The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 383-06City City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 9 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT OCTOBER 10, 2006 CMR: 383:06 ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING A PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONE AT 850 WEBSTER STREET (CHANNING HOUSE) TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SENIOR RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE BUILDING AND UNDERGROUND GARAGE, INCLUDING A VARIANCE FOR DAYLIGHT PLANE ENCROACHMENTS AND APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT,AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS WITH CONDITIONS’~ RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission), Architectural Review Board (ARB) and staff recommend that the CityCouncil: o Approve the Negative Declaration as revised (Attachment G); Adopt the Planned Community Ordinance (Attachment A), which will: a. amend the existing PC zone for 850 Webster Avenue, allowing the construction of a two-story, 32,185 square foot health care building providing 53 beds for skilled nursing and assisted living residents and associated spaces for staff and residents, above a 16,437 square foot underground garage providing service functions and parking spaces for 37 vehicles and 22 bicycles; b. make findings for and grant a variance for exceptions to the special PC daylight planes set forth in PAMC 18.68.150(e) for second floor encroachments into the west and south side daylight planes; and c. formally approve the Negative Declaration. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment B) containing architectural review findings and conditions of approval. CMR: 383:06 Page 1 of 7 BACKGROUND As noted in its Development Program Statement (Attachment C), the project applicant is Channing House, a continuing care retirement community licensed by the State of California to provide life care services to the aged. The existing senior living/health care facility is located at 850 Webster Street as shown on the aerial map (Attachment D). The proposed two-story building would be located on the southwest comer of the Channing House property adjacent to Homer Avenue, where there is currently an at-grade parking lot and one-story cottage used for storage, both of which would be demolished. The building would include 26 skilled nursing units, 27 assisted living units and associated dining/activity spaces. It would provide more space, privacy and other amenities for each resident, and a more efficient floor plan for staff than the existing facility. There would be two additional staff members as a result of project implementation. Upon completion of the new building, senior independent living units and associated service/activity spaces will replace the vacated skilled nursing and assisted living units in the existing, taller building. There would be a net loss of two living units on the property. This results from a net increase in skilled nursing units and independent living units and a net decrease in assisted living units. The second floor of the new building would encroach into the special PC daylight plane adjacent to residential zones. The project would meet the RM-30 daylight plane on all sides, and meet the RM-15 daylight plane on the side facing the RM-15 zone with the exception of the building comers. Attachment F contains the applicant’s letter of support for the variance for the encroachment. Landscaping improvements proposed on the Channing House property include perimeter tree plantings to buffer views of the existing and proposed buildings from residential properties. The project includes closure of the one-way portion of a 15 foot wide private alley on Channing House property that currently connects Homer Avenue to Channing Avenue. The tw0-way portion of the private alley would be widened to 20 feet near Channing Avenue for safety reasons, and would remain accessible to residents of the adjacent Channing Place Townhomes (537-547 Channing Avenue). The two-way alley will also continue to be used by delivery and emergency vehicles coming to the existing Channing House loading area. A trial alley closure was implemented prior to the Commission meeting, with findings shown in Attachment N. Planned Community (PC) Zonin~ This PC has been amended five times, most recently in March 2006 to include wireless communications facilities as a permitted use (CMR 173:06). The ordinance history and prior ordinances are provided for Council members (Attachment M) and are available to the public on the City’s website. The original PC approved in 1961 established senior living as the public benefit, allowing for the construction of a 142 foot tall building housing a total of up to 320 senior living units and ancillary uses. This benefit will be maintained with this PC amendment, and therefore the demonstration of new public benefit is not required for approval of this amendment. As noted, a two-unit reduction in the total number of living units at the Channing House site is proposed. The number of skilled nursing units would increase by five units, the number of assisted living units would decrease by 21 units, and the number of independent living units would increase by 14 units, as explained in the following table: CMR: 383:06 Page 2 of 7 Number of Living Units Skilled Nursing Assisted Living Apartments 21 48 191 2O5 Attachment E provides tables indicating the project’s compliance with zoning regulations and Comprehensive Plan policies. Attachment C includes the anticipated development schedule, required to be submitted with the PC amendment application and referenced in Section 6 of the attached PC Ordinance (Attachment A). BOARD!COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Commission and ARB have recommended approval of the Negative Declaration, Planned Community zone amendment and variance, as noted below. Staff reports and meeting minutes for the second public hearings of the ARB and Commission are provided for Councilmembers (Attachments I, J, K, and L). These attachments are available on the City’s website and in City files, as noted below. Also available on the website and in City files are the staff reports and minutes from the first public hearings held by the ARB and Commission, as well as letters from the public. The project went to the Commission on March 22 and August 30, 2006 and to the ARB on July 6 and August 3, 2006. Architectural Review Board Review After the initial Commission review and between the two ARB rheetings, the applicant revised the plans to improve the project in response to Commission and ARB comments. Between the two ARB hearings, the original Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) request was modified to a variance request, because the ARB was not able to make the necessary findings for approval of a DEE and variance findings could be made. The ARB reviewed the applicant’s shadow study. The applicant reduced the second floor area by approximately 1200 square feet in order to increase the setback and reduce the building’s second floor mass. This resulted in the loss of one skilled nursing unit on the second floor, compensated by the addition of an assisted living unit on the first floor; the overall number of units has not changed since the original request. On a 4-0- 0-1 vote at the August 3 meeting, the ARB recommended approval of the project, adding two conditions to staff-recommended conditions of approval. These conditions required the applicant to consult with neighbors on the landscape plan and present final building materials and color samples to an ARB subcommittee. The applicant had revised the landscape plan in the July 20 plan set for ARB review on August 3rd, and did not meet with neighbors. The applicant plans to meet with the ARB subcommittee in November. During the two ARB meetings, a total of eight persons gave testimony. Public speakers included four opposed and four in support of the project. In addition, staff provided reasonable accommodation, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), by sharing with the ARB the concerns of Larry Wertman, who lives in a townhouse adjacent to the proposed building. Mr. Wertman is concerned about loss of sky views and sunlight from his first floor windows, loss of privacy and his quality of life. Mr. Wertman had met with two ARB members prior to the meeting, to present his drawings and share his concerns. CMR: 383:06 Page 3 of 7 Planning and Transportation Commission Review On March 22, 2006, the Commission reviewed initial plans and, expressing support for the project, forwarded the project to the ARB. After the ARB completed its review, the Commission resumed its review (pursuant to the PC process set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.68) of the project on August 30, 2006. The August 30, 2006 Commission staff report (Attachment J) identified and discussed key issues to be considered. As noted, the second floor of the new building would not meet the special PC daylight plane requirement. Although the project provides living quarters for elderly with special needs, the proposed use is not classified as residential. The PC regulations allow projects with a 60% residential component to follow the daylight plane requirements of the adjacent residential zones, such that the special PC daylight plane would not be applicable. Staff recommended a variance for the requested encroachment because the use does provide living quarters, thus satisfying the general intent of the daylight plane requirements. This rationale was used for the variance findings included in Attachment A, and was supported by the majority of the Commission and the ARB. Recognizing the applicant’s efforts and tradeoffs in scaling back the new building to better address the daylight plane requirement, the Commission ultimately supported the revised plans to allow Channing House to achieve its plans without sacrificing proposed units. The Commission indicated that the new building ~ould help mitigate the impact of the original building, and would essentially mirror the setbacks and daylight planes as required on the adjacent properties. The Commission also supported staff recommendations for mitigations regarding the shared alley (signage and curb painting) and construction nuisances, especially construction parking and debris. There were nine public speakers who addressed the Commission, seven in support and two opposed to the project. In addition, staff again spoke on behalf of Mr. Wertman to provide reasonable accommodation pursuant to the ADA by sharing his ongoing concerns with the Commission. At this meeting, the Commission voted 5 2 to recommend approval of theproject. The "no" votes were registered because of the variance request. In response to recommendations by the Commission on August 30, 2006, the applicant has: 1) Re-installed "story" poles on October 1 to provide approximate indication of the height and outline of the proposed building for Council consideration. 2)Explored the suggestion for a garden roof, and provided a letter (contained in Attachment F) that outlines why it would not be appropriate. 3)Revised plan sheet LI.1 to include a seating area adjacent to the Homer Avenue sidewalk between the two driveways allowing pedestrians to gather and rest on three benches. 4)Revised sheets A11 through A14 to provide more detail, including clearer depiction of the three daylight planes. Reasonable Accommodation Request Staff has made an extensive attempt to provide reasonable accommodations to Mr. Larry Wertman to address his stated disability. Mr. Wertman has not attended any of the public hearings. Correspondence from Mr. Wertman intended for public review has been provided to the ARB, Commission and Council. Staff has provided Mr. Wertman copies of the file contents, CMR: 383:06 Page 4 of 7 and has strongly suggested that he view video tapes of the public hearings on this item to understand the views of the ARB and Commission on the matter. The applicant and Mr. Wertman have gone through mediation. The applicant has agreed in writing to provide double panes for Mr. Wertman’s windows prior to construction. A fence will address privacy issues between the first floor windows, and existing trees to be retained plus new trees will provide screening from proposed second floor windows. Since the Commission meeting, Mr. Wertman has delivered additional correspondence and visited staff at City Hall to go over his concerns and to pose questions on topics such as the existing car wash, neighborhood noise, the alley width and backup area, and his belief the sun study should have been prepared from the inside of his home. Mr. Wertman states that the existing 15 foot wide alley needs to be widened to 20 feet wide to allow access to Townhomes #541,543,545 and 547, given closure of the one-way portion of the alley. Mr. Wertman does not feel the 15’ x 15’ backup area to be provided is adequate (letter dated September 14, 2006). The Transportation staff has verified that the existing alley width is sufficient to meet the access requirements of Mr. Wertman and that his backup area is adequate. Mr. Wertman’s request for a 60 day postponement of the Council meeting so he could obtain other professional studies (letter dated September 18, 2006) has been declined since the applicants would not be available. Mr. Wertman’s letters received since August 30, 2006 are provided to Council as Attachment H. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An initial study analyzing the potential impacts of the project on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was prepared and a Negative Declaration (ND) was available for a 20-day public review from June 14, 2006 through July 5, 2006. Public comments received during the public review period were forwarded to the Commission. The initial study and Negative Declaration are available for public review and comment; they describe the 53-units as 27 skilled nursing units and 26 assisted living units (later adjusted to 26 and 27 units, respectively); the daylight plane encroachments mentioned in the Land Use/Planning section were associated with the original Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) request (later adjusted to a Variance). The attached environmental document was revised as annotated to reflect these two revisions, which were not considered substantial enough to re~ circulate the document (pursuant to CEQA section 15073.5). The applicant’s traffic study recommended specific items to improve the project, and these and other measures identified during the public hearing process have become proposed conditions of approval included in Attachment B. These items include: 1) signage limiting 39 parking spaces in front of the existing building to visitor use only, 2) signage designating the alley as a fire lane and prohibiting parking, 3) painting the alley curb red, 4) adding traffic control devices at the entrance to the below-grade parking, 5) widening the curb cut to 20 feet, and 6) re-striping the pedestrian crosswalks. RESOURCE IMPACT The proposed project will generate additional General Fund revenues in the form of "in-lieu" property taxes and utility user taxes. Channing House is exempt from property taxes, but makes an "in-lieu-oF’ payment to the City based upon the assessed valuation of land, improvements, and unsecured property. The 850 Webster Street project improvements are expected to add in the range of $6 to $9 million in assessed value to the property. That will translate to $5,500 to $8,000 in additional property tax revenue to the City each year. CMR: 383:06 Page 5 of 7 In addition, Channing House estimates that, with the new facility, its utilities costs will increase by approximately $30,000 per year. That would increase City UUT revenues by $1,500 per year. Housing impact fees would not be assessed, since the project would result in a net loss of two units of senior housing and the five new skilled nursing units are exempt from housing fees. Community facilities fees in the amount of $12,880 will be due because the five new skilled nursing units represent increased non-residential floor area that is not exempt from these fees. No traffic or parking fees will be assessed since Channing House is neither in a special traffic fee area, nor in the parking assessment district. Therefore, total annual revenue impacts to the City will be in the $7,000 to $9,500 range, along with a one-time impact fee of $12,880. PREPARED BY: STEVE ~¢ISL!E , Director of Planning-a. nd.Communi~y Envi’ronmenc CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMILY Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS: No B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. Ordinance Adopting the Negative Declaration, PC Amendment and Variance Resolution of ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval Revised Development Program Statement including anticipated Development Schedule Project Aerial & Zone Map Zoning & Comprehensive Plan Compliance Tables Applicant’s Letters dated July 28 and September 22, 2006 Revised Initial Study and Negative Declaration Public correspondence received since August 30, 2006 (Council only) Commission Meeting Minutes of August 30, 2006 (Council only) Commission Staff Report of August 30, 2006 (w/o attachments, Council only) ARB Meeting Minutes of August 3, 2006 (Council only) ARB Staff Report of August 3, 2006 (w/o attachments, Council only) CMR: 383:06 Page 6 of 7 Mo Related Prior PC Ordinances (Council only) Channing House Alley Trial Closure Findings (Council only) Project Plans (Council only) Note: Attachments H - N are available in files at City Hall and on the website links indicated below: http ://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/planning-transportation- meetings/documems/850WebsterSRthruAttE.pdf http ://www.cityofpaloalto.org/citgagenda!publish!planning-transportation- meetings/documents/850WebsterAttEthruG.pdf http ://www.cit¥ofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish!planning-transportation- meetings/documents/850WebsterAttHthruN.pdf Project plans, letters from the public received on or before August 30, 2006, and source documems used for the Initial Study are in City Hall files. COURTESY COPIES: Carl Braginsky, Channing House John Northway Lisa Wang, HKI&T Channing Place Homeowners Association Joyce and Larry Wertman Albert C. Starr William and Marla McCormack Daniel Sneider Doris Anne Stoessel Deborah Dooley Marie Mookini Devin Vincent Sheehan Nadine Matityahu CMR: 383:06 Page 7 of 7 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 850 WEBSTER STREET (CHANNING HOUSE) FROM PC PLANNED COMMUNITY 4900 TO PC PLANNED COMMUNITY , TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A HEALTH CARE BUILDING AND UNDERGROUND GARAGE, AND APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENTS INTO A SPECIAL DAYLIGHT PLANE ALONG TWO PROPERTY LINES The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. This ordinance is intended to amend and revise PC Planned Community 4900. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, (the Zoning Map), is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property at 850 Webster Street from PC Planned Community 4900 to PC Planned Community Those provisions of Ordinance No. 4900 nor inconsistent with this PC Planned Community remain the same and are incorporated herein by reference. The subject property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A" attached zo this ordinance and made a part of it. SECTION 2. Application and Hearings. (a) Application has been made to the City for approval of the demolition of an existing cottage at 532 Homer Avenue on the Channing House property and adjacent parking lot, and the construction of a two-story, 32,185 square foot health care building providing 53 beds for skilled nursing and assisted living residents and associated spaces for staff and residents, above a 16,437 square foot underground garage providing service functions and parking spaces for 37 vehicles and 22 bicycles, and a Variance for exceptions to the special PC daylight planes set forth in PAMC 18.68.150(e) for second floor encroachments into the west and south side daylight planes (the "Project"). (b) The Architectural Review Board at its meeting of August 3, 2006 considered the Project and recommended its approval, subject to certain conditions. (c) The Planning and Transportation Cormmission ("Commission"), after a duly noticed public hearing held August 061004 syn 0120151 NOT YET APPROVED 30, 2006, recommended approval of the Project subject to staff recommended conditions and additional suggestions. (d)The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations and Negative Declaration, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promoze the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 3.Variance. The Pro3ect requires a variance from the special daylight planes that intersect the building at the second floor level along its west and south sides, per Section 18.68.150 (e) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which sets forth special daylight planes for Planned Community pro3ects that are nor az least 60% residential when adjacent ~o residential zones. The extent of the variance request is contained in Exhibit "B", attached herezo and incorporated herein by reference. (a) The Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held August 30, 2006, recommended that the variance be granted. (b) The Council finds, property, that: with respect to the subject (i) Because of special circumstances applicable zo the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges en3oyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Special circumszances zhat are expressly excluded from consideration are: (A) The personal circumszances of the property owner, and (B) Any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject ro the same zoning designation. The subject properzy is an "L" shaped irregular lot that is zoned PC and has been primarily developed with the existing Channing House building. The remaining buildable area is adjacent to residentially zoned properties. Due to its location, shape, and unique PC zoning, the property is subjec< to more restrictive daylight plane regulations than that of the adjacent residential zoned properties. The variance is to allow the encroachment of the second floor of the new health care building into the special PC daylight plane. The building will meet the RM-30 daylight plane on both sides facing residential zones, and will meez the RM-15 daylight plane faclng the RM-15 zone, with the exception of the building corners. 061004 syn 0120151 NOT YET APPROVED (ii) The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. The project site conzains unique conditions as described in Section 2, (b) (i), in that the new health care building would otherwise be in compliance with all PC zoning regulations and would be in substantial compliance with the daylight planes required for other properties in the vicinity. (iii) The granting of the application Is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning), in that the project would comply with all other provisions of the PC district as described in PAMC 18.68 and with the applicable policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan as described below and in Resolution No. , Section 2 (Architectural Review). The senior living uses, although they are residential in character, can not be considered residential because they have nor been identified as such in the zoning ordinance. Had 60% of the uses in the proposed building been classified as residential, the development would not have been subject ro the unique PC daylight plane, and could have been permitted by PC amendment without a variance with a mirroring of daylight plane regulations of the adjacent residential zones. (iv) The granting of the application will nor be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements ii~ the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The Project includes the replacement of an existing surface parking lot and dilapidated building with a zwo-story building that will provide a transition in scale from the existing Channing House to the neighboring structures, and site improvements including new landscaping and searing areas that are designed ro benefit the surrounding neighborhood. Five new street trees are proposed, along with large sized oaks to soften the view from the street of both the existing and proposed buildings. Large sized maples and pines are proposed along the property lines abutting residential zones, ro enhance the screening quality of the adjacent sites’ existing, mature trees, which will nor be disturbed by the Project. These trees include a grove of redwoods and pines on the RM-15 zoned property to the south, which will continue to provide a significant privacy screen that will be enhanced by new plantings on the subject property. While through access from Channing to Homer Avenues via the existing private road will terminate with the Project, the roadway will be widened near Channing Avenue ~o ~mprove safety, and an adequaze backup space will be provided for adjacent Channing Place Townhome residents, who will continue to back our of their driveways. 061004 syn 0120151 NOT YET APPROVED (c) A variance from the special daylight plane requirements of Section 18.68.150(e) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby granted. The extent of the deviation from the daylight plane requirements shall be that shown on the final development plans reviewed and approved pursuanz to Section 4 below. SECTION 4.Findings for Approval of Planned Community District. The City Council, in approving the amendment to this Planned Community district, hereby finds that: (a) The site is so zoned and situated, and the existing uses are such that general or combining zonlng districts would not provide sufficient flexibility ~o allow the proposed development in that none of the City’s conventional zoning districts could accommodate either the existing or proposed square footage and floor area ratio, and existing building height unless variances were granted. (b) Development of the Project on the site will provide public benefits not otherwise attainable, as more specifically described below. (i) The Pro3ect will provide imp~’oved and modernized healthcare to senlor residents of zhe Channing House; facilities for sen~or liv±ng was considered the public benefit allowing adoption of the original PC ordinance. (ii) The Project will create a transition between the existing large scale Channing House building and the adjacent residential buildings. (iii) parking lot. The Project will infill an existing surface (c) The Council further finds that the Project continues ~o provide the public benefit of the original PC, as described above, that are of sufficient importance to make the Project as a whole one with substantial public benefit. (d) The uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the District are consistent with the Comprehens±ve Plan and are compatible with the existing and potential uses on the adjoinlng sites or within the general vicinity in that the Project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: 061004 syn 0120151 NOT YET APPROVED Policy H-18: Support housing that incorporates facilities and services to the healthcare, transit, or social service needs of households with special needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities. The Project will provide improved healthcare to senior residents of the Channing House. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their slze and scale. Scale is the relationship of varlous parts of the environment to each other, to people, and to the limits of perception. It is what establishes some neighborhoods or streets as pedestrian-oriented and others as automobile-oriented. In older portions of Palo Alto, the grid of City blocks, small rectangular parcels, and narrow streets establishes a pattern that is generally pleasant for the pedestrian. The pattern is reinforced by streets that are lined with trees, residential buildings set back behind front gardens, and buildings typically one to three stories in height. The Project includes new street trees, maintaining the required front yard setback and adding landscaping throughout the subject property zo benefit the neighborhood, and the building would be zwo-storles in height. Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility ana gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. The Project’s two-story building will act as a transition between the existing Channing House and neighboring multi-story residential buildings. Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The new building would meet the adjacent zones’ regulations for height and setbacks, would meet the daylight plane requirements of the adjacent RM-30 zone and substantially meet the daylight plane requirements of the adjacent RM-15 zone. The building has been reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board, who voted unanimously that the design is architecturally compatible with the adjacent buildings. Policy L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians. The Project includes pedestrian safety improvements, with a reductlon in the number of driveway curb-cuts along Homer Avenue and the re-painting of the crosswalk. Additionally, the Project 061004 syn 0120151 NOT YET APPROVED includes new street trees, slgnificant landscaping along the edges of the property, and amenities for pedestrians. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The Pro~ect includes high quality materials and creative composition and site planning. Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and ~o enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. The Project will infill an existing parking lot and will provide a residential character along the street. The walls are well articulated with windows, planters, cast stone ornaments, trellises, and clay tile to provide human-scale details, with an entry protected by a glass awning and accessible via a staircase and ramp. Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible. The Pro~ecr includes demolition of an existing, surface parking lot and construction of a subterranean parking lot, thereby removing the negative physical aspects of the existing surface parking lot. SECTION 5. Development Plan. Those certain plans entitled Channing House Health Care Building prepared by Hardison Komatsu Ivelich & Tucker dated September 20, 2006, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Community Environment office, and to which copy reference is hereby made, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subjecz property, pursuanz ~o Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.120. SECTION 6. Uses. (a) Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Health Care Building shall be limited to the following: (i) Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing Units: The Development Plan indicates 27 units of Assisted Living and 26 units of Skilled Nursing on two floors. Ancillary uses to these units will be dining areas, nursing stations, resident activity/lounge areas, exterior terraces, laundry facilities, parking spaces, storage and utility functions, and access-ways ancillary to these uses. 061004 syn 0120151 NOT YET APPROVED (ii) Parking Garaqe: A total of 37 vehicle spaces and 22 bicycle spaces are provided in the underground garage, along with laundry, zrash collection, elevator lobby and stairs. SECTION 7.Site Development Regulations. (a) Compliance wlth Development Plan. All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the Development Plan, and subject to the conditions of approval adopted by City Council Resolution No. (i) 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 an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, approval under Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as it is amended from time to time. (b) Tree Protection. The Development Plan includes the planting and protection of specified new zrees within the development. These trees shall not be removed or destroyed without the prior approval of the City of Palo Alto in accordance with applicable procedures. (c) Parking and Loading Requirements. A total of 37 vehicle parking spaces, including two (2) ADA spaces shall be provided in the garage, and 22 Class I and Class III bicycle parking spaces shall be included in the Project. (d) Development Schedule. The applicant anticipates a 40 month long process for construction document development, construction plan approvals for the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Developmen<(OSCHPD), and construction. This process is noted in the letter entitled Exhibit "C", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. (i) Minor Variations in Project- Minor changes to the Project may be approved by the Director, according to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020(b) (3) (D) for architectural review. "Minor" changes do not include changes in land use. 061004 syn 0120151 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 8.Negative Declaration. The City as the lead agency for the Project has prepared the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, which is on file in the office of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by th±s reference. SECTION 9. 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 Deputy City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 061004 syn 0120151 O48 Legend C==~ Project Area The City of Palo Alto 850 Webster Street PC Amendment Exhibit A This do~ant is a graphic rewesenletmn on~ ol besl ava!]able sources. The Cil) o! PaSo Allo assumes no respons~blMy for any errors ©1989 to 2005 Ctly of Palo AJle This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 150’ Exhibit B __~ WEST ELEVATION / ~NORTH ELEVATION -HOMER AVENUE SECTION ~= WEST NEIGHBOR SITE SECTION = SOUTH NEIGHBOR Exhibit ****NOT YET APPROVED**** RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (05PLN-00) FOR 850 WEBSTER STREET CHANNING HOUSE HEALTH CARE BUILDING; CHANNING HOUSE, APPLICANT) FOR PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE CHANGE PC- The Council of the City of Palo Alto does resolve as follows: SECTION i. Background. The City Council finds, determines, and declares that: A. Channing House ("the applicant") has requested approval of the demolition of an existing one story building and adjacent parking lot at 532 Homer Avenue, and the construction of a two story building including 26 skilled nursing units, 27 assisted living units, associated staff and resident spaces, service areas and underground parking garage (the "Project"). B. The City Council has adopted Ordinance No. approving the amendment to the existing Planned Community (PC), Variance and Negative Declarahion for the Project. C. The Architectural Review Board, at duly noticed hearings on July 6, 2006 and August 3, 2006 reviewed and considered the design of the Project and recommended approval upon certain conditions. D. The Planning and Transportation Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the Project on March 22, 2006 and August 30, 2006 and recommended approval of the design of the Projecz based upon the findings and upon the conditions set forth below. E. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on October I0, 2006 and heard and considered all public testimony, both oral and written, presented to it, together with all staff reports and the record of zhe proceedings before the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission. SECTION 2.Design Approval. The C±ty Council hereby approves Planning Application No. 05PLN-00290, regarding the architecture, site planning and related site improvements, subject to the conditions set forth below, finding that: 060905 sdl 0120173 ****NOT YET APPROVED**** a. The design and architecture of the proposed improvemenzs, as conditioned, furthers the goals and purposes of Architectural Review as it complies with the Architectural Review findings as required in Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC"). b. The design, as conditioned, is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan in that the Project is consistent with the following significant policies and programs: Policy H-18: Support housing that incorporates facilities and services to the healthcare, transit, or social service needs of households with special needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities. The Project will provide improved healthcare to senior residents of the Channing House. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their slze and scale. Scale is the relationship of various parts of the environmen~ to each other, to people, and to the limits of perception. It is what establishes some neighborhoods or streets as pedestrian-oriented and others as automobile- oriented. In older portions of Palo Alto, the grid of City blocks, small rectangular parcels, and narrow streets establishes a pattern that is generally pleasant for the pedestrian. The pattern is reinforced by streets that are lined with trees, residential buildings sez back behind front gardens, and buildings typically one to three stories in height. The Project includes new street trees, maintaining the required fron~ yard setback and adding landscaping throughout the subjecz property to benefit the neighborhood, and the building would be two-stories in height. Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promoze compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. The Project’s two-story building will act as a transition between the existing Channing House and neighboring multi-story residential buildings. Policy L-12 : Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compazible with the neighborhood and ad3acent structures. The new building would meet the adjacenz zones’ regulations for height and setbacks, would meez the daylight plane requirements of the adjacent RM-30 zone and substantially meet the daylight 060905 sd10120173 2 * ** * NOT YET APPROVED*** * plane requirements of the adjacent RM-15 zone. The building has been reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board, who voted unanimously that the design is architecturally compatible with the adjacent buildings. Policy L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities.Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches,and other amenities that favor pedestrians. The Project includes pedestrian safety improvemenzs, with a reduction in the number of driveway curb- cuts along Homer Avenue and the re-painting of the crosswalk. Additionally, the Pro3ect includes new street trees, significant landscaping along the edges of the property, and amenities for pedestrians. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The Project includes high quality materials and creative composition and site planning. Policy L-49: Des±gn buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistenz with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid w~lls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. The Project will infill an existing parking lot and will provide a residential character along the street. The walls are well articulated with windows, planters, cast stone ornaments, trellises, and clay tile to provide human-scale de.tails, with an entry protected by a glass awning and accessible via a staircase and ramp. Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible. The Project includes demolition of an existing, surface parking lot and construction of a subterranean parking lot, thereby removing the negative physical aspects of the existing surface parking lot. These additional policies are also applicable to the Projecz: Policy L-70: Enhance the appearance of street and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system. Policy L-77: Encourage alternatives ro surface parking lots to minimize the amount of land that must be devoted to 060905 sdl 0120173 ****NOT YET APPROVED**** parking, provided that economic and traffic safety goals can still be achieved. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Policy N-20: Maximize the conservation and efficient use of water mn new and existing residences, businesses and industries. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Policy N-22: Limit the amount of impervious surface in new development or public improvement pro3ects to reduce urban runoff into storm drains, creeks, and San Francisco Bay. Policy N-35: Reduce solid waste generation through salvage and reuse of building ma[erials, including architecturally and historically significant materials. Policy N-39: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Policy N-40: Evaluate the potential for noise pollution and ways to reduce noise impacts when reviewing development and activities in Palo Alto and surrounding communities. Policy N-47: Optimize energy conservation and efficiency in new and existing residences, businesses, and industries in Palo Alto. c. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the Project would convert an underutilized building and surface parking lot zo a health care building available to senlors with special needs. The height of the building would be compatible with the height of the adjacent residential buildings, and the RM=30 daylight plane will be met, and the RM-15 daylight plane will be met adjacent to the RM-15 zoned property, with the exception of building corners; d. The design is appropriate to the function of the Project in that the design accommodates the physical and programmatic needs and objectives of the skilled nursing and assisted living program Of the Channing House; e. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that the building will be transitional between the existing Channing House facility and the residential neighborhood. The building will encroach into the special PC daylight plane but is 060905 sd10120173 ****NOT YET APPROVED**** designed to be compatible with the incorporates evergreen landscape buffers; adjacent uses and f. The design is compazible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that the Project includes the replacement of a surface parking lot and improved landscaping, on the entire Channing House property, and the existing two-way portion of the private Lane 56, providing access to the existing facility and the adjacent townhomes, will be maintained and widened near the intersection with Channlng Avenue; g. The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that the design is focused on improving the outdoor spaces. The new building is oriented towards the Channing House, which creates a central usable outdoor space above an existing roof terrace. The parking will be placed below grade to allow for more landscaped areas; h. The amount and arrangement of open space is appropriate ~o the design and the function of the structures in that landscape buffers will be provided, the building will improve handicap accessibility to the outdoor roof <errace, and appropriate outdoor spaces are provided to serve the unique needs of all users and visitors to the site; i. Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the Project and the same are compatible with the Project’s design concept in tha~ adequate auto, accessible and bicycle parking spaces are located conveniently below grade in the building basement. j. Access to the property and circulation thereon safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the existing access ways off Channing Avenue, Webster Street and Homer Avenue will be maintained. The Project will provide a safer pedestrian environment by eliminating two driveways along Homer Avenue, re-striping the crosswalks and adding traffic directional signs. k. Natural features have been appropriately preserved in that the redwood trees will be protected. 1. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are an appropriate expression to the design and function and the same are compatible with the adjacen< and neighboring structures, landscape elements, and functions in that a color and materials palette has been chosen, 060905 sdl 0120173 .5 ****NOT YET APPROVED**** as well as a variety of tree and plant materials, to add vibrancy to the site and to assist its integration with the surrounding propert±es, such that the building will have a residential character compatible with the adjacenz residential architecture; m. The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors crea~es a desirable and functional environment in that the use of the site is enhanced with outdoor spaces and the parking area will be below grade; n. The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance; o. The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy des±gn elements including but not limited to: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) Zero use CFC-based refrigerants in HVAC systems, Use of Solar panels, Use of low-emitting adhesives, sealants, paints, coatings, carpet and composite wood, Daylight for all perimeter rooms, Water-use efficient landscape design, and Additional elements listed by the applicants. SECTION 3. Conditions of Approval. Planning and Community Environment Department: General Conditions: Prior to the start of construction and the issuance of a Streetwork Permit, the applicant shall submit a logistics plan for review and approval by Public Works and Planning staff. The logistics plan shall meet the Guidelines established by Public Works, and shall include information regarding the Project schedule, hours of construction, noise control measures,ne±ghbor notification of construction, traffic control plan, material delivery, construction parking,materials storage, measures to protect adjacent properties, clean-up and maintenance of site and adjacent properties, refuse collection and recycling, site plan, map 060905 sd10120173 6 ****NOT YET APPROVED**** of truck routes, pedestrian protection plan, tree protection plan, and Stormwa<er Pollution Prevention Plan. 2. Prior to the szarz of construction, the Project shall return zo the Architectural Review Board for approval of the final building details, landscape plan, and building materials. 3. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall pay Community Facilities impact fees in the amount of $12,880.32. Buildin@ Conditions: 4.Permitting and inspections of the new Health Center shall be under the 3urisdiction of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). 5.The existing Channing House building and the new Health Center shall be physically separated so as to create two independent buildings. Each building shall have independent electric, gas, water and was~ewazer utility services. 6.The 2nd floor renovazion and fire alarm upgrades to the existing Channing House building shall comply with current applicable City Building and Fire Code requirements. 7.Prior to ±ssuance of a Building Permit for the 2nd floor renovation and fire alarm upgrades to the existing Channing House building, written evidence of an approved decommissioning of the building from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) shall be provided to the Chief Building Official. 8.Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the 2nd floor renovation and fire alarm upgrades to the existing Channing House building, the owner shall retain a code consultant, approved by the Building Official, to conduct a code survey and analysis of the building to identify items of non- compliance with current Building and Fire Codes. The consultant shall prepare a repor~ that identifies structural, non-structural disabled access, electrical, plumbing, mechanical and fire code deficiencies, and submit such report to the Building Official prior ro issuance of a Building Permit. The owner, in consultation with the Building Official and Fire Marshal, will agree on a plan to correct the code deficiencies noted in the consultant’s report either as part of the current project, or in conjunction with future projects, to be processed through the City. 060905 sd10120173 ****NOT YET APPROVED**** 9.A demolition permit, issued by the Palo Alto Building Division, shall be required for the removal of the existing cottage. Plannin@ Arborist Conditions: i0.Ordinance Tree Mitigation Measure. The Tree Canopy Replacement Standard, Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.20 stipulates that the 36" oak tree be replaced with: two 48" box size and two 36" box size trees. Staff will accept an alternative of two 60" box size oaks upon request. The species shall be a selection of valley oak (Quercus lobata), black oak (Q. kellogii) or coas~ live oak (Q. agrifolia). In any case, an appropriate landscape area for each tree must be dedicated to the future growing space needed for each of the mitigation trees, denoted on formal landscape improvemenz plans, and fitted with bubbler head irrigation during a 2-5 year establishment period. Maintenance of the mitigation trees shall be required for the duration of the Project, subject to condition monitoring and replacement if required. II.Landscape Plans. a. Raywood ash shall be deleted from the plant palette (disease prone). New trees in the right of way shall be planted per PW Detail #503. Species and location spacing shall be determined by Public Works Operations. b. Specify the variety of Japanese maples to be planted. For winter screening between the Channing Place Homeowners Association, consider continuing the narrow evergreen canary island pines spaced between the new maple ~rees. Include the landscape areas flanking the Webster Street access, including the entry island in the center. c. Removal of the old ivy (rodent habitat) and replacement with new groundcover and grasses (carpet rose, New Zealand Flax, lily turf, ezc) at this time would benefit the residents and neighborhood. 12.The backflow-preventer device shall be concealed with an appropriate size decorative fiberglass boulder dark grey or brown in color (dekorraproducts.com or equivalen~ approved by planning staff). Cut sheet shall be added to the plans. The vegetation shall be planted appropriately around the boulder. Irrigation to all new trees shall specify bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed ar the edge of the 060905 sd10120173 ****NOT YET APPROVED**** root ball for each tree that is 15 gallon in size or larger. Add detail to the irrigation plans. Bubblers shall not be mounted inslde the aeration tube. 13.Tree Protection Verification. A written statement from the contractor or project arborist verifying that the required protective Type I and II barriers are in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division prior to demolition or grading. Damage to any street trees or trees to be protected during the course of construction will be subject to injury assessment and administrative penalty. The contractor is responsible immediate Damage Reporting protocol required in the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 14.The following general tree preservatlon measures apply all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees ro be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 15. Prior to completion, the contractor shall contact Code Enforcement staff at 650-329-2358 for Planning staff inspection of the Project to verify consistency withthe approved plans, ordinance tree mitigation plantingand conditions of approval. 16.Facilities Maintenance. For the life of the Project,all landscape as shown on the approved plans,~ includingall trees, shall be reasonably well maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001),Nursery Standards and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00 and 5.00 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/planning- community/tree index.html) . Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Transportation Conditions 17. The Project shall establish left-turn arrows on the exit driveways off of Homer Avenue and Channing Avenue. It is preferable that this pavement marking be implemented uslng white thermo plastic rather than paint. 060905 sd10120173 ****NOT YET APPROVED**** 18.A non-szandard one-way sign is presently provided atthe most eastern project driveway off of Homer Avenue.The Project shall replace this one-way sign ro conform tothe Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices in terms of s±ze, shape and installation height. 19.The Project shall mark visitor parking spaces in the surface lot abutting Webster Street in order ro facilitate access and avoid traffic rerouzing. 20.The pro3ect shall re-establish the faded zebra crosswalk and "Ped Xing" markings provided on Channing Avenue on the approach to Webster Street. It is preferable that this pavement marking be established using thermo plastic rather tha~ paint. 21.The Project shall re-establish the faded pedestrian crosswalks presently provided at the all-way stop controlled intersection of Homer Avenue/Webster Street. 22: The Project shall paint a stop bar.and a stop legend on site at the lighted "Car Coming" traffic sign to be facing motorists exiting from the existing underground parking. This will clearly give the right-of-way to traffic exiting from the new underground parking facility due to the constrained visibility conditions and ramp configuration. 23.The Project shall mark parking spaces number 19 & 20 as compact stalls. 24.Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project shall submit a logistics plan for review and approval by Public Works and Planning staff. As per our practice, information described and shown on the traffic plan must contain the truck routes to and from the site, parking arrangement during construction including parking of construction workers’ vehicles, location of materials szorage, any potential for temporary closure of a travel lane or sidewalk, any potential for zemporary elimination of on- street parking, warning traffic control devices and flag persons, etc // // 060905 sdl 0120173 10 ****NOT YET APPROVED**** Public Works Department Engineering Conditions: i.The garage floor drains musz drain to the sanitary sewer. 2.The driveway and ramp shall be designed zo not allow runoff from the driveway to flow down the ramp. Consider a valley guzner along the driveway at the interface with the ramp that will capture driveway runoff and direct it to the street. Also, the trench drain at the bozzom of the ramp must connect to the storm drain system. 3. The rainwater leaders should discharge onto splashblocks, which direct water into landscaped areas so there is some infiltration and filtering of the water before it is released into the storm drain system. Recyclin@ Conditions: o o PAMC Chapter 5.20 - Standard service for garbage and recycling collection does not include pull-out of bins from basement level. Service beyond the standard level will result in additional cost (hundreds of dollars per month) for garbage and recycling collectlon. The trash and recycling for the new building shall be transported to the existing trash pick-up area in the alley vxa the buildings service elevator. The new buildings enclosure shall accommodate the following: Qty 1 - 4 cu. yd. bin- garbage Qtyl - 4 cu. yd. bin- cardboard Qty 6 - 96 gallon wheeled carts- single stream recycling (bottles, cans, plastic containers #1-#7, newspaper, mixed paper) Bin dimensions- 2 cubic yard - 81" (1) x 38" (w) x 46" (h) 4 cubic yard - bin 81"(1) x 54 (w) x 59"(h) 96 gallon cart - 34.5" (i) x 29.25" (w) x 46.75" (h) 6. PAMC Chapter 5.24 - requires salvage for reuse and recycling of construction and demolition debris. // // 060905 sd10120173 11 ****NOT YET APPROVED**** Fire Department Conditions: o ° Hydrants shall be located not further than 120 feet from the end of the fire access road, and not further than 150 feet from all other points used for fire access. (PAMC §15.04.140) Elevator car and lobbies on all floors shall be sized and configured for Fire Department gurney access requirements based on gurney dimensions of 24 in. x 82 in. plus a minimum of two emergency response personnel. (PAMC ~15.04.120) Approved 2~-inch hose valves shall be provided at each underground floor level landing in every stairwell for the underground parking structure. (PAMC §15.04.178) All sprinkler drains, including those for floor control valves and inspector’s rest valves, as well as the main drain, shall nor discharge within the building. Water discharged from these points shall be directed to an approved landscape location or to the sanitary sewer system. (99NFPAI3, Sec. 5-14.2.4.3) NOTE: Please check with Roland Ekstrand in Utilities for maximum flow capacity of sanitary sewer in the area. Main Drain rest discharge flow rate shall be impounded and attenuated to below sanitary sewer capacity before discharge. Water Qualit~ Conditions: The oil/sand separator needs to be plumbed to the sanitary sewer, not the curb. The trench drain across the ramp goes to the storm drain/curb. // // // // // // // // 060905 sdl 0120173 12 ****NOT YET APPROVED**** SECTION 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon the effective date of Ordinance , en<itled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PLANNED COMMUNITY PC-4900, 850 WEBSTER STREET (CHANNING HOUSE), TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OFA HEALTH CARE BUILDING AND UNDERGROUND GARAGE, AND APPROVEA VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENTS INTO A SPECIAL DAYLIGHT PLANE ALONG TWO PROPERTY LINES." INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 060905 sdl 0120173 13 ATTACHMENT C 850 Webster Street o Palo Alto ¯ CA 94301 ¯ PHONE 650-327-0950 ¯ FAX 650-324-7585 ¯ www.channinghouse.org Channing House Application for Amendment to Existing PC Zoning District Development Program Statement September, 2006 Channing House is a continuing care retirement community, licensed by the state of California to provide life care services to the aged. This includes provision of several levels of care, with supervision, meals and housing provided. The units include skilled nursing, assisted living, and independent living units. Our Planned Community (PC) zone (Resolution No. 2007) permits up to 320 units. Completed in 1964, our forty-year old health center (which contains both skilled nursing and assisted living) was designed and built in an earlier era with different standards, and has become, over time, inadequate for today’s needs. Taking up our entire second floor, it does not meet the requirements of current residents, and is not marketable to the next generation of facility residents. The assisted living and skilled nursing beds are either two or three per room, with little space and privacy. Today’s standards require more space, privacy and other amenities for each resident, and a more efficient building layout for our staff. A lengthy internal planning and review process, including Board members, residents and staff, has concluded that it is not feasible to renovate the current health center within the existing building’s footprint to "de- compress" the facilities, while keeping the number of units to retain economic viability. Therefore, the proposed modification to the existing Planned Community zoning consists of a two-story building of 34,000 SF, plus 17,000 SF of underground parking. The new construction would take place at the southwest corner of the existing lot, adjacent to Homer Avenue. The existing parking on that portion of our lot would be replaced by the underground parking. After construction of the new health facility, plans are to renovate the existing second floor to include service and activity spaces, in addition to renovated living units. The number of units in Channing House after the approval of the PC Amendment will actually be reduced by two. The proposed changes in unit configuration, before and after construction, are as follows: Current Proposed Skilled Nursing units 21 26 Assisted Living units 48 27 Apartment Units 191 205 Total:260 258 Channing House will be providing health care services to seniors only from its internal population, and will not be expanding to serve those in the outside community. The employee count is anticipated to change from the current 137 to 139 persons, an addition of two staff members. After zoning approval, the Development Schedule assumes there will be a 40-month long process for construction document development, construction plan approvals from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), and construction. Attachment D --/~--, ~"~ .h ~ ,z,~ ,. -.~’~ ~ / -,, ~,~ /~~ ,’ ~~ ’..~ ., "-... cy "~ / ~-~o,"’.., .....",,,/ ~ //".//,,,’" ,,., ~ ~ ~%..’~~~ />~,, %~. ,k,,. II -I "-.....’"’-.."~~~;;~,W-., %11 I " ~ This map is a product of lhe Ci~ of Palo Alto GIS 850 Webster Street PC. Amendment The Cily of Palo Alto 7 ~-"0 0 0 ~ Attachment F JOHN D, JORGENSON MARVIN S. SIEGI=’L WILLIAM L McCLURE JOHN L.F~EGEL MARGARET ,~ SLOAN DAN K. S~EGEL DIANE S, GREENBERG ,JENNIFER ~4. FRIEDHA~ HtNDIE S. ROMANOWSKY JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW IiOO ALMA STREET, SUITE 21o MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA ~402S-33g2 (650) 324-9300 FAC-~IhtlLE (~50) 32,d-O227 www.jsmf.com NICOLAS A. FLEGEL KATHERINE I~ HAAS ~O~N R. COSGRov~ July 28, 2006 Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission Attn: Gina LaTorra City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Channing House’s Request for a Variance for the Daylight Planes Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission" I am writing on behalf of Channing House to set forth support for Channing House’s request for a variance for the daylight plane requirements for the project si"~e; ¯ The reasons for Channing House’s application for an amendment to its existing Planned Community ("PC") zone are set forth in its Development Program Statement submitted with the application (copy attached). This letter sets forth the evidence and facts that we believe support Channing House’s request for the daylight plane variance. The project site at 850 Webster Street is located in a PC district where the required daylight plane for the district, when it is adjacent to a residential zone, is "... beginning at a height of 3.0 meters (10 feet) at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of 1 meter for each 2 meters of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district." Channing House is proposing, instead, daylight planes that match the daylight plane requirements for the neighboring adjacent properties that are in the RM-15 and RM-30 ¯ zones. At the south property line, the project is set back on the second floor to meet the RM-15 daylight plane requirements of a line beginning at 5 feet above grade and increasing at a 45 degree angle. At the west property line, an RM-30 daylight plane has been established in the second floor setback to address the zoning requirements of the adjacent RM-30 neighboring properties. At this property line, the project is set back to meet the daylight plane beginning at 10 feet above grade and increasing at a 45 degree angle. N:\DATA\Cllents\C\Channtng House\Corresp~ARB Variance, Irt.wpd Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission July 28, 2006 - Page 2 There are four findings that are necessary to support a variance: Finding (1): "Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property," It is difficult to compare property in the same zone district, since all PC’s are unique. However, Section 18.76.030 of the Municipal Code specifically permits variances for a site with physical constraints, resulting from natural or built features. The special circumstances in the case of Channing House are that the existing improvements house a healthcare facility, providing services that benefitthe entire community, whose facilities are outmoded. In order to accommodate and modernize the allowable uses (and actually decrease the units by two), a new building must be built. The new building must meet the very stringent OSHPD1 requirements in addition to those of the City of Palo Alto. Because improvements already exist on site, the area of the property available for a new building is limited. If the strict daylight planes of the PC ordinance were to be met, the proposed building would not be large enough to accommodate the health facility and meet OSHPD standards. Not being able to modernize and accommodate allowable uses would deprive Channing House of the privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity. Finding (2): "The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property." The proposed building can meet the current daylight plane standards for the RM-15 and RM-30 zones, but not the PC zone. The current daylight plane requirements for RM-15 and RM-30 zones are in fact more sensitive to the neighbors than the neighbors’ buildings will be to any new buildings, since the daylight planes for the neighboring properties are almost all nonconforming. Thus, the granting of a variance will not_ affect substantial compliance with the daylight plane regulations or constitute special privileges. 1 The Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPD) is the regulatory office within the California Department of Health Services that governs construction, changes or improvements to all health care facilities in the state. The approval process is detailed and time consuming. N:\DATA\Clients\C\Channing House\Corresp~ARB VaHance.lrt.wpd Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission July 28, 2006 - Page 3 The lesser daylight plane angles will not be inconsistent with limitations on other properties. The daylight planes proposed will preserve the neighborhood compatibility while also, very importantly, preserving the interior design requirements of the building and facilitating modern facilities that meet the very stringent OSHPD standards. Finding (3): "The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the. purposes of this title (Zoning)." The granting of the requested variance is not inconsistent with policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan and is not inconsistent with the Zoning Code, since Chapter 18.76.030 specifically allows variances to "provide a way for a site with special physical constraints, resulting from natural or built features, to be used in ways similar to other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district" and "provide a way to grant relief when strict application of the zoning regulations would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties th at do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district." (Emphasis added.) Finding (4): "The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience." The shadow studies undertaken by Channing House show that the proposed building will cast no additional shadows on any neighborhood property. The daylight planes proposed match the daylight planes currently required in the adjoining zones, so that if the Channing House property were to convert to multi-family uses, these are the daylight planes that would be required. Furthermore, even though Channing House is a licensed care facility, the new building is, in all practicality, a multi-family building, housing individuals, if it were technically classified as a multi-family building, the proposed daylight planes would meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The daylight planes proposed are, in fact, more stringent than almost all the existing daylight planes of the adjoining residences. Finally, the extensive landscaping that is proposed at the property lines will further the privacy between Channing House’s new building and the existing residences. We contend that not only will granting the variance not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood, but also the granting of this application will enhance the appearance of the site by moving the unattractive parking lot underground, adding a building that will provide a transition in scale from the existing, somewhat ungainly, Channing House building and the neighborhood residences, and adding more landscaping to greatly improve the appearance of the site. N:\DATA\Clients\C\Channing House\Corresp’~ARB Vadance.lrt, wpd Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission July 28, 2006 - Page 4 The conflict between the strict application of the zoning regulations and the circumstances of the Channing House property is exactly the kind of situation in which a variance should be applied. For the reasons set forth above, Channing House believes that the variance request is well supported and is essential for this project. We thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, MAS:tlf Encl. cc: Carl Braginsky Thomas Brutting Joh n Northway Arian Chun Mar Sloan N:\DATA\Clienl$\C\Channing House\Cor~esp~ARB Variance.lrl.wpd Channing House Application for Amendment to Existing PC Zoning District. Development Program Statement August, 2005 -Channing House is a continuing care retirement community, licensed by the state of California to provide life care services to the aged. This includes provision of several levels of care, with supervision, meals and housing provided. The units include skilled nursing, assisted living, and independent living units. Our Planned Community (PC) zone (Resolution No. 2007) permitsup to 320 units. Completed.in 1964; our forty-yearold health center (which contains both skilled nu~’sing and assisted living) was designedand built in an earlier era with different standards, and has become, over time, inadequate for today’s needs.. Taking up our entire second floor, it does not meet the requirements of current residents, and is not marketable to the next generation of facil~ residents. The assisted living and skilled nursing beds are either two or three per room, withliEle space and privacy.. Today’s standards require more space, privacy and other amenities for each resident,, and a more efficient building layout for our staff. A lengthy internal planning and review process, including Board members, residents and staff, has concluded that it is not feasible to renovate the current health center within the existing building’s footpdntto ~de-com press" the facilities, while keeping the number of units to retain economic viability. Therefore, the proposed modification to the existing Planned Community zoning consists of a two-story building of 34,000SF, plus 17,000 SF of-underground parking. The new construction would take place at the southwest corner of the existing !ot, adjacent to Homer Avenue. The existing parking on that portio.n of our lot Would be replaced by the underground parking. After construction of the new health facility, plans are to renovate the existing second floor to include se~ce and.activity spaces, in addition to renovated living units. The numl~er of units in Channing House after the approval of the PC Amendment will actually be reduced .by two. The proposed changes in unit configuration, before and after construction, are as follows: Skilled Nursing units Assisted Uving units - Apartment Units 21 q8 191 260 Proposed 27 26 2O5 258 Channing House will be providing health care services to seniors only from its internal population, and will not be expanding to serve those in the outside community. The employee count is anticipated to change from the current :~37 to :~39 persons, an addition of two staff members. After zoning approval, the Development Schedule assumes the~e will be a 40-month long process for construction document development, construction plan approvals from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), and construction. F:\PRO.1ECT Health Center\Ci~, o(= Palo Alto{Zonino Chan(:ze ADoli~\ChannlncLltOUS-e Narrative Rnal.doc 850 Webster Street ¯ Palo Alto ¯ CA 94301 ¯ PHONE 650-327-0950 ¯ FAX 650-324-7585 ¯ www.channinghouse.org September 22, 2006 Ms. Amy French Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Ms. French: Re: Project 05P-00290 Attached for your review is the updated narrative for Channing House, which includes the revision we made in the classification of units. That is, during the plans’ modifications through the ARB, we reduced the size of the second floor containing skilled nursing (SN), reducing the number of units in the original application from 27 to 26. at the same time, we increased the number of assisted living (AL) units from 26 to 27, resulting in no net difference. This change is shown also on the title page (T1) of the revised plans. Other changes on T1 include a correction of the building area, additional detail drawings A12 through A14, and a revised All showing more clearly the daylight plane diagrams. One other plan revision is the modification of site landscaping (L1.1) to relocate one of the two proposed seating areas from Webster Street to Homer Avenue. With regard to the Planning Commission’s request for a green roof, we feel that the concept for the building would not be as appropriate as other energy conserving methods that we are intending to incorporate. This includes the installation of a "cool roof" for the flat portion of the roof, and retaining areas for photovoltaic cell installation at the flat and sloped roof portions. Less than half the total roof is flat, which precludes any practical usage of the proposed roof for garden purposes. Furthermore, an accessible roof garden would not be appropriate for our aged, handicapped building residents, as the shape and size of the flat roof would be difficult to use and supervise. Thank you again for your time and consideration in reviewing our application. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, Carl Braginsky Executive Director Attachment Attachment G ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Channing House Health Care Center City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 = Contact Person and Phone Number:Gina La Torra, Associate Planner (650) 329-2165 4.Project Location:850 Webster Street 5.Application Number:05PLN-00290 = = Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Carl Braginsky Channing House 850 Webster Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Multiple Family Residential 8.Zoning:PC 9. Description of the Project: The applicant proposes to construct a two-story 32,185 square foot Health Care building for the Channing House, including -2q- 26_ skilled nursing units, -2-6 27_ assisted living units, and associated dining/activity spaces, and a 16,437 square foot underground garage. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The parcel is approximately four city blocks from the Civic Center and Downtown University Avenue. The parcel is an "L" shaped lot that is half of a city block. The majority of the parcel extends from Homer Avenue to Channing Avenue along Webster Street. A private alley divides the parcel, is parallel to Webster Street, and connects Homer Avenue to Channing Avenue. The total area of the parcel (including the private alley) is 120,000 square feet. The parcel is adjacent to several residential developments, which have a zoning designation of RM-15 or RM-30. The existing Channing House building is located on the northeast portion of the parcel and is oriented towards Webster Street. The new building is proposed at the northwest Page 1 portion of the parcel that is currently developed with a surface parking lot and cottage and is bounded by Homer Avenue, the private alley, and the adjacent residential parcels. 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development (OSHPD) 12. Public Review Period: June 14, 2006 through July 5, 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation TransportationlTraffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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 onattached sheets. An X Page 2 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Project P la n ne, r,.-"-~ Director ot~ltflanning and Community Environment Date Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. :Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4)-"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). Page 3 Issues and Supporting Information Resources d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or Sources Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Issues Unless Mitigation Incorporated 1-5 nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the 1 X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson t, 2 (L-X Act contract?9) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due ~ to their location or nature, could 1 X result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?¯ III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing ’ emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X X X a) b) c) Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Significant Issues d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,4,8,9 concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,4,8,9 people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special 1, status species in local or 2(N-1) regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or 1, regional plans, policies,2(N-1) regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal 1, pool, coastal, etc.) through direct 2(N-1) removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory 1, wildlife corridors, or impede the 2(N-1) use of nativewildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a 1-4,6- tree preservation policy or 8,21 ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X X X X Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Resources adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation, plan? Sources t,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,2 historical resource as defined in (L-7) 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,2 archaeological resource (L-8) pursuant to 15064.57 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 1,2 or site or unique geologic (L-4, feature?L-8) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside 1,2 of formal cemeteries?(L-8) GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on 1,2, 11 other substantial evidence of (N-5) a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) c) d) VI. 1,2 (N-10), 11 1,2(N- 5),11 1,2(N- 5),11 X X X X X X Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information b) Resources Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Sources c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and 1,2(N- potentially result in on- or off-5),11 site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 1,2(N- Uniform Building Code (1994),5), 11 creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where 1 sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport,1,4,8 use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 1,4,8 involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,1,2(C-1) substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 1,2(N- materials sites compiled 9),8 pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Issues Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact Would the project? No Impact X X X X X X X Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Resources hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources (N-7), 4,17 Potentially Significant Issues VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality 1,4,22 1,2 (N- 2),4,19 standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Resources drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? J) Sources 1,4,19 1,4,19 1,4,19 1,2(N-6) 1,2 (N-6) Potentially Significant Issues 1,2 (N-6,N-S) 1,2(N-6,N-S) LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Physically divide an established community?1 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X a)X b) Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information c) b) XI. c) d) e) Resources Sources an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not 1-4 limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation 1,4,7 plan? MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Result in the loss of availability I of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region 2 and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general 2 plan, specific plan or other land use plan? NOISE. Would the project result in: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards 2(N-3,N- established in the local general 4),4,8,10 plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground 2(N-3,N- borne vibration or ground borne 4),4,8,10 noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in theproject vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where Potentially Significant Issues 2(N-3,N- 4),4,8,10 2(N-3,N- 4),4,8,10 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X X NoImpact I X X X X Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Significant Issues 2,17 1,2 1,2 such a plan has not been adopted, would the project 1 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing 1 or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or 1,2,4 indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating 1 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 1 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in. substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact NoImpact X X X X X X X X X Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information XlV. a) b) Resources Sources Potentially Significant Parks? Other public facilities? RECREATION Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Issues 1,2 1,2 1,2,4 1,4 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic b) which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e~g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate parking 2,(T7, T-8),9, 23 2,9,23 2,17 c) d) e) f) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X Page 13 Issues and Supporting Information Resources capacity? Sources g)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. 1-4,23 a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Potentially Significant Issues Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Would the project: 2, 22 2,22 2,19 2,15,22 2,15,22 2,20 Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 2,20 related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X X X X x X Page 14 Issues and Supporting Information Resources 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 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 past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Sources 1-8, 21 1,2,4 1-23 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X Page 15 SOURCE REFERENCES: Q 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010. Parenthetical references indicate maps found in the Comprehensive Plan Palo Alto Municipal code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) Project Plans, entitled "Channing House Health Care Center", dated March 15, 2006 prepared by HKI&T Applicant submittals including Project Description by Channing House dated August 2005, Landscape Water use Statement dated November 3, 2005, Impervious Worksheet dated October 28, 2005, Commercial Electric Load Worksheet dated October 19, 2005, Preliminary Photometric Plan dated June 7, 2006, Logistics Plan dated April 2006, and Preliminary Title Report. Landscape Design Intent by Witherbotham Partnership dated November 2005 Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan, Arbor Resources, August 17, 2005 Environmental Assessment Worksheet, August 15, 2005 Transportation Impact Analysis, Korve, July 2005, Final TIA January 12, 2006 Noise Impact Evaluation, Charles M Salter Assoc. Inc., May 19, 2006 Geotechnical Investigation Consultation, Lowney Associates, October 27, 2005, Final April 20,2006 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault Zoning Map City of Palo Alto, Building Inspection Division, February 24, 2006 City of Palo Alto, Utilities Electric.. November 29, 2005 City of Palo Alto, Utilities Marketing services, November 23, 2005 City of Palo Alto, Utilities WGW Department, December 2, 2005 City of Palo Alto, Fire Department, November 29, 2005 City of Palo Alto, Housing, August 24, 2005 City of Palo Alto, Public Works Engineering Division, November 28, 2005 City of Palo Alto, Public Works Recycling, March 24, 2006 City of Palo Alto, Planning Arborist, April 13, 2006 City of Palo Alto, Public Works Water quality/Environmental Compliance, February 24, 2006 City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division, March 1, 2006 Page 16 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I.Aesthetics The proposed project is required to meet the City of Palo Alto development standards and is reviewed by the City Council, Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board to ensure that the new construction would be compatible, harmonious and appropriate to the site and surrounding development. The project will introduce a taller building than the existing one-story storage building and parking lot but will have a less than significant impact. The applicant will construct story poles on the site that represent the height of the proposed building. The proposed project does not include exterior lighting on the building and meets the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.68, PC - Planned Community District and Section 18.64.030(a)(2)(A) that requires the elimination of glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the development. A standard condition of approval would reduce the intensity of interior lights onto adjacent parcels. Mitigation Measures: None required. II. Agricultural Resources The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as .shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use and is ~’~ot regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None required III. Air Quality Motor vehicles are the major source of ozone precursors and contributors to carbon monoxide generation in the Bay Area. The proposed project will not increase trips and therefore, does not require a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. City development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to no impact. Mitigation Measures: None required. IV. Biological Resources No endangered, threatened, or special status animal or plant species have been identified at the project site. The site is developed with some mature landscaping including street trees. Two trees have been identified as "Protected Trees" based on the City’s tree preservation policies. One of those trees will be impacted as it is proposed to be removed for safety reasons. It will be required to be replaced per the Tree Preservation and Page 17 Management Regulations to address the impact. Conditions of approval for the proposed project require the developer to obtain approval by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of a demo permit for; (a) the removal and/or relocation of regulated and protected trees per the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, PAMC, Section 6.30 and 2.00; (b) for the landscape planting and irrigation plan; and (c) for tree protection measures during construction phases of the project that must comply with and Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, PAMC Sections 8.10 and 16.48.120(a)(11). City development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to no impact. Mitigation Measures:None required. V. Cultural Resources The project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot and small cottage. There are no known cultural resources on the site. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the project site is located within an Archaeological Resource Area of moderate sensitivity. Standard conditions of approval would reduce that in the event of accidental discovery of archaeological resources on the site, work at the place of discovery would be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find. At the applicant’s expense the qualified archaeologist would perform an archaeological reconnaissance and develop mitigation measures to protect archaeological resources. In the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office would be notified immediately to determine if the remains are those of a Native American. All subsequent actions and mitigation measures would comply with Public Resources Code, Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). Mitigation Measures: None required. VI. Geology and Soils A Geotechnical Consultation for the proposed development was conducted in April 20, 2006 (Source Reference #11). No significant geotechnical issues were found that would preclude the proposed design and development. OSHPD will review the final Geotechnical Report. Mitigation Measures: None required. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project site is not designated as a high fire hazard within the City and is not designated as a wildland. The new construction and site design shall be reviewed by Page 18 OSHPD for fire equipment and fire protection. No hazardous materials are proposed as part of the project. Mitigation Measure: None required VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it substantially alter the existing drainage pattern or storm water run-off of the already developed site. The City’s Public Works Department requires the project to meet specific conditions of project approval that require compliance with City, State and Federal standards pertaining to water quality and waste discharge and storm water run-off. Mitigation Measures: None required. IX. Land Use and Planning The proposed development complies with most develop standards for the PC zoning district and complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies. A~,~o~,,r~’~;"~" ,~-,,,,,~,,,~,~,~rz*’r’ .......~ ~’~’~v÷;~"~,-’- Variance is requested for a portion of the building to permit an encroachment into the daylight plane. The Architectural Review Board, Commission and City Council would review the request to determine if it meets the required findings and evaluate any potential impact should the request be granted. The project is proposed on an existing parking lot. Mitigation Measures: None required. X. Mineral Resources The project will not impact known mineral or locally-important mineral resources. Mitigation Measures: None required XI. Noise A Noise Impact Evaluation for the proposed development was prepared by Charles M Salter Associates Inc. (Source Reference #10) that examined future noise sources from the mechanical equipment sources. The report examined the design and placement of mechanical equipment and found that the project would be consistent with the requirements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Noise Ordinance. Under normal operating conditions, the mechanical equipment would not cause a conflict with the requirements of the City. Page 19 All development of the site is required to comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, as amended, and follow standard construction techniques, best management practices, and hours of limitation on construction. The construction is anticipated to extend over a 16 month period. A logistics plan and the observance of best management practice shall reduce the potential impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. XII. Population and Housing The proposed project will be reducing the number of existing units by two. Therefore, the project will not introduce substantial population growth in the area, nor will it displace housing because the project would be constructed on an existing parking lot. Mitigation Measures: None required. XIII. Public Services Fire The project site is not located in a high fire or wild lands fire area. Mitigation Measures: None required. Police The project would not alter the use of the site or result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. Mitigation Measures: None required. Schools The project is subject to fees established by the Palo Alto Unified School District. Mitigation Measures: None required. Parks and Public Facilities The project is subject to City fees for parks, community services and libraries. Mitigation Measures: None required. XIV. Recreation The proposed project design will add roof top and patio outdoor spaces. The complex has ample in-house recreational facilities and programs for resident seniors Page 20 Mitigation Measures: None required. XV. Transportation A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for the. project by Korve Engineering in July 2005. A revised final TIA was submitted in January 2006. The TIA evaluated the potential impact of the project and determined that there would be no new impacts because the project will only increase the parking demand by two spaces. The TIA found that the project will still have 39 parking spaces in excess of the demand for such spaces. The study was conducted following the guidelines set forth by the City of Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto Transportation Planning Division reviewed the findings of the TIA and found no significant impacts due to traffic volume and level of service, vehicle and bicycle parking supply, traffic circulation or traffic related design features of the project~: The Transportation Division is requiring some conditions of approval to improve the existing conditions. These include adding traffic pavement markings, signage, re- stripping pedestrian crossings, identifying compact spaces, widening of an existing driveway, and labeling visitor parking. Temporary construction traffic would be addressed in the logistics plan. Mitigation Measures: None required. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems The project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Mitigation Measures: None required. Page 21 Attachment H Community Environment 1300 Garden Lane Men!.~ Pa~k, cA 94025 August 28, 2006 Chair Planning and Transportation Commission Civic Center 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, 94303 Subject: Comments re Channing House expansion ] own the apartment house directly across Homer Ave, from the proposed Channing House Health Care Building. I am concerned that the final project and construction activity may adversely affect the value of my property unless performed to minimize the impadt onthe neighborhood. I may not be able to attend the August 30, 2006 m~e.t_i.ng o.fyo..u.r .co.~.msJo.~ s.c.. ! _w. o...u!.d !_i_ke .to. use. f~_Js_ !~.tt._er .to. .c.o..n_v.ey s..o...m.e o.f._my thoughts, As an 83 year old individual myself, I am very sympathetic to the concept Of having a modern facility for taking good care of Channing House’s weakest and most ill residents. I only wish that it be made to fit into the neighborhood better. The following are g _few con_~_m__s a_n_~ or .s.u.gg.e._s.t!9_n._s .for ~._mprgv_e...m_ ent_s: Parking I believe the number of parking spaces shown to be gained by reducing the number of assisted living units from the current 48 to 26 in the new building is an artifact. The parking necessary for caregivers depends on the number of patients not the number of rooms they occupy. Channing House representatives have stated that assisted living patients above 26 in number will be cared for in their own apartments. A better _e.s..ti..m~e 9f .th~ ~9~t.~t_l pa_.r..ki..ng _d.e..m.a.n.d W.o.u.!~ b~ !30 sp.a_c_e.s, 7 ..moT.e t.h~.n_a_.r.e _b.~i~g p!~.n.n~d for, and likely to send these .carsonto the immediate str.eets unless some other aec-ommodation for them is made. Environment The enviromnental report does not seem to consider the effects of noise and dust on health of the tenants at Channing House and/or the neighbors during the construction pr0_ces.s. Can Palo Alto insist tha.~ the contract0r.s take all mitigating pre.~.u.tions.? How ~e vioi!t~ons o.f.agr~emen.ts e.nfor.ced? After completion, noise from the air conditioning system, expected to be mounted on its roof of the new building, can be a continuing problem, Have the architects hired sound engine.er.s .t9 9reat.e a ttiree dimensi°n.a1 map 9f the ..dB lev.el.s expected in the ~_a-.viro.._mn._en.t? ! believe a_ !0 ft. high s~__un...d .w.a.l! is..b..ei~g .o.n. si.d.er.e.d f~r en.~!.o.sm.g .the equipment. How does this affect the dB map? Also, does such the wall on the roof satisfy the daylight plane ~equirements or architectural standards? Design Although Palo Alto regulations call for the new construction to be architecturally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, other than scaling the _b_m_I.d_jpgs. _a_c99_r_di.n.g .tp .r _e s j .d_ _e _n. t. j _a_ _l .s._e.t.bgg~ r_equirements, little attempt. ~ be_en...mg.d~e by the architects to make the building look residential rather than institutional. For example, in a neighborhood where the wails of surrounding buildings are made either of stucco, shiplap, or shingles, the fagade on Homer Ave. is designed to be covered in places with tile. The only tile surfaces to be found in the neighborhood are the storefronts on University Ave., hardly residential in feeling. Also, I believe balcony railings of metal are proposed, again something not likely to be found in the neighborhood, I am baffled that the ARB worried more about the color of the tiles, rather than the existence of a tile surfaces in the first place. Sincerely, Morris Rubesin September 9, 2006 Dear City Manager, The City of Palo Alto’s Planning Division application rules need to be redone as staff time may be abused by some applicants. Last July 9th we attended a public program by the Channing House, at 850 Webster Street regarding a proposed 50,000+ square foot, three floor, controversial building project in a residential neighborhood. On July 9th we were told that the Channing House was asking for a bigger building and more than what the Channing House actually wanted. We were told this was done because the Channing House could be asked to cut back in size, etc. by the city. Some of us have been aware of the tremendous amount of time, that this method has taken of city staff members who spend hours and days reviewing plans, in meetings and other project work. The original plans from last summer have been redone five times partly because of this form of bargaining, negotiating and game playing. The cost of doing this may not be a lot for the Channing House and their $26,000,000 project. However the cost to the .City of Palo Alto in terms of staff time (salary and benefits) can be considerable. The Channing House and other applicants should not abuse city staff time this way. Sincerely, ~We,rt ~lan Lacrr~nning Ave.547 Pa~ Alto, CA 943oJ SUN STUDY THE CHANNING HOUSE DID A SUN STUDY FOR UNIT 547. THE RESULTS ARE MISLEADING, AS THE STUDY WAS DONE FROM THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING. A STUDY DONE FROM THE INSIDE OF OUR HOME SHOWS ?HAT WHILE DIRECT SUNLIGHT MAY BE SHINNING ON OUR WINDOWS, THAT BECAUSE OF THE SHARP ANGLE, THE DIRECT SUNLIGHT ONLY SHINES 11-12 INCHES PAST THE WALL, INTO OUR HOME. AFTER THIS POINT IT WENT BEHIND THE TEMPORARY FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING. AS EXPECTED THE PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD BLOCK DIRECT SUNLIGHT FROM COMING MORE THAN ONE FOOT INSIDE UNIT ~547. PRESENTLY THE DIRECT SUNLIGHT SHINES INSIDE, TO OUR WALL. LARRY WERTMAN 547 Channing Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 ./ RECEIVE-~+ DEPARTMENi- OF P~_,-. .,,G AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMEN# 850 Webster - Zoning Amendment Impact on Fire Safety We are several concerned citizens. We have made an investigation into Fire Safety of the proposed 50,000 square feet addition that affects one side of the existing Channing House building. This project was undertaken with information and assistance from the Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Francisco and County of Santa Clara Fire Departments. Our concern is that with no parking lot or lane, ladder trucks will not be able to access the rear left side of the existing building in a fire, evacuation or emergency situation. This rear left side extends over one quarter of the current building. In addition, the Channing House pool that was built a few years ago extends into the same area that also limits ladder truck access. SITUATION Channing House is a retirement community in a 10 story building which is over 40 years old and has several hundred residents with an average age of 82-. Channing House needs m accesslme in emergencies. Most tall buildings are occupied 5 days a week for about 10 i~ours a day. The average age of the occupants may be in the 40’s. CHANNING HOUSE IS OCCUPIED 7 DAYS A WEEK, 24 HOURS A DAY. AVERAGE AGE 82. This project refers to ladder trucks which have a 100 foot ladder. Trucks with ladders up to 120 feet are also made. Statements are from a Fire Science and Safety Viewpoint. Responses are from the city of Palo Alto and Channing House. Fire Safe .ty Statement: If a building is taller than 7 floors, a ladder truck can still be used. CH Response: Channing House is 10 floors and therefore a ladder truck would not work. Fire Safety Statement: Sprinklers may contain a fire, but fire crews suppress a fire. A ladder truck has the potential to deliver a fire crew. City of PA; . Response: Channing House has sprinklers so it can suppress fires, and ladder trucks ~-::~mot needed. Fire Safety Statement: A ladder truck can still reach up 6 floors and be effective if it is 50 or more feet away. Sometimes ladder trucks are parked 70 feet away and are still effectively used. The ladders do not go strai ght up and are usually at least 25+ feet away. CH Response: A ladder truck is ineffective if it can’t park next to the Channing House. Because the average age is 82 as opposed to a younger age in a tall office, hotel or other building, the residents would need more help evacuating the building in the event of an emergency. SUMMARY Ladder trucks can be used in both fire and non-fire situations for evacuations. Channing House has ~,:,~)5,~:~-ithe Fire codes in the design of this 50,000 square foot addition. This project as proposed with NO ALLEY OR LANE would not be allowed in San Francisco or cities which have more developed high rise building and fire codes. City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment October 4, 2006 Larry Wertman on behalf of Several Concerned Citizens 547 Channing Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Fire Safety Dear Mr. Wertman: This is in response to your two-page submittal on September 29, 2006, from "concerned citizens" entitled "850 Webster - Zoning Amendment Impact on Fire Safety." The submittal was also forwarded to the City staff by the applicant, Carl Braginsky, who received the documents on October 3, 2006. The submittal is one of the attachments to the report going to the City Council in their packet this week for their review. In the submittal, the concerned citizens assert that Channing House would be putting up a building which would make the existing tower unsafe, as there would be no access for ladder trucks along the rear half of the building. Today, the City of Palo Alto Fire Marshall, Dan Firth, corresponded with Planning staff regarding the concerns set forth in the submitted document. He can be contacted at 650- 329-2347. Mr. Firth has stated, "We have adequate hose reach to wrap the building. The Building is sprinklered in the corridors, with a single sprinkler on the room side of corridor openings and doorways. The building was inspected in 2005 and is due to be inspected again in the next month or so. Because it is a high rise, we have special response procedures including requesting a second alarm immediately upon arrival if there is smoke or fire showing. All reports of fire or smoke, fire alarms, and gas leaks at Channing House require a full structure response of six Fire Department emergency response vehicles (two engines, a truck, a rescue unit, a medic unit and the Battalion Chiet’s vehicle) and a total of fifteen personnel. If a second alarm is called, two more engines and a second truck respond with an additional 9 personnel, plus chief officers and fire prevention inspectors. There have been upgrades to the facility to improve fire safety, including elevator smoke barriers, and plans are to be submitted to upgrade the fire alarm system next year. 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 Mr. Firth’s statements followed earlier statements made by the Fire Department staff member who had reviewed the plans for consistency with the Fire Codes. Mr. Gordon Simpkinson has stated the following: "The requirement for aerial ladder access on buildings such as yours, calls for a lane to be established along one entire side of the building. This requirement can be found in Appendix D, Section D105 of the International Fire Code, which is a nationally recognized standard adopted in 42 States plus Washington, D.C. The State of California is expected to adopt the International Fire Code next year. Until that time, the City of Palo Alto applies this nationally recognized standard on the basis of Section 101.3 of the 2001 California Fire Code (California Code of Regulations - Title 24, Part 9). The Webster Street’ side of the building meets this requirement as long as the parking surface is designed to. support the weight of the largest anticipated aerial ladder truck (75,000 lbs.) The Fire Inspector conducting this year’s fire inspection will also assist the Channing House in completing a Pre-Fire Plan which willprovide a updated site diagram to the responding engine companies. This will need to be updated as additional changes are made to the Channing House facility." Copies of the report to Council will be made available on Thursday afternoon, if you wish to pick up a copy at City Hall. Sincerely, Amy French Manager of Current Planning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Planning and Transportation Commission August 30, 2006 Verbatim Minutes Attachment I EXCERPT NEW B USINESS Public Hearings: o 850 Webster Street*: Request by Channing House for review of a Planned Community Amendment of a 32,185 square-foot Health Care building for the Channing House, including 27 skilled nursing units, 26 assisted living units, and associated dining/activity spaces and a 16,437 square-foot underground garage, Review processes to implement this project would involve a Planned Community (PC) amendment and a Variance. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared Zone District: PC-2007. Ms. Gina La Torra, Associate Planner: Good evening. The project proposal before you is for a new building adjacent to and on the same parcel as the existing Channing House Senior Living building. The proposed building would be used by the Channing House for senior assisted and skilled living uses. The new two-story building would be 32,185 square feet plus a 16,437 square foot underground garage. The project proposed to reduce the total living units by two and adjust the allocation of the unit type such that the new building would include 26 skilled living and 27 assisted living units. The existing Channing Houa~ building would be converted to all independent living with 205 units. The new building would be located where there is currently an at grade parking lot and those parldng spaces would be relocated to the underground garage in the new building. The project has been revised since it was last presented to the Commission. In summary the building and garage have been reduced, the landscape plan now encompasses the entire site, the setback and building elevations have been revised or adjusted, and the DEE request for an encroachment into the PC required daylight plane has been changed to a variance request as you mentioned. The ARB has reviewed the project and recommended approval based on the conditions and findings included in Attachment B of the Staff Report. I want to highlight some key issues that were mentioned in the Staff Report for your discussion and consideration tonight. As I stated the DEE request is now a variance for the encroachment of the second floor into the daylight plane along the common west and south property lines. The daylight plane is a requirement for PCs adjacent to residential buildings. The Staff Report provides a comparison of the PC daylight plane requirements to the daylight plane requirements of the adjacent residential zones. Staff requests that the Commission consider the applicant’s request and make a recommendation to Council based on the required variance findings. Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 I wanted to make one correction to the FAR that was listed in the Staff Report. The FAR table on page three, the numbers were transposed 2.8 should read as 2.38. That is 0.45 less than was previously reported. I want to also let you know that the ARB and Staff of the Transportation Division had requested that the alley be closed for a two week trial period so the applicant could further study traffic operations. The applicant has completed the study as designed by the Transportation Staff and it is included in Attachment I of the Staff Report. Staff has reviewed the study and finds that it is comprehensive enough and there are no significant impacts anticipated by the partial closure of the alley. Thirdly, the Channing House has informed me that the story poles have been taken down so if you did not have an opportunity to view them or feel that it is important for Council to do so you may wish to give a timeline to the applicant for when they should install those. Staff did receive a request for ADA accommodations from Larry Wertman. His letter was included in the packet of public comments. In response to that request Amy French, Manager of Current Planning, will summarize Larry’s comments during the public comments portion of this hearing. So with that I would like to open it up for questions of Staff and also allow the applicant to present the project. Chair Holman: Are there any questions of Staff at this time? So the applicant has 15 minutes to make their presentation. I have three cards for the applicant. If I could get a little clarification. The card from Sandy Sloan says to respond for applicant is that intended to be closing comments or how is that intended to be used? Mr. John Northv, ay, Applicant: Yes, Chair Holman: Okay, so you have 15 minutes, Mr. Northway. Mr. Northwag: Thank you. Congratulations Chairman Holman and Vice-Chairman Lippert. Members of the Commission, I am John Northway. I am a former Board Member at Channing House. I wanted to introduce the project team that is here that will be available to both give some presentation and also answer any of your questions. Carl Brazinsky is the Executive Director, Tom Brutting is the Partner-in-Charge Architect, Lisa Wong is the Project Architect, Sandy Sloan is our Attorney, and Linn Winterbotham is our Landscape Architect. Since we were here the last time we have had two ARB meetings ending with a unanimous approval on the building design. We have had three additional neighborhood meetings for a total of five neighborhood meetings. The building has been reduced in height, size and setbacks. Measures have also been put into place to try to mitigate some of the inconveniences of construction which Carl will go through with you. The building has been reduced in size as much as possible and to still meet Channing House’s needs and provide the needed services for the residents. It is as small as it can get right now. The alley has been blocked off and the traffic report and parking report has been prepared which I believe you have. Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 We have not been able to satisfy all of the neighbor’s wishes, as I am sure you will hear tonight. We tried very hard to accommodate as many as we possibly can within the constraints of meeting the program requirements and all of the OSHPD requirements. We hope tonight you will joint the ARB in endorsing the project, approving the variance and sending the project on to the Council for final approval. The residents of Channing House are also neighbors to this building. They share the same concerns regarding construction and impact on their lives, as do the adjacent neighbors. They had promised to hold Carl Brazinsky and the project team to high standards throughout the construction phase and I am sure when you listen to them tonight you will see that they are a group that absolutely will uphold these standards. I would like now to introduce Tom Brutting and he will go through the project. Mr. Tom Brutting, Applicant: Thank you John and good evening Commissioners. It is a pleasure to be here this evening. I am the Principle-in-Charge at HKIT Architects in Oakland. It has been a definite pleasure working with the Channing House group, the residents and in particular a collaborative effort that we have had both in working with them, the neighbors and the various Boards and Commissions that we have been through so far. Just to orient you a bit, I am sure you are all familiar with the building. We have pro actively throughout the process looked at many alternatives. We talked about that several times in the past with what could one do, what could one actually look at and I would like to very quickly say that with all the time we spent on master planning it became very evident that the existing floor plate of the building is just not efficient for healthcare. Indeed with the parking lot in back here, you can see the general layout of the building this being Homer over here, the parking lot to the rear of the large building, Channing House, is where the proposed building will go deemed itself the most appropriate spot for healthcare in terms of assisted living and skilled nursing, moving it out of this very inefficient floor plate back into that area. Our new site plan here takes into account not only the existing building, our new building to the back, but the entire community around it. We spent a lot of time surveying the buildings, looking at the density of the neighborhood, looking at the scale of the neighborhood, looking at the heights of each one of the buildings around us, and you can see many buildings fight in here in particular are very close together. The proximity is very close together. As a matter of fact, in looking at the zoning for that site if it was current to the zoning that would have been there before the PUD there could be much larger, much taller building than we are proposing to do at this time. The landscape plan is very important in terms of what we did in terms of working with the neighbors and working with Channing House residents as well to make a very pleasurable layout for not only our parcel in back that we are developing but the entire property. We actually have two places in front, one here and one here, where there will be benches and nice landscaping provided. The driveway entering into our building is located here. You can see the open space that is provided for the new healthcare center that is between the existing Channing House building and the new healthcare center in back. This is the drive that we just spoke about off of Homer. The existing garage area that has primarily all of our parking and functions like the emergency generator and other service oriented things that need to satisfy the needs of this healthcare center. I will say that in each level we have a direct connection into the Channing Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 House building. The main entrance into the building for guests and other people coming from the outside will still be through the main entrance of the Channing House building. We have a secondary point over here but that is just a secondary point for staff to go through. The first floor assisted living, the residential rooms are located at the perimeter against the neighboring properties. All of the service functioning and the community space are located toward Channing House proper. What we have done is extensively move the building back as much as possible to conform to the RM-30 adjacent to the west and the RM-15 to the south. So we have actually moved back the building on the first floor here and here. We have also further articulated the building to make it we believe more interesting. That did come through many of the meetings that we have had both here and with ARB. I will say that the ends of the building here and here do project ten feet from the property line which are an exception to that but if you were to look at the overall plan you will see for instance a condominium slips between that so it is not actually infringing on the building directly. Now on the second floor we have the skilled nursing where there is the most dramatic change in terms of setbacks. We brought the building back 20 feet on this side and 17 feet on this side. So we condensed all of our program area to just about the limit that we could. As John said, we are pretty sparse with being able to cut back any further at this point but so far we have met all of our requirements. For people who are involved with healthcare you know that there are very specific square footage requirements for skilled nursing in particular. This is the front elevation of the building looking along Homer. We have actually included some of the adjacent buildings and with that you see the scale of Channing House over here. This is looking at materials and looking at the frontage of the building and the landscaping and then. some of the other sides. We have actually differentiated the building by first floor/second floor cutting back and articulating with angles so that way the windows don’t face directly onto adjacent properties but are rather angled to the properties. These are the other two elevations here looking to the west and to the south in this direction. These are three-dimensional images we put together. We think these are really good ways of being able to envision what the buildings actually will look like. This is the view from Homer, as you would be driving down in the direction of traffic. As was pointed out we did realize the FAR is 2.38 not 2.83 and I think that is a good diminishing of the building from even where we were before. Just to reiterate what John said we had two and actually a third preliminary meeting with ARB. We worked very closely with materials and worked very closely with the ins and outs of the building to make it very interesting and we think very compatible with the neighborhood as well. Also, we have been to OSHPD, to Sacramento, recently and they are very positive about the building, very complimentary about the design of the building. So we are very glad to be on the road in that way too because that approval process will take us much longer than even Palo Alto will be in terms of getting the building through. Then looking in the other direction from Homer you can also see that the building steps back here considerably. So we have had some detail that we have added along the band of the building between the first and second floor. Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 So with that I just want to skip on to one next slide here and show that we did some extensive shadow studies as well. Virtually the new building has very little if any impact compared to what is there fight now. We are very fortunate to find out that in looking at these various times of the years our building really did not have an impact on adjacent properties. So we were very pleased to find that out. Then I would like to point out just some aerial shots looking down on the neighborhood. As you can see fight in this area which is just to the south of our new building very condensed, very dense series of condominiums and buildings that are generally two stories, very similar to ours. We did check that the height of our building doesn’t go much higher if at all above the ridgeline of these adjacent buildings. So with that I would like to say that we have very extensively looked at ways to mitigate concerns. We have certainly taken into account the fact that Channing House has, as John said, held us to a very high standard on this building. They have very similar concerns. They were very strongly interested in the architecture and the layout and mainly the servicing of the building that this would be a healthcare center that will be sustainable for them for many, many years. I will just conclude by saying that with sustainable design that is a part of our practice. We look at that very closely. We try to incorporate as much as we can in terms of long-term sustainable design, green architecture. So with that John do you have any concluding words or Carl? Mr. Carl Brazinsk¥, Executive Director of Channing House: At previous meetings there were concerns about construction logistics in light of the previous project we had from 1999 to 2001, which was our seismic retrofit. We did a draft c~astruction logistics plan, which was sent off to the Planning Division and Public Works. At that time they did not have any comments. Some of the elements of the plan include construction fencing would have a ten foot barrier, temporary walls to shield as much as possible construction debris from the neighbors, no parking zones at different points in the construction would be carefully worked out, and notification obviously to neighbors and meeting with neighbors during the process, delivery, excavation and construction activities Monday through Friday from eight to five, and one of the key elements which both our residents and the neighbors are concerned about is construction parking of construction vehicles and construction workers. At this time because of the time lag of the process and the project if we were to be granted approval for the building we would not probably start construction until 2008 and during the time prior to starting construction we would identify the areas where temporary parking would be held and work that out very carefully and lease parking elsewhere and transport workers to the job site. During the construction process we anticipate for the first six to eight months of construction, and we anticipate it would be a 19 month job, there would be about 15 to 20 vehicles needing parking during that time. We would need to find temporary space for those vehicles. Once the excavation of the lot would be conducted we would actually utilize the excavated lot for some construction parking itself so that contractor’s vehicles could use that. The other issue related to construction logistics is the fact that we would have to temporarily replace the 37 spaces in the current lot because it would be under construction. We would Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 anticipate doing that in the current underground parking as well as the above ground parking and provide valet parking for residents. We have committed a certain amount of resources and budgeting for this. We think we can handle the overflow for the 19 months on the current property of the 37 spaces. Then as I mentioned earlier we would want to meet with neighbors on an ongoing basis and have a hotline with the contractor and project manager for construction related problems during the course of the project. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. If you would, please fill out a card for the Secretary that would be very helpful. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant at this time? Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burr: I wondered if the applicant could expand a little bit about the landscaping redesign for the entire site that I understand has been done. Mr. Linn Winterbotham, Landscape Architect: When we started the project we really hadn’t looked at the existing site and were just working around the new building. As we realized there was going to be disruption to the existing site we included that in the design. It is mostly drought tolerant shrubs and groundcovers. We are adding three specimen oak trees to the properties. We have some crape myrtles for color. The intent really is to try and create as much variety and texture as possible to make it seem like the adjacent residential homes. I don’t want to say that it would look like we went to [Summer Lands] and got a car full of plants but we are trying to emphasize variety and interest. Commissioner Burt: At our last meeting I raised the issue of the potential for treating some of this front passive landscaping as a more interactive space that would become with a visual and a practical amenity for both the residents of Channing House and something that would help enhance the neighborhood and be a quasi-public space. The response that I thought that we received at the time was that Channing House was receptive to that and would incorporate some of those approaches. Has any of that been done? Mr. Winterbotham: We did add two seating areas on Webster one at each comer. It is shown in the upper left hand comer. It is a small concrete pad with three benches for gathering and sort of enjoying the neighborhood. We have similar type benches in front of the existing building and it has been very popular. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I am wondering if Staffhas a map of the zoning that is around the building and could refresh the Commission as to what the adjacent zoning is. Ms. La Torra: Yes, that should be Attachment .... Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: Would you put it on the overhead? Ms. La Torra: What Amy is pointing to is the PC zoning at 850 Webster. Surrounding that are RM- 15 apartments and RM-30 single family and multi-family units. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: For the applicant following up on Commissioner Burt’s question about landscape plan. Has that plan been vetted with the surrounding neighbors and what has the discussion been and what has their feedback been? Mr. Winterbotham: We did discuss it with the neighbors at one of the meetings. Most of the discussion had to do with obviously the landscaping around the new building and the impact to the neighbors. There were sort of mixed feelings. Some of the neighbors wanted to have as much density as possible and some didn’t want to interrupt their sun on their property. So we made a commitment at that time that we would work with them. We have a plan in place that has been approved by ARB but we are going to continue to work with the neighbors to try and accommodate their individual needs where possible. Commissioner Tuma: Okay. A similar question and this is probably for another one of the applicants. With respect to the building materials and color palette that would be used I noticed that the ARB had made that one of the conditions was that they would be involved in that process. Where are you in that process and also again with respect to the neighboring community in order to address some of the visual aspects? Mr. Brutting: Good question. We picked a tile that would be used in the building to be compatible with brick that currently exists to the back of the Channing House structure. That as far as we know hasn’t been controversial or talked about to a great extent. It was more the stucco colors that we will be using and we are certainly open on that. We do know that we would like to work both further with Channing House and the neighbors on getting those compatible colors, Right now they are rather neutral in tone. We are trying to keep them warm in particular for the palette that they are and they are lending themselves more toward the green base but we are certainly open to looking at differences on that, Commissioner Tuma: Okay, but have you had the discussions with the neighbors about the particular palette that you are looking at, and affirmatively gone out and asked them for their feedback? Mr. Brutting: We have presented it and frankly at the neighborhood meetings there hasn’t been a lot of talk and response to that but it has been shown. Commissioner Tuma: Could you hold it up? Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: There was also mention by the applicant of sustainability concepts and green building standards. Could you share with us a little bit more on what you have done ir~ those regards? Mr. Brutting: What we do with every project in our firm is to have a sustainability charette when we first begin a project. A building of this type in particular is constrained by the lot that we are using, the size that we are using, we are limited somewhat by direction orientation with it. In particular what we garner from the sustainable charette in this regard is what can we do with energy sources, what can we do with materials in particular? So we try to use as much as feasible in terms of long-term sustainable materials. This will not be a Lead Certified building at all but we try to incorporate, we have a checklist that we go through, actually we have a checklist that we are happy to provide at any point as to what we have gone through to look at those. Commissioner Burt: At the tail end of our study session you may have caught a little bit of discussion on our interest in moving proj ects toward utilizing a greater amount rooftop gardening both as an amenity for tenants and as a sustainable practice. Has your firm worked with those concepts and has there been any consideration of incorporating those concepts in this project? Mr. Brutting: That is a very good question. I would say that currently I have five mid-rises or high-rises in San Francisco and surrounding areas that have rooftop gardens on them. It is very common that we do that and we lookat it as a way to provide goodopen space for residents especially in small confined spaces where you can’t provide it otherwise. Channing House itself has a very nice roof garden area existing on top of the building, an outdoor area that is well used and utilized. So there wasn’t a great need for the residents who live in the high-rise in particular. Frankly, the assisted living and the skilled nursing folks generally would not get up to rooftop gardens. So we have adjacent patio space or balcony space for them to use. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Following up on Commissioner Burt’s question. I notice that this large document on page A-2 that there are two labels identified as area for photovoltaic cells one which is right near the word ’center’ and one on top of the word ’health.’ When I look on page A-14 which is the Channing House Healthcare Center sheet the area for photovoltaic cells which was to the right if you will near Homer is there but the other space is labeled as ’air handler units.’ Could you explain that? Mr. Brutting: In each project we do consider photovoltaics because they are very widely used and again we have them on several buildings either under construction or completed. Right now it is a matter of at the stage we are in we are not sure whether we can implement them or not. Although they are still in the background, we still would like to use them as a matter of how one pays for them over time, the rebates one can get in order to do that. So I would say right now as part of the concept we do have air handlers it is whether we can use photovoltaics ultimately to incorporate that reasonably into the design or not. Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: Is there any issue with respect to placement of these photovoltaic cells in proximity to a building that is as high as 142 feet? Mr. Brutting: Not at all. As a matter of fact the photovoltaics that are currently on the market are quite attractive. If you happen to go to Moscone Center and you are able to look down on the top of the building they are actually implementing those throughout San Francisco right now. The current ones are blue material and they are actually being used as wall surfaces. So they are quite aesthetically pleasing. They don’t glare and they are not problematic for even the residents in Channing House being in the high-rise structure. Commissioner Keller: Is there an issue for shading from the existing Channing House property onto this? Mr. Brutting: That is a good question and we would have to investigate that further to know what angle or what position to put them in in order to make that efficient and effective. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Chair Holman: I have a couple of questions as well if there are no other questions from other Commissioners. One of them regards the setbacks on our page three of the Staff Report under Height and Setback Requirements it has zone PC 2007 it has existing and then it has proposed. It has ten feet across from existing and it has nothing across from proposed. So can I get clarification from either Staff or applicant on that, please? Ms. La Torra: It is the same parcel so the ten feet would apply all the way around. So it would be a ten-foot setback from all property lines. Chair Holman: Okay, I took it that the existing building though, it is stating that the existing building is ten feet away currently? Ms. La Torra: No, I didn’t list what the existing setbacks are. Chair Holman: That is what I was trying to get at. Okay. So what is the existing building setback? Mr. Brutting: The high-rise building? Chair Holman: Yes. Mr. Brutting: We would have to look at that we have not really examined that to be honest. I know it is definitely more than ten feet. Ms. La Torra: I would say it is about 20 feet from Homer and Channing and the parking lot is included in there so possibly 40 to 50 feet. Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Okay, thank you for that clarification. Then I had a question that goes along with Commissioner Keller’s question which has to do with noise. I know we have a noise ordinance but I also personally think it is not quite as adequate as it could or should be so I have concerns about the chiller and air handler units that are being proposed. So what do you have included in your plan that would address the noise in terms of type of equipment, insulation, and those kinds of mitigations? Mr. Brutting: Again, a good question. The ARB was also very concerned about that as were the people at Channing House and the neighbors. We have actually sized and selected the equipment already that we would use. We have gone through that step. We know the noise levels and we had an acoustic report written by Charles Salter and Associates out of San Francisco. They concluded that the noise level would be comparable to a computer fan running. It is minimal. They said as a matter of fact the traffic in the surrounding area would be louder than the noise generated from the equipment. Chair Holman: So ifI could get clarification on that. So if it is less than a computer fan what I am trying to get at is there is an accumulation of noise. Mr. Brutting: It is cumulative. Chair Holman: Cumulative it would be no louder than that. Mr. Brutting: Yes. Ciiair"Holman: That would be a report that you would be providing to Staff or does Staff already have that? Ms. La Torra: That has already been provided and the ARB reviewed that. Chair Holman: Okay, great. This is a question for Staff or applicant. I imagine it is quieter than traffic but there is also an issue on ongoing noise. It is like water dripping. If it is really that quiet it is probably not an issue but was that considered or addressed? Mr. Bruttin~: It was and it was considered that this would run generally 24 hours or some equivalent, it would turn on and off during the day, and again it would not be perceivable to neighbors or surrounding area. Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Keller. Okay, Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I have a follow up question on the rooftop garden issue. I appreciate the points that you made that in this circumstance the value of a garden, as an amenity for the tenants, probably does not apply on this building, we as a city are just in midstream on two programs that may impact future ways that we look at projects like this. One is in our Zoning Ordinance Update we have upcoming this fall the landscaping section. Then second we have what is called the Mayor’s Green Ribbon Task Force, which is getting reading to present to the Council and its focus is CO2 emission reduction. So in addition to providing an amenity there Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 are a couple of other prospective benefits from a rooftop garden. One is the net environmental impact of cooling of the community as a result of having greater vegetation and the carbon emissions. Then finally, the visual screening. This project is a PC that is 40 years old or so and we have it. It is a building that would not come close to being allowed under our present PCs but it is existing and it is what it is. I was struck when I looked at this view angle that you have that when I go by that building it stands out. It is much larger in mass and it is much more monolithic than anything else we have in the vicinity. From this view angle it seems that rooftop gardening might create the potential for additional visual screening and actually help redress an impact that we have fight now of that building standing out along with the other broader environmental reasons for looking toward that. Is that something that you would be able to take another look at for those reason? Mr. Brnutting: We could certainly examine that. I think anything is well worth looking at again. It would be a matter of it being a usable garden and if it is the elevator getting up to that location and other exiting concerns in terms of getting off of that space. If it is merely a green space or something to provide an amenity for people to look down on that becomes a different type of. thing. I am hesitating because I really don’t know how OSHPD looks at rooftop gardens. They may be very much in favor of them but if it is not usable how do they apply to a grass roof or some of the other sustainable type things that we do these days? Good question. I think it is a question that we would just pooh-pooh or push away at all. We certainly would be willing to look at it. I think the effectiveness, the maintenance of it, and its overall character of what it needs to be is something that has to be taken into consideration. Commissioner Burt: Okay, thank you. Chair Holman: I think Commissioner Tuma had a question. Commissioner Tuma: This is a question for Staff and it has to do with the surrounding daylight planes for the surrounding zoning areas. In both items one and two in Attachment C it is indicated essentially that the proposed project follows the daylight plane regulations of adjacent residential zoned properties. I noticed on page four of the memo, and this may be a very small issue but I just want to make sure it is clarified to the public, it says that it would meet the daylight plane requirements of the adjacent RM-15 and RM-30 properties except at the comers. Can you clarify where we are on this? Does it in fact meet those or is there an issue there? Ms. La Torra: The project would not meet the daylight planes at those building corners. If you look at the building plans and as the architect mentioned at three comers of the building, actually four, a portion of the building has a ten-foot setback so that area of the building would encroach. Commissioner Tuma: This just may be my naivet6 here but how is it that we can then make the finding that it follows the daylight planes of the adjacent residential zoned properties? Ms. La Torra: I guess I should clarify that. It meets the daylight plane of the RM-30. It would not meet the daylight plane of the RM-15. Let me put this up on the overhead. In this area right here that is the same at both corners and possibly the architect could explain that a bit better but Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 his is the RM-30 daylight plane and this is the RM-15. The building is then setback at this line and it would meet the RM-15. So at the comers it will encroach into the RM-30. Commissioner Tuma: Okay, thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, you had a question? Commissioner Keller: Yes. I had a question of Staff. I was reading through all this and have been wondering where the documentation of the daylight plane is for this particular zone. Is it generic to PCs or is it particular to this zone? Ms. La Torra: It is generic to PCs and it is in the PC Zoning Ordinance section of the code. Commissioner Keller: Great, thank you. The other question that I have is on the ordinance number 2007 which originally setup this PC it appears there is a requirement in the lot that is where the building is proposed to be built, the new section of the building, for a minimum of 55 spaces. It says property across alley, I am wondering what happened to that? Where did it go from there? Ms. La Torra: We don’t have plans of where those spaces were lost. What we do know is that the original PC was for a maximum number of units, which the Channing House has not ever reached. Let me just look up that number. Commissioner Keller: I think it was 320. Ms. La Torra: Yes, thank you. Chair Holman: IfI could say, if we have more clarifying questions of Staff that we should continue with those otherwise we should probably go to the public and have the public hearing. So if it is a clarifying question for Staff is that the case Commissioner Lippert? Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes. With regard to the required findings for a variance I am having difficulty getting my hands around it, which is that it states in here specifically because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property and this is what all those are. This site is pretty large and I find it very difficult to say that there are constraints on this site that would make this project not happen on the site in other ways. So why would we be granting a variance here? There is not an unreasonable hardship in terms of what is being asked for here. Why not just shift the whole building over? Ms. La Torra: These are draft findings for the variance so that can certainly be part of your recommendation of the project. Chair Holman: Okay, if there are no other clarifying questions for Staff then I will go to the public. Currently we have nine cards so if we could have each speaker take three minutes. If there are any other members of the public who would like to speak this would be a great time to turn your cards in. Our first speaker is Diana Steeples. Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Diana Steeples, Palo Alto: I am a resident at Channing House and a long time resident of Palo Alto. I have just had the opportunity to read in your memo staffpacket what I said last time and I thought I said it pretty well. So I think I just invite you to reread it and I will just highlight a couple of thoughts I have had. I can’t stress enough the importance of Channing House having for several populations an up-to- date, comfortable, well designed, and private spaces for the residents who would need assisted living or skilled nursing care. I am realizing that this facility, which is so badly needed because what we have now is so out-of-date, is not just for the residents currently living in Channing House but the residents to come. We are having new residents coming in now quite frequently and it is their needs, their assurance that they are going to have the kind of care and the kind of environment that they want. It is also an environment that needs to be satisfying and provide the special facilities and privacy for families, for spouses, for adult children, for the friends they have in Channing House who will be able to walk right over and visit and keep up the friendships and loving relationships that make a great deal of difference in how they will feel and how they will respond to care and treatment. So there will be many residents of Palo Alto in the future who will be affected by this. Think of people you know in Palo Alto who are now beginning to look at the issues of their aging parents. Channing House may not be the right place for them but it is a very desirable and wonderful place to have that kind of assurance that those healthcare facilities will be there when you need them. Then the final point is just the staff that work, the aides, the nurses, the people that bring the meals, so many people who work on the second floor where these facilities .are now are wonderful, caring people. I am amazed at their quality but their working conditions are not very good. They are not efficient and they are not comfortable and they are getting old. In many cases the skilled nursing provides three people in a room. That simply is not adequate for today. So those are my main points. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. The next speaker will be Steve Ludvik and the speaker after him will be Elisabeth Rubinfien. Mr. Steve Ludvik, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am the owner of 541 Channing, which is adjacent to the alleyway between Channing Place and Channing House. I wanted to address the traffic study that was discussed this evening and direct you to the submission that we made from Channing Place regarding the traffic study. Given the shortness of time I would like to request an extension of that study through September. The reasons for the extension are as follows: the study was made in the past two weeks of August where many people were on vacation and the residents were not notified of the proposed barrier. When we saw the barrier it was basically a removable barrier made of some sawhorses with some signs on them. They were actually moved during the study. We did receive the spreadsheet from Channing House, which contained their observations. We don’t think that accurately reflects what occurs and what is likely to occur in the traffic patterns in the alleyway. The other issue is that we don’t think it is entirely objective for Channing House to have done that study and we think that we should consider a more independent resource to do that study. Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 There are two examples I would like to highlight for you. We don’t have visuals and simulations but we did feet-on-the-street approach. This is a picture of the alleyway and a truck that is parked in the loading dock. You can see over here another track that is moving into Channing House double parked on Channing Avenue. The other, which I can’t show you this evening, is a video that was taken which shows the recycling track that went into the alleyway and then backed out into Channing Avenue. The driver stopped all the traffic on Channing Avenue. We have a video, whichwe would be happy to submit if there is a mechanism for doing that. The bottom line is that we don’t feel the traffic study is adequate or representative of what will occur. It is a key entryway to the proposed development and we ask your consideration of extending the study. Channing Place has offered to assist in that in some manner but it should be done by an independent resource. Thank you very much. Chair Holman: Thank you. Elisabeth Rubinfien is the next speaker to be followed by Tom Clewe. Ms. Elisabeth Rubinfien, Palo Alto: Hi I live in a single family dwelling on the comer of the Channing House property. I would like to focus todayon the question of the mass and scale of the proposed building and the request for the variance. I think there is really not much to discuss in terms of the Channing House residents’ need and the value to the neighborhood or the value to the City of the services that might be offered. On page three of the report here there is data about the FAR requirements in different zoning areas. It is a little hard for me to understand but clearly the Channing House building already and the new proposed Channing House building exceed the allowance for any of the neighboring zonings. That is because it is a PC and there is no limitation on the FAR. However, there is a limitation on the daylight plane precisely as a mechanism to constrain the mass of the braiding at the edges of the property as it nears its property line. Residential areas, RM-15 or RM-30, have much stricter FAR limitations. The PC zone has a much stricter daylight plane limitation. If you remove the daylight plane limitation and make it an RM-15 or RM-30 daylight plane.limitation without also limiting the FAR you are essentially saying there is not much to limit the scale that comes right up close to the ten foot or 13 foot space between you and your neighbors. That is my main concern. I think there has been a lot of progress made on creating little ins and outs on the building but I would like to speak actually not as a neighboring resident because a lot of the discussion keeps going to how it looks from our fence line which no one else is going to see. I am more concerned about honestly how it looks as you walk along Homer. If you imagine, I don’t have a nice picture to show you, but that three-dimensional image was a pretty clear image. It is two stories straight up to the height of the ridgeline of the neighboring residential buildings. A ridgeline of course is setback it is not right at the height of the face of the building and it is very close to the edge of the property to the sidewalk, about ten feet I think or something close to that. Basically if you looked at the pole study when it was up the building fills end to end what until now has been an ugly parking lot. It doesn’t allow for comers or interjections of garden or plazas or anything like that that would make it fit in a little more easily on the street side. The gardening that is proposed is in fact minimal aside from the trees that are there. The benches that are proposed to make nice seating areas are on Webster. The front face of the large Channing House building that already exists not on Homer where a whole new building is going in that is Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 going to fill up a third of a block. I think I will stop there because that is the end of my time and that is the main point that I had. Thank you very much. Chair Holman: Thank you. The next speaker is Thomas Clewe to be followed by Barbara Gordon. Dr. Thomas Clewe, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am a graduate of Stanford Medical School 50 years ago. I have been a citizen of Palo Alto over 40 years. I have been a resident of Channing House for eight years. I will be very brief because I have no special knowledge of the technical questions being discussed here tonight, however, I do have considerable knowledge of the need for the construction of an improved, more up-to-date, state-of-the-art healthcare center for Channing House and of the planning that has gone into this proposal. I hope we can get on with this process ASAP. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. Barbara Gordon to be followed by Herb Hamerslough. Ms. Barbara Gordon, Palo Alto: Good evening. I have spoken before as a volunteer patient advocate in our nursing center for the need to update our facility. Having just spent a week myself in the assisted living I can say now from personal experience that the nursing care is outstanding but our facility definitely needs updating. If we want to attract future residents and also nurses to work at Channing House we need to get with it. I do feel with the neighbors. Many of us residents in our 80s and 90s strongly support the project but aren’t looking forward to the disruption. Lastly, I feel Channing House administration and architects have worked in good faith to make this as palatable for the neighborhood as it can ever be: Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Herb Hamerslough to be followed by Gil Pease. If anybody else wants to speak if you would turn in your card now that would be really great. Thank you. Mr. Herb Hamerslough, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am a resident of Channing House. Congratulations to the new Chair and Vice-Chair. Everything has been said pretty much. I would echo Barbara, Tom and Diane. This is a much-needed project. This is our fitth appearance before the Planning Commission and the ARB. There is a lot of technical stuff to be decided. I strongly urge passage so we can continue on to the City Council for approval. We have a long ways to go with OSHPD in Sacramento. A great majority of our residents want this new healthcare facility. Many of us are hoping in case itis needed as the years go by that we do have an up-to-date facility to take care of ourselves. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. Gil Pease to be followed by Carl Otto. Mr. Gil Pease, Palo Alto: I am resident of Channing House. I have been living in the Palo Alto and environs for the last 50-plus years. I initially purchased a house in what you will recall was the Barrett & Hill development back in 1950. In driving through that area now you will find that about every third house is two stories and a very large house compared to the original homes that were built there. This is probably still in spite of the variance in this community one of the most harmonious communities in all of Palo Alto. All we are asking for is to be able to advance and Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 .36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 expand, as have the other communities in Palo Alto. We pledge that we will continue to be good neighbors. We need your favorable consideration. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. Carl Otto to be followed by Joan Jack. Mr. Carl Otto, Palo Alto: Good evening honorable members of the Commission. I am a resident of Channing House and currently Vice-President of its Resident’s Association: You have before you a request for a variance for the daylight planes, a request for our proposed new health center building to limited not by planes rising one on two but rather by planes rising one on one, and a request for us to use the same planes that are now effectively being used by our neighbors to the south and the west. When you are considering this request I would like to ask that you remember that this proposed building and the existing buildings adjacent to the site are less than 30 feet high, that are buildings are setback from the property line. These facts minimize the impact that virtual daylight planes have on actual conditions both on the ground, between buildings and on vertical surfaces of the first and second stories of nearby structures. In fact, if a solid fence is built on the property line it can be shown that the daylighting of nearby ground and vertical surfaces is actually lessened by assuming a one to two plane compared with a one to one. Finally, when landscaping is considered with ten and 20-foot tall trees included the issue of daylighting between buildings becomes a very moot point. Channing House needs this new facility not only for its current residents but as you have heard from others for our future residents. I am convinced that it is coming into existence will be a plus for Palo Alto and I hope you feel likewise. Thank you for your attention. Chair Holman: Thank you, Mr. Otto. Joan Jack to be followed by Amy French. Amy will speak to why she is commenting tonight. Ms. Joan Jack, Palo Alto: My congratulations as well. I have been on the Board at Channing House for about five years. My husband and I live about three and a half blocks from Channing House. I have also been on the healthcare task force for several years and for the past six years or so this dedicated, educated, and responsible group of people of whom I was one have researched the possibility of providing a much needed and improved healthcare center for Channing House. During this time residents were interviewed, sites were explored, and expert advice was taken into consideration. The plan before you was determined after all this preparation as the most appropriate, doable, and acceptable option. I urge you to consider it. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. Amy, you are speaking for a member of the public and I will let you explain what the situation is and why you are doing that and thank you. Ms. Amy French, Current Planning ManaCer: Thank you. I am speaking on behalf of Larry Wertman who has identified himself as a disabled individual who requested reasonable accommodation pursuant to the ADA. I am going to summarize because his letters are in your packets. You have received all of his concerns but I will summarize them in the public hearing setting. Larry feels the sky view from inside his owner-occupied home and all owner-occupied homes are a basic right, that the building is going to block the sunlight into his condominium and result in the loss of any sky view from the first floor windows, that the Channing House has Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 avoided addressing this subject, and the Channing House sun study results are misleading, the Channing House options that were studied he thinks blocked the Channing House residents views so they were not pursued, the loss of privacy and quality of life with the anticipated feeling of being in a jail cell in his condominium, he is concerned the Channing House has anticipated the City reducing the building so they proposed a bigger building. He had a question about the existing parking lot use and whyit is used so minimally. He says Channing House is one of the few ten-plus story buildings. It has the highest FAR around. Channing House shouldn’t hurt the existing residents and he is against the requested exceptions. So that pretty much summarizes his concerns. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. So for Channing House, Ms. Sloan you will have three minutes to respond and make closing comments. Ms. Sandy Sloan, Applicant: Thank you, Chairman Holman and congratulations also. I am Sandy Sloan, attorney for Channing House. I would like specifically to request the variance and answer some of the questions that were raised by some of the Commissioners. The zoning code in Section 18.76.030 specifically allows variances for a site with physical constraints resulting from natural or built features and that is very important realize it is not just the land but a variance can also be contemplated because of the built features. In this case as the Staff has pointed out it is an L-shaped parcel and the only available buildable area is next to residential property. More important are the physical constraints of the building that exists. It has an underground driveway that goes into the underground parking lot. It has an existing po01 and existing foundations. If you look at the plans you can see that the proposed building cannot be moved closer to existing Channing House. It also cannot be moved closer to Homer street because of the setback. To clarify about the RM it is confusing. If this site were zoned RM-30 the daylight planes would be in full conformance. If the site were a residential site but still a PC zone the proposed building would meet the daylight planes of the RM-30 when it is adjacent to the RM-30 buildings and would meet the RM- 15 daylight planes except at the corners. In this case the reason that the constraints are so great is because almost all PCs in Palo Alto are commercial buildings and again if this building were classified as a multi-family use and it essentially is residential in character then it would meet the daylight planes of the PC ordinance except at the corners and it would meet it fully if it was an RM-30. Finally I want to say that the general plan in Policy H-18 specifically says to support housing that incorporates facilities and services for the healthcare transit or social service needs of household with special needs including seniors. So the general plan itself is saying that seniors with healthcare services are a housing or residential character. If we could just have one more minute I think Carl Brazinsky wanted to address the traffic operations which Channing House itself was asked to look at again. Mr. Brazinskg: Thank you. In relation to the traffic study we did I would like to point out first of all that Channing Place Condominiums does have access to the alley only to half of the alley. At any time I think we would have the fight to close offthe alley for our own purposes. Be that Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 as it may when we did the study we did know and understand that there were some Vehicles that occasionally park on Channing Street and we make every effort to get them to park appropriately when we find that out. So we are aware that occasionally vehicles do park in the street making deliveries and they do it more out of convenience than anything else. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. I think we have a question for the applicant from Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I notice it has been pointed out by several people including Commissioner Tuma that the proposed building impinges on the daylight plane adjacent to the RM-15 property in the corners. In looking at Figure A-6 of this chart it appears that those two corners are as a result of two double rooms, one each. I am wondering if the applicant had considered converting those double rooms to single rooms in order to remove any impingement on the daylight plane adjacent to the RM-15. I am less concerned personally about the RM-30 impingement adjacency. Mr. Brazinsk¥: One of our biggest concerns is making sure we have the right size facility, 53 beds. Originally we proposed almost entirely private rooms and we did combine some rooms and make them double rooms. So it would be very difficult for us to switch that from a two- person room to a one-person room. Commissioner Keller: Is there something magic about 53 beds that I am not understanding? Mr. Brazinsky: Well, we need to approximate basically 25 percent of our total capacity, in other words, we have approximately 190 residents and we need about 25 percent oft~.~at,,total as healthcare in addition to those 190 units. Commissioner Keller: So 51 beds are not 25 percent? Mr. Brazinskv: No. We think 53 beds is the appropriate size for this. We would like to ask that you consider this corner. I think the best thing I can say is in those particular areas, in the corner areas, it is not adjacent to the building itself of the condominiums across the property. Commissioner Keller: You pointed out 25 percent of 190 rooms and my math says that that is 47.5, is that correct? Mr. Brazinsk-g: I guess what I was trying to say is that as a guideline we feel we need a slightly larger amount. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Mr. Brazinsky: Chair Holman: Garber. We have already reduced the size of healthcare center quite a bit. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Commissioner Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Garber: This is for the applicant’s architect. This photo rendering of the streetscape here is this showing mature trees or mature vegetation on it? Mr. Brutting: Yes. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, could you describe which streetscape you are alluding to? Commissioner Garber: It says ’new scheme’ I am not seeing a page number. It looks like the second to the last page in the packet that was handed out this evening. You could actually take either. Mr. Brutting: Excuse me. Are you talking about the rendering on Homer? Commissioner Garber: Yes, that one or the one that precedes it. Mr. Bruttin~: Those are not mature on those two rendering. Commissioner Garber: So the mature trees would look more like the mature trees we see down the block. Mr. Brutting: Correct, that’s right. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Mr. Bmtting: You are welcome. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert is that a follow up to that? Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes. I have a question that is related to the double rooms that project into the daylight plane. Why not simply make those single rooms and take the two single rooms that are over the ramp and cantilever them out over the ramp and make those double rooms? Mr. Brutting: It is very difficult in the timeframe we have to explain all the square footage constraints we have. We actually did several layouts trying to find the best wayof accommodating all the rooms and the beds required. Lisa went through several of those and could explain that. Essentially we cantilevered the building as far as possible toward Channing House. We have actually moved it over. One thing that is not evident in the skilled nursing portion in particular is that we tried to recoup some areas in the existing building for skilled nursing that would not be necessarily OSHPD regulated. We met with them as I said and they pushed a couple of things back in again. So it is a matter of space constraints with square footages both for assisted living requirements and for the skilled nursing requirements including the room sizes. Lisa probably could elaborate having gone that. Ms. Lisa Wong, Applicant: That is correct. We are also concerned with some structural constraints in terms of cantilevering those and we are working with clearances to get into that Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 garage below. So the line that is created on that face of the building toward Channing House we are sort of looking at those things as well as the things that Tom has described. Vice-Chair Lippert: I am still not seeing this. I am looking here at your sheet A-6. What I am looking at here is towards plan south you have two double rooms that project into the daylight plane. Then I look to the area towards the northern part of the building facing Channing House and you have two single rooms there. Why can’t those two single rooms cantilever out over the ramp? They are up high enough that they clear the ramp and be made into double rooms. Ms. Won~: We would have to look at the structural. That is a lot cantilevering there that you are talking about in order to make them large enough for double rooms. In the design of the double rooms you will note that the one on the comer that is closest to Channing House is sort of the desirable plan for a double room in the way that the beds have more privacy from each other. If we just extend those single rooms out they will be very long narrow rooms and we need to keep the width that we have shown there because of the design of the dining and activity room space requirements that we have both for OSHPD and for Channing House’s resident needs. That would be the constraint there over the driveway. Mr. Brutting: We also have constraints as to how much room is required by regulation DSS or OSHPD regarding space around a bed, space provided beyond the bed. In order to extend those out not only do we have the structural constraints of cantilevering out that far but also desirability trying to get window space and privacy between the two beds who are sharing together. It is not that easy in this configuration to have a long singular room that extends out and try to maintain something where one person used to walk by another person in order to get to the other bed. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Following up on Commissioner Lippert’s comments I notice that the room to the upper left of this chart appears to have the same width as the single room that is immediately adjacent to it below that to the bottom if you will in the plan. The single room over there looks like it is the same as the two single rooms that Commissioner Lippert referred to, therefore, the cantilevering that would be necessary for going from the single rooms that Commissioner Lippert referred to to the double room that is in the upper left hand corner looks like it is as shown on that diagram. So I am not sure how many feet that is but it looks like it certainly would work for one of the double rooms here. So at least that double room would be replaced by an equivalent double room in orientation. So I am wondering am I wrong here, am I confused? Mr. Bruttin~: First of all, that double room does not cantilever. Commissioner Keller: I understand it does not cantilever but your comments were about the square footage and orientation. So I am asking about the square footage and orientation. Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Mr. Bmtting: Well, this room is deeper. Ms. Won~: It is slightly deeper. It is very similar. This is slightly larger than the single room that you are talking about. We would still have the cantilever issue, which would be a large cantilever, and as I said before the desirable double room design is more in keeping with the one closest to Channing House. If you will notice the only double unit that is like that with the beds side-by-side is in that upper corner and that is done because of the constraints we have put on ourselves to move the building back from the neighboring properties. In terms of ease of use of the room and comfort and privacy of the people in the room it is more desirable to have a larger double room that you can give each patient more privacy and not have to walk right by the beds to get to one another. Mr. Brutting: If I remember correctly, and Lisa correct me if I am wrong here, cantilevering out would impact vehicles getting down into that garage. Ms. Wong: Actually no, I think you are okay. Commissioner Keller: I don’t know whether cantilevering would do that because this is on the second floor. I notice it appears to me somewhere on the order of four to five feet that is what my eyebali tells from looking at the amount of cantilevering. I am not sure how significantthat four to five feet would be. Mr. Brutting: It could be. We would have to have a structural engineer look at that but those are not easy numbers to bring out that are especially cost effective in order to do that. There is quite a bit of a cantilever already that we have there that is not evident by just looking at that page. You have to go back to the previous page. Mr. C. Williams: Madam Chair? Chair Holman: Yes sir. Mr. C. Williams: If you don’t mind I would just interject I am just a little concerned. I understand you are trying to be helpful and come up with creative solutions. I think you have made your point that you think there may be other ways to do this and it sounds like from the applicant’s standpoint they need to look at that. So maybe it is more productive to leave it at that and ask them if they are willing to take a shot at making those changes and if not then move in the direction you would like to go with it. Ms. Sloan: The answer to that is no, Really it is not. This has been studied and studied and if they have given you their best responses and would much rather you just act on it tonight and move it on. Thank you. Mr. Brutting: Thank you. Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: I have one other question I am. not sure if it is for Staff or the applicant. It has to do with when the pool was built and when the parking garage project was done. Was there any change to the location or expansion or width of that ramp? Ms. La Torra: I don’t have an answer to that, no. Mr. Brutting: The answer is no there were no changes to the ramp. Chair Holman: So didn’t become wider? Mr. Brutting: No. Chair Holman: Okay. When was pool built, do you know? Mr. Brutting: I believe it was completed about 2001. Chair Holman: Was this project anticipated at that time? Perhaps you don’t have an answer to that. Mr. Brutting: I would say the project was anticipated at that time, yes. Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. So Commissioners if we have any further question of Staffthis would be the time to do that. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I notice that in the document we were given it says on Attachment A, Planned Community Ordinance Amendment will be provided at places and maybe I am confused but I haven’t seen it. Mr. Larkin: You don’t have it and the reason for that is that you have the original ordinance number 2007, you have two resolutions that purport to amend that ordinance, and then. another ordinance that says see attached and we don’t have the attachment anymore. So it is going to be something that we are going to take your direction and then we will prepare an ordinance for Council that reflects the direction that we receive tonight. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Chair Holman: Any other questions for Staff or are we ready for Commission discussion? Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Yes, the Staff Report alluded to the alley providing access for both Channing House and for Channing Place’s underground garages. Then I believe I understood the applicant’s representatives to state that Channing Place does not necessarily have a right to that easement that Channing House could close that off. First, didI understand that correctly and second, is that accurate? Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. La Torra: Channing Place does have an. easement agreement for the portion that is going to remain open. The Channing House owns all of it but they can close off the remaining portion of it that they are proposing. Sandy Sloan actually maybe could answer that as well. Commissioner Burt: I think that clarifies it for me. So the portion of the alley that will remain Channing Place has an easement right to. Ms. La Torra: Correct. Commissioner Burt: Okay. That is fine for me for right now. Chair Holman: Other Commissioners have questions of Staff? Then we are ready for Commission discussion. Who would like to start that? Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: What I am still having difficulty getting my hands around is the variance findings. While these rooms that are double rooms are desirable and while the number of beds that they want is not a requirement but something that is also desirable I am looking at what the neighboring property owners are losing by granting this variance. This is one of the largest single parcels in Palo Alto even though it is L-shaped it is not a constrained site from the point of view of the size of the lot, the dimensions of the lot. I find it very difficult to say that there is an unreasonable hardship being placed upon this site. In fact most recently they built a swimming pool in an area that they might otherwise have brought this building closer in towards the Channing House site itself. What we are really debating here is whether two maybe three beds and the rights of the adjacent property owners in terms of granting this variance out weigh the additional beds there. Now I can see that there are ways of making this building work either by shifting it, manipulating it, pushing, pulling, tugging; but bringing it closer in to the site. It may cost them a little bit more to do that but it would in fact preserve the rights of the adjacent property owners. The daylight plane is one of the few constraints that are placed upon PCs that generally we prefer to uphold. Chair Holman: Other comments? Commissioner Garber looks prepared. Commissioner Garber: I don’t know about prepared. In general I do not find much change to the comments that I made on March 22 when the project was first presented to the Commission. I don’t find many differences from my comments then to now. There are some benefits. I was just walking through the comments that I made in March and I will just make a couple of points relative to them. There are a number of things which are important to the project but I think actually what I ~vant to do is preface all of this by recognizing the uniqueness of Channing House in the City of Palo Alto and that it provides a very unique use that has great value to the community. It is unique not only in its use and the value but for better or worse it is architectural presence within the community. It is a strikingly large building in an otherwise residential neighborhood. Because of its value, we should as a community, find ways to continue to care, support, and find ways to help them improve the property because of the benefits that it gives the community. Page 23 1 2 So back to my comments that were originally made in March. First of all the concept or the 3 strategy of mirroring the setback and daylight planes that are on the adjacent properties to utilize 4 those same criteria for the property that is being developed I think makes sense and is the right 5 thing to do. In particular as part of the issues here are that the existing buildings don’t actually 6 meet that zoning. I understand that is because the zoning changed after those buildings were 7 built and so a number of them are not in conformance. However, the concept here needs to be 8 what the zoning is for the land as opposed to what actually exists on them. I think that is very 9 important to recognize here, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The other thing that I think is extremely important is that there are conflicting issues within the general plan but the one that is taking precedence for me here is that the policy in the plan that asks for abrupt changes in scale in neighborhoods to be mitigated has been a sore thumb for this particular property. It is exacerbated by the fact that right at the moment there is an empty parking lot; which allows you to see at least from the position I’m actually looking at the model now to see the height of the building. Having a building there that is taller helps mitigate that effect. Is it larger than the other buildings that are around it? Absolutely, but it:helps because it steps up in the scale of the neighborhood and therefore keeps that abrupt change from happening. Now the downside that has been pointed out is that the FAR ends up very large. In my view I believe that that’s acceptable because of what it does and how it supports the plan in the way that I just described. Further there was buried in the original proposal the question as to whether this is the fight place to do the addition. I think a convincing argument was made back in March for that. At that time the discussion also included the schemes that tried to utilize the existing building of Channing House to put these new uses into and the recognition is that that building could not house these functions as they are now being housed in the proposed-new building here. The other comments that I think were very important and I think have been integrated well are mitigation of the actual construction activity as well as the mitigation of the ongoing operation of the building, which I think has also been addressed. The changed from the DEE as was originally produced to a variance along with the changes that have been made architecturally to pull back the second floor go a long way to making the variance acceptable in my mind. The findings I think although finding number one is primarily what we have been talking about here it maybe marginal but I think it is the right thing to do. The exceptions that would allow these two coruers to be in place short of the architects finding a clever way to get around them are in my mind acceptable. I think that summarizes most of my comments then as well as my additional ones. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. I discover that I actually have one more question for Staff and it is a clarification if you could, please. The setbacks for the adjacent zonings, RM-15 and RM-30, on page three of the Staff Report it says that it is 20 feet along Channing and 16 feet along Homer but the proposed project has a setback often feet and yet there is no variance requested for that. So am I mis-reading that or should that also be requiring a variance? Ms. La Torra: It is a PC zone so the setback is ten feet. Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: So that supersedes the setbacks of the residential even though the daylight plane still applies from the residential zones? Ms. La Torra: They are asking for a variance for encroaching into the PC daylight plane. The findings for what their proposal is would meet the RM-30 and RM-15 zoning. It isn’t changing the zoning though. Does that make sense? Chair Holman: It does, thank you. Commissioner Sandas: Commissioner Sandas: Thank you. I wanted to echo much of what Commissioner Garber said or at least what I understood him to have said. I neither have difficulty with the comer daylight plane issue and please forgive me ahead of time because I was not here on March 22 when this first came so I am playing a little bit of catch up. Being that that piece of property on which Channing House sits is zoned PC as it is and the use of that piece of property is what it is and being that our community, our world, is aging I would hate to see us recommend any reduction in the number of beds in the assisted living facility at Channing Place. I think that ultimately there will be a greater need than just for 53 beds at some point. I will recommend recommending to forward the application to Council at some point. Chair Holman’ Commissioner Tuma, Commissioner Tuma: A couple of things. One is I just wanted to acknowledge the value of the contribution that I believe Channing House makes to the community of Palo Alto both Channing House itself in terms of providing a terrific environment, it possibly could be imp~)ved, but nonetheless a facility where seniors can live and live in a vibrant community that we have. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution that many of the residents of Channing House make as individuals who participate in the community, provide services, and I think it is a terrific, terrific environment that both helps the City of Palo Alto and I think Palo Alto provides a nice community where people can continue to live in a vibrant environment and not have to move out somewhere. I know that is important to a lot of seniors. I do have some concerns regarding particularly the FAR numbers here and the daylight plane issue. I think we need to be careful to maintain the neighborhood characteristics that people assume are going to be there as they purchase an adjacent property. I think the setting is important to maintain this. I think it is important to take a look at the impact on neighboring people who live around the facility and understand what the impact of doing a given project is going to be. That being said I think that from my, and I also wasn’t here at the previous meeting although I did re+iew public record in great detail, and having heard what we have heard tonight I am convinced that the applicant has done a very good job of trying to mitigate some of the impact that we have been discussing. I am pleased about the progress that is being made on both the choice of colors and materials that are going to be used as well as the plants and trees and other things that are going to mitigate some of the impacts that we have talked about tonight. So I am pleased to see that. I think also while we could all sit up here and talk about moving this room or Page 25 1 moving that room I am going to.tonight defer to what I consider to be the experts who seem have 2 worked on this in great detail, looked at a lot of different combinations as to what the 3 arrangements could be, and I think that I am convinced that they have done what they can in 4 terms of making it work. There are going to be impacts but I think that they have done a good 5 job of working with the community as well as the design and layout of the rooms within the 6 facility. With regard to that another item that gives me some level of comfort that the end 7 project here will work is that the ARB will continue to be involved with the selection of 8 materials and working with the community. That is where I am. 9 10 Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Keller. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I think that Channing House is a wonderful resource for the 13 community. I am certainly in sympathy with the idea of providing some expansion of the 14 facilities for Channing House in order to provide assisted living and skilled nursing in a more 15 modem facility that is appropriate to the current requirements for that. I think that being said I 16 think we have to be concerned about the interface between the new facility that is being proposed 17 and the adjacent property. Earlier tonight we had a whole discussion about mixe.d use and the 18 requirements there and although that is not exactly relative to this nonetheless there is precedent 19 that I think is important in terms of mirroring the adjacent use. So I am not concerned about the 20 adjacent uses next to RM-30 but I am concerned about the adjacent uses next to RM-15. I am 21 not convinced that the two additional bed spaces provided by the encroachment in the RM-15 22 daylight plane justify the encroachment on the neighbors. So I think that there are other ways of 23 handling this, which I would leave up to the applicant to try to figure out. I believe that the 24 applicant has the best expertise to figure out how to accommodate this. I would be in favor of 25 moving this forward but without allowan~,eimpinging on the RM-15 daylight plane. 26 27 Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. 28 29 Commissioner Burt: I will just say that whatever motion goes forward there are four what I 30 believe are small conditions of approval that I hope would be included. One is that story poles or 31 some semblance of story poles would be provided for review of this project between now and 32 when it goes to Council. I appreciate that there may be some physical constraints to actually 33 erecting poles and they may have to do some other means to simulate the actual lines of the 34 building. Second, as the StaffReport had suggested as a possibility that some of the problems in 35 the shared alley access could be mitigated by signage and curb painting and that that be included. 36 Third, that Staff including the City Arborist work with the applicant between now and 37 presentation to Council to explore the feasibility of rooftop gardens and additional improvements 38 to the public space landscape amenities beyond what has already been done. Then finally that 39 there be a plan that the applicant and Staff agree to to mitigate the construction parking and the 40 construction debris. I don’t know if the debris means a central location for Burger King 41.wrappers or what but something that tries to address those common problems of construction. 42 43 Chair Holman: Okay then I have a few comments to make. I think there is no doubting the truly 44 incredible facility and benefit that Channing House provides to the community. I don’t think 45 anyone would ever dare say otherwise. There are some constraints to the project that - let me 46 say it this way. There are some concerns that still abide I think with at least some of us about the Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 project. One of them certainly is the Homer streetscape with a setback often feet and I think it was a 31-foot height and it is straight up. That is very inconsistent with the rest of the residential area there, It is very incompatible. Even though I don’t know what the height of that house is next door at Cowper and Homer but I know it has a pitched roof. I mentioned this at the last meeting. There is a great difference in the perception of a building that has a pitched roof and one that has a flat top. There is a great difference there. I think there has been a lot of improvement made in the project. I absolutely want to acknowledge that there has been a lot of improvement in terms of transition. But that streetscape on Homer is troubling to me. Earlier as Commissioner Keller mentioned we had talked about mixed use. This is not a mixed use project but this is with that setback and this building while I think it is quite attractive it is something I would expect to see more likely in a much more urban commercial neighborhood and that is what disturbs me about it. I am troubled also because there are constraints on the property. The reason I asked the question about the parking garage ramp and the pool, when those projects happened and was this project anticipated, was I believe it is also true that property owners can’t create their own hardships. So that is a factor here. If the pool was built with this project in anticipation and now the pool is a constraint I don’t know to what extent I can’t answer that but that is a concern. I think there has been comments made about while the facility is a wonderful facility it sounds like they could still meet the requirements if they did eliminate some of the units which could actually improve the daylight plane issues while still meeting their needs, maybe not their wishes but their needs. While the wishes are admirable we also have requirements and obligations as a Commission that we have to really seriously be able to make the findings or legal requirements for variances. One point that I will make and not try to get an answer to it but the applicant mentioned that during the construction that there would be valet parking provided. I am not really quite sure how that would work because people have to come and cars have to come and go from someplace to someplace. So I am not quite sure how that would work and maybe there could be some clarification for that provided to Council. So given that and the other point I would make I guess is that I understand the difficulty as the City Attorney explained why we don’t have the ordinance in front of us but it does make our job really more difficult. So if there is perhaps some mechanism by which Commissioners can get a copy of that before it goes to the Council and perhaps individually we could have a way to comment to Council. Some way that we could do that because we are not having opportunity to comment on the ordinance. Mr. Larkin: We will get it to you. If you want to come to the Council meeting and comment as a private citizen you are free to do that. Chair Holman: That is what I meant as individual Commissioners we could then comment to Council about that ordinance. Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Larkin: At the Council meeting. Chair Holman: And not before. Okay. All fight so do we have any other comments or are we ready for a motion? Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a question for the attorney. Should this be broken down into two components acting on the approval or denial and then the variance separate? Mr. Larkin: I think that depends on what the Commission wants to do. That is probably the easiest way to do it given the comments we have heard from the Commission. Chair Holman’ Could you clarify that then please because the variances are a part of the project. So how can we split that off?. Mr. Larkin: You are approving the PC Ordinance and a variance. They are two separate things that you are approving. You can approve the PC Ordinance, deny the variance and I don’t know where that leaves us it puts us in a confusing situation or you can just approve the project and we go to Council with a recommendation for denial on the variance but since you have already approved the PC Ordinance I don’t know how that affects the PC Ordinance. Ms. La Torra: If you did recommend denial of the variance it would mean that the design of the building would have to be adjusted and the ARB had requested that it return back to thembefore it went onto Council so that they could re-study what the building would look like. Chair Holman: But we wouldn’t have to follow that. We could say we would like the Council weigh in. Ms. La Torra: You could do that, yes. Chair Holman: Yes, I think the applicant would certainly prefer that. Also just for clarification, because of the language that you used, I am sorry to be a nit-picker here, but you say we would approve the ordinance but we don’t have an ordinance. Mr. Larkin’ You are approving the PC zoning. You are approving the ordinance in concept even though you don’t have the specific language. Actually recommending not approving. Mr. Steven Emslie, Planning Director: If the Commission isn’t approving anything tonight. You are recommending to Council because this is an action that is reserved for Council. So your actions could be inconsistent or you may provide some additional suggestions you would like the Council to consider should the variance not pass. You could still forward your recommendation on the Council on the PC with suggested modifications. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: A question. Since the ordinance has not yet been drafted under the hypothetical circumstance that this Commission votes in favor of moving the project forward but Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 denying the variance would the ordinance forwarded to Council reflect that choice of the Commission? Mr. Larkin: No, the variance isn’t addressed in the ordinance. The variance is a separate action. So you could as Steve mentioned make and inconsistent recommendation in which case the Council would have to decide how to act on that. The ordinance itself is going to reflect, if it is recommended, it will reflect the application. Chair Holman: Steve, you had something else to say? Mr. Emslie: Not unless there is a question. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I am looking at Attachment C, the Required Variance Findings. Item number one, first paragraph at the end of the paragraph, special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are one, personal circumstances of the property owner and any changes in the size or shape of the property, etc. The applicant’s attorney described the reasons that the applicant believes this finding can be found. Does the Staff share that opinion? Mr. C. Williams: I think there is some subjectivity but yes we think that the awkward shape of the property is a constraint and that it was not in the same zoning configuration when this change was made. Commissioner Garber: You mean the adjacent properties were changed? Mr. C. Williams: Right. Mr. Larkin: I would just add that the legal analysis that she provided was absolutely correct. Commissioner Garber: Is it also true then that the existing shape and location and size of the building can also be understood as a constraint in the same way? Mr. Larkin: Yes. Karen mentioned creating the hardship. If the applicant were subdividing the property and then creating a nonconforming parcel that would be creating the hardship. Where the parcel itself is not being changed then that is not what that refers to. Commissioner Garber: So does the Staff, I assume in its recommendation that the variance be recommended to Council it too would believe that the exceptions that the variance is covering are marginal and acceptable? Mr. C. Williams: Yes. It is a close call. It is an unusual circumstance in terms of the shape of the lot and in terms of the use. The use in this case is driving a lot of this but we do think that those are acceptable findings. Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: The amount of the building that actually impinges into the daylight is actually how much on a percentage or linear foot basis? Mr. C. Williams: While Gina gets you an estimate on that let me just clarify that the amount that impinges into the daylight plane is the two-to-one or one-to-two daylight plane. That is what the variance is from. It is not from the RM-15 or the RM-30 it is from the one-to-two required by the PC Ordinance. So it is considerably more than what is just shown on that RM,15 comer. Commissioner Garber: I’m sorry, what is considerably more? Mr. C. Williams: The amount of the building that is encroaching into the daylight plane that is prescribed by the PC Ordinance is more than just when you are seeing the RM-15 little comer there. That is not the variance that is being requested. It is considerably more than that. Ms. La Torra: So probably the best way to look at it is if you go to page A-11 of the plans. The applicant has shown the required PC daylight plane and then also the RM-30 daylight plane and the RM- 15 daylight plane. Commissioner Garber: You are on figure number one or two or both? Ms. La Torra: Both. So on figure number two that is the Homer Avenue elevation. Commissioner Garber: I apologize for interrupting but just to be clear on figure number two which is a north elevation, Homer, the residential house that is which zoning there? That is RM-30? Ms. La Torra: Yes, RM-30. So in order to meet the PC daylight plane with the existing building you would have to move it approximately 30 feet over. Do you see how the PC daylight plane is the bottom line shown? Commissioner Garber: The line that has the lower slope. Ms. La Torra: Correct. Commissioner Garber: Now given this is the RM-30 the criteria if we take the Staff’s strategy here would be the line of the higher slope. Ms. La Torra: Correct. Commissioner Garber: Then therefore the building that is being proposed would fit within that daylight plane. Am I understanding that correctly?. Ms. La Torra: Yes, the daylight plane would meet the RM-30 daylight plane. You would still need a variance to encroach into the PC. Commissioner Garber: Understood. Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: So the lower slope line, which is unlabeled on this, is really what represents the variance, correct? Ms. La Torra: Correct. Commissioner Burt: So when the discussion was going on earlier about tweaking the one and the two bedrooms and things those tweaks would not create conformance to the PC daylight plane requirement. It would require a much more substantial change to .the project to conform to the PC requirement, is that correct? Ms. La Torra: That is correct: Commissioner Burt: The RM-30, the existing proposal would conform if we used RM-30 as a reference, which we are not bound to do. Ms. La Torra: Right. The RM-30 is for a reference only. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller and I think we would like to probably get to a motion here pretty quickly. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. My question is would it be possible to approve the project, find the variances and require the condition that the daylight plane be RM-15 adjacent to RM-15 zone and RM-30 be adjacent to RM-30 zone? Would that be an acceptable way of moving forward? Mr. Emslie: With one exception, you are not approving the project you are recommending. You can recommend to the Council that they consider that as an amendment, yes. Chair Holman: Okay, are we ready for a motion? Commissioner Garber. MOTION Commissioner Garber: I will move that the Commission recommend to the Council the Staff’s recommendation to us as is and I will read it here. The request by Channing House for an amendment to a Planned Community (PC) to add a 32,185 square foot healthcare building including 27 skilled nursing units, 26 assisted living units, associated dining/activity spaces, and a 16, 437 square foot underground garage. The request includes a variance to allow the building to encroach into the required daylight plane on two sides facing the west and south property lines. A draft Environmental Impact Assessment and a Negative Declaration would be included in this motion. I would also include the items that Commissioner Burt has included which are the inclusion of story poles in the near term to help Council make their decision, Staff recommendations regarding the shared alley, and further study and review of the potential of rooftop gardens, and the various construction mitigations. Page 31 1 2 Chair Holman: Do I hear a second? 3 4 SECOND 5 6 Commissioner Sandas: I’ll second. 7 8 Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas, would you care to speak to your second? 9 10 Commissioner Sandas: No thank you. 11 12 Chair Holman: Any comments about the motion? 13 14 Vice-Chair Lippert: I would like to make a substitute motion. 15 16 Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert 17 18 SUBSTITUTEMOTION 19 20 Vice-Chair Lippert: I would like to make a substitute motion, which is that it is the exact same 21 motion except that we vote on the main motion and the variance separately. 22 23 SECOND 24 25 Chair Holman: I hear no second for that motion. 26 27 I will second for a brief discussion. 28 29 Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you very much Chair Holman. In looking at the daylight plane issue 30 I feel very conflicted about it. I think that it sets a very serious precedent here. So I think it is 31 real important that it be broken out and discussed as a completely separate item. I think that 32 there are ways of making this plant on the site. It may require a reduction in maybe some of the 33 beds. It may require that the massing of the building change not substantially but a little bit. 34 What it will wind up doing is that the building will become a much more valuable asset in the 35 community. 36 37 Chair Holman: As the seconder I did second it for purposes of discussion but I think it is a little 38 bit messy to do it this way. At the same time I have some of the same concerns that 39 Commissioner Lippert does. So are there any other comments about this motion? 40 Commissioner Burt. 41 42 Commissioner Burt: I will just agree that it is a close call. These are tradeoffs and I wish that 43 there were a solution that could meet the daylight plane requirements and still meet what I think 44 are the needs expressed by the applicant to fulfill their mandate and the valuable community 45 service that we recognize there. I think they have worked hard at it and I am willing to accept 46 their position that in the extensive rework that has been done they can’t achieve that without Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 sacrificing units. Because it is such a close call I fully recognize Council may make a slightly different call but for those reasons I will support the original motion. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: This is a particularly difficult issue and I guess I was one of the ones that raised it early on. As I have listened to comments from the community and comments from fellow Commissioners I do think there is a balancing that goes on in this instance. I think the impact has been mitigated as I said before as much as it reasonably can be. I have some of the same concerns but I think on balance I would be inclined to support the originalmotion as made. Chair Holman: City Attorney, correct me ifI am wrong but the conversation right now needs, to be limited to the substitute motion, correct? Mr. Larkin: That is fight. You will comment and vote on the substitute motion. If that fails then it returns to the original motion. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I am wondering ifI can make a friendly amendment to the substitute motion. The friendly amendment is to instead of removing the variance findings from this are to require that the project meet RM-15 daylight plane adjacent to RM-15 property and RM-30 daylight plane adjacent to RM-30 property. I don’t think it is reasonable to require that they have no variance at all for PC zoning. Mr. Emslie: The motion was to just separate the discussion. So the amendment you are suggesting speaks to the substance of the variance. Right now the substitute motion is just whether or not you are going to separate from the main motion that was made the issue of the variance and the PC. So that has to be decided first before you can get into the issues of the variance and whether or not you support it or some other version of the variance. So I would recommend that the Commission call the question and decide the framework for the discussion so that you can proceed pending that decision. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair.Lippert: I think the discussion here really outweighs my concern so I will withdraw the motion. Chair Holman: So we are back to the main motion by Commissioner Garber. Are there any other comments or friendly amendments to offer to that motion? Commissioner Keller: Well, I don’t know if Commissioner Garber will take a friendly amendment to require that RM-15 daylight plane will be required adjacent to RM-15 property and RM-30 daylight plane be required adjacent to RM-30 property. If he doesn’t accept it as a friendly amendment I would offer it as a substitute motion. Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. With polite regrets to my new Commissioner I will not support your friendly amendment. Chair Holman: This is an interesting and difficult item for all of us and certainly especially for it to be the first item that comes before new Commissioners. You are doing very, very well. My congratulations and also my condolences that this first one is a very hard one. So Commissioner Keller. MOTION Commissioner Keller: Then I make that motion as a substitute motion. SECOND Vice-Chair Lippert: I will second that. Mr. Emslie: Can I clarify that I believe that the motion is that you would support the variance subject to the PC being modified so the building would conform to the respective RM-15 and RM-30 daylight planes. Commissioner Keller: That is correct plus the conditions that were presented by Commissioner Burt. Mr. Emslie: That is contained in the main motion so the substitute motion will have to be first. Those conditions are still in the main motion they do not have to be repeated. Chair Holman: Would you say that again, please? Mr. Emslie: The main motion included the four conditions of Commissioner Burt. That motion still needs to be acted on so you do not have to restate that. Excuse me. The City Attorney did remind me that this would substitute the main motion so you will need to incorporate those. Sorry, it is getting late. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I do incorporate those conditions. Vice-Chair Lippert: I accept those. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: So ifI understand if we were to pass the substitute motion this would require the applicant to redesign. Mr. Emslie: No, it doesn’t require the applicant. What you are doing is recommending to the Council that their action include that modification. Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Garber: Which would then should they decide to agree with the recommendation. Mr. Emslie: Right. None of these actions tonight compel action. Commissioner Garber: I understand. Chair Holman: Any other comments on the substitute motion? I have one possible friendly amendment with my apologies. We are going to just work this thing to death you guys have been through this process for so long. My concern still does exist with the streetscape along Homer and I will refer to my comments earlier. So would the maker of the motion consider a step-back at the second floor on the Homer streetscape? Commissioner Keller: I would be interested in considering that but I am not sure what the specifications of the setback that you propose. MOTION FAILS (3-4-0-0 Commissioners Keller, Holman and Lippert for and Commissioners Burt, Sandas, Garber and Tuma opposed) Chair Holman: I wouldn’t be specific about it so I will let it pass. Any other comments on this motion? So we will call the vote on this substitute motion which is approval of the project including the four conditions of approval proposed by Commissioner Burt and included in the original motion by Commissioner Garber with the inclusion of the change of the daylight plane requirement to be reflective of the daylight plane requirement of the adjacent zoning rather than the PC zoning daylight plane requirements. If that is properly stated according to Staffwe will vote on the motion. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? (nays) So we have three Commissioners in favor, Commissioners Keller, Holman and Lippert and four Commissioners opposed, Commissioners Burt, Sandas, Garber and Tuma. So we are back to the original motion. Commissioner Garber do you have anything else to say about your original motion? Commissioner Garber: Again, the issues here as everyone has noted are threshold issues. I believe that the benefit of having from an architectural and from a use standpoint, so those two what the institution is and the benefit but just looking at the zoning issues here is that again the larger building presence helps mitigate the impact of the original building. I believe that that is important. I believe that the issues that have been mapped out by the attorney in terms of the constraint although I find them threshold or marginal they do appear as I understand it from Staff and the City Attorney that they are real and they can be considered as constraints to the project as has been found and proposed. The second issue in the finding, the issue of substantial compliance is I believe addressed when you consider the strategy that has been proposed by Staff which is mirroring the setbacks and daylight planes from the adjacent properties. Item number three the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan has been addressed by my previous comments. Finally, number four there isn’t anything that is detrimental to public health here. So Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 I think those are the salient issues there which allow us to with some confidence pass this as currently stated. Chair Holman: Any other comments? Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I just want to make it very clear I am not opposed to this project at all. I think it is a desirable project. My opposition in terms of the variance issue was merely from the point of view of looking at planning criteria and whether it was an appropriate application of it. I do think that this is a desirable project. It is something that we want in our community and so I am going to support the motion. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I would like to acknowledge Commissioner Lippert’s comments in that I appreciate the extended conversation of this difficult project and the issues that are being considered here. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I think that this is project that I feel bad for the people on the RM-15 side of the property. I hope that this is not considered a prededent for future PC applicants to figure that by going through such a process and saying that things can’t be redesigned that that will be a reason for the Planning Commission to accept it. Thank you. Chair Holman: Any other comments? I will make just o,~-~e..:.,,I will with regret because I .think in most regards it is a fabulous project and the need is great but there are concerns also about precedent. The daylight plane is almost less of a concern for me than the streetscape on Homer and I will refer again to the. comments I made previously. It looks much more urban with that setback and two story height. So if there are no other comments we will vote on the main motion by Commissioner Garber as previously stated. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? (nays) The motion passes on a five to two vote with Commissioners Burt, Sandas, Lippert, Garber and Tuma in favor and Commissioners Holman and Keller opposed. So that item will be going to Council on what date? Mr. C. Williams: I think October 11 is the tentative date. MOTION PASSED (5-2-0-0 with Commissioners Holman and Keller opposed). Chair Holman: October 11 is the tentative date. Thank you very much. I really want to thank the members of the pubic as well as the applicant for coming tonight and giving us your input, feedback, and insight. Thank you very much. Page 36 Attachment J PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Gina La Torra, Associate Planner DEPARTMENT." Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: August30,2006 850 Webster [05PLN-00290|: Request by Channing House for an amendment to a Planned Community (PC) to add a 32,185 square foot Health Care building, including 27 skilled nursing units, 26 assisted living units, associated dining/activity spaces, and a 16,437 square foot underground garage. The request includes a Variance to allow the building to encroach into the required daylight plane on two sides facing the West and South property lines. A draft Environment Impact Assessment (Initial Study) and N~;gative Declaration (ND) have been prepared and the public review period closed on July 5, 2006. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) review and comment on the proposed project and recommend the application be forwarded to the City Council for final approval and adoption of the Ordinance. BACKGROUND: The original Planned Community (PC) for the Channing House development was approved by City Council in 1961. The 1961 ordinance changed the site zoning from R-4 (multiple family zoning that no longer exists in the Zoning Ordinance) to PC and permitted the 142 foot tall senior living building. The Channing House PC has been amended several times as listed in the attached ordinance history and PC ordinances (Attachment M). The public benefit established in 1961 was that the project provided senior living. Amendments to the PC do not need to establish a new public benefit as long as the original public benefit is maintained. The project was initially reviewed at the Commission hearing of March 22, 2006. The staff report and the minutes from the hearing are included as Attachment E. Comments from the Commission are also included in the Architectural Review Board (ARB) staff report from the hearing of July 6, 2006 (Attachment F). The ARB continued the project for further review to the City of Palo Alto Page 1 hearing of August 3, 2006. The staff report and minutes from that hearing are included in Attachment G. The ARB recommended that the project be approved with conditions. The ARB findings and draft approval conditions have been provided as Attachment B, The project has been revised since the Commission’s review on March 22, 2006, as follows: The building has been reduced by 187 square feet and the basement has been reduced by 90 square feet. ¯The project has been expanded to include a landscape plan for the entire site. ¯The Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) request has been changed to a Variance request to allow the second floor of the building to encroach into the daylight plane along the West and South property lines. ¯Other minor architectural changes were proposed and reviewed by the ARB. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project location is shown in Attachment D. The project includes the following components: ¯A new Health Care building for the Channing House, including 27 skilled nursing units, 26 assisted living units and associated dining/activity spaces; ¯Closure of the through alley that connects Homer Avenue to Channing Avenue; ¯A landscape plan for the entire site; and ¯A Variance to allow the building to encroach into the side yard daylight plane for PC zoned projects adjacent to residential zones. The total number of living units would be adjusted so that there would be a reduction in the total number of living units on the site as follows: Number of Living Units Skilled Nursing 21 27 Assisted Living 48 26 Apartments 191 205 KEY ISSUES: Staff has identified the following key issues for the Commission’s consideration and discussion: Lot Coverage and Floor Area The project is located adjacent to RM- 15 and RM-30 zoned properties. The property was zoned R-4 prior to the PC zone change in 1961. The proposed Health Care building would result in modifications to the lot coverage and square footage on the site. The following table compares the existing and proposed lot coverage and floor area ratios to those permitted in the adjacent RM-15 and RM-30 zones, the zone having the highest density in the City today (RM-40) and to the previous zoning (R-4). City of Palo Alto Page 2 Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Comparison PC - 2007 (Existing)30% PC - 2007 (Proposed)43% RM-15 (RM-2)35% RM-30 (RM-3)40% RM-40 45% R-4 45% 2.11:1 2.83:1 .5:1 .6:1 * 1:1 no FAR maximum *For projects with underground parking The proposed project would result in a greater lot coverage and gross floor area than is permitted in the adjacent residential zones. The R-4 zone would have permitted a residential development with a 45% lot coverage on the 120,000 square foot parcel, that could have yielded approximately a 2.7 FAR (based on six stories under the 65 foot tall height limit). The proposed project would be below the permitted lot coverage at that time (1961) but would have a greater FAR. The Commission should consider if the project’s resulting increase to existing lot coverage and floor area would be consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Height and Setbacks The proposed building would be located where there is currently an at-grade parking lot and one- story cottage used for storage. The following table compares the PC setback requirements to those of the adj acent RM-15 and RM-30 residential zones, the zone having the highest density in the City today (RM-40) and the parcel’s previous zoning(R-4). PC -2007 RM-15 RM-30 RM-40 R-4 Height and Setbacks Requirements 142’ (existing building) 31’ 8" (proposed building) 30’ 35’ 40’ 65’ 10 feet 20’ .along Channing, 16’ along Homer, 10’ at first floor and ½ the height of the building above the first floor along side and rear yards 10’ at front and side yards, 20’ at rear yard The proposed building would meet the height requirement of the RM-30 zone and the previous R-4 zone but would be 1 ’-8" taller than is permitted in the RM-15 zone. The project would meet the setback requirements of all zones, except for the RM-15 and RM-30 zones, which would require a 16 foot setback along Homer as opposed to the 15 foot setback that is proposed. The Channing House has installed story poles that depict the height of the proposed building. The story poles should assist the Commission in determining if the height is appropriate in relation to the neighboring properties. Daylight Plane/Variance The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the second floor of the proposed building to encroach into the required daylight plane along the shared property lines. The following table City of Palo Alto Page 3 compares the PC daylight plane requirements to those of the adjacent RM-15 and RM-30 zones, the zone having the highest density in the City today (RM-40) and to the original R-4 zoning. Re~ uirements Beginning at a height often feet at the side and rear lot lines and increasing at PC -2007 a 1:2 slope (one meter for each two meters of distance from the side and rear lot lines, approximately an angle of 26 degrees) RM-15 Beginning at a height of five feet (or 10 feet for the RM-30 zone) (or 15 feet RM-30 for the RM-40 zone) at the side lot lines and increasing at an angle of 45 RM-40 degrees (1:1 slope) Beginning at a height of 25 feet at the setback lines and increasing at a slope ~-4 of two feet for each one foot of distance from the setback lines * (approximately an angle of 63 degrees) ¯ Required Front and Side Setbacks: 10 feet; required Rear Setback: 20 feet The existing Channing House building does not meet the PC daylight plane requirements. The variance would allow the proposed building to be located closer to the adjacent properties than would normally be permitted. The building would meet the daylight plane requirements of the adjacent RM-15 and RM-30 properties, except at the corners. The maximum encroachment proposed begins at a height of approximately 17 feet at the building corners, approximately 20 feet along the West Elevation, and approximately 19 feet along the South Elevation and extends horizontally the entire length of the building on both elevations. In order for the Variance request to be approved, the findings listed in Section 18.76.030(c) of the Municipal Code must be made. The draft variance findings and applicant’s va.riance request letter are included in Attachment C for the Commission’s consideration. Alley (Lane 56) The project would result in the partial closure of the private alley (Lane 56) that connects Homer to Channing Avenue. The adjacent Channing Place Townhomes (537-547 Channing Avenue) has a fifteen foot wide access easement agreement with the Channing House for use of the portion of the alley that would remain open. The alley is used by delivery and emergency vehicles to access the Channing House loading area, and by the Channing Place residents to access their below grade garages. The alley does not meet the 20 foot wide requirement for two-way traffic. The project would include widening the curb-cut along Channing Avenue and the area in front of the loading area to 20 feet. The Channing Place residents have expressed concern that trucks may block them from exiting or entering their garages if-the alternate alley exit/entrance at Homer Avenue is closed. The transportation engineer for the Channing House studied operations in the alley for one day and stated in the traffic analysis, Attachment H, that there would be no impact from the partial closing of the alley. The City’s Transportation staff and ARB, however, have since requested that the Chamling House conduct a two-week trial closure of the alley. The results of that stud5, are compiled in Attachment I, but were not submitted in time for staff to review. Transportation staff will provide comments at the meeting. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Parking The senior living uses on the site are not identified in the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore the Channing House traffic study used the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Manual to determine the parking demand for the project. The study determined that the project would require two additional parking spaces, as shown in the following table: Skilled Nursing 21 units 9 27 units 11 Assisted Living 48 units 16 26 units 9 Senior Adult Housing 191 units 96 205 units 103 The following table shows how the parking would be adjusted by the proposed project: Parking Spaces Underground - Channing House 73 Surface - Front Parking Lot 52 Surface - Rear Parking Lot 37 Underground - Health Care building - 73 53* *One space would be reserved for the Channing House Shuttle bus The project would maintain the existing 162 spaces, which is more than the 123 spaces estimated per the ITE. The remaining 39 spaces in the front parking lot would be identifiedas Visitor Parking as a mitigation measure. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan The existing Channing House building substantially exceeds the height limit for the neighborhood and is not consistent with the neighborhood character. The existing Channing House building would not comply with the current Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the proposed building was reviewed by staff for compliance of with the Comprehensive Plan independent of the existing Channing House building. The project’s compliance with the applicable section of the Comprehensive Plan Policies is described in Attachment J. The project appears to comply with the Comprehensive Plan based on staff analysis. The Commission should confirm the project’s compliance with the Comprehensive Plan prior to a recommendation to the City Council. Public Comments Staff has received numerous letters from the public both in support and in opposition to the project. All letters to date that have been received since the project was first submitted have been compiled and bound in a separate packet that will be available at the hearing for the public to view and will have been provided to the Commissioners. The concerns of those that oppose the project are related to the size and location of the new building, neighborhood compatibility, privacy impacts, loss of sunlight, construction impacts, noise, continued illumination, lack of City of Palo Alto Page 5 explanation for the need of the building, parking and traffic. Communications in support generally are from residents at the Channing House or are from supporters of the facility’s health care and senior housing benefit. A member of the public, Larry Wertman, has submitted requests with respect to the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA requires that the City make reasonable accommodations for Larry Wertman, who has stated that he is not comfortable in a public hearing setting. The City has made the following accommodations: 1) City staff has read a statement on behalf of Larry Wertman at all public hearings for the project, 2) Mr. Wertman’s letters have been attached to the staff report for Board and Commission’s consideration, 3) staffhas met with Mr. Wertman to discuss the project privately on several occasions, 4) two members of the ARB have met privately with Mr. Wertman outside of the public hearing setting and, 5) Mr.-Wertmanhas been given copies of the staff reports as soon as they become available. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Initial Study analyzing the potential impacts of the project on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has been prepared and a Negative Declaration (ND) was available for a 20-day public review from June 14, 2006 through July 5, 2006. Proposed mitigation measures include: 1) signage limiting 39 parking spaces in front of the existing building to be visitor use only, 2) signage designating the alley as a fire lane and prohibiting parking, 3) painting the alley curb red, 4) adding traffic control devices at the entrance to the belowrgrade parking, 5) widening the curb cut to 20 feet, and 6) re-striping the pedestrian crosswalks. The Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy of the Initial Study/ND. Public comments were received during the public review period. Should there be any substantial project revisions or any new impacts identified, the Initial Study would be revised and circulated for another 20-day public review period. ATTACHMENTS: B. C. D. E. F, G. H. I. J, K. L. M. N. O. P. Planned Community Ordinance Amendment (will be provided at places) ARB Findings & Draft Conditions of Approval Draft Variance Findings & Applicants Variance Request Letter Project Aerial & Zone Map Commission StaffReport and Minutes of March 22, 2006 ARB StaffReport and Minutes of July 6, 2006 ARB Staff Report and Minutes of August 3, 2006 Traffic Operations Analysis, Korve Engineering, November 2005 Channing House Alley Trial Closure Findings Comprehensive Plan Compliance Development Program Statement Development Schedule Historical PC Ordinances for 850 Webster Street Initial Study and Negative Declaration Public Comments Record (Commissioners only) Project Plans (Commissioners only) City of Palo Alto Page 6 COURTESY COPIES: Channing House John Northway Lisa Wang, HKI&T Channing Place Homeowners Association Albert C. Starr William & Marla McCormack Daniel Sneider Doris Anne Stoessel Deborah Dooley Joyce & Larry Wertman Marie Mookini Kevin Vincent Sheehan Nadine Matityahu PREPARED BY:Gina La Torra, Associate Planner REVIEWED BY:Amy French, Manager of Current Planning DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams Chief Planning and Transportation Official City of Palo Alto Page 7 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 Thursday August 3, 2006 REGULAR MEETING - 8:00 AM City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ROLL CALL: Board members: Kenneth Kornberg (Chair) David Solnick (Vice Chair) Judith Wasserman Clare Malone Prichard(AbsenO Grace Lee Staff Liaison: Beth Bourne, Senior Planner Staff: Amy French, Manager for Current Planning Chris Riordan, Senior Planner Steven Turner, Senior Planner Gina LaTorra, Associate Planner Alicia Spotwood, Staff Secretary PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows: Announce agenda item Open public hearing Staff recommendation Applicant presentation - Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff Public comment - Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. Applicant closing comments- Three (3) minutes Close public hearing Motions/recommendations by the Board Final vote The Director’s decision will be posted at the Downtown Library Page 1 CONTINUANCES The Architectural Review Board will review the agenda at or around 10:00 A.M. to determine if the remaining items on the agenda can be completed by 12:00 Noon. In the event that the ARB determines that specific items will not be heard at today’s meeting, review of such items will be continued to a date certain. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. APPR 0 VAL OF MINUTES. The minutes of July 6, 2006 were approved (4-0-0-1, Board member Wasserman moved, seconded by Board member Solnick, Board member Malone Prichard absent) with correction to item # 2, condition #3 to read propose a different color for the first floor window frame and mullions. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. CONSENT: 4219 E1 Camino Real [05PLN-00157|: Request by DR Horton Homebuilders for Architectural Review Board determination that the following items for a previously approved lgl-unit residential project are consistent with the Board’s approval criteria and project conditions: Review of the architectural details of the Type C and Type D condominiums and the Community Building. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified by the City Council in June 2004. Zone District: CS(H), CS(L). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and support the revisions to this project, which were made by the applicant in response to the Conditions of Approval, dated August 30, 2005. Architectural Review Board Action: The Board continued the project to the meeting of August 17, 2006, (4-0-0-1, Board member Wasserman moved, seconded by Board member Lee, Board member Malone Prichard absent). UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Public Hearing. 2.850 Webster [05PLN-00290]: Request by Channing House for architectural review of a new 32,185 square foot Health Care building for the Channing House, including 27 skilled nursing units, 26 assisted living units, and associated dining/activity spaces, and a Page 2 16,437 square foot underground garage. Review processes to implement this project would involve a Planned Community (PC) amendment and a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE); The public review period of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) commenced on July 5, 2006. Staff Recommendation: Staffrecommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review the proposed project, including potential aesthetic impacts of the requested daylight plane encroachments, and provide recommendations to the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) and City Council regarding the Negative Declaration and the project design, based on the draft ARB Findings (Attachment C), and subject to the proposed Conditions of Approval (Attachment D). Public Testimony: Kevin Vincent Sheehan, Palo Alto: Stated his concerns regarding the massing of the building, and potential noise from the new construction and his desire to have a traffic study prepared. Ray, Channing House Resident: Stated his support for the project. Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended approval of the project to the Planning and Transportation Commission, (4-0-0-1, Board member Kornberg moved, seconded by Board member Wasserman, Board member Malone Prichard absent) with the following additional conditions: 1)The Channing House shall consult with the neighbors along the West elevation to develop a landscaping plan that is amicable to both sides. 2)The building materials and color palate shall return to the ARB S0bcommittee. 195 Page Mill Road and 2825~ 2865~ 2891~ and 2901 Park Boulevard |05PLN00175|: Request by Court House Plaza Company for major Architectural Review Board review of a 157,387 square foot, three story building that would include 50,467 square feet of ground floor Research and Development Space topped by two levels of residential apartments totaling 84 units, plus a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. Zone District: GM. THIS ITEM WAS NOT HEARD AND WAS CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN. NEW B USINESS: Public Hearing. 3412 Hillview Avenue |06PLN-00157|: Request by Stanford Management Company on behalf of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University for a Site and Design Review application to allow the demolition of two research/office buildings, totaling 68,300 square feet, and construction of a 74,000 square-foot research/office building, parking structure and associated site improvements, to establish a cohesive SAP Labs campus in the Stanford Research Park. Design Enhancement Exceptions are requested to exceed the maximum allowable building height and site coverage. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: Page 3 RP-5(D). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the City Council approve the Negative Declaration (Attachment I), with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, and approve the Site and Design Review application and the two Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs) for 3412 Hillview Avenue as requested based upon the findings (Attachment A) and conditions of approval (Attachment D). Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended, (3-0-0-2, Board member Solnick moved, seconded by Board member Wasserman, Board member Kornberg absent due to conflict of interest and Board member Malone Prichard absent) City Council approve the Site and Design application, and two Design Enhancement Exceptions with findings and conditions of approval and the additional finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. The building’s roof deck and vertical trellis feature shall return to the ARB Subcommittee. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEMBER REPRESENTATION AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING. SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING: The following items were reviewed by the Subcommittee. Board Members: Judith Wasserman Grace Lee 200 California Avenue: Review of the following: ¯Modification to the drainage design of the front canopy and the 12" deep window sills ¯Changes to the material used for the wainscot o Paint colors Additional trees added to the east side of the trash enclosure 2825/2865 El Camino Real: Review of the following: ¯Design of the front entry awing and the eave over the south corner of the building ¯Details of the fence along the north property line. ¯Art that is to be located on the northeast building elevation ~Carport design STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: Project Description: Architectural review of sidewalk furniture, including three tables and twelve chairs, and metal fencing that would be compliant with the Santa Clara County Alcoholic Beverage Control requirements for alcoholic beverage service in public ways for the business, "Mantra Restaurant". Page 4 Applicant:Diane Shoemaker on behalf of Palo Alto Theater Corporation Address:632 Emerson Street, Mantra Restaurant, 06PLN-00171 Approval Date: July 17, 2006 Project Description: Minor staff level architectural review of a new automatic teller machine (ATM) at 301 University Avenue. Applicant:Wells Fargo Bank Address:301 University Avenue, 06PLNO00-172 Appro.val Date: July 26, 2006 Project Description: Minor staff level architectural review for one new non-illuminated monument sign for the business "Washington Mutual" Applicant:Washington Mutual Address:2846 Middlefield Road, 06PLNO00-376 Approval Date: July 21, 2006 ADA. Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (voice) or 650-328-1199 (TDD) Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Recordings. An audiotape of the proceedings may be obtained/reviewed by contacting the Planning Division at (650) 329-2440. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 329- 2571, Page 5 TO: Attachment L PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FROM:Gina La Torra Associate Planner DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: August 3, 2006 SUBJECT:850 Webster Street [05PLN-00290]: Request by Channing House for Planned Community (PC) amendment review of 32,185 square foot Health Care building, including 27 skilled nursing units, 26 assisted living units, associated dining/activity spaces, and a 16,437 square foot underground garage. Required approvals for this project include a Planned Community (PC) amendment and a Variance for encroachment into the required. daylight plane on two sides facing the West and South property lines; a draft Environment Impact Assessment (Initial Study) and Negative Declaration (ND) have been prepared and the public review period closed on July 5, 2006. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Architectural ReviewBoard (ARB) review the proposed project, including potential aesthetic impacts of the requested daylight plane eneroaehments, and provide recommendations to the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) and City Council regarding the Negative Declaration and the project design, based on the draft ARB Findings (Attachment C), and subject to the proposed Conditions of Approval (Attachment D). BACKGROUND: Previous ARB Review On July 6, 2006, the ARB reviewed the original proposal for a project that included a site development plan for a new two story Channing House Health Care building with senior skilled and assisted living units and a below grade parking garage, the replacement of an at-grade parking lot, the partial closure of an alley that extends from Homer Avenue to Channing Avenue and landscape improvements throughout the site. The July 6, 2006 ARB staff report is Attachment A to this report. The ARB recommended continuation of the project to August 3, 2006 to allow the applicant to return with more information. The minutes of the hearing are provided as Attachment B. City of Pa/o Alto Page 1 At the hearing several members of the public spoke about the item. Three speakers were in favor of the project and expressed the need for an improved facility. One speaker asked to have the alley closed for a trial period. Three speakers were opposed to the size, mass, height, and daylight plane encroachment, and another speaker was also concerned with the noise. The ARB members requested that the applicant retum with the following: ¯Revised and more detailed landscape plan with more outdoor living space shown, ¯Information on and design of the air handlers, ¯Details on the buildings architecture, ¯A more complete logistics plan addressing mitigation of potential construction impacts, ¯A more detailed sample board, ¯A site and building model, ¯An expanded story pole study, ¯A revised noise study that analyzes the air handlers,.and ¯A traffic study of the alley closure. DISCUSSION: Response to Comments The applicant has provided the following additional items in response to the ARB and public comments:. Color building elevations that identify the materials and show the acoustic screen and rain water leaders and scuppers, Details that show major and typical building exterior elements, such as various window and wall sections, trellis and awning connection points, rain gutters and scuppers, stair railings, planter boxes, eaves, and seismic joints, ¯A roof plan that shows drainage and mechanical equipment and screens, #A sustainability worksheet, ¯A revised acoustical report that analyzes the rooftop chillers and air handlers, ¯A revised landscape plan, and ¯Landscape and building lighting photometric studies. The applicant will present the model and sample board to the ARB at the hearing. Alley Study Staff has asked that the applicant complete a trial closure of the alley prior to the Commission hearing. The City’s Transportation Division has outlined study criteria to allow for a more accurate study during the trial closure. The findings of the trial will be discussed at the Commission meeting. If the Commission or Council directs that site and design changes be made as a result of the study, staff may require further review by the ARB. Logistics Plan A revised logistics plan has not been submitted. Staff recommends that a condition of approval be added to the project that requires the applicant’s logistic plan be submitted and approved by City of Palo Alto Page 2 Public Works before the start of construction. Staff also recommends a condition of approval be added to allow the ARB to review the final building and landscape details prior to the start of construction. This will allow for the planned development to be reviewed and approved by the Commission and Council prior to formulating the logistics plan and building and landscape details. The draft conditions of approval are included in Attachment D. Daylight Plane Encroachments As noted at the.last ARB hearing of this item, staff cannot support a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for the requested daylight plan eneroaehments. The applicant will be revising their application and submitting suggested findings for the variance prior to the Commission meeting, Staff and the Commission would review the variance request and make a recommendation to Council, who would determine if the necessary findings can be made. At the last ARB meeting, the ARB asked what the previous zoning would have allowed. In 1961, the Channing House parcel was changed from R-4: Oeneral Apartment District to PC-2007. The parking lot parcel (location of proposed Health Care building) remained in the R-4 zone until it was incorporated into the Channing House PC-2007 in 1969. The original Channing House parcel and the parking lot pared have since been merged, such that the total area is 120,000 square feet. The adjacent R-4 zoned parcels were rezoned to RM-2 (now RM-15) and RM-3 (now RM-30). The following tables compare the PC, RM-15, and RM-30 zone district requirements to the original R-4 zoning. Pro Da ht Setbacks uireme~ PC -2007 RM-15 RM-30 R-4 Beginning at a height often feet at the side and rear lot lines and increasing at a 1:2 slope (one meter for each two meters of distance from the side and rear lot lines, approximately an angle of 26 d~grees) Beginning at a height of five feet at the side lot lines and increasing at an angle of 45 degrees (1:1 slope) 142’ (existing building) 35’ (proposed height) 30’ 35’ Beginning at a height of 25 feet at the setback lines and increasing at a slope of two feet for each one foot of distance from the setback lines * (approximately an angle of 63 degrees) ¯ Required Front and Side Setbacks: 10 feet; Required Rear Setback: 20 feet 10 feet 20’ along Channing, 16’ along Homer, 10’ at first floor and ½ the height of the building above the first floor along side ’ and rear yards . 10’ at front and side yards, 20’ at rear yard City of Pato Alto Page 3 Pro Table: Lot Covera e and FAR Cq ~arison PC - 2007 (Existing) PC - 2007 (Proposed) RM-15 (RM-2) RM-30 (RM-3) R-4 30% 43% 40% 45% 21.1:1 28.3:1 .5:1 .6:1 * no FAR maximum *For projects with underground parking Theoretically, if the Channing House buildings were removed and the 120,000 square foot site were developed with the previous R-4 zoning, a residential projeet could have had a 45% lot coverage and could have been 65 feet tall, yielding approximately a 2.7 FAR TIMELINE: ARB Preliminary Review Meeting: Commission Initial Review Meeting ND, Start of 20-day Public Review ND, End of 20-day Public Review ARB Formal Hearing: ARB Continued Hearing Commission Formal Meeting: City Council Meeting: January 19, 2006 March 22, 2006 June 14, 2006 July 5, 2006 July 6, 2006 August 3, 2006 To be Determined To be Determined ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Initial Study, which analyzes the potential impacts of the project on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has been prepared and a Negative Declaration (ND) was available for a 20-day public review from June 14, 2006 through July 5, 2006.. The Architectural Review Board may consider public testimony on the Initial Study/ND at the hearing. The ARB and Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy of the Initial Study/ND. The ARB is requested to focus on potential impacts related to the aesthetics, land use, parking, noise, and tree removal issues. These environmental factors were deemed "less than significant" in the Initial Study. Public comments were received during the public review period. Should there be any substantial project revisions or any new impacts identified, the Initial Study would be revised and be circulated for another 20-day public review period. ATTACHMENTS: A.Staff Report from ARB hearing on July 6, 2006 (without attachments) B.Draft Minutes from ARB hearing on July 6, 2006 C.Draft ARB Findings D.Draft Conditions of Approval City of Palo Alto Page 4 ARB Members Only. E. Plan set package COURTESY COPIES: Carl Braginsky, Channing House John Northway Lisa Wang, HKI&T Albert C. Start William & Maria McCormack Daniel Sneider Doris Anne Stoessel Deborah Dooley Joyee & Larry Wertman Marie Mookini Kevin Vincent Sheehan Nadine Matityahu Prepared by: Gina La Torra, Associate Planner ~, Manager Review; Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning City of Palo Alto Page 5 Attachment M Planned Community Ordinance History PC Amendment - Channing House 850 Webster Street 05PLN-00290 PC-2007, 1961: Zone change amendment from R-4 to PC to permit the retirement center. PC-3461, 1961" Amended lot coverage, height, setbacks, and development schedule PC-3960, 1962: Amended development schedule PC-2492, 1969: Zone change of the parking lot from R-4 to PC PC-4048, 1991: Seismic upgrades and service elevator PC-4900, 2006: Amending permitted uses to allow utilities facilities The Councll of the City of Palo ~Ito does ORDAIN as follows: Settles I. Section 3.02, ~he Zonin~ Hap, of ~he ~onlnB Ordinance No. 13Z4, is hereby amended ~o change s dio~rlc~ ~r~ R-~ ~0 ~C (Reti~emen~Cen~er) ~or ~he proper~y a~ 850.~ebster. Street° Section ~, A map degcr~blng said affected proper~y sad the zone chsn~e contemplated hsreby~ ~nd a DeVelopment Plan u~der Sea,ion 16.07 of the Zonin~ Ordinance is ~ffixed hore~o, marked Exhibi~ A and by referenoe mad, a p~r~ hereof. Section 3. The Developm~n~ Plan is approved in accordance with the. followln~ condltlonst Permitted.Osest Cooperative-type retlremant residence ’6f not to excded 320 units, with dining, cultur~l and recreational facilities for wse of tensnra and @ues~s as outllned in eppllcat~on. ~a-~ldin~ Co, eraSe| 41~350. sq. ft. Includin~ ~rea o~ approximately ~,108 sq. f~. ¢o~ered by balconies~ terrace end marquee. Hei~ht~Main Structure - 113.5 ft. (I0 stories) Penthouse Z3.0 ft. Setback8: In accordance with plot plan. Si~e~¯~-_’.~oversgel 41.3~ (~ncludin~ Open Green ~reas! 31r650 sq. ft. (or 98.90 sq. ft/unlt) Lsnd,csplng in accor~nce,.with plo~ pl-~n.. Access features, drlv~ay8, traffic circulation in accordance with plo~ plan ..... Off-Stree~ Parkln~ A minimum of 123 spaces (73 covered ~d 50: unc~rvered) to 5e developed in accoxdanc~ w~th plan,, with ~ufflclent addi~ion~l area xeserved to provlde.a min!mu,lof 55 spaces (.property across alley). Si~ In sccordsnce with Sign Ordinance for R-4 Distrlccs. Development Schedul~: Star~ of construction by Jannsry i, -196~, with 6ompletlon within approximately 9ighteen months thereafter. o I - section. expiration of thlrry days. from its passage. I~TRODUCED :’February ’~70 1961, PASSED:March 13,.1961, bTunanlmous voice vote. ’City A6toi~’sy APPROVE D: APPROVED AS TO.CONTeNTS: ~lanRing Department RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL-OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AHENDINO ORDI~NCE NO. 2007, BEING THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 850 I~EBS~R STREET The Council of the C~cy of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as followsl ’" Section 1. That l~ems b. and ~. of Section 3 of" Ordlnence- No. 20071 beln~ the’d~velopment plan for the property at 850" webster St~ee~ (Chennlng. House) be amended ~o’read as follows~ Structure~’To~I Building Co.erase: ~1.350’sq. ft.~ Lncludtn~~=ea of app~bxlma~aly 7,10~ ~q, £~. ~overed b~ balconios~ ~e~race and marquee,. N~tn .S~ruccure Penthouse Chimney 117,5 .(I0 s~orles)23.01.5 ~ feet. Se~bacRs: Inaccordance wi~h plo~ plan Developmen~_Schedu~e: Stern of construction by February LS~ I~62~ ~ith comple~on within approxt- ~atsly elsh~eenmonths ~hereef~er. Section 2. All o~her condi¢_ione *sh~l] renmtn ss prevtousL> .approved. -INTRODUCED AND PASSEDI December if0 1961, by unanimous voice vote. APPROVED AS TO FORM: -~PPROVED A,.q TO COHTEHT~ RESOLUTION NO. 3690 KESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING .ORDINANCE NO. 2007 (PREVIOUSLY. A~LENDED BY RESOLUTION No. 3461, DECEMBER II , 1961) BEING TIIE P-G DEVELOPM]gNT PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY I(aNOWN ~S 850 WEBSTER STREET (RETIREMENT CENTER) The Counc1l of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION I.That Item-(f) of Section 3 of Ordinance No. 200.7 (previously amended by Resolution No. 3461, dated De¢’~mber ii, 1961) being the P-C Development Plan for the property known as 850 Webster Street be further amended to read as follows i ."f. DeveloPment..Sh.he.dule. Start of construction by February 15, 1962, with completion by March 15.; 1964." INTRODUCED.AND PASSED: November IZ, 1963 by. a unanimous vote. ATTEST:APPROVED: AP~ROVgD AS TO FORM: /s/ DeanR, Cresap Mayor. /s/ Robert E. Michalski ~!ty A~t6’rney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Louis J. F,ourcroy . Planning Department ORIGINAL ORDINANCE NO 249Z O~DINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CI’I"/ 0F I’ALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18,08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL ’CODE CHANGING TIIE ZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERT.Y KNOWN AS The Council of the City of Palo Alr-o does ORDAIN as follows : . SECTION I. Section 18,08.040 of thee Palo Alto Mu~icipal Code (the Zoning Map) ~s her, eby amended to change the zoning of certain property known as 520-532 Homer Ave.nut from R-~ to P-C. SECTION 2. Said prope.rty .is shown on a map a~rached hereto, marked EXHIBIT A and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3, This ordinance shall become effective upon the expiration of-thirty days from i~s passage. INTRODUCED:March ~0, *969 PASSED:Marcia 24, 1969 NOES: None ABSENT: "Non~ ATTI : FOP~M : ~ttorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~o~mnunit, ;velopment ~,),L~ J.’;~J ,:~.~ lJlT.V~’: I,O[~I’II’:NJ’ lh .A~’~ AMEND P-C PLAN CHANGE , R-4 TO P’C :~EMAINS R-4 -zc-zo ZONE CHANGE. BO.UNDARY ~ EXISTING zoNE BOUNDARY SCALE ~o’- .ORDINANCE NO 4048 ORDINANCE. OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNIC- IPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) BY AMENDING THE EXISTING PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING DESIGNATION OF ~HE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 850 WEBSTER STREET TO PROVIDE FOR SEISMIC UPGRADING AND A SERVICE ELEVATOR (CHANNING HOUSE) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. sec%ionlS.08.040 of the Palo Alt’o Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by amending the existing "PC Planned Community" zoning designation ofcertain property known as 850 Webster Street (the "subject property") to allow for the Construction and maintenance of certain hereinafter described imp[ovements on the subject property. The subject property is shown on a map ahtached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. The existing PC zoning designation of the subject property was enacted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2007, adopted March 13, 1961. The development plan for the Subject property .was adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2007, and was amended by Resolution No. 3461, adopted December II, 1961 and by Resolution No. 3690, adopted November 12, 1963, SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds with. respect to the subject property that: (a)The existing senior housing development, because it was originally developed under a Planned Community zone, is of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the. seismic upgrading and service elevator addition. (b)The propqsed seismic upgrading and service elevator addition will-result in public beqefitsnot otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts orcombining districts, in that the senior housing development will be voluntarily upgraded to reduce potential harm to life and property as a result Of seismic activity~ The service elevator will prow[de additional seismic bracing at the south- end of the bu}iding and will allow staff andother personnel to avoid the disruptive use of the front elevator lobby for emergency and other service use. (c) 910701 6de 0030305 The proposed seismic upgrading and service elevator addition are consistent with the Palo ’Alto Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites and within the general vicinity, in that the project will increasethe seismic safety of bothi~.he residents of the senior facility and a’djacent residential development,~ and wi}l generally remain within the parameters of the existing Planned community zone .and site d~velopment regulations. SECTION 3. Those certain pl~ns, entitled "Channing House Seismic Upgrade, prepared by B.H~" Bocook, Architect, Inc., given Architectural Review Board approval on June 6, 1991, a copy of which is on file £n the Planning Department, andto which, copy reference is hereby made concerning the full particulars thereof, are hereby collectively approved asan amendment to. the Development Plan for the subject property pursuant to Section 18.68.!20. .Said amendment to the Development Plan is approved for the following uses, and subject to the following conditions: (a)Permitted U~es. No change (b)Q~ndi~ional.~Uses, No change (c)Site Development Requlations.. No change except as specs[fically changed by the amendment approved by this ordinance. (d)Parkinq ~nd. Loadinq RequiremeDts. The parking and loading requirements governing the subject property shall be in accordance with the Development Plan as amended. (e)Special Requirements.. ..The following conditions. are made special requirements conditioning the approval granted by this ordinance: (1)All" tree protection measures contained in. the arborist report prepared by S.P. McClenahan Company, dated June 3, 1991, shall be implemented. Specifically, the. following measures shall be taken: (i)Prior to initiation of construction activity, temporary barricades shall be installed around all trees in the construction area, as indicated in the arborist report. The barricades may be placed around individual trees o~ groups of trees, as needed. The barricades shall be at .least six feet in.. height, shall enclose the entire area under the dripline (except where t~e arborist report indicates dripline excavation is required) and shall be made visible by means of a paint or fabric strip along the top edge. The barricades shall remain in place until final construction operations are completed. 91070~ bdc 0030305 - No materials or-excavated soils shall be stored wit.hin any tree enclosure area. (iii)During and upon completion of any trenching/grading operation within a tree’s dripline, should any roots greater than two inches in diameter be damaged, broken or severed, timely root pruning shall be accomplished uhder supervision of a qualified arborist. (iv)All trees impacted by cons’truction shall be fertilized by means-of a deep. root Soil injection in spring and summer. This fertilization program shall begin Prior ~o the start of construction. Cv)-All trees ’impabted by construction shall be irrigated at regular four week inter~als during the p~riod May 1 through October 31. Irrigation shall be accomplished as recommended in the arborist report. (vi)Above ground surface runoff shall not be directed into tree canopy .areas from adjacent areas. To avoid lifting of the pavement, a root barrier shall be constructed along the edge of the new service elevator walkway. A temporary parking plan, as outlined~-in the June i0, 1991 letter from Fred H. Seal, shall be implemented during the entire construction period, andshall include the minimumfollowing measures: (i)The employee parking lot located on Homer Avenue shall be reserved for use by Channing House residents whose parking spaces are unavailable due to construction work. Channing House shall make arrangements for employees to park in .off-site lots, and prbvide shuttle service for these employees. (iii)The contractor shall establish an acceptable off-site parking location for construction of. employees who cannot be accommodated within designated¯ on-site construction areas, and provide shuttle i 9|070[ bdc 0030305 3 service to bring them to and fr.om the site " (iv)A final parking plan indicating the off- site parking locations for both employee and contractor parking shall be submitted for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. All construction activities shall be subject to compliance with-the provisions of the City of _.Palo Alto Noise OrdinanCe .(ChaPter 9.10 of thePalo Alto Municipal Code). In addltiQn, noise measures detailed in. the JUne i0, 1991 letter fro~ F~ed H. Seal, including the fol!owing, shall be implemented d~ring project construction: (i~The basement area shall be used as much as possible for construction activities. Shouldany construction activities create significant noise problems for residents, such construction activities shall be limited to no more than six-hours per day. (i±i) (iv) (v) The use of quieter equipment..shall be sbbstituted for impact tools such as jackhammers, whenever feasibl~. During removal of the concrete slab under the skilled nursing wing, patients shall be relocated to a .quieter area of the -building. All subsequent work in the area of the skilled n~rsing wing shall be monitored to ensure patients are not negatively impacted. All access to the work area, with theexception of ground leve~ construction and storage areas., sha!.l be directly into the basement, area, and-all materials shall be delivered directly to the work area. . To reduce any potential problems of maneuverability in the garage area, theparking garage shall be #edes.igned as follows: (i)The columns in the preliminary -plans dated 6/6/91 were shown in a square configuration of approximately five feet per side. The columns shall be reshaped and/or rotated to eliminate the square configuration-which will provide both additional width, and ease of access to the parking stalls. (ii)Parking spac9 #2 is an end space and.is completely open on.one side. This space is currently i0’6" by 20’ and following modification of the single column adjacent to this space, it should still be at least 8’ by 20’ or possibly larger. Rest~iping of the end section could also add additional space if. necessary. Used by a mid-sized automobile at. present,this usage should continue. (iii)Access to parking space ~iI will be improved significantly by the modification of the column design allowing normal traffic usage. Should it be necessary, a compact automobile could be assigned to this space. (iv)The compact spaces designated #55, #56 and #57 were located in the incorrect position of the 6/6/91 drawings and shall be-relocated to the space shown on the drawings .as space @44 and space #45 which will provide a minimum parking space of 7’8" or larger. In th~ new location-the smaller support column is in the middle of the parking space rather than’ a~ the end of the space, Which improves access significantly. (6)To reduce -dust levels during construction, exposed earth surfaces shall be watered frequently during the late morning and the end of the day, with the frequency of watering increasing on windy days. If necessary, all streets and haul routes shall be cleaned daily. ~:,..~.. Spillage resulting from any hauling operations :’7. along or acrossany public or private property ,~~’"..- shall be ~emoved immediately and pai~ for by the -’" ~..contractor. Dust nuisances originat.ing from the /~ i contractor’s operations, either inside or ’~",~.mutside the right-of-way shall be controlled at :>.-. ~~.the contractor’s expense. Development Schedule.. Construction of all work to be done pursuant to the amendment adopted by this ordinance shall be completed by October 31, 1993. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds that this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California 910701 bd¢ 0030305 Environmental Quality Act i"CEQA’~’) , pursuant to Section 15301(e) (2) of the CEQA guidelines. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall, be effective on the commencement of the thirty-first day after .the. date of its adoption. INTRODUCED:July 22, 1991 PASSED:August 19, 1991 .AYES: Cobb, ~azzino, Levy, M~Cown, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley NOES: ABSENT~Andersen, Kniss ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: . ’ Attorney zector of Planning and Community Environment 6 910701 bdc 0030~105 4 wEBSTER T EXHIBIT A PC-283s SITE LOCATIO.N P0- 2830 850 Webster Street .GRAPHIC /~TTACHNENT DATE:¯ 3/22191 ~ SCALE: .1"~" 200’ PROJECT; 850 Webster Street: Seismic Up£radinK and height variance request, Planne . Co--unity Zone amend- Ju~e 23, 1993 Stephen W. Player 550 Hamilton Avenue suite 300p~nn~g~v~ Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Player: ~ubject:Request for Extension of ordihand~~o. 4048 " Development Schedule in response to your letter, dated June i~, 1993, requesting an extension ofthe deadlines listed in Section 3(f) of Ordinance No. 4048 for property located at’!"850 Webster Street, the extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.68.130 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. " The extension is for a maximum period of one additional year only, such that the construetion must be completed by Ottober 31, 1994. Further extensions are not allowed under~ this code section, any further extension would have to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission andCity Council.. Please feel free to contact meat (415) 329-2321 with any questions. Sincerely, Chief Planning Official Fred Herman, Chief Building official Jim Gilliland, Manager Planning Projects Lori Topley, Senior Planner 250 I-lm)~iliot~ Ave~ue P.O. Box 10250 PaloAlto, CA 94303 415.329.2441 dlS.329.2240Fax ORDINANCE NO. 4900 ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)BY AMENDING THE EXISTING PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 850 WEBSTER STREET TO PROVIDE FOR UTILITY FACILITIES The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. That paragraph a. of Section 3 of Ordinance No. 2007 being the P-C Development Plan for the property known as 850 Webster Street be further amended to read as follows: a.Permitted Uses: (i)Cooperative-type retirement residence of not to exceed 320 units, with dining, cultural and recreational facilities for use of tenants and guests as outlined in application; and (2) Utilities facilities. SECTION 2. Th±s ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of ins adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: April 3, 2006 AYES:BARTON, BEECHAM, CORDELL,DREKMEIER,KISHIMOTO,KLEIN, KLEINBERG, MOSSAR, MORTON NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: EST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sr.Deputy City Attorney APPROVED : Mayo Communl Planning and Environment 060428 syn 0120087 Attachment N