HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-28 City CouncilTO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: October 28, 1996 CMR:443:96
SUBJECT:901-909 Alma Street: Application to rezone a property from CD-
S(P) (Commercial Downtown - Pedestrian Combining District) to
a PC (Planned Community) District to construct a 15,683-square-
foot, four-story, mixed-use project with 4 apartment units
and 4,425 square feet of office use. File Nos.: 96-ZC-5, 96-ARB-
41 and 96-EIA-12.
REQUEST
The subject application is a request for rezoning of property from CD-S(P) to Planned
Community (PC) District for a 15,683 square-foot, four, story, mixed-use project with four
apartment units and 4,425 square feet of office use.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board (ARB) and staffrecommend that the
City Council approve the application, including the following:
Approval of the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 4), finding that the
proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, if certain
conditions of project approval are imposed;
Adoption of the attached ordinance (Attachment 1), including findings and conditions,
rezoning the property at 901 Alma Street from CD-S(P) (Commercial Downtown -
Pedestrian Combining District) to a PC (Planned Community) District, allowing the
development of a 15,683-square-foot, four-story, mixed-use project with four apartment
units and 4,425 square feet of office use; and
3.Approval of the attached ARB findings (Attachment 3) and conditions of project approval
(Attachment 2).
CMR:443:96 Page 1 of 8
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Comprehensive Plan Compliance
The proposed residential and office uses are allowed within the Service Commercial
Comprehensive Plan designation. The uses and project design are consistent with the
following Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies and programs:
Housing Element, Program 1 - "In areas adjacent to the Downtown shopping area,
maintain single-family and duplex areas and have multiple-family housing close to shops
and offices. " The four proposed apartment units would provide an opportunity for
employees of downtown businesses to live within easy walking distance of their jobs.
Housing Element, Policy 6 - "Maintain at least the present number of multiple-family
rental units while working to increase the overall supply of rental housing." The project
would increase the overall supply of rental housing by four units.
Housing Element, Policy 14 and Employment Policy 2 - "Support the mixing of
residential uses in commercial and industrial areas" and "encourage the construction of
more housing primarily on or near industrial and commercial sites." The project would
not only provide four additional housing units in a commercial area, but would provide
a mix of office and residential uses on the same site.
Housing Element, Program 13 - "In housing developments of three or more units, not less
than 10 percent of the units should be provided at below market rates to low- and
moderate-income families." The project will be required to pay an in-lieu fee, which will
be used to provide additional Below-Market-Rate (BMR) housing in the City.
Housing Element, Program 32 - States in part that the City should "evaluate any
disincentives which discourage residential use on land zoned for commercial and
industrial use, and if necessary, eliminate or mitigate such disincentives." The PC zone
change process is being used to accommodate the proposed mixed-use project,
which includes residential use on commercially zoned property.
Urban Design, Program 15 - "Create mini-parks, pedestrian malls, promenades, open
space, and areas where pedestrians would have right-of-way over automobiles." The
project includes a 1,666-square-foot pedestrian plaza fronting on Channing Avenue that
includes a raised planter, public seating and new landscaping.
Downtown Urban Design Policies
While the Urban Design Guide is considered an incentive and guide for redevelopment
rather than policy, it calls for improving the appearance of Alma Street and capitalizing on
the residential and mixed-use development opportunities that exist there. The Urban Design
CMR:443:96 Page 2 of 8
Guide states that the primary means for accomplishing this include the following:
1. Transforming Alma Street into an attractive, tree-lined boulevard;
2. Providing an inviting and safe pedestrian path to the Train Station and Transit Depot; and
3.Creating pedestrian links between Downtown and the Stanford Shopping Center and
between Downtown and the Urban Lane areas.
The Guide encourages the use of alleys for primary access to projects fronting on Alma
Street. The use of the alley for primary access requires the expansion of the alley from 15
feet to 20 feet along the property frontage. Thus, the applicant will be required to dedicate
to the City a 5-foot-wide strip adjacent to the alley for two-way traffic to and from the
proposed driveway.
The Guide encourages variations in building setbacks to allow for landscaping, courtyards
and other pedestrian spaces, in order to minimize the potential for solid building walls along
Alma Street that could appear massive and overbearing. The Guide recognizes that north of
the Embarcadero Road overpass, Alma Street is generally an unattractive corridor due to the
on-street parking and narrow width and provides excellent development opportunities for
additional building masses, particularly south of University Avenue. Although the Guide
states that the blank walls, which currently exist along Alma Street, detract from the visual
environment and should be avoided in the future, it also recognizes that it is a difficult area
for both retail frontages and residential uses and should be carefully designed to reduce noise
and traffic impacts.
The intersection of Channing Avenue and Alma Street is identified as an "Auto Entry" to the
Downtown. The guide suggests varying building heights along Alma Street "to create a
mini-skyline along the western edge to anchor the downtown." The guide suggests that
buildings along Alma Street should be designed as "four-sided," because they will tend to
be taller than other buildings and will be visible from many elevated locations.
Although the project is inconsistent with the Commercial Downtown (CD) District policy
of encouraging underground parking within the downtown area, overall, the proposed project
makes a positive contribution towards fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Urban Design
Guide because it would:
1.Provide a strong building and architectural statement at a comer identified as an "entry"
in the Urban Design Guide, Alma Street District;
2. Capitalize on the mixed-use development opportunities which exist in the area;
CMR:443:96 Page 3 of 8
o Provide a total of six new street trees along Alma Street. which will help to transform
Alma Street into an attractive, tree-lined boulevard, if the proper species of tree is
substituted;
4. Provide a design that reduces noise and traffic impacts by placing the residential units
above the ground level;
5. Increase pedestrian activity, particularly along the Channing Avenue frontage; and
6. Provide vehicular access to the project by the alley on the east side of the site.
Standards for Architectural Review
The design and architecture of the project has been reviewed by the Planning Commission,
ARB and staff for compliance with the Standards for Architectural Review (Section
16.48.120 of the PAMC). A summary of the project’s compliance with these standards is
presented in Attachment 3. As modified by the recommended conditions of approval, the
project complies with these standards.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Description
The applicant proposes to develop .24 acre (10,500 square feet) of vacant, level land fronting
on Alma Street and Channing Avenue with a 15,683-square-foot, four-story office and
residential building. The building would be 48 feet in height (at midpoint of pitched roof)
with 23 parking spaces, a pedestrian plaza, lobby, trash enclosure and landscaping on the first
level; four apartment units on the second and third levels, and office space on the fourth
level. Three of the apartments are on the west side of the project and one would be adjacent
to the alley, which is east of the site. Each apartment would have two levels, on the second
and third floors of the building, containing one bedroom, two bathrooms, a living area, a
dining area and a balcony.
Vehicular access to the project would be fi’om the alley on the east side of the site. The use
of alleys is encouraged for projects with frontage on Alma Street. The use of the alley for
access to the project requires the widening of the portion of the alley fronting on the site from
15 to 20 feet. Thus, the project is required to dedicate to the City a 5-foot-wide strip to
provide the width required for two-way traffic to and from the proposed driveway. Signing
would be installed wherethe alley changes from one-way to two-way traffic.
A 20-foot-wide entryway, with a security gate adjacent to the alley, would provide access to
fifteen parking spaces within a parking court. Seven of the spaces within the parking court
would be uncovered, and eight spaces would be located under the three residential units on
CMR:443:96 Page 4 of 8
the west side of the project. In addition, there would be eight garage parking spaces with
access directly from the alley.
The main pedestrian access to the building would be from a lobby fronting on Channing
Avenue. The lobby would contain an elevator, stairway, mailboxes, bicycle storage room
and lockers. Access to the three apartment units on the west side of the project would also be
provided by a stairway at the southwest comer of the building. Access to the apartment
unit above the garages would be provided by a stairway adjacent to the parking court.
The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Zoning Ordinance. Mixed-uses are permitted in the CD-S District; however, the regulations
do not speak directly to site development requirements for vertically integrated mixed use
over parking. For mixed-use projects where the residential and nonresidential uses occupy
the same land area, staff has consistently interpreted that the CD-S District regulations apply,
with the exception of the RM-30 regulations regarding maximum density, FAR and
minimum common usable open space. The following table compares the proposed project
to the CD-S and RM-30 development regulations.
Minimum Site Area
Residential Density.
Office Use
Lot Width
Lot Depth
Maximum FAR
CD-S District
N/A
N/A
5,000 sq. ft.
N/A
N/A
1.15 to 1.0"
RM-30District Proposed Project
Usable Open Space N/A
Max. Bldg. Height 50 feet
Front Yard N/A
Rear Yard N/A
Side Yard N/A
Parking 25 spaces
* The maximum FAR is calculated as follows:
10,500 sq. ft.
4 units
4,425 sq. ft.
8,500 sq. ft.
4 units
N/A
70 feet
100 feet
.1.15 to 1.0"
105 feet
100 feet
1.49 to 1.0
1,786 sq. ft.
48 feet
0 feet
0 feet
2,029 sq. ft.
35 feet
20 feet
10 feet
10 feet 10 ft. & 5 ft., 10 in.
25 spaces 23 spaces
0.4 to 1.0 Nonresidential FAR
+0.75 to 1.0 Residential FAR
1.15 to 1.0 Maximum FAR
CMR:443:96 Page 5 of 8
Proposed Public Benefits
A PC zone is required for this project, because the City!s conventional zoning districts do not
accommodate this vertically integrated mixed-use project. Approval of the requested PC
zone change would require that public benefit findings be made. The Planning Commission
and staff believe that the proposed project, a gateway building at the comer of Channing
Avenue and Alma Street with public art and street frontage improvements, including a 1,786-
square-foot pedestrian plaza and repavement of the portion of the alley adjacent to the site,
fulfills the public benefit requirement (see the public benefit description on page 2 in the
ordinance, Attachment 1). Because it will add vitality and life to a comer that is presently
vacant, the proposed project will be beneficial to the neighborhood and community at large.
The proposed public art consists of a kinetic metal sculpture by artist Jerome Kirk, who
created a sculpture at the Palo Alto Cultural Center (see Attachments 7 and 9, letters from
the applicant dated July 23, 1996 and August 30, 1996). The sculpture would be
approximately 8 to 9 feet high and attached to the face of the stair tower facing Channing
Avenue. It would not only be visible to pedestrians and motorists on Channing Avenue, but
would be visible to motorists and pedestrians southbound on Alma Street. The proposed
sculpture was unanimously accepted by the Public Art Commission on August 27, 1996 (see
Attachment 11, letter from Judith Wasserman dated August 28, 1996).
Summary. of ARB Review
On August 1, 1996, the ARB, on a 4-0-1-0 vote (Board Member Ross was absent),
recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planned Community zone
change, findings for rezoning, findings for Architectural Review and conditions of approval
(see Attachment 13, ARB minutes). Generally, the ARB enthusiastically supported the
project, specifically the visual interest created by the detailing and articulation of the
architecture, as well as the industrial-style approach to the design, which they felt is
appropriate for the neighborhood. Although two ARB members expressed concerns
regarding the proposed building height, primarily because the existing buildings for two or
three blocks in either direction along Alma Street are lower in height, the ARB
recommendation did not include any requirements to reduce the height of the building.
Summary. of Planning Commission Review
On September 11, 1996, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
the project (see Attachment 12, Planning Commission minutes). Generally, the Commission
thought that the project was well designed and that the applicant was responsive to comments
by both the Commission and the ARB. Some of the Commissioners expressed concerns
regarding the proposed building height but felt that it was necessary to achieve the proposed
housing. One Commissioner also expressed concern that the project should make a greater
contribution toward making Alma Street more pedestrian-friendly. The Commission
CMR:443:96 Page 6 of 8
concurred that the proposed public benefits were appropriate, especially the proposed
pedestrian plaza and the public art.
ALTERNATIVES
There are two alternatives to consider, each of which provides opportunities to reduce the
mass and height of the building and provide additional landscaping and usable common area.
One alternative would be to provide underground parking. The applicant has indicated that
he prefers the parking at grade level, as proposed, to provide a vertical buffer between Alma
Street and the three residential units which front on Alma Street. The second alternative
would be to reduce the size of the building by eliminating residential units or reducing the
size of the office space.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project will not have a significant fiscal impact on the City. This application is subject
to the full cost recovery fee schedule.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment has been
prepared and is attached (see Attachment 4).
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Assuming City Council approval, the applicant would submit more detailed plans for final
review and approval by the ARB in accordance with the conditions of approval. The
applicant would then develop construction drawings and apply for a building permit, while
implementing the remaining conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment # 1: Planned Community (PC) Ordinance
Attachment #2:
Attachment #3:
Attachment #4:
Attachment #5:
Attachment #6:
Attachment #7:
Attachment #8:
Attachment #9:
Attachment # 10:
Attachment # 11:
Attachment # 12:
Conditions of Project Approval
Findings for Architectural Review Approval
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planning Commission Staff Report, September 11, 1996 (without
attachments)
Letter from architect dated August 29, 1996
Letter from applicant dated August 30, 1996
Development Program Statement from applicant dated May 22, 1996
Letter from applicant dated July 23, 1996
Letter from Linn Winterbotham dated July 15, 1996
Letter from Judith Wasserman dated August 28, 1996
September 11, 1996 Planning Commission minutes
CMR:443:96 Page 7 of 8
Attachment # 13: August 1, 1996 ARB minutes
Project Plans (City. Council Members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Planning Commission
Architectural Review Board
Public Art Commission
Douglas Ross, 2686 Middlefield Road, Unit E, Redwood City CA 94063
Jeff Zimmerman, Columbus Architects, 150 Green Street, Suite 309, San Francisco CA
94111
David Kelley, 151 University Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301
PREPARED BY: Robert Schubert, Contract Project Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER ~"
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Manager
CMR:443:96 Page 8 of 8
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08. 040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS901-909 ALMA
STREET FROM CD-S P) TO PC
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i.
(a) The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public
hearing held September ii, 1996, and the Architectural Review
Board, upon consideration at its meeting of August i, 1996, have
recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo
Alto Municipa! Code be amended as hereinafter set forth.
(b) The City Council, after due consideration of the
recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public
interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as
hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
certain property known as 901-909 Alma Street (the "subject
property") from "CD-S(P) Commercial Downtown - Pedestrian Shopping
Combining District" to "PC Planned Community." The subject
property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to
the subject property that:
(a) The site is so situated, and the uses proposed for
the subject property are of such characteristics that the
application of general districts or combining districts will not
provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed mixed use
development, or for a development on this site that is compatible
with the mix of uses, density and design of the surrounding
neighborhood. Specifically, while the CD-S(P) District permits
mixed residential and nonresidential use, it does not provide the
flexibility for developing a mixed use project on a small lot,
consistent with the character of predominantly service commercial
areas such as Alma Street. The project design, which positions
residential units above the Alma Street arterial corridor, serves
to improve the quality of the residential living spaces and
provides a more substantial building along Alma Street, consistent
with the Downtown Urban Design Guide. While the CD-S(P) District
961022 lac 0080354
1
allows office and residential projects as permitted uses, the
required provisions for developing residential uses within this
district make it difficult to design a mixed use project which is
compatible with the land uses and development pattern of the
surrounding neighborhood, particularly along Alma Street. Adoption
of the PC District for this project would permit the necessary
flexibility in floor area, common usable open space, and off-street
parking requirements so that a compatible, vertically integrated,
mixed use project can be built on a relatively small lot.
(b) The project will result in public benefits not
otherwise attainable by application of general districts or
combining districts, as follows:
(i)The project design, which positions
residential units above the Alma Street arterial corridor, provides
an attractive, substantial building along Alma Street, consistent
with the policies of the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The
intersection of Channing Avenue and Alma Street is identified as an
"Auto Entry" to the Downtown. The Guide suggests varying building
heights along Alma Street "to create a mini-skyline along the
western edge to anchor the downtown," and further suggest that
buildings along Alma Street should be designed as "four sided"
because they will tend to be taller than other buildings and will
be visible from mnay elevated locations. The design of the project
furthers these policies.
(ii) The application of the PC District standards
as proposed would result in public benefits by providing desirable
street improvements along Alma Street and Channing Avenue in the
vicinity of the project. These street improvements would be
beneficial to the. neighborhood and community at large in that they
will help to increase pedestrian activity in the area. The
improvements consist of a special sidewalk treatment consisting of
integral colored concrete paving along the Channing Avenue and Alma
Street frontages, and a 1,786 sq. ft. pedestrian plaza facing
Channing Avenue that includes raised planters, public seating, and
new street trees and other landscaping. These improvements would
not all be made available through development of the site under the
CD-S(P) District regulations.
(iii) The project will incorporate original art
work, as approved by the Public Art Commission and the
Architectural Review Board, which will be visible to the public.
portion of the alley adjacent to the site.
(c) The uses permitted and the site development
regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the
961022 lac 0080354
2
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and existing and potential uses o~~
the project site, adjoining sites, and within the general vicinity.
Specifically, the project would be consistent with the following:
(i) Housing Element, Program 1 "In areas
adjacent to the Downtown shopping area, maintain single-familyand
duplex areas and have multiple-family housing close to shops and
offices." The four proposed apartment units would provide an
opportunity for employees of downtown businesses to live within
easy walking distance of their jobs.
(ii) Housing Element, Policy 6 -"Maintain at least
the present number of multiple-family rental units while working to
increase the overall supply of rental housing." The project would
increase the overall supply of rental housing by four units.
(iii) Housing Element, Policy 14 and Employment
Policy 2 "Support the mixing of residential uses in commercial
and industrial areas" and "encourage the construction of more
housing primarily on or near industrial and commercial sites." The
project would not only provide four additional housing units in a
commercial area, but would provide ~ mix of office and residential
uses on the same site.
(iv) Housinq Element, Program 13 -"In housing
developments of three or more units, not less than 10 percent of
the units should be provided at below market rates to low- and
moderate-income families." The project will be required to pay an
in-lieu fee which will be used to provide additional BMR housing in
the City.
(v) Housing Element, Program 32 - States in part
that the City should "evaluate any disincentives which discourage
residential use on land zoned for commercial and industrial use,
and if necessary, eliminate or mitigate such disincentives." The
PC zone change process is being used to accommodate the proposed
mixed use project, which includes residential use on commercially
zoned property.
(vi) Urban Desiqn, Program 15 "Create mini-parks,
pedestrian malls, promenades, open space, and areas where
pedestrian would have right-of-way over automobiles.~ The project
includes a 1,666 sq. ft. pedestrian plaza fronting on Channing
Avenue that includes a raised planter, public seating and new
landscaping.
(d) The parking and loading plan for the project, which
includes twenty-three (23) vehicular parking spaces, one fewer than
would otherwise be required, is feasible and adequate given the
design of and permitted uses for the site, and justifies
961022 lac 0080354
modification of the requirements of Chapter 18.83 with respect to
number of parking spaces. Relevant data has been presented by the
project applicant to support the modification, in that the office
portion of the project and the residential units will not have peak
parking demands at the same time. Therefore, reduction of the
required parking by one space is appropriate.
SECTION 4. Those certain plans entitled "901 Alma, a Mixed
Use Development for Douglas Ross" prepared by Columbus
Architecture-Interiors. Planning, dated March 21, 1996, ~ approved
by the Architectural Review Board on August I, 1996, ~iiiiiii~i~i
~i~iiiiii~i~iii!!ili~ii~iii~iiiiiiiiii~i~ii~ii~ili together with revised landscape plan dated
September I0, 1996, copy on file in the Planning Division office,
and to which copy reference is hereby made, are hereby approved as
the Development Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo
Alto Municipal Code section 18.68.120. Said Development Plan is
approved for the following uses, and subject to the following
conditions:
(a) Permitted Uses. The permitted uses shall be limited
to a mixed use project which includes approximately 4,425 sq. ft.
of office use and four residential units.
(b)
allowed.
Conditional Uses.No conditional uses shall be
(c) Site Development Regulations. All improvements and
development shall be substantially in accordance with the approved
Development Plan and the Conditions of Project Approval adopted by
the City Council in conjunction with approval of this ordinance.
The following site development regulations establish rules for
modifications or additions to any building, accessory structure or
landscaping on the subject property. Definitions of terms used
shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code:
Once the project has been constructed consistent with the
approved Development Plan, any exterior changes to the buildings or
any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development
Plan or by these site development regulations shall require and
amendment to this Planned Community Zone.
(d) Parkinq and Loading Requirements. The parking and
loading requirements governing the subject property shall be in
accordance with the approved Development Plan, on file with the
Department of Planning and Community Environment and as amended in
accordance with this section. The following requirements shall
apply to the project and shall be reflected in amendments made to
the Development Plan and approved by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment prior to issuance of building permits:
961022 lac 0080354
4
(i)Bicycle parking spaces, in the number and
type requi~ed under Chapter 18.83 of the PAMC, shall be provided on
the site.
(e) Development Schedule. Construction of the project
shall commence on or before July i, 1997, and shall be completed
and ready for occupancy on or before September I, 1998.
(f) Special Requirements. The following special
conditions and requirements shall apply to the project. These
requirements shall be reflected in amendments made to the
Development Plan and approved by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment prior to issuance of building permits:
(i)Public Art. This project was approved in
part on the basis that it will incorporate original art, visible to
the public, as a public benefit of the project. The exact nature
and location of the art will be determined by the City’s Public Art
Commission (PAC), applying the standards set forth in PAMC
2.26.040. The art shall be approved by the PAC prior to issuance
of building permits for the project, and shall be fully installed
by the date of initial occupancy of the project.
(ii) BMR Requirements. In conformance with the
City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) requirements (Program #13, Housing
Element, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan), a lump sum payment in-lieu
of provision of BMR housing shall be paid to City for deposit in
the Housing Reserve Fund. This payment shall be $22,400, which was
calculated based on a market value of $160,000 for each of the four
residential units in the project, applying a rate of 3.5% times
market value. The payment is due to City prior to occupancy of any
of the residential units.
The provisions of this condition f.(ii) have been
negotiated between the City and the project applicant, and are set
forth in that letter from the Director of Planning and Community
Environment dated August 14, 1996, acknowledged and agreed to by
the applicant on August 19, 1996. In the event of conflict between
the August i4, 1996 letter and this Ordinance, the terms of this
Ordinance shall prevail.
(iii) Improvement Plans. Final plans, including
complete lighting and photometric plans; detailed landscaping and
irrigation plans encompassing on-and off-site plantable areas, with
additional landscaping provided in the proposed parking court,;
final plans for the public artwork; building materials and colors,
including the glass, roof deck material, mullion details and the
proposed cementious board and proposed signage shall be reviewed
and approved by the ARB prior to issuance of building permits. The
961022 lac 0080354
5
applicant shall reconsider the proposed parking court material
(asphalt) and the design of the building entry on Channing Avenue.
All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers,
electrical panel switchboards, and any other required utilities
shall be shown on the final plans and shall show that no conflict
will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall
be screened in a manner which respects the building design and
setback requirements. The plans shall incorporate the improvements
described in Sections 3(b) (ii) and 3(b) (iii) of this Ordinance.
(v)Mitigation measures and other conditions.
In addition to the Conditions of Approval adopted by the City
Council in conjunction with approval of this Ordinance, the project
shall incorporate the mitigation measures presented in the
Environmental Impact Assessment (96-EIA-12) for the project, on
file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that this project, as
mitigated, will not have a significant environmental effect.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSTENTIONS :
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
961022 lac 0080354
Project;: 901-909 Alma St, feet,
Change zoning from CD-S(P) to
PC (Planned Community) to allow
construction of a new four story,’
mixed use project.
File Nos: 96-ZC-5; 96-EIA-41 Date: 6-26-96
400 ft
Scale: 1 inch = 200 ft
North
EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACHMENT #2
CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
901-909 Alma Street
Mixed Use Development
File #s 96-ZC-5, 96-ARB-41 & 96-EIA-12
Most of the conditions listed below are standard conditions. These conditions would normally be
applied to the project as part of the final ARB approval process. However, given that the project
proposes a zone change to the Planned Community District, which includes the normal ARB
process, these conditions have been incorporated into this recommended action. Major and/or
special conditions are proposed for incorporation into the PC Ordinance for this project. All
mitigation measures identified in the mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact
Assessment are incorporated as conditions of project approval.
Prior to Submittal for Building Permit
Planning/Zoning
The ARB approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit
drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features.
The plans submitted with the building permit application shall show the maximum height of
the building reduced by 1 ½ feet, from 55 feet to 53 ½ feet, measured from grade to the top
of the pitched roof.
Detailed landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas out to
the curb shall be submitted to and approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), City
Arborist, Utility Marketing Services Division and Planning Division. A Landscape Water
Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted.
The plans should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation
consultant. Landscape and irrigation plans shall take into consideration all elements included
on: a) the City of Palo Alto Landscape Plan Checklist; and b) the Water Conservation
Guidelines. The plan shall include a complete plant list indicating tree and plant species,
quantity, size and locations; an irrigation schedule and plan. The plans shall include the
installation of, at minimum, 6 street trees along the Alma Street frontage and 5 street trees
along the Channing Avenue frontage. These trees shall be planted at a minimum 24 inch box
size, with the species, planting specifications and minimum dimensions for planter areas as
determined by the City Arborist and the Planning Division. one additional street tree be
provided on Alma Street near the intersection. The species of the proposed street tree along
P:L.~2SR~901ALMA.911
Alma Street shall be changed to Chestnut or an alternate street tree equally bold and large in
scale. Along Channing Avenue, the landscape plan shall be revised to place all of the
proposed street trees and landscaping within the right-of way on the curb side of the sidewalk
as evenly-spaced, and as close to the intersection as possible without obstructing views of the
proposed public art located on the north wall of the lobby.
3.The plans shall be revised to show 8 additional bicycle parking spaces, for a total of 14
bicycle spaces in the project.
4.Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate application.
5.Approved color chips to match the colors specified in the building permit drawings shall be
attached to the cover sheet of the building permit set by the applicant.
Public Works Operations/Recycling
6.The plans shall be revised to show adequate space for the recycling and garbage area, to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Operations/Recycling Division. The space shall be large
enough to accommodate an appropriately sized dumpster for garbage as well as carts for
glass, cans, newspaper, white paper, mixed paper (64 gallon size) and a 2 cubic yard
cardboard bin.
Utilities Engineering
7.The project requires a padmount transformer. The location of the padmount transformer
shall be shown on the landscape plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the ARB.
8.All new electrical service shall be underground.
9.Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel.
10.The location of the electric panel switchboard shall be shown on the plan and approved by
the ARB and Utilities Department.
11.All electrical substructures required from the service point to the switchgear shall be installed
by the applicant to City standards.
12.The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement (PUE) for the padmount transformer
and. associated underground primary and secondary system extension from the electrical vault
adjacent to Channing Avenue.
13. All utility meters, lines, transformers, bacldlow preventers, and any other required utilities,
P:~CSRk901 ALMA.911
shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans which shall show that no conflict will
occur between the utilities and landscape materials and that the utilities are screened
in manner which respects the building design and setback requirements.
Public Works Engineering
14.The applicant shall apply to the Real Estate Division for an easement abandonment of the
existing 5 foot by 50 foot power pole easement.
15.The applicant is required to submit improvement plans showing: a) the installation of a curb
ramp for the disabled at the corner of Alma Street and Channing Avenue; and b) resurfacing
of the portion of the alley adjacent to the site.
16.The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering,
including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan should
demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not
altered. Parking lots shall be sloped to drain into vegetated areas where possible with on-site
drain inletslocated therein. Roof water leaders should be directed to the permeable areas of
the site. The project design should include permanent features as well as temporary measures
employed during construction to control storm water pollution. The applicant may meet with
Public Works Engineering to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage
and surfacewater infiltration.
17.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property.
The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the
building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month
following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division.
18.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at a minimum parking, truck
routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic
adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City ofPalo Altos’s
Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck
routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto.
Utilities Engineering (WGW)
19.The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public
and private, within the work area.
P:LPCSRkg01ALMA.911
20.The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE
CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto utilities. The
applicant shall provide all information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M_,
gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.).
21.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show
the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public fight-
of-way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts and
any other required utilities.
22.The applicant shall show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water
supply.
23.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing water and sewer
mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibly
includes the design and all of the costs associated with the construction for the
installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services.
24.The improvement plans as well as construction drawings for issuance of a building permit
shall comply with or include all conditions recommended by the Utilities Engineering
Division summarized in the memorandum from Jose Jovel, dated December 26, 1995, on file
with the Department of Planning and Community Environment.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
Public Works Engineering
25.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works Engineering for
pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during construction.
26.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works
Engineering for a structure, awning, or other features constructed in the public right-of-way,
easement or on property in which the City holds an interest.
27.The Public Works Inspector shall sign offthe building permit. All off-site improvements
shall be finished prior to this sign-off
Fire Department
28.The applicant shall provide fire sprinklers throughout the building, including the garages. An
underground fire service line and floor control valves are required. Sprinkler system alarm
supervision is required for water flow and valve tamper.
P:kPCSRO01ALMA.911
29. Impacts of emergency response must be determined (paramedic response service demands).
30.Illuminated exit signs, emergency lighting, portable fire extinguishers and a knox box shall be
provided.
31. Portable fire extinguishers shall be provided within the building.
32.The applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management and Recycling Plan for review and
approval to the Public Works Operations/Recycling Division.
Transportation Division
33.The property owner shall dedicate to the City a five (5) foot wide strip of land adjacent to the
existing alley along the project frontage, to accommodate two-way traffic to and from the
proposed driveway. Prior to occupancy of the project, the applicant shall improve the alley
to a 20 foot width, from Channing Avenue to the proposed driveway. Due to existing power
poles in the alley, the widening may require moving and/or undergrounding of the existing
utilities, as determined by the Utilities Engineering Division. In addition, the improvement of
the alley shall include the installation of appropriate signage, as determined by the
Transportation Division, where the alley changes from one-way to two-way traffic.
Durin~ Construction
Public Works Engineering
34.The applicant is required to extend the storm drainage system on Channing Avenue
approximately 140 feet. Drainage from the site shall be directed to this drainage line by
direct connection to a new catch basin installed adjacent to the site. All intersections of
existing utilities with the new storm drain line shall be potholed to determine the exact
locations.
35.To reduce dust levels, exposed earth surfaces shall be watered as necessary. The contractor
shall avoid overfilling of trucks to reduce spillage in the public right-of-way. Spillage
resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be
removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the
contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the
contractor’s expense.
36.The contractor shall contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any
work performed in the public right-of-way.
37. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without
P:~PCSRLg01ALMA.911
prior approval of Public Works Engineering.
38.All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in
compliance with the Public Works approved standards.
39.The applicant shall require the contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’ s)
for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the
Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services
Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the applicant’s construction activities on
private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the
developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any
construction debris (soil, asphalt, saw cut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste
materials into gutters or storm drains.
Police
40.All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s
Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires among other things, that a sign be
posted and that construction times be limited as follows:
8:00 AM to 8:00 PM
9:00 AM to 8:00 PM
10:00 Am to 6:00 PM
Monday thru Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Utilities Engineering
41. Any utilities to be relocated due to this project shall be at the applicant’s expense.
42.The applicant shall make sure that the underground electric vaults along the project frontage
remain accessible at all times.
43.The poles marked for relocation in the alley carry 69,000-volt circuits. Relocation of the
poles shall be done by the City at the applicant’s expense.
44.All new underground electrical services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building
Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
45. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling.
46.The contractor shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works
before digging in the street right-of-way.
P:kPC SRk901ALMA.911
47.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City
jurisdiction shall conform to the Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility
Departments.
Planning/Zoning
48.If during grading and construction activities, any archeological or humans remains are
encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archeologist shall visit the site to assess
the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiners office shall be notified to provide
proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered
during construction, construction will cease immediately until a Native American descendent,
appointed by the American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to
evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
The City shall be promptly informed and retain oversight responsibilities for the archeologist
and mitigation planning.
Prior to Finalization
Planning/Zoning
49.The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to the Planning Division, and call
for inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the
approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and that irrigation has been
tested for timing and function, and all plants including street trees are healthy.
Utilities Engineering
50.If the service applied for is greater than 1600 amps, the applicant shall install a transition
cabinet as the interconnection point between the service lateral and the service entrance
conductors.
P:kPCSRLg01ALMA.911
ATTACHMENT #3
901-909 Alma Street
Mixed Use Development
File #s 96-ZC-5, 96-ARB-41 & 96-EIA-12
DRAFT FINDINGS REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
ORDINANCE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
GOALS AND PURPOSES OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
The proposed project furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance required in Section
16.48.010 of the PAMC, as follows:
The project promotes orderly and harmonious development of the City. The project design
and proposed improvements are compatible with the immediate environment and the
surrounding improvements. Although the proposed building would have a greater height
compared to the surrounding buildings, the proposed building height is consistent with
policies in the Downtown Urban Design Guide which suggest varying building heights
along Alma Street and transitioning the scale of buildings to the residential areas. It
encourages varied building height and mass along Alma Street "to create a mini-skyline
along the western edge to anchor the downtown." The proposed building is located on a
comer marked as an "entry" in the Urban Design Guide and it provides a strong architectural
statement. The project has been designed to have an attractive appearance from all
surrounding areas where it will visible.
°The project will enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the City. Public art
will be incorporated into the design of the project and a pedestrian plaza will be accessible
to the public from Channing Avenue.
o The project will encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and
improvements. As outlined in the staff report under Comprehensive Plan Compliance, the
proposed project is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The project degign and proposed improvements are compatible with
the immediate environment and the surrounding improvements.
The modified proposal will enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate
site or in adjacent areas. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction coupled
with the proposed plant materials are appropriate for the function and design of the mixed
P:\PCSR\901 ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 34
use project and would be compatible with the neighboring uses, structures and landscape
elements. The pedestrian plaza is accessible to the building occupants, visitors and the
general public. The proposed public art will embellish the building with pedestrian interest
and serve as an attraction to visitors.
The project will promote visual environments which will be of high aesthetic quality, and
variety. The proposed building design and exterior materials would be compatible with
those designs and materials found on other buildings in the neighborhood. New
landscaping would be installed around the perimeter of the site, including a total of 10 new
street trees. The existing sidewalks along the Alma Street and Channing Avenue frontages
would be removed and replaced with an integral colored concrete pavement treatment.
These improvements will maintain the mature, landscaped character of the surrounding,
developed neighborhood.
STANDARDS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
The proposed project complies with the Standards for Architectural Review required in Section
16.48.120 of the PAMC, as follows:
As outlined in the staff report under Comprehensive Plan Compliance, the proposed project
is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Specifically, the project is consistent with the site’s Service Commercial land use
designation. Furthermore, the project would be consistent with the Housing Element in that
the four proposed apartment units would increase the supply of rental housing and provide
an oppommity for employees of downtown businesses to live within easy walking distance
of their jobs. In addition, the project will be required to pay an in-lieu fee which will be
used to provide additional below-mark-rate (BMR) housing in the City.
The project design and proposed improvements are compatible with the immediate
environment and the surrounding improvements. Although the proposed building would
have a greater height compared to the surrounding buildings, the proposed building height is
consistent with policies in the Downtown Urban Design Guide which suggest varying
building heights along Alma Street and transitioning the scale of buildings to the residential
areas. It encourages varied building height and mass along Alma Street "to create a mini-
skyline along the western edge to anchor the downtown." The proposed building has been
designed to have an attractive appearance from all surrounding areas where it will visible.
P:\PCSR\901 ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 35
The design of the proposed improvements is appropriate for the mixed use function of the
project. The project has been designed to provide ample outdoor area for the residential and
office uses and adequate on-site parking and circulation. By providing parking on the first
floor and the residential units on the second and third floors, the project has been designed
to minimize the impacts of the exterior noise on the residential units and office space.
The site is not located in an area which has a unified design or a historical character.
However, the project design is in keeping with and an improvement to the variety of
architectural designs in the surrounding area. The building is designed to blend the
permanence of commercial development with a softer, more articulated residential form.
The project, as designed, promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character to the
surrounding neighborhood. The neighborhood is a mixed use area which forms a transition
from the downtown commercial core and the South of Forest/University Park residential
area. The proposed uses are consistent with the mixed use nature of the neighborhood.
Existing development of the site’s block is primarily auto related but there is also a
creamery, office and retail uses. Tlie building has been designed with considerable
fenestration and warm colors consistent with surrounding development.
The design of the project would be compatible with existing improvements off site.
Specifically, new landscaping would be installed around the perimeter of the site, including
a total of 10 new street trees. The existing sidewalks along the Alma Street and Channing
Avenue frontages would be removed and replaced with an integral colored concrete
pavement treatment. These improvements will maintain the mature, landscaped character of
the surrounding, developed neighborhood.
The planning and siting of the proposed apartments and office space, private outdoor areas,
on-site parking and circulation and landscaping would create an intemal sense of order and
provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. The
portion of the building facing Channing Avenue between the lobby and the garages would
be inset from the property line to create a pedestrian plaza which would be accessible to the
building occupants and the general public.
The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and function of the
proposed structure. The plan assures that each apartment unit is designed with ample,
private outdoor area. The pedestrian plaza on Channing Avenue would be accessible to the
building occupants and the general public.
P:\PCSR\901 ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 36
10.
11.
12.
13.
!4.
15.
The project proposes a design that provides sufficient ancillary functions to provide support
for the apartments and office use. The design of ancillary functions, specifically the location
and arrangement of on-site parking and circulation as well as the location and amount of
individual balconies and the proposed pedestrian plaza on Channing Avenue, are compatible
with the project’s design function.
The project has been designed to ensure that property access and circulation are convenient
for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Access to the on-site parking area is from the alley,
thus minimizing impacts to pedestrian features of the project, including street trees. The
required bicycle parking spaces would be located in the lobby for safe and convenient access
by the building occupants.
Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated into the project. There are no
mature trees on the site (there and several small Ailanthus altissima trees along the southern
property, line which will be removed). The existing 4 inch Ornamental Pear within the
right-of-way on Alma Street and the 5 inch London Plane tree and 3 inch Maple tree on
Channing Avenue would be removed. The Ornamental Pear tree is in poor condition and
the London Plane tree and Maple tree are in fair condition. New landscaping would be
installed around the perimeter of the site. The landscape plan calls for a total of 20 new 24
inch box trees, including 10 new street trees within the public right-of-way.
The materials, textures, colors and details of construction coupled with the proposed plant
materials are appropriate for the function and design of the mixed use project and would be
compatible with the neighboring uses, structures and landscape elements. The prosed
building design and exterior materials would be compatible with those designs and materials
found on other buildings in the neighborhood.
The landscape design of the project would create a desirable and functional environment for
the furore occupants of the building and the neighboring residents. The proposed new
plantings and pedestrian area on Channing Avenue would provide unity for the project as a
whole and compatibility with the landscaping that exists in the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed plant materials would be suitable and compatible for the site. Six street trees
are proposed along Alma Street and at least 5 street trees are proposed along Channing
Avenue. There would also be trees at the comer of the building near the intersection. Crape
Myrtle trees are proposed within the pedestrian area adjacent to Channing Avenue.
The project design would be energy efficient. The balconies are located on the south, east
and west sides of the building to maximize southern solar exposure. Furthermore, the
proposed building, located on the north end of the block, will maintain solar exposure to
nearby buildings.
P:\PCSR\901 ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 37
Attachmen.t 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:901- 909 Alma Street
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto - Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:Robert Schubert, Contract Planner
(415) 329-2441
4. Project Location:901-909 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA.
5. Application Number(s):96-ZC-5, 96-ARB-41 & 96-EIA-12
6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:Douglas Ross
2686 Middlefield Road, Unit E
Redwood City, CA 94063
7. General Plan Designation:Service Commercial
8. Zoning:CD-S(P)
Description of the Project: The applicant has requested approval of an application to
rezone the property from CD-S(P) to a Planned Community (PC) District in order to
construct a 15,683 sq. ft., 4 story office and residential building at the southeast corner
of Alma Street and Channing Avenue. The building would be 48 feet in height with 23
parking spaces, a pedestrian plaza, lobby, trash enclosure and landscaping on the first
level; 4 apartment units on the second and third levels and office space on the fourth
level. Vehicular access to the project would be from the one-way (southbound) alley on
the east side of the site. An entryway from the adjacent alley would provide access to
15 parking spaces within a parking court. Seven of the spaces within the parking court
would be uncovered and 8. spaces would be located under the 3 residential units
which front on Alma Street. In addition, there would be 8 garage parking spaces with
access from the alley. The portion of the building facing Channing Avenue between the
lobby and the garages would be inset from the property line to create a 1,786 square
foot pedestrian plaza.
P:\EIA.901
10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The .24 acre vacant site is flat and rectangular, with 100 feet of frontage on Alma -
Street and 105 feet of frontage on Channing Avenue. There are five existing on-street
parking spaces on Alma Avenue and four spaces on Channing Avenue. There is one
existing street tree on Alma Street and two on Channing Avenue. Existing vegetation
on the site consists primarily of weeds and small Ailanthus altissima trees along the
southern property line. The site is bordered on the north by Channing Avenue and a
hardware store; on the south by a design studio and automobile repair shop; on the
east by a one way alley and a creamery building; and on the west by Alma Street and
Southern Pacific railroad tracks.
11.Other public agencies whose approval is required: None.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Land use and Planning
X Population and Housing
X
X
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation and
Circulation
X
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service
Systems
X Aesthetics
X Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
P:\EIA.901
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:
find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
NEGATIVE DECLARATION wilt be prepared.
XI find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NQT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1)
have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project.
Project Planner Date
Director’of Planning & Community En~i~ronment Da{e
P:\EIA.901
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c)
d)
e)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
1,2
1
1,2
3
X
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
major infrastructure?
Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
X
X
X
x
X
3
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?4 X
b) Seismic ground shaking?4 X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?4 X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?4 X
e) Landslides or mudflows?4 X
f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 4 X
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?4 X
h) Expansive soils?4 X
I)Unique geologic or physical features?4 X
, 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
P:\EIA.901
a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 3 X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 4,5 X
such as flooding?
c)3 XDischarge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical
storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and debris from
construction, hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use,
nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance?
d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water 3 X
body or wetland?
e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 3 X
movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands?
f)3 X
g)
h)
j)
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of
reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted
pollutants from urban or industrial activities?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Alteration of wetlands in any way?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)
3
3
b)
c)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting
or projected air quality violation?
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
6,7
6,7
6,7
3,6,7
6.TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment))?
8
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?3,8,10 X
P:\EIA.901
Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCeS Potentially
Significant
issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
|ncorporatec~
Less Than
Significant
impact
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or &Jr traffic impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
9
3,8
3
3
Would the proposal result reduction or interference in:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
or birds)?
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
3,11
3,11
3,11
3,11
3,11
a)
b)
c)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
3
3
3,11
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release-of hazardous
" substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
b)
c)
d)
chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
3,12
3,12
3,12
12
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\EIA.901
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass of trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
b)Exposure of people’to severe noise levels?
11.PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Fire protection?
12
3,13
3,13
government services in any of the following areas:
11,12
11,12b) Police protection?
Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
11
11
11
c) Schools?
d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or storm
drain facilities?
e) Other governmental services?
12.
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
X
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
Sewer or septic tanks?d)
e)
f)
g)
Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
15
15
16
16
16
16
3,6,10
X
X
Af.fect a scenic vista or scenic highway?a)
c) Create light or glare?
Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\EIA.901
Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCes Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant act
Impact
a) Disturb paleontological resources?1 1 X
b) Disturb archaeological resources?11 X
c) Affect historical resources?11 X
d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which 11 X
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 11 X
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks 11 X
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?11 X
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause .a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
P:\EIA.901
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1.a. Land Use
The site is designated for Service Commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan. This land use category
provides city-wide and regional services that rely on customers making trips by car and do not
necessarily benefit from being located in high-volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers and
downtown. Uses may include automobile sales, repair and service, motels, veterinarians and small
animal hospitals, lumber yards and building supply dealers, and fast-food and other restaurants. The
applicant requests azone change on the site from CD-S(P) to PC. Mixed uses are permitted in the
CD-S District. Thus, the project will not have significant land use impacts.
.Mitigation Measures: None required.
2.a. Population and Housing
The construction of a new mixed-use development with four apartment units will result in an increase
in the City’s population of approximately nine persons, based upon the 1990 U.S. Census Bureau
figures of 2.24 persons per household for the City of Palo Alto. The project would also add four
dwelling units to the City’s housing stock. The increase in population and housing stock is negligible
compared to the City as a whole. Thus, project will not.have a significant impact on population or
housing.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.a,b.c. Geology
Construction of a new 15,683 sq. ft. mixed use building and related site improvements will increase
the amount of landscaping on-site and decrease the amount of impervious surface area without
significant changes to the site topography. The site is level and parking is provided at grade and will
not excavation or substantial grading. Site soil modifications are not expected to result in significant
adverse environmental impacts.
With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, the earth impacts of the project will not be
significant. The standard conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a final grading
and drainage plan for review by the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of any grading
or building permits.
According to the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Geology & Seismic Technical Report,
the property is in a seismically active area, subject to strong ground shaking in t-he event of an
earthquake. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land are possible,
but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the site, Therefore, fault rupture at the site is very
unlikely, but theoretically possible. All new construction is required to comply with Uniform Building
Code (UBC) standards, portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss
of life and property in the event of an earthquake. Thus, the geologic impacts of the project will not
P:\EIA.901
be significant.
Mit;ige~ion Measures: None required.
4.a.,.b. Water
The site is in Flood Zone X which is not a special flood hazard zone. It is in an area of moderate
flooding outside the 100 year flood zone but inside the 500-yearzone. The project would result in
the development of a new structure and pavement. It is estimated that approximately 79% of the
site would be covered with impervious surfaces, thus resulting in a net decrease of rainfall absorption
and an increase in runoff.
During construction activities, storm water pollution could result. Runoff from the site flows to the
San Francisco Bay with no treatment. Nonpoint source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife
dependent on the wate[ways and for people who live near polluted streams or baylands.
Construction debris (soil, concrete, asphalt slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) are a source of this
pollution.
With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, the water impacts of the project will not be
significant. The conditions of approval will require that a drainage plan be submitted which includes
drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The contractor will be required to incorporate
best management practices (BMP’s) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction
operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Pollution Control Program.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
5.a. Air Quality
The project would result in temporary dust emissions during grading and other construction activities.
The standard conditions of project approval would reduce these air quality impacts to less than
significant levels. The standard conditions of approval will require that the following dust control
measures be employed: 1) exposed earth surfaces shall be watered, as necessary; and 2) spillage
resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed
immediately. Thus, the project is not expected to result in a significant impact on air quality.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
The site is located at the intersection of Alma Street and Channing Avenue. Alma Street is
designated as an arterial street and Channing Avenue is an arterial street. According to the
Transportation Division, no further traffic analysis is required because development of the site was
evaluated in the City-wide Land Use and Transportation Study. Thus, the traffic impacts of the
project would not be significant.
P:\EIA.901
.Mitigation Measures: None required.
6.d. Parking
The project includes a total of 23 parking spaces compared to 25 parking spaces required by Code
(i.e., 1 space/250 sq. ft. of office space plus 1.5 spaces/residential unit plus one guest parking space
per Section 18.83.050 of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance). However, since the peak periods of
parking demand for the office use will occur during the daytime on weekdays, compared to the
residential units which wil! have a peak parking demand on week nights and weekends, the proposed
reduction in the parking requirement by two spaces will not have a significant parking impact.
Mi!:.i.gation Measures: None required.
10.a. ~
The applicant proposes construction of a mixed-use office/residential project which is compatible with
~he existing uses in the surrounding area. The use and design of the project is not expected to
generate any substantial noise impacts. Temporary impacts would occur as a result of construction
activities. However, with the City’s required standard conditions of approval, the project’s noise
impacts will not be significant. The standard conditions of approval will require the applicant .to
comply with the requirements of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of the PASMC, which
limits the amount of noise and restricts demolition and construction activities to specific hours of the
day to minimize disturbance to adjacent residents. Thus, the noise impacts of the project would not
be significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
13.b,c. Aesthetics
The project has been designed to be compatible with the character of surrounding development and
provides a pedestrian plaza along Channing Avenue. The development of the site may result in a
negligible increase in light and glare generated from the glazing on the building and exterior lighting,
but will not have an adverse impact on surrounding uses. With the standard conditions of approval,
the light and glare impacts of the project will not be significant. A proposed lighting plan with
specified light fixtures is required for submittal and will be a condition of project approval. Any
lighting is required to be shielded such that the light does not extend beyond the site and that the
source of light is not directly visible. The project is subject to final review by the Architectural
Review Board, which will ensure a design that is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its
surroundings.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
14.a. Cultural Resources
The site is near a sensitive archaeological area according to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
P:\EIA.901
Update: Existing Setting Summary Memorandum. The flatlands of Palo Alto are kno.wn to contain
widely dispersed prehistoric sites with shell-ridden components, including human burials and a variety
of artifacts.
Mitigation Measures: If during grading and construction activities, any archeological or human remains
are encountered, construction will cease and a qualified archeologist would visit the site to assess
the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office would be notified to provide proper
direction on how to pro.ceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction,
construction will cease immediately until a Native American defendant, appointed by the Native
American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further
recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
P:\EIA.901
/NtTIAL STI,,.IDY SOURCE L!ST:
1) City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1980-1995
2) City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance
3) Planner’s knowledge of the project and area of proposed development
4) Pato Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Geology and Seismic Technical Report, 1994
5). FEMA Flood Insurance Map, Community Panel #060348-0002D, dated 9/6/89
6) City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Project Approval
7) Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quality Technical Background Report, August 1994
8) Memo from Carl Stoffel, Transportation Division, dated March 25, 1996
9) Off-Street Parking Ordinance, Chapter 18.83, PAMC
10) Project Plans, 901 Alma Street, dated 3/21/96
11) Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Existing /Setting Summary Memorandum, August, 1994
12) City of Palo Alto Fire Department
13) Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Noise Technical Background Report, August 1994
14) City of Palo Alto Police Department
15) City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering Department
16) City of Palo Alto Public Works Department
P:\EIA.901
Attachment 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 11, 1996
Planning Commission
Bob Schubert, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning
901-909 Alma Street: Application to rezone a property from CD-S(P)
(Commercial Downtown - Pedestrian Combining District) to a PC
(Planned Community) District to construct a 15,683 square foot, four-
story mixed-use project with 4 apartment units and 4,425 square feet
of office use. File Nos.: 96-ZC-5, 96-ARB-41 & 96-EIA-12.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the following:
Approval of the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration [Attachment 4], finding that the
proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, if certain
conditions of project approval are imposed;
Adoption of the attached ordinance (Attachment 1), including findings and conditions,
rezoning the property at 901 Alma Street from CD-S(P) (Commercial Downtown - Pedestrian
Combining District) to a PC (Planned Community) District allowing the development of a
15,683 square foot, four-story mixed-use project with 4 apartment units and 4,425 square feet
of office use; and
3.Approval of the attached ARB findings and conditions of project approval [Attachments 2
and 3].
PROJECT INFORMATION
The applicant proposes to develop .24 acre (10,500 square feet) of vacant, level land fronting on
Alma Street and Channing Avenue with a 15,683 square foot, 4 story office and residential
building. Details regarding the proposed project, as well as information on the subject property
and project history are presented below.
Project Description
The building would be 48 feet in height (at midpoint of pitched roof) with 23 parking spaces, a
pedestrian plaza, lobby, trash enclosure and landscaping on the first level; 4 apartment units on
the second and third levels, and office space on the fourth level. The project has increased in size
from the initial Planning Commission review and now includes 4,425 square feet of office use,
7,674 square feet of residential use and 3,584 square feet of covered parking, lobby, elevator and
stairs (other recent changes to the plans are described below under Plan Revisions Following
ARB Meeting). Three of the apartments are on the west side of the project and one would be
adjacent to the alley, which is east of the site. Each apartment would have two levels, on the
second and third floors of the building, containing one bedroom, two bathrooms, a living area, a
dining area and a balcony.
According to the applicant, the building is designed to blend the permanence of commercial
development with a softer, more articulated residential form. It would have a concrete and steel
structural .frame with exterior materials consisting of stucco, cast-in-place concrete, horizontal
wood siding and rectangular metal panels. Metal guard rails would be installed along roof decks
on the secon~t and fourth levels.
Vehicular access to the project would be from the alley on the east side of the site. As discussed
below under Downtown Urban Design Policies, the use of alleys is encouraged for projects with
frontage on Alma Street. The use of the alley for access to the project requires the widening of
the portion of the alley fronting on the site from 15 to 20 feet. Thus, the project is required to
dedicate to the City a 5-foot wide strip to provide the width required for two-way traffic to and
from the proposed driveway. Signing would be installed where the alley changes from one-way
to two-way traffic. Due to power poles straddling the alley, widening the alley may require
moving and/or undergrounding of utilities in that area.
A 20-foot wide entryway with a security gate adjacent to the alley would provide access to 15
parking spaces within a parking court. Seven of the spaces within the parking court would be
uncovered and 8 spaces would be located under the 3 residential units on the west side of the
project. In addition,there would be 8 garage parking spaces with access directly from the alley.
The main pedestrian access to the building would be from a lobby fronting on Channing Avenue.
The lobby would contain an elevator, stairway, mailboxes, bicycle storage room and lockers.
Access to the 3 apartment units on the west side of the project would also be provided by a
stairway at the southwest comer of the building. Access to the apartment unit above the garages
would be provided by a stairway adjacent to the parking court.
As shown on the preliminary landscape plan, new landscaping would be installed around the
perimeter of the site, including a total of 10 new street trees. Along the Alma Street frontage, a
landscape strip approximately 5 feet in width would be located between the sidewalk and the
building. Along Channing Street, the proposed building setbacks are varied to create two
landscaped areas; one at the comer of the building near the intersection and one at the center of
the site. The portion of the building facing Channing Street between the lobby and the garages
would be inset 19 feet from the property line to create 1,786 square feet of common usable open
space. A pedestrian plaza would be enclosed by the building on three sides and would contain
P:\PCSR\901ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 2
two wood benches and a raised planter. The existing sidewalks along the Alma Street and
Channing Street frontages would be removed and replaced with an integral colored concrete
pavement treatment.
Rezoning to Planned CommuniD’ (PC), District
While the CD-S(P) District allows office and residential projects as permitted uses. the required
provisions for developing residential uses within this district (Section 18.24, RM-30 District and
Section 18.28 District) make it difficult to design a mixed-use project that is compatible with the
land uses and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, particularly along Alma
Street (see the discussion in this report under Zoning Ordinance Compliance). Adoption of the
PC District for this particular project would permit the necessary flexibility in floor area and
common usable open space so that a compatible, vertically integrated, mixed-use project can be
built on a relatively small lot.
Since the project involves a rezoning from CD-S(P) to PC District, the applicant is required to
present a statement identifying the proposed uses, the phasing schedule and the public benefits of
the project [see Attachment 5]. The applicant has indicated that construction of the project is
expected to begin in early 1997. The length of the construction period is projected to be
approximately seven months. It is projected the project will be occupied in the end of the
summer of 1997. Staff recommends that the development schedule in the PC Ordinance provide
for a commencement date of no later than July 1, 1997 and a completion date of no later than
September 1, 1998. An analysis of the proposed public benefits is discussed in the PUBLIC
BENEFIT section of the report.
BACKGROUND
Site Description
The .24 acre vacant site is flat and rectangular, with 100 feet of frontage on Alma Street and 105
feet of frontage on Channing Avenue. There are five existing on-street parking spaces on Alma
Street and four spaces on Channing Avenue. There is a 4-inch Ornamental Pear within the right-
of-way on Alma Street, a 5-inch London Plan tree, and a 3-inch Maple tree on Channing Avenue.
Existing vegetation on the site consists primarily of weeds and small trees along the southern
property line.
Project Information
Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor parcel number, Comprehensive Plan
designation, zoning district, existing land use, and parcel size is shown as follows in Table 1.
P:\PCSR\901 ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 3
TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
Owner:
Douglas Ross
2686 Middlefield Road, Unit E
Redwood City CA 94063
David Kelley
151 University Avenue
Palo Alto CA 94301
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers:120-28-048 & 120-28-098
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Zone District:
Service Commercial
CD-S(P) Downtown Commercial-Pedestrian Combining
District
Existing Land Use:
Surrounding Land Uses:
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Channing Avenue and hardware store
Design studio and automobile repair shop
One-way alley (southbound) and creamery
building
Alma Street and Southern Pacific railroad tracks
Parcel Size:
Dates:
PROJECT HISTORY
0.24 acre (10,500 square feet)
Application received: 3/21/96
Application complete: 7/12/96
Mandatory action deadline: None.
Planning Commission Review
On June 26, 1996, the Planning Commission completed an initial review of the project (see the
attached minutes). The Commission voted to forward the project to the ARB with the following
comments and recommendations:
P:\PCSR\901 ALMA.91 t
9-11-96
Page 4
The proposed mixed-use development concept is appropriate for this site. The Commission
noted that it is the City’s first proposal for this type of housing in the South of
Forest/University Park area and suggested that it is appropriate to request a PC zone for
additional floor area, in order to provide covered parking at-grade in this location.
The proposed architectural design, particularly the articulation and color variation, is
exciting. However, some Commissioners encouraged the applicant to work closely with the
ARB in reviewing the proposed building height. They felt that although the proposed 49½-
foot high structure was in compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements, the building may
be too tall and imposing on the surrounding buildings.
The proposed pedestrian plaza along Channing Avenue is appropriate as a public benefit.
The Commission suggested that the applicant meet with the Public Art Commission (PAC)
prior to the ARB meeting to develop a more clearly defined public art proposal, with the art
being better incorporated into the design of the building.
Architectural Review Board (ARB) Action
On August 1, 1996, the ARB, on a 4-0-1-0 vote (Board member Ross was absent), recommended
approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planned Community zone change, findings for
rezoning, findings for Architectural Review and conditions of approval. Generally, the ARB
enthusiastically supported the project, specifically the visual interest created by the detailing and
articulation of the architecture as well as the industrial-style approach to the design, which they
felt is appropriate for the neighborhood. Although two ARB members expressed concerns
regarding the proposed building height, primarily because the existing buildings for two or three
blocks in either direction along Alma Street are lower in height, the ARB recommendation did
not include any requirements to reduce the height of the building. The ARB recommendation for
approval of the project was conditioned on the applicant returning to the ARB with the
following: reconsideration of the proposed parking court material (asphalt) and the architectural
design of the building entry on Channing Avenue and submittal of a final landscape and
irrigation plan with additional landscaping provided in the parking court; final plans for the
public artwork; building materials and colors, including the glass, roof deck material, mullion
details and the proposed cementious board (i.e, Hardy board); and, proposed signage and lighting
plan.
At the August 1, 1996 ARB meeting, the applicant also requested comments and a
recommendation on his conceptual proposal to add approximately 500 square feet of floor area
for the office use on the fourth floor adjacent to the alley (plans had not yet been prepared
showing the additional floor area). The ARB generally supported the request (i.e, two Board
members supported the proposal for additional floor area, one was opposed and one was neutral).
The ARB recommendation for approval of the project included a requirement that revised plans
showing the additional proposed floor area on the fourth floor be submitted with the other items
which must be submitted for final ARB review and approval.
P:\PCSR\901 ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 5
Plan Revisions Following ARB Meeting
Pursuant to the conceptual proposal presented by the applicant at the August 1, 1996 ARB
meeting, revised plans were recently submitted to staff showing 620 square feet of additional
office space on the fourth floor (see the attached letter from the architect dated August 29, 1996
and the plans included in your packet). The revised plans also show 785 square feet of additional
floor area for the apartment units which was not presented at the ARB meeting. The additional
residential floor area includes 205 square feet for the unit adjacent to the alley. The remainder of
the additional residential floor area is located inside the proposed building envelope (e.g., lofts)
and therefore will not affect the building mass. The proposed 1,513 square feet of total
additional floor area increases the proposed floor area of the building from !4,170 to 15,683
square feet.
The ARB supported adding approximately 500 square feet on the fourth floor as
verbally described by the applicant at the August 1, 1996 meeting, subject to revised plans
showing the additional fourth floor office area returning for review" and approval by ARB (see
the discussion above under Architectural Review Board Action). The revised plans show 620
square feet of additional fourth floor area which increase the bulk of the building, especially as
viewed from Channing Avenue and the alley. The office area is articulated along the alley
elevation with the additional office space recessed behind the building frame on the third floor by
6½ feet.
The proposed 785 square feet of additional floor area for the residential units was not previously
discussed with the ARB. A portion of the additional residential floor area, 205 square feet on the
apartment unit adjacent to the alley, would increase the building mass. However, since this
additional floor area would not be visible from beyond the alley, the visual impacts would be
minimal. The remaining additional residential floor area would be located inside of the exterior
wall plane and therefore would not increase the building mass.
In addition, the following revisions have been made to the plans following the ARB meeting:
In consideration of the additional floor area, the proposed kinetic metal sculpture mounted to
the stair tower fronting on Channing Avenue was increased in size (see the attached letter
from the applicant dated August 30, 1996 and the discussion below under Publi.~......Art.)
2. In response to Planning Commission and ARB comments, the plans were revised as follows:
the height of the building was reduced by 1 V2 feet, from 49½ feet to 48 feet ( measured
from grade to the midpoint of the pitched roof). It should be noted that the drawings have
not been revised to reflect the revised building height (a condition of approval requires
that revised plans reflecting this revision be submitted prior to submittal for a building
permit);
P:\PCSR \901ALMA.9 t 1
9-11-96
Page 6
b.a trellis with vines was added to provide additional landscaping within the parking court:
c.the surface material for the parking court was changed from asphalt to interlocking
paving stones; and
d. the cementious vertical boards on the building elevations were changed to stucco.
The lobby facing Channing Avenue has been setback an additional 7 feet and the lobby was
increased in height to provide a roof and glazing above the lobby. The additional setback
was achieved by rotating the lobby stairs 90 degrees. This modification increases the area for
pedestrians along the sidewalk by approximately 120 square feet.
To achieve the required fire rating, a roof was added above the stairway facing Alma Street
adjacent to the site’s southern property line.
The trash!recycling area was relocated to the opposite side of the entry drive adjacent to the
alley.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Ordinance and Architectural Review Board Ordinance and should be evaluated against the
recommendations contained in the Urban Design Guide.
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed residential and office uses are allowed within the Service Commercial Comp-
rehensive Plan designation. The uses and project design are consistent with the following
Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies and programs:
Housing Element, Program ..1 - "In areas adjacent to the Downtown shopping area, maintain
single-family and duplex areas and have multiple-family housing close to shops and offices. "
The four proposed apartment units would provide an opportunity for employees of downtown
businesses to live within easy walking distance of their jobs.
Housing Element, Policy 6 - "Maintain at least the present number of multiple-family rental
units while working to increase the overall supply of rental housing." The project would
increase the overall supply of rental housing by four units.
P:\PCSR\901 ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 7
Housing Element. Policy 14 and Employment Policy 2 - "’Support the mixing of residential
uses in commercial and industrial areas" and "encourage the construction of more housing
primarily on or near industrial and commercial sites." The project would not only provide
four additional housing units in a commercial area, but would provide a mix of office and
residential uses on the same site.
Housing Element, Program 13 - "In housing developments of three or more units, not less
than 10 percent of the units should be provided at below market rates to low- and moderate-
income families." The project will be required to pay an in-lieu fee which will be used to
provide additional Below-Market-Rate (BMR) housing in the City.
Housing Element, Program 32 - States in part that the City should "’evaluate any disincentives
which discourage residential use on land zoned for commercial and industrial use, and if
necessary, eliminate or mitigate such disincentives." The PC zone change process is being
used to accommodate the proposed mixed-use project, which includes residential use on
commercially zoned property.
Urban Design, Program 15 - "Create mini-parks, pedestrian malls, promenades, open space,
and areas where pedestrian would have right-of-way over automobiles." The project
includes a 1,666-square-foot pedestrian plaza fronting on Channing Avenue that includes a
raised planter, public seating and new landscaping.
Downtown Urban Design Policies
While the Urban Design Guide is considered an incentive and guide for redevelopment, rather
than policy, it calls for improving the appearance of Alma Street and capitalizing on the
residential and mixed-use development opportunities that exist there. The Urban Design Guide
states that the primary means for accomplishing this include the. following:
1. transforming Alma Street into an attractive, tree-lined boulevard;
2. providing an inviting and safe pedestrian path to the Train Station and Transit Depot; and
3.creating pedestrian links between Downtown and the Stanford Shopping Center and between
Downtown and the Urban Lane areas.
The guide encourages the use of alleys for primary access to projects fronting on Alma Street.
The use of the alley for primary access requires the expansion of the alley from 15 feet to 20 feet
along the property frontage. Thus, the applicant will be required to dedicate to the City a 5-foot
wide strip adjacent to the alley for two-way traffic to and from the proposed driveway.
P:\PCSR\901 ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 8
The guide encourages variations in building setbacks to allow for landscaping, courtyards and
other pedestrian spaces in order to minimize the potential for solid building walls along Alma
Street that could appear massive and overbearing. The guide recognizes that north of the
Embarcadero Road overpass, Alma Street is generally an unattractive corridor due to the on-
street parking and narrow width and provides excellent development opportunities for additional
building masses, particularly south of University Avenue. Although the guide states that the
blank walls, which currently exist along Alma Street, detract from the visual environment and
should be avoided in the future, it also recognizes that it is a difficult area for both retail
frontages and residential uses and should be carefully designed to reduce noise and traffic
impacts.
The intersection of Channing Avenue and Alma Street is identified as an "Auto Entry" to the
Downtown. The guide suggests varying building heights along Alma Street "to create a mini-
skyline along the western edge to anchor the downtown." The guide suggests that buildings
along Alma Street should be designed as "four sided," because they will tend to be taller than
other buildings and will be visible from many elevated locations.
Although the project is inconsistent with the Commercial Downtown (CD) District policy of
encouraging underground parking within the downtown area, overall, the proposed project makes
a positive contribution towards fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Urban Design Guide
because it would:
1.provide a strong building and architectural statement at a corner identified as an "entry," in
the Urban Design Guide, Alma Street District;
2. capitalize on the mixed-use development oppommities which exist in the area;
3.provide a total of 6 new street trees along Alma Street, which will help to transform Alma
Street into an attractive, tree-lined boulevard, if the proper species of tree is substituted (see
discussion in this report under Landscaping;
4.provide a design that reduces noise and traffic impacts by placing the residential units above
the ground level;
5. increase pedestrian activity, particularly along the Channing Avenue frontage; and
6. provide vehicular access to the project by the alley on the east side of the site.
P:\PCSR\90IALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 9
DISCUSSION
Issues and Analysis
The staff analysis for this project relates to land use compatibility, building height, pedestrian
design features, public art, architectural review standards, Zoning Ordinance compliance,
parking, landscaping, trash/recycling area and padmount transformer.
Land Use Compatibility.: The site is designated for Service Commercial use in the
Comprehensive Plan. This land use category provides citywide and regional services that rely on
customers making trips by car and do not necessarily benefit from being located in high-volume
pedestrian areas such as shopping centers and downtown. Uses may include automobile sales,
repair and service, motels, veterinarians and small animal hospitals, lumber yards and building
supply dealers, as well as fast-food and other restaurants. The neighborhood has developed as a
mixed-use area which forms a transition from the downtown commercial core and the South of
Forest/University. Park residential area. Existing development of the site’s block is primarily
auto related but there is also a creamery, office and retail uses. The majority of the surrounding
buildings are single-story, including the Palo Alto Hardware Store across Channing Avenue and
the Fuller Building adjacent to the site’s southern property line. The Peninsula Creamery across
the alley to the east is also a single-story building, however, it has a high ceiling which results in
a building height similar to a two-story building.
Building Height: Although the project complies with the 50-foot maximum height (i.e., the
building is 48 feet in height measured to the midpoint of the pitched roof), the City could require
that the building height be reduced if it were found necessary to make the required findings for
approval of the project (i.e., ARB Standards for Review #a2, #a5 and #a6). The proposed
building height is partly driven by the existing noise conditions at the site. The exterior noise
levels at the site are approximately 73 dB DNL. The major sources of noise for the project
residents are vehicular traffic on Alma Street, railroad operations and the operation of the nearby
automobile repair businesses. The latter source of noise is primarily from the use of power tools
at the existing automobile repair shop located within the Fuller Building to the south of the site.
By providing par’king on the first floor and the residential units on the second and third floors,
the project has been designed to minimize the impacts of the exterior noise on the residential
units.
The intersection of Channing Avenue and Alma Street is identified in the Downtown Urban
Design Guide as an "Auto Entry" to the Downtown. The guide suggests varying building
heights along Alma Street and transitioning the scale of buildings to the residential areas. It
encourages varied building height and mass along Alma Street "to create a mini-skyline along
the western edge to anchor the downtown." The guide suggests that buildings along Alma Street
should be designed as "four sided," because they will tend to be taller than other buildings and
P:\PCSR\901ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 10
will be visible from many elevated locations, including trains. The proposed project is consistent
with these policies because the building would be taller than the nearby buildings which are
predominantly single-storb~. In addition, the building is designed to be "four-sided" with
articulated elevations and a variety, of interrelated materials on each side of the building.
Pedestrian Design Features: The site is within the Pedestrian (P) Shopping Combining District.
Since the pedestrian district ends near the middle of the subject block, approximately 100 feet
south of the site, the site is on the edge of the district. Although parking is proposed at the
pedestrian level, outdoor activity occurs at the residential decks on the second and third floors,
and the office decks on the third floor roof.
Although significant pedestrian features are provided along Channing Avenue, including the
proposed pedestrian plaza, other pedestrian design features such as display windows, pedestrian
arcades, recessed entryways or landscaping, are lacking along the Alma Street frontage. To meet
the objectives of the P District, the applicant proposes to install narrow vertical windows at street
level into the parking area and a five-foot wide landscape strip between the sidewalk and the
building wall facing Alma Street.
Staff has recommended the addition of residential entryways and architecture on the Alma Street
frontage. The applicant has expressed concerns regarding the fact that the Alma Street frontage,
with no development on the opposite side of the street, lacks "eyes on the street" which would
provide security for pedestrian features, such as residential "stoops," on the first floor along
Alma Street, as suggested by staff, and therefore has not revised the plans to include those
features.
Public Art: As a proposed public benefit of the PC application, the applicant has commissioned
a kinetic metal sculpture from the artist Jerome Kirk, who created a sculpture at the Palo Ako "
Cultural Center (see the attached letters from the applicant dated July 23, 1996 and August 30,
1996). The sculpture would be approximately 8 to 9 feet high and attached to the face of the stair
tower facing Channing Avenue. The sculpture would not only be visible to pedestrians and
motorists on Channing Avenue, but would be visible to motorists and pedestrians southbound on
Alma Street. The proposed sculpture was unanimously accepted by the Public Art Commission
on August 27, 1996 (see the attached letter from Judith Wasserman dated August 28, 1996). The
ARB generally supported the proposed public art and requested that the final design return to the
ARB for review and approval.
Architectural Review Standards: The project must be consistent with the Architectural Review
Ordinance, Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Draft Architectural
Review Approval Findings have been prepared and are attached to this staff report [see
Attachment #3].
P:\PCSR\901 ALMA.91 I
9-11-96
Page 11
Zoning Ordinance....Compliance: The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the
Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance (Title 18). The applicant has applied for a PC zone change because
the PC zone district allows flexibility to the regular development regulations for the maximum
floor area ratio (FAR) and the minimum required amount of common usable open space. Given
that the project proposes a rezoning to the PC District, the provisions of the existing zoning of
the site would not apply to the development. If the project were processed under the existing
zoning, it would need variances for the following:
Based upon a maximum 1.15 to 1.0 FAR, the maximum floor area for the project is 12,075
square feet compared to 15,683 square feet proposed. Thus, the project would exceed the
maximum floor area by 3,608 square feet. The primary reason the project exceeds the
maximum FAR is because it includes 2,043 square feet of covered parking under the
building, but above-grade, which is counted as floor area.
The project would be deficient in the required amount of common usable open space. The
RM-30 District regulations (Section 18.24.050.j. 1 ) require 2,029 square feet of common
usable open space, compared to 1,786 square feet proposed in the pedestrian plaza adjacent to
Channing Avenue, a deficit of 243 square feet.
Mixed-uses are permitted in the CD-S District, however, the regulations do not speak directly to
site development requirements for vertically integrated mixed use over parking. For mixed-use
projects where the residential and nonresidential uses occupy the same land area, staff has
consistently interpreted that the CD-S District regulations apply, with the exception of the
RM-30 regulations regarding maximum density, FAR and minimum common usable open space.
A comparison of the proposed project to the CD-S and RM-30 regulations is provided in Table 2.
P:\PCSR\901ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 12
TABLE 2: Project Comparison with Current Zoning
District Requirements
CD-S District RM-30 District Proposed Project
Min. Site Area N/A 8,500 sq. ft.10,500 sq. ft
Residential Density N/A 4 units 4 units
Office Use 5,000 sq. ft.N/A 4,425 sq. ft.
Lot Width N/A 70 ft.105 ft.
Lot Depth N/A 100 ft..100 ft.
Maximum FAR 1.15 to 1.0 *1.15 to 1.0 *1.49 to 1.0
Usable Open Space N/A 2,029 sq. ft.1,786 sq. ft.
Maximum Bldg. Height 50 ft.35 ft.48 ft.
Front Yard N/A 20 ft.0 ft.
Rear yard N/A 10 ft.0 ft.
Side Yard N/A 10 ft.10 ft. & 5 ft., 10 in.
Parking 25 spaces 25 spaces 23 spaces
* The maximum FAR is calculated as follows: 0.4 to 1.0 (Nonresidential FAR)
+0.75 to 1.0 (Residential FAR)
1.15 to 1.0
Parking: The project includes a total of 23 parking spaces compared to 25 parking spaces
required by Code (i.e., 1 space/250 square feet of office space plus 1.5 spaces/residential unit
plus one guest parking space per Section 18.83.050 of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance). Due to
the number of proposed parking spaces (23 spaces), Section 18.83.120(c), which authorizes the
Director of Planning and Community Environment to reduce parking requirements for mixed-use
projects with 30 or more parking spaces by up to 20%, does not apply to the proposed project.
The applicant proposes to satisfy this requirement by providing 16 additional bicycle parking
spaces (i.e., Section 18.83.120(a) allows substitution of 8 Class I bicycle parking spaces per
required vehicle parking stall). In addition, since the peak periods of parking demand for the
office use will occur during the daytime on weekdays, compared to the residential units which
will have a peak parking demand on week nights and weekends, the proposed reduction in the
parking requirement by two spaces will not have a significant parking impact.
P:\PCSR\901ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 13
Bicycle Parking: Chapter 18.83 of the PAMC requires 4 bicycle parking spaces for the
residential units (1 space/uniqt) plus 2 bicycle parking spaces for the office use (based on 10% of
the required number of automobile spaces). The bicycle parking spaces would be located in a
room on the first floor, which is accessible from the building lobby. As discussed in this report
under Parking. the applicant proposes to provide 16 additional bicycle parking spaces for a total
of 22 spaces in the project [see Attachment 2, Conditions of Approval].
Landscaping: The existing 4-inch Ornamental Pear within the right-of-way on Alma Street and
the 5-inch London Plane tree and 3-inch Maple tree on Channing Avenue would be removed.
The Ornamental Pear tree is in poor condition and the London Plane tree and Maple tree are in
fair condition (see the attached letter from Linn Winterbotham dated July 15, 1996).
New landscaping would be installed around the perimeter of the site. The landscape plan calls
for a total of 20 new 24-inch box trees, including 10 new street trees within the public right-of-
way. Along the Alma Street frontage, a landscape strip approximately 5 feet in width would be
located between the sidewalk and the building. Along Channing Avenue, the proposed building
setbacks are varied to create three landscaped areas; one at each comer of the building and one at
the center of the site. The portion of the building facing Channing Avenue between the lobby
and the garages would be inset from the property line to create a 1,786-square-foot pedestrian
plaza. The plaza would be enclosed by the building on three sides and would contain two wood
benches and a raised planter. The existing sidewalks along the Alma Street and Channing
Avenue frontages would be removed and replaced with an integral colored concrete pavement
treatment.
Staff recommends that one additional street tree be provided on Alma Street near the
intersection. In addition, pursuant to the Urban Design Guide, the species of the proposed street
tree along Alma Street should be changed to Chestnut or an alternate street tree equally bold and
large in scale. Along Channing Avenue, the landscape plan should be revised to place all of the
proposed street trees and landscaping within the right-of way on the curb side of the sidewalk,
and to provide street trees as close to the intersection as possible without obstructing views of the
proposed public art located on the north wall of the lobby [see Attachment 2, Conditions of
Project Approval].
The landscape plan complies with the Off-Street Parking Ordinance for the amount of
landscaping. Final landscape approval will require a full grading plan, final planting and
irrigation plans, a Statement of Design Intent, Water Use Statement, and water use calculations
for review and approval by the City Arborist, Utilities Marketing Services and Planning
Division. The new street trees will be required to be 24-inch box in size.
P:\PCSR\901 ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 14
Trash!Recycling Area: The trash/recycling area would be located adjacent to the ent~way
facing the alley. The Public Works/Recycling Division has indicated that the plans do not show
enough detail to determine whether adequate space is proposed for recyclables. Thus, the
attached conditions of approval require that the plans be revised to show adequate space for
recycled glass, cans, newspaper, white paper, mixed paper and cardboard.
Padmount Transformer: The applicant will be required to provide a padmount transformer for
the project. The transformer would be located inside of the building walls in front of the garages,
between the drive court and the wall of the building facing Channing Avenue. Access to the
transformer would be provided by the entry gate to the drive court. By locating the transformer
inside of the building walls, it would be screened from view" by the public.
PUBLIC BENEFITS
A PC zone is required for this project because the City’s conventional zoning districts do not
accommodate this vertically integrated mixed-use project. Approval of the requested PC zone
change would require that public benefit findings be made. The public benefits should be both
inherent in the project and go beyond the minimum zoning ordinance requirements and
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and ARB Standards for Review. To address the
additional floor area, which was recently proposed, the applicant has agreed to provide the
following additional public benefits: the public art sculpture was increased in size, the lobby was
setback farther from Channing Avenue thereby increasing the pedestrian area and the portion of
the alley adjacent to the site would be repaved. Staff believes that the proposed project, a
gateway building at the comer of Channing Avenue and Alma Street with public art and street
frontage improvements, including a 1,786 square foot pedestrian plaza and repavement of the
portion of the all~y adjacent to the site, fulfills the public benefit requirement. Draft findings for
the proposed public benefits are contained in the draft PC Ordinance [see Attachment 1 ].
DRAFT FINDINGS AND.CONDITIONS
Attached are proposed ARB findings and conditions, as approved by the ARB [see Attachments
2 and 3]. The Planning Commission should make recommendations on the draft PC Ordinance
and ARB findings and conditions, and forward those recommendations to the City Council.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property were mailed a public
hearing notice. One member of the public spoke at the June 26, 1996 Planning Commission
meeting. Mr. Larry Hassett, owner of Palo Alto Hardware, supported the project but expressed
concerns regarding the proposed building height, particularly in relation to the single-story
hardware store building across Channing Avenue which is approximately 20 feet in height. No
members of the public spoke during the ARB hearing on August 1, 1996.
P:\PCSR\901 ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 15
ALTERNATIVES
There are three altematives which should be considered by the Planning Commission, each of
which provide opportunities to reduce the mass and height of the building and provide additional
landscaping and usable common area. One alternative would be to provide underground parking.
The applicant has indicated that he prefers the parking at grade level, as proposed, to provide a
vertical buffer between Alma Street and the 3 residential units which front on Alma Street. The
second alternative would be to reduce the size of the building by eliminating residential units or
reducing the size of the office space. Another alternative would be to further reduce the total
number of required parking spaces (i.e., 23 parking spaces are proposed compared to 25 spaces
required by Code). Due to the shared parking opportunities in the mixed-use project and the
close proximity to public transportation, the project could qualify for a deferral of 50% of the
required parking under Section 18.83.120(e). The deferred parking spaces would be placed in a
landscaped reserve area. The applicant has indicated that he did not pursue this alternative
because reducing the amount of parking within the project could burden the nearby commercial
businesses which have no or minimal on-site parking.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project will not have a significant fiscal impact on the City. This application is subject to the
full cost recovery fee schedule.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment has been prepared
and is attached [see Attachment 4].
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The process for this rezoning action continues to proceed in the following order: review and
recommendation by the Planning Commission (second review); and review and action by the
City Council. The project is tentatively scheduled for review by the City Council on October 21,
t996.
P:\PCSR\901 ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 16
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment #1: Draft Planned Community (PC) Ordinance
Attachment #2: Draft Conditions of Project Approval
Attachment #3: Draft Findings for Architectural Review Approval
Attachment #4: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment #5: Letter from architect dated August 29, 1996
Attachment #6: Letter from applicant dated August 30, 1996
Attachment #7: Development Program Statement from applicant dated May 22, 1996
Attachment #8: Letter from applicant dated July 23, 1996
Attachment #9: Letter from Linn Winterbotham dated July 15, 1996
Attachment #10: Letter from Judith Wasserman dated August 28, 1996
Attachment # 11 : June 26, 1996 Planning Commission minutes
Attachment # 12: August 1, 1996 ARB minutes
Project Plans (Planning Commission members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Architectural Review Board
Public Art Commission
Leon Kaplan, Cultural Center
Douglas Ross, 2686 Middlefield Road, Unit E, Redwood City CA 94063
Jeff Zimmerman, Columbus Architects, 150 Green Street, Suite 309, San Francisco CA 94111
David Kelley, 151 University Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301
Prepared by: Robert Schubert, Contract Project Planner
Division/Department Head Approval: J */~-~ ~- /@~_Z’.,.,, ~~ ...
Nancy’~VIaddox Lytle, Chie(Planning Official
P:\PCSR\901 ALMA.911
9-11-96
Page 17
COLUMBUS Architecture
Attachment 6
i n t e r i o r s "P "1 a n n i n g
One-Fifty Green Street
Suite Number 309
San Francisco, Ca 94111
Memorandum #2
To:
Project:
Robert Schubert
Ross - Mixed Use
901 Alma Street
Palo Alto, California
Fax 415.781.3696
Telephone 415.781.2211
9611
29 August 1996
Dear Robert;
I have attempted to identify the last changes to our submission since we last sent you the ARB
Revision Set dated 12 August 1996:
Building
Height
The building has been reduced in overall height from 55’ - 0" to 53’ - 6". This
has been achieved by reducing the plate height on the Office Floor, level 4, from
14’ - 0" to 12’ - 6 ’. This was achieved by studying the construction type and
systems we will most likely be using, thus eliminating some of the fudge factors
originally utilized in the early conceptual design stage. The drawings and model
do not reflect this change, but the overall impact will be reduced.
Office
Stair
The Office entry star has been refined. It has been setback from the Channing
property line an additional seven plus feet. The stair run was rotated 90 degrees
allowing for the rotation and stair to work closer in to the actual office. In
addition a roof was added to the stair simplifying our waterproofing concerns
both structurally as well as in its functional use. The mass has been reduced in
relation to the Channing elevation. Both drawings and model reflect this
change.
changes
The overall bldg. has increased in overall footage due to structural alignments
and a more accurate (computer bases) calculation of the areas. The only
significant change has been to the Residential portion of the project (525 sqft).
In an effort to simplify the structural system the loft floors in Apt. 1, 2 & 3 were
attached to the exterior wall and shear planes. This additional footage has not
increased any exterior wall plane or bldg. hr., thus not effecting the bldg. mass.
Exit Stair The stair adjacent the Fuller Bldg., due to its proximity to the property line,
required the addition of a roof to achieve the fire rating required for this exit
stair. We feel this has no visual impact either way. The drawings and model
reflect this change also.
Thanks, Jeff Zimmerman
cc:Doug Ross
Attachments:10 sets 24"x36", 1 set 8.5"xl 1" PC revisions, 29 Aug ’96, model.
END
Page I
Date Issued: 29 August 1996
Attachment 7
IIII IIIIIIII
DOUG;._kS RUSS CONSTRUC~0N.
2686 MIOOLEFIELD ROAD, UNIT E
REDWOOD CIT~ CAUFORNIA 94063
415 369 9691 F~: ~,15 369 2082
rr- TiOSS
Memora adum
DATE:
TO:
FROM;
RE:
Au~c ust 30, 1996
Robert Schubert, AICP., Contract Planner
Cit~ of Paid Alto
Douglas Ross
901-909 Alma Street
The building has gone thro’.ugh several refinements since originally presented
to the Plannir g Commission. Approximately 550 square feet of office area has
been located over a portion of the deck area on the Channing and alley
elevation,
In consideration for the additional square footage, 1 offer the following additional
public benefits:
The kinetic metal sculpture mounted to the stair tower fronting
Channing by Jerome Kirk has recently been approved by the Public
Art~l Commission. While the building footage has increased
mirimally, the sculpture has increased 50% in size. It was originally
5 to 6 feet high and it is now approximately 8 to 9 feet.
A r.~duction of the stair tower facing Channing has resulted in an
incease to the public plaza area, This will allow for additional site
pm’ing and landscape opportunities.
Memorandum
D~’rE- May 22, 1996
TO;
FROM:
RE:
Robert Schubert, AICP
C, ontract Project Planner
City of Palo Alto
J. Douglas Ross
901-909 Alma Street (96-ZC-5 & 96-EIA-12)
Attacnmen[ o
I
-DOUGLA~ ROSS CONST’R:JCTION. ~NC,
26B6 MIOOLEFIELD ROAD, UNIT E
REDWOOD CIT~ CAUFORNUk 94063
415 :~9 960~ FAX. 415 369 2082
r i OSS
Project Development Statement
This is a mixed use project of commercial offices and four apamm~’nt units. Under currant
zoning ordinances the only way to achieve thh is to combine ~suiccs CD-SP ~nd R.M-30.
neither of which was written with a mixed use proj~t in mind_ Doing this places ,, variety
of constraints on the project.
This property is located on the edge of the pedestrian distlict, as depicted on the City’s
zoning map. It is bordered by Alma Stx~t and the ra~oad tracks on the west and
Chanuiug Su’eet on the north. The Alma frontage is a major vehicu1,~ arterial into and out
of the City and is nol conducive to use by pedestrians for access to shopping or other
buildings. This is an impacted parking axea as is all of the downtown a.r~a and add.hag to
this shortage by not self patking the project would adversely impact the neighborhood.
The FAR calculations as follow necessitate a zone change to PC:
Site Area: 10,500 SF
Allowed cu.rrenflv
Cornm~cial area*:.40 x 10.500 = 4.200 SF
Residenti~ area**:35 x 10,500 = 7,875 SF
Subtotal:
CL~ulation and storage:
Covered parking under building:
Total ar~:12,075 SF
Ih’oiect as proposed
3,805 SF
10,694 SF
1,432 SF
2.043 SF
14,I69 SF
Zoning Code Section 18.49.060 Site development regulations.
** Zoning Code Secdon 18.24.050(i)(2) Floor area ratio (FAR)
The overage of 2,094 SF (14,169 5!= minus 12,075 Sb") is due to the fact that part of the
building, is above the parking nearest Alma Street requiring this parking area to be counted
against the FAR. Unlike the RM-30 ordinance in which attached parkSug allows for greater
FAR (15%). the CD District has no such provisions.
Residential portion of project:6,889 SF-,- 10,694 SF = 64.4%
Residential allocation of site:64.4% of 10,500 SF = 6,762 SF
Portion oir that required as Open Space:30% of 6,762 SF = 2,029 SF
This proposal provides approximately 1,666 S1= of Common UsabIe Open ~pace along
Channing Street. 363 SF less than the ordinance recluses. This mixed use project is
different than those envisioned when Section 18.24.050(3")(i) of the Oxls was written.
While technica‘lly this project complies with the siz~ requirements of an RM-30 of 8,500
SF, the ordinance was intended for much larger pamels than our 10,S00 SP sits and was
designed for "Garden Style Apartments", not the Mixed Use type proposal before you
hem. Its urban kx:ation allows for it to benefit from other usable 6pen spaces in the
neighborhood, like the parks and plazas provided by. and for these more urban
environments. It is our intention that the Common Usable Open Sp~e be used and shared
by the public as depicted in the Channing Street courtyard. We have combined the public
sidewalk and project Courtyard to form a plaza for all to experience and ur~ze. This
proposal does. however, exceed Private Open Space requirements significantly. The
Ordinance requires a total of 200 SF for allof the apartments, while the l~roposal has a total
of 1,263 SF. In addition the office portion has appmximatsly 1,3(:~0 SF of I:~ivate Usable
Open Space where none is required.
This project does not provide an opportunity for retail shopping as zeqtRmd in Chapter
18.4"] PI=DI~STRIAN SHOPPING COMBINING DISTRICT (P) REGULATIONS. This
site would not support a retail shop serving pe.desrriz.ns as it is at the very edge of the
pedestrian shopping are~ and is bordered on the west by a busy arterial street (Alma). The
design does create a pleasant au’nosphexe for pedestrians, however, by having the
apartment balconies one floor abov~ the sidewalk on the Alma, frontage, hzwing widely
varied articulation along both street frontages, windows at street level to r~e parking, and
pedestrian entries to the building on both street frontages. The wall between the garage and
the sidewalk is set back from the walk and separated from the walk by landscaping and
architecture] columns between the residential balconies above.
This site is currently vacam. The proposed developmentincludes four apartment units (not
live-work as originally noted on the plans) providing an opportunity ~or employe.~s of
businesses in downtown Palo Alto to live wkhin easy walking distanc~ of their jobs,
shopping, dining end other downtown activities as well as the nearby CalTmns station, It
will also bring additional pedesudan activity to this area in the evenings and on weekends.
The office use of the proposed development will bring additional commerce and job
opportunities to .the downtown core. The resulting mixed use building makes this an
economically viable project. As calle.d for inthe Comprehensive Plan, both the apartn~nts
and the offices will be: hif~hly compatible with the currant surrounding area of commercial
uses to the north and residential uses to the east and south. It will also blend well with new
uses in the future as this is designated in the Alma Street District secdon of the Downtown
Urban EtesiEn manual as an area for’transition to r~sidential buildings from the morn i.ntens~
commercial uses to the north.
2
This project provides numerou.s public b~ncfits to the City of Pa.lo Alto. We have worked
with Palo Alto landscape architect Linn Winmrbotharn to m’eate a pedestrian plaza facing
Channing St~et that includes raised planters, public scaling and lush landscaping including
more street trees than typical and an enhanced sidewalk and r, otmyard area inmgrated with
the public sidewalk to become a.public plaza. Adjacent to the seating in th~ public plaza
area is a location for a sculpture. Wc look forward to working with the Public Arts
Commission for input and have agree, to commission a work by world renowned artist
Jerome Kirk who ctmate.d a sculpture that is at the Palo Alto Oaltm-al Comer. ]F.nclose, d ~
copies of some examples of his work for your review. This work of are would b¢ provided
for.the enjoyment of all as an expense to the project. Additiona.1 landscaping is proposed
along both Channing and Alma frontages and th~ building is set back from the street
intersection to allow for a landscaped area incorporating three trees. The public sidewalks
will bc of integral color concrete paving.
The proposal includes four apartment units as follows:
A~. No. T__v~e Bedroom count Size
Apt. 1 Townhouse One bedroom + loft 1,075 SF $1,350
Apt. 2 Townhouse One bedroom + loft 1.335 SF $1,500
Apt. 3 Town.house One bedioom + loft 1,1@2 SF $1,425
Apt. 4 Townhouse Onebe~troom+loft 1,260 SF :$1,625
The anticipated schedule for the construction of the project would include beginning
construction early in 1997. Construction will take about seven months. The project will be
built all at one time, not phased and should be ready for occupancy by the end of the
summer of 1997.
Designing a successful mixed us~ project is difficult to achieve under the current zoning
ordinances. Review of this project has raised some areas of concern that could be
addressed in a new ordinance designed to accommodate mixed use projects. This could be
a real asset to the City of Palo Alto.
July 23, 1996
Attachment 9
rrri J SS.
Bob Schubert
Department of Planning
Palo Al~o City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re:901 Alma Street, Palo Alto
Public Art - ARB Application
Dear Bob:
On July 24th I will present to the Public Arts Commission the proposal for the
Public Art component for the project. I have commissioned a kinetic metal
sculpture from the artist Jerry Kirk. The sculpture will be attached to the face of
the stair tower facing Channing Street which will also be visible to cars traveling
south on Alma Street. The work will be approximately 8’ tall and 6’ wide. A 1/2"
scale model of the work end its relationship to the building as well as a smaller
model of a related work will be available for the Public Arts Commission meeting
and the ARB meeting.
The stair tower was originally designed with a metal cladding; we have decided
to change the finish matedal on the stair tower to plaster to better feature the
metal sculpture.
If you require any additional information please contact me directly at my office.
Sincerely,
ROSS
cc: Jeff Zimmerrnan - Columbus Architects
~~, Win~erbo~;ham Partnership
Attachment 10
July 15, 1996
Mr. Robert Schubert
Contract Project Planner
City of Paio Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: 901 - 909 Alma Street
Mixed Use Project for Doug Ross
Three existing trees are proposed to be removed in the public fight-of-way for the
project referenced above. The 4" Ornamental Pear tree on Alma is in poor condition
and the 5" London Plane tree and the 3" Maple on Channing Avenue are in fair
condition. The condition of all of these trees no doubt reflects the lack of care they
have had over the past few years.
We are proposing to replace these trees with a total of 20 trees, 10 of which will
be located in the public right-of-way. All of these trees will be 24" box size or larger
and will create an orderly and harmonius Wee planting to this importanl comer
location..
Please call ff you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Landscape Architect, ASLA
94301 - ~1~ 3£5-3137
TOTRL P.02
August 28, 1996
Dix-ision of
Arts & Culture
PuNic Art
Commission
Bob Schubert
Planning Division, City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Dear Bob,
Doug Ross appeared again before the Public Art Commission last night in
connection with his project at 901 Alma Street. He and Jerome Kirk presented
several alternatives for the project sculpture. The Commission unanimously
accepted the piece described as "curled", which was shown in red but which we
understand will be brushed metal and approximately nine feet high.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call me or any of the
other Public Art Commissioners.
Very truly yours,
Judith Wasserman, Chair
cc:Planning Commission
Architectural Review Board
Doug Ross
Palo Alto Cultural Center
1313 Neweti Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
415.329.2227
Attachment 12
AGENDA ITEM 4 901-909 ALMA STREET: Application to rezone the property from CD-
S(P) (Commercial Downtown Pedestrian Shopping Combining District)
to construct a four-story, 14,169-square-foot mixed use project with 23
parking spaces on the first level, four apartments on the second and third
levels, and office use on the fourth level. Environmental Assessment: A
mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 96-ZC-5, 96-
EIA-41.
Chairperson Cassel: Are there any staff comments?
Mr. Schubert: Yes, this is an application to develop the vacant site at 901 Alma Street with a
15.683-square-foot office and residential building. The project was increased in size from the
initial Planning Commission review. It now includes 4,425 square feet of office use and
7,674 square feet in the four apartment units. As you will recall, on June 26, the commission
reviewed the project and forwarded it to the Architectural Review Board. Some commissioners
encouraged the applicant to work with the ARB in reviewing the proposed building height, feeling
that the building may be too tall and imposing on the surrounding buildings. On August 1, the
ARB recommended approval of the project, although two ARB members expressed concerns
regarding the building height, primarily because the existing buildings for two or three blocks in
either direction along Alma are lower in height. The ARB recommendation did not include any
recommendations to reduce the height of the building.
At the ARB meeting, the applicant presented a conceptual proposal to add approximately
500 square feet to the office area on the fourth floor adjacent to the alley. The ARB generally
supported that proposal, and required that revised plans, especially elevations showing the
additional floor area, be submitted for their approval. Following the ARB meeting, revised plans
were submitted by the applicant showing 620 square feet of additional office space on the fourth
floor. The revised plans also showed 785 square feet of additional floor area for the apartments,
which was not presented at the ARB meeting. I would like to note that most of that additional
residential floor area is in the loft area inside the building, and it is not visible. At the suggestion
of staff, in order to provide more public benefit to offset the increased floor area, the proposed
sculpture was increased in size, which is presented as public art, which the applicant will be
showing in a few minutes. Also, the lobby along Channing was set back farther from Channing
Avenue, increasing the size of the pedestrian plaza area. That is also considered a public benefit
of this project. On August 27th, the applicant went before the Public Art Commission I believe
for the second time. At that time, the piece that he will be showing tonight was unanimously
accepted by the Public Art Commission.
Also following the ARB meeting, there were several other revisions made to the plan which I
would like to highlight. First, the height of the building was reduced by a foot-and-a-half from
49-1/2 feet to 48 feet. A trellis was added to the parking court. The surface material was changed
from asphalt to interlocking paving stones, which were suggestions by the ARB. The vertical
boards on the building elevations were changed to stucco, another ARB recommendation. A roof
was added above the lobby and the stairway facing Alma Street. The trash area was relocated to
the opposite side of the entry drive offthe alley. The project includes a total of 23 parking spaces
ZBIPCMIN-4IA:\9-11.min Page 5
10-18-96
compared to 25 required by code. The applicant proposes to satisf3’ the requirement for one
parking space by substituting eight additional bicycle parking spaces, bringing the total to 14 in
the project. That is permitted by the parking ordinance, thus making the project deficit by one
parking space required by code. That would also be part of the PC request.
In conclusion, the commission should recommend that the City Council approve the mitigated
negative declaration. ARB findings and conditions, and adopt the revised draft PC ordinance
which was at your places tonight. Finally, there is one correction I would like to make to the staff
report. It is on Page 13. In the paragraph on "Parking," seventh line down states, "The applicant
proposes to satisfy this requirement by providing 16 additional bicycle parking spaces." That
sentence should read, "The applicant proposes to satisfy, the parking requirement for one vehicle
parking space by providing eight bicycle parking spaces." That concludes the staff comments.
Chairperson Cassel: Thank you. David Ross has some comments.
David Ross: You will see from the minutes that I was not present at the Architectural Review
Board when this project was presented. I have, however, read the staff reports and reviewed the
video tape of the meeting, so I feel as though I was there. Generally, the project was supported by
the board. As Bob Schubert mentioned, it was a unanimous recommendation. All the board
members felt that the project was very well designed, also noting that there were a number of
items that needed to return to the board for final approval -- a final landscape plan, color boards,
materials, a few architectural refinements, and of course, any changes that were made since the
board last saw it. The board was split down the middle on the height issue. Two board members,
Maser and Peterson, were enthusiastically in support of the height, given the urban design
guidelines, given the design of the project and its location on the comer. They felt strongly that
the building deserves to be the height it is as presented. Board members Piha and McFall,
however, had some reservations about the height, feeling that it might be overly massive,
compared to neighboring buildings. As Bob mentioned, there was no condition placed on the
approval that the building height be reduced. There was a request expressed as part of the motion
that the applicant consider the discussion and think about the massing, but no requirement came
of that. The board does expect to see this again after your review.
Chairperson Cassel: Did you say that we have an additional ordinance?
Ms. Cauble: Yes, Madam Chair, as Mr. Schubert mentioned, several of the changes he described
in his staff report plus some technical corrections regarding square footage, etc., were
incorporated into a revised ordinance which is before you tonight with a cover memo from me.
This ordinance shows what changes were made to the ordinance since the one that was in your
packet. We apologize for these few changes coming to you late.
Chairperson Cassel: Are there any questions from the commission for staff?.
Commissioner Schink: The ordinance allows shared parking between residential and office units
when there are 30 or more parking spaces, as I understand it. If this project had had 30 parking
spaces, what would the ratios be for sharing those spaces, so that we may be able to extrapolate?
ZBIPCMIN-41A:\9-1 1.min Page 6
10-18-96
Our ordinance has a minimum of 30, but if we wanted to use that rationale for a project with less
than 30, how are those ratios calculated?
Ms. Grote: I will need to get back to you on that.
Mr. Schubert: I would like to add that we did not look at that, because if they do use that
provision of the code, they need to provide those spaces in parking reserve, which is a landscaped
area that could be converted in the future. We do not have that area to work with on this site.
Commissioner Schink: Maybe the ordinance has changed, but several years ago, we approved
mixed use projects where I do not believe there were any provisions for landscape preserve for the
additional parking spaces if it is housing mixed with commercial use.
Commissioner Ojakian: Since Mr. Ross was not at the meeting, and there were two board
members on either side of the height issue, where would you have stood if you had been at that
meeting?
Mr. Ross: I anticipated that question. I fall in line with Maser and Peterson on this issue. I really
feel that that comer can hold a tall building, particularly the design of the project and the way it is
massed towards the alleyway. The articulation of the particular pieces of the building are really a
wonderful design, and the building works well at that height. I have no problem with it.
Chairperson C.assel: Next we will hear from the applicant.
Douglas Ross, 2686 Middlefield Road, Redwood Ci _ty: The staff report is well prepared, and you
have the minutes from your previous meeting. I think the thing everyone is missing is the Public
Art Commission. I think they have control over that, but we went back several weeks ago and
presented about eight different sculptures to the full commission, and got their unanimous
direction that a piece similar to this (pointing to a model) would be appropriate. This piece will
be in the stair tower and is approximately nine to ten feet tall, top to bottom. It will be high
enough off grade level that people cannot climb on it. It will be in brushed aluminum.
My only other comment is that in the ordinance, there is a recommendation for us to repave the
alley. At a staff meeting we had last week, our offering was to resurface it. It is not in such bad
shape, and we plan minimal disruption to it during the course of construction. If it is major, we
certainly would be willing to repave it, but I don’t think it warrants total repaving. We can
overlay it.
Chairperson Cassel: Are there any questions for Mr. Ross?
Commissioner Eakins: Can you show on the overhead screen where the art will be applied ? I
know you mentioned the stair tower.
Mr. Ross: I can show you in this model.
feature, and that is where the art will go.
ZBIPCMI~-4IA:\9-11 .min
The stair tower facing Channing is a rather prominent
The precise location above the floor will be determined
Page 7
10-18-96
by some ARB input.
Chairperson Cassel: There was a question about added space. Could you show us where that is?
Mr. Ross: At the staff’s request, we revised our model showing where the additional footage is.
It is off this deck over the apartment unit facing the alley.
Commissioner Byrd: I wondered if the applicant has had any further conversations with Larry
Hassett, owner of Palo Alto Hardware across the street, since this project will be fronting his
business. Has he had any input in this process?
Mr. Ross: Yes. we have. We met with Larry, after the first Planning Commission meeting for
about a half hour in the lobby. With Jeff Zimmerman’s feedback, I think he had a much better
feeling about the mass of the building. In consideration for Larry, the Planning Commission
comments and the ARB, we did consciously lower the height of the building. It is only 18 inches,
but there is some reduction in volume. Looking at the previous Planning Commission comments
and ARB comments, a lot of people, perhaps a majority, feel that with the design of the building,
the transparency and all the glazing, it will not read as tall, even though it is tall. The model is
probably the best way to understand that rather than looking at the flat elevations on the wall.
Commissioner Schmidt: You have added square footage. I wondered what was the reason behind
adding the office and residential square footage.
Mr. Ross: We are going to occupy the upper floor, and our intemal program requirements
changed. The building was also becoming a little more expensive, and we wanted to help
amortize that to make our loan work. We did not think it really detracted from the original
proposal. We did offer additional public benefit to compensate. On the residential footage, we
had a volume ceiling in the earlier plan that went up approximately 19 feet from the first to the
second floor. All we did was to make those loft spaces outside of the bedrooms a little more
gracious so that you could get in a little bigger desk or a sitting area. From a massing standpoint,
it has no impact on parking, and it just made those apartments a little more gracious.
Commissioner Eakins: Is this the first time we have seen the landscape plan?
Mr. Ross: No, you saw a preliminary plan which we then revised slightly for the ARB. Last
week we met with staff and added some street trees and changed some of the planter
configurations to provide a more open circulation on Channing and to invite people into what we
refer to as a pocket park. Nancy Lytle’s concept is that with transportation opportunities opening
up and perhaps with a way to get across Alma some day, this will help facilitate and encourage
that activity. The new landscape plan on the wall is a direct response to those staff comments.
Commissioner Eakins: Then I have a question about the street trees. With the tall building and
the busy street, I thought that a tree with more of a structure than the ornamental pear might be
more fitting. Did you consider trees that might have more impact with their trunk and branching
structure?
ZBfPCMIN-4iA:\9-11 .min Page 8
10-18-96
Mr. Ross: I will have to defer to Linn Winterbotham on that. and unfortunately, he could not
make it tonight. My understanding is that there are various species of these pears, and some are
more columnar, while others have a broader canopy. The version he is proposing is the taller
version so that it aligns more with the columns that you see out front on Alma Street. In the staff
report, there was a recommendation to go t0 chestnut trees, which Linn had a major problem with.
Ultimately, we will resolve this at the ARB, bringing in photographs of these trees or whatever is
appropriate to convince people we are using the right tree. It is an important feature of the
project, and we are trying to develop a kind of colonnade out there for people to walk through
while aligning with the symmetry of the building.
Commissioner Eakins: Are they closer together than street trees are ordinarily planted?
Mr. Ross: I believe so. Maybe staff can comment. I know we are providing a greater quantity of
street trees than the ordinance requires, and far more than in any project I have ever seen on Alma.
Commissioner Schink: They look like they are spaced 20 feet apart instead of 30 feet.
Chairperson Cassel: Commissioner Beecham: Seeing no other speakers, I will now close the
public hearing and return this item to the commission. Are there any questions for staff by
commissioners?
Ms. Grote: I want to return to Commissioner Schink’s question about the reduction of parking if
there are more than 30 spaces in a lot. You could reduce it up to 20%. In this particular section of
the code, it does not require that a reduction of those spaces that are not provided to be in
landscape preserve. So he would not have to do that.
Commissioner Schink: So if we did not have a minimum in our ordinance, this project would
then qualify for a reduction of four spaces.
Ms. Grote: Yes, up to 20%.
Chairperson Cassel: If there are no further questions, we are ready for discussion of this item.
Commissioner Schink: I think the project is essentially as we saw it before, with reasonable
modifications. Since we found it to be a good project previously, I would stand by our earlier
recommendations. I would like to add and emphasize one point. I think this is a more of a
Planning Commission issue than an Architectural Review" Board issue. That gets back to the
height. If we are serious about housing and doing these types of mixed use projects, the only way
we are going to get housing, especially rental housing, is if we accept it in taller structures. So in
my mind, this is really a planning issue. If you want to encourage and support housing, you’ve
got to be willing to accept the taller structure. That is why I am happy to support this project.
Commissioner Beecham: I was not at the previous meeting, but I would like to address Jon’s
comment, also. I feel you are right that we need to give every possible incentive to housing. I do
have a concern on the height of this building. I think it is, except in terms o.fjust being at 50 feet,
ZBIPCM1N-41A:\9-1 1 .min Page 9
10-18-96
that certainly is to the limit of what fits here. But in terms of getting the benefit of the housing at
the site and having this creative application, I think it is worth it to the city to proceed with this.
C.ommissioner Schmidt: I would again support what we said the last time. It is a very attractive
project and is well designed. I feel that the applicant has been responsive to comments made by
both us and the ARB. I would agree with Jon’s comments about the building height. Indeed, in
order to get projects like this, we will need to go with taller buildings. It is entirely appropriate
and reasonable along Alma Street on a comer. I think the public benefits for this project are good.
The pocket park is a very nice benefit for the street, and the piece of art that was approved by the
Public Art Commission is a very interesting and attractive piece that I believe will work here. We
have requested that artists be involved or that art be part of a lot of projects recently, and I feel it
is appropriate in some, but perhaps not in all, to add a piece of art applied on the outside. In this
case, it does work very nicely. I look forward to seeing this project built.
Commissioner Byrd: Since I was sitting in the audience when this project was last before the
Planning Commission, I want to take this opportunity to say that I, too, think it is a very good
project. I didn’t get a chance to participate in your conversation the last time about the pedestrian
treatment along Alma Street. I wish that this project made a greater contribution to making Alma
more pedestrian-friendly. It certainly doesn’t hurt the situation, in fact, it helps it some. Could it
have helped it more? Perhaps. I understand the applicant’s rationale for the orientation towards
Channing, and I just hope that we at the Planning Commission level will continue to look for
ways to make Alma a more pedestrian-friendly environment. I, too, want to agree with Jon’s
comments about the height. It is a necessary component of our planning, not only to get the
housing but also, at times, to get the right sort of project design. It is appropriate in many cases,
and this is one of them, so I will be pleased to support this project.
Commissioner Beecham: Let me add a few more words about the height, and really to say more
about the mass. The height of 48 feet or 50 feet is available within the CD-S zone, in any case. I
think what is different here is the mass of the building, which is about 1.50 FAR versus a limit,
otherwise, of I. 15. I understand that for this building, a lot of that FAR just goes into the parking,
but the result of it is, for appearance purposes, a building of 1.5 FAR. Again, I feel it is worth it
to the city to do this, but we should all be aware of what the average citizen sees as they go along
there, unaware of the tradeoffs that go into the building. I suspect that there could well be some
concern by the citizenry that this building is, in fact, .too large for the site and will tend to stick out
at this location until other buildings are built. Then there could be a concern about whether too
much is being built. So it is something we need to continue to be sensitive about.
C.ommissioner Ojakian: I am happy to hear those last remarks, because being someone who lives
in this neighborhood farther down, one of our goals early on in the 1970s was to create transition
zones, with downzoning coming into residential neighborhoods. Part of the technique for doing
that was to try and reduce the height and size of some of the buildings as it transitioned from the
downtown into the residential neighborhoods. I still have concems about the height of this
building, although I understand the rationale that other commissioners are using. Part of that
concern comes from the fact that it really will stand out in that particular area. The fact of the
matter is, because of the code, the peak of this building wilt actually be 55 feet high. That makes
ZB!PCMIN-41A:\9-1 l.min Page 10
10-18-96
it twice as high as an.vthing else in the area. It leaves me a little uncomfortable, especially since
there has been a move to change Channing from a one-way street to two ways and possibly some
change down where the medical foundation is. So there is some impetus to change portions of the
area back to residential and be more in scale with what is in the area. On the other side of the
coin, this lot has been empty for as long as I can remember, so to have something built there is a
strong reason for wanting to see the project go ahead.
I concur with what Owen was saying. I feel that more could or should be done along Alma. I see
some of the arguments on both sides of the coin. My preference i~to see an improvement on
Alma, and if we do not start on the projects we get, when will that happen?
MOTION: Commissioner Eakins: I move approval of the staff report.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schink. I will second this motion if we will also include under the
part where we adopt the attached ordinance that we include the revised ordinance which was
submitted to us. Also, if we can revise the ARB condition about the alleyway to make it an
overlay rather than repaving.
Mr. Schubert: Also Condition #3 refers to 16 bicycle spaces and should refer to eight additional
bicycle spaces instead.
Commissioner Eakins: Yes, include that correction.
Commissioner Schink: That is agreeable with the seconder.
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion? A
motion has been made and seconded to approve the project, to approve the attached mitigated
declaration and the findings of the proposed project, also including the adoption of the revised
ordinance with findings and conditions, also including the attached ARB findings and conditions
of the project, except that the alleyway will have an overlay instead ofrepaving it. We will
allocate eight bicycle spaces, not 16. All in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes
unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
This item goes forward to the City Council on October 28. I thank the applicant for coming and
making the presentation. I look forward to seeing the art on this project.
ZBIPCMIN-4IA:\9- I 1 .min Page 1 t
10-18-96
Attachment 13
ARCHITECTUP,_A~L REVIEW BOARD
August 1, 1996
Excerpt
901-909 Alma Street
Douglas Ross
96-ZC-5
96-ARB-41
96-EIA-41
Review of an application to rezone the property from CD-S(P) to construct a four-story, 14,169-
square-foot mixed use project with 23 par’king spaces on the first level, four apartments on the
second and third levels, and office use on the fourth level.
Ms. Maser: Are there any staff comments?
Mr. Schubert: Since the staff report was prepared, the public art went to the Public Art
Commission for review. Judith Wasserman has provided you with a letter with their comments.
She is present.
Ms. Piha: I would like to ask why are 23 par’king spaces required?
Ms. Grote: It is based on the square footage of the office use and also on the number of
beddrooms in the apartments.
Ms. Piha: It seemed like a lot of parking spaces for four apartments.
Ms. Maser: Let’s start with Ms. Wasserman’s letter. We do not have it in our packets.
Ms. Wasserman: The Public Art Commission said, Douglass Ross appeared before us last night
in connection with his project at 901 Alma Street. The commission discussed his proposal for art
as a public benefit and made the following recommendations. We are very enthusiastic about
this project, and are delighted to see more art appearing on Alma Street. We generally agree with
the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding the location of the work. (This had to do
with being on the stair tower and along Alma Street.) We would like to see the art work better
incorporated into the design of the building, particularly in respect to the size of the sculpture, as
it appears on the stairwell wall. (That was actually something the applicant had recommended
himself, that it be higher and larger than shown on the model.) We strongly recommend that the
developer, artist and architect develop some treatment along the Alma Street parking garage
openings. It would tie into the sculpture and would complement the proposed landscaping. We
appreciate that the applicant had come to us with a preliminary design and requested that we
return with this fin!l proposal. We are particularly pleased at the continuing cooperative
relationship with the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board, and we look
Page 1
forward to more projects in the future. (We ",viii have four projects coming to us in our next
meeting.)
Ms. Maser: Judith, do you have .anything you want to add?
Ms. Wasserman: I would like to wait until I hear the presentation, although I did get this FAX
from the applicant showing another possible version that could be larger. Doug will explain to
you why this particular piece cannot be made larger. It has to do with inloads on the structure of
the building.
Mr. McFall: Did you say art along Alma Street?
Ms. Wasserman: Along the parking garage openings, something that would be visible to the
public from Alma Street.
Ms. Maser: We are ready for a 10-minute presentation.
Douglass Ross: We have been studying this site for awhile, and we had an application pending
before that we pulled because of the FAR issues. We are now in for the PC process. We have
been to the first Planning Commission meeting and got unanimous approval there. Now we are
before you as the next step. While it is fresh in your mind, let me first talk about the public art,
since it ties in with the public benefit package we are offering. We submitted this as a mockup
for the sculpture which we feel is appropriate on the stair tower. I believe everyone concurs with
that so far, the Planning Commission and the Public Art Commission. The comment was that
they wanted it bigger, they wanted it higher, and they wanted a link to the sculpture somehow on
Alma Street. So we got back to the artist, Jerome Kirk. He is well know internationally. He has
done a very nice piece in front of the Cultural Center. We approached Jerome about increasing
the size. He had no problem with having it higher on the building, but these things are very well
balanced. They are made out of heavy aluminum. To increase the size was not possible for this
piece. It would not have worked. He was worried about structural steel, two columns, to support
the stair. He is an engineer from M.I.T. so I am going to take his perspective seriously. We then
met with the artist and the architect and on a very tentative, preliminary basis, and we shot this
over to Judith, saying this piece can get the size that people are looking for. It is very kinetic.
There were comments from other members of the Public Art Commission about its being too
corporate. We feel this is softer and perhaps fits better into the residential. All of these pieces
are moving. When you see them moving back and forth, you get the impression of something
moving. It could be a person, or whatever your imagination suggests. That is where we set
presently on the art. We either have to keep this piece the same size, or we are going to go to a
different piece. This is not exactly the piece. It gives you a general idea about what we are
proposing.
Ms. Maser: Would that be mounted on the same wall?
Kit [ PCMins31ARBg01Alma.801 Page 2
8105196
Mr. Ross: Yes, there would be a ledge coming out and the piece would be higher. It would still
be a wall-mounted piece. It will not be on a pedestal. It will be attached to the wall.
Following up on the Public Art Commission’s comments about integrating Alma Street in the
art, we proposed that whatever art we do is somehow integrated into the front of the building.
One possibility is that we have railings on these three balconies. We are proposing using
aluminum out there, or galvanized materials, and we may be able to pick up some common
element of the art, integrating it into those rails. We looked at attaching things vertically to the
building, but the trees would ultimately shield those from the public. I feel that attaching it
horizontally in this expressed concrete frame would also probably be lost. They are at too high
an elevation, or perhaps too low’. So that is where we sit. We are still studying it. We are going
back to the Public Art Commission on the 27th, I believe. So that is where we are at the moment
with the art.
What we have here, going to the project as a whole, are three apartment units over some covered
parking facing Alma. We intentionally elevated those to buffer Alma. We pulled the building
back to create more separation from Alma. This will all be laminated glazing which will meet all
of the sound ordinances. Then we have an office component up above. The entry is off of
Channing. There is a stair tower that has an elevator attached inside the building. This model is
old, and it has changed a bit. The elevations are current, but we do not have quite as much glass.
We have a little more structure. The people living in the apartments can enter and come up this
walkway on the back, so the three units enter off the walkway. There is a link to Alma Street
here, and the fourth apartment sort of stands alone on the alley. It has an entrance inside the
secure auto court area. We have covered parking for all of the apartments. Those people can go
through a door and get into the access to the auto court or units in a covered and safe
environment.
The reason why we need the PC approval, which is well documented in the staff report, is that
the covered parking throws us into an FAR overage. We are slightly under the public
landscaping component. It is a carryover from combining those districts and using the residential
landscaping component.
Ms. Maser: Are we supposed to be voting on whether or not to rezone this property?
Ms. Grote: This is a Planned community zone change. As with other Planned Community zone
changes, you are reviewing the project. Details could come back to you as parts of conditions of
approval. This is not a preliminary review.
Ms. Maser: Don’t we ordinarily see PC projects on a preliminary basis?
Ms. Grote: Not always. This is a final review. It has gone through the initial Planning
Commission hearing.
Kit [ PCMIns31ARBg01AIma.801 Page 3
8105/96
Ms.Piha: There is a reference that it was a preliminary review.
Ms.Gro!e: That was back in 1993.
Mr.Ross: That was a different project.
Ms.Grote: That was a much different project.
Ms.Piha: Why was that reference made?
Ms.Weiss: We wanted to give some site background.
Mr. Ross: The reference I was making was that we have been working with staff., and there was
a misunderstanding on the FAR issue, so we made a submittal, which was then rejected. So it
never got to you as a board officially. I would like to introduce JeffZimmerman, and if time
permits, Linn Winterbotham to explain the landscaping.
JeffZimmerman: From a planning perspective, our feeling was that we wanted to make the
address on Channing. It was, in fact, the opening to the city, from a pedestrian standpoint, and
that was our main emphasis. Also it would hopefully disguise" the automobile. Unfortunately,
the first thing you always plan for is the automobile. I think we have done a pretty good job of
disguising the car in this scheme. For the residential building, the attempt there was to create
some kind of live/work downtown arty environment, with Doug’s office on top. For the
materials, the vernacular is akin to some of the industrial buildings you would see near train
tracks on the fringe of a downtown area, so there is a connection there. The concrete framework
was done to create a rhythm along Alma Street in conjunction with Linn’s trees to create a
pleasant experience as you come down to the building, and then really opening up Channing
visually, both to the city and to the pedestrian in creating a vest pocket park for people to stop
and contemplate and get refuge from Alma Street. The materials are a concrete frame, post-
tension slabs on the first and third floors for separation for building code issues and sound
transmission. We have two-story living spaces along Alma Street, a two-story living space that
has two decks. This apartment in the back is going to be stellar. It has decks front and back, one
off the bedroom suite and one offthe main living area which bridges across the entry. It creates
kind of a nice courtyard. I think there is a nice pedestrian scale to the automobile experience,
which is not always possible because of the way the-building wraps. It frames the car, tucking
the car in.
Mr. Peterson: Let me understand. Is this parking for the office?
Mr. Zimmerman: There are eight parking spaces along the front which primarily park the
apartments and covered garages. The office parking is perpendicular parking.
Kit [ PCNIns31ARB901AIma.NI 1 Page 4
8105196
Ms. Maser: Does Mr. Winterbotham have anything to add?
Linn Winterbotham: Yes, I will be brief. Our intention, in concept, is to create a fair amount of
foliar density along Alma Street irrespective of the integration of the art. We are not up to speed
with that, but we would have fairly dense street tree plantings. We would have dense, large-
textured shrub material against the material so that it reads very green. We would carry the same
kind of feeling at the north corner where the garages are adjacent to Channing Street. At the
entrance lobby and at the pedestrian pocket, we would bring the scale down, creating more detail,
color, texture, variety, allowing people to come off the street a little by having a planting area
between the pedestrian space and the street. We would accentuate it with a raised concrete wall,
some wood benches, and maybe some slightly decorative paving, nothing too heavy, just a finer
texture paving than the standard sidewalk material.
Ms. Maser: What paving is being proposed for the interior court?
Mr. Ross: The paving proposed is a heavy score to make it read almost like a tile in small
spaces, maybe 12" by 12".
Ms.Maser: Are you talking about the auto court?
Mr.Ross: Yes. That will be pavement. I misunderstood.
Ms.Maser: What kind of pavement?
Mr.Ross: Asphalt.
Ms,Maser: Is there no landscaping within the court?
Mr. Winterbotham: There is landscaping on the tension wall. The trees come underneath the
building in this area. The planting that is facing Channing is also visible from the auto court. It
extends almost all the way through the covered space. It is vines on the building and then ground
cover.
Ms. Maser: So there are trees growing in back of this fence line?
Mr. Winterbotham: Exactly. There are small trees on both sides of the fence line to make it
something you can see from a distance, but when you are in this space, it has a pedestrian kind of
feeling to it.
Ms. Piha: What will be the materials and finishes?
Mr. Ross: Another thing I wanted to mention is that in classic building study, we have base,
Kit t PCMins31ARB901AIma.801 Page 5
8/05/96
body and pyramid also. That is important in this scale. The materials are concrete poured in "
place, ductile frame. The residential units are wrapped in a vertical board siding. It is this blue
color. The concrete frame will be standard concrete. The Alma Street elevation, the vertica!
wood we just discussed, is set back in that arcade. The base of the building, as well as the stair
tower which wraps around to the Channing elevation, becomes the garage wall. It stops, and
picks up again at the back. That is a terra cotta stucco color. Then there is a horizontal board
siding that fits the office on top. The metal materials will all be stainless galvanized metals, so
they wil! be in the same family. We are hoping to get a mill finish aluminum window in the
offices and the residential spaces through there.
Ms. Maser: Those are not wood on top where the office is, that show as gray. Is that paint?
Mr. Ross: It depends upon what the material is ultimately. It could be a stain or it could be a
paint.
Ms. Maser: But the blue is paint?
Mr. Ross: The blue is not necessarily paint. It is a paint sample here. We would like to make it
a dark stain. What we are trying to do is to contrast the smooth concrete coldness with a vertical
textural treatment in wood. You would see some texture and Warmth in that wood, with the
darker color depressing it further to create more depth in the arcade.
Ms. Maser: The wood above is a shingle?
Mr. Ross: Originally, it was shingles. I am leaning toward hardboard siding now, a hearty
plank, a cementitious smooth board.
Ms. Maser: So you are going to have joints every so often?
Mr. Ross: Yes, it will have joints, but I don’t know if you have seen that product go up. It is
pretty slick. You do not use any of the little filler panels as you do in Masonite. You actually
butt them and caulk them like you do with a piece of wood. Since it is cementitious, it does not
have the expansion and contraction qualities that you get with Masonite, either, plus it is smooth
and the lengths are longer. You can get 24-foot lengths, and it is true board. It is not a panel
board. They go one by one.
Ms. Maser: So it is not really wood?
Mr. Ross: Yes, it is not really not really wood. It is a cementitious product. Originally, when
we first presented this, it was shingle. I believe the first drawings you might have seen --
Ms. Piha: What do you mean, "when it was first presented?"
Kit I PeMins3 [ ARBg01Alma.801
Mr. Zimmerman: It was never presented. When first submitted.
Mr. Ross: When first submitted. Actually, this was presented to the Planning Commission.
have changed the color palette and the materials slightly since presenting this project to the
Planning Commission.
We
Ms. Maser: I am really concerned about this gray material at the top. You are thinking of
staining that?
Mr. Zimmerman: We would like to explore that, if it were permitted. There are some clear
finishes you can put on cementitious board similar to the way you finish some concrete floors.
You can get some stains on the wood and put a lacquer stained finish product on cementitious
board. I have not explored this with the client yet, but ultimately, the way it is typically done, it
is painted. I think it has the opportunity to take on much more depth, like the concrete floors you
see in all of these wonderful restaurants now. The same kind of finish can occur.
Mr. Ross: Let me add that the wood is not smooth. It has a wood grain to it, just like hardboard
siding does, but it is a very stable product.
Ms.Maser: This is not wood.
Mr.Zimmerman: Right. It is cementitious.
Ms.Maser: Why do we keep calling it wood?
Ms.Piha: I think it would help if we did not use the word "wood."
Mr. Ross: There is wood in the building, and there is cementitious. The vertical boards are
wood, the recessed area there and back by the garage, all the areas that are blue. There is a 1" x
6" or a 1" x 8" cedar that will use a bluish semi-transparent stain, so you will see the wood grain.
It will not be a paint and read as solid. It will be a semi-transparent product. Our concept up
above is that it would be the Hardy plank so that it does not weather and warp. Since I am a
builder, I know what real wood does in that environment, and to actually use a light paint on it,
when it is painted, you will still see the wood grain, and it will read, from anyone looking at it,
like a wood product, even though it is cementitious.
Mr. Peterson: It also comes plain with no grain.
Mr. Ross: Yes, and it comes in a plywood form, but our interest is in making it look like wood,
even though it is concrete.
Ms. Piha: I also wanted to know about the roof material.
Kit I PCMIns3 [ ARB901.a.lma.801 Page 7
8/05/96
Mr. Ross: Asphalt shingles.
Ms. Maser: And the glazing?
Mr. Ross: The glazing is going to be as industrial sash type windows as we can get, mill finish
aluminum.
Ms.Maser: And the glass itself?.
Mr.Ross: It will be clear.
Ms.Maser: Can you get away with that? There is a lot of glass there.
Mr.Ross: Our first choice is going to be with the energy consultant to see what we get.
Ms.Maser: Are you thinking of clear for the entire building?
Mr. Ross: Yes. The only exception may be the office windows which may have a slight tint for
energy purposes. The residential glazing is pulled back far enough for the most part so that I do
not feel that will be a major problem.
Ms. Maser: Thermopane? (Yes) With industrial sash?
Mr...Ross: Well, an industrial sash look. It will not be a steel sash single pane. It will be an
aluminum section to look like industrial sash.
Mr. Zimmerman: They will be a two by four type store front glazing.
Ms_Maser: They will be individual divided lights?
(Change of tape, material lost)
Mr...Ross: The traffic is currently going like this. There is no parking allowed along the
Peninsula Creamery, that is going to be enforced. Whoever designs this space is going to have to
take that into account. Since you are going to have the SRO down here, I think traffic is going to
go this way.
Mr. McFall: Do you have a landscape plan?
Mr. Winterbotham: We have a conceptual landscape plan.
Mr. McFall: What are the conceptual ideas for the tree selections?
Kit I PCMlns3 ] ARBg01Alma.801 Page 8
8/05/96 "
Mr. Winterbotha~: We were going to use the ornamental pear on Alma and at the north comer
of the building, the same as in front of the Digital building on Hamilton and Alma, something
that would be large leafed and give a little fall color. We were going to use the fruitless olives at
the comer of the building so that we could get something a little more pedestrian in scale, not
completely transparent. It would have a smaller texture, a lighter color, a gray green, which will
be a nice contrast, and using the crepe myrtle standard in the pedestrian space both along the
street and then turning back into the covered area.
Mr. McFall: The ornamental pear does not tend to be columnar. Aren’t they more of a round
canopy?
Mr. Winterbotham: There are varieties that tend to be very columnar, and that is the direction in
which we wohld go.
Mr. McFall: One issue at the Planning Commission had to do with the height. For staff, I
believe it is the average from the ridge down to the eave to determine the height.
Mr.Schubert: That is correct. That is how you measure per the zoning ordinance.
Ms.Maser: So it is actually lower than what is allowed.
Mr.Ross: Right, it is the midpoint of that pitched roof.
Mr. McFall: So the 55-foot height from the top is not an issue. Jeff, can you talk briefly about
the issue of height? If you have addressed it, how have you done so? What are your thoughts on
that and how it fits into the streetscape?
Mr. Zimmerman: We need to take a look into the furore of what this building is going to be.
Obviously, it is currently bigger than the neighbors. I think we are going to see a major
transformation to this whole area. I feel that the scale is appropriate for pedestrians. If you walk
around downtown Palo Alto, it is about the same scale. Most of the buildings around here are
three, four, five stories high. There is still a pedestrian scale to them. I think Alma Street needs
a defined edge, which it does not have now. It needs a good strong edge to complement the train
movement occurring there. What we have done to minimize the mass of the building, I think is
quite apparent when you see the model. It is not as apparent when you look at the drawings. The
depth of the colonnade gives a richness and interest as you go by, three dimensionally. It is not a
building facade that is built out to the edge. There is considerable movement and richness in that
facade. I think there is a very coherent base, body and top to the structure which is a way of
handling large buildings in a very sympathetic way. At least in past history, it was. We have
gone to considerable exercise to pull the building back from what we consider to be the
pedestrian connection to the town, perpendicular to Alma Street, making the center of the
building transparent in opening it up and trying to pull those trees in and out, trying to get that
Eft I PGMIns31ARBg01Alm~801 Page 9
8/05/96
movement in the courtyard there. There is just enough variation in material that it is not too
busy, but there is enough variation and enough appropriate detailing for the materials, not just
applied materials. These materials are true to what they are. The concrete is structure; the wood
is skin. We are not sticking elements on for fa~adism in this true structure. So it is an honest
building. That helps in the massing of it. The building steps away from its closest neighbor in a
nice way. I feel that it steps away from the alley in a nice way. Who knows what is going to
happen here. This could be a super block. Hopefully not. Hopefully, this area will be developed
in nice little buildings instead of some kind of mega building.
Mr.McFall: Is there just the one arch on the Channing elevation?
Mr.Zimmerman: Yes, it is continuous through the back.
Mr.McFall: Is the concrete to be smooth, or board formed, or something else?
Mr. Zimmerman: It is going to be a smooth board form. It will not be textured. I assume it will
be a smooth board. It will. be cast in place.
Mr. McFall: How will the board forms appear?
Mr. Zimmerman: Yes.
Mr. McFall: Vertically, horizontally, both, do you have any thoughts on that? That will make a
difference, appearancewise.
Mr. Zimmerman: At this point, I think the board will be vertical. There will be some detailing
in how the post-tension slab is going to work with the horizontal beams, which we will work out.
There will be some joints there. I read the columns as columns.
Mr.McFall: The railings do not show on the Alma Street balconies. What kind of rails are they?
Mr.Zimmerman: They are a pipe rail, galvanized.
Mr.McFall: So they will be galvanized extruded aluminum?
Mr. Zimmerman: We want to use all natural metal whenever we can. The other thing that has
changed from the model is that this is a horizontal board, and it is open in the model. I think that
reads better on the Alma elevation to get that form to drag across the top of the concrete. So we
are going to make some refinements. This thing is not fully designed, but there is a good start
toward it.
Ms. Maser: This whole project seems upside down in terms of the way you would normally
Klt I PGMins31ARB901AIma.~01 Page 10
8/05/96
approach parking, commercial, and residential. I am wondering what decided vou upon putting
the office use on the top of the building rather the residential there? You talked about wanting to
get residential away from the noise of the street, so one would think you would maximize that
effort by putting residential on the top two levels and perhaps making a higher second floor level
to get the volume that you wanted in the business area. It is ve~, unusual, and I am not saying I
dislike it. I wanted to understand your rationale.
Mr. Zimmerman: There are several reasons. One was that the client wanted to have his office on
top! So we rationalized that, and because we wanted to have some eyes on the street. Having
residential units as close as possible to Alma Street is going to be very good for the city. Putting
them up too high is going to take them too far away and we would lose that connection that we
desperately need in a mixed use project. That office at nighttime is going to have the lights off,
and it will be empty. We wanted activity on Alma Street, on Channing, 24 hours a day. I think
we will get that back from the activity that is going to be occurring in those two-story loft areas.
It is going to be beneficial to the neighborhood.
Ms. Maser: That is a good answer. I like that. It is not something I was thinking of.
Mr. Ross: I want to add one tidbit, because it was a major focus of the Planning Commission.
That is, the transformer location. It is an appurtenance that evbryone wants to look at. The
package that you have I believe shows four transformer locations. The one we settled upon is
Transformer #1, which has been approved by the Utility Department. (He points out where
Channing and Alma are on the model, the auto court, the building entrance and the covered
parking in the rear.) Here is that fence we have, so we have the man-door coming from the
enclosed parking for the apartments on a stepping stone setup which will have landscaping
around it. It enters the lobby that gains access to the apartments, and here is our transformer over
here. So it is screened by landscaping. This fence will have a breakaway mode where they can
come in and service it, if need be. In this model, we have moved this stairway back a little, and it
will be back in here. So we feel we have done a good job of screening it, not using a parking
space. There was also an option to put it out here, making a public statement with it. We felt
that was not a great idea.
Ms. Maser: Before we return to the board for board comments, does Judith want to make any
comments?
Ms. Wasserman: In my own mind, I am still debating whether the art work at the garage level or
at the balcony level would be more visible. If the trees would screen everything from the street,
then you might as well address the pedestrian at the.garage level. If we can see through the trees
to the balcony level, maybe that is just as good. I do not have strong feelings about that
presently. When you come back to the Public Art Commission, that will be one of the big
questions. The big piece is clearly for everybody. You are going to be able to see it coming
down Alma Street and you are going to be able to see it from Channing, from everywhere,
Kit [ PCMIns3 [ ARB90 IAlma.801 Page 11
8/05196
because it is big and it is not screened. But with the other one, you have to decide whom you are
addressing with it. The other concern I would have is how this thing is going to be attached to
the building so that it does not look like a floor-mounted piece stuck onto the side of the
building.
Mr. Ross: We will have that in a presentation for you. I will show you the elevations again at
the Public Art Commission meeting, but if you look at this elevation on the wall, the trees are
following the column pattern, and the balconies are in between those. Based on Linn’s tree
selection, you will not only see through those trees, but you will also see those balconies. They
will not be disguised by the trees.
Ms. Wasserman: It is really a question of who is it for, and whether anyone is going to make a
case for pedestrians on Alma Street or not. I feel constrained, as a representative of the Public
Art Commission, but offthe record, I like it.
Ms. Maser: We’ll let you say that.
Mr. Ross: One last comment. We have done some work with the Building Department only just
recently, and we discovered that we have an area separation issue on this side of the building. If
the ARB is supportive of this project, we would like to see if you would endorse adding, and we
would have to ask the Planning Commission as well, this deck is rather huge. It is about
800 square feet. We are considering taking a portion of that deck and putting a flat roof over it,
which I feel would also help the scale. Because this is a wall part of a railing, you would have an
effect like this. We would come back to you with all of the drawings. It would add
approximately 500 square feet. We have enough parking. We have one extra parking place, and
we also have the ability to share the parking between the two uses, so the parking shouldn’t be an
issue. We are over parked there. I would like to get your opinion on that.
Ms. Maser: And FAR is not an issue?
Mr. Ross: We are in a PC, so the FAR is up for grabs. I would like to get your feedback on that.
I am not asking you to approve it.
Mr.McFall: How does that help you?
Mr.Ross: It helps me to afford to pay for the more concrete, to be quite honest.
Ms.Maser: We will comment on that in our board comments. We will begin those now.
Mr. McFall: I am pleased to see that changes are happening along Alma Street. It is badly in
need of that. I think this will be a very nice addition to the streetscape. The industrial style
approach to the design I think is very appropriate for this area. I certainly support that, and I like
Kit I PCMIn§3 [ ARB901Alma.801 Page 12
the materials and the colors. It creates an interesting blend of shapes and forms. The architect
has done a good job creating visual interest and depth, particularly along Alma Street, with the
three levels of the building. I am pleased to see that there is going to be art work involved. I like
Kirk’s work and I think it will be a very nice addition. My one comment regarding that,
particularly on the Alma side, is that regardless of whether it is for cars or pedestrians,
everybody’s eyes are still going to be five-and-a-half feet or closer to the ground. So that
viewing plane will not change. Driving along the street at least twice a day, I would think that
whatever the art work is, it needs to be down low or it will not be seen. Drivers have a limited
viewing area, as well as pedestrians.
My one concern has to do with the building height. It was discussed at some length at the
Planning Commission. Everything along Alma Street for the two or three blocks in either
direction up to the new SRO is very low in height. If you look at the streetscape elevation in the
drawings, it describes very well what the condition is and how this building will fit in. I have
some concerns about that. I think the area is going to change. I don’t think it is going to happen
very quickly. I have some concerns that this mass on that comer, specifically on the Alma side,
will be a very abrupt departure from what else is there. That is not to say that four stories is not
appropriate, but I would suggest that perhaps, especially regarding the fourth floor, some means
be created to do what is down below, which is to add depth, add interest, and perhaps set that
back to reduce the height along Alma. It is 55 feet at the ridge, and it drops down at the ends of
the gables, but it is a very strong vertical element, and is somewhat abrupt compared to the
hardware store and the small buildings to the south. I do not want this to be taken as a comment
to the effect that this project should not be done. It should be done, but I would suggest that
perhaps a study be done of that elevation in order to minimize the impact of its vertical height. It
may have td do with the roof forms, and as I said, maybe some stepping would be appropriate.
We do not want to design it for you, and we should not do so, but I suggest that that be looked at.
One comment on the Hardy plank. If we are talking about the use of honest, tree materials,
certainly the Hardy plank does not have any grain on it. It is either wood siding or it is Hardy
plank. If it is Hardy plank, it should be as an industrial, cementitious panel. That completes my
comments.
Ms. Piha: I am very much in agreement with the ideas that Jim has expressed. I, too, am excited
about the live/work concept in kind of an industrial type design on Alma Street. I share the
concerns about the height and the fourth floor not having any articulation in terms of relief from
the fagade. It is all appearing rather flat. I think you have articulated things well at the lower
stories, but some depth of recess of the plane at that top level would help. What you are
compromising is losing floor area, and that is the challenge. Possibly the roof forms are fighting
some things for you. That is the one element in the plan that somehow does not seem to outfit
for me. It might have helped if I had seen some of your earlier conceptual studies or something
to be convinced that this is the appropriate solution, but I think there might be an option there~
Kit [ PCMIns31ARBg01Alma.801 Page 13
8105196
To suggest something new, you asked us to comment on adding some square footage to the one
end of your fourth floor and eliminating some of the roof deck. I think those roof decks are
important. They become your back yard, your only outdoor living space. Particularly in our
climate, those outdoor living spaces are valuable and will have a lot of use. I would not be in
support of your idea of trying to r.educe that and create some additional square footage inside.
I do think the materials used for those roof decks should be considered carefully. That might be
something that needs to retum to us, as well as the asphalt paving in your center court. That
center court is a dominant feature, and it needs to be better integrated with a different material, a
softer material. That will end up not only being an auto court but being a court very visible from
your upper levels, so I would encourage you to reconsider a different material there.
The other form that does not seem to fit for me is the arch at the entry to that. I think you should
work with your industrial forms and not try to introduce a new kind of European context. You
can still do a nice entry and stick to the true style of the entire building. I strongly encourage the
comments, too, about the cementitious material. Let it read as a true cementitious material and
don’t try to falsify it. There are a number of things here that need to return to us, but I am
generally in support of the concept and the general direction in which this is going. In terms of
material selection and some of the massing forms, they might need to return.-
Mr. Peterson: I also think it is a great building, and it will be a wonderful addition here. I have
no problem with the height at all. I think this comer can certainly stand the height. It is going to
take awhile for the rest of the city to come up to it, but I do not have any problem with the height
at all. I will support it the way that it is. I like the articulation the way you have it now. I like
the top story being flush with the frame, and the concrete frame below it. It looks very nice. I
have no problem with the height nor the fagade along Alma Street.
I do not also have any problem with taking some of that open space on the alley to get a little
more area. I think you will still end up with a significant sized terrace up there. It is unusual to
have any at all, so having 400 square feet of it, the size of a double garage, would still be very
nice. I have no problem with that.
Regarding the discussion of art along Alma Street, I think the building itself is a piece of
sculpture, so the automobiles get their dose of art as they drive along there. I am not sure art is
appropriate along Alma, but if it is developed there, I would see it more at the pedestrian level. It
is not very pleasant to go along there now as a pedestrian, obviously, but I feel that we ought to
encourage that wherever we can. So I would like to modify that and encourage pedestrian use, so
having art along there at a pedestrian level would be an advantage. I do have some mixed
feelings as to whether that is the appropriate place for additional art. It seems to me that the
landscape solution may be the best solution along there. It is soft and dense, and may be better
than trying to introduce some additional art there.
KitI PCMins31ARBg01Alma.801 Page 14
8/05/96
The area that I am the most concerned about is the inner court. I feel that ’,,,’ill really become the
focus of the building. It is where most people are going to arrive and leave. It will be through
that court. That ought to be a really nice court, and that is not easy to do. Asphalt, in my
opinion, is not the solution. There are not many attractive European asphalt inner courts, either!
Everybody in the building is going to be looking down into that court. They are going to arrive
there, they are going to leave there, and they will look down there. That ought to be a really
nicer material. It doesn’t have to be marble, but it ought to be a nice material. Some way to get
some canopy in there, some way to get some trees or foliage in there would really soften that,
both when you are in the court and when you are in the building looking down. The Fuller
Buildings are relatively low, and you could probably get some trees at the end that would go up
and canopy above.
Ms. Piha: They could go in that extra parking spot.
Mr. Peterson: At any rate, that is a space that really needs to be looked at, and landscaping is a
really important element there. Other than that, I think it is a wonderful building.
Ms. Maser: I identify completely with everything you have said. You took all of the words right
out of my mouth. I do not see the need for art along Alma Street, as Bob has said. People are
going to be moving quickly in their cars, and trees are going to be covering things. There is not
going to be a lot of pedestrian traffic along there, and I do not really think one wants to attract
pedestrian traffic along Alma Street. Somebody on the Planning Commission said it was a
freeway, or someone said it. Maybe it was the applicant. I agree. I do not find it a very
hospitable place for pedestrians, therefore, there are not too many pedestrians. To concentrate
the art on Channing I think is a wonderful idea. I would put all my marbles~onc~basket as far
as the art is concerned. That will be a discussion you will have at the Publi~:~ommission,
and I trust their judgment. I was glad to hear Judith say that she would take agoo~limrd took at
something put on a pedestal and then put on a wall. That does not click, in my mind. It doesn’t
make any sense. I agree completely with Bob about the paving. I think we ought to get Roberto
in on this job with a can of pain!! Roberto could make this place sing.
This is a spectacular design. I just love it. It is going to give this area of Palo Alto a real
signature, a really special piece of architecture. You have done a wonderful job. It is not going
to be cheap to do it right. I am sure you know that. In a way, that is part of the public benefit.
Here we are getting a building that is highly articulated. There are lots of interesting details,
voids, shadows, materials. I just think it is going to be a wonderful, wonderful piece of
architecture that will set a tone for this entire area which will follow. I hope that you set the
standard here.
I do not mind the arch. I think this little entry feature looks a bit squashed in here so I would ask
you to look at those proportions, but I like the minimal art on this wall the way it is shown in this
mark-up. I feel it is just enough. I don’t think you want anything too dominant, as there is so
Kit I PCMins3 [ ARB901AIma.801 Page 15
8105196
much going on. It is an incredibly rich building. I do not mind at all the addition of a little flat
area here, in fact, it helps to step it down. I agree with Bob that that wil! be fine. I love the way
you have these roof forms, these two gable ends picking up on the Fuller Building, but in a more
exaggerated way. That really is very sensitively done, so I congratulate you on a wonderful
approach. I have no problem approving it conceptually.
I am not sure what we are going do here. I know we are expecting it to come back with a lot of
detail.
Ms. Grote: It is a recommendation to the City Council on the PC zone change. You can attach
conditions that it return for your review for final details on colors, materials, and you had
landscaping concerns, plus the other things that you mentioned.
MOTION: Ms. Maser: I move that we conceptually approve not only the design of the project
but the zone change, and for this project to return with the following additional information: we
want to see a reconsideration of the parking court material; we want a landscape plan to return,
and Mr. Peterson was asking for greater consideration of the planting in the courtyard. Will we
¯ be asking for their final proposal in terms of art work? Will there have been time for them to
meet with the Public Art Commission and then get back to us with the final recommendation?
Ms. Grote: Not before it goes to the Planning Commission again. It is going to the Public Art
Commission on August 27th, and it goes to the Planning Commission on August 28th. It goes to
the City Council on September 16th.
Ms. Maser: Then whenever it does get back to us the next time, we would like to see a proposal
for the final art work as a part of the package. Wherever it stands, we want to be brought up to
date. We would also like to see any refinements that are made to the materials. We would like
to see an update of the sample board, including the roof deck material. Also a sample of the
glass. You may change your mind as to whether or not you can use clear glass throughout the
building. We want to see what those glazing materials are, and some indication of what your
mullion detail looks like.
Ms. Grote: You wanted also to see the revised elevations if they go with the alternative of
additional square footage. And what about the entry feature?
Ms. Maser: That was my concern. They might want to take another look at that. It just looks
awfully unwelcoming right now. It looks like it is being squished under a box.
Ms. Grote: You had split opinions about the fourth story, so your motion could ask for them to
evaluate that.
Mr. McFall: I agreed with Cheryl that it would be worth some reconsideration.
Kit [ PeMins3 [ ARBg01Alma.801 Page 16
8/05/96
Ms. Piha: I would be happy with the motion if it could include giving them the option to
interpret our feedback on that. It doesn’t necessarily mean it will change, but we are asking for
an interpretation.
Ms. Maser: I am perfectly content with what I see here, in fact, I think it is important that this
remain flat and that the void start at the second and third floors. I think that is part of what Jeff
was saying about the middle section. It is a statement he is trying to make with this tri-part
facade. I feel pretty strongly that it should remain the way he has shown it, but I could include it
in the motion to take another look at it. I think they should understand that we are divided on the
board as to how we feel about that.
I do agree with other comments that have been made about the cementitious board and that it
should read as it is and not be falsifying it. Is there anything else? Does anyone want to see the
lighting?
Ms. Piha: How about the signage?
Ms. Maser: Signage will be rather minimal on this building, but we should see what they
propose.
Mr.Peterson: I feel the lighting would be important.
Ms.Maser: Yes, to come back with a lighting design.
Ms.Grote: What about the transformer location?
Ms. Maser: I had no problem with what they are recommending. It should be included in the
motion that it be shown on the plans and that we approved Option #1. I don’t know if there is
anything you could do with lighting along here. It is hard because there are people living there,
and they will not want to have lighting.
SECOND: By Ms. Piha.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Maser: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those
in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously.
Mr. Ross: I have a question about the process. My understanding is that we hope we will get.
through the Public Art Commission the next time, and then on to the Planning Commission and
the City Council. All of your comments are very well received by us. We shale your opinion on
the roof, but the planning commissioners were not as divided. They were more positive about
the gateway location and were supportive of the building height, so I am confused, procedurally,
when we go back to the Planning Commission, and we have your resolution, so how does the
Kit [ PCMins31ARBg01Alma.801 Page 17
8/05196
Planning Commission reconcile that?
M.s. Grote: The way the board has left it is to allow you to reconsider the fourth floor. If you
reconsider that and do not change it, then you need to present to the Planning Commission your
rationale for not changing it. You would also present that to the ARB as a part of your final
review.
Mr. Schubert: If the total square footage is going to change, you should make that change now
before it goes to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Ms. Grote: I would agree with that.
Mr. Ross: Yds, we will show that, along with the roof form and all the rest of it. I hear that you
are sort of endorsing that. You are not negative on it.
Ms. Maser: Two of us were definitely comfortable with it. One person was not comfortable
with it. Jim, did you mention about the addition of the little flat roof area?
Mr. McFall: No, I did not. I would be interested in seeing it. It is hard to respond. If it were
done tastefully, it might be okay.
Ms. Maser: So two are positive, one is neutral, and one is not negative. Good luck with your
project.
Mr. Zimmerman: I would like to comment that Mr. Schubert has done an excellent job.
Ms. Maser: Mr. Schubert never does a poor job.
Kit [ PCMlns3 [ ARB901AIma.801 Page 18
8/05/96