost line of Parcel No. 2; thence South 51 45' East a distance of 175.00 feet along said line to the true point of commencement. 4 107_20240410_ts24
Item 11
Attachment E - Resolution
of Intention
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 245 of 410
NOT YET APPROVED
Exhibit B
Legal Description of the Area Proposed for Discontinuance (See following pages)
5 107_20240410_ts24
Item 11
Attachment E - Resolution
of Intention
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 246 of 410
March 28, 2023
BKF No. 20240028
EXHIBIT “B”
Legal Description
PARK DISCONTINUANCE AREA
A Portion of El Camino Park, Palo Alto, CA
Real property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:
Being a portion of Park Parcel 1, as said Parcel 1 is described in that certain document, recorded on September 6, 2012, as Document 21840095, Official Records of Santa Clara County, more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the most westerly corner of Palo Alto Station Grounds, as said Station Grounds are described in that certain easement from Leland Stanford to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, dated November 23, 1892 and recorded October 28, 1915 in Volume 435 of Deeds at Page 244, Official Records of Santa Clara County, said point being marked by a found 3/4” iron pipe with wood plug and tack; Thence along the northeasterly line of said Park Parcel, South 16°12’28” East, 56.48 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence leaving said point and continuing along said northeasterly line, South 16°12’28” East, 86.65 feet to an angle point in said northeasterly line;
Thence along said northeasterly line, South 50°40’30” East, 4.34 feet; Thence leaving said northeasterly line, South 34°32’43” West, 24.21 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 273.00 feet;
Thence southwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 09°40’14”, for an arc length of 46.08 feet;
Thence South 44°12’57” West, 49.45 feet, to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of
49.50 feet;
Thence southerly along said curve, through a central angle of 62°46’25”, for an arc length of 54.23 feet to the northeasterly line of El Camino Real (State Highway 82); Thence northwesterly along said northeasterly line, North 41°18’51” West, 2.64 feet; to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the southwest, having a radius of 1,333.00 feet, with a radial line that bears North 48°17’29” East;
Thence continuing along said northeasterly line and northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 04°28’38”, for an arc length of 104.17 feet;
Thence leaving said northeasterly line, North 44°14’48” East, 87.93 feet; to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 260.50 feet;
Thence northeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 04°48’43”, for an arc length of 21.88 feet; Thence North 49°03’31” East, 59.71 feet, to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of
19.50 feet;
Thence northerly along said curve, through a central angle of 66°09’32”, for an arc length of 22.52 feet; Thence North 29°22’27” East, 14.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing an area of 13,960 square feet, more or less.
Item 11
Attachment E - Resolution
of Intention
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 247 of 410
EXHIBIT “B”
Legal Description
As shown on plat attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
Christopher Cassera
P.L.S. No. 9781
Date _________3/28/2024_______
K:\2024\240028_El_Camino_Quarry\DOC\05-Survey\I-Plats_and_Legal_Desc\ParkVacation_Legal.docx Item 11
Attachment E - Resolution
of Intention
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 248 of 410
Item 11
Attachment E - Resolution
of Intention
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
21 Packet Pg. 249 of 410
Item 11
Attachment E - Resolution
of Intention
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
22 Packet Pg. 250 of 410
NOT YET APPROVED
Exhibit C
GUIDELINES FOR THE SUBMISSION OF PROTESTS
Where a resolution of intention has been adopted by the City Council setting a public hearing with respect to the potential discontinuance of land as a public park, the following shall govern the protest process:
Submission of Protests
1. Any person may submit a written protest to the City Clerk, either by delivery to the Office of the City Clerk during its business hours or by submitting the protest to the City Clerk (or his or her designee) before the hour set for the public hearing. Protests must be received no later than the hour set for the hearing. Protests received after that deadline, even if postmarked or emailed prior to the deadline, cannot be accepted.
2. Each protest must (i) state that it is a protest against the proposed discontinuance of the park dedication, (ii) identify the name of the person making the protest, (iii) identify the person’s address (by assessor’s parcel number or street address) and (iv) include the signature of the person making the protest.
3. The notice of the public hearing may designate an email address at which written protests will be accepted. If an email address is so designated, the City will treat PDF files sent to the email address as written protests so long as (i) the PDF file contains all information (including a signature) required by these guidelines to be included in a written protest, and (ii) the PDF file is received at the email address no later than the date and time indicated on the notice as the deadline for email submissions.
4. To be valid, signatures on protests sent via email must be provided via either (i) a document that has been signed and scanned, or (ii) an electronically signed document. Emails that do not contain a valid signature, for example emails that close with a typed name, will not be accepted.
5. Although oral comments at the public hearing will not qualify as a formal protest unless accompanied by a valid written protest, the City Council welcomes input from the community during the public hearing on the proposed discontinuance.
6. Any person who submits a protest may withdraw it by submitting to the City Clerk a written request that the protest be withdrawn. The withdrawal of a protest shall contain sufficient information to identify the person who submitted both the protest and the request that it be withdrawn.
7. A protest proceeding is not an election.
8. To ensure transparency and accountability in the protest process, protests are disclosable public records once they are received by the City.
Receipt of Protests
1. The City Clerk shall determine the validity of all protests. The City Clerk shall not accept as valid any protest if the City Clerk determines that any of the following conditions exist:
6 107_20240410_ts24
Item 11
Attachment E - Resolution
of Intention
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
23 Packet Pg. 251 of 410
NOT YET APPROVED
a. The protest does not identify all of the information required above. b. The protest does not bear the signature of one or more people. c. The protest does not state its opposition to the proposed discontinuance. d. The protest was not timely received by the City Clerk. e. A request to withdraw the protest is received prior to the hour of the public hearing.
2. The City Clerk’s decision that a protest is not valid shall constitute a final action of the City and shall not be subject to any internal appeal.
3. The City Clerk shall transmit all protests to the City Council in any form that is practicable.
If the City Clerk receives no valid protests, it shall declare as such to the City Council. 7 107_20240410_ts24
Item 11
Attachment E - Resolution
of Intention
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
24 Packet Pg. 252 of 410
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: April 22, 2024
Report #:2402-2684
TITLE
Addition of 16 properties to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory based on Owner interest.
CEQA Status: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, the Historic Designation of Properties is not a Project Subject to Environmental Review.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Adopt the attached record of land use action (Attachment A) to add 16 properties meeting specified criteria to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, based on expressed owner interest.
2. Direct staff to continue outreach to eligible property owners among the properties discussed in this report and to place future additions to the Historic Resources Inventory with expressed owner interest on the Consent Calendar.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In early 2022, the Council directed staff to review 167 properties throughout the City that were previously identified as being eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); 1471 of those properties were found to still exist and retain their historic significance and integrity2. Staff discovered one of the 147 properties had been placed on the Historical Resources Inventory (HRI) by Council action in 2014.
1 Link to consultant’s list and HRB hearing dates of 147 properties in the 2023 survey the HRB reviewed:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/property-groupings-for-hrb-hearings-hyperlinked-rev12052023.pdf 2 Link to 2023 Reconnaissance Survey Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/f6745b3d-6148-4678-99b3- 3c7dd712743b/2023-Reconn-Survey-Report_2023-09-28_RevisedDraft.pdf Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 253 of 410
Through an extensive public engagement process with outreach and hearings before the City’s Historic Resources Board (HRB), 83 of the 146 property owners objected to their property being listed on the inventory. Based in part on this feedback, the HRB decided not to recommend nomination over a property owner’s objection. Accordingly, the HRB recommended the City Council list 63 properties on the City historic resources inventory.
However, the HRB and staff have not heard from all the 63 property owners despite sending multiple certified mailed notices to these owners. Three of the properties are City-owned and discussed later in this report. Another eleven property owners have affirmatively requested their property be listed on the City’s historic resources inventory. The remaining property owners (and some are in trusts) may be unaware of the HRB recommendation, still considering options, or ambivalent to being listed.
The attached record of land use action advances 16 properties for local listing on the City’s HRI.
Staff further recommends that Council authorize continued engagement to owners of the remaining 47 properties. Properties for which the owners affirmatively express an interest in being listed will be transmitted to the Council on the Consent Calendar.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto’s historic preservation program began in 1979 with a historic resources survey3 that looked at pre-1940 buildings located primarily north of Oregon Expressway. The survey identified the major styles of early Palo Alto and resulted in the local Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) with a list of hundreds of individual properties. The survey identified potential historic districts such as Professorville and Ramona Street Architectural District.
Between 1997 and 2001 another survey was prepared that built upon the 1979 survey and covered all properties within the city limits that were built prior to 1947. The survey addressed properties in relation to the national criteria for listing. Identified properties4 were placed in two categories: 1) those that appear National Register of Historic Places It is these 165 properties that are the subject of this report and associated with Council’s direction on March 21, 2022 to advance Comprehensive Plan Program L-7.1.1, which in summary, encourages the City to update and maintain its local HRI.
3 1979 survey report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development- services/historic-preservation/1979-inventory-and-report.pdf 4 Link to list of properties identified in the 1997-2001 historic survey:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic- resources-board/2022/2001-survey-list-of-291-properties-evaluated-for-nrhp-resulting-in-165-nrhp-eligible- properties.pdf
Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 254 of 410
DISCUSSION
Staff engaged a historic consultant and worked with the HRB to evaluate the 165 properties in accordance with state and federal criteria and local codes. Staff, with the HRB, supported an extensive outreach effort to notify all properties that continued to meet eligibility criteria.
Similar to an attempt at the turn of the century to list historic resources on the City’s inventory, this effort too was met with opposition from property owners opposed to listing. Over 55% of the eligible property owners expressed their objection citing concerns over impacts to property values, ability to make changes to their property or structures, and a lack of incentives, among other concerns.
While the Council has the authority to list all eligible properties on the local registry, staff and the HRB do not recommend advancing any properties over a property owner’s objection.
Moreover, staff is concerned that the City has not heard from most of the other property owners remaining on the list. This may be because property owners are unaware of the potential for nomination despite extensive outreach and certified mailing, or, less likely, because owners are ambivalent to nomination. Accordingly, staff has drafted a record of land use action that forwards properties for listing from owners that have affirmatively expressed interest in being listed on the inventory. This differs from the HRB’s recommendation, which supported listing all the remaining 63 properties that did not object to listing.
Staff seeks Council’s support to continue outreach to the remaining 47 properties in an effort to determine their affirmative interest in nomination. If more property owners elect to proceed, staff would return to the Council in the next few months with a new record of land use action and present that to the Council on the Consent Calendar.
Properties Proposed for Nomination
The following is a summary of the properties proposed for nomination, the address, the local criterion met for designation, and a brief description supporting the recommendation:
1. 731 Emerson Street5 is recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 2 resource, under local Criterion 2 (The structure or is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state, or nation), and Criterion 5 (The architect or building was important). Built in 1896, it is significant as an early and notable example of the Queen Anne style that was built by important local builder H.L. Upham. 5 Link to nomination form and evaluation for 731 Emerson:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/emersonst_731.pdf
Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 255 of 410
2. 243-245 Webster Street6 is recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 2 resource, under local Criterion 2. Built in 1904, it is significant as a property that embodies the distinct characteristics of the Eastern Shingle style.
3. 330 Cowper Street7 is recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 2 resource, under local Criterion 1 (The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation). Built in 1904, with a period of significance 1930- 1948, it is significant as a residence lived in by a notable Black family who were both active in the Black community of Palo Alto during a period of significant growth; and were rare Black residents in the city at a time when de jure and de facto segregation limited the ability of Blacks to reside within Palo Alto. 330 Cowper Street was constructed prior to the adoption of restrictive covenants (based on race and religion) and was located outside of the previously established small zone along Fife Avenue where Black families were allowed to rent property.
4. 541 E Crescent Drive8 is recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 2 resource, under local Criteria 2 and 5, and Criterion 6 (The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.) Built in 1928, it is a significant example of a Tudor Revival style building and a notable example of the work of significant local architect Charles K. Sumner. It is also an exemplar of craftsmanship by important local builder H.H. Dabinett. The building appears to retain a high level of integrity.
5. 421 California Avenue9 is recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 2 resource, under local Criteria 2 and 5. Built in 1929, it is significant as a notable example of a commercial building in the Spanish Colonial Revival style, and a rare example of the style in brick designed by prolific Palo Alto architect Birge Clark. Despite alterations to the facade including removal of 6 Link to nomination form and evaluation for 243-245 Webster:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/websterstreet_243.pdf
7 Link to nomination form and evaluation for 330 Cowper:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/cowperstreet_330.pdf
8 Link to nomination form and evaluation for 541 E Crescent:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/ecrescentdr_541.pdf
9 Link to nomination form and evaluation for 421 California:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/californiaave_421.pdf
Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 256 of 410
original wrought iron features, the building retains significance as a unique work by important local architect Birge Clark.
6. 1401 Edgewood Drive10 is recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 2 resource, under local Criteria 1, 2, and 5. Built in 1938 with a period of significance 1938-1960, it is significant for both its association with local Palo Alto resident Merritt C. Speidel and for its Colonial Revival design by David Clark and Walter Stromquist. The building was constructed for Speidel, who owned and operated a Palo Alto-based chain of eight newspapers that were published across the nation. Speidel lived with his family at the subject building until his death in 1960. Speidel’s personal residence is associated with his professional accomplishments as no other known location reflects that history. The building is a rare Colonial Revival design to come out of the office of prolific local architect Birge Clark, and was designed by his successors, David Clark and Walter Stromquist.
7. 1474 Edgewood Drive11 is recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 2 resource, under local Criteria 2 and 5. Built in 1935, 1474 Edgewood Drive is significant for its Spanish Colonial Revival style as designed by Birge Clark, who was one of Palo Alto’s most significant and prolific local architects.
8. 2340 Tasso Street12 is recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 2 resource, under local Criteria 2 and 5. Built in 1933, it is significant as a property that embodies the distinct characteristics of the French Norman and Storybook subtypes of the Period Revival style and is one of the earliest known Palo Alto residences designed by the prominent local builder- contractor William F. Klay.
9. 311 El Carmelo Avenue13 is recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 2 resource, under local Criteria 2. Built in 1894, it is significant as a good and rare example of an 10 Link to nomination form and evaluation for 1401 Edgewood:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/edgewooddrive_1401.pdf
11 Link to nomination form and evaluation for 1474 Edgewood:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/edgewooddrive_1474.pdf
12 Link to nomination form and evaluation for 2430 Tasso:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/tassostreet_2340.pdf
13 Link to nomination form and evaluation for 311 El Carmelo Ave:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/elcarmeloavenue_311.pdf Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 257 of 410
early house type that was likely adapted from pattern book designs to incorporate two separate entrances, and that demonstrates characteristics of the Queen Anne style.
10. 541 Bryant Street14 is recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 2 resource, under local Criteria 2, 5, and 6. Built in 1946, it is significant as an early example of a professional office building in downtown Palo Alto at a time when such buildings were rare, and as an early and successful example of the courtyard office building in Palo Alto that demonstrates Midcentury Modern design. In addition, the building is a good example in the career of Leslie I. Nichols, demonstrating his transition to Modern styles in the post-World War II period.
11. 437 Kipling Street15 is recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 2 resource, under local Criteria 1, 2 and 4 (The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare). Built in 1902 with a period of significance 1902-1947, it is significant for its use as a boarding house with a converted dress shop on the first floor. It is also a unique building type that combines stylistic elements of Queen Anne, Foursquare, and Colonial Revival.
12. 1275 Dana Avenue16 is recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 1 resource, under local Criteria 5 and 6. Built in 1935 with a period of significance 1935-1936, it is significant for its unique architectural design, high integrity and retention of character, and as the work of important local architects and builders W.F. Klay and H.H. Dabinett. It is also significant as the residence of San Francisco architect Charles H. Sawyer, who designed an addition in 1936 and occupied the residence through 1950.
13. 832 Kipling Street17 is recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 2 resource under local Criterion 2. Built in 1893, it is significant as a distinctive and stately example of the Queen Anne style.
14 Link to nomination form and evaluation: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp- development-services/historic-preservation/historic-inventory/bryantstreet_541.pdf 15 Link to nomination form and evaluation https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp- development-services/historic-preservation/historic-inventory/kiplingst_437.pdf 16 Link to nomination memo and evaluation for 1275 Dana:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/danaave_1275.pdf
17 Link to nomination memo and evaluation for 832 Kipling:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/kiplingst_832.pdf
Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 258 of 410
The following City properties were reviewed by staff from Administrative Services, Community Services, and Utilities prior to the HRB nominations hearings; staff did not identify any impediments to City operations or uses:
1. NW of Palo Alto Avenue & Hale Street (Cistern and Pump House): recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 2 resource18 under local Criteria 1 and 2. Built in 1924, it is an important part of the Palo Alto municipal water system that was developed from wells beginning in 1887. The subject building is significant as one of only two remaining early Palo Alto decorated utility structures and as an important part of the Palo Alto municipal water system that was developed from well sources beginning in 1887. The Cistern and Pump House also represents an important Northern California building typology that emerged from the City Beautiful Movement. It was designed to express pride in civic and public infrastructure.
2. 201 Alma Street (the water tower property): recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 1 resource19 under local Criterion 1, Criterion 4 (The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare) and Criterion 5. Built in 1910 with a period of significance 1910-1962, it is significant as a distinctive example of a decorated municipal building that embodies the design principles of the City Beautiful movement. It is an early example of reinforced concrete construction and is significant for its design by important local builder Maurice Couchot. It also is associated with early municipal water retention planning in Palo Alto.
When Council recently reviewed a park dedication ordinance for this site, Council recommended staff endeavor to place the site on the National Register of Historic Places; staff estimates the cost for consultant assistance on the task would be approximately $16,000. Additionally, staff is targeting the May 9 HRB meeting to enable a discussion with CSD staff about naming the park after an important person associated with Palo Alto Utilities, Fred Eyerly.
3. 2601 East Bayshore Road (The Federal Telegraph Company – Marsh Station): recommended for placement on the HRI as a Category 1 resource20, under local Criteria 1, 4, and 5. Built in 1921 and with a period of significance 1921 - 1977, the former Federal Telegraph Company – Marsh Station is significant for its remarkable contributions to the field of radio communications that impacted the field nationally and were significant to the American war 18 Link to HRE for pump and cistern https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp- development-services/historic-preservation/historic-inventory/cistern-and-pump-house.pdf 19 Link to HRE for Water Tower site https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp- development-services/historic-preservation/historic-inventory/almast_201.pdf 20 Link to HRE for ITT site: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development- services/historic-preservation/historic-inventory/EastBayshoreRoad_2601.pdf Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 259 of 410
effort in World War II. The company, which was originally founded in 1909 in Palo Alto as the Poulsen Wireless Telephone & Telegraph Company, was a pioneer in continuous wave transmission and long-distance transmission. Marsh Station was the hub of all West Coast wired communication (telegraph and telephone, and later ship-to-shore radio transmission) when it was completed in 1921, and led the world in how many channels of communication could be used simultaneously. While alterations have been made to the property with the removal of several structures, the site’s significant association with national communication history remain legible through the presence of its main surviving building within the vast open marshland and the various concrete anchorage blocks that remain scattered throughout the site and once supported a 626-foot-tall radio tower (present from 1921-1960).
The HRB discussed this nomination on January 25, 2024. The question is whether listing on the local inventory helps create opportunities for its reuse, so that if it is demolished in the future there is some plan to do interpretive work preserving and highlighting the history conveyed on the site so that the public could understand the significance of the site.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Nominating properties for listing on a historic inventory can be controversial for any jurisdiction. While historic resources do benefit from certain zoning and building code incentives, it may not be as meaningful for homeowners who have already improved or simply plan to maintain their homes.21
Communities that have an incentive program that reduces property taxes in exchange for the preservation and maintenance of designated historic resources, such as a Mills Act program, are likely to see more voluntary requests for listing. Reduced property taxes, however, in places like Palo Alto with high property values, may also impact revenue to the Palo Alto Unified School District. The HRB has long championed a Mills Act program for Palo Alto. The City has only one Mills Act contract but has not expanded this program. Expansion would require direction from the Council and would need to be balanced to other Council and department priority objectives.
Communities that preserve historic resources create a sense of place and identity and can foster community pride as it celebrates its connection to the past. Robust preservation efforts can support economic development and support environmental sustainability through rehabilitation and reduced waste from construction.
21 Preservation incentives webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development- Services/Historic-Preservation/Preservation-Incentives
Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 260 of 410
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no significant fiscal or resource impact associated with the recommendation in this report; all expenses have been previously accounted for in the department budget.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The City maintained a project website; provided certified mailing to property owners with eligible historic resources; held a community meeting in April and again in October 2023 followed by several evening public hearings before the HRB. Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Post on April 12, 2024, at least ten days in advance of the meeting.
NEXT STEPS
Based on the recommendation in this report, staff would continue to engage property owners whose properties are eligible for listing but who have not affirmatively expressed an interest in listing for the next two months. Afterwards, if there are any additional properties identified for listing, staff would advance that to the Council on the consent calendar.
For properties that are listed as part of the Council’s action, they would have six months to reconsider and request their property not be listed on the inventory. After that time period, properties would be included in the inventory.
As an alternative to the recommendation in this report, the Council could decide to direct staff to return with a record of land use action to nominate all 63 properties recommended by the HRB.
If so directed, staff recommends rescheduling the item for a future public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Historic designation of properties is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines per Section 21065. Court cases have established that historic resources do not need to be on a register to be protected under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when a discretionary permit or approval is required. CEQA may, therefore, require reviewing a project for potential historic status even if it is not on the local historic inventory. This means that the City’s Historic Ordinance, local inventory, and procedures alone will not make clear the requirements that a property may be subject to, especially pursuant to CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action with Exhibit for April 22 2024 Inventory Update Attachment B: List of 147 Properties Eligible for HRI in the 2023 Survey Report (one property is already listed on the local HRI)
Attachment C: List of 14 Properties Removed from Eligibility in Survey Report APPROVED BY: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 261 of 410