HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 184-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 184:10
DATE: APRIL 12, 2010
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance
Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Change the Classification of Property located at 1700 Embarcadero
Road from PC Planned Community 2378 and PC Planned
Community 2491 to Service Commercial (CS) and Site and Design (D)
Review; and Approval of a Record of Land Use Action for a Site and
Design Review and Variance for the Construction of a Four-Story
Hotel and Restaurant at 1700 Embarcadero Road.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposal before the City Council is to permit planning entitlements to allow the construction
of a 4-story building which would include a 147-room hotel and a 5,600 square foot restaurant.
Approvals are requested for a zone change from Planned Community (PC) to Commercial
Service with Design Review Combining District (CS(D)), site and design review and a variance
fronl the CS zone "build-to" lines for the development, and environmental review for the entire
project. The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) and Architectural Review Board
(ARB) have unanimously recommended this Baylands gateway project. The proposed CS(D)
zone is consistent with the property's Comprehensive Plan land use designation, Service
Commercial, and the proposed building would meet the 50 foot height limit and Floor Area Ratio
criteria for hotels in the CS zone. The development also includes replacement of 25 existing trees
with 94 new trees.
RECO·MMENDATION
The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), Architectural Review Board (ARB), and
Staff recommend that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the requested
zone change to Service Commercial with a Site and Design Review combining district (CS)(D),
and approve the Site and Design and Variance application for development of a four-story hotel
and restaurant on the property located at 1700 Embarcadero Road, subject to approval findings in
the Draft Ordinance (Attachnlent A) and Findings and ,Conditions of Approval in the Draft
Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B). The order of Council action requested is as
follows:
(1) Review and approve the environmental document for the entire project;
(2) Adopt the Ordinance for the rezoning, with a second reading in two weeks; and
CMR: 184:10 Page 10f7
(3) Approve the Record of Land Use Action for the development project, encompassing the
application for the Site and Design Review and Variance.
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Existing Site and Context
The project site is located at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road. The
project site is approximately 2.5 acres and contains a single· 15,180 square foot restaurant
occupied by Ming's Chinese Cuisine & Bar with associated parking and landscaping. Most of
the existing site is paved or occupied by the 25 trees on the site. The site is surroundeq. by office
properties on all sides and across Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road. All surrounding
properties are zoned ROLM(E)(D)(AD), except for one adjacent Planned Community (PC;) to the
east. The project site was rezoned from LM(D) to Planned Community (PC Ordinance 2378) in
1967 and revised by resolution number 2491 in 1969. The Comprehensive Plan designation for
the site is Service Commercial.
Project Description
The proposed four story restaurant and hotel project would include a new 117,814 square foot
building with 147 guest rooms, a restaurant of approximately 5,602 square feet, a small amount
of retail (87 square feet), a small gym (541 square feet), one level of underground parking, and a
new surface parking lot and landscaping. The maximum height of the building would be 50 feet,
with a design that steps up and back from the corner of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore
Road. The proposed parking facilities would include 166 parking spaces, 90 of which will be
within the one level of underground parking, and the remaining 76 surface parking spaces would
be located in front of and around the sides of the building. The project inclUdes removal of the
existing building and 25 existing trees, as well as replacement of existing street trees, per city
staff recommendation.
The proposed project includes a reorientation of the property with the main entrance off of East
Bayshore Road which guides guests to the rear of the building where the main entrance to the
hotel is located under a cantilevered porte-cochere. If visitors take a left when entering the site
they will travel back toward Embarcadero Road and come to parking near the new restaurant
entrance at the building corner. closest to the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East
Bayshore Road. This building corner will open into the central pool courtyard as the building
height steps up and back with garden terraces above the second and third floors.
The applicant's project description is provided in Attachment E.
DISCUSSION
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Conformance
The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Service Commercial. Prior to the original PC
zone, implemented in 1967, the property was zoned LMD which was a zone that is now replaced
on adjacent properties with ROLM(E)(D) which generally allows for research and office uses.
The proposed Service Commercial (CS) zoning would conform to the Comprehensive Plan
designation for the property and the Site and Design Review (D) Combining District would be
consistent with the adjacent properties. The Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B)
provides a list of applicable Comprehensive Plan policies for this project. The proposed project
CMR: 184:10 Page 2 of7
would take advantage of the greater allowed floor area (up to 2.0 FAR) for hotels in the CS zone.
A table comparing the proposed project with the zoning requirements of the CS(D) district is
included as Attachment F. '
Height
The height and massing of the proposed building were among the significant concerns expressed
in previous reviews of this project. The project design has been revised since the preliminary
reviews, so that the proposal now meets the 50 foot height limit set forth in the CS zone
regulations. The revised design uses horizontal lines and shading devices to emphasize the
hOlizontality of the Baylands environment.
Airport Avigation Easement
The proposed project is within the Airport Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport. Though the
project is not directly below the line of approach for incoming aircraft, it was reviewed by the
County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission on September 24, 2008. This review
resulted in a requirenlent that the land owner grant an avigation easement for Palo Alto Airport,
setting forth acceptance of elevation limits and aircraft noise inlpacts, prior to issuance of
building permits. This is included in the conditions of approval outlined in the draft Record of
Land Use Action, Attachment B.
Trees/Landscaping
All of the 25 existing on site trees are proposed to be removed and replaced with 94 new trees.
None of these trees are protected trees and their removal and replacement is supported by the
Planning Arborist due to excessive topping, and inappropriate species for this Baylat).ds area. Ten
publicly owned trees originating in the right-of-way have been topped and disfigured repeatedly
for power line clearance above, and are recommended to be replaced by this project as part of a
comprehensive landscape and urban forest renewal measure. The proposed tree and 'shrub
palette has been reviewed by the Planning Arborist for 'compatibility with Sunset Zone 3 area
that will tolerate the predominant fill and 'bay mud' underlay soil horizon. Zone 3 is a transition
zone that incorporates indigenous and salt marsh (Zone 1) and ornamental planting (Zone 4). The
proposed planting will include an area at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East
Bayshore Road with a Baylands theme in plant species, layout, and signage. Overall, the project
landscape theme is consistent with the 2008 Baylands Master Plan, emphasizing:
The Baylands is a distinctive landscape character notable for its openness and
low profile. Because of shallow soils, brackish water, and persistent winds,
the landscape is flat and treeless, defined by the expansive horizon with a big
sky, flat water, and waving grasses. The natural color palette is a study in
muted tones. The landscape design intent should be simple serene and not
complicated.
While all of these elements cannot be achieved due to urban constraints such as the PG&E
transmission towers and traffic proximity, landscape design efforts have been successful to
diminish their apparent presence, such as thoughtful mounding and planting passing through the
tower legs, allowing grasses to soften the edge of formal curving walkways and providing stone
and bench seating for pas~ive relaxation. The more formal character of landscaping in other areas
of the site is blended with the Baylands corner through winding paths, and phasing of plant
materials (Sheet LD1.1). Internal planting on the parking structure has a cultural plant theme
CMR: 184:10 Page 3 of7
that should realize long lived timeframe. If the City Council approves removal of the 10 street
trees along East Bayshore Road they would also be replaced with equal numbers of trees that can
be appropriately spaced and correctly pruned to grow to an optimum height to avoid contlict and
topping from power lines above. This urban renewal of public trees is consistent with the City of
Palo Alto's Street Tree Management Plan strategy.
Parking/Traffic
The project, as proposed, will provide 166 parking spaces (90 in one level of undergrpund
parking), subject to approval of the requested 41 % reduction in the number of parking spaces
required for hotel rooms (87 provided where 147 are required), as shown in Attachment F. This
reduction is requested based on Section 18.52.040 Table 2 which allows for a reduction of up to
"75% of the spaces required for guest rooms, upon approval by the director based on a parking
study of parking generated by the mix of uses." Parking facilities for 26 bicycles are proposed,
situated at grade at multiple locations around the proposed building.
Baylands
The proposed project is within the Baylands Master Plan area. The ,property functions as a
primary gateway to the Baylands recreation and commercial area, and is designated as a scenic
route, a primary entry point and a major view corridor to the Baylands, as listed in the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, Map L-4. The major impacts of the master plan on the proposed project
will be in the areas of signage, nlaterials, and landscaping. The project design has incorporated
context sensitive design elements that were created within the landscape and right-of-way
frontage of the property on the west side of East Bayshore. The newly completed (2008) project
located at 2540 Watson Court (2300 East Bayshore) incorporated iconic elements and strong
visual character defining elements of the Baylands and Bixby Park, such as hillock mounding,
grasses, trails, waterway, passive use and observation deck elements (Sheet LD1.3). At staff's
request, the applicant has also creatively introduced several unique interpretive signs that to
achieve reflective interest of pedestrians, patrons and cyclists who will use both frontages of
Embarcadero and East Bayshore Roads. The proposed project contains elements consistent with
the Site Assessment & Design Guidelines of the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve (Catalyst
2005.) Examples of the unique interpretive signage are shown on plan sheet Sl. Functioning in
concert with the 2450 Watson Court project across the street, it is staff's opinion that a world
class Baylands gateway will have been created, achieving the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Program Goals L-71, Program T-57 and Map L-4.
Green Building
The project is subject to meeting the City's green building ordinance (Chapter 18.44) at the
LEED silver level. The applicant has, provided the required LEED checklist and the project
includes green elements in its design as shown on project plans, (Attachment K). Furthermore,
sustainable best practices for site planning are integrated for compliance with the city's parking
lot shading and pervious sUlface goals and water reduction policy.
Variance
The proposed project does not meet the 50% "build-to" requirements as the design includes a 30
foot setback along Embarcadero Road rather than the 0-10 foot setback required to create a 10-
12 foot sidewalk in the CS zone. The "build-to" lines required in the CS zone are consistent with
areas such as EI Camino Real or pedestrian oriented streets, rather than the project area where
buildings have significant setbacks and the general design is more consistent with the open feel
of the Baylands. The proposed project includes a design which brings the building closer to the
CMR: 184:10 Page 4 of7
street than other buildings in the area, and provides some presence on the street, which is the
goal of the "build-to" lines. The proposed building would span 50% of the frontage, but would
be but it is located 20 feet farther back from Embarcadero Road than is required by the code, in
order to work with the open context of other buildings near the Baylands. In addition, the site
includes an easenlent that prevents any building within 80 feet of the East Bayshore Road
property line because of existing PG&E power lines which run over the property in that location
constraining the site layout. A variance is indicated as the process for this exception, rather than
a Design Enhancement Exception, due to the extent of the setback discrepancy (20 feet). Draft
findings are included in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B).
Site and Design
The proposed zoning for this site includes the Site and Design Combining District (D), as is the
pattern for the area east of Highway 101 and in proximity to the Palo Alto Baylands. Staff has
prepared draft findings, included in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B), which
describe how the proposed project is compatible with adjacent uses and the existing
Comprehensive Plan designation, and is designed to upgrade the existing property through sound
principles of environmental design and ecological balance, as well as a respect for the adjacent
Palo Alto Baylands.
BOARD/COlVIMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning and Transportation Commission
The P&TC reviewed the proposed project at a public hearing on November 18, 2009. At this
hearing they unanimously recommended approval of the proposed project and negative
declaration, finding that the zoning is appropriate to this location, the project meets the Site and
Design Objectives, and the variance findings can be made. The P&TC also provided comments
and recommendations to the applicant, as well as requests of items that be prepared prior to ARB
review. These items included:
• Wayfinding and signage for all users (including bicyclists);
• Landscape materials should conform with Baylands list, or be supported by City arborist; .
,. . Massing of open comer of building;
• Design of primary entrance; and
• Impact to visibility of neighbor's signage with increased landscaping along Embarcadero
Road.
The applicant has responded to all of these issues in their revised plan set, and will show studies
that they have prepared of the visual impact on the signage of the Audi Dealership next door,
showing that the replacement of street trees, and relocation of Ming's signage will actually
increase visibility.
The project originally included a req~est for rezoning to a new Planned Community (PC) zone,
and had a preliminary review by the Planning & Transportation Commission (P&TC) on
September 10, 2008. The project at that time included 162 rooms in the proposed hotel. In
response to comments from the P&TC, the proposal was changed to include a rezoning to
Service Commercial (CS) rather than PC.
CMR: 184:10 PageS of?
Architectural Review Board
The project was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board at two public hearings. The first
ARB hearing was a preliminary review on January 15,2009. The ARB expressed concerns
about over-parking and emphasized the importance of working with the Baylands plant palette
and resolution of massing issues, but expressed support for the change from PC to CS zone. A
formal ARB hearing on the project was held on February 4,2010. One member of the public
spoke and expressed concern about parking. The ARB was supportive of the project and offered
minor design comments to be followed up as subcon1mittee items. The ARB found that the
project was consistent with the design guidelines. The ARB voted unanimously to recommend
that the City Council approve the project, subject to the condition that the proj(1ct return to ARB
subcommittee with consideration of the following items:
1. Colors shall be refined to address grayness, and lack of contrast;
2. Consider a modest increase in emphasis at the main entry to the hotel;
3. Review design integrity .of the signage such that the new signs will better integrate with
the building and each other; -
4. Provide some modulation of the east elevation of the building;
5. Refine how trash and service entrance will be dealt with; and
6. Move bike lockers away from the front entry.
RESOlTRCE IMPACT
This project is the second hotel project considered by Council since the zoning ordinance
amendment of 2005 which allowed additional FAR for hotels. The proposed hotel will comply
with the requirements of PAMC 18.16.060 (d) including recently adopted provisions by Council
to regulate extended stay hotels.
The project's addition of a 117,814 square-foot hotel with 147 guest rooms, along with its
demolition of the existing restaurant, will yield the City additional net annual revenues in the·
form of property taxes, sales taxes, utility user taxes, and transient occupancy taxes, estimated in
the $570,000 to $697,000 range. One-time revenues would include impact fees of
$2,203,978.25.
On the expenditure side, the project's additional hotel patrons will create additional demand for
City services, but these will be offset by the developer impact fees mentioned above.
POLICY IlVIPLICATIONS
The proposed project includes a new hotel and restaurant that will support the Comprehensive
Plan goals which encourage private property owners to upgrade commercial properties in ways
that will support the City's economic base.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQ A requirements. Issues
discussed include concerns about aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic, though expected
impacts are less than significant with standard conditions of approval and state and local
requirements. The public comment period for this document closed on November 26,2009. To
date, no comments have been received on the Draft Negative Declaration.
CMR: 184:10 Page 6 of7
PREPARED BY: &Tcu~
Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
A TT A CHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachnlent C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G
Attachment H:
Attachnlent I:
Attachment J:
Attachment K:
Draft Zoning Ordinance
Draft Record of Land Use Action
Location Map
Zoning Map
Applicant's Project Description Letter*
Zoning Comparison Table
Existing Planned 'Community Ordinance
February 4, 2010 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (w/o attachments)
and Minutes
November 18, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report
(w/o attachments) and Minutes
Draft Initial Study!. Negatiye Declaration(CEQA) (provided to Council
Members, Libraries, Development Center, and 5th floor of City Hall only)
Project Plan Sets* (provided to Councilmembers, Libraries, Development
Center, and 5th floor of City Hall only)
*prepared by applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Cynthia Munoz, Stoecker & Northway Architects, applicant
Wu-chung Hsiang & Vicky Ching, owners
CMR: 184:10 Page? of?
/
ATTACHMENT A
Not Yet Approved
Ordinance No. ---
Ordinance of the COlU1cil of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The
Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located
at 1700 Embarcadero Road from PC Planned Community
2378 and PC Plalu1ed Community 2491 to Service
Commercial (CS) and Site and Design (D) Review
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows:
(a) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public
hearing onNovember 18, 2009, has recommended the City Council rezone the property at 1700
Embarcadero Road from PC-2378 and PC-2491 to "CS(D) Service Commercial with Site and
Design Review Combining District";
(b) The Planning and Transportation Commission has reviewed the facts presented
at the public hearing" including public testimony and reports and reconunendations from the
director of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff;
( c) The Planning and Transportation Commission finds that rezoning the parcel to
Service Commercial with Site and Design Review Combining District (CS(D)) zoning is in
accordance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive Plan designation
of the site is Service Commercial; and
(d) The Palo Alto City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the mater
on April 12, 2010, and has reviewed the environmental documents prepared for the project and
all other relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral,
presented on the matter.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare
would be furthered by an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in
Section 3,
SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo
Alto to place 1700 Embarcadero Road, 2.5 acres of land, within the "CS(D) Service Commercial
with Site and Design Review Combining District."
SECTION 4. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to
environmental review under provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An
environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that,
no potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property; therefore, the
proj ect would have no significant impact on the environment.
100311 jb 0120431 1
Not Yet Approved
SECTION 5. Indemnification
To the extent pennitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties")from and
against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties
and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the
Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs
incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any·
such action with attorneys of its own choice.
SECTION 6.
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVBD AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
100311 jb 0120431
This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
2
All ACHMENl B
APPROVAL NO. 2010-__
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL
FOR 1700 EMBARCADERO ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE
(09PLN-00175) (Stoecker & Northway Architect, Inc, APPLICANT)
On [Date], the Council approved Site and Design Review and
a Variance for a new four-story hotel and restaurant, making the
following findings, determination and declarations: -
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Al to ("Ci ty Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On July 29, 2009, Stoe,cker & Northway Archi tects,
Inc., on behalf of Wu-chung Hsiang & Vicky Ching, applied for Site
and Design Review and Variance to "build-toil requirements for
construction of a .four-story hotel and restaurant with one level of
underground parking and associated surface parking and landscaping
("The Proj ect ") .
B. On November 18, 2009, the Planning and Transportation
Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval of the
Site and Design Review and Variance applications;
C. On February 4, 2010, the Architectural Review Board
reviewed the project and recommended approval of the Site and
Design Review application.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The proposed project
is subject to environmental review under prOV1Slons of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with the
CEQA requirements, an Initial Study was circulated for 30 days for
public comments, and a Draft Negative Declaration has been
prepared for this project. Issues discussed include concerns about
aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic, though expected
impacts are less than significant with standard conditions of
approval and state and local requirements.
SECTION 3. Variance Findings
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, in that:
(a) Though the proposed proj ect is in the Service Commercial
designation in the Comprehensive Plan, it is not surrounded by
1
other properties within the same zoning designation. The "build
to" lines required in the CS zone are not consistent with the site
placement of the surrounding buildings in the area or with the open
feel of the Baylands,. but are more consistent with areas such as EI
Camino Real or pedestrian oriented streets. The proposed design
brings the building closer to the street than other buildings in
the area, and provides the presence on the street which is the goal
of the "build-to" lines, while plac'ing that building farther back
to work with the open cohtext of other buildings near the Baylands.
(b) The site includes an easement that prevents any building within
80 feet of the East Bayshore RQad property line because of existing
PG&E power lines which run over the property in that location,
constraining the site layout.
2. The granting of the application shall not feet
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, in that the proposed proj'ect is in an area
dominated by office buildings and auto dealerships in the ROLM(E)
zoning district where the required front setback is 20 feet, and
there is no "build-to" requirement. The proposed zoning will comply
with the Comprehensive Plan .designation for the site, and approval
of this variance would allow the design to meet all other the
requirements of the new zoning designation, while presenting a
design which also works with the context of other buildings in the
vicinity.
3. The granting of the application consistent with the
Palo Alto· Comprehensive ·Plan and the purposes of this title
(Zo~ing) in that the proposed setback is appropriate to the type of
environment in and around the Palo Alto Baylands as described in
the Baylands Master Plan. The . openness of' the Baylands is a
significantly different environment than other areas of the city
within the CS zone such as EI Camino Real or other pedestrian
oriented streets.
4.· The granting of the application will ~ot be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity,will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience in that the proposed building setback and site design
would be more in keeping with the surrounding area than a project
meeting the "build-to" regulations, and the increased setback
would help ensure visibility of the adjacent automobile dealership.
2
SECTION 4. Granted. Variance No. -V-is
granted for building on not meeting the "build-to"
requirements along both the front and side property lines.
SECTION 5. Site and Des Review
1. To ensure construction and operation of the use in a
manne'r that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible wi th
existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The project is designed for a hotel and related uses and
incorporates a si te layout that comparable to the existing
building and compatible with surrounding uses. Specifically, the
hotel would be located on Embarcadero Road, adjacent to office and
automobile sales facilities and the proposed building is situated
on the site in a similar manner. City standards and regulations
will help to ensure that the use, or operation, of the site would
be conducted in a manner that is compatible with the existing uses
located in the immediate area. During construction, it is expected
that there would be temporary impacts to· area in terms of
construction-related noise, dust/debris and c. These impacts
would be addressed·by applicable City construction standards, such
as restrictions on hours of construction, the City's noise
ordinance, and the mitigation measures found the draft Negative
Declaration.
2 . To ensure the desirabili ty investment, or the
conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other
authorized occupations, in the same' or ~djacent areas.
This site is designated for Service Commercial land use in
the Comprehensive Plan, and is proposed to rezoned to the
Service Commercial zone district: It is surrounded by one and two
story office buildings. The replacement of an ting single story
restaurant building with a new four story hotel and restaurant
should not reduce the overall functionality of immediate area.
Hotel and restaurant uses are expressly permitted the Palo Alto
Municipal Code and are consistent with the Comprehens Plan land
use designation and help to support employment uses and revenue
generation in the City. The proposed hotel location also provides
access from State Highway 101.
3. To ensure that sound principles of ·environmental design
and ecological balance shall be observed.
The project would replace a disturbed area on the site,
which is currently developed with a restaurant and parking
lot areas. The project would increase the number of trees on the
site and provide for enhanced landscaping and open space and comply
with requirements in the Baylands Master Plan for compatibility
3
with the Palo to Baylands. Green building features would be
incorporated to achieve LEED Silver compliance.
4. To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo
Alto Comprehensive plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designation is Service Commercial per
the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehens plan. The proposed project
for rezoning from Planned Communi ty to Service Commercial, and
construction of a new hotel and restaurant is consistent with the
land use designation. The proj also consistent with The Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan policies related to business and economics.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace
existing commercial properties so that these commercial areas are
more competitive and better serve the community. The commercial
properties could be redesigned to be more attractive and inviting
for pedestrians. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are
below:
Goal L-l: A well designed, compact city providing residents and
visi tors wi th attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping
districts, public facilities and open spaces .
. Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics of mixed use areas.
Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new
mixed use development.
Policy Make land use decisions that encourage walking~
bicycling, and public transit use.
Policy Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as
sidewalks, street trees! on-site parking, public spaces, gardens,
outdoor furniture! art, and interesting architectural details.
Policy Support a strong interdependence between existing
commerc centers and the surrounding neighborhoods as a way of
encouraging economic vitality.
Goal : New businesses that provide needed local services and
municipal revenues! contribute to economic vi ty, and enhance
the city's physical environment.
SECTION 6. Site and Design Approval Granted. Site and
Design Approval is granted for the project by the City Council
under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.070, subject to the
conditions of approval in Section 9 of this Record.
SECTION 7 . Archi tectural Review. The design and
architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, furthers
the goals and purposes of Architectural Review as it complies with
4
the Architectural Review findings as required in Chapter 18.76 of
the Palo Al to Municipal Code (\\ PAMC ") .
(a) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable
elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan in that the site is
designated Service Commercial and the Comprehensive plan Table
(Attachment G) indicates compliance with 1 applicable
p'olicies;
(b) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the
site in that the project responds to the horizontality of the
Baylands and surrounding properties through design elements and
deep overhangs, as well as special landscaping chosen for
compatibi ty with the Baylands;
(c) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in
that the design provides a balance between the requirements of
the Baylands area and the needs of the proposed hotel and
restaurant;
(d) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design
character or historical character, the design is compatible
with such character. The proposal is an area which near
to the Baylands and the design uses themes from the Baylands
Master Plan to fit with the surroundings;
(e) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and
character in areas between different ignated land uses. The
proposed project is a hotel and restaurant surrounded by
offices and automobi dealerships. proposed project is of
comparable height to new adjacent of I while respecting the
horizontal design of older structures;
(f) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and
off the site in that the proposed building, as conditioned,
includes improvements necessary the new hotel and
restaurant;
(g) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings
on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a
irable environment for occupants, visitors and the general
community in that proposal includes elements of feng-shui,
which will be important to future users, as well as other
wayfinding elements and signage;
(h) The amount and arrangement of open spaces are appropriate to
design and the function of structures in that the
proposed design includes Baylands-themed landscaping near the
5
corner of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road, as well as
more controlled landscaping for areas 'proximate with the
restaurant, and rooftop gardens the enjoyment of future
hotel users;
(i) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main
functions of the project in that the proposal includes parking,
open space, and refuse facili ties required for this type of
development;
(j) Access to the property and circulation thereon are and
convenient for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles in that the
proposed development located on a street that has sidewalks
and bicycle lanes and lities are provided onsite for sa
access and parking of bicycles and automobiles;
(k)' Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated
with the project in that the current site contains plantings
that are not in keeping with the Baylands area and so would be
replaced with species better aligned with the future goals for
. properties proximate to the Baylands;
(1) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and
plant m~terial are appropriate expressions of the design and
function in that the proposed design uses colors meant to blend
with the Baylands and the landscape plan designed to combine
the formal features of Chinese gardens and the horizontal
.dispersion of Baylands landscapes;
(m) The landscape design concept for the si te, as shown by the
relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms
and foliage textures and .colors creates a desirable and
functional environment and the landscape concept depicts an
appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site in
that the primary landscaping is focused around 'the street
corner with Baylands plantings that transition as they approach
the proposed building;
(n) Plant material 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;
(0) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that
is energy efficient, water, conserving, durable and nontoxic,
with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials.
The following considerations should be utilized in determining
sustainable site and building design:
6
(A) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading,
'daylighting, and natural ventilation;
(B) Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro
climates and reduce heat island effects;
(C) Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access;
(D) Maximize on site stormwater management through
landscaping and permeable paving;
(E) Use sustainable building materials;
(F) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient
energy and water use; ,
(G) Create healthy indoor environments; and
(H) Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable
environments.
The design incorporates energy conservation measures through
green building techniques (see LEED checklist in Project Plans,
Attachment H)
(p) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of
architectural review, which is to:
(1) Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city;
(2) Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in
the city;
(3) Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of
land and improvements;
(4) Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the
immediate site or in adjacent areas; and
(5) Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic
quality and variety and which, at the same time, are
considerate of each other.
The design is consistent for all of the reasons and findings
enumerated above.
Plan Approval.
7
The plans submi tted for Building pei-mi t shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Stoecker &
Northway Architects, Inc. titled A New Hotel at 1700 Embarcadero
Road, consisting of 33 pages, dated December 18, 2009, and received
January 5, 2010, except as modified to incorporate the conditions
of approval in Section 8. A copy of these plans is on file in the
Department of Planning and Community Development. The conditions of
approval in Section 9 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the
plan set submitted with the Building Permit application.
SECTION 9. Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning « Community Environment
Planning & Transportation Division
1. rrhe plans submitted for Building Permi t shall be in
substantial conformance with plans received and date
stamped January 5, 2010, except as modified to incorporate
these conditions of approval.
2. The project is subject to meeting all the requirements of
Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.44, the City's Green
Building Ordinance.
3 . The owner shall be responsible for a shared' parking
agreement with adjacent property owners and valet parking
plan to accommodate at least 38 parking spaces. during high
use time periods. A copy of this agreement shall be
submitted prior to building final & occupancy.
4. The proposed project shall return to ARB subcommittee with
consideration of the following items:
a. Colors shall be refined to address grayness, and lack of
contrast;
b. Consider a modest increase in emphasis at the main entry
to the hotel;
c. Review ·design integrity o~ the signage such that the new
signs will better integrate with the building and each
other;
d. Provide some modulation of the east elevation of the
building; \
e. Refine how trash and service entrance will be dealt with;
and
f. Move bike lockers away fro~ the front entry.
5. Details of design and wording of interpretive signage shall
be reviewed and approved by city staff prior to issuance of
building permit.
6 . The grades and transi tion areas on the ramp to the
underground parking should be shown/dimensioned. A 10'
transition should be provided at each end of the ramp, and
a 5' buffer is needed at the top of the ramp. Refer to PAMC
18.54.070 Figure 5 for more details.
8
7. The bike racks should be inverted-U type, or other approved
by Transportation staff (wave racks not allowed) .
8. This project is subject to Chapter 16.47 of the Municipal
Code and payment of a housing in-lieu fee based on 149,593
square feet of net new commercial floor area will be
required. The rate as of May 8, 2009 is $17. net
new square feet for a total estimated fee of $2,631,340.87.
The total is due and payable in full at building
permit issuance. The actual, final fee amount will be
calculated based on the net increase in commercial square
footage as shown on the final building permit plans and the
fee rate in fect as of the date of building permi t
issuance. The rate is adjusted annually as of May 8th.
9 ~ Development Impact fees (including Parkland Dedication,
Community lities, Library, Housing, and Citywide
Transportation Impact Area fees) with an estimated total of
$2,203,978 must be paid prior to building permit issuance,
incl uding described in condi tion 6. This is an
estimate and the final total may change based on date of
building permit submittal.
10. An Avigation Easement is required prior to building permit
issuance.
11. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall
indemni and hold harmless the City, its City Council,
officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties)
from against any claim,action, or proceeding brought by a
third party against the indemnified parties and the
appl to attack, set aside or void, any permit or
approval authorized hereby the Project, including
(without limitation) reimbursing the City' its actual
attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of
litigation. The City may, in i sole discretion, elect to
defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
Building Di on
Architectural Comments:
12. List the following project data information on the plans:
a. lding Occupancy Group: A-2, R-l, B, S-2
b. Type of Construction:
c. Sprinklered: (YIN)
13. fy if the underground parking structure will us
Construction Type I-A for the S-2 Occupancy with a 3-hour
horizontal separation assembly to be considered as a podium
building under CBC 509.2.
14. Provide an Allowable Area calculation 'for the mixed
occupancy use building ed on either Non-separated
occupancies per CBC 508.3.2 or by Separated occupancies
using CBC 508.3.3.
15. For the 1st Floor/ Ground , provide an exiting analysis
the (N) building i include the area for each room,
occupant load, required number of exits and the separations
9
of required exits. Include the existing analysis for the
Ground Flo,or Courtyard and Pool Area. It appears that two
(2) exits may be required from the fenced pool area (based
on the occupant load factors from CBC Table 1004.1.1and if
the occupant load is 50 or more per CBC 1015.1). Clari
if the fenced pool area is part of the exit discharge or is
a separate area.
16. On sheet A7: First Floor Plan: provide a minimum plumbing'
fixture count for the proposed restaurant based on the 2007
CA Plumbing Code, CPC Table 4-1.
17. For hotel guest rooms and suites, provide five (5) ly
accessible quest rooms and 2 with roll-showers as
required by CBC Table I1B-3.
18. The accessible guest rooms shall be dispersed among the
various classes of sl.eeping accommodations and range of
options applicable to room sizes, amenities and number of
beds. (CBC IlllB.4.1)
19. The accessible guest rooms shall be provided with the
'following accessible features:
a. Kitchens and kitchenettes per CBC IlllB.4.4
b. Visual alarms and telephones for hearing impaired per CBC
IlllB.4.5
c. Bathrooms per CBC 111 .4.6.
20. On the upper level floors, 2nd, -4th floors: show that
maximum travel distance from the most remote point is
than 250 ft for a sprinklered, R-l occupancy per CBC
1016.1.
21. On sheet A111 Roof Plan: potential photovoltaic panels are
shown. Please note on the plans that a separate permit is
required for the PV panels.
Structural Comments:
22. A geotechnical report is required for the construction of
the{N) Mixed Use Commercial building.
General Comments:
23. The completed plan submittal package should be sent to an
approved Outside plan Check Consultant plan review.
Department of Public Works
Engineering Division
24. SIDEWALK, PLANTER STRIP I CURB & GUTTER: As part of this
project, the applicant must replace the sidewalks, curbs,
gutters and driveway approaches in the publ right-of-way
along the frontages of the property per Public Works I
standards, which include: a 5-ft wide sidewalk at the back
of-curb and a planter strip between the sidewalk and the
property line along East Bayshore Roadi and a 5-wide
sidewalk and a minimum 4.5-ft wide planter strip between
the curb and sidewalk along Embarcadero Road.
10
25. STREET RESURFACING: The developer will be, required to
resurface the entire frontage of each street adjacent to
the property out to the centerline or center median of the
streets upon completion of onsite construction. The
resurfacing will consist of a slurry seal or grinding 2" of
the existing asphalt and overlaying 2" asphalt pavement per
Public Works' standards. Public Works will make the
determination between slurry seal and grind/ overlay by
inspecting the condition of the road and estimating the
construction impacts at the time of construction.
Thermoplastic striping of the street(s) will be required
after resurfacing.
26. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace
existing and/or add new street trees in the public right
of-way along the property's frontages. Call the Public
Works' arborist at 496-6905 to arrange a site visit so he
can determine what street tree work, if any, will be
required for this project, and then show this work on the
site plan in the building permit plan set. .
27. UTILITY EASEMENTS: There are various public utility
easements (PUE'S) that run across the East Bayshore
frontage of this si te. Typically, you cannot build a
structure on a PUE. The footprint of the structure appears
to abut the storm drain easement. This may be acceptable,
but the developer will need to demonstrate to Public Works
that the excavation and shoring for the parking garage will
not adversely impact the storm drain or permanently
encroach into the PUE. This particularly true as the
plans, if accurate, show the storm drain not centered in
the PUE, but offset a foot or so towards the proposed
building. Public Works recommends staying 5 feet away from,
the storm drain with any structure, including t4e shoring.
Another option is to relocate the storm drain and the PUE
towards East Bayshore Road per Public Works' approval.
Include in plans submitted for a building permit:
28. FLOOD ZONE: The proposed improvements are located within a
Special Flood Hazard Area. Accordingly, the proposed
construction must meet all of the City's and Federal
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) requirements for
construction within a flood zone. See Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations, and our
website for more information. The plans must show the BFE
on all applicable elevations, sections and details. If the
strategy is to floodproof the building by allowing no water
to enter the building and having the ramp to the below
grade parking structure above the BFE, then a FEMA
Floodproofing Certi cate will be required prior to
building permit issuance.
11
29. PARKING BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater
throughout much of the City and Public Works' prohibition
of discharging groundwater to the street or the storm drain
system, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of
the basement walls or under the slab are not lowed for
this site.
30. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation,
including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private
property or into the City right-of-way without having first
obtained wri tten permission from the private property
owners and/or an encroachment permit from Publ Works.
31. DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering
during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater
drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering
is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April
through October due to inadequate capaci ty in our storm
drain system. The geotechnical report for this s must
list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We
recommend a piezometer to be taIled in the soil boring .
. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater
immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or
by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation
will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated
groundwater level. If groundwater is within 2 feet of the
deepest excavation/ a drawdown well dewatering system must
be used. Public Works may require the water to be tested
for contaminants prior to tial discharge and at
intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the
contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test
the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works
specifies and submit the results to Public Works.
32. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part
of a Permit Construction in Public Street ("street
work permit"). The applicant can include a dewatering plan
in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval
of the plan during the building permit review/ but the
contractor will still be required to obtain a street work
permit prior to dewatering and excavation. Public Works
has a standard dewatering plan that can be used for
this purpose and dewatering guidelines are available on.
Public Works' website. Alternatively, the applicant must
include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the
site plan.
33 . EXCAVATION & GRADING PERM:IT: An excavation and grading
permi t will be required. An application and plans are
submitted to Public Works separately from the building
permit plan The plan set must include a grading &
. drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional to
demonstrate proper drainage of the site and that includes
existing and proposed elevations, drainage flow arrows1 and
the onsite storm drain system.
34. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one
acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required
to comply wi t,h the State of California's General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply
,(NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing
a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan
(SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post
construction BMP's for storm water quality protection. The
applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and
the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review
and approval prior to issuance of the building permi t.
Also, include the City's standard ~Pollution Prevention
It's Part of the Plan" sheet in the building permit plan
set. Copies are available from Public Works' at the
Development Center.
35. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public
right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of
street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within
10 feet of street trees must be approved by p~blicWorks'
arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear
on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees
per City requirements.
36. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate
any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such
as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility
laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must
be done per City standards and that the contractor
performing this work must first obtain a Permit for
Construction in the Public Street from Public Works at the
Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different
location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk
associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a
thickened (6" thick instead of the standard 4" thick)
section. Additionally, curb cuts for abandoned driveways
must be replaced with new curb and gutter.
37. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or
replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface.
Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of
the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the
building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet
for Land Developments form and instructions are available
at the Development Center or on our website
38. C. 3: This project will trigger the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board's revised provision C.3 for
storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to land
development projects that create or replace 10,000 square
13
or more of impervious surface. The City's regulations
require that the project incorporate a set of permanent
site design measures, source controls, and treatment
controls that serve to protect storm water quality. The
icant will be required to identify, size, design and
incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention
measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls
such as bioswales, fil ter strips, and permeable pavers
rather than mechanical devices that require long-term
maintenance) to treat the runoff from a specified ~water
quality storm'" prior to discharge to the municipal storm
drain system. The applicant must designate a party to
maintain the control measures for the life the
improvements ,and must enter into a maintenance agreement
with the City. The City will inspect the treatment
measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. is
currently" an $800 C. 3 plan check fee that will be collected
upon submittal ''for a grading or building permit.
39. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logi cs
plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing
work that addresses all impacts to the City/s right-of-way,
including, but not limited to: pedestrian control I traffic
control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor's
parking, concrete pours, crane Ii ,work hours, noise
control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention,
contractor's contact, noticing of businesses, and
schedule work. The plan will be attached toa street
work permit.
Department of Utilitles
Electrical Division
GENERAL
40. The applicant shall comply with all Electric Utility
Engineering Department service requirements noted during
plan review.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT
41. The Permi ttee shall be responsible for identi.fication and
location of I utilities, both public and private l within
the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site l
the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA)
at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning
work.
42. The Applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all
existing util services and/or meters including a signed
affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building
Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or
removed within 10 working days after receipt of request.
The demolition permit will be issued all utility
services and/or meters have been disGonnected and removed.
14
REQUIRED FOR BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTALS
43. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans
must be included with all building permit applications
involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included
with the preliminary submittal.
44. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow
sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and
Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering
fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric
service requested.
45. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel.
Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
46. This project requires a padmount transformer. The location
of the transformer shall be shown on the site plan and
approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural
Review Board. The transformer shall have three (3) feet
clearance on all sides except the front where it will have
eight (8) feet of clearance. All distances measured from
the pad. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16.
47. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing
padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and
interrupters) and associated substructure as required by
the City. In addition, the owner shali grant a Public
Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private
property as required by the City.
48. The customer shall install all electrical substructures
(conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point
to the customer1s switchgear. The design and installation
shall be according to the Ci ty s,tandards and shown on
plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18.
49. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown
on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review
Board and Utilities Department.
50. All utili ty meters, lines I transformers I backflow
preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown
on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that
no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape
materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be
screened in a manner that is consistent with the building
design and setback requirements.
51. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be
required to provide a transition cabinet as the
interconnection point between the utility/s padmount
trans former and the cus tomer's main swi tchgear . The
cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric
Utility Engineering Department for review and approval.
52. The customer is responsible for sizing the service
conductors and other required equipment according to the
National Electric Code requirements and the City standards.
Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
15
53.
54.
55.
Water
56.
57.
58.
59'.
60.
61.
If the customer's total load exceeds 2500kVA, service shall
be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the
cus tomer shall provide the high vol tage swi tchgear and
transformers. Utilities Rule & Regulation #3.
Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary
distribution lines or reinforcement of offsi te electric
facilities will be at the/customer's expense and must be
coordinated with the Electric-Utility.
·Any additional facilities and services requested by the
Applicant that are beyond what the ·utility deems standard
facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges.
The Special Facilities charges inc~ude the cost of
installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of
ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20.
Quality Control Plant Division
The proposed proj ect shall comply wi th all applicable
sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) ,
specifically:
PAMC 16.12.035 (b) Recycled water use for toilet and urinal
flushing and floor trap priming. New construction in non
designated area. Where the building square footage total,
including both the original square footage and any
addition, is greater than 100,000 square feet or where
installation of 100 or more toilets and urinals is
proposed, shall incorporate dual plumbing in the design of
the facility to allow the use of recycled water, wheJ it
becomes available, for flushing toilets and urinals and
priming floor traps.
PAMC 16.12.030 (b) Recycled water use for irrigation. New
construction in non-designated area. Where the total
landscape area exceeds 1500 square feet include the
following:
a. Plans demonstrating that recycled water will be used,
when available, for all irrigation
b. Consideration of plants sui table for irrigation wi th
recycled water and
c. The installation of on-site infrastructure necessary to
connect the site's irrigation system to the City's
recycled water supply-when it becomes available.
PAMC 16.09.032(B) (17) Covered parking. Drain plumbing for
parking garage floor drains must be connected to an
oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons,·
and to the sanitary sewer system
PAMC 16.09.10.6 (e) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled
Facilities. New dumpster areas shall be covered. The area
shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and
run-off from the area.
PAMC 16.09.032(b) (8) Condensate from HVAC. Condensate lines
shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm
drain system.
16
62. PAMC 16.09.032(15) Swimming Pools. Swimming pool discharge
drains shall not be connected directly to the storm drain
system or to the sewer system. When draining is necessary,
a hose or other temporary system shall be directed into a
sewer (not storm drain system) clean out. A sewer clean out
shall be installed in a readily acce~sible area.
For Restaurant Facili es:
63. PAMC Section 16.09.103(a) Grease Control Devices for Food
Service Facilities. A grease control device (GCD) shall be
installed with a.minimum capacity of 750.gallons. The GCD
must be sized in accordance with the 2007 California
Plumbing Code. The sizing calculation must be submitted
with the plans. All grease generating drainage fixtures
shall be connected to the GCD. The connection of any
dishwashers or pasta cookers to a GCD is prohibited. All
large·, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three
manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping, baf
(divider) piping and outlet piping to ensure accessibility
for inspection, cleaning and removal. of all contents. The
plans shall clearly indicate the number of manholes on the
GCD and a list of all drainage fixtures connecting to the
GCD.
64. PAMC 16.09.032b(16) Covered Dumpsters for Food Service
Facilities. New buildings constructed to house food service
facilities shall include a covered area for a dumpster.
The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the
area and runoff from the area. Drains that are installed
.wi thin the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters
and tallow bins (used oil containers) serving food service
facilities are optional. Any such drain. installed shall be
connected to a GCD and the sanitary sewer. If tallow is to
be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated
space for ~ tallow bin shall be included in the covered
area.
65. PAMC 16.09~103(e) Prohibition Against Garbage Disposals.
The installation of a garbage grinder at any food service
facility is prohibited after January I, 2003. The kitchen
cannot utilize a garbage grinder for food waste disposal to
the sahitary sewer.
66. PAMC 16.09. 032b(16) Large Item Cleaning Sink for Food
Service Facilities. Food service facilities shall have a
sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and
equipment, which is connected to a grease interceptor and
the sanitary sewer.
Fire Department
67. Install a NFPA 13 Fire Sprinkler, NFPA 14 Standpipe and
NFPA 72 Fire Alarm system under separate permit.
17
68. Department Access roadways to be a min 26 ft wide for
buildings over 30 ft high. Road surface to be capable of
supporting a 85,000 lbs apparatus.
69. Onsite fire hydrant spacing is 300 ft int~rvals.
70. PGE high voltage electrical lines will impede Fire
Department roof top access on the E. Bayshore Rd side of
the building. Provide a dimensioned vertical exterior
elevation detail showing the tower & electrical line
location in relations to the building.
71. Provide roof top access from the two interior stairways.
72. An approved access walkway shall be provided to each
egress/restue window below the 4th floor.
73. When the Main Electrical Shutoff is located in interior
of the building, an exterior shunt trip or o~her approved
means emergency shutoff shall be provided.
74. Elevator car shall be sized for Fire Department gurney
access requirements based on gurney dimensions 24 in. x
84 in. plus a minimum of two emergency response personnel.
75. All sprinkler drains, including those for floor control
valves and inspector's test valves, as well as the main
drain, I not discharge within the building. water
discharged from these points shall be directed to an
approved landscape location or to the sanitary sewer
system. NOTE: Please check with Roland Ekstrand in
utili for maximum flow capacity of sanitary sewer in
the area. Main Drain test· dfscharge flow rate shall be
impounded and attenuated to below sanitary sewer capacity
before discharge.
76. Solar panels on roof to comply wi th the CA State Fire
Marshal Photovoltaic Installation Guidelines.
SECTION 9. Term of
1. Variance. If the Variance granted is not used within
one year of the date of council approval, it shall become null and
void, pursuant to by Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.90.080(c).
2. Site and Design Approval. In the event actual
construction of the project is not commenced within two years of
the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and of
no further force or fect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.82.080.
3. Site and Design Approval.
contingent o~ successful rezoning of
SECTION 10. Indemnity Clause.
Site and Design approval
parcel.
To the extent permitted by law,' the applicant shall indemnify and
hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees
18
and agents (the "indemni fied parties) from against any claim,
action, or proceeding -brought by a third party against the
indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void,
any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including
(without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees
and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in
its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys
of its own choice. "
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
1. Those plans prepared by Stoecker and Northway Archi t"ects, Inc.
titled "A New Hotel at 1700 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto,
California", consisting of 33 pages, dated December 18, 2009, and
received January 5, 2010.
19
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
ATTACHMENT C
The City of
Palo Alto -.
0' 385'
Tho City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibi lity for any errors ,
The City of
Palo Alto
Jculler, 2009·11·09 09:36:39
(1\cc·mapslgls$lglsl.dmlnIPersonaIIPlannlng,mdb)
1900
ATTACHMENT D
1700 Embarcadero Rd
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
--. 0' 296'
The Cit 01 Pal This document Is a graphic represont.llon y 0 Alto assumes no responsibility 1 only 01 best available source s or any errors, '" 1989 to 2009 City 01 Palo Alto '
ATTACHMENT E
Submitted by Applicant
Project Description December 18; 2009
1,700 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto
The proposed project is the development of a new four-story, 154,684 s.f. hotel
with a restaurant, small mee1'ing room and one level of underground parking.
The project would also entail the merging of two parcels and a zone change
from PC to CS{D).
The intent of the building design is to use natural colors and materials and to give
the building a low and horizontal feel that would be compatible with the spirit of
the Saylands. The lower two floors of the building serve as the base with natural,
buff colored stone as the cladding. The upper two floors step back to help
emphasize the horizontal base and would be finished with an exterior insulation
finish system (EIFS) in colors that also draw from the natural tones of the Saylands.
A horizontal element at the roof not only serves as a mechanical equipment
screen but also helps provide shading to the building.
The upper two floors step back to create opportunities for usable planted
terraces. The upper roof will provide space for photovoltaic panels. The
building will be submitted to the USGSC for LEED Silver cerl"ifica!ion.
The building massing is arranged such that the four-story portions sit along the
rear and side setback lines. The building forms then step down to two stories at
the Embarcadero Road/East Sayshore Road corner of the property, with the
restaurant and outdoor seating area anchoring this corner. A planting palette
drawing inspiration from the S'aylands, low berming and information signage
about native plants and species of the Saylands will help enhance the corner of
the property, where a PG&E electrical tower sits. An interior courtyard will house
a swimming pool, gazebo and outdoor seating areas for hotel guests.
The project will require a Variance to allow the building to be set back from the
East Sayshore property line 80 feet to avoid a PG&E easement and drainage
easement that run parall.el to the property line. It will also require a Design
Enhancement Exception to allow for the building frontage along Embarcadero
Road to be set 10 feet back from the setback, rather than having 50% of the
frontage built to the setback line.
ATTACHMENT F
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
1700 Embarcadero Road
09PLN-00000-00175
Table 1: COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT)
Regulation Required CS Proposed Conformance
Minimum Site None 110,306 s.f. NA
Area
Front Setback 0-10 ft to create a 8-12 ft 30 ft Conforms
(Embarcadero) effective sidewalk width
Interior Side Yard None Required 52 ft 10 in NA
Street Side Yard None Required 80 ft NA
(E Bayshore)
Rear Setback None Required 69 ft
Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to 50% frontage built Variance
setback, 33% of street side to 30 ft, 50% street Requested
built to setback side built to 80 ft
Floor Area Ratio 44,122.4 s.f. 5,602 s.f. for Conforms
(0.4:1 FAR) restaurant
(0.05:1 FAR)
Floor Area Ratio 220,612 s.f. 154,684 s.f. Conforms
for Hotels :1 FAR) (1.4:1 FAR)
Lot Coverage ne ----30% (32,936 s.f.) NA
Building Height 50 ft 50 ft Conforms
Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading)
Parking Spaces Required Proposed Conformance
Vehicles 1 space per guest room (147) 166 spaces Conforms if
1 space per 60 sq. ft. public service area (73%) requested 41 %
(50) reduction in
1 space per 200 sq. ft. other restaurant parking for
area (14) hotel is
1 space 4 occupants of meeting room (11) approved (27%
1 space per 200 sq. ft. retail (1) reduction in
1 space per 200 sq. ft. gym (3) overall parking)
TOTAL =226
Bicycles 26 spaces 26 spaces Conforms
"
.¥ .... ~ .. ~
\~
.' 1 "....,.,
."", .. ~:.;~ ..
ATTACHMENT G
ORDINANCE ' NO . 2:1713
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL 01" TIm CITY OF PALO ALTO
AHENDING SECTION 18,08. OhO OF THE PALO AI~.1'ONUNICIPAt
COOE GHANG1:NG TIlE ZONING 01~ CER'TAI,N PROPERTY A'l'THE
SOU/rHEAS'I': CORNER OF EMBARCADERQ ROA.D AND EAST nAY-
, SUQRE FRONTAGE ROADF'RQN J..-M.:D TOP~C
The Goqttctl of the CiJ:y o .f Palo Alto does ORDA:C'N as
follows;
SECTf:ON 1. Section 18.08. OI,JOo£ the Palo Alto NunLcipal
Code (the .Zoning Mtrp) i.s h~reby ;::lme.nded to chnnge the zdillng
SEC,]?lQN 2, The affected property and thezdue cl\ange
ilild zonees cgbl:i,slnnetlt: CCHitetriplat6J bet'~by areshowxl otl the
map markedExhih:L~ liN' which is ateach,l;~d hereto aDd by l;d;ex
ence made a part h~reofj
~ON . 3. The plan erititf.led IlSitc Dev~lopOlen't Plal\,
pl."opased Mingl$restaurantu ) attaeht~d l)et'et;oa$ l!::x:h.ibic lin"
and by reference Iiif.\de a..put't hereof, islierehy mLtd.e the.
Development;Pll.ln for the pel.t·ce'l, descrtbed :In Section 2 bereof.
SECTION l!..~rhe DeveloptnBnt. Plall i.s approvt:!cispbj eel::
to the followittg conditions:
folLows:
a, ~
H;es t:a:ur~H'l t .. and Cocktail LOl111g~~. .
b. 1!lli?IQvemeri t~~
13l.1Jlding lO .(:£ltloIls.) cLJ.ri1t':!l1sio[w, s ethauks ,
off .. s tl:'e(~I : pal~kin:g, l.C\Udst:,lpitlf:h s ign:':!r.ind
otli.er l.mptoyem(!l1tsshull he Hubs tHilti<llly
as showtl 011 the approved D~welo[>m .e nt PLan ..
'I (j ,(/
~.
, ~.
:1
" <-~~ .. : . ~: .. . :
' ... :' ":"".' :-
/'
8. St&rt'of constructiQn within one yec.1X
afteF tlH~effec tive date of tb:Ls ol"'dinauce.
h. Completion of all construction and "develop
l11ent within one year of s tartaf cons true tiarl,
SECTION 6. This ordil1i:lYlce shaLl bec,o.meo$5fBctive upon.
th~; expiration of thil,:':ty days. Erom its PEiss('lge.
INTRODUCED:
PASSl~D:
AYES>:
NOES: .
8 e p t muheI:' 11, 1967
Sep teinher 25, 196:7
AtlllJld,Beailrs, HC'cw£tld, Clnrk, Coms tack, Cooley, D iD.s,
Gallagher, Spa;e.t,lt, Wheutley
None
Al~~TAINgD: Pearson
. AI' XEST: . APPROVED:. ' .
-(J .. ' .. .J~< J ~. .// ...... .. :' .'~1/\ 'Ib /) 4 . .. ~ ... ~~ ..... th....... .... . ", . "'k?~t . . (t;~~ .r~--·'_~"~:::'-·"' .•• aYbf~
APPL=tOVED AS TO FORM:
ImSOLU'!'lON NO. ~ 4676 ....... ~~~ ORJGINAL
RESOLU'rlON OF 'rHE qO'!JNCIL OI!' 'l'lfECt'J.'Y 01'" El\LO 1\1)1'0
l\l\l$:NDING QRDINANCE 2378 AS l\Hl!lNDED.BY l'\ESOLu'rtON
4223 '1'0 CUANGE ~r.I1E DEVEJ.,OP1>1J.-::Wl' l? tAN ];i'on IiHQPER'l'Y:
KNOWN AS l'/QO n:JvlBARcAOr::l<O ROAl) (!'-lING'S RES'l'l\URAN!l')
TheCQuoc:t1. oe 1:11.6 City of Palo Alto does HESOINEas £0 110w.8 :
SEC~('ION l. '1'he do.cumettt::.: entit,led"Proposed. Development: Plan
Change, 1700 E:nibal:cach~ro I~o~\(l" is hereby s:tlbstituted :for the
plan approved by Ordinance 237Bas cuiiended by HesohrtiQl1 42 .23 i
subject tottie following cond;ltion~:
a. All irl)prOVement.s shall comr)ly wi.thall qp.pli.<;:able
codes arid ordinances.
b. A:U cqps t~~wt:ion sha.II be completed wi thin OIie (l)
year of the e-ff.ect.ive ' da te he<reof;
SEC'l'ION 2.. '1'he CQunci.1.. fj,Dclst.:h .at the' chalige in deve.lopmen t
plan approved her~in will haVili .rto signifidant affe~t 0n the envi~on~
nient.
SEC'fION 3. All .other p):::ovisj.ons .of Ordil1Giilce. N.o..237Hshal L
remain in full fbrce an~ sffeot.
IN'l'HODUCEDl\ND PASSED: NOV'Q1Uber 13, 1974
AYES: UNANIMOUS
NOES: NONE
ABSEN'l': COMSTOCK, NORTON
A'llrj~ES'l': APT;> HOVED :
~fl Ci~'
API)ROVED AS 'J.''O FOnM:
~ ,'{1Ytc.~t7~~-t~-•...........
Sr. A.sst •. city.A<torney '.
APPHOVED AS T'O CON'l'EN',r:
/7/All ·~l). fJ (C
.-~ ;ze Dil:'QctOl:' .of l?li;mning" .
(
. r
,.' .,.' .~
-....... ,
.............. ...,;,.;..... __ .~ .. :._& .... ~."' •.. '\; ... ,· .. _ .. ' ..... ,··,· ... ·.i .................. : ...... :~.!~ ..
:~.i:):\~·1 t~!~ '~'I~~(>\~' ~ ~ -~'1--ll l'I~r~ t, " ••.. r;
.~l·:: ;; .... ~i :~ . .tD;:;::~~·(;.~·J ~:)r~. ":~) ~i;)~~f . .L)
o
REMAINS REMAINS p~c
P-F
CHANGE
OF p ... C
. OEVI£LOPMENT •
REMAINS
L~M-D
REMAINS
L-M-D
72-Z(;':" 1 6:, .~
.. ..,..... ZONE CHANGE BOUNDARY
61$. EXISTING ZONE ;80VNDARY
-~ crit LIMITS ·. BOUNDARY
SCALE
,.
ATTACHMENT H
Architectural Review Board
Agenda Date: February 4, 2010
To: Architectural Review Board
From: Jennifer Cutler, Planner
Department: Planning and Community Environment
Subject: 1700 Embarcadero Road [09PLN-00175]: Request by Stoecker & Northway
Architects, Inc., on behalf ofWu-chung Hsiang & Vicky Ching, for rezoning to
Service Commercial with a Site and Design Review Combining District (CS(D)),
approval of a variance, and approval of site and design review for demolition of an
existing restaurant, and construction of a four story hotel and restaurant.
Environmental Assessment: An Initial StudylNegative Declaration has been
prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recomn1end the City Council adopt the
Negative Declaration and approve the proposed project, based on the draft conditions of approval in
the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) and the draft ARB findings in Attachment B.
BACKGROUND
Existing Site & Context
The project site is located at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road. The
proj ect site is approximately 2.5 acres and contains a single 15,180 square foot restaurant occupied by
Ming's Chinese Cuisine & Bar with associated parking and landscaping. Most of the existing site is
paved or occupied by the 25 trees On the site. The site is surrounded by office properties on all sides
and across' Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road. All surrounding properties are zoned
ROLM(E)(D)(AD), except for one adjacent Planned Community (PC) to the east. the project site was
rezoned from LM(D) to Planned Community (PC Ordinance 2378) in 1967 and revised by resolution
number 2491 in 1969. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Service Conimercial.
The project, which originally included a request for rezoning to a new Planned Community (PC) zone,
had a preliminary review by the Planning & Transportation Commission (P&TC) on September 10,
2008. The project at that time included 162 rooms in the proposed hotel. In response to comment
from the P&TC the proposal was changed to include a rezoning to Service Commercial (CS) rather
1
than PC. This new proposal had preliminary review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on
January 15, 2009, and formal review by the P&TC on November 18, 2009. The ARB expressed
concerns about over-parking and emphasized the importance of working with the Baylands plant
palette and resolution of massing issues, but expressed support for the change from PC to CS zone.
Since the ARB meeting, the applicant has refined the design by reducing the size and number of guest
rooms to 143 guest rooms. The P&TC has recommended approval of this revised design and
provided comments and suggestions listed in the Planning & Transportation Commission Review
section below.
The project includes a rezoning of the property from PC to CS(D), a Variarice to the "Build-to"
requirement, and Site and Design Review which would be required under the new zoning. The
ARB review is to ensure that the ARB findings, PAMC Section 18.76.020(d), can be made.
Project Description
The proposed four story restaurant and hotel project would include a new 117,814 square foot
building with 147 guest rObms, a restaurant of approximately 5,602 square feet, a small amount of
retail (87 square feet), a small gym (541 square feet), one level of underground parking, and a new
surface parking lot and landscaping. The maximum height of the building would be 50 feet, with a
design that steps up and back from the corner of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road. The
proposed parking facilities would include 166 parking 'spaces, 90 of which will be within the one
level of underground parking, and the remaining 76 surface parking spaces would be located in
front of and around the sides of the building. The project includes removal of the existing building
and 25 existing trees, as well as replacement of existing street trees, per city staff
recommendation.
The applicant's project description is provided in Attachment D.
DISCUSSION
Planning & Transportation Commission Review
The Planning & Transportation Commission reviewed the proposed project at a public hearing. on
November 18,2009. At this hearing they recommended approval of the proposed project, finding that
the project meets the Site and Design Objectives. The P&TC also provided comments and
recommendations to the applicant, as well as requests of items that be prepared prior to ARB review.
These items included:
• Wayfinding and signage for all users (including bicyclists);
• Landscape materials should conform with Baylands list, or be supported by City arborist;
• Massing of open comer of building;
• Design of primary entrance; and
• Impact to visibility of neighbor'S signage with increased landscaping along Embarcadero
Road.
The applicant has responded to all of these issues in their revised plan set, and will show studies that
they have prepared of the visual impact on the signage of the Audi Dealership next door.
Preliminary ARB Review .
In their preliminary review of this project on January 15, 2009, the ARB expressed concerns about
over-parking and emphasized the importance of working with the Baylands plant palette and
09PLN-OO] 75 Page 2
2
resolution of massing issues, but expressed support for the change from PC to CS zone.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Conformance
The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Service Commercial. Prior to the original PC
zone, implemented in 1967, the property was zoned LMD which was a zone that is now replaced on
adjacent properties with ROLM(E)(D)(AD). The proposed Service Commercial (CS) zoning would
conform to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property and the Site and Design Review (D)
Combining District would be consistent with the adjacent properties. The Record of Land Use Action
(Attachment A) and Attachment G both provide a list of applicable policies for this project. The
proposed project would take advantage of the greater allowed floor area (up t02.0 FAR) for hotels in
the CS zone. A table comparing the proposed project with the zoning requirements of the CS(D)
district is included as Attachment F. '
Airport A vigation Easement
The proposed project is within the Airport Land Use Plan for'the Palo Alto Airport. Though the
project is not directly below the line of approach for incoming aircraft, it was reviewed by the County
of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission on September 24,2008. This review resulted in a
requirement that the land owner grant an avigation easement for Palo Alto Airport, setting forth
acceptance of elevation limits and aircraft noise impacts, prior to issuance of building permits. This is
included in the conditions of approval outlined in the draft Record of Land Use Action, Attachment
A.
Traffic/Parking
The project, as proposed, will provide 166 parking spaces (90 in one level of underground parking),
subject to approval of the requested 41 % reduction in the number of parking spaces required for hotel
rooms (87 provided where 147 are required), as shown in Attachment F. This reduction is requested
based on Section 18.52.040 Table 2 which allows for a reduction of up to "75% of the spaces required
for guest rooms, upon approval by the director based on a parking study of parking generated by the
mix of uses." Parking facilities for 26 bicycles are proposed, situated at grade at multiple locations
around the proposed building.
Trees/Landscape Plan
All of the 25 existing on site trees are proposed to b~ remov~d and replaced with 94 new trees. None
of these trees are protected trees and their removal and replacement is supported by the Planning
Arborist due to excessive topping, and inappropriate species for this Baylands area. 10 publicly owned
trees originating in the right-of-way have been topped and disfigured repeatedly for power line
clearance above, and are recommended to be replaced by this project as part of a comprehensive
,landscape and urban forest renewal measure. The proposed tree and shrub palette has been reviewed
by the Planning Arborist for compatibility with Sunset Zone 3 area that will tolerate the predominant
fill and 'bay mud' underlay soil horizon. Zone 3 is a transition zone that incorporates indigenous and
salt marsh (Zone 1) and qmamental planting (Zone 4). The proposed planting will include an area at
the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road with a Baylands theme in plant
species, layout, and signage. Overall, the project landscape theme is consistent with the 2008
Baylands Master Plan emphasizing:
The Baylands is a distinctive landscape character notable for its openness and low profile.
Because of shallow soils, brackish water, and persistent winds, the landscape is flat and
09PLN-00175 Page 3
3
treeless, defined by the expansive horizon with a big sky, flat water, and waving grasses. The
natural color palette is a study in muted tones. The landscape design intent should be simple
serene and not complicated
While all of these elements cannot be achieved due to urban constraints such as the P G & E
transmission towers and traffic proximity, landscape design efforts have been successful to diminish
their apparent presence, such as thoughtful mounding and planting passing through the tower legs,
allowing grasses to soften the edge of fonnal curving walkways and providing stone and bench
seating for passive relaxation. The more fonnal character of landscaping in other areas of the site is
blended with the Baylands comer through winding paths, and phasing of plant materials (Sheet
LD 1.1). Internal planting on the parking structure has a cultural plant theme that should realize long
lived timeframe. If the City Council approves removal of the 10 street trees along East Bayshore Road
they would also be replaced with equal numbers of trees that can be appropriately spaced and
correctly pruned to grow to an optimum height to avoid conflict and topping from power lines above.
This urban renewal of public trees is consistent with the City of Palo Alto's Street Tree Management
Plan strategy.
Height & Mass
The height and massing of the proposed building were among the significant concerns expressed in
previous reviews of this project. The project design has been revised since the prelimi~ary reviews, so
that the proposal now meets the 50 foot height limit set forth in the CS zone regulations. The revised
design uses horizontal lines and shading devices to emphasize the horizontality of the Baylands
environment.
Baylands
The proposed project is within the Baylands Master Plan area. The property functions as a primary
gateway to the Baylands recreation and commercial area, and is designated as a scenic route, a
primary entry point and a major view corridor to the Baylands, as listed in the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, Map L-4. The major impacts of the master plan on the proposed project will be
in the areas of signage, materials, and landscaping. The project design has incorporated context
sensitive design elements that were created within the landscape and right-of-way frontage of the
property on the west side of East Bayshore. The newly completed (2008) project located at 2540
Watson Court (2300 East Bayshore) incorporated iconic elements and strong visual character defming
elements of the Baylands and Bixby Park, such as hillock mounding, grasses, trails, waterway, passive
use and observation deck elements (Sheet LD 1.3). At staff s request, the applicant has also creatively
introduced several unique interpretive signs that to achieve reflective interest of pedestrians, patrons
and cyclists who will use both frontages of Embarcadero and East Bayshore Roads. The proposed
project contains elements consistent with the Site Assessment & Design Guidelines ofr the Palo Alto
Baylands Nature Preserve (Catalyst 2005.) Examples of the unique interpretive signage are available
in the project file (Sheet SI). Functioning in concert with the 2450 Watson Court project across the
street, it is staff s opinion that a world-class Baylands gateway will have been created, achieving the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Program Goals L-71, Program T-57 and Map L-4.
Green Building
The project is subject to meeting the City's green building ordinance (Chapter 18.44) at the LEED
silver level. The applicant has provided the required LEED checklist (Attachment H) ·and the project
includes green elements in its design as shown on project plans, Attachment I). Furthennore,
sustainable best practices for site planning are integrated for compliance with the city's parking lot
09PLN-OO] 75 Page 4
4
shading and pervious surface goals and water reduction policy.
Next Steps
Once the project-receives a recommendation from the ARB based on the Site and Design Review and
ARB fmdings, the City Council will review the project and make a decision on the Variance and Site
and Design Review application.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has b~en completed and a Draft Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements. Issues
discussed include concerns about aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic, though expected
impacts are less Plan significant with standard conditions of approval and state and local
requirements. The public comment period for this document closed on November 26,2009. To
date, no ,comments have been received on the Draft Negative Declaration.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Prepared By:
Manager Review:
. Draft Record of Land Use Action
Draft ARB Findings
Location Map
Project Description Letter*
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Zoning Compliance Table
Comprehensive Plan Table
LEED checklist
Project Plans (ARB members only)*
Jennifer Cutler, Planner
Amy French, Current Planning Manager
COURTESY COPIES
Cynthia Munoz, Stoecker & Northway Architects, applicant
Wu-chung Hsiang & Vicky Ching, owners
09PLN-00175 Page 5
5
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
===:=====:===:======:=Ml8:ETTN(iS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26===============
ROLL CALL:
Board members:
Thursday February 4, 2010
REGULAR MEETING -8:30 AM
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Staff Liaison:
Alexander Lew (Chair) Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Clare Malone Prichard (Vice Chair)
Grace Lee
Judith Wasserman
Heather Young.
Staff:
Amy French, Planning Manager
Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Jennifer Cutler, Planner
Steven Turner, Senior Planner
Shahla Yazdy; transportation Engineer
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.
• Public comment -Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3)
minutes depending on large number of speakers per item.
• Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff, and comments
• Applicant closing comments -Three (3) minutes
• Close public hearing
• Motions/recommendations by the Board
• Final vote
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.
City of Palo Alto Pagel
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Minutes of January 7,2010 and September 3, 2009.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. 1700 Embarcadero Road [09PLN-00175]: Request by Stoecker & Northway Architects, Inc.,
on behalf of Wu-chung Hsiang & Vicky Ching, for rezoning to Service Commercial with a Site
and Design Review Combining District (CS(D)), approval of a variance, and approval of site and
design review for demolition of an existing restaurant, and construction of a four-story hotel and
restaurant. Environmental Assessment: An Initial StudylN egative Declaration has been prepared
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the City Council adopt the
Negative Declaration and approve the proposed project, based upon the draft conditions of approval
in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) and the draft ARB findings in Attachment B.
Public Testimony:
Dick 'Perry, . Palo Alto: Stated his was the owner of a neighboring property and had concerns
regarding the noise, traffic, and parking.
Architectural Review Board Action:
The Board recommended approval of the project, (4-0-1-0, Board member Wasserman moved,
seconded by Board member Lee, Board member Malone Prichard absent due to conflict of interest)
with an additional condition to return to the ARB Subcommittee to review revised plans addressing
the following:
A. Colors shall be refined to address grayness, and lack of contrast;
B. Consider a modest increase in emphasis at the main entry to the hotel;
C. Review design integrity of the signage such that the new signs will better integrate with the
building and each other;
D. Provide some modulation of the east elevation of the building;
E. Refine how trash and service entrance will be dealt with; and
F. Move bike lockers away from the front entry.
2. 910 Charleston Road: request by ACS Architects" on behalf of Ai Yueh Lee, for a Minor
Architectural Review· for the addition of approximately 95 sq. ft, exterior improvements, new
signage, landscape' and parking lot improvements for an existing restaurant. A Design
Enhancement Exception is requested to allow less building frontage at the Charleston Rd.
frontage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt fronl the provisions of CEQA, 15301 (Existing
Facilities). Zone District: CS.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recon1mends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the Director of Planning
and Community Environment approve the proposed project, based upon the Architectural Review and
-Development Enhancement Exception Findings (Attachment A) and subject to the conditions of
approval (Attachment B).
Architectural Review Board Action:
The Board recommended approval of the following project, (5-0-0-0 Board member Wasserman
moved, seconded by Board member Young) with an additional condition that the following items
return to the ARB on the Consent Calendar for further review:
A. Provide landscaping at the front of the property;
B. Add trees between the drive through aisle and the eastern property boundary;
C. Delete the expression panels and arches; provide a planting area adj acent to the building between
the north side doors to install trellises and vines;
D. Extend the stone to the towers and wrap stone around the building at base, adjusting as needed to
continue underneath windows;
E. Provide details to show how the stone materials will meet the other materials;
F. The main building color shall be changed to a more neutral color (not orange);
G. Reconsider the proportions of the tower, especially the top, and simplify to remove bell curve (a
simple curve or flat profile would be acceptable);
H. Provide a darker tri,m color at the top of the tower;
1. Revise sign color so that the signs are all purple;
J. Revise site furnishings and other elements shall be painted/finished in a neutral color to match the
building;
K. Modify the railing for the ramp and specify the color; using frieze design for railing is
acceptable;and
L; Specify the color and type of paving at ramp area.
STUDY SESSION: the following items were discussed with the applicant.
3,' 801 Center Drive (Eleanor Pardee Park): Request by the Utilities Department, on behalf of the
City of Palo Alto, for a Study Session for comments on the preliminary design for an emergency
water well and other landscape improvements in Eleanor Pardee Park.
Subcommittee Action:
This item was not heard.
4. Stanford University Medical Center-Overview of design adjustments to the Lucile Packard
Children's Hospital.
Subcommittee Action:
This item was discussed with the applicant.
BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
SUBCOMMITTEE:
EI Camino Real and Stanford Avenue Intersection Improvements.
STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW:
Project Description: Approval for renovation of the bobcat enclosure, new fencing, new
colored rubber paving within the zoo area, and other minor inlprovements.
Applicant: Palo Alto Museum & Zoon
Address:1451 Middlefield Road
Approval Date: January 21,2010
Requestfor hearing deadline: February 4, 2010
Project Description: Review of new exterior stair to replace the existing stair on the rear wall
of the existing commercial building.
Applicant: Simon Cintz
Address: 3565 EI Camino Real
Approval Date: January 19,2010
Requestfor hearing deadline :February 2,2010
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to
access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City's
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City's ADA Coordinator at .
650.329.2550 (voice) or bye-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org.
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.
Materials related: to an item on this agenda submitted to the Architectural Review Board after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community
Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during
normal business hours.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
TO:
FROM:
ATTACHMENT I
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT'
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Jennifer Cutler, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: Noverrlber 18,2009
SUBJECT: 1700 Embarcadero Road [09PLN-00175]: Request by Stoecker &
Northway Architects, Inc., on behalf of Wu-chung Hsiang & Vicky Ching,
for rezoning to Service Commercial with a Site and Design Review
Combining District (CS(D)), approval of a variance, and approval of site
and design review for demolition of an existing restaurant, and
construction of a four story hotel and restaurant. Environmental
Assessment: An Initial Study/ Negative Declaration has been prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that
the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment and approve the
requested zone change to Service Commercial with a Site and Design Review combining district
(CS)(D), and approve the site and design review and variance application for development of a
four story hotel and restaurant on the property located at 1700 Embarcadero Road, subject to
Conditions of Approval and findings in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B).
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road. The
project site is approximately 2.5 acres and contains a single 15,180 square foot restaurant
occupied by Ming's Chinese Cuisine & Bar with associated parking and landscaping. Most of
the existing site is paved or occupied by the 25 trees on the site. The site includes a PG&E tower
and easement along East Bayshore Road for the existing PG&E power lines, preventing any
development within 80 feet of the East Bayshore Road property line.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
The site is surrounded by office properties on all sides and across Embarcadero Road and East
Bayshore Road, with the exception of the car dealerships to the east side. All surrounding
properties are zoned ROLM(E)(D)(AD), except for one adjacent Planned Community (PC) to the
east. The project site was rezoned from LM(D) to Planned Community (PC Ordinance 237S) in I
1967 and revised by resolution number 2491 in 1969 (Attachment H). The site has a
Comprehensive Plan designation' of Service Commercial and is located within the East Bayshore
Employment District, which is -intended for diverse business and light industrial uses.
The project, which originally included a request for rezoning to a new Planned Community (PC)
zone, had a preliminary review by the Planning & Transportation Commission on September 10,
200S. The project at that time included 162 rooms in the proposed hotel. In response to
comment from the P&TC the proposal was changed to include a rezoning to Service Commercial
(CS) rather than PC. This new proposal had preliminary review by the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) on January 15,2009. The ARB expressed concerns about over-parking and
emphasized the importance of working with the Baylands plant palette and resolution'ofmassing
issues, but expressed support for the change from PC to CS zone. Since the ARB meeting, the
applicant has refined the design by reducing the size and number of guest rooms to 143 guest
rooms. Further ar~hitectural details and landscape plans will be presented to the ARB in response
to their preliminary comments at the formal ARB review of the project.
Zone Change Process
The project includes a request for a rezoning of the site from the existing PC to Service
Commercial (CS) with the Site and Design (D) combining district as previously indicated. A
zone change is required in order to permit the proposed new building and use that would replace
those described in the existing PC zone and land use. Rezoning follows a unique set of
procedures and standards, which are described in Chapter lS.S0 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code:
If, from the facts presented at the public hearing, including public testimony and
reports and recommendations from the director of planning and community
environment or other appropriate city staff, the commission finds that a change of
district boundaries would be in accord with the purposes of this title and in accord
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the commission may recon1ll1end such
change as it deems appropliate to the council.
The recommendation of the planning commission will be forwarded to city council for final
action.
Site and Design Review Process
The proposed zoning designation includes the Site and Design Review (D) combining district, so
any development plans will need to proceed through the process of site and design. This process
is described in P AMC Section lS.30(G).055 and includes the following steps:
(a) The applicant seeking site and design approval . shall initially submit to the planning
commission a site plan and elevations as described in Section lS.30(G).050. The plans
City of Palo Alto Page 2
and elevations may be preliminary in nature but must show all pertinent information
requested by the director.
(b) If the planning commission recommends denial, a detailed site plan and elevations
consistent with the planning commission recommendation shall be forwarded directly to
the city council.
(c) If the planning commission recommends approval, a detailed site plan and elevations
consistent with the planning commission recommendation shall be forwarded to the
architectural review board for review, except in the case of single-family and accessory
uses. The architectural review board shall nlake a reconlffiendation on the plans and
elevations based on the findings for architectural review in Section 18.76.020(d).
(d) The plans and elevations, as approved by the planning commission and the architectural
review board, are submitted with recommendations to council for final action.
To recommend approval of the Site and Design application the P&TC must find that the project
meets the following objectives:
(a) To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly,
hannonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
(b) To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or
educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the sanle or adjacent areas.
(c) To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be
observed.
(d) To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
Variance Process
The proj ect includes a request for a v:ariance from the proposed development requirements
requiring that the building be built to the required front setback for 50% of the property frontage
on Embarcadero Road.
To recommend a variance the P &TC must find that:
(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. Special circumstances. that are expressly excluded from
consideration are:
(A) The personal circumstances of the property owner, and
City of Palo Alto Page 3
(B) Ally 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 to the same
zoning designation.
(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 sanle. zoning district as the subject
property, and
(3) The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
the purposes of this title (Zoning), and
(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.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The applicant's project description is provided in Attachment E to this report.
The proposed four story restaurant and hotel project would include a new 117,698 square foot
building with 143 guest rooms, a restaurant of approximately 5,602 square feet, a small amount
of retail (87 square feet), a small gym (541 square feet), one level of underground parking, and a
new surface parking lot and landscaping. The maximum height of the building would be 50 feet,
with a design that steps up and back from the comer of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore
Road. The proposed parking facilities would include 166 parking spaces, 90 of which will be
within the one level of underground parking, and the remaining 76 surface parking spaces would
be located in front of the building. The project includes removal of the existing building and 25
existing trees.
Key Issues
Staffhas identified the following issues for the P&TC's specific consideration and comment:
,Land Use and Intensity
The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Service Commercial, and the site is within
the East Bayshore Employment District. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-46 states, "maintain the
East Bayshore area as a diverse business and light industrial district" and notes that "the design
of new or redeveloped buildings should reflect the area's location near the Baylands and that
connections to the nearby Baylands should be strengthened by taking advantage of views and
improving bicycle and pedestrian connections to the open space area." The proposed hotel use
will introduce a new use to this employment district, to enhance the diversity of uses. Placement
of bicycle racks approximately 30 feet from the intersection, and pathways from the East
Bayshore sidewalk through the property, will improve bicycle and pedestrian activity at this
important comer.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Prior to the original PC zone, implemented in 1967, the property was zoned LMD which was a
zone that is now replaced on adjacent properties with ROLM(E)(D)(AD). The proposed Service
Commercial (CS) zoning would conform to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property
and the Site and Design Review (D) Combining District would be consistent with the adjacent
properties. The proposed project would take advantage of the greater allowed floor area (up to
2.0 FAR) for hotels in the CS zone. A table comparing the proposed project with the zoning
requirements of the CS(D) district is included as Attachment G.
Airport A vigation Easement
The proposed project is within the Airport Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport. Though the
project is not directly below the line of approach for incoming aircraft, it was reviewed by the
County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission on September 24,2008. This review
resulted in a requirement that the land owner grant an avigation easement for Palo Alto Airport,
setting forth acceptance of elevation limits and aircraft noise impacts, prior to issuance of
building pennits. This is included ih the conditions of approval outlined in the draft Record of
Land Use Action, Attachment B.
Trees
All of the 25 existing on site trees are proposed to be removed and replaced with 94 new trees.
None of the existing trees are protected trees. If the City Council approves removal of the 10
street trees along East Bayshore Road the trees would also be replaced with equal numbers of a
new species recommended by city staff and reviewed by the ARB to better fit under the existing
PG&E power lines. A final· detailed landscaping plan will be reviewed by staff and the
Architectural Review Board for recommendation to City Council.
Extended Stay
The proposed hotel will comply with the requirements ofPAMC 18.16.060 (d) including
recently adopted provisions by Council to regulate extended stay hotels. These regulations allow
for greater floor area for hotels, but limit room stays in excess of thirty days except where City
Council approves longer stays through an enforceable agreement with the applicant to provide
for compensating revenues.
Parking Requirements
The project, as proposed, will provide 166 parking spaces (90 in one level of underground
parking), subject to approval of the requested 40% reduction in the number of parking spaces
required for hotel rooms (87 provided where 143 are required), as shown in Attachment G. This
reduction is requested based on Section 18.52.040 Table 2 which allows for a reduction of up to
"75% of the spaces required for guest rooms, upon approval by the director based on a parking
study of parking generated by the mix of uses." Parking facilities for 26 bicycles are proposed.
Height Requirements
The proj ect design has been revised since the preliminary reviews, so that the proposal now
meets the 50 foot height limit set forth in the CS zone regulations. <
Traffic and Other Environmental Issues
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Attacmnent I is the Initial Study/ Negative Declaration. This document i~cludes discussion of
potential environmental impacts and a summary including the traffic study completed for this
proj ect. The traffic study was based on the original plans and found that even with the original
proposal of 162 rooms, the proj ect would not have a significant impact on traffic in the area.
Baylands
The proposed project is within the Baylands Master Plan area and will therefore be subject to
compliance with the guidelines when reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. The major
impacts of the master plan on the proposed project will be in the areas of signage, materials, and
landscaping.
Variance Findings
Under the CS regulations, the structure must be built to the setback for 50% of the street
frontage. The proposed project does not meet the 50% "build-to" requirements as the design
includes a 30 foot setback along Embarcadero Road rather than the 0-10 foot setback required to
create a 10-12 foot sidewalk in the CS zone. The proposed building does span 50% of the
frontage, but it is located 20 feet farther back from Embarcadero Road than is required by the
code, and therefore an exception is requested from the code regulations. A variance is indicated
as the process for this exception, rather than a Design Enhancement Exception, due to the extent
of the setback discrepancy (20 feet). The following findings are proposed, per P AMC
18.76.030(d), prior to approval ofa variance:
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. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from
consideration are:
(A) The personal circumstances 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 to the same
zoning designation.
Though the proposed project is inJhe Service Commercial designation in the
Comprehensive Plan, it is not surrounded by other properties within the sanle zoning
designation. Placement of the building at the "build-to" lines required in the CS zone
would not be consistent with the site placement of the surrounding buildings in the area,
nor with the open feel of the Baylands. Build-to line placement is more desirable along
the EI Camino Real and pedestrian oriented streets. The proposed design brings the
building closer to the street than other buildings in the area in order to provide the
presence on the street, which is the goal of the "build-to" lines, and places the building
farther back than required in order to address the more open context of other buildings
near the Baylands. In addition, the PG&E easement along East Bayshore Road prevents
placement of a building within 80 feet of the East Bayshore Road property line.
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
City of Palo Alto Page 6
upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject
property.
The proposed project is in an area dominated by office buildings and auto dealerships in
the ROLM(E) zoning district where the required front setback is 20 feet, and there is no
"build-to" requirement. The proposed zoning will comply with the Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site, and approval of this variance would allow the design to meet all
other the requirements of the new zoning designation, while presenting a design which
also works with the context of other buildings in the vicinity.
3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
the purposes of this title (Zoning).
The proposed project is located within the area encompassed by the Baylands Master
Plan. This plan describes the openness of the Baylands which is a significantly different
environment than other areas of the city within the CS zone like EI Camino Real or other
pedestrian oriented streets. Therefore this proposed setback is appropriate to the type of
environment in and around the Palo Alto Baylands.
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 granting of the requested variance would provide for a building and site design that
are more in keeping with the surrounding area than if the "build-to" regulations were
enforced and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
Site and Design Findings
The proposed zoning for this site includes the Site and Design Combining District (D). Section
18.30(G).060 of the PAMC requires the P&TC review the project and recommend approval or
changes such that the project is compatible with the Site and Design findings; in italics below.
Staffhas prepared customized findings for P&TC review:
1. To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly,
harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The project is designed for a hotel and related uses and incorporates a site layout that is
comparable to the existing building and compatible with surrounding uses. Specifically,
the hotel would be located on Ernbarcadero Road, adjacent to office and automobile sales
facilities and the proposed building is situated on the site in a similar manner. City
standards and regulations will help to ensure that the use, or operation, of the site would
be conducted in a manner that is compatible with the existing uses located in the
immediate area. During construction, it is expected that there would be temporary
impacts to the area in terms of construction-related noise, dust/debris and traffic. These
impacts would be addressed by applicable City construction standards, such as
restrictions on hours of construction, the City's noise ordinance, and the mitigation
measures found in the attached draft Negative Declaration (Attachment I).
2. To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct o/business, research, or
City of Palo Alto Page?
educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
This site is designated for Service Commercial land use in the Comprehensive Plan, and
is proposed to be rezoned to the Service Commercial zone district. It is surrounded by
one and two-story office buildings. The replacement of an existing single story restaurant
building with a new four story hotel and restaurant should not reduce the overall
functionality of the immediate area .. Hotel and restaurant uses are expressly pennitted in
the Palo Alto Municipal Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation and help to support employment uses and revenue generation in the City. The
proposed hotel location also provides easy access from State Highway 101.
3. To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be
observed. The project would replace a disturbed area on the site, which is currently
developed with a restaurant and surface parking lot areas. The project would increase the
number of trees on the site and provide for enhanced landscaping and open space and
comply with the requirements in the Baylands Master Plan for compatibility with the
Palo Alto Baylands. Green building features would be incorporated to achieve LEED
Silver compliance. This application was subject to an environmental impact assessment
(EIA), and it was detennined that, as detailed in the attached Negative Declaration
(Attachment I), there will be n<? significant environmental impacts associated with the
proposed development.
4. To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designation is Service Commercial per the Palo Alto 1998 -
2010 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project for rezoning from Planned Community
to Service-Commercial, and construction of a new hotel and restaurant is consistent with
the land use designation. The proj ect is also ;consistent with The Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan policies related to business and economics. The Comprehensive
Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that
these commercial areas are more competitive and better serve the community. The
commercial properties could be redesigned to be more attractive and inviting for
pedestrians. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are incorporated into the Draft
Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B). Additional applicable Comprehensive Goals
and Policies are provided in Attachment F. The draft Record orLand Use Action
(Attachment B) incorporates these findings.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed project includes a new hotel and restaurant which will support the Comprehensive
Plan goals which encourage private property owners to upgrade commercial properties in ways
that will support the City's economic base. The Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to this
project are provided in Attachments Band F.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
This project is the second hotel project since the zoning ordinance amendment of 2005 which
allowed additional FAR for hotels. The proposed hotel will comply with the requirements of
I
City of Palo Alto Page 8
PAMC 18.16.060 (d) including recently adopted provisions by Council to regulate extended stay
hotels.
TIMELlNE
The Site and Design Review process provides for the following review: P&TC,'ARB, and then
City Council for final action. IfP&TC recommends approval, the project will be scheduled for
ARB review in January 2010, followed by City Council review in February or March 2010.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements. Issues
discussed include concerns about aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic, though expected
impacts are less than significant with standard conditions of approval and state and local
requirements. The public comment period for this document will close on November 26, 2009.
To date, no comments have been received on the Draft Negative Declaration.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Zoning Ordinance
B. Draft Record of Land Use Action
C. Location Map
D. Zoning Map
E. Project Description Letter*
F. Comprehensive Plan Policies
G~ Zoning Comparison Table
H. Existing Planned Community Ordinance
1. Draft Initial Study/ Negative Declaration(CEQA) (Provided to Commissioners, Libraries,
Development Center, and 5th floor of City Hall only)
J. Project Plans* (Provided to Commissioners, Libraries, Development Center, and 5th floor
of City Hall only)
*prepared by applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Stoecker & Northway Architects, Inc., applicant
Prepared by: Jennifer Cutler, Planner jjY
Reviewed by: Amy French, Current Planning Manage~
DepartmentIDivision Head Approval: Q~ curtis ituamS:Director of Planning /l
City of Palo Alto Page 9
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
Verbatim Minutes
November 18, 2009
EXCERPT
Okay, item number two is 1700 Embarcadero Road. A request by Stoecker & Northway
Architects, Inc., on behalf of Wu-chung Hsiang and Vicky Ching, for rezoning to Service
Commercial with a Site and Design Review Combining District [CS(D)], approval ofa Variance,
and approval of Site and Design Review for demolition of an existing restaurant and construction
ofa four story hotel and restaurant. Would Stafflike to make a presentation?
Before we do that Commissioner Holman has a brief statement.
Commissioner Holman: Yes, one of the applicants sits on a Board that employs me so I have to
recuse myself from this item and wish you all well.
Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, thank you. Staff, a presentation.
2. 1700 Embarcadero Road (Mings Restaurant & Hotel)*: Review and recommendation
of requests for: (l) an Amendment to the Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designation
from Planned Community (PC) to Service Commercial (CS) with the Site and Design (D)
Combining District, (2) Site and Design Review of the proposed restaurant and hotel
building, and (3) a Variance to allow a greater setback (less then the 50% "build to"
requirement) along a portion of Embarcadero Road. Envirolunental Assessment: An
Initial Study has been completed and a draft Negative Declaration has been prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
Ms. Jennifer Cutler, Planner: Good evening Commissioners. The proposed project before you
tonight is the replacement of the Mings Restaurant at 1700 Embarcadero Road. The proposal is
for a new hotel, which would include a portion for the restaurant. This application includes three
aspects: the rezoning of the property from a PC zone to CS(D); a Site and Design Review; and a
Variance.
When this project came before you a year ago it was conceiv~d as a new PC zone but based on
comments received at that time the proposal has been revised to be a rezoning to Service
Commercial rather than Planned Community. The Service Commercial matches the
Comprehensive Plan designation for the area with a Site and Design Combining District due to
its location in proximity to the Baylands. Today's hearing is to consider the appropriateness of
the proposed zoning as well as to conduct the Site and Design Review and consider a Variance
for setback requirements. Any recommendation for approval of the Site and Design will be
contingent upon the successful rezoning of the property of course, but the two processes are
being run concurrently for this project.
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 1 of37
1 The Commission's review of the Site and Design is for the purpose of ensuring four objectives
2 are accomplished by the project. The full text of these objectives are included in the Staff Report
3 but in summary they are to ensure that the proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding
4 area and uses, that the design will be based on sound environmental and ecological principles,
5 and that the use is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. One of the guiding documents
6 for Site and Design in this area is the Baylands Design Guidelines. The purpose of these design
7 guidelines is to provide specifics for new construction within the Baylands as well as some
8 general direction to projects in the vicinity of the Baylands. They emphasize muted natural
9 colors, horizontal lines, low fences and signage, and design for practicality.
10
11 In discussion with the applicant Staff has recommended that the part of the design that will have
12 the strongest impact when it comes to using the Baylands Design Guidelines is the landscaping
13 and signage at the street comer where it can create a gateway along with the newly constructed
14 building and Baylands themed landscape on the opposite site of East Bayshore Road. The
15 project's relationship to the Baylands and how it works with the Baylands Design Guidelines
16 will be described in more detail by the applicant as well.
17
18 One element that Staff would like specific comment from the Commission tonight is on the issue
19 of the ~xisting street trees along East Bayshore Road. The existing trees may not be the most
20 appropriate species for the location due to the excessive cropping that has been necessary due to
21 the overhead power lines and the high maintenance of those street trees species that are there at
22 the moment. This development may be the appropriate opportunity to replace the trees with
23 more appropriate species that will be more appropriate to the overall site design and to the
24 Baylands Design Guidelines. The applicant has expressed their willingness to follow the City's
25 requirement either way.
26
27 The Variance request for this project is from the build to requirements. These requirements in
28 the CS zone apply both to the front and street setbacks and require that the building be built to
29 the edge of the setback for a certain percentage of the length. The proposal is for the building to
30 be placed along the edge of the PG&E easement, which is an 80-foot setback from East
31 Bayshore Road. This meets the requirements for street side since the building is built as close to
32 the property line as is possible given that easement. The Variance is requested for the location of
33 the building in relation to the front setback. Rather than being located within ten feet of the
34 sidewalk the proposal would be 30 feet setback to be in keeping with surrounding sites. Draft
35 fmdings can be found in the Staff Report.
36
37 We have the architect, several representatives for the applicant here. They are ready to make a
38 presentation and discuss more about the project, and Staff is available to answer any additional
39 questions.
40
41 Chair Garber: Thank you. Let me just remind members of the public that if they would like to
42 speak on this item to fill out a cara. The applicant, would you like to make a presentation? You
43 will have 15 minutes.
44
45 Mr. John Northway, Stoecker & Northway Architects: Thank 'you. We came about a year ago,
46 we listened to you, we conferred with Staff, and we are back following your recommendations
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 2 of37
1 for a zone change rather than a PC. I am going to be very brief. I want to briefly introduce our
2 project team. The project architects are Clare Malone-Pritchard, and Cynthia Munoz. Our
3 landscape architect is Jerry Mitchell. Wu-chung Hsiang and Vicky Ching are here. We will all
4 be available to answer your questions after the presentation. I am going to turn it over to Cynthia
5 because she knows how to work all that I would go blank.
6
7 Ms. Cynthia Munoz, Stoecker & Northway Architects: Hello, I am pleased to provide you with
8 this overview of the proposed project. In this slide we have an aerial photo. Here is the project
9 site with Mings Restaurant. Embarcadero Road runs along the north of the property and East
10 Bayshore Road along the west. To the west are a recently completed office building and the
11 Audi and Honda dealerships sit to the east. Across the road to the north and to the south are
12 some older office buildings. The Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and the airport sit along the
13 east of the property down Embarcadero Road. As you can see we are cutoff from direct access
14 from the Baylands although we are very close. These properties prohibit a direct connection to
15 the Baylands.
16
17 You can see the shadow of the electrical tower that currently sits at the comer. The power lines
18 run north-south and continue for quite a distance. The 60-foot PG&E easement sits here, and sits
19 along the five-foot wide public utility easement. Currently you can enter the site from both
20 Embarcadero Road and from East Bayshore Road.
21
22 Here is a footprint of the proposed hotel superimposed on this site. In terms of site circulation
23 we are keeping the main vehicle entrance at the southwest comer of the property along Bayshore
24 and away from the main traffic along Embarcadero. Another reason for keeping the main site
25 entrance at this location is the owners have consulted with a feng shui expert and the feedback
26 they received was that to counter the effects of electrical tower which is a fire element the main
27 entrance to the hotel needed to be located as far away from it as possible. It was important that
28 the entry be fairly centered on that elevation, placing at the comer of the building for example
29 was not sufficient.
30
31 Service vehicles we proposed to have access to this site off of Embarcadero Road leading onto a
32 secondary driveway and a loading zone for deliveries is planned right inside that service
33 entrance. The trash recycling area is planned for this southeast comer of the property.
34
35 At the comer of the site the plan will be to plant the area with species native to the Baylands.
36 Mings would develop an outdoor dining area facing this comer as well making this a more
37 attractive and welcoming area. The restaurant would be accessible from the interior of the hotel
38 as well as from the outdoor plaza area.
39
40 There is a central courtyard, which would house a pool, gazebo, and outdoor seating areas for
. 41 guests. We currently have planned bicycle parking near the restaurant entrance as well as near
42 the main hotel entrance. A decorative paving pattern would lead guests entering the main drive
43 to the main hotel entrance.
44
45 We decided to back the four story portions of the building against the adjacent commercial
46 properties, and stepped the building down to two stories towards the comer of the property. This
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 3 of37
1 presented us with opportunities to have planted gardens on top of the roofs on the two story and
2 three story portions.
3
4 This is a schematic layout of the one story underground parking garage. The first floor and
5 second floor have the same footprint while the third floor steps back some, and the fourth floor
6 steps back even more. The roof plan illustrates some potential areas for photovoltaic panels.
7 The intent is for any rooftop equipment to be concealed by a surrounding equipment screen. We
8 also use the equipment screen to provide sun shading to the building by incorporating a deep
9 horizontal element to it.
10
11 The following are some prospective views of the concept for this building. This is a more
12 detailed depiction of our concept for the building as viewed looking towards the property comer.
13 Here are some less detailed massing models that we put together. Here again is a view looking
14 at the property from the comer. This is the southwest comer looking towards the main entry as if
15 you were entering the main driveway entrance. Here is the southeast comer, this is the main
16 entrance, and this is the side facing the car dealerships. Here is the northeast comer, so this front
17 would be parallel to Embarcadero Road. Here is the south view looking straight at the main
18 entrance. The west view, so this is the side that is 'parallel with Bayshore Road. H;ere we just
19 superimposed the massing model on some streetscape photos.
20
21 In the interest of trying to see what if any visibility there might be of the project from the
22 Baylands we chose to look back towards the property from several locations in Bixby Park.
23 Here is an enlarged aerial map indicating the approximate locations of where I stood looking
24 back towards the project site. What I did after parking my car I decided to head up this path
25 noting that there was a high point and then decided to continue down where the path dips and
26 then reaches another crest, then thought that it would also be beneficial to head downhill to get
27 past the mound of the dump to see what I could see looking back at the project site. So here is
28 from point one looking back approximately towards the direction of the site. As you can see
29 what I found was that the mound created by the dump pretty much obscures what I could find of
30 the site, which was nothing. Likewise as I headed further south down the path. Here is where I
31 start to head downhill towards this flat path. I stopped and looked back and approximately the
32 project site sits behind this area. The key was I was trying to find the electrical tower on the
33 comer, which we approximate to be about 102 feet tall, and our building is half that height. So I
34 couldn't see.the tower so I would assume that our building would be not visible from this site.
35 Again, here is' where I am on the lower walking path looking back toward that same site.
36
37 So drawing inspiration from the Baylands our concept is to use stone veneer in a natural tone to
38 establish a strong horizontal base. The upper two floors and mechanical equipment screen would
39 be finished with an exterior insulation finish system and we plan to use colors that would
40 compliment the natural tones of the Baylands. To accent the comer of the building near the site
41 entrance and the main hotel entrance we plan on incorporating accents of colored and decorative
42 glass. We would plan to have deeply recessed windows to provide some shading along with
43 incorporating horizontal aluminum shades.
44
45 Specific plantings for the site and rooftop gardens are being developed and Jerry Mitchell, the
46 landscape architect is here to provide you with a brief overview of the concept.
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 4 of37
1
2 Mr. Jerry Mitchell, Landscape Architect: The hotel landscape consists of a number of different
3 components. The first one as Cynthia mentioned would be the perimeter plantings, which will
4 have a very strong Palo Alto Baylands theme. There will be a meandering path in this area with
5 educational signage and other Bayland type plantings, which will match the site across the street
6 that has quite an extensive Bayland landscape.
7
8 The entry road has a very strong pattern as does the porte-cochere. This was done to really
9 strengthen the sense of arrival at the hotel and direct people. There is fire access around the edge
10 of the porte-cochere and then out this way. Also fire access right here, this has all been worked
11 out with the Fire Marshall.
12
13 The entrance to the restaurant in this area consists of a vehicular turnaround and then concentric
14 circles of different colors of concrete, which is kind of a feng shui approach to creating a nice
15 warm entry into the restaurant as those concentric circles blend into the entrance to the
16 restaurant, which has its own little courtyard which will have a very subtle water feature right at
17 the entrance and seating for guests.
18
19 The interior courtyard has a four-lane lap and swimming pool. There is a spa. It is enclosed
20 with a regulation five-foot fence. Some of it will be an open metal fence. Portion of it will be a
21 wooden fence. There will be an outdoor pavilion here, a shade sail type with a barbeque for the
22 guests. Then there will be a meandering path along this edge and as Cynthia mentioned a
23 loading zone right here. I think that pretty well covers the landscape concept.
24
25 Mr. Northway: We are basically done with our formal presentation. Since Amy turned the lights
26 down would it be helpful to you for Cynthia to show you again the Baylands colors and the stone
27 colors? They were kind of washed out so whatever you would like.
28
29 Chair Garber: If there are questions or a request we will have you do it. Otherwise we will
30 move forward. Thank you. We have two members of the public that would like to speak.
31 Commissioners, again I am suggestion that we go to the public first before we move with our
32, questions and comments. You will have five minutes. Robert Moss followed by Ron Barton.
33
34 Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Garber and Commissioners. This is a
35 significant inlprovement from the initial proposal. It looks a lot better. The orientation on the
36 site is more reasonable.
37
38 One of the things that concerned me with the original proposal was that there were supposed to
39 be buildings and access and things right under the power lines and that has been moved back. So
40 the safety issue is no longer a problem.
41
42 There are a couple of things you probably ought to take another look at just to be sure everything
43 has been handled properly. One ofthenl is the change of the trees. Now, as you know we have
44 had some issues recently about trees. I think it is not a bad idea if we are going to be
45 redeveloping this site to take a look at what we want to put in there in terms of trees, and make
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 5 of37
1 sure that we have an adequate and compatible group of trees both along Embarcadero and along
2 Bayshore, and also have some of them scattered throughout the property itself.
3
4 The second question I have, kind of, is access to the restaurant is kind of an afterthought. You
5 'go down an entry and you go down I guess you could call it a driveway but it is really parking,
6 and you get down to the restaurant and drop people off I guess or tum around and come back
7 again. I can see some logic to it but it just stdkes me as being a little bit awkward for people
8 who are not hotel guests to get in there and use it. Unless you have adequate signage people are
9 not going to be able to find it. That is just something you can take a look at and see whether the
10 restaurant can be connected to the driveway and the parking a little bit more effectively.
11
12 I also was alittle bit surprise the restaurant is going to be about one-third the size of the current
13 restaurant. I thought the current restaurant was fine and am surprised they are cutting it back that
14 much but they know what they. are doing so I guess that is right. .
15
16 The other I guess you would call it a question is the access along Embarcadero where it was
17 talked about that being for fire access only. Isn't there an actual entrance right at the right side?
18 It goes up into Embarcadero so people can come in and go around fronl the top in as well as
19 coming in from Bayshore and going around. If that is an entrance and people can come in from
20 Embarcadero you might want to take a look at the traffic pattern because you can get people
21 going in both directions at the same time and I am not sure that the drive area is wide enough.
22 So just a matter of traffic circulation and how it would be more effective and safer.
23
24 Otherwise, as far as the design of the building it is lovely. I think it is going to be a very nice
25 addition to the community.
26
27 Chair Garber: Thank you. Ron Barton our last speaker. You will have five minutes.
28
29 Mr. Ron Barton, Carlsen Audi: Hello. We have some concerns about the Variances being
30 granted. We have already received numerous complaints from consumers about how hard it is to
31 visually see our dealership and these proposed trees and some of these other changes are going to
32 have a negative impact on people seeing our location. It is going to have a major impact upon
33 us. That is just our comment.
34
35 Chair Garber: Thank you. Mr. Barton, one of the Commissioners has a question for you.
36 Commissioner Keller.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: My understanding is that the Variance is so that the hotel is further away
39 from Embarcadero Road than would be required. In other words, the requirement would be ten
40 feet from Embarcadero Road and now it is going to be about 30 feet from Embarcadero Road.
41 What exactly are you suggesting?
42
43 Mr. Barton:JThe building is going up and they are going to be planting trees in front of the
44 building according to the tree plan.
45
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 60f37
1 Commissioner Keller: So what is it that you would like to see? I am not sure what your request
2 is.
3
4 Mr . Barton: Our concern is that the City put in a power box by us and now you can't see our
5 signage. You have a very short, brief span of time to see our signage. Putting these trees in, in
6 five years is going to make it much harder to see our location. With this Variance the building is
7 going to be much taller than it is now. It is going to be pushed back a little bit but it is going to
8 be substantially taller. It is going to be four stories and we feel it is going to have a negative
9 impact on us.
10
11 Commissioner Keller: So I am still not clear on exactly what changes you would like to be in
12 this proposed development.
13
14 Mr. Barton: We would like -some of the current landscaping in front of Mings doesn't interfere
15 with our operation. These trees in front and on the comer of the tree line in five to six years
16 those are going to be large trees.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: So am I understanding you that you are complaining about the trees on
19 the property line.
20
21 Mr. Barton: On the Embarcadero side, yes.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: On the property line between the driveway and your property, are those
24 the ones you are complaining about?
25
26 Mr. Barton: The ones from Bayshore to Embarcadero would be those four trees that are not
27 there now, those ones being planted.
28
. 29 Ms. French: We can certainly study that when it gets to the architectural review.
30
31 Commissioner Keller: Then you are complaining about the four trees on Embarcadero but you
32 are not complaining about the trees on the property line between the subject parcel and your
33 property.
34
35 Mr. Barton: We won't know until we find out what kind of trees those are going to be.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Okay. So I am assuming that you will bring your concerns to the ARB in
38 addition where those are stressed in more detail.
39
40 Mr. Barton: Yes sir.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: Thank you, sir.
43
44 Chair Garber: Thank you. We will keep the public meeting open if there are any other questions
45 of the speakers. Commissioners, I have lights from Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner
. 46 Lippert. .
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 70f37
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: I have two questions here. What we are looking at are two parcels.
3 They are not being combined are they?
4
5 Ms. Cutler: The two parcels will be combined by removing that property line so that this will be
6 all one parcel.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, so the porte-cochere is not going to be straddling a property line.
9
10 Ms. Cutler: Correct, it will be all one parcel.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. What is the double line there? Why is there a double property
13 line? Is there a little piece of salvage in there or something? It looks like two lines tllere.
14
15 Ms. Munoz: It looks like one line is a property line and then there is indicating an existing
16 easement that will be abandoned for some existing electrical boxes that will no longer be used.
17
18 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then I had another question regarding the PG&E easement
19 where the primary power lines, the big kahuna towers are going to be traversing the property. It
20 has been my experience where primary power lines are concerned the utilities have the right to
21 come in and they butcher the trees. So the ones in the parking lot, what is going to happen with
22 regard to those? Are those going to be subject to PG&E being able to butcher them? How do we
23 control the growth in such a way that they don't feel obliged to do that?
24
25 Ms. Munoz: We were given limitations from PG&E on types, sizes specifically of trees that we
26 could plant there and we were planning to keep within that parameter. Jerry could probably
27 answer that.
28
29 Mr. Mitchell: We are limited to trees no higher than 15 feet within that easement.
30
31 Commissioner LiJ?pert: Okay and you found a suitable palette that is going to work in there?
32
33 Mr. Mitchell: We also have a shade ordinance to try to fulfill so we need trees that will spread
34 but not be over 15 feet. That is going to take some maintenance as well as a careful choice of
35 trees.
36
37 Commissioner Lippert:· I guess that is where I am going with my line of questioning. You are
38 caught between a power line and a ..... Our ordinance is that every ten cars you are supposed to
39 provide a shade tree. Those are supposed to be adequate in order to shade the automobiles.
40 Then you have the power lines. So my line of questioning really is how are you going to make it
41 so that it is something that is substantial and something that somebody is going to want to park in
42 that is going to look good, but it is not going to wind up getting butchered by the utilities.
43
44 Mr. Mitchell: Well, we are going to select trees that will tolerate pruning. They will have to be
45 kept down to 15 feet and then spread as wide as we, can get them. We have not made a final
46 choice in trees yet.
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 8 of37
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: Can you give me a peek as to what you are talking about doing there?
3 Or just thinking out loud.
4
5 Chair Garber: You would like hinl to speculate on his tree choices?
6
7 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, just talk about it a little bit. They made some choices on colors and
8 finishes. I am not inclined to dig into that too deeply.
9
10 Mr. Mitchell: Well, I guess I am not understanding the question.
11
12 Conlffiissioner Lippert: Any thoughts on tree choices, what you are considering? What you are
13 looking at? What you are thinking about?
14
15 We are looking at a project here which is particularly close to the Baylands so the idea here is
16 that we want it to blend in with the Baylands, but we also have a lot of physical constraints. So
17 what I am looking for is how are we going to make it so that it works so that it is an inviting
18 place and yet it blends in with the adjacent environs.
19
20 Mr. Mitchell: That is one of the design problems. At the intersection where I pointed out that
21 we would like to have some meandering paths and a little berming done in addition to the
22 Bayland planting. Typically the Baylands are somewhat treeless. So if we really want to use
23 that as a theme that particular area is not going to have too many trees in it. That conflicts with
24 the shade requirement so we can't carry that idea 100 percent along all of the parking areas,
25 which we have to shade. Other than that I don't know what I can say about tree choices. That is
26 something that once we get into construction drawings that is when we will really start making
27 some choices of plant materials.
28
29 Commissioner Lippert: Jennifer.
30
31 Ms. Cutler: I just want to insert that those kinds of details will be required prior to going to
32 ARB. A full landscape plan as well as specific species of trees will definitely be required.
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: I appreciate that and I understand it. Where I am going and maybe Amy
35 understands a little bit better because of your landscape architecture background, is here we have
36 one of the most beautiful open spaces in Palo Alto and we are putting a hotel use in proximity to
37 that. The architects have done I think a really great job in terms of working out the sight lines, in
38 terms of how we view this building from the Baylands. As you know across the street we have a
39 project that was built and there were sonle existing eucalyptus trees and eucalyptus trees are
40 nonnative to California and it is a tree that is antithetical to the Baylands and the environs there.
41 They have grown, and matured, and they look nice, but the idea here is we are looking at this
42 anew and we have some site constraints. I am interested in understanding what the thinking is
43 behind the process that is going to get you the right tree selection. You, as a landscape architect,
44 do you have any ideas as to what those trees might be?
45
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 9 of37
1 Mr. Mitchell: Well, the evergreen elm has been one that we have been focusing on for parking
2 lot shading. In fact there are some out there along Bayshore Road. The City Arborist has
3 proposed ~hatthose be removed. It is not a set thing. So it would give us more latitude in
4 treating that area as a Bayland. But that is tree that we are strongly thinking about.
5
6 Chair Garber: May I?
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: Sure.
9
10 Chair Garber: Are there trees that are a part of the Baylands that are recommended for the
11 Baylands that would be appropriate to use here?
12
13 Ms. Cutler: There is a list of species of different types of plants that are appropriate to the
14 Baylands. That has been shared with the applicant. It doesn't dictate that these are the only
15 species that can be used but it does give guidance and suggestions for those types of things. So
16 they will definitely be working with that when they finalize what types of species to use on the
17 site.
18
19 Ms. French: I would add too that due to the need for 50 percent shading of the parking lot we
20 would be expecting to see a shade study that would also inform the types of trees, as the
21 applicant has mentioned.
22
23 Mr. Mitchell: One thing I want to say again, your own City guidelines for Bayland point out
24 very strongly that the Baylands don't have very many trees. So there is sort of a conflict here
25 where we have to compromise and try to shade the parking areas and at the same time maintain
26 the character of the Baylands. We will have the tree selections made for the ARB and we will
27 have some definite recommendations at that time.
28
29 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to note and flag that as an issue or concern on my part when
30 it comes to Site and Design Review. Maybe John has something to share in addition to that, do
31 you have any thoughts? I don't want to put you on the spot but you have worked in Palo Alto
32 long enough.
33
34 Mr. Northway: I think that basically we will sit down with the Staff and with Dave Dockter.
35 Jerry has a huge amount of expertise. It is a conflict but we will work it out and we have to meet
36 the requirements of shading and we have to meet PG&E's requirements. I am quite confident we
37 can do it with the help of everybody involved here. As for me selecting a tree, I can't keep a
38 flower alive so you don't want to talk to me about this.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: I am in the same boat as you. I can't keep a plant alive either but if I
41 don't mention it then my wife will get on my case.
42
43 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez followed by Keller.
44
45 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. Before I forget I know that the Carlsen Audi has a very
46 kind of low profile to the street. I would suggest as a good neighbor that prior to going to ARB
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 10 of37
1 that you do some sight line studies and try to work out an agreement or kind of a win/win
2 situation that you can do all you can with the placement of trees, and other issues to try to be a
3 good neighbor.
4
5 Can I talk about land use?
6
7 Chair Garber: This would be an excellent time to do that.
8
9 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. I am a little bit troubled by this site plan. The feng shui is
10 important and I respect that but the idea of having the entrance to a hotel on the back is just bad
11 urban design. One of the public speakers mentioned that the circuitous entrance to Mings, which
12 is by the way right near the fire, really begins to open up that PG&E tower as being an important
13 sort of symbol. It seems to me, and I now all architects say this so I apologize in advance, if the
14 entrance was off Embarcadero, the building was flipped, and the hotel and the restaurant shared a
15 common entrance that it would be more invigorating to the street. It would add something to this
16 pretty sort of not very interesting intersection right now that it doesn't have. I like the building
17 design. I think it is very attractive. I think when you say insulated panels you mean GFRC. Is
18 that what is going to go above?
19
20 Ms. Munoz: What you might more commonly hear is EFIS, the foam insulation behind and then
21 the stucco on top of it.
22
23
24 Commissioner Martinez: It's okay. Is that a green product, by the way?
25
26 Ms. Munoz: We are looking at companies that incorporate green production nlethods, so yes.
27
28 Commissioner Martinez: So Styrofoam is green all of a sudden.
29
30 Ms. Munoz: Well, some of it is insulative properties in terms of how it helps with the
31 mechanical system. So we are looking at all aspects of the materials we are choosing.
32
33 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, I appreciate that.
34
35 The other issue, the setback Variance I think that is okay. I think at some point we are going to
36 want to look at the whole issue of commercial setbacks. We seem to come across this often
37 where a building wants to move in and out in relationship to the sidewalk or ~he public way for
38 aesthetic reasons if nothing else. It seems to me that these formulas that require 50 percent of
39 this or no more than five feet away from this are sort of not very good predictors of what the
40 situation calls for. I think we want to sort of begin to look at some flexibility that we are not
41 looking at, a call for a Variance in each of these commercial situations. That is just an aside, but
42 this points to that problem and in my short tenure here we have come up against it a couple of
43 times before as well.
44
45 I just really think that that tower and the big circle and the double-loaded parking really call
46 attention to something, which I think is not very attractive. If this became the back of the
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 11 of37
1 building and this parking where there I don't think you ~ould have many people looking for the
2 hotel entrance because they drive by this big circle driving up to the entrance to the restaurant
3 and then1having to double back to find the porte-cochere. It just seems like it could be a much
4 more dynamic element. It is the place people are coming and going where there is a limousine
5 picking up and dropping off people, where people are waiting for the taxi. It invigorates the
6 street and to put it on the backside of the building I don't think serves the commercial interest of
7 the hotel and it certainly doesn't serve the City as really giving us something sort of happening at
8 this comer. I will pick up a couple of other things later on. Thank you.
9
10 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Keller followed by Garber.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So first I an1 wondering if the applicant has any comments
13 with respect to the member of the public mentioning about restaurant signage and access.
14
15 Mr. Northway: Actually in the previous design that was a comment that was also made by ARB.
16 We actually have done quite a bit that will emphasize that entry to the restaurant. Of course
17 there will be signage that will be quite clear directing people.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. One of the things that is interesting to me about this is the
20 notion of the address of the property. It is my understanding that the address of property is
21 Embarcadero Road. Therefore people who Google it or look at other maps sources to find out
22 where this is, I notice you have an aerial Google map that must have been while the site across
23 the street was under construction. So I guess you can date when the maps were done. People
24 would drive along Embarcadero Road and presumably they will see some signage for the
25 restaurant because the restaurant fronts on Embarcadero Road. Their natural tendency is not to
26 turn on East Bayshore to approach a property that is on Embarcadero but in fact to go on
27 Embarcadero and notice that essentially they have gone a little bit too far and they tum up the
28 driveway in order to go to the restaurant they will have hook all the way around. So to me there
29 is something weird about that in terms of how you get to the restaurant because essentially you
30' are going all the way around.
31
32 The second thing is that something similar is true regarding the issue of the hotel except instead
33 of going all the way around to get to the hotel people will go down Embarcadero Road, go on the
34 driveway off of Embarcadero Road, and then go into the porte':'cochere the wrong way, from the
35 back end if you will. So that indicates to me something about the notion'that it is not clear
36 whether'signage itself is sufficient for the problem. Maybe talking about the entrance of the
37 hotel being away from the fire element of the PG&E tower does an entrance parallel off the
38 driveway, parallel to East Bayshore against the Audi property, would that satisfy the needs of
39 being away from the fire elen1ent and having the entrance on that side, which is where people
40 would naturally go. Then you could have as some people or I think a member of the public
41 mentioned, and also Commissioner Martinez mentioned the idea of combining those entrances
42 and having the entrances of both of them be on the driveway off of Embarcadero Road. It does
43 provide that synergy, mal<:es more consistency from that point of view there in terms of that
44 being an entrance to both of them. That being the way that I think most people are going to
45 drive. Itis only when you have been there one time and you know that you are going all the way
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 12 0/37
1 around that you are going to figure out that the best way to go is on East Bayshore. So that gives
2 me some pause.
3
4 One of the things about the current restaurant is that it has a lot of, if you will, meeting room
5 space and gathering spaces. I notice the new restaurant is considerably smaller than the old
6 restaurant, and that there is a fairly small meeting room space within the hotel. I don't know
7 enough about the business currently but that seems to be something that is disappearing that I am
8 not sure - I am just wondering about that community -obviously, I realize it is a private facility,
9 but in some sense it is a community resource that various events can take place at that side of the
10 restaurant. I am wondering the extent to which that makes a chance to support.
11
12 There was also a question with respect to fire access to Embarcadero Road. I am assuming that
13 is only emergency access. Is that correct? That yellow portion is emergency access and not
14 accessed by regular vehicles. I am seeing nods from the architects.
15
16 Mr. Northway: That is correct, and that has been negotiated with the Fire Department. Even
17 though it is outlined in yellow it will be essentially a grass type area that the fire trucks can drive
18 over but it will not look like a road.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: It looks like there are some bollards along the edge of that too keeping
21 people from going through that.
22
23 Mr. Northway: Yes, and the reason that the driveway entry is down, part of it is the design
24 element but in working very closely with the Traffic Department that other driveway is just too
25 close to the main intersection for traffic to think that it can work. I have worked on several
26 projects that are comer projects. The reason that it is an Embarcadero Road address is because
27 the City has a policy to make life simple that the short side of the site is the front and back. I
28 have worked on comer projects where we have moved the entry around and it is possible to
29 change the address. We probably would be pursuing that because your comments about the
30 clarity of it are on but there are some very good technical reasons why coming in off of
31 Embarcadero really doesn't work from a traffic standpoint.
32
33 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So maybe a note about potentially changing the address
34 makes sense.
35
36 This subject property is in a flood plane and I am not sure how the flood plane is being
37 addressed. I looked at the EIR study and it mentioned something about the flood plane but it
38 didn't indicate whether the ground floor of the building is above the base flood elevation. So I
39 don't see where that is.
40
41 Mr. Northway: The ground floor, the habitable spaces are all above the flood plane elevation
42 and the entry elevation to go down into the parking garage is also above the flood plane
43 elevation. FEMA allows you in commercial projects to do that. So the entry to the ramp is
44 above the flood plane level and then it is okay to have a parking garage beneath the ground.
45
46 Commissioner Keller: Right. Is there any raising of the ground floor?
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 13 of37
1
2 Mr. Northway: Yes, the site will be raised to meet the flood plane requirements.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: How much will it be raised?
5
6 Mr. Northway: I will have to ask.
7
8 Ms. Likens: Just very roughly from street level to first floor finished floor it would be in the
9 range of about three and a half to four feet to get finished floor of first floor a foot above the
10 flood plane level.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I suggest that that information be put in the Staff Report that
13 goes in the future to note that this is being raised above. That information is useful.
14
15 In terms of the tree canopy over the parking lot let me ask Staff a question. Let us just
16 hypothetically say that the proposed tree shading study winds up not meeting that requirement of
17 50 percent shading within so nlany years. Does that require a Variance?
18
19 Ms. French: That is a godd question. Don't have an answer.
20
21 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. It seems to me then if you look at the parking that is
22 identified. I guess that is C2 that identifies the parking. There is another one\ that identifies the
23 parking and trees. I guess the better one is A5, is that right? It appears that you have a bunch of
24 trees that are along the frontage road of East Bayshore, and then there are some trees that are in
25 the .....
26
27 Ms. Likens: Sheet LDl.l towards the back might be a better reference.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. LD1.1. Then there are some trees that are in little sort of
30 fingers that come into the parking lot. It appears that if the neck that goes from the parking lot
31 into the road on the East Bayshore shore side, if that neck were narrowed so that the cars parked
32 were a little bit closer to the circular area you could support more fingers going into the parking
33 area, and those fingers would support additional trees that can provide additional shading. So
34 that is something that can be considered in terms of this structure.
35
36 I think it is amusing in some sense that the restaurant is near the fire e1enlent. I guess there is a
37 lot of fire going on with restaurant, hopefully not in the restaurant, hopefully only in the cooking
38 portion.
39
40 I would like to follow up on Commissioner Martinez's comments regarding the build to lines. I
41 agree with the idea of having additional flexibility regarding build to lines. To me the issue of
42 build to lines I would actually like more recessing. I think that the E1 Camino Design Guidelines
43 of building tall buildings pushing up against the street doesn't provide a wide enough sidewalk
44 anyway. I think that the question with respect to whether effective sidewalk includes the
45 distance of the street trees I think is an open question that we should address with respect to the
46 E1 Camino Design Guidelines. It seems to me that the intent of the build to lines is so that we
City 0/ Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 140/37
1 don't see a sea of parking between the building and the street. If somebody were to recess the
2 building from the street and put landscaping there that is not really objectionable. The idea from
3my point of view of the build to lines is so that we don't have buildings that are recessed 50, 100
4 feet or whatever, and a sea of parking in front. Now I realize that because of the PG&E
5 easement on East Bayshore that necessarily you can't put anything under there so you nlight as
6 well put parking there. The increased setback on Errtbarcadero Road and landscaping on there
7 that seems to·be a net benefit not a detriment. It seems to me that if you think about for example
8 Alma Street and some other streets have I believe a 30-foot scenic setback for that street and I
9 would encourage us on the part of our rezoning to put a similar setback along Embarcadero Road
10 east of 101. Essentially that is what is there now and we want to maintain that landscaping
11 buffer in the front and not bring it up against the street. So in some sense if this had the scenic
12 setback that it should have there wouldn't need to be a Variance. I do think that the issue here is
13 that if people want to put landscaping in and not parking I think that the idea of the build to lines
14 is really not to have a row of parking. I think that needs to be taken into account in terms of how
15 that ordinance is considered in the future. Thank you.
16
1 7 Chair Garber: Thank you. On page 20 of the EIR there is discussion regarding parking. I was
18 wondering if Staff could walk us through the support of the reduction of the parking by the 25 or
19 26 percent, and how they got there.
20
21 Ms. Cutler: So the code allows for certain reductions in the number of parking provided for the
22 hotel rooms below the one-to-one in cases where you have multiple uses on the site. In this case
23 it seems appropriate that certain areas like the meeting room, the small 200 square feet of retail,
24 the small exercise room. These are spaces that are pretty clearly going to be used in connection
25 with the hotel and so having extra parking provided for those I think that is the kind of mixed use
26 that can allow for a reduction in parking. You wouldn't need extra parking for those.
27
28 Then the same kind of thing can be said to a slightly lesser degree for the restaurant. It seems
29 quite likely that in this location a lot of the visitors to the hotel will be using this restaurant as
30 there really isn't anything else in the close vicinity when visiting. There also likely will be a
31 number of the guests that come via shuttle and other modes of transportation. So the code does
32 allow up to a 75 percent reduction in the parking required for those spaces based on mixes of
33 uses. In this case the restaurant has been reduced in size and things like that. So a full 75
34 percent reduction does not seem appropriate. The type of reduction that is proposed by the
35 applicant however, which I believe is a 40 percent reduction in the number of spaces for the
36 rooms, a 25 or 26 percent reduction overall, is a better balance for this site.
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: Excuse me, Chair.
39
40 Chair Garber: Yes, go ahead.
41
42 Commissioner Lippert: A clarification, there is no EIR. You are talking about the
43 Environmental Checklist.
44
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 15 of37
1 Chair Garber: Yes, I apologize, thank you. Sorry for the titling error there. On the setback
2 question do we know how far back the buildings are that are across Embarcadero from this
3 building? Do we know how far those are set back, or does the applicant?
4
5 Ms. Munoz: Unfortunately I don't have the dimensions with me. Would you like me to just put
6 up the aerial to just get a visual of that?
7
8 Chair Garber: Yes, let's take a look at that. Okay that is helpful. Thank you.
9
10 Commissioner Martinez, a question for you. I am interested in your thought regarding the
11 enlivenment of the street. Here is my question though for you. We don't really have a
12 streetscape the way that we do for instance along El Camino or one of our other shopping streets
13 here. We have the office building that is across the street and we have these other sort of
14 enclosed sort of offices. The way that the site is zoned there is precious little opportunity to have
15 those sorts of experiences here. Would that change your thinking about how this site might be
16 utilized by this project at all?
17
18 Commissioner Martinez: Looking at the aerial plan I can agree that there isn't any pattern for
19 the setbacks and the open space but it does exist. I think it suggests that the proposed building is
20 sort of out of sync with what exists around it, especially if you look to the Carlsen site. I think it
21 would be fairly drastic to impose a similar kind of setback. I think it would all but kill the
22 project. That being said, I still believe that if our attitude is to create a kind of parkway kind of
23 environment an increased setback would be appropriate.
24
25 Chair Garber: I agree actually with all of that. . I suspect that the Carlsen site is probably not
26 built out to the degree that it could be if it were to be improved. I actually wasn't thinking about
27 the setbacks specifically I was thinking about your comments regarding creating more life along
28 the street, the combing of the entrances of restaurant and the hotel, and the moving of the
29 entrance to the comer in order to create a higher level of intensity and visual intensity I am
30 assuming. Whereas the other sort of experiences along these two streets, Bayshore and
31 Embarcadero, are actually more office park-like as opposed to something that has a big retail or
32 restaurant focus or continual focus. Are you following my thought here?
33
34 Commissioner Martinez: Yes. If anything it sort of reinforces what I was saying. This building
35 or this site is kind of a gateway. The use is very different from even the retail uses nearby,
36 definitely different from the offices, which really don't have a presence. Even for the vitality of
37 the hotel and restaurant themselves kind of hiding how you get to them, obscuring the address. I
38 think Commissioner Keller's comment about the Embarcadero address is right on. I think they
39 would be foolish to change the address when there is a freeway exit with that name on it. It
40 guides people right to the hotel. I think engaging the fire elenlent more and putting the entrance
41 to the hotel there, or as I suggested putting it on the opposite side where it still gets some
42 exposure and suggests some activity to the street would both be appropriate. On the back it just
43 seems poor city design. It may work for their individual purposes of separating the restaurant
44 from the hotel and not mixing the patrons, or whatever their sort of programmatic goals are, but
45 it doesn't work from a city design point and that is really all I am addressing.
46
City of Palo Alto November 18. 2009 Page 16 of37
1 Chair Garber: Okay, thank you. We have a follow upfrom Commissioner Lippert.
2
3 Commissioner Lippert: If I might be permitted to answer the same question. I see it a little bit
4 differently. What I see is as you exit Embarcadero Road off of Bayshore you come across the
'5 freeway there the openings in the two buildings actually become a gesture or a definition of an
6 entrance to the building. That is what you see as a vehicle. The fact that they have put a circle
7 there, and a turnaround, denotes that that is a drop-off point or the entrance to the building. Most
8 people would think, yes that is the entrance to the building. However, when you come into the
9 driveway that is off of the frontage road you are confronted with two choices. You actually
10 come to a fork in the road so take it. You can either go to the left and go to the restaurant or you
11 can go straight ahead and go to the porte-cochere. It doesn't diminish the procession of the
12 building. All that it doesis it makes it confusing initially but it is later clarified because there
13 really is only one main entrance to the driveway which is off of the Bayshore Road. Even if you
14 were to take the first immediate driveway off of Embarcadero Road it would bring you around to
1'5 the porte-cochere. You don't have any choice but eventually you would wind up at the
16 restaurant. You would know to go around the building. So to me the gesture of the front of the
17 building is the opening of the two buildings and that theY'do not touch.
18
19 The only criticisnl that I have and that really is an ARB issue, it is not a Planning Commission
20 issue, is that I would want the front of that building to be maybe the fa9ade to be on a radius with
21 that circle to thereby reinforce in plan what you see vertically. So that is really my only criticism
22 with it.
23
24 I just want to add one other element to this, which is the Menlo Park gateway project that is
2'5 being proposed for Marsh R<:>ad by Bohannon Development they don't have any frontage off of
26 Marsh Road. They don't have any frontage for the hotel off of Bayshore Freeway.Y ou have to
27 exit Marsh Road and you have to make a right hand tum onto either Constitution or
28 Independence before you actually get to the front door of the hotel or the health club that they are
29 proposing. Right in the middle of the site they have light manufacturing. That is sort of all that .
30 light manufacturing and parking is shrouded by these buildings that sort of surround it. This is a
31 much more preferable solution.
32
3 3 The~n I have some comments that I would like to make also af1:er you finish.
34
3 '5 Chair Garber: Actually I am done but Fineberg was ahead of you. Commissioner Fineberg.
36
37 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to start by talking about some of the impacts of what
38 being in the flood plane means. I am looking at the vertical elevations in various photos and they
39 are all showing flat ground. I know we are not necessarily going to get the answers tonight but if
40 you are starting on East Bayshore in a car at grade, about four feet above sea level, and by the
41 other side of the PG&E right-of-way and the parking lot for the restaurant you come up maybe
42 200 feet. You are going to have make a four feet rise in grade and so what you are going to be
43 confronting from East Bayshore is a hill up into the property. Then if you took the fork to the
44 restaurant is it going to stay up or is it going to go down? So is the property going to appear
4'5 hilly? If you continue to the porte-cochere I would assume it stays up at the eight feet above sea
46 level. Then as you go around -so is that going to work?
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 17 of37
1
2 Ms. Munoz: We have actually started to look at that in more detail with our civil engineer.
3 Basically when you do enter the main driveway it will be a ramp up to get you close to the level
4 of finish floor. Then if you took the fork to the hotel that porte-cochere area stays relatively
5 level, and then starts to gradually slope back down as you go around the backside of the building.
6 Then in terms of the approach going towards the restaurant we definitely want to minimize the
7 cross-slope on the parking area and then work the berming and the Baylands planting concept
8 into the edges of the property and the landscape area to bring grade back down to sidewalk level.
9
10 Commissioner Fineberg: So that comes to my next point. For the trees that have to go in you
11 just mentioned you would use berming and bringing it back down to grade at the edge. Will
12 there be any raised elevation at the edge of the property along East Bayshore where those trees
13 with the maximum height of 15 feet will be? I am asking that not for the legal definition of how
14 the City considers grade but is it 15 feet from the top of the new grade because that is some
15 distance from under the power line? So is the tree really going to really have to be 12 feet or 13
16 feet or 10 feet?
17
18 Ms. Munoz: That is a good point. We would want to clarify that with PG&E. The nice thing is
19 that the trees being planned are as close to the sidewalk as you are nearing back down to natural
20 grade so that might work to our benefit.
21
22 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you. I would agree with Commissioner Martinez's
23 comments that sometimes our Variances don't appear to apply in all situations. I would agree
24 that this one size fits all is not working. If there is one pla~e where I have seen physical
25 constraints on a property that legitimately justify a Variance this is it. Having a PG&E high-
26 tension line running on the substantive street-face of the property with a required 80-foot setback
27 that is huge. So I would concur that a Variance to accommodate that, that is a significant
28 limitation on the property. I am one of the first people to criticize when the requirements for
29 Variances are trivialized. So this is one that I could see supporting coming down the road.
30
31 One of the other questions I have is about the parking reductions. Presumably when the
32 standards were made for parking reductions they understood that hotels are more than simply a
33 collection of bedrooms. Hotels include amenities for the guests like exercise rooms, -restaurants,
34 meeting rooms, and that there weren't blinders put on and that those standards for parking
35 assumed certain amounts of other uses. So I am baffled by why we are willing to reduce those
36 reductions without reasons to justify that there is something of substance other than there is a
37 slightly different use somewhere else in the property. If this was let's say in the Downtown area
38 half a block off University I would understand that there would be a decreased demand for
39 parking because there are good shuttle buses serving it, there are walkable restaurants, there is
40 nightlife, there are amenities, there is public transit, there is Cal train. This is a site that the only
41 way you are going to get to and from that except for maybe a few of the employees and a few of
42 the people visiting the guests this is an area that is going to be served by cars. Almost every trip
43 that every. guest, restaurant or hotel, is going to be via car. So under-parking this site will
44 undermine the economic vitality of the business, will create spillover traffic and parking
45 problems on the adjacent frontage streets and areas where there is parking. So I think we need to
46 carefully explore whether the reduction in parking is prudent.
City o[PaloAlto November 18, 2009 Page 180[37
1
2 I would agree with comments that the access to the restaurant and the back entrance seems a
3 little different than we are used to. I am not sure the right way to address that but maybe if there
4 is something that can be done within the structure that makes the entrance more prominent. I
5 don't know if it is a setback or different materials. Just so that it is not something hidden down
6 the back and so that there is way finding. The classic example for me is getting out of the
7 basement of this building. There are little tiny signs that you have to look for otherwise you can
8 drive around in circles and it is all just this monotonous same-looking thing, if that can be
9 avoided so that it is clear when you come in. I don't know if that means something that
10 announces the beginning of the porte-cochere sq people don't dive down into the basement if
11 people are looking for the registration desk. Some extra thought on that I think would benefit the
12 site design.
13
14 The last thing I want to talk about is site dewatering during the construction of the basement. It
15 is too early yet but I would like to see it addressed for the later stages. In that area, maybe Staff
16 can give a better estimate, one maybe three miles due south of there are some significant plumes
17 of toxic groundwater that are known to be migrating in a generally northward direction. That is
18 under several projects we have already built on. They have been identified and we know where
19 they are. I would like to know if there is any knowledge of what a safe distance is when you pull
20 groundwater that we not be pulling those plumes further north.
21
22 Ms. Cutler: The project submittal did include a phase one, which was also used as reference in
23 the environmental document because that is definitely something that we look at. Those experts
24 did find that is was sufficiently far away from other sites in the area. There wasn't anything
25 close enough that that was of concern. '
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: Were those findings based on average conditions in general areas or
28 specific for what is the groundwater table there and where the known toxic sites are.
29
30 Ms. Cutler: My understanding is that the first part of their research is to determine where the
31 toxic sites are in the vicinity and what is known about those sites. So where the plume is or
32 where it is traveling would definitely be considered as part of-that research.
33
34 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you.
35
36 Chair Garber: Commissioners, we have done one round of everyone. We are coming up to
37 Commissioner Lippert again. I would like to try and get out of here in the next hour or so if that
38 is possible.
39
40 We have three things that we need to consider, whether to adopt the Negative Declaration, two
41 whether to approve the Site and Design Review, and three our action on the Variance. So if we
42 can begin to focus our comments on those three things that would be helpful.
43
44 Ms. Cutler: I would like to add that there is also the rezoning that should also be considered.
45
46 Chair Garber: Thank you, sorry. Four, yes. Commissioner Lippert.
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 190f37
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: Well, I will begin by saying that I believe the rezoning on it is very
3 appropriate. We had reviewed this earlier. It was looked at as a PC and we had actually as the
4 Planning and Transportation Commission had recommended that they look at rezoning
5 especially since now we have a hotel guidelines or zoning. So I think that is very appropriate.
6 They took our comments very seriously and they actually gave it substantial thought before
7 returning to us. So I have to comment the applicant fIrst of all for enduring and doing that.
8
9 With regard to the Variance I run in complete agreement. \ I think that the 80-foot setback with
10 regard to the PG&E utility easement is a major encumbrance on the property and as such it is a
11 physical constraint that II would defInitely entertain in tenns of supporting your Variance request
12 here.
13
14 Regarding the Negative Declaration again I don't have any problem with the environmental. I
15 think it is apropos.
16
17 The only other comment I really have is with regard to the trees along Embarcadero Road. I
18 think that that can be mitigated simply by looking at the density of those trees in ternlS of their
19 height. Maybe it is something that is a particularly tall tree with not a lot of low hanging
20 branches. That would help mitigate the problems in tenns of the Carlsen site being obscured by
21 them. I don't think that that's really a problem here even if they were lower trees. We currently
22 . have those wonderful eucalyptus trees as we come off of the Bayshore Freeway. I don't have
23 any problem seeing through those to see the building that is there or seeing what is beyond it. I
24 don't think that these trees are signifIcant enough that they are going to create a problem. Maybe
25 there is a way to make the neighbor happy and I think that as I say, good fences make good
26 neighbors.
27
28 So those are really my comments and if we return back I would be happy to make a motion.
29
30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you. I have a couple of further questions. They both relate to
33 page 20 of the Environmental Checklist and I also take Commissioner Lippert's correction that
34 this is not an Environmental Impact Report. The fIrst thing is in tenns of traffic on page 20 it
35 says the proposed hotel will cause an increase of 72 new PM trips which is above the threshold
36 for the traffic impact assessment. Then it says the calculated increase in delay of the PM hour
37 was less than two seconds at both intersections. What is the LOS at that intersection, at the
38 intersection of Embarcadero and East Bayshore?
39
40 Ms. Cutler: Which intersection was that?
41
42 Conlffiissioner Keller: I believe the relevant intersection is Embarcadero· and East Bayshore.
43
44 Ms. Cutler: Okay. Give me a moment and I will see if I can find it in the traffic report.
45
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page200f37
1 Commissioner Keller: Please. While you are figuring that out I will ask my second question. It
2 states in the document here it says allow for consideration of a 40 percent reduction in required
3 parking for hotels in the CEQA document. I believe I heard some comment about, I am finding
4 it, talking about a reduction of 75 percent. So I am confused.
5
6 Ms. Cutler: I can clarify that if you would like.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: Yes.
9
10 Ms. Cutler: There are a number of different percentages that are floating around through the
11 report in terms of the reduction of parking. The allowed reduction in the number of parking
12 spaces for the hotel rooms per code, the nlaxinlum is 75 percent. The proposed reduction in the
13 parking spaces for the number of rooms would be 40 percent approximately. The reduction in
14 the overall parking is actually just 25 percent of the overall, the 222 required parking spaces. So
15 that is how we have those thre~ different numbers floating around.
16
17 Commissioner Keller: Well, yes.
18
19 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
20
21 Commissioner Martinez: What is the hard number? You gave the percentages but what is the
22 actual number of cars reduced?
23
24 Ms. Cutler: So the requirement is 222 spaces total for everything combined. The proposed
25 project is providing 166 spaces. So that is a 56-space reduction.
26
27 Also to respond to the earlier question from Commissioner Keller the existing and background
28 Level of Service in the AM hour for the intersection of East Bayshore Road and Embarcadero
29 Road is C. F or the PM hour the existing is C, but the background which is based on expected
30 projects in the area over the next few years while this is being developed that actually goes down
31 from C to Ebased on the background activity not on this project.
32
33 Commissioner Keller: First of all I am totally surprised that this intersection is actually currently
34, C. Whenever I try and drive through this intersection between almost five o'clock and six
35 o'clock if I can get through at a C level of delay I am totally floored. So I am skeptical about
36 that personally. Didn't you say the current is C in PM? '
37
38 Ms. Cutler: The existing is C both AM and PM.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: So first of all, independent of whether it is C or not, which I think it
41 probably isn't, you said that the expected is E, right? That the future projected is E.
42
43 Ms. Cutler: The background numbers that they provided here gives a Level of Service ofE.
44
45 Chair Garber: Forgive me, meaning that if there was no project in three to five years it would be
46 E.
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 21 of37
1
2 Ms. Cutler: Precisely.
3
4 Chair Garber: Thank you.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: Now, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the City of Palo
7 Alto's significance for traffic thresholds is if it is D or greater and the increase is one second or
8 more in critical delay then that is considered significant. If it is D or greater and it is increased
9 by at least one second of delay that is considered a significant from the City of Palo Alto's
10 Traffic Significance Thresholds. Am I correct or incorrect on that?
11
12 Ms. Cutler: The increase in delay that is shown here for that PM hour is 1.3 seconds it appears.
13 Off the top of my head I don't what the increase limit is.
14
15 Mr. Williams: It is four seconds of delay or 0.01 in the increase in volume over capacity. Is that
16 what you are asking? What the delay increase is of significant threshold?
17
18 Commissioner Keller: Yes, not one second, but four seconds?
19
20 Mr. Williams: Four seconds or one-one hundredth ofan increase in the volume over capacity
21 ratio for the intersection. '
22
23 Conunissioner Keller: Okay. By the way, I have been looking all over the City web site for that
24 actual significance threshold and I can't find it anywhere. The only thing I could find was a
25 Staff Report proposing what it should be and not any document saying what it actually is.
26
27 Mr. Williams: I will ask Julie if we can't make that available because she has all that stuff.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: The best thing I could find is a Staff Report from 2003 I believe it was or
30 something like that, which indicated that it was one second of delay.
31
32 Mr. Williams: I think it was proposed at one point in time to be that but that is not what we
33 have.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. So what you are saying is this is less than four seconds
36 and less than one percent additional traffic. Is that right? Less than one percent increase in
37 traffic.
38
39 Ms. French: It is .01 increase of volume over capacity.
40
41 Commissioner Keller: Okay.
42
43 Mr. Williams: The document you have, the Mitigated Negative Declaration when it looks at
44 these various things has all the significance criteria in there. So on item (h) in there says if it
45 causes a local City of Palo Alto intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service D and it causes
46 an increase in the average stop delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more, the
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 22 of37
1 critical volume to capacity ratio to increase by 0.01 or more. Then item (i) says if it is a local
2 intersection already at Level of Service E or F if it deteriorates and the average stop delay for the
3 critical movements by four seconds or more. Then again the next one, regional intersections are
4 also·four seconds or 0.1.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So what is the measure of the increase in V over C?
7
8 Mr. Williams: For this intersection you mean?
9
10 Commissioner Keller: Yes.
11
12 Mr. Williams: I don't know. That would be in the traffic study somewhere I assume but I don't
13 have that.
14
15 Chair Garber: Do you want to have them get back to you on that?
16
17 Conunissioner Keller: Well, you are looking for that.
18
19 Ms. French: We have it.
20
21 Ms. Cutler: We have it.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: Please go ahead.
24
25 Ms. Cutler: So for East'Bayshore Road at Embarcadero the increase in V over C is .005 for the
26 AM and .005 for the PM.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
29
30 Ms. Cutler: You are welcome.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: There is an inconsistency here still that I am confused about. On page 5
33 of the Staff Report it says that the request is for 40 percent of the number of parking spaces on
34 hotel rooms and 75 percent reduction is allowed. However, in the Environmental Checklist form
35 it says in about five lines from the bottom of the paragraph starting 'The building,' three
36 paragraphs from the bottom. It says but allow for consideration of up to 40 percent reduction in
37 required parking for 1i.otels. So I am still confused. If this site is 40 percent here and the Staff
38 Report says the site requested 40, and then the Staff Report allows 75 percent. I am still
39 confused as to the degree of consistency of those.
40
41 Ms. Cutler: Yes, it looks like that 40 percent in the environmental document is probably a typo.
42 It may be that that was based on reductions that are allowed by the Director in a separate part of
43 the parking code. I don't have the zoning parking requirements right here in front of me, but
44 there is a table that are allowed reductions by the Director. So it may be that that is where that
45 40 percent came fronl. Amy is going to take a look at that for me.
46
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 23 of37
1 In the section of the table that is specifically talking about the required parking spaces for hotels
2 within that table, that line there, that is where it actually specifically says up to a 75 percent
3 specifically for the hotel rooms.
4
5 Commissioner Keller: Okay, well that is useful. I am hoping that probably one of these days we
6 will revisit the Parking Ordinance if only to look at multifamily residential like the Arbor Real
7 project and the adequacy of parking there and relative to neighborhoods. So we might want to
8 look at this as well.
9
10 Mr. Williams: I would suggest that we stay up tonight and do that.
11
12 Commissioner Keller': I don't think it is agendized so it will be a little difficult to do.
13
14 Chair Garber: Okay. Anything else? Commissioner Fineberg.
15
16 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to come back to the discussion about the intersection of
1 7 Embarcadero and East Bayshore. Recently there were some metering lights turned on at the
18 onramps to 101. I know they were turned on at Oregon. Were they turned on also at
19 Embarcadero? So does this traffic analysis include that recent change in condition?
20
21 Mr. Williams: I would be surprised if it includes it. Probably wouldn't know what the impact is.
22 If the impact is what Caltrans predicts it would be an improvement. They are in the process of
23 monitoring how those are worki~g. Our traffic engineer as well as Caltrans is looking at
24 monitoring that. In the couple of weeks it has been on now it seems to be functioning well and
25 there are not excessive backups being created any more so than existed before certainly. But I
26 don't know and again I would be kind of surprised if they looked at that. We could certainly ask
27 them.
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so if that could be flagged for some attention to see if it has
30 created any situation that has changed since the intersection measurements were made.
31
32 Then I want to also come back to the parking and the Director's reduction of parking. In the
33 Staff Report on page 5 it talks about the reasons for the reductions. It says, "This reduction is
34 requested based on Section 18.52.040 Table 2, which allows for a reduction of up to 75 percent
35 of the spaces required for guest rooms upon approval by Director based on parki1].g study of
36 parking generated by the mixes of uses." When they talk about mixes of uses do they mean the
3 7 services in the hotel for hotel guests like restaurants and meeting rooms or are they talking about
3 8 true mixes of uses as defined by our code and mixed use buildings?
39
40 Mr. Williams: I think in the hotel they are not talking about mixed use buildings like the other
41 kind of reduction. I think they are mostly talking about the things where there would be some
42 overlap between the hotel guests. They would use the restaurant some, they would use the gift
43 shop, whatever gym facilities, and things like that that otherwise would generate trips to and
44 from. It is an acknowledgement that they are not the only ones that are using that especially like
45 a restaurant. So I think what we need to consider is what are those facilities, and as Jennifer was
46 saying some of them seem to be almost wholly supportive of the guests, others particularly the
City o/PaloAlto November 18, 2009 Page 24 0/37
1 restaurant would be used by the guests to some extent but would also clearly be used by the
2 community at large. So the study should take into account the fact that some of those reductions
3 relate very directly and some of them less directly, and we need to all feel comfortable that that
4 balance is struck. That is why it provides the flexibility but I do think for the hotels it is really
5 supporting the guests of the hotel and the employees of the hotel, but it is not mixed with
6 residential or mixed with retail necessarily type of thing.
7
8 Commissioner Fineberg: When the standards were implemented and there were minimums put
9 in place for parking spaces per number of rooms did they not consider or did they not assume
10 that hotel guests would require amenities? So are we double reducing? One it was factored
11 when we made the standard, and two now we reduce again.
12
13 Ms. Cutler: We are actually counting those extra amenity spaces in terms of if you look at the
14 table that calculates the number of parking spaces that is required. That 222 includes not only
15 the space per room but also the number of spaces that would be required for that 200 square feet
16 of retail and each of the other uses, of the restaurant as well as the retail, the gym, the meeting
17 room, all of those things were actually added together. So we are not reducing it double. We
18 added everything together and then from that we are considering reduction.
19
20 Commissioner Fineberg: I would see the sort of double reduction not coming from - I agree
21 with the methodology in your calculation. The place I would see the reduction is when the
22 standards were established did they already assume that you would have a hotel guest conle and
23 there would be a restaurant, and they would go from the hotel room to the restaurant. So the
24 standard for the required parking assumed they would go to the restaurant or was it strictly if
25 there is' no other amenity in the building and there is only a hotel only with restaurants and then
26 you calculate the separate areas separately?
27
28 Mr. Williams: I think the latter. I think that they did not. I mean the one per room was not
29 assuming that there would a restaurant and there would be sharing of some of the amenities, and
30 all that kind of thing. I think you could also argue that one per room, well there are also
31 employees too so it really should be more than one per room, but I think it balances out because
32 y<?u rarely have 100 percent occupancy either, so one was sort of determined as the number.
33
34 I will tell you that when we did the Parking section of the Zoning Ordinance Update that was one
35 use that we really, wanted to target looking at because this is goofy. This language here, I don't
36 know if I have seen that kind of language in other ordinances with the 75 percent of all this stuff.
37 So we wanted to survey other comnlunities and see what they had and we just ran out of time
38 and didn't get to look specifically at hotels. Maybe we would have spent more time if we knew
39 we had so many of them on the drawing board a few years later.
40
41 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. The last item on that parking issue is has there been or should
42 there be consideration of any TDMs and would they be viable given this site of the property?
43
44 Ms. Cutler: The idea of having a TDM was something that we considered but felt really would
45 be appropriate if there had been found to be some potential impact from traffic and
46 transportation. Since the studies for that showed that there wasn't going to be any kind of
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 25 of37
1 potential impact there there wasn't any kind of connection that we could make in terms of
2 requiring any kind ofTDM.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Martinez.
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: On a follow up on the parking again. I just want to make a couple of
7 comments here. Number one, in a hotel particularly a business hotel generally you have mUltiple
8 guests that are coming together, often times traveling together, but then they stay in separate
9 rooms. So again that would support a reduction in terms of the parking because let's say going
10 to the hotel and you haven't really increased the number of cars associated with that group.
11 Especially since businesses have become very tight in terms of traveling these days.
12
13 The second comment I wanted to make is generally associated with a business hotel that is
14 located in a remote location like this, I don't know who the operator is but my assumption is that
15 there would be some sort of shuttle bus to connect the hotel with the Downtown of Palo Alto and
16 being able to get around. Yes, the train station, and even the Research Park. So maybe that is
17 something that the applicant would want to address early on and include it in as part of the report
18 that there would be some sort of shuttle bus. We can't condition it but it would definitely
19 support the parking reduction right up front.
20
21 Then the second comment I wanted to make is with regard to the operation and my assumption is
22 that it will also be the current restaurant that is there. That is a lunchtime destination. Well some
23 people might be in the hotel roonlS at noon but not me. The idea is that hotel guests generally
24 check-in in the evening sometime between three and five, maybe even as late as six or seven at
25 night. During the daytime hours there are very few guests in their hotel rooms. They are out
26 doing business or whatever. So the people that are arriving for lunch and using the restaurant
27 there it is what we have in terms of the dual parking on residences and commercial spaces. It is
28 very similar. So again that would support the parking reductions. So that is how I could see and
29 I could begin to support parking reductions there.
30
31 Then one last comment going back to the shuttle bus. If the shuttle bus did go to the Palo Alto
32 Train Station that in its way would be sort of a mini Transportation Demand Management
33 Program because people that lived in Redwood City, Mountain View that were working in the
34 hotel could be picked up by the shuttle bus and brought to the hotel to work, and they don't need
35 to bring their cars.
36
37 I Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
38
. 39 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. The reduction of 56 parking spaces is kind of a lot. I am
40 sympathetic that there is a way to sort of manage it to make it work. Commissioner Lippert is
41 more creative than I am at that. This restaurant is not a hotel restaurant. That sort of gives me
42 pause to whether we are sort of inviting something that could be a disaster. It is a popular
43 restaurant at lunch and dinner. The number of spaces that are being asked to be reduced could
44 really create problem both for the City and for the uses there.
45
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 26 of37
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
I am not used to business hotels sort of being sort of transit friendly. My experience is they are a
lot of cars. The opportunity for car sharing might be after people arrive there on their own to go
to an event but usually they arrive on their own. It may be less than ten percent that opt to do car
sharing. So I would really ask the applicant to look for opportunities to increase the parking and
maybe try to get the reduction down to 25 cars. Something really that has a little bit of a
pressure relief to it.
I had a couple of other comments that I will make now. I am still not convinced at all that this
entrance on the back, the porte-cochere on the back, is a viable option. I am intrigued by the way
Commissioner Lippert has described the sort of way finding of sort of being able to see an
entrance that is not really the entrance when you approach, and then go to the fork in the road
and perhaps only have a 50 percent chance of getting it wrong. It just seems to me that a circle
by the tower is pretty powerful and it wants to draw people to that as an entrance. If not, don't
have it there. I think it is important as a sort; of an urban design element if you make it work for
what it is, but if it is a suggestion that this is sort of the entrance to the facilities and you don't
have to think about it I think that is kind of the wrong assumption. I don't think it works for city
design to have those kinds of symbols that really mislead you and require signage to point you in
the right direction. I think that shows a weakness in the design. So I would really advocate this
fire entrance to be fired up a little bit more and serve the hotel, serve the restaurant, serve as the
entrance to the facility even if the parking for the hotel has to be a little bit farther away. Thank
I you.
Chair Garber: Could I ask the architects to walk us through the entry sequence and give us
perhaps maybe a little better feel as to what it is we will see and maybe address some of the
issues as to how the massing of the building works at the comer, etc.? That might help the
Commissioners get a better feel for what the experience actually is.
Ms. Munoz: You mean as for instance a guest of the hotel how they would approach?
Chair Garber: Sure. I am talking very experientially here and maybe that will help our
conversation a little bit.
Ms. Munoz: Sure. I totally neglected to even use the model that we brought so maybe that
might help. I will go grab that and bring it back to the microphone.
Chair Garber: You can use the portable microphone right there if that will help.
Ms. Munoz: Okay, so the idea is that as you come down East Bayshore and enter following this
patterned driveway the idea is that if you are going to the hotel entrance we are trying to do
exactly what Commissioner Fineberg was talking about in trying to find a way architecturally to
emphasize the main entrance of the hotel, and treat it in a way that draws your attention there.
We also feel that as you approach this main driveway you are following this pattern that is very
deliberately leading you towards the hotel entrance. There are also opportunities in this enlarged
drive porte-cochere area to emphasize with some kind of feature that also kind of enhances your
view down this driveway. So then when you enter the main entrance you are greeted by a large
double story lobby and can see through to the courtyard. So that is the kind of sequence that we
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 27 of37
1 see. If you need to turn around after you dropped your passenger off this allows for a turnaround
2 to go back and into the parking garage. So that is one idea there.
3
4 Chair Garber: Let me just interrupt while you are there. If I am taking that left hand turn having
5 just come off of 101 and going down Bayshore, what causes me to know to take that left hand
6 tum?
7
8 Ms. Munoz: From Embarcadero?
9
10 Chair Garber: Sure.
11
12 Ms. Munoz: Well what we planto do in terms of monument signage, and I know this is maybe
13 perhaps getting to your point of a weakness needing to use signage, but we would want to place
14 the monument sign for the hotel very deliberately close to the driveway entrance. We also
15 architecturally are trying to really architecturally emphasize this comer of the building as
16 something more dramatic and that would again draw you towards this side as the n1ain hotel
17 entrance.
18
19 Chair Garber: I am going to interrupt briefly. In your elevations of the Bayshore you have
20 indicated an area near the comer that is to be for signage. How does that work? That is on the
21 building itself I mean.
22
23 Ms. Munoz: Oh right. So the idea in terms of signage we would want to' place afreestanding
24 monument sign here near the driveway entrance. We also have an opportunity on the building
25 for some hotel signage close to again drawing it all towards this end of the building. Any hotel
26 related signage to draw you here.
27
28 Chair Garber: I think Commissioner Martinez has a question.
29
30 Commissioner Martinez: You started along Bayshore not at Embarcadero coming off the 101,
31 and from where I sit that entrance to the courtyard is so powerful and then you have that lovely
32 PG&E tower sort of also kind of the little Eiffel Tower of the Embarcadero. You have all of that
33 happening right there at that comer. Why would I want to turn right and go away from that?
34 Isn't that sort of drawing me into the hotel? So aren't you sort of working against that?
35
36 Ms. Munoz: Well, I definitely see your point but I can also see that this is trying to give you a
37 slightly different experience as a destination once you enter the site. Then this becomes more a,
38 it is not a point that I would actually want to see a lot of traffic. I would rather have this be an
39 attractive place where I have a little bit of calm and have this nice seating area as opposed to
40 . having this be this hub of cars driving in and out, even though I totally understand your point. I
41 can see this working nicely as well.
42
43 Chair Garber: As a caution to Commissioner Martinez and I can be counseled by Staff here,
44 short of there being an issue with the zoning and how the land is being used we have limited
45 impact as to direction in terms of massing, etc. Am I correct here? I mean we could create
46 suggestions for the ARB to go and look at some of these issues, yes?
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 28 of37
1
2 Ms. Cutler: You are reviewing this in terms of Site and Design as well as the rezoning. As the
3 Staff Report describes the area that the Planning Commission is supposed to be focusing on is
4 the use, and making sure that the \Vay the site is going to be used, so there is a bit of site planning
5 in that, the way the site is going to be used is appropriate for the surroundings.
6
7 Chair Garber: But we have on other projects given a list of concerns that we would like the ARB
8 to address, which we can pass on.
9
10 Ms. French: Absolutely. I do want to make sure you have got in front of you the Site and
11 Design Review findings in the Record of Land Use Action daft under Section 5. There are four
12 findings. One to ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that is orderly,
13 harmonious, and compatible. It is also on page 2 and 3 of the Staff Report so you probably read
14 that through in the Staff Report. So there is that compatibility.
15
16 Chair Garber: Yes, got it. I think actually gives us enough leeway to have these conversations.
17 Commissioner Martinez, anything further? If you don't, I do.
18
19 Commissioner Martinez: No, but I have tried very hard not to say anything about the building
20 design. So lam aware of that problem.
21
22 Chair Garber: Sure go ahead.
23
24 Conimissioner Lippert: I just want to make one other follow up observation. I appreciate your
25 acknowledgement of the way I view the project even though we may differ. One of the things
26 that I also find very refreshing about having the porte-cochere on the backside of the building is
27 that a fault with a lot of architecture today is that a building doesn't address all sides. In fact you
28 wind up with a side that orphan or drab or dead, and just is not inviting at all. Now maybe that is
29 the purpose of having a backside of a building is to say that this is not the front, but in this case
30 because it is such a prominent building located with a lot of area around it it is going to be highly
31 visible. So having the entrance on the backside may not be such a bad thing because it does in
32 fact create ,an interest around all sides of the building. The weakest side of course being the side
33 that faces the Porsche dealer.
34
35 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, you have a light.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you. The first comnlent that I am going to make is that I can
38 understand the idea of way finding from East Bayshore. I am pleased with the idea that there is
39 , going to be a monument sign on East Bayshore because I can tell you coming from South Palo
40 Alto crossing over onto East Bayshore from San Antonio Road I almost miss Mings because
41 there are a bunch of driveways before it and I never figure out which is the right driveway. So I
42 am glad that is being corrected.
43
44 I can understand that the fork once you enter the property from East Bayshore knowing whether
45 to tum left to go to the restaurant or tum right to go to the hotel I think that can be easily dealt
46 with with onsite signage.
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page290f37
1
2 I think the part that hasn't really been addressed is the person coming from 101 or crossing over
3 101 on Embarcadero Road. That person seeing an address of 1700 Embarcadero Road is going
4 to stay on Embarcadero Road and not know to turn right. The image that I am having in my
5 mind is if you ever drive on highway 17 down to Santa Cruz,'somewhat before you reach Santa
6 Cruz, before you reach Scotts Valley there is th,is huge sign that says Clair's Retreat three miles
7 to the left. I am sort of imagining that there would be some sort of sign saying if you want to go
8 to this hotel or restaurant turn right from Embarcadero onto East Bayshore, because that is
9 essentially what you are telling people to do. I am not sure who is going to know to do that. I
10 think people are going to go straight on Embarcadero Road and they are going to see the hotel or
11 restaurant and figure out that they have to enter-through the side, the driveway on Embarcadero
12 Road, and just keep going around on that route. I am not sure exactly how to address that but I
13 think that is what most people are going to do because they are not going to know to tum right on
14 East Bayshore.
15
16 That being said, actually I think that some people will tum right on East Bayshore and those are
17 the people that realize that that intersection is so clogged that you can turn right more easily than
18 going straight. So maybe the bad traffic will encourage people to tum right because you can do
19 that free right tum without waiting for the light. Six of one/half a dozen of the other.
20
21 The second thing I am sympathetic with the comments of Commissioner Martinez with respect
22 to parking. Taking a look at the underground parking in sheet A6, can we put that up on the
23 screen? If you look at that it is sort of this Delta shape if you will the Greek letter Delta shape.
24 It is sort of parallel to the arrangement of the building. It is not clear why the parking lot has to
25 parallel the shape of the building. If one were to take the diagonal portion on the left and replace
26 that with two sort of vertical portions on the map and in some sense create three arms these all
27 being underground I am wondering why that is not a feasible thing to do which would provide
28 more underground parking and address some of the deficit.
29
30 Ms. Munoz: If we were to do that we would actually encroach into the public utility easement
31 and the PG&E easement. We were specifically told we had to keep the basement wall a very
32 specific distance away from the public utility easement. So this exactly meets that and follows
33 the building footprint. So we basically'tracked the building wall all the way up and down.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Okay. So you essentially can't build under the easement.
36
37 Ms. Munoz: We cannot.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: You can however build under to the left inside the interior of the triangle
40 and you can build to the right of the triangle adjacent to the Audi dealership. I am wondering if
41 there is a way to reconfigure that so the building basement goes beyond the building envelope
42 and allows for more parking that way.
43
44 Ms. Munoz: We did look at schemes that did exactly that but we were trying to be sensitive to
45 constructability and construction costs, and have the basement follow the building footprint. So
46 this is where we ended up.
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page300f37
1
2 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that. Thank: you. So a couple of comments about that. First
3 of all, I do recognize that some people will arrive here using shuttles. I do realize that some
4 people will leave here using shuttles. I think that that is unlikely to be the case for those using
5 the restaurant. They are either onsite using the restaurant or they are offsite driving. Do we
6 know whether this hotel is going to have stays of30 days or less or stays greater than 30 days
7 with a Development Agreement? Has that been determined yet?
8
9 Ms. Cutler: It-will be required to meet the current code. Anything more specific than that has
10 not been discussed.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: So do we know the answer to that?
13
14 Mr. Northway: There are no plans at this time to have anyone there longer than 30 days. In your
15 thinking about parking although Wu and Vicky would love to have 100 percent occupancy as
16 would the City, I think we all know realistically hotels are not 100 percent occupied.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: Thank: you. I think Commissioner Fineberg has a follow up.
19
20 Commissioner Fineberg: Will the rooms still have kitchen units in them?
21
22 Mr. Turner: Yes. The basic idea and Wu would like to speak to you a little further about it, he
23 can do it now or later, the basic idea of who will stay here will be people who will probably be
24 here for maybe a week or ten days. That is why the ability to have a kitchen in the room, that is
25 the kind of market they are looking for. Wu can add more to it either after when we have the
26 three minutes of if you would it right now.
27
28 Commissioner Keller:. I would invite her to address us right now.
29
30 Chair Garber: Sure, why don't you take this as the formal opportunity to respond to any of the
31 public comments or anything else?
32
33 Mr. Wu-chung Hsiang, Applicant: Thank: you. Vicky and I own this piece of land. Now, at the
34 moment when you come to Mings in fact it also comes from the back. It is impossible to drive in
35 from Embarcadero Road because the one way if you take the front you cut a big -you see we
36 have the front door there. We always come in from the back. It is impossible to come in from
37 there.
38
39 About the restaurant, we actually thought about abolishing the restaurant if necessary. Because it
40 will be very expensive to build a parking lot of two levels. Impossible. So we actually thought
41 about that but then everybody said we have to keep Mings. We only kept a quarter of the size of
42 Mings. So what we will do if necessary, if the restaurant is doing well, very well, then we have
43 valet parking. We can get valet parking because the times changed. You see only the
44 lunchtimes are sort of busy now and we can't have that. Dinnertime we can always have valet
45 parking or something. So therefore for the cost of building the underground, because Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 31 of37
1 would not allow us to build higher, so that is the only way we can keep the size of the parking lot
2 like this.
3
4 Then I will add something else. We are Chinese. We build this hotel basically thinking Chinese
5 companies from China will come visit us. So it is called extended stay but we really we agree
61 with the City, we allow only a few of them to stay for 30 days but most of them maybe a few
7 weeks. So therefore the 'exercise room and other things are very small. Because the labor costs
8 are so expensive it is impossible to sustain that. So if people come from China or something
9 they may rent a car or something and they can stay a little longer. So that is what our hope is.
10
'II So we know the constraints. We would like to have more parking spaces. At one time we tried
12 to design two levels down but then the expenses would be doubled. So I appreciate all your
13 comments.
14
15 There is one more thing. Why we have the restaurant over in the comer there and why conle to
16 the back. I will say something you guys probably will not believe. We asked a feng shui guy. I
17 don't believe in that but my wife does. So in fact the restaurant over the comer there next to the
18 tower that is fire. The Chinese said a restaurant going there is okay. According to our feng shui
19 guy they should come from the back and you see it is open larger. That is what the fortune
20 comes from. So I thank you for.
21
22 Chair Garber: One moment sir. Commissioner Keller. I thought there was another question.
23
24 Mr. Wu-chung Hsiang: Feng shui means to the Chinese that when you build a building, you do
25 something, there is a way to set your roo~s, and where the wind and water come from. That is
26 what the Chinese do but you guys probably do not believe that. For Chinese that is very
27 important. We are going to get guys visiting us mostly from China or from Taiwan or fronl here
28 you see. Okay?
29
30 Chair Garber: Thank you.
31
32 Mr. Wu-chung Hsiang: Thank you.
33
34 Chair Garber: Back to Commissioner Keller.
35
36 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Actually whether I believe in feng shui or not is not relevant.
37 I can point at a story of somebody I know who told me the story about a building in Singapore,
38 which had very low rents because it had bad feng shui. So an American company went in and
39 decided that is a great place, low rents, let's put our offices over there, and none of the Chinese
40 wanted to visit those offices. So I certainly am sympathetic with the idea that good feng shui is
41 important, in particular for the clientele that you have in mind.
42
43 I do think that is certainly interesting and worthwhile to consider. I think that in light of the
44 comments about the reduction in parking and the likelihood that degree of restaurant use that
45 occurs within the hotel versus outside the hotel it may make sense, and I would certainly
46 recommend that we condition the reduction in parking on a suitable Transportation Demand
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 32 of37
1 Management Program, and whether that can be met by the shuttles or by valet parking. I think
2 that is certainly appropriate, but we don't have any way to require that without having TDM
3 measures, I think those are perfectly reasonable and achievable measures, which I am
4 presuming, or my understanding is the applicant is going to do anyway. So I think that is quite
5 reasonable. Thank you.
6
7 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert, perhaps a motion to organize us?
8
9 MOTION
10
11 Commissioner Lippert: I will try to make a motion but I have a comment first. I do see another
12 way of getting around the parking issue. Again, this has to do with hours of the day and being
13 able to share parking. Perhaps the property owners might be able to enter into an offsite parking
14 agreement with the adjacent office building that during evening hours when the hotel is maxed
15 out they would be able to simply park there. Then we know the next day that usually early
16 people leave the hotel to go on and do their business. That is an excellent idea, Commissioner
17 Keller. Perhaps the adjacent properties have an offsite agreement for using the commercial
18 office parking for restaurant parking during evening hours.
19
20 So with that what I would like to do is move that the Planning and Transportation Commission
21 recommend the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and environmental assessment and
22 approve the requested zone change to Service Commercial with a Site and Design Review
23 Combining District, CS(D), and approve the Site and Design Review and Variance application
24 for development of a four story hotel and restaurant on the property located at 1700 Embarcadero
25 Road subject to the conditions of approval on findings in the Record of Land Use. I would like
26 to add to that that the Staff work with the applicant in terms of working out the under-parking
27 constraints either through a Transportation Demand Management Program or an offsite parking
28 agreement for the overflow on the adjacent comnlercial office buildings.
29
30 Chair Garber: Do we hear a second?
31
32 SECOND
33
34 Commissioner Keller: I will second.
35
36 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller seconds. Would the maker like to address his motion?
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: No, I think we have had enough discussion here. I have heard from all
39 of my Commissioners and hopefully we have addressed the most significant issue here, which is
40 the parking. I entertain any other amendments that my Commissioners would want to make to
41 see this project move forward.
42
43 Chair Garber: The seconder?
44
45 Commissioner Keller: I understand that the intent of the discussion of the maker, Commissioner
46 Lippert, in terms of Transportation Demand Management, if you will Transportation Demand
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 33 of37
1 Management or Parking Demand Program in some sense dealing with one or the other to address
2 the parking issue. That is my interpretation of ConlDlissioner Lippert said.
3
4 I am going to address something that I have not addressed already and that is that I appreciate the
5 photographs taken from the Baylands, and particularly from Bixby Park the height there. That
6 addresses a major concern that I had about the sight lines and the degree to which a 50-foot
7 building would be visible from Bixby Park. I trust the applicant being able to say that they
8 couldn't see the very tall story pole of the PG&E tower. If they are not able to see that then I
9 presume that they wouldn't have been able to see the much shorter 50-foot building for the hotel.
10
11 I am assuming that the 50-foot building is 50 feet above the raised grade. So when the grade is
12 raised by three or four feet or however many feet it is raised by that the height is 50 feet
13 measured from the new grade not from the original grade. So I don't think that that changes the
14 visibility because the PG&E tower is still much higher, but it is worthwhile to note that raising
15 the grade does raise the building slightly above the 50-some odd feet above the original grade.
16
17 I think in some sense we have a project here that.as many design projects are over constrained
18 and it is kind of hard to satisfy all of the needs here. I think that there are a number of challenges
19 that the ARB is going to have to address. One of those challenges is way finding. How do you
20 figure out where the entrance of the hotel is, and if something can be done in terms of the
21 monument sign and other way finding signs within the property for East Bayshore, particularly
22 since there is some bike parking, which I think is great. Way finding for bikers so that they
23 know how to get to the overpass over 101 and know how to get to the bike paths in the Baylands
24 I think would be important amenities on the property that should be considered.
25
26 I do think that some solution to the problem of drawing people onto East Bayshore rather than
27 onto Embarcadero Road entrance, some solution to that is going to have to be found with respect
28 to this. Although if you are coming down East Bayshore in the logical northerly direction it
29 makes sense, you see this entrance, you go in there, but if you are coming from anywhere else
30 you won't know that that entrance is there. So visual cues of some sort would be helpful. I don't
31 suppose you would want a big arrow pointing in the southern direction along the edge of
32 building but something would be quite useful.
33
34 It is interesting that we have two hotel projects that we are reviewing today. This does say
35 something about the fact that we did change the CS zoning in order to encourage the creation of
36 hotels. I am hoping that the fact that some hotels have been built recently, the Rosewood, the
37 hotel project that was being mentioned by Commissioner Lippert with respect to Marsh Road
38 and 101 indicates that there is still a viable opportunity for hotels.
39
40 I look forward to eating at the Mings Restaurant when it reopens and I am sure a large segment
41 of the community will miss it in the years that it is under construction.
42
43 Chair Garber: Commh;;sioners, discussion. I will go. I am in support of the motion. I do believe
44 that the findings for the Variance can be found such that the property does enjoy the privileges of
45 other properties in the vicinity and is within the same zoning district.
46
City of Palo Alto November J 8, 2009 Page 34 of37
1 I would like to ask for a friendly amendment that Staff engage the applicant to study the impact
2 of the trees along Errlbarcadero relative to the impact on neighbor's.signage.
3
4 Commissioner Lippert: I accept that. That was one of my comments earlier on.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: Fine with me.
7
8 Chair Garber: Okay. Perhaps a second one and that is that the trees in the parking lot be found
9 from the Baylands Master Plan Tree List and/or as recommended by the City Arborist or agreed
10 to by the City Arborist.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, I think that is definitely a problem area and I agree with your
13 amendment.
14
15 Commissioner Keller: Likewise.
16
17 Chair Garber: Relative to the entrances and the issue of way finding I do not disagree with a
18 number of the comments that Commissioner Martinez in particular had, however I do believe
19 that the issue of trying to enter the site from Embarcadero is problematic. I do believe that the
20 way that I read the building is contrary to the way in which I am hearing the applicant is
21 expecting the building to be used. I find it more difficult to reconcile myself whether that is a
22 planning problem or if you will a cultural one. So I am erring in favor of the applicant here in
23 that I am not finding anything explicit that is contrary wise to the intent of the zoning and will
24 trust that the use of the property will be made clear both by the architecture as well as the likely
25 occupants.
26
27 So with that I think I will also look forward to some if not friendly anlendments then potentially
28 a list of things that we might forward onto the ARB for their particular attention to be paid to,
29 which we may have other additions to. So Commissioner Martinez and then Commissioner
30 Lippert.
31
32 Commissioner Martinez: I believe those conditions have been fairly well stated by
33 Commissioner Keller and also by the Chair. The problem of way finding is going to be a
34 challenge. I do want to say that contrary to popular belief I do support this hotel in Palo Alto. I
35 think it will be a great asset to this part of the city. Without commenting about the design I think
36 it is a good start.
37
38 I want to also acknowledge that the cultural significance of the entrance is important. If there is
39 confidence that that will work I am all for it. I think the model addresses my concern about the
40 importance of the Embarcadero side. I think the way it steps down, the way it opens up, the way
41 it is different from the other sides of the hotel on the most significant comer of the project makes
42 that work. I think you will have a challenge in keeping hotel visitors from wanting to go in that
43 way and use up all the parking for the restaurant that is on that side, but I think you will find a
44 way to make it work.
45
City o/PaloAlto November 18,2009 Page 35 0/37
1 It is a good proj ect. I want to reinforce the recommendation that the ARB challenge the
2 applicant to come up with a signage program as necessary but not dominant to make this project
3 work. In other words, I don't want to see signs everywhere I want to see them where they
4 absolutely have to be. With that I am going to say that I am supporting the motion. Thank you.
5
6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Fineberg.
7
8
1
Commissioner Lippert: I just want to make a couple of brief comnlents here for the
9 Architectural Review Board. The first thing is that I don't think yours is the first hotel that has
lOan Eiffel Tower element out in front. In fact, this is much more desirable than the one in Las
11 Vegas.
12
13 Again, for the Architectural Review Board and for the applicant the two-story element I think
14 could be a very powerful gesturing element to Embarcadero Road especially greeting people as
15 they come off of Bayshore Freeway. What I think would be helpful to study or just take a look
16 at is not only the fayade and trying to get the circular element to be expressed in some way to
17 that end that is facing the frontage road, but also I think there is an opportunity here to create
18 greater connection between the courtyard and the roof terraces. Specifically what I am thinking
19 about is perhaps there could be some sort of external staircase that comes up from the courtyard
20 around the face of the building, and then retunling on the outside of the building and connecting
21 up with the roof garden, thereby connecting that negative space with the positive space that is on
22 the roof. I think that could be a really great asset or piece of punctuation both for creating more
23 interest on that fayade as well as creating a procession of some kind for the guests at the hotel as
24 they come through swimming pool court. So that is just a comment.
25
26 Regarding your palette of materials I have one minor suggestion. When it comes to using an
27 EFIS system you might want to look at a new product, Icenene, which is a soy-based rigid foam
28 product. I don't know if it comes in boards or not. It is a sustainable material.
29
30 Chair Garber: I have a couple of other things to add to the ARB's list. First of all, in response to
31 a number of the comments for the ARB to look specifically at the way in which the open comer,
32 the massing of it to see if that is going to meet their review.
33
34 Also, to look at the entry itself on that fayade relative to its size. Is it strong enough to compete
35 against the potential left turn? Are there opportunities to emphasize that decision through
36 landscaping, through gateway sorts of elements that go into that secondary parking lot that leads
37 you to the restaurant, etc.? It seems to me there are a variety of different strategies that they may
3 8 want to have some suggestions regarding that.
39
40 Commissioner Fineberg and then we will get to our vote.
41
42 Commissioner Fineberg: I will be supporting the nl0tion. I believe the findings are present for
43 the zone change, the Site and Design Review process, and the Variance process.
44 ;
45 One quick clarification just to make sure there were no misunderstandings of an earlier comment
46 I made. When I referred to the poor way finding and the drab basement that one drives around in
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 36 of37
1 circles, in this building I meant here at City Hall. I was not referring to this building, the project
2 that you are applying for. So just to make sure that nobody thinks that was about the project.
3 Thank you. .
4
5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
6
7 Commissioner Keller: I want to add one more thing for the ARB review. That is to consider the
8 arrangement of tree coverage over parking, and in particular the idea of adding additional fingers
9 separating parking spaces more frequently to allow for tree coverage. I think that could be done
10 without major changes to the design. Thank you.
11
12 MOTION PASSED (5-01-1, Commissioner Holman recused, Commissioner Tuma absent)
13
14 Chair Garber: All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye. (ayes) All those opposed~ The
15 motion passes unanimously with Commissioners Martinez, Fineberg, Garber, Keller, and Lippert
16 voting yea, and Commissioner Tuma absent and Commissioner Holman recusing herself.
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 37 of37
ATTACHMENT J
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
1700 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, California
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Jennifer Cutler, Planner
City of Palo Alto
650-329-2149
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
Stoecker & Northway Architects, Inc.
437 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
. 09PLN-00175
6. PROJECT LOCATION
1700 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, CA
Parcel Numbers: 008-03-065 & 008-03-064
The 2.5 acre project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of
Santa Clara County, east of U. S. Highway 101. The proposed project site is bounded by Embarcadero
Road to the north, East Bayshore Road to the west, and private offices to the east and south, as shown on'
Figure 1, Vicinity Map.
1700 Embarc'adero Road Page 1 Negative Declaration
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The General Plan designation is Service Commercial per the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan.
This land use designation is for facilities relying on customers arriving by car that don't necessarily
benefit from being in high volume pedestrian areas and includes auto services and dealerships, motels,
lumberyards, appliance stores, and restaurants, including fast service types. Non-residential floor area
ratios range from up to 0.4. The proposed project, which is in close proximity to a freeway off ramp and
includes a restaurant and hotel, is consistent with the land use designation.
8. ZONING
The Zoning designation for this site is currently Planned Community (PC). . The proposed project
includes rezoning the property to Service Commercial (CS) with a Site and Design Review Combining
District (D). The existing zone was specific to the restaurant existing on the site and is required to be
rezoned for any new development on the site. The proposed CS zone is contained in the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.16. The CS commercial district provides for citywide and regional
services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian-oriented shopping areas, and which
generally require automotive access for customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment,
loading or unloading, or parking of commercial service vehicles. The site and design review (D)
combining district is intended to provide a process for revi.ew and approval of development in
environmentally and ecological1y sensitive areas, in order to assure that use and development will be
harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and ecological
objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed uses are permitted
in this zone district.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is the removal of one existing'lot line to create one new lot, the demolition of one
existing restaurant building, and construction of a new four-story restaurant and hotel building with one
, level of underground parking (Figure 2, Project Site Plan). The new building is proposed to be 117,698
square feet and wil1 be in approximately the same location as the existing '15,180 square foot building to
be demolished with additional building extending toward the rear of the lot away from Embarcadero
Road.' The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet. The proposed development will also include
surface parking. The proposed project includes a one-level underground parking lot including 90 parking
spaces. An additional 76 spaces are proposed as surface parking along three sides of the new building. A
total of 166 parking spaces are proposed on the site. The underground garage has ingress and egress from
the side of the building facing the rear property line (shared with 2465 East Bayshore Road) on the comer
of the building closest to East Bayshore Road. The main restaurant entrance will be at the comer of the
building closest to the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road, and the hotel will have
the main pedestrian entrance on along the rear, facing away from Embarcadero Road. The proposed
landscaping will include various ground cover and low plantings, and numerous parking lot trees, species
to be determined as part of the architectural review process.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
~ The site is located in the northeastern area of the City of Palo Alto and' is designated Service Commercial
by the Comprehensive Plan and is adjacent to office buildings on two sides with Embarcadero Road and
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 2 Negative Declaration
East Bayshore Road adjacent to the property to the north and west. Additional offices are located across
both streets. The site is one block away from the US Highway 101.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
• County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
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-$pecific 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) "(Mitigated) 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).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to' the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration .. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from" the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 3 Negative Dec1aration
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7). Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria· or threshold, ifany, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
DISCUSSION OF IMP ACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and
a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual X
character or quality of the site and its 1,2,8
surroundings?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1, i X
public view or view corridor? MapL4
c) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock 1, X
outcroppings, and historic buildings within MapL4
a state scenic highway?
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,2,8 X
policies regarding visual resources?
e) Create a new source of substantial light or X
glare which would adversely affect day or 1,2,8
nighttime views in the area?
f) Substantially shadow public open space 1,2 X
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21 ?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project includes replacing the existing building with a: new design and new "landscaping. While this
will change the existing visual character of the site, it will be reviewed by the Architectural Review board to
ensure that it does not degrade it. The project site is located approximately lh mile from the Palo Alto Baylands
Preserve. The design of the landscaping and signage on the site would include elements conforming with the
Baylands Master Plan. The proposed project does include new lighting, but will be required to meet the City's
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 4 Negative Declaration
standards which restrict light levels. No public views or view corridors ·will be affected by this new building, and
retention of existing trees, and the planting of new landscaping will soften the views of the new building from the
adjacent public roadways.
Mitigation Measures:
N one Required.
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In detennining 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 optionall1).odel to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and fannland.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Fannland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance 1, 5
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California X Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2-
use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9,6 X
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of 1 X
Farmland, to non-agricu1tural use?
DISCUSSION:
The site is not located,in a "Prime Fannland", "Unique Farmland", or "Fannland of Statewide Importance" area,
as shown on the maps prepared for the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation X
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,2,8,10
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 5 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X
substantially to an existing or projected air 1,2,8,10
quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct. and/or indirect operational X
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
. Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine.particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PM lO);
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) X
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the X
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality 1,2,8,10 standard (inc1uding re1easing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors) ?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels X
of toxic air contaminants? 1,2,8,10
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl)
exceeds lOin one million
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-
carcinogenic TACs 'would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the
MEl
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ( X
substantial number of people? 1,8,10
f) Not imple·ment all applicable construction 1,8,10 X
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 6 Negative Declaration
The City of Palo Alto uses the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) thresholds of
significance for air quality impacts, as follows:
Construction Impacts: The project may involve excavating, grading, and paving activities which could cause
localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in particulate matter (PM lO). Dust related impacts are
considered potentially significant but may be mitigated with the application of standard dust control measures.
Construction equipment would also emit NOx and ROC. However, in order for emissions from construction
equipment to be considered significant, the project must involve the extensive use of construction equipment over
a long period of time. Based on the size of the proposed project, emissions of NO x and ROC are 'anticipated to be
less than signifi cant.
Long Term Impacts: Long-term project emissions primarily stem from motor vehicles associated with the
proposed project. As discussed in the Transportation/Traffic section of this Initial Study, the project is not
expected to result in a significant number of new vehicle trips. Therefore, long-term air-quality impacts are
expected to be less than significant.
The project would be subject to the following City's standard conditions of approval:
The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related
construction impacts:
• All active construction areas shaH be watered at least twice daily.
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of
freeboard.
• All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept and
watered daily.
• Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance' of a
demolition permit.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
Mitigation Measures:
N one Required.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentiany Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, 1,2-X
or special status species in local or regional MapNl, plans, policies, or regulations, or by the 10 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 natura]
community identified in local or regional plans, 1,2-X
policies, regulations, including federally MapNI protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 7 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 1,2-
species or with established native resident or MapN1 X migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
d) . Conflict with any local policies or <:>rdinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree 1,2,3, S X
preservation policy or as defined .by the City of
Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.1 O)?
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natura] Community X
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 1,2
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is a new hotel & restaurant project to be located on a parcel which is almost entirely covered
by paving and the existing restaurant bUilding. The developed nature of the site reduces the chance of impacts to
candidate-, sensitive·, and special status-species. The site does not include any trees protected by Palo Alto's Tree
Preservation Ordinance. The site, includes 24 trees of eight species, five of which are regulated street trees.
Substantial changes in landscaping are proposed and would result in a greater number of trees than are currently
on the site.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless' Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Councii 1,2 X
resolution?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource 1,2· X
pursuant to 15064.5? MapLS
c) . Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique 1,2-X
geologic feature? MapLS .
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-
interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapLS X
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 8 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
. Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2-
f)
eligible for Jisting on the National andlor MapL7 X
California Register~ or listed on the City's
Historic Inventory?
Eliminate important examples of major periods 1 2-, . X
of California history or prehistory? MapL8
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a low archaeological resource sensitivity zone. Although
existing and historic development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried Native
American sites could be uncovered in future planning area construction.
If archaeological materials are discovered the applicant would be required to perform additional t~sting and
produce an Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) to be approved prior to the start of
construction.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the See
risk of loss, injury, or death involving: below
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent 1,2,8 X
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publ~cation 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-MapN-X
10,8
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 2-
including liquefaction? MapN5, X
8
iv) Landslides? 2-MapNS X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
oftopsoi1? 1, 8 X
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 9 Negative Declaration
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as 2-MapNS X
a result of the project, and potentially
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in l
. Table 1S-1-B of the Uniform Bui1ding 2-MapNS X
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
f) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or 1
alternative waste water disposal systems X
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major 1,4,8
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated X
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques?
DISCUSSION:
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. According to the Comprehensive Plan the project site
is in an area that is subject to violent ground shaking in the event of an earthquake and has a high potential for
liquefaction but is not in an area subject to surface rupture, expansive soils, or earthquake induced landslides.
All new construction will be required to comply with to th~ provisions of the most current Building. Code,
portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of
. an earthquake. Therefore, no geological or seismic impacts are expected.
Substantial or permanent changes to the' site topography are not expected as site is relatively flat and covered with
either building or surface parking. Standard conditions of approval require submittal of a final grading and
drainage plan for the project for approval by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building
permit. The application of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control measures as a part of the approved
grading and drainage plan is expected to avoid any grading-related impacts.
The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the
primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 10 Negative Declaration
Mitigation
I Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routing transport, use, 8 X
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable 8 X
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 1,8-X
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or MapN7
waste within one-quarter mi1e of an existing or
QfoJ~osed school?
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1,8 X
e)
f)
g)
h)
I
i)
j)
to hazards from hazardous materials
contami~ation, emissions or ,accidental release?
Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant 1,2-X
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a MapN9,
result, would it create a significant hazard to 10
the public or the environment?
For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been X
adopted, within two miies of a public airport or 1,2,3
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety 1, 2, 3 X
hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response 1,2-X
plan or emergency evacuation plan? MapN7
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland X
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to 2-MapN7 I
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1, 8, 10
environment from existing hazardous materials X
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
D~SCUSSION:
The proposed project is the replacement of the existing building containing the Mings Restaurant. The proposed
re'staurant & hotel building does not include use of hazardous materials. The. proposed project is not within 1,4 mile
of any schools or residential properties.
The project site is not identified by either the California Environmental Protection Agency or the California State
Water Resources Control Board as a hazardous materials site. The adjacent property at 1730 Embarcadero Road
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 11 Negative Declaration
was a former Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site, but received regulatory case closure status in
January 1998. Due to the age of the releases and the location of] 730 Embarcadero down-gradient relative to the
subject site in respectto groundwater flow, E2C concluded)n the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for this
project that the likelihood that the .soil and groundwater beneath 1700 Embarcadero Road is impacted at levels of
regulatory concern is low.
Due to the project's proximity to the Palo Alto Airport, it will be required to include granting of an avigation
easement to restrict the height of any futur~ development of the site, therefore the project is not expected to pose
airport-related safety hazards. The proposed project will not interfere with either emergency response or
evacuation. The project site is not located in a designated fire hazard area.
Mitigation Measures:
'None Required.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? ] ,2,8 X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantial1y with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit 2-MapN2 X 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 drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the 1,2,8 X
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 1,2,3 X
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in floodin~ on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide 1,2,3 X
substantial additional sources o.f polluted
runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,2 X
g) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard 1,2,8 X
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 1 ~O-year flood hazard area
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 12 Negative Declaration
structures which would impede or redirect 2-MapN6 X
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve flooding, 2-MapN6 X
including flooding as a result of the failure of a N8
levee or dam or being located within a 100-year
flood hazard area?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2-MapN6 X
N8
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,2 X
DISCUSSION:
The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge, and will not deplete groundwater supplies, but
it is located in a 100-year flood hazard area. Since the project does not" include housing it is not considered a
significant impact. The project site is not in an area that is subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project will
be required to meet City requirements for stormwater drainage. No impact.
During demolition, grading and construction, storm water pollution could result. Non-point source pollution is a
serious problem for wildlife dependant on the waterways and for" people who live near polluted streams or
baylands. Standard conditions of architectural review approval would require the incorporation of Best
"Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention iJ? all construction operations, in
conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program, and submittal of a
stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP)' in conjunction with building permit plans to address potential
water quality impacts. City development standards and standard conditions of project approval would reduce
potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant.
The project includes a one level basement, providing parking spaces for the project. Any intrusion below the
groundwater table is expected to be minimal, such that there would be minimal to no diversion of groundwater
flow around the basement.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would tbe project: Issues Unless . Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2,8 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with X
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not 1,2,3,8
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
1,2 X
d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,2,8 X
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 13 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,8 X
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
f) Conflict with estabHshed residential, 1,2 X
recreational, educational, religious, or, scientific
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime fannland, unique farmland, or 1,5 ,X
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The project site is within a Planned Community (PC) zone, which provides specific regulations unique to the
subject site. Any change in the development on the site, beyond what is described in the PC zone, requires a
rezoning of the property. The proposed project, a 117,698 square foot four-story hotel with a restaurant and one
level of underground' parking, also includes a proposal to rezone the site to Service Commercial to bring the
zoning into conformance with the existing land use designation under the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
project is an allowed use as regulated by the' proposed Service Commercial zone in the City of Palo Alto Zoning
Ordinance and the existing land use designation in the 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan, and, will replace a one
story building that contains one restaurant. The increase from one story to four stories on the site will be dramatic
and taller than the two and three-story office buildings in the area but the building is designed so that the tallest
portions are farthest from the public roadways with rooftop terraces at the front comer of the building so that the
massing is stepped back from the street corner. The resulting impact is therefore expected to be less than
significant. The proposed designation for this site is Service Commercial with the Site and Design combining
district (CS(D». This zoning is contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.16 and 18.30, and
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The project would also include demolition of the
existing 15,180 square foot building and installation of new landscaping. This use complies with the zoning and
land.use designation as described above.
The project will comply with all plans for conservation of biological resources, and would not impact farmland.
See Sections Band D for further discussion of these topics.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
J. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to· the
region and the residents of the state? 1,2 X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a 10cal1y-,
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 14 . Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan 1,2 X
or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division· of
Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no
aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication
in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of
Palo Alto. . '.
Mitigation Measures:
N one Required.
K. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentia lIy Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X
levels in excess of standards established in the 1,2,8
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground 1,8
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 1,8
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
1,8
e) For a project located within an airport land use X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people 1,2
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) F or a project within the vicinity of a private 1,2 X
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,8 X
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB? ! ... ..
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,8 X
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 15 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
WouJd the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 1,8 X
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,8 X
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,2-Map X
1)
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other N3,8
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,8 X
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located in an area with an existing noise level of approximately 65 Ldn based on Map N3 of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Most of the proposed activities on the site will be interior activities with some
outdoor activities in the courtyard located in the center of the building. California Building Code requirements
include a maximum interior Day/Night Average Sound Levels (DNL) of 45dBA or less for hotels and motels, as
well as limitations on noise levels between units. Window type will be dictated by these requirements and
mechanical equipment to provide ventilation may be required if exterior noise levels require windows to stay
closed. With compliance with these requirements of the state building code the impacts are expected to be less
than significant.
Construction activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels and vibrations from garage
construction. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation, grading and
construction, which will be short term in duration. Standard approval conditions would require the project to
comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels
associated with construction activity. Short-term construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would
. result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
. Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Induce substantial population growth in an X
area, either directly (for example, by proposing 1,2,8
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
examp]e, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Disp]ace substantial numbers of existing 1 X
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 16 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources ( Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues .Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, X
necessitating the construction of replacement 1
housing elsewhere?
d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1,2 X
employed residents and jobs?
I " .....
I tively exceed regional or local 1,2 X
popUlation projections?
DISCUSSION:
The project would not add significant population or induce population growth, nor will it displace housing or
people, as it will include a new restaurant to replace the existing and a four-story hotel. The proposed project will
result in less than significant impact on population or housing. Standard conditions of approval require fees to
cover any increased need for housing. Impact will be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 perfonnance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? 1,2 X
Police protection? 1,2 X
Schools? 1',2 X
Parks? 1,2 'X
Other public facilities? 1,2 X
DISCUSSION:
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 17 Negative Declaration
The proposed project would not impact fire service to the area and the site is not located in a high fire hazard area.
The conditions of approval for the project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures. The site is
located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The facility would not by itself result in the
need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities.
Standard conditions of approval require fees to cover any increased need for community facilities, schools, and
housing. With payment of development impact fees for community facilities, libraries and parks, the project's
impact will be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
N. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources . Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Upless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that 1, 8
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or X
expansion of recreational facilities which 1, 8
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is a new hotel & restaurant building replacing one existing restaurant building. Though the
increase in square footage is 105,698 square feet the users will be temporary visitors to the area or existing
residents visiting the restaurant and therefore the project is not expected to· have a significant effect on existing
recreational facilities. Development impact fees for parks and community facilities for the increase in floor area
are required per City ordinance. No mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures:
N one Required.
o. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues U'nless Impact
. Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (Le., 1,8,9 X
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 18 Negative Declaration
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by the 1,8,9 X
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1,2 X
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 1,2 X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., fann equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,8 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,3,8 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or X
programs supporting alternative 1,2,8
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,2,9 X
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase \
by 0.01 or more?
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at 1,2,9 X
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
!
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,2,9 X
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by. four seconds or more and the
critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F 1,2,9 X
or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
1) Cause any change in traffic that would 1,2,9-X
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,2,9 X
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage
-capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at turn lanes at ;
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 19 Negative Declaration
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.
n) Impede the development or function of 1,2 X
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,2,9 X
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,2,8 X
DISCUSSION:
Through empirical research, data have been collected that correlate to common land uses their propensity for
producing traffic. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied
to help predict future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The magnitude of the traffic
generation by the proposed project was estimated by Hexagon Transportation Consultants by applying to the size
of the development the applicable trip generation rates. These calculations, in the table below, are calculated on
the basis of the trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled
Trip Generation, seventh edition. The proposed project is the replacement of an existing restaurant with a new
building containing a new restaurant and a new hotel with an increase in square footage of approximately 105,698
square feet.
Traffic Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I
Land Use Size l Daily Daily Peak-Hour Hourly Peak-Hour Hourly Trips !
Rate2 Trips Rate 2 Trips Rate2
Existing Restaurant (22) (24)
Proposed Hotel 162 8.2 1,328 0.56 91 0.59 96
Net New 69 72
J Size expressed in number of rooms
2Trip rates based on Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, seventh·edition.
The proposed hotel is calculated to cause an increase of 72 new peak PM Hour trips, which is above the 50 trip
threshold for the City of Palo Alto's requirement for a Traffic Impact Assessment. The traffic assessment
prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants included review of the intersections of Embarcadero Road with
East Bayshore Road and with Saint Francis Drive. The calculated increase in delay in the PM Hour was less than
2 seconds at both intersections and therefore the traffic increase is considered less than significant. No mitigation
is required.
The building is proposed to be developed with a new underground parking garage and new surface parkjng. After
these improvements the site will provide 166 parking spaces, including 76 surface spaces and 90 underground
spaces. The City zoning regulations require 222 parking spaces for this project (1 space per guest room (143), 1
space per 60 sq. ft. public service area (50), 1 space per 200 sq. ft. other restaurant area (14), 1 space 4 occupants
of meeting room (11), 1 space per 200 sq. ft. retail (l), and 1 space per 200 sq. ft. gym (3) but also allow for
consideration of up to 40% reduction in required parking for hotels, with approval from the Planning Director.
Tpe project includes a request for a reduction in parking by 25% so that the project would provide a total of 166
parking spaces. The Planning Director is supportive of the requested reduction, and the City Council will take
final action on the project.
The required 26 bicycle parking spaces will be provided for the proposed building.
Mitigation Measures:
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 20 Negative Dec1aration
None Required.
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality 1,2 X
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or 1,2 X
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effe~ts?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
stonn water drainage facilities or expansion 1,2 X
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 1,2 X
entitlements neefled?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may X
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing 1
commitments?
t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the 1 X
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? 1 X
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1 X
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
DISCUSSION:
The p"roposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use
resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Standard conditions of approval require the applicant to submit
calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off site water, sewer and fire systems are
capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. Trash and
recycling facilities are proposed in the project to accommodate the expected waste and recycling streams that
would be generated by the expected uses within the project site.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
1 700 Embarcadero Road Page 21 Negative Declaration
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 1,2,3,8 X
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 1,2,8 X
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 1,4,8 X
on human beings, either directly or
indirectlyi
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultura1 or historic
resources. The use is appropriate for the site and would not result in an adverse visual impact. There is nothing in
the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect
on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts. .
Global Climate Change Impacts ,
The potential effect of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions} on global climate change is an emerging issue that
warrants discussion under CEQA. Unlike the pollutants discussed previously that may have regional and local
effects, greenhouse gases have the potential to cause global changes inthe environment. In addition, greenhouse
gas emissions do not directly produce a localized impact, but may cause an indirect impact if the local climate is
adversely changed by its cumulative contribution to a change in global climate. Individual projects contribute
relatively small amounts of greenhouse gases that when added to all other greenhouse gas producing activities
around,the world result in increases in. these emissions that have led many to conclude is changing the global
climate. However, no threshold has been established for what would constitute a cumulatively considerable
increase in greenhouse gases for individual development projects.
The State of California has taken several actions that he1p to address potential global climate change impacts.
Although not originally intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, California Code of Regulations Title 24
I GHGs as defined under AB 32 include: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and
sulfur hexafluoride
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 22 Negative Declaration
Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first
established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards
are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies
and methods.
In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
AB 32 describes how global climate change will impact the environment in California~ The impacts described in
AB 32 include changing sea levels, changes in snow pack and availability of potable water, changes in stonn
flows and flood inllndation zones, and'other impacts. The list of impacts included in AB 32 may be considered
substantial evidence of environmental impacts requiring analysis in CEQA documents. AB 32 focuses on
reducing GHG in California. The GHG emissions reductions found in AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, signed
in June 2005, are consistent with the cli,mate stabilization models produced by the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). These climate stabilization models show that if GHG emissions are reduced to the levels shown
in Executive Order S-3-05, the climate will stabilize at approximately a 2 degree Celsius rise, averting the worst
impacts associated with globaJ climate change. GHG as defined under AB 32 include: carbon dioxid~, methane,
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. AB 32 requires the CARB; the
State agency charged with regulating statewide air quality, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve
greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020.
In June 2008, the California's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued an interim Technical Advisory on
the role of CEQ A in addressing climate change and GHGs. As part of the advisory, OPR asked the California Air
Resources Board (ARB) staff to recommend a method for setting statewide thresholds of significance for GHG
emissions, to encourage consistency and unifonnity in the CEQA analysis for GHG emissions throughout the
state. ARB is currently developing recommended statewide interim thresholds of significance for GHGs that may
be adopted by local agencies for their own use. On October 24, 2008, ARB released the Preliminary Draft Staff
Proposal on the Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases
under the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposal, which is currently undergoing public review,
focuses on common project types that, collectively, are responsible for substantial GHG emissions -specifically,
industrial, residential, and commercial projects. The report proposes a quantitative threshold of 7,000 metric tons
of C02 equivalent per year (MTC02e/year) for operational emissions (excluding transportation) associated with
industrial projects, and perfonnanc~ standards for construction and transportation emissions. ARB staff intends to
make its final recommendations on thresholds in 2009, but currently no quantitative, significant criterion has been
adopted for determining impact significance. i
According to the OPR interim Technical Advisory, in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG
emissions, CEQA requires that lead agencies disclose and mitigate such emissions to the extent feasible whenever
the lead agency detennines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact. The
advisory recommends identifying and quantifying, to the extent possible, GHG emissions, assessing the
significance of the impact, and identifying alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce impact significance, as
appropriate. In the absence of adopted significance thresholds for GHG emissions, the following discussion is
provided to disclose qualitatively the potential effects of the proposed project (from both construction and
. operation) on global climate change.
The project would generate GHGs during construction and ongoing operations. During construction, the
operation of heavy construction equipment would be the primary source of GHGs. However, these emissions
would.in effect be temporary and would cease upon completion of construction. For that reason and given the
relatively small-scale of construction, the project is not expected to result in a net increase in GHG emissions that
would significantly delay or hinder the State's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in California
Governor's Executive Order S-3-05 and the impact is considered less than significant. However, given that ARB
is currently recommending mandatory performance standards for construction activities, the Project wi]] include
the fol1owing measures that will help reduce the Project's GHG emissions:
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 23 Negative Declaration
• The contractor shall reduce emissions through any of the fol1owing options or others that achieve
reduction in overall emissions: use late-model engines, .low-emission diesel products or alternative fuels
(e.g., Lubrizol, Puri NOx, biodisel fuel) in all heavy duty off-road equipment.
• The contractor sha11 minimize idling time to 10 minutes for all heavy-duty equipment when not engaged
in work activities, including on-road haul trucks while being loaded or unloaded onsite.
• A City-approved Solid Waste Diversion and Recycling Plan (or such other documentation to the
satisfaction of the City) will be in place prior to project construction. The Plan shall demonstrate the
diversion from landfills and recycling of all nonhazardous, salvageable and re-useable wood, metal,
. plastic and paper products during construction and demolition activities. The Plan or other documentation
shall include the name of the waste hauler, their assumed destination for all waste and recycled materials,
and the procedures that will be followed to ensure implementation of this measure.
\
• The project shall be submitted to the USGBC and shall obtain a rating of at least Silver through the LEED
'certification process.
Following construction, the use of the new building is expected to generate minor quantities of GHG emissions
over the long-term. The primary sources of GHG emissions would be associated with vehicle trips of employees
and visitors, and energy use within the building.
Given the overwhelming scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single development project
would have an individually discernable effect on global climate change (e.g., that any increase in global
temperature or rise in sea level could be attributed to the emissions resulting from one single development
project). Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude that the greenhouse gas-emissions generated by the proposed
project would combine with emissions across the state, nation, and globe to cumulatively contribute to global
climate change.
In an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to conform with the CEQA
Guidelines [§16064(b)], it is the City's position that, based on the nature and size of this project, the proposed
project would not impede the state's ability to reach the emission reduction limits/standards set forth by the State
of California by Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. For these reasons, this project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions. As
such, impacts are considered less than significant.
Global Climate change also has the potential to impact the proposed project through potential increases in sea
level and the flooding that may result. The proposed project is located in an area that would be subject to
flooding in a 100-year flood, and based on initial studies may also be flooded as a result of a rise in sea level. The
Federal Emerg~ncy Management Agency (FEMA) is currently corlducting studies on current tidal elevations and
will be issuing a new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) some time in 2011. This study will take into account
changes in sea level since the 1980s, but will not take into account the impacts of future sea level rise. The new
FIRM will likely show a slightly higher Base Flood Elevation for tidal flooding, resulting in an expanded Special
Flood Hazard Area for Palo Alto. The South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study being conducted by the Army
Corps of Engineers (with the Water District serving as one of the local funding partners) is moving slower than
originally envisioned due to limited funding from the federal government. The Water District is advancing funds
to keep the project moving. Shortly after the first of the year, the Shoreline Study will be producing updated
maps for public review showing sea level projections for the years 2016 and 2067. These maps are likely to show
substantial increases in future sea levels and associated tidal Base Flood Elevations. The tidal floodplain for Palo
Alto could extend as far west as Middlefield Road under these future scenarios.
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 24 Negative Declaration
Once the Shoreline Study mapping results are published, the Water District will be asking each community in the
county affected by sea level change for their reaction to the results. The Water District will be going out to the
voters in 2012 seeking approval of a new special tax for flood control improvements. Tidal flood protection
projects will be a key'element of this ballot measure. Water District staff has estimated that the ballot measure
will be able to fund the planning/design of three levee segments in the county and the construction of one levee
segment (there are a total of nine levee segments identified in Santa Clara County).
SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1,998-2010
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 Zoning Ordinance
4. Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload
5. Important Farmland in California Map, California Department of Conservation, Division 'of Land Resource'
Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2004.
6. Agricultural Preserves Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection,
2001
'7. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
8. Project Plans and project\description, Stoecker and Northway Architects, Inc., July 29, 2009
9. Traffic Impact Analysis for 1700 Embarcadero Mings Hotel, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc, dated
September 3, 2008
10. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 1700 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, prepared by E2C, dated June 23,
2009.
11. Geotechnical Investigation for 1700 Embarcadero Road, prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated July 2009.
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 25 Negative Declaration
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the X
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 ~e prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a/significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT 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 on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
. l
. 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.
----------_. __ ..
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 27 Negative Declaration