COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Planning and Building Department

DATE:

September 21, 2009

BOARD MEETING DATE:

October 6, 2009

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10 days, within 300 feet

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development

SUBJECT:

Consideration a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Medium-Low Density Residential to Office Commercial and a rezoning from Single-Family Residential (R-1/S-92) to Planned Unit Development-134 (PUD-134). The purpose of the amendment is to allow the construction and operation of a 12,600 sq. ft., 2-story commercial/ office building with underground parking. The project also requires the merger of two parcels and a grading permit for excavation in the amount of 12,200 cubic yards. The property is located at 2126 and 2128 Sand Hill Road, in the unincorporated West Menlo Park area.

County File Number:

PLN 2008-00136 (Baugher)

RECOMMENDATION

1.

Certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration as complete and adequate in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2.

Adopt the resolution to change the subject parcel’s General Plan Land Use designation from “Medium-Low Density Residential” to “Office Commercial.”

3.

Adopt the ordinance to change the subject parcel’s Zoning Map designation from R-1/S-92 (Single-Family Residential/10,000 sq. ft. Minimum Parcel Size) to “PUD-134” (Planned Unit Development-134).

4.

Adopt the ordinance to enact the “PUD-134” (Planned Unit Development-134) Regulations, applicable only to the subject parcels.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to change the General Plan land use designation from Medium-Low Density Residential to Office Commercial, and to rezone the subject property, at 2126 and 2128 Sand Hill Road in unincorporated West Menlo Park, from Single-Family Residential (R-1/S-92) to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD zoning would allow the construction and operation of a 2-story 12,600 sq. ft., LEED Certified, office building and a 12,000 sq. ft. underground parking garage with 50 spaces. A grading permit to allow excavation of approximately 12,200 cubic yards is also required.

The project site is approximately 0.46 acres, and is comprised of two legal parcels (8,662 sq. ft. and 11,900 sq. ft.), which are a part of a small unincorporated area that is within the sphere of influence of the City of Menlo Park, and adjacent to it on three sides. The current zoning on both parcels is R-1/S-92, single-family residential with a 10,000 sq. minimum ft. lot size. Public utilities will be provided by the Menlo Park Municipal Water District, and West Bay Sanitary District.

Each parcel is currently developed with a single-family residential unit and associated driveways, garages, paving, and landscaping. The existing development will be demolished prior to construction. Adjacent uses are primarily high-density residential.

The proposed use is a professional office building which will conduct the majority of business during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and have most deliveries during 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. No retail commercial, medical office, or dental office uses are proposed with this PUD proposal. There are 17 offices and 9 conference rooms within the proposed commercial building. The proposed PUD has 50 parking spaces through a combination of types, including standard, compact spaces and tandem spaces, to meet the parking requirements for the project.

Planning Commission Action: On August 26, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended approval with additional conditions of approval. The new conditions of approval (found in the decision letter dated September 14, 2009, numbers 2-11), which include requirements for a loading zone, a widened driveway, clarification on landscaping and allowed uses, and restrictions on access to the green roof.

Report Prepared By: Erica Adams, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1828

Property Owner: 2128 Sand Hill, LLC

Project Applicant: Steve Baugher

Location: 2126 and 2128 Sand Hill Road, West Menlo Park

APNs: 074-120-140 and 074-120-160

Parcel Sizes: 8,662 and 11,900 sq. ft. (total of 20,562 sq. ft.)

Parcel Legality: Two legal parcels; subdivision approved (County File Number X6E-1138)

Existing Zoning: R-1/S-92 (Single-Family Residential/10,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size)

General Plan Designation: Medium-Low Density Residential (2.4 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre)

Sphere-of-Influence: City of Menlo Park

Existing Land Use: Two single-family residences

Water Supply: Menlo Park Water District

Sewage Disposal: West Bay Sanitary District

Flood Zone: Flood Zone X; Area of Minimal Flooding

Environmental Evaluation: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20-day review period from January 12, 2009 through February 4, 2009, and a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated from July 3, 2009 through July 23, 2009.

Setting: The site is part of a small unincorporated “island” consisting of three parcels, which are adjacent to the city limits of the City of Menlo Park on three sides. It is approximately 120 feet south of the northwest corner of Sand Hill Road and Santa Cruz Avenue intersection. The subject property is located on, and takes access from, the north side of Sand Hill Road. The 20,522 sq. ft. of land was once a single parcel which was legally subdivided, by Subdivision X6E-1138. Currently, the site consists of two legal parcels; an 11,900 sq. ft. flag lot parcel and a second, 8,662 sq. ft. parcel. A condition of approval has been included to merge the parcels prior to the issuance of building permits.

The property has a gentle slope of less than 10% and is developed with two single-family residences, constructed in 1955 and 1957. There are 17 trees on the site, most of which appear to have been planted as part of the single-family residential development. All of the trees on the site are proposed to be removed to accommodate construction of the building, and will be replaced.

The current zoning is low-density residential. Uses surrounding the project site are medium and high-density residential and commercial. Menlo Commons, a 74-unit senior-living complex, is to the northwest. Pacific Hill is a 3-story, 26-unit condominium complex located northeast of the project site. The White Oak townhouse complex is located to the west and consists of 10 units. Zoning on the adjacent parcel to the east is PUD-129 approved in 2001 by the Board of Supervisors. PUD-129 allowed a 12-employee office building and two residential units. Construction was completed in 2003.

To date, the project has been through three County public meetings: a major development pre-application meeting on November 28, 2007, and Planning Commission meetings on March 25, 2009 and August 26, 2009.

Planning Commission Action: On March 25, 2009, the project was presented to the Planning Commission for its consideration. The Planning Commission found that the Mitigated Negative Declaration inadequately addressed pedestrian and bicycle safety and noise, and could not be certified. In addition, the Commission could not make the required findings for the requested General Plan amendment and zoning change due to the environmental issues, site design, and proposed development standards such as setbacks and parking; therefore, the Commission recommended denial of the project to the Board of Supervisors.

The applicant subsequently modified the project to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission and on August 26, 2009, the Planning Commission reconsidered a modified project, and recommended for approval by the Board of Supervisors a commercial only alternative which removed the residential component from the proposed project. The Commission also added new conditions of approval to the project (found in the decision letter dated August 31, 2009, numbers 2-11), which include requirements for a loading zone, a widened driveway, clarification of landscaping, limitation of allowed uses, and restricted access to the green roof.

Certain aspects of the project have led to some changes in the project as a result of public concerns and requirements imposed by the County. The key issues can be categorized in three areas, (1) environmental issues (noise and pedestrian and bicycle safety), (2) development standards (floor area ratio, lot coverage, setbacks, and parking), and (3) operation and quality of life issues (business restrictions, landscaping, and relocation of elevator). A summary of these issues and the resulting modifications are discussed below.

DISCUSSION

A.

KEY ISSUES

1.

Environmental Issues (Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Noise)

Environmental issues were identified by the public and the Planning Commission at the March 25, 2009 hearing. Primarily, concerns were raised about noise and pedestrian and bicycle safety. A new Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to re-evaluate these impacts, with new mitigation measures included to address the concerns.

a.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety

Neighbors believed the initial driveway design did not offer adequate safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. When asked to re-evaluate the project for pedestrian and bicycle safety, the San Mateo County Department of Public Works required a 16-foot transition section for the driveway, at less than 5% grade prior to intersecting the sidewalk to ensure that drivers of vehicles could stop on a level surface to look for pedestrians and cyclists.

The driveway was redesigned and the new design provides 12 feet of driveway intersection at a 5% grade prior to the sidewalk. The redesigned driveway was acceptable to the Department of Public Works due to single-direction traffic and right-turn only access. To further increase pedestrian safety, mitigation measures for signage warning drivers to watch for vehicles and a silent alarm system that alerts pedestrians to vehicles exiting the garage were required.

At the August 26, 2009 meeting, the Planning Commission conditioned the project to widen the driveway apron to 24 feet as recommended by the City of Menlo Park. In addition, the Planning Commission added a condition of approval requiring a loading zone for the project which would prevent vehicles from stopping in the bicycle lane on Sand Hill Road. A loading zone has been created, and the design, location and site distance analysis has been reviewed and found acceptable by the Department of Public Works. The loading zone accommodates vehicles 22 feet in length and appears on the revised plans. Any delivery vehicle that cannot fit into the space safely will require submission of a traffic control plan to the County of San Mateo Public Works Department (Traffic) for review and approval.

b.

Noise

The subject property is in a “Noise Impact Area,” as defined by General Plan Policy 16.9. According to standards found in the General Plan, the existing noise levels are acceptable for the proposed commercial use. Environmental noise assessment studies for the project, dated April 15, 2008 and May 5, 2009, were submitted. The April 15 study showed the existing environmental noise levels at the site range from a high of 72 dBA at the proposed building facade along Sand Hill Road to a low of 56 dBA on the northern corner of the site. The report also states that it is expected that there will be a 1-dBA increase over the next year or so due to increased traffic. With standard construction techniques and operational mitigations, no significant impacts from noise were evaluated in association with the project.

The potential impact from noise from the project to surrounding properties was raised at the March 25 meeting and was evaluated in the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration. In all of the instances of concern, such as outdoor conversations and elevator use, the noise levels from the source were lower than the existing ambient noise from traffic on Sand Hill Road and Santa Cruz Road, and no additional mitigation measures were required, based on both researched noise measurement standards and manufacturer’s machinery specifications.

At the August Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended a version of the project which has reduced square footage on the second floor and a green roof. To ensure that occupants of the office building did not congregate on the second floor roof, which would impinge on privacy of adjacent neighbors and possibly create noise concerns, a condition of approval was added to restrict access to the second floor roof for maintenance purposes only.

2.

Development Standards

a.

Parking

General Plan Policy 12.19 for parking standards allows for the consideration of the needs of the individual land use, and for the creation of a specific parking management strategy. For business and professional office uses, the County requires one parking space for every 200 sq. ft. of publicly accessible/non-private floor space. The standards for parking for commercial development in surrounding communities are similar to the County’s. The City of Menlo Park requires 1.2 spaces per 200 sq. ft. and both Redwood City and Palo Alto require 0.8 parking spaces for 200 sq. ft. Under the County standard, fifty-four (54) parking spaces would be required for the recommended project.

However, since a PUD District can include parking provisions tailored to the proposed project, 50 on-site parking spaces are proposed for the PUD project. Ten of the proposed 50 spaces fully meet the County’s parking standard of being “free and clear” and 9’x19’ in size; eight compact parking spaces are 8’x19’ in size; two handicap-accessible spaces meet ADA size requirements, and the remaining 30 “tandem” spaces meet the size requirement but are not “free and clear.” Six individual mechanical units will each provide parking for five cars. Each unit requires the space equivalent to three standard-size parking spaces. This mechanical parking system is superior to the system initially proposed in that it has “self-service” operation.

The proposed building will have 17 offices, and the proposed interior configuration would suggest an employee base of about 25-30 people. The applicant’s operational statement indicates that the number of people on the site is expected to range from 15 to 40 people using the building. The site is not along a public bus route; therefore, the encouragement of ridesharing, flex-time work hours and telecommuting is necessary to reduce parking needs.

To ensure that the proposed parking is adequate, conditions of approval have been added to the proposal. A condition requiring a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan is required for the initial tenant, and any and all subsequent tenants of the building. As described in Condition 19 of Attachment A, a TDM plan which offers ways to reduce the need for on-site parking by employees or guests visiting the site must be submitted for approval and re-evaluated 12 months later. Another condition of approval for the project design is to reduce parking demand and restrict the number of employees who can utilize the site to 40 as the maximum number.

At the August meeting, the Planning Commission requested that a shower and changing area be provided for cyclists, to encourage this alternative transportation method and reduce the demand for parking. Finally, it was required that 10 of the non-tandem parking spaces be fitted with charging stations for electric vehicles, and construction design should allow the remaining 10, non-tandem parking spaces to be capable of being retrofitted for charging stations in the future.

b.

Setbacks, Lot Coverage

At the March hearing, neighbors and the Planning Commission raised concerns about the bulk of the building with respect to compatibility with existing development standards on the site and in the vicinity. (See chart below.)

At the August hearing, the Planning Commission recommended a version of the initial proposal which did not include residential units. This version of the project also reduces the floor area which brings the project into greater compatibility with adjacent development.

The recommended proposal will conform to the existing front and rear yard, residential S-92 zoning setbacks. However, the placement of the elevator on the side of the building will create a 5-foot, 6-inch side yard on the east side, and the trellis will create a 5-foot, 1-inch setback on the west side. The building (with the exception of the elevator and trellises) is proposed to be 13 feet from the eastern property line and 10 feet from the western property line. The setbacks experienced at the ground level are comparable to commercial districts.

Within commercial districts which do not abut residential development, “zero yard” setbacks are allowed, and typically a 5-foot setback is required when residential abuts commercial. PUD zoning allows site-specific setbacks; however, the proposed setbacks are similar to most commercial zoning in the County.

3.

Operational/Quality of Life Issues

The approval of additional commercial development in this area was of concern to the residents in the adjacent high-density multi-family buildings. If the subject property was developed at the density allowed on adjacent properties to the east, up to 23 units could be built; however, there is a community consensus not to allow more high-density residential development on the site.

The applicant held several meetings with homeowners associations and interested parties to hear and address concerns. In response to concerns raised by the public, the Planning Commission, and County departments, the following modifications and conditions were included.

To reduce privacy and/or noise concerns for residents on adjacent parcels: (1) access to the second floor roof has been limited for maintenance purposes only; (2) landscaping has been clarified to include a redwood tree hedge to be planted between the subject site and White Oak, and tall trees to be planted in the rear of the property as screening for Menlo Commons; and (3) the residential component was removed from the project.

To address other quality of life concerns, the Planning Commission added these conditions: (1) medical and dental offices are expressly prohibited; and (2) the automatic shade/blind system was required to be timed with sunrise and sunset on a year-round basis. In addition, the applicant is providing access to the new fire hydrant to the White Oak complex, which does not have water sprinklers.

4.

Findings

Approval of the PUD proposal requires that findings be made regarding the proposed General Plan Land Use Map Amendment, the Planned Unit Development District Rezoning and Grading Permit. These findings are discussed in the “Key Issues” in Section A of the August 26, 2009 Planning Commission report, and summarized here.

To enact a PUD District, the Planning Commission shall have “reviewed a precise plan of the subject area and its environs, and found that the proposed zoning of the area would be in harmony with said plan, and would not be in conflict with the County Master Plan [i.e., 1986 General Plan], or with any current land use plan for a sub-area of the County previously adopted by the Commission.” The Planning Commission has reviewed the subject area including zoning for the adjacent community and found that it is harmonious and not in conflict with the General Plan or other land use plans.

The necessary findings to allow the requested PUD District are as follows.

a.

Is a desirable guide for future growth of the subject area of the County.

The professional office building is a compatible use which will not replicate or compound land use impacts associated with high-density residential uses. Based on existing conditions, construction features, conditions of approval, and the nature and scope of the proposed commercial use, the project will not significantly intensify the existing impacts from high-density residential, with respect to traffic patterns accessing Sand Hill Road, and the increased noise levels.

In addition, since the project is designed to attain LEED certification status, the project is developed with a high level of attention to the environmental impact that would be created by construction, as well as, the ongoing use and maintenance of the building.

b.

Will not be detrimental to the character and social and economic stability of the subject area and its environs, and will assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas.

As previously discussed, the project has been designed to reduce impacts to the surrounding properties. Anticipated impacts have been mitigated and conditioned in a way to ensure there is no detrimental change in the social character of the area. The proposed office will not involve manufacturing, retail sales, distribution, or medical offices; the size of the employee base has been limited and activity outside of the building on the site has been limited. Design features such as automatic shades, vegetative buffer screens, and placement of equipment underground greatly reduce impacts. In addition, there is an economic benefit to the area since the office employees will utilize surrounding retail businesses. This combination of activity makes the proposed PUD compatible with surrounding developments.

c.

Will be in harmony with the zoning in the adjoining unincorporated area.

The surrounding zoning is PUD for a professional office complex use in the unincorporated area, and high-density residential in the incorporated areas of the City of Menlo Park. Both types of zoning are compatible with the proposed use. The recommended project will involve use(s) which will have non-significant environmental impacts when mitigated, such as noise and traffic. Environmental impacts from the site on surrounding uses have been evaluated and with design features and limitations on the use, the intent of the proposed project is to create a harmonic situation.

d.

Will obviate the menace to the public safety resulting from land uses proposed adjacent to highways in the County, and will not cause undue interference with existing or prospective traffic movements on said highways.

The project site is not adjacent to any County highway; however, it is adjacent to a major arterial road. As discussed in the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, the applicant conducted a traffic study, and driveway design study to evaluate the impact of the project on Sand Hill Road.

The reports were reviewed by the Department of Public Works and it was determined that there would not be a significant impact to the Level-of-Service on the road created by the proposed development. In addition, the project’s ingress and egress locations were evaluated to ensure that there is adequate pedestrian and bicycle safety, as well as line-of-sight clearance and space between driveways on adjacent properties.

To ensure adequate transportation safety, several features have been incorporated. These changes range from driveway redesign, signage, a loading zone, and vehicle egress warning system. Review of the proposed plans indicates standards for safety for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists have been met by this proposal. The City of Menlo Park reviewed the project and the recommendations from Menlo Park and Public Works Department were incorporated into the project.

e.

Will provide adequate light, air, privacy and convenience of access to the subject property and further, that said property shall not be made subject to unusual or undue risk from fire, inundation, or other dangers.

The proposed design features a building constructed primarily from glass and wood. Therefore, the offices will have adequate light. There is a small park/green space proposed to the rear of the building.

No access concerns were raised in the traffic study or raised by the reviewing agencies. There are no mapped dangers, and the review and conditioning of the project by Menlo Park Fire and San Mateo County Building Section manage typical risks from dangers such as fire.

f.

Will not result in overcrowding of the land or undue congestion of population.

The surrounding, high-density residential buildings complement the commercial/office use in that traffic and noise generation patterns will not occur at the same times and compound issues for residents. No residential uses are proposed on the site. In addition, the office presents an opportunity for there to be a “life/work” balance for nearby residents.

With respect to compliance with the Grading Ordinance, the mitigations which are necessary to prevent any significant impact from the proposed grading are discussed in detail in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. All of the findings can be made since the applicant agrees to comply with the Grading Ordinance and conditions from the Geotechnical Section.

B.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

An Initial Study was completed and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued and circulated for this project according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, with a review period from January 12, 2009 through February 4, 2009. A revised Mitigated Negative Declaration with a circulation review period of July 3 through July 23, 2009 was prepared to more thoroughly address pedestrian and bicycle safety and noise. New mitigation measures were added to ensure adequate pedestrian and bicycle safety. No additional comments were received during the comment period.

C.

REVIEWING AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS

County Building Inspection Section

County Department of Public Works

County Counsel

State Regional Water Quality Control Board

City of Menlo Park

Menlo Park Fire Protection District

West Bay Sanitary District

California Water Service Company

White Oaks Homeowners Association

Sharon Heights Condominium Association

Pacific Hill Homeowners Association

The approval of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development for a professional office building, and the associated grading permit, contributes to the Livable Communities 2025 Shared Vision outcome because it is consistent with the County’s land use regulations, including the General Plan and Zoning Regulations. The property is located within the West Menlo Park area, near transportation corridors, existing commercial, and residential uses, and creates a live/work community.

FISCAL IMPACT

None.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

Detailed Location Map (Showing Surrounding Zoning and Uses)

C.

Aerial Location Map

D.

General Plan Land Use Map

E.

Project Plans (Rendering Site, Floor, Elevations, Grading)

F.

Operational Statement

G.

Planning Commission Decision Letter Dated September 14, 2009

H.

August 26, 2009 Planning Commission Staff Report

I.

March 25, 2009 Planning Commission Staff Report

J.

Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration with Initial Study and Environmental Studies

K.

Summary of Comments and Questions from Major Development Meeting (dated December 14, 2007)

L.

Resolution and Map to Amend General Plan

M.

“PUD-134” District Regulations Ordinance for Zoning Text

N.

“PUD-134” District Regulations Ordinance for Zoning Map

O.

Correspondence in Reverse Date Order

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit File Number: PLN 2008-00136

Board Meeting Date: October 6, 2009

Prepared By: Erica Adams, Project Planner

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors that they:

Regarding the Environmental Review, Find:

1.

That the Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete, correct and adequate and prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and applicable State and County guidelines. The public review period for this document was July 3, 2009 to July 23, 2009.

2.

That, on the basis of the Initial Study, comments received hereto, and testimony presented and considered at the public hearing, there is no substantial evidence that the project, if subject to the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, will have a significant effect on the environment. For impacts identified in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration as “significant unless mitigated,” staff has proposed mitigation measures which, when implemented, ensure that impacts are not significant. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration does not identify any significant or cumulative impacts associated with this project.

3.

That the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of San Mateo County. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the project planner.

4.

That the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, agreed to by the applicant, placed as conditions on the project, and identified as part of this public hearing, have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan in conformance with California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. Proposed mitigation measures are included as Conditions 1, and 15 through 37 in the recommended conditions of approval in this attachment.

Regarding the General Plan Land Use Map Amendment, Find:

5.

That the General Plan Land Use Map amendment is compatible with, will create a harmonious arrangement of land uses with, and will not be in conflict with the General Plan as discussed in Section A.1 of this staff report; and

6.

Adopt a resolution amending the County General Plan Land Use Map to change the subject parcels’ General Plan Map designation from “Medium-Low Density Residential” to “Office Commercial.”

Regarding the Planned Unit Development District Rezoning, Find:

7.

That the proposed zoning of the area would be in harmony with the submitted plan of the subject area and its environs, and would not be in conflict with the County Master Plan [i.e., 1986 General Plan], or with any current land use plan for a sub-area of the County previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and that the specific PUD District under consideration:

a.

Is a desirable guide for future growth of the subject area of the County.

b.

Will not be detrimental to the character and social and economic stability of the subject area and its environs, and will assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas.

c.

Will be in harmony with the zoning in the adjoining unincorporated area.

d.

Will obviate the menace to the public safety resulting from land uses proposed adjacent to highways in the County, and will not cause undue interference with existing or prospective traffic movements on said highways.

e.

Will provide adequate light, air, privacy and convenience of access to the subject property and further, that said property shall not be made subject to unusual or undue risk from fire, inundation, or other dangers.

f.

Will not result in overcrowding of the land or undue congestion of population.

PUD-134 will allow for professional/commercial/administrative office uses, which are similar to other uses found in the vicinity, and have been historically compatible with each other. The intensity of the commercial use has been limited to ensure that it is appropriate for this site and does not negatively impact the adjacent high-density residential uses.

In respect to the allowed uses, and with respect to the specific design of the PUD, the proposed zoning is compatible with both County zoning districts and zoning districts located in the City of Menlo Park.

Environmental studies were conducted to ensure that there will not be any threat to public safety. The project has been reviewed and evaluated by the Menlo Park Fire Department. In addition, light and shadow studies have been conducted to maximize light, air, privacy and convenience; and

8.

Adopt the ordinance to change the subject parcel’s Zoning Map designation from R-1/S-92 (Single-Family Residential/10,000 sq. ft. Minimum Parcel Size) to “PUD-134” (Planned Unit Development-134); and

9.

Adopt the ordinance to enact the “PUD-134” (Planned Unit Development-134) Regulations, applicable only to the subject parcels.

Regarding the Grading Permit, Find:

10.

That the granting of the permit will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment due to the fact that the proposed grading will be subject to conditions of approval that include pre-construction, during, and post-construction measures to ensure that the project is in compliance with San Mateo County Grading Ordinance.

11.

That the project conforms to the criteria of Chapter 8, Division VII of the County Grading Ordinance, including the standards referenced in Section 8605 thereof.

These standards are addressed through the erosion and sediment control measures that have been required, must remain in place, and will be monitored throughout construction. A dust control plan must be submitted for approval by the Department of Public Works and implemented on the site. The proposed grading plan has been prepared by a licensed civil engineer and reviewed by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works and grading is only allowed during the period between April 15 and October 15. In addition, the project is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.

12.

That the project is consistent with the General Plan with respect to grading allowed on land designated as “Office Commercial.”

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Current Planning Section

1.

The project shall be constructed in compliance with the plans approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 2009. Any changes or revisions to the approved plans shall be submitted for review by the Community Development Director to determine if they are in substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to being incorporated into building plans. Minor adjustments to the project may be approved by the Community Development Director if they are consistent with the intent of, and are in substantial conformance with, this approval.

2.

Deliveries to the site shall be made, whenever possible, in vehicles which do not exceed 22 feet in length. A traffic control plan, which may require issuance of an encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works, is required for delivery vehicles which exceed 22 feet in length.

3.

A shower stall and changing area shall be provided in the building, to facilitate bicycle commuting by office occupants of the building.

4.

Access to the green roof above the rear portion of the first floor shall be modified to allow access through one door (all other doors shown on Alternate Plan shall be converted to half doors or windows).

5.

Access to both green roofs (over the rear of the first floor and over the second floor) shall be allowed for maintenance only.

6.

The landscape plan shall include the following:

a.

A redwood tree hedge (consisting of redwood trees over 8 feet in height, planted not more than 5 feet apart, and shall be regularly pruned to ensure that it does not exceed the height of the building) shall be provided for screening on the southwest side of the property facing the White Oak residential development.

b.

Tall trees shall be planted in the rear, northern side, of the property for screening for Menlo Commons.

7.

The PUD-134 Ordinance shall be revised to read that medical and dental offices are explicitly prohibited.

8.

The driveway entrance shall be flared to 24 feet as far back from the apron as feasible and a silent warning system shall be included to alert pedestrians on both sides of the driveway to vehicles approaching the street from the driveway.

9.

Glare and light from the interior of the building shall be minimized by an automatic, opaque shade/blind system which will be timed and operated to function from sunset to sunrise on a year-round basis.

10.

The PUD-134 Ordinance shall be revised to remove the residential use component on the site, since the alternative version of the project is the only one recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.

11.

Charging stations for electric vehicles as well as standard plugs for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles shall be initially provided in at least 10 parking spaces, and construction design and electric wiring within the cement garage walls shall allow the remaining 10 non-tandem spaces to include charging stations as well as standard plugs in the future.

12.

The approval for the grading permit shall be valid for one year from the decision date. If the grading permit (issued as the “hard card” with all necessary information filled out and signatures obtained) has not been issued within this time period, this approval will expire. The grading permit will only be issued in conjunction with the issued building permit. An extension to this approval will be considered upon written request and payment of applicable fees 60 days prior to expiration.

13.

The applicant shall submit the following fees to the Current Planning Section:

Within four (4) working days of the final approval date of this permit, the applicant shall pay an environmental filing fee of $1,993.00 (fee effective January 1, 2009), as required under Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d), plus a $50.00 recording fee (total $2,043). The check shall be made payable to the San Mateo County Clerk, and submitted to the project planner to file with the Notice of Determination.

14.

The applicant shall merge the two subdivided lots that comprise the subject parcel. The applicant shall submit to the project planner a new legal description of the merged parcels for final formatting with the Planning and Building Department. The merger document shall be prepared by the Planning Department and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.

15.

The applicant shall apply for a building permit and shall adhere to all requirements from the Building Inspection Section, the Department of Public Works and the respective Fire Authority.

16.

All new power and telephone utility lines from the street or nearest existing utility pole to the new building on the property shall be placed underground. No new utility pole(s) are permitted for installation.

17.

Water conservation devices shall be installed throughout the new building and all landscaping shall be required to be water conserving and/or drought tolerant.

18.

The number of employees on-site shall be restricted to a maximum of 40 to ensure that the proposed parking is adequate.

19.

A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program shall be prepared and submitted to the County for review and approval by all tenants occupying the proposed building. The TDM shall include an operational statement that identifies operational aspects about the business which impact parking demand on the site. These aspects include the forecasted maximum number of employees, weekly staffing patterns, hours of operation, frequency of special events or meetings which will cause more than 40 people to be on-site at a time, etc. The TDM shall be re-evaluated one year after the initial approval. Subsequent evaluation shall occur, if deemed necessary by the Community Development Director, should community concern arise about a noticeable change in parking demand on the site. Subsequent evaluations shall not exceed a bi-annual timeframe. (A mitigation monitoring fee shall apply for each review.)

20.

Only those trees identified on the Tree Removal Plan of the project submittal are approved for removal. Any additional tree removal is subject to the San Mateo County Significant or Heritage Tree Ordinance and will require a separate permit for removal.

21.

The applicant shall be restricted to the one sign proposed to be in the front yard, along Sand Hill Road. The applicant shall submit a detailed sign plan design, for review and approval by the Community Development Director, including the use of a number and letter font that corresponds with a design in keeping with the building design. The sign shall not be lit in any fashion.

22.

The applicant shall post a sign clearly visible on the driveway alerting those exiting the site to watch for oncoming pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic to their left (traveling westward on Sand Hill Road). The sign message shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director prior to installation and the sign shall be installed prior to the final inspection approval of the building permit.

23.

The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the submitted arborist report (dated September 12, 2007) with regard to all tree preservation and maintenance action. The applicant shall retain the services of an arborist to confirm in writing that he has observed that the necessary tree protection measures have been implemented prior to the issuance of the building permit. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that all of the subject trees are protected and survive through the construction process.

24.

The applicant shall implement all planting elements of the approved landscape plan prior to the applicant scheduling a final inspection and the Planning Department’s final approval on the building permit.

25.

A landscape plan showing a minimum of 16 replacement trees, of 5-gallon size and of an indigenous, non-invasive species, shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Modifications to the plan shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation. The trees shall be planted prior to the final occupancy inspection on the associated building permit. Photographs of the planted trees shall be provided to the Planning Department as proof of compliance with this condition and before a final sign off by the Current Planning Section on the building permit.

26.

To protect the two trees on the adjacent parcel to the north, grading operations shall encroach no closer than five times the trunk diameter. A licensed arborist shall be on-site to supervise excavation near said trees. Should encroachment within the area become necessary, hand digging is mandatory.

27.

The project driveway shall have no less than 12-foot transition section at 5% slope or less adjacent to the sidewalk.

28.

Landscaping on both sides of the driveway shall consist of low-growth plants which typically do not exceed 2 feet in height, and shall be maintained to not exceed 3 feet in height (36 inches).

29.

Signage shall be installed and maintained in the following manner “Caution Pedestrian Crossing” and shall be placed in a manner which is visible to vehicles exiting the garage. (See also Item 22 above.)

30.

A silent signaling device shall be installed to alert pedestrians to exiting vehicles approaching from the driveway. (See also Item 8 above.)

31.

During and upon completion of any trenching/grading operation within a tree’s dripline, should any roots greater than one inch (1”) in diameter be damaged, broken or severed, within 24 hours, root pruning, to include flush cutting and sealing of exposed roots, should be accomplished under the supervision of a qualified arborist to minimize root deterioration beyond the soil line.

32.

Deliveries to the site shall be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.

33.

Construction hours shall conform with the City of Menlo Park’s Noise Ordinance. Construction is allowed Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Power equipment may not exceed 85 dBA at any time. No construction is permitted on weekends or holidays.

34.

All project equipment shall, at the time of installation, not exceed the City of Menlo Park’s Noise Ordinance, and be maintained in a manner that the noise produced by the equipment remains below the acceptable decibel levels; this includes that the placement of the equipment be in a shelter if necessary. Ambient decibel levels for the project shall not exceed those of the City of Menlo Park’s Noise Ordinance.

35.

All project structures shall meet the requirements and recommendations of the California Building Standards Code and local amendments, Structural Engineers Association of California, the County Geologist, and the soil and foundation investigation report submitted for the project site. Assumptions and design parameters are subject to approval by the County Geologist.

36.

If, during the construction phase, any archaeological evidence is uncovered or encountered, all excavations on the site within 30 feet shall be halted, and the applicant shall retain an archaeologist to investigate the findings as well as informing the County. In addition, the Current Planning Section shall be notified of such findings and no additional work shall be done on-site until the archaeologist

has recommended appropriate measures and those measures have been approved by the Current Planning Section.

37.

No site disturbance shall occur, including any grading or tree removal, until a grading permit and building permit have been issued concurrently.

38.

Upon completion of the excavation for the below ground parking structure/building footprint, Paragon Geotechnical, Inc. (or another reasonably acceptable, qualified geotechnical engineer), shall observe the exposed sub-grade prior to construction of foundations/slab-on-grade to verify that the structure will be founded in the bearing material anticipated.

39.

Groundwater control (i.e., watering, water-tight shoring) will be required for excavation extending into the groundwater table.

40.

Below ground structures shall be waterproofed as appropriate. Waterproofing shall be designed by the project architect or structural engineer.

41.

The project shall adhere to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Particulate Matter emissions control measures during all demolition and construction activities.

42.

To reduce the impact of construction activities on neighboring properties, applicant shall comply with the following:

a.

All debris shall be contained on-site; a dumpster or trash bin shall be provided on-site during construction to prevent debris from blowing onto adjacent properties. The applicant shall monitor the site to ensure that trash is picked up and appropriately disposed of daily.

b.

The applicant shall remove all construction equipment from the site upon completion of the use and/or need of each piece of equipment which shall include, but not be limited to tractors, back hoes, cement mixers, etc.

c.

The applicant shall ensure that no construction related vehicles shall impede through traffic along Sand Hill Road right-of-way. All construction vehicles shall be parked on-site outside the public right-of-way or in locations which do not impede safe access on Sand Hill Road. There shall be no storage of construction vehicles in the public right-of-way.

43.

Prior to the beginning of any construction activities, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval an erosion and drainage control plan, which shows how the transport and discharge of soil and pollutants shall be minimized. The plan shall be designed to minimize potential sources of sediment, control the amount of runoff and its ability to carry sediment by diverting incoming flows and impeding internally generated flows, and retain sediment that is picked up on the project site through the use of sediment-capturing devices. The plan shall also limit application, generation, and migration of toxic substances, ensure the proper storage and disposal of toxic materials, and apply nutrients at rates necessary to establish and maintain vegetation without causing significant nutrient runoff to surface waters. Said plan shall adhere to the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program “General Construction and Site Supervision Guidelines,” including:

a.

Sequence construction to install sediment-capturing devices first, followed by runoff control measures and runoff conveyances. No construction activities shall begin until after all proposed measures are in place.

b.

Minimize the area of bare soil exposed at one time (phased grading).

c.

Clear only areas essential for construction.

d.

Within five days of clearing or inactivity in construction, stabilize bare soils through either non-vegetative BMPs such as mulching, or vegetative erosion control methods such as seeding. Vegetative erosion control shall be established within two weeks of seeding/planting.

e.

Construction entrances shall be stabilized immediately after grading and frequently maintained to prevent erosion and control dust.

f.

Control wind-born dust through the installation of wind barriers such as hay bales and/or sprinkling.

g.

Soil and/or other construction-related material stockpiled on-site shall be placed a minimum of 200 feet from all wetlands and drain courses. Stockpiled soils shall be covered with tarps at all times of the year.

h.

Intercept runoff above disturbed slopes and convey it to a permanent channel or storm drain by using earth dikes, perimeter dikes or swales, or diversions. Use check dams where appropriate.

i.

Provide protection for runoff conveyance outlets by reducing flow velocity and dissipating flow energy.

j.

Install storm drain inlet protection that traps sediment before it enters any adjacent storm sewer systems. This barrier shall consist of filter fabric, straw bales, gravel, or sand bags.

k.

Install sediment traps/basins at outlets of diversions, channels, slope drains, or other runoff conveyances that discharge sediment-laden water. Sediment traps/basins shall be cleaned out when 50% full (by volume).

l.

Use silt fence and/or vegetated filter strips to trap sediment contained in sheet flow. The maximum drainage area to the fence should be 0.5 acre or less per 100 feet of fence. Silt fences shall be inspected regularly and sediment removed when it reaches 1/3 the fence height. Vegetated filter strips should have relatively flat slopes and be vegetated with erosion-resistant species.

44.

Erosion and sediment control during the course of this grading work shall be according to a plan prepared and signed by the engineer of record and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Current Planning Section. Revisions to the approved erosion and sediment control plan shall be prepared and signed by the engineer. The engineer shall be responsible for the following:

a.

Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall submit, to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, a plan for any off-site hauling operations. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: size of trucks, haul route, disposal site, dust and debris control measures, and time and frequency of haul trips. As part of the review of the submitted plan, the County may place such restrictions on the hauling operation, as it deems necessary.

b.

It shall be the responsibility of the applicant’s engineer to regularly inspect the erosion control measures and determine that they are functioning as designed and that proper maintenance is being performed. Deficiencies shall be immediately corrected.

c.

The engineer who prepared the approved grading plan shall be responsible for the inspection and certification of the grading as required by Section 8606.2 of the Grading Ordinance. The engineer’s responsibilities shall include those relating to non-compliance detailed in Section 8606.5 of the Grading Ordinance.

d.

At the completion of work, the engineer who prepared the approved grading plan shall certify, in writing, that all grading, lot drainage, and drainage facilities have been completed in conformance with the approved plans, as conditioned, and the Grading Ordinance.

e.

At the completion of work, the engineer who prepared the approved grading plan shall submit a signed “as-graded” grading plan conforming to the requirements of Section 8606.6 of the Grading Ordinance.

45.

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, if the applicant submits a grading plan which shows any deviation from the grading shown on the approved plans, specifically with regard to slope heights, slope ratios, pad elevations or pad configuration, the Community Development Director (Director), or his/her designee, shall review the plan for a finding of substantial conformance. If the Director fails to make such a finding, the applicant shall process a revised grading permit and/or site development application. Additionally, if the requested changes require it, the applicant shall process a new environmental assessment for determination by the decision-making entity.

46.

Prior to the issuance of the grading permit “hard card,” the applicant shall submit a dust control plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Section. The plan, at a minimum, shall include the following measures:

a.

Water all construction and grading areas at least twice daily.

b.

Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard.

c.

Pave, apply water two times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the project site.

d.

Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.

e.

Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).

47.

Pursuant to Section 8605.5 of the San Mateo County Grading Ordinance, all equipment used in grading operations shall meet spark arrester and fire fighting tool requirements, as specified in the California Public Resources Code.

48.

For the final approval of the grading permit, the applicant shall ensure the performance of the following activities, within thirty (30) days of the completion of grading:

a.

The engineer shall submit written certification to the Department of Public Works and the Current Planning Section that all grading, lot drainage, and drainage facilities have been completed in conformance with the approved plans, conditions of approval, and the Grading Ordinance.

b.

The geotechnical consultant shall observe and approve all applicable work during construction and sign Section II of the Geotechnical Consultant Approval form, for submittal to the Building Inspection Section’s Geotechnical Engineer and the Current Planning Section.

49.

Unless approved in writing, by the Community Development Director, no grading shall be allowed during the winter season (October 15 to April 15) to avoid potential soil erosion. The applicant shall submit a letter to the Current Planning Section, a minimum of two (2) weeks prior to commencement of grading, stating the date when grading will begin.

50.

All outdoor lighting shall be required to be directed downward or hooded to prevent glare.

51.

All proposed and any future uses, building additions or building modifications shall comply with Ordinance PUD-134.

Building Inspection Section

52.

At the time of application for a building permit(s), the applicant shall comply with the current building regulations and with local amendments, as required.

53.

At the time of application for a building permit(s), the applicant shall comply with the current Green Building Program (Ordinance No. 4444) and any subsequent amendments to that program.

Department of Public Works

54.

The applicant shall submit a detailed construction plan showing staging areas and equipment and material for lay down areas for review and approval to the Department of Public Works. The applicant shall provide a traffic control plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

55.

Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant will be required to provide payment of “roadway mitigation fees” based on the square footage (assessable space) of the proposed building per Ordinance #3277.

56.

The provision of San Mateo County Grading Ordinance shall govern all grading on and adjacent to this site. Unless exempted by the Grading Ordinance, the applicant may be required to apply for a grading permit upon completion of their review of the plans and should access construction be necessary.

57.

No proposed construction work, for access and utility work only, within the County right-of-way shall begin until County requirements for the issuance of an encroachment permit, including review of the plans, have been met and an encroachment permit issued.

58.

The applicant shall submit a permanent stormwater management plan in compliance with the County’s Drainage Policy and NPDES requirements for review and approval by the Department of Public Works.

59.

All grading shall be according to the conceptual grading and drainage plan prepared by BKF Engineers dated August 6, 2009. Revisions to the approved grading plan shall be prepared and signed by the engineer, and shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department for concurrence “prior” to commencing any work pursuant to the proposed revision.

60.

No grading shall commence until a schedule of all grading operations has been submitted to and reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department and a grading permit “hard card” has been issued by the Planning Department. The submitted schedule shall include a schedule for winterizing the site. If the schedule of grading operations calls for the grading to be completed in one grading season, then the winterizing plan shall be considered a contingent plan to be implemented if work falls behind schedule. The applicant shall submit monthly updates of the schedule to the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department. All submitted schedules shall represent the work in detail and shall project the grading operations through completion.

61.

Proposed construction shall meet all conditions and comments from County Flood Control District before building permit can be issued.

Menlo Park Fire Protection District

62.

The building shall be provided with both a fire sprinkler system and a fire alarm system.

63.

An automatic, supervised, listed and centrally monitored fire alarm system conforming to NFPA-72 requirements shall be provided.

64.

Applicant to provide an additional fire hydrant to serve the site.

65.

Plans and fees shall be submitted to the Menlo Park Fire Protection District for the automatic fire sprinkler and alarm systems.

66.

An address shall be visible from the street and contrasting in color to its background and shall be a minimum 8 inches in size.

67.

The parking garage shall be provided with standpipes for suppression operations. Location and numbers shall be determined by the Fire District in conjunction with the fire sprinkler contractor.

68.

Fire Department emergency incident ventilation access to the parking garage for the “green roof” shall be provided. The design shall be determined in conjunction with the Fire District.

69.

Ventilation and air changes for the parking garage shall be per both the 2007 California Building Code and California Fire Code requirements.

70.

Fire hydrants shall be in place and tested before construction begins.

71.

Fire sprinkler density for the building shall be 0.18 over 3,000; no exceptions. Sprinkler contractor system is to be a NFPA-13 system. If a residential unit is included as part of the building, it shall also meet NFPA-13 requirements. Please be aware of the Fire District’s sprinkler standards.

72.

Any/all gates shall have a minimum unobstructed linear width of 16 feet. All locking devices shall provide a Knox Box or Knox Override Key Switch for Fire District Emergency access. All gate plans shall be approved by the Menlo Park Fire District. Electric gates shall have a backup source of power to allow the opening of the gates during a power failure.

73.

Architectural drawings shall be submitted under separate cover.

74.

Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspects of the design or installation which do not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Menlo Park Fire Protection District is not responsible for inadvertent errors or omissions pertaining to his review and/or subsequent field inspection(s), i.e., additional comments may be added during subsequent drawing review or field inspection. Please call if there are any questions.

75.

Upon completion of work and prior to occupancy, contact Inspector Blach of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District at 650/688-8430 to schedule a final inspection. A 48-HOUR NOTICE IS REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTIONS.