HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2998City of Palo Alto (ID # 2998)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/23/2012
July 23, 2012 Page 1 of 6
(ID # 2998)
Summary Title: Appeal of ARB Approval of Casa Olga Hotel
Title: Appeal of Director’s Architectural Review Approval of Site Improvements
Associated with the Conversion of an Existing Building to an 86 Room Hotel with
Ground Floor Restaurant and a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) and Sign
Exceptions at 180 Hamilton Avenue (Casa Olga)
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s
decision to approve the Architectural Review application, Design Enhancement Exception, and
Sign Exceptions for the Casa Olga Hotel project based upon the findings and conditions of
approval described in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
Executive Summary
On April 10, 2012, an application for Architectural Review was submitted for the conversion of
the existing Casa Olga site, a legal non-complying facility, into an 86-room boutique hotel. The
conversion of the building for this use is relatively uncomplicated since it was originally
developed in the mid 1970’s as a 72-room hotel. The Architectural Review Board reviewed and
recommended approval of the project on June 7, 2012 and the Director of Planning and
Community Environment approved the project on June 12, 2012. Within the prescribed
timeframe, one appeal of the approval decision was filed by Mr. Ken Alsman, a Professorville
resident and downtown business operator. The appeal recognizes that the proposed project
meets the legal requirements for parking, but cites concerns about the project’s real impacts
upon the available parking for the surrounding neighborhood residents.The appeal does not
take exception with the Architectural Review criteria required for project approval. The staff
believes that there is no basis for the appeal as the design criteria are met.The Council’s action
on Consent upholds the Director’s approval, unless a minimum of three Councilmembers pull
the item off Consent and set a public hearing for a future date.
Background
Review Process and Council Purview
July 23, 2012 Page 2 of 6
(ID # 2998)
The City’s Zoning Ordinance provides that appeal of the Director’s decision on an Architectural
Review application is reviewed by placement on the Council consent calendar within 30 days
after the filing of the appeal. The Director’s action is approved on consent unless a minimum of
three (3) Council members vote to pull the item from consent and schedule a public hearing for
a future date (PAMC 18.77.070(f)).The criteria for Council review are the same as those used
by the Architectural Review Board and the Director, specifically the 16 findings (as applicable)
associated with Architectural Review, enumerated in Section 18.76.020(d)of the Code. These
findings are related only to the design of the building and site, and are addressed by the ARB
and staff in the Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA).
Project Description
The site is 8,500 square feet (sf) and was developed in the mid 1970’s as an eight-story hotel
(with about 50,000 sf of floor area). It was never used as such, but instead, the 72 rooms and
top floor kitchen and dining areas were used for an intermediate care facility, and later as single
room occupancy rentals when the care facility had financial issues. The existing building is 76
feet tall and built out to the property lines on three sides; the ground floor is setback nine feet
six inches from the Hamilton Avenue property line. The first floor of the building includes an at-
grade parking garage with five vehicle parking spaces accessed from Emerson Street. Along
both street frontages, there are existing city street trees (two on Emerson and three on
Hamilton). A unique feature of this building is the tile mosaic of “El Palo Alto” that extends six
stories in height on the corner of the building on the Emerson side. The existing building is
considered a legal non-complying facility due to its height and floor area ratio (FAR), which
exceeds the current development standards. Currently, the site is undergoing tenant
improvements that include seismic upgrades to the building.
The proposed exterior modification project is primarily the re-skinning of the building facades
to update the building’s appearance for a hotel use. The design includes the partial cladding of
the building with aluminum composite panels with a natural wood finish. The cladding would
be applied partially to the Emerson façade, to the overhang features (both fascia and
underside) at the top of the building and first floor, and to the vertical side panel proposed on
the Hamilton frontage. The non-street facing elevations include partial cladding treatment as
well.
The proposed improvements also include the following exterior design features:
·the replacement of the asbestos balcony fascias with new fiber cement paneling;
·painting of the existing concrete, stucco, and brick facades;
·replacement of storefront glazing and balcony rails;
·the addition of perforated aluminum privacy panels along each of the balconies;
·use of the perforated aluminum panels on the corner ground floor walls with 24 hour
backlighting to highlight an abstract tree image in the panels;
·new street trees, planters, and new paving; and
·refurbishing of the “El Palo Alto” mosaic.
July 23, 2012 Page 3 of 6
(ID # 2998)
Additional design and project details are provided in the applicant’s project description
(Attachment D).
In addition to the façade and other exterior improvements, the project includes replacement of
the garage with the primary hotel entrance and reception area, as well as back-of-house service
functions needed for the hotel and new ground floor restaurant. The restaurant would be
approximately 1,300 sf and include outdoor seating along Hamilton Avenue under a new trellis
element. The first floor would include the addition of 157 sf for an enclosed trash area on the
Hamilton Avenue frontage and conversion of the interior side outdoor space (215 sf) into back
of house uses. Another notable exterior change is the proposed infill of a covered terrace,
approximately 550 sf, on the eighth floor to accommodate larger sized guest suites (where the
terrace covering is the solid, permanent roof of the building). The driveway curb cut on
Emerson would be closed and replaced with new sidewalk and striped for valet service.
The project scope also includes the location of signage for the hotel, one above the hotel
entrance canopy on Emerson Street and the other as a projecting sign on the Hamilton Avenue
frontage. The signage location and general concepts are shown in the plans, but the actual sign
text is still being developed by the hotel. The sign details, once designed and submitted, will be
presented to the ARB for review and approval. The signage location for the restaurant is not
included with this project; restaurant signage will be subject to architectural review once a
tenant is acquired. The two hotel signs require Sign Exceptions due to placement and/or size.
The hotel signs are discussed further in this report within the Sign Exception discussion.
Architectural Review Board Action
On June 7, 2012, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed and unanimously
recommended approval with conditions for the project. Because the ARB had reviewed the
project previously in two preliminary reviews, the discussion was limited and no significnt
issues were raised. The meeting minutes are attached for reference (Attachment F). Comments
made by the ARB in the previous meetings have been summarized by the applicant and are
included in Attachment D.
At the ARB meeting, there were one public speaker who was concerned about the site’s
management of their garbage area and the possible traffic and circulation impacts with regard
to guests and deliveries. The appellant was not present at the meeting.
Discussion
Appeal
On June 27, 2012, an appeal was filed by Mr. Ken Alsman. He stated that he was “not appealing
this on the basis of the design or the project’s “technical” ability to meet City parking standards.
Rather, this appeal is based on the failure of City criteria and the planning and design review
processes to take into account or even mention the devastating impact the lack of REAL parking
for this project and for Palo Alto’s downtown commercial districts has on adjacent residential
neighborhoods.” The full text of the appeal is included as Attachment B.
July 23, 2012 Page 4 of 6
(ID # 2998)
Parking
At the time the parking assessment was calculated for this site, the City staff determined that
200 spaces were required for the building. With five spaces provided on-site, the property was
assessed for 195 parking spaces. The proposed project would eliminate the five on-site spaces,
requiring the applicant to pay in-lieu fees towards the construction of future parking for these
removed spaces (at the current rate of $60,750 per space). As noted, no net new floor area is
proposed, and no additional parking spaces are required to be provided on site for the
conversion of garage area to habitable area. Staff has determined that the project, as
conditioned to pay in-lieu parking fees, would comply with the zoning code with regards to
parking requirements.
In the effort to reduce the parking needs of the hotel use, the applicant has prepared a
transportation demand management (TDM) plan (Attachment E) and intends to implement this
plan to lessen the parking demands associated with the project. With regard to secure on-site
bike parking, the hotel will allow guests to bring their bikes up to their rooms; this allowance
provides more than adequate bike storage. The hotel operator will also provide valet parking
for hotel guests and is currently working to find an appropriate private partner for this. The
valet program will be required to be approved by the Director of Planning, as well as the Police
Department.
Staff has acknowledged the concern regarding impacts on street parking in residential
neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown commercial area. The Transportation Division has
been working with the residential neighborhood on a residential parking permit program to
help address this larger issue for the residents. Other parking study efforts and improvements
were outlined to the Council on July 16, 2012.
The proposed project meets the City’s parking requirement and staff believes the parking issue
is not relevant to the architectural review.
Design Enhancement Exception
The purpose of a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is to permit a minor exception to zoning
regulations when doing so will enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the
function or use of the site, or its impact on surrounding properties. The project includes new
architectural elements added to the building that are part of the overall redesign of the new
facades; these features do not increase the usable area of the building. The expanded roof
canopy and the new entrance canopy on Emerson Street are subject to a DEE for the respective
projections beyond the existing conditions of the building, which are limited by PAMC section
18.18.120(b). Additional discussion is provided in the attached ARB staff report (Attachment C).
Sign Exception
The project includes a request for the approval of the basic sign concepts for the hotel with the
final details to return to the ARB for review and approval. The two signs requested require Sign
Exceptions due to their placement (for the entrance canopy) and size/height (projecting sign).
Additional discussion is provided in the attached ARB staff report (Attachment C).
July 23, 2012 Page 5 of 6
(ID # 2998)
Policy Implications
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there are no
other substantive policy implications. The project is consistent with 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 proposed project is consistent with the
following specific Comprehensive Goals and Policies: Program L-11: Promote increased
compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and
the surrounding residential neighborhoods; and Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian friendly
design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on street parking, public spaces, gardens,
outdoor furniture, art and interesting architectural detail.
Resource Impacts
The cost of project review by all staff is recovered by fees paid by the applicant. As a hotel use,
the project would generate transit occupancy tax (TOT) that would benefit the City, and the
restaurant would provide minor sales tax and property tax revenues.Staff estimates that City
TOT revenues from the project would amount to approximately $700,000 (86 rooms at
$250/night x 365 nights x 75% occupancy x 12% TOT) annually. Some increase in sales tax and
property tax is likely as well, though not nearly as significant as the TOT.
Environmental Review
A Negative Declaration (ND) was prepared for the project in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adopted on June 12, 2012. The public comment period
for the Negative Declaration ran from May 18 through June 6, 2012. Staff received no
comments on the document.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOC)
·Attachment B: Appeal received June 12, 2012 (PDF)
·Attachment C: ARB Staff Report w/o attachment, June 7, 2012(PDF)
·Attachment D: Project Decription (PDF)
·Attachment E: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan (DOCX)
·Attachment F: ARB Meeting Verbatim Minutes, June 7, 2012 (DOC)
·Attachment G: Zoning Compliance Table (DOC)
·Attachment H: Public Correspondence, July 18, 2012 (PDF)
·Attachment I : Development Plans (Hardcopies for Council Members Only)(TXT)
Prepared By:Clare Campbell, Planner
July 23, 2012 Page 6 of 6
(ID # 2998)
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
1
DRAFT
ACTION NO. 2012-05
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 180 HAMILTON AVENUE, THE CASA OLGA HOTEL CONVERSION:
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 12PLN-00147
(JOIE DE VIVRE HOSPITALITY, APPLICANT)
On July 23, 2012, the Council upheld the Director of
Planning and Community Environment’s June 12, 2012 decision to
approve the Architectural Review application of the for the
conversion of the existing Casa Olga site, a legal non-complying
facility, into an 86-room boutique hotel making the following
findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A.On April 10, 2012, Steinberg Architects, on behalf of
Casa Olga and Joie de Vivre Hospitality, applied for Architectural
Review of an existing eight story building and conversion to an 86
room hotel use and ground floor restaurant with a Design
Enhancement Exception (DEE) for a roof extension and new entrance
canopy and Sign Exceptions for one canopy sign and a projecting
sign. Zone: CD-C (P). (“The Project”).
B.Following staff review, the Architectural Review Board
reviewed the project on June 7, 2012 and voted [4-0]to recommend
the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s (“Director”)
to approve the project. The ARB’s action is contained in the CMR
#2998.
C.On June 12, 2012, the Director of Planning and
Community Environment (Director) received the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) recommendation and approved the Architectural Review
(AR) application. Findings and conditions of approval recommended
by the ARB were incorporated into the approval (and have been
incorporated into this ROLUA).
D.On June 27, 2012, within the prescribed timeframe,an
appeal of the Director’s decision was filed.
SECTION 2.Environmental Review. A Negative
Declaration (ND) was prepared for the project in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adopted on June
12, 2012. The public comment period for the Negative Declaration
ran from May 18 through June 6, 2012. Staff received no comments on
the document.
Attachment A
2
3
SECTION 3.Architectural Review Findings.
1.The design is consistent and compatible with applicable
elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project
incorporates quality design that recognizes the importance of the
area as described in the Comprehensive Plan. The project 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 proposed project is also consistent with the
following Comprehensive Goals and Policies: Program L-11: Promote
increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between
commercial and mixed us centers and the surrounding residential
neighborhoods; and Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian friendly
design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on street parking,
public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art and interesting
architectural detail.
2.The design is compatible with the immediate environment
of the site.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed
design maintains the existing building and enhances the existing
street frontages and building facades. The improvements revitalize
the existing legal non-complying facility and modernize a
significant building in the downtown
3.The design is appropriate to the function of the project.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
improvements are consistent with modern commercial buildings and
creates an attractive building entrance and active inviting outdoor
seating area.
4.In areas considered by the board as having a unified
design character or historical character, the design is compatible
with such character.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is
generally consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guide.
5.The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and
character in areas between different designated land uses.This
finding is not applicable to this project.
4
6.The design is compatible with approved improvements both
on and off the site.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is
compatible with the surrounding office and retail uses of the
downtown commercial area.
7.The planning and siting of the various functions and
buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide
a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general
community.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the location of
the lobby and restaurant uses are convenient and orderly.
8.The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate
to the design and the function of the structures.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the hotel
provides private open spaces (balconies) for each of the guest
rooms and some communal balcony space.
9.Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support
the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with
the project’s design concept.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the placement
of the garbage is compatible with the project’s design.
10.Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe
and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the existing
building is easily approachable by all modes of transportation and
the circulation is safe.
11.Natural features are appropriately preserved and
integrated with the project. This finding is not applicable to this
project.
12.The materials, textures, colors and details of
construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the
design and function. This finding can be made in the affirmative,
see Findings 2, 3, and 4 above.
13.The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by
the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms
and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional
environment.
5
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project
includes planters along the front façade to enhance the building.
14.Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site,
capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a
variety which would tend to be drought-resistant to reduce
consumption of water in its installation and maintenance.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the number of
planters is minimal and will be planted with low maintenance plant
material.
15.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.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is
seeking LEED Silver status with the incorporation of various
elements such as solar hot water and PV panels, use of reclaimed
wood, and use of materials with recycled content. Additional
details are provided in the project’s LEED Checklist that is
included in Attachment E of the staff report.
16.The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose
of architectural review as set forth in subsection 18.76.020(a).
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project
design, as conditioned, promotes visual environments that are of
high aesthetic quality and variety.
SECTION 4.Architectural Review Approval Granted.
Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Project by
the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
SECTION 5.Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) Findings.
1.There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements
involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone
district.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the existing
outdated facility is a legal non-complying eight story building
that is being renovated for a hotel use. Hotel uses are fairly
limited within the city and most hotels are designed to provide
6
some type of cover at the main entrance of the building to shelter
guests at arrival and departure.
2.The granting of the application will enhance the
appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood
character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed
architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be
accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements
of Title 18 and the standards for review set forth in Chapter 16.48
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
entrance canopy is supported by the Pedestrian Overlay zoning,
Downtown Urban Design Guide, and the Context-Based Design. The
entrance canopy would provide pedestrian shelter, emphasize the
building entrance, and add pedestrian scale to a very tall
building. The new roof overhang is an integral part of the proposed
design that ties the facades together and gives the building a
stronger and more balanced appearance on the Hamilton side.
3.The exception is related to a minor architectural
feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
project will be constructed in accordance with all code
requirements of the City of Palo Alto and will be neither
detrimental nor injurious to surrounding properties, public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience. The new façade treatments
with the entrance canopy and roof overhang will enhance the site
and add value to the site and immediate vicinity.
SECTION 6.Design Enhancement Exception Granted. Design
Enhancement Exception approval, pursuant to section 18.76.050 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code,is hereby granted for:
1.Exceed Building Length: The existing building is 102 feet
long (Hamilton frontage) with the primary mass of the building
being 100 feet with an additional two foot protrusion for the
stairwell landings for floors three through seven. The project
includes a new entrance canopy on Emerson Street that projects
eight feet two inches from the face of the building (property line)
into the public right-of-way. This entrance canopy would add six
feet two inches to the base length of the building; and
2.Expand Building Roofline: The base of the building is
75.5 feet wide (Emerson frontage), while the existing roof line is
7
58.5 feet wide, due to the inset of the eighth floor. The new roof
canopy would extend the roof line 12 feet to the Hamilton Avenue
property line, and one foot toward the interior side property line,
for a new dimension of 71.5 feet. The existing height of the
building at 76 feet would remain unchanged with the proposed
renovations.The granting of this Design Enhancement Exception does
not constitute a variance, and shall be effective only to the
extent that the approved plans are not changed in a manner that
affects the granted exception.
SECTION 7.Sign Exception Findings.
1.There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply
generally to property in the same district.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the existing
facility is a legal non-complying eight story building and the
scale of the building is much larger than most in the downtown.
Because of the unique tall height and mass of the building,
providing a proportionately scaled large sign for the site would be
appropriate. The large projecting sign fits the composition of the
large building. Placing the projecting sign at the upper elevations
of the building allows patrons to find the site easier, from both
the downtown and from the train. The placement of the sign above
the entrance canopy provides additional visibility for the primary
building entrance that is located on the subordinate less visible
Emerson street frontage.
2.The granting of the application is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardships.
The placement of a larger projecting sign at a more elevated
position and a signage above the entrance canopy would benefit the
hotel and enhance the business owner’s investment at the site.
3.The granting of the application will not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
The project will be constructed in accordance with all code
requirements of the City of Palo Alto and will be neither
detrimental nor injurious to surrounding properties, public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience. The new signage in
connection with the complete façade renovation of the building
8
creates a well balanced and aesthetically pleasing project that
compliments the downtown
SECTION 8.Sign Exception Approval Granted. Sign
Exception approval,pursuant to section 16.20.040 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code,is hereby granted for:
1.Canopy Sign: The plans show the placement of hotel signage
over the new entrance canopy on Emerson Street. This placement, on
top of the canopy, is not permitted based on PAMC sections
16.20.100(c) and 16.20.130(b).
2.Projecting Sign: The proposed Hamilton Avenue hotel
signage has been integrated into the building as an architectural
feature and is determined to be a large projecting sign, under the
roof canopy and supported by a 10-foot tall post at the base.
PAMC’s Sign Code section 16.20.140 allows Projecting Sign to be up
to three square feet and limited to 12 feet in height. The proposed
sign is 76 feet tall and 412.5 sf. The proposed sign is 6 foot
three inches wide and 34 inches thick, with text on both sides. The
text of the sign is proposed at the uppers levels, extending from
the 5th through 8th floors on the interior side facing the hotel,
and from the 6th through 8th floors on the outside.
SECTION 9.Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Steinberg
Architects titled Casa Olga Boutique Hotel, consisting of 36 pages,
and received May 24, 2012, except as modified to incorporate the
conditions of approval in Section 10. A copy of these plans is on
file in the Department of Planning and Community Development.
SECTION 10.Conditions of Approval.
Planning Division
1.The project shall be in substantial conformance with the
approved plans and related documents received May 24, 2012,
except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.
2.The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on
all plans submitted for building permits related to this
project.
3.The final signage details for the hotel shall return to
the ARB for review and approval.
9
4.The project approval does not include the restaurant
signage; that shall be submitted separately for Architectural
Review at a future date.
5.The details for the hardscape plan, balcony railing, and
roof mechanical screen shall be submitted to the ARB
Subcommittee for review and approval prior to the project’s
building permit issuance.
6.The drainage plans for the outdoor planters shall be
submitted to staff for review and approval.
7.The property owner shall be responsible to pay the
required in-lieu parking fee for the five vehicles parking
spaces that are to be removed as part of the project prior to
occupancy of the building.
8.The hotel shall be required to allow and encourage guests
to park their bicycles in their hotel rooms to provide the
adequate bike parking for the site.
9.If in the future the City determines that eight short
term bike spaces are not sufficient for the uses of the site,
the applicant may be required to provide additional bike spaces
to address the deficiency.
10.The property owner shall be responsible for the regular
maintenance and upkeep of the four non-standard bike racks
placed within the city right of way.
11.The project’s associated valet program shall be submitted
for review and approval by the Director of Planning, as well as
the Police Department.
12.The project is subject to the Palo Alto Tier 1 Calgreen
Checklist for compliance with Green Building.
13.The project shall provide an enclosed trash area that
accommodates three 4-yard bins; this revision shall be included
in the plans submitted for building permits.
14.The project approval shall be valid for a period of one
year from the original date of approval. In the event a
building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the
project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval
shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application
for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one
year expiration.
10
Water -Gas -Wastewater Engineering
15.Our utility maps show a large concrete encased electric duct
bank on Hamilton between the building and sewer main. The
duct bank may interfere with the new sewer lateral shown on
sheet C05. The existing electric duct bank needs to be
investigated by the applicant prior to creating the final
utility plan.
16.The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater
service connection application -load sheet for City of Palo
Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the
information requested for utility service demands (water in
fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture
units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing
(prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads
(the new loads plus any existing loads to remain).
17.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for any utility
construction. The plans must show the size and location of
all underground utilities within the development and the
public right of way including meters, backflow preventers,
fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts,
sewer lift stations and any other required utilities.
18.The applicant must show on the site plan any auxiliary water
supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain
catchment, water storage tank, etc).
19.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and
upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as
necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This
responsibility includes all costs associated with the design
and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility
mains and/or services.
20.An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA
backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and
new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with
requirements of California administrative code, title 17,
sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be
installed on the owner's property and directly behind the
water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for
domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the
RPPA on the plans.
21.An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required
for the existing or new water connection for the fire system
to comply with requirements of California administrative
11
code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a
double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire
sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). reduced pressure
detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's
property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the
property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure
detector assembly on the plans.
22.All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW
engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross
connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between
the meter and the assembly.
23.Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC,
or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense.
24.The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection
fees associated with any new utility service/s or added
demand on existing services. The approved relocation of
services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be
performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the
relocation.
25.Each place of business shall have its own water and gas
meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own
water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown
on the plans.
26.Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete
bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing
water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’
horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete
base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there
is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases
shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet
field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of
existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters.
New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be
installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between
new trees and new water, gas and wastewater
services/mains/meters.
27.All utility installations shall be in accordance with the
City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas &
wastewater.
12
Fire
28.Install a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NPFA 14 standpipe and NFPA
72 fire alarm system.
29.Upgrade public fire hydrant # 1179 located at the corner of
Emerson St & Hamilton Ave and public fire hydrant # 1180
located at the corner of Hamilton Ave & High St to a Clow
model 76.
30.The building is to be evaluated for public safety radio
coverage per 2010 CA Fire Code section 510.If the public
safety radio coverage is inadequate a radio amplifier system
is to be installed.
Public Works Engineering
31.SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the
applicant must replace those portions of the existing
sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the
public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property
that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard,
and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter
strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to
arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the
extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the
building permit plan set must show the extent of the
replacement work or include a note that Public Works’
inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must
note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per
Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must
first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the
Development Center.
32.NEWSRACKS & BIKE RACKS: Currently, there are 3 newsracks
adjacent to the building on Emerson Street. Public Works
does not approve the removal of the newsracks nor the
installation of the bike racks near this location. If
specific activities require it, the newsracks may be
relocated temporarily but must be placed back in their
original location prior to final occupancy and sign-off of
the Building Permit. Prior to temporarily relocating the
newsracks, the applicant must work with the Public Works
department to find an appropriate location and adequately
notify the distributors in writing of the new location. The
notification shall include contact information for the
contractor relocating their property, a sketch to show the
new location, and duration of this relocation. The applicant
shall also send a second notification letter to the
distributors when placing the newsracks back to their
original location. If the applicant would like to requests
13
the installation of bike racks along both frontages of the
building, the contractor must contact the Transportation
Division at 650-329-2520 to discuss if there is an
appropriate bike rack location at this site and to determine
the type/model that can be installed per City Standards.
33.DECORATIVE SIDEWALK TREATMENT: The corner of Hamilton
Avenue and Emerson Street lies within the designated area where
we allow special paving treatments. As such, the material and
installation shall comply with the City of Palo Alto’s
standards which include brick, concrete or interlocking pavers
in select colors and patterns. The City recommends stamped
concrete in one of three Davis colors: Light Gray, Roadside
Brown, or Sunset Rose.
34.GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan (sheet C03) shows 2
low points along the gutter flow-line where no drains exist.
Revise the proposed gutter grades to provide flow along the
entire property frontage (from Hamilton Avenue around the
corner to Emerson Street).
35.STREET RESURFACING: Public Works will determine the
condition of the street surface on the frontages on the
project at the completion of construction and decide what
type of street resurfacing, if any, will be required prior to
acceptance of the project.
36.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 frontage(s). Call the Public Works’
arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can
determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for
this project. The site plan submitted with the building
permit plan set must show the street tree work that the
arborist has determined, including the tree species, size,
location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a
note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street
tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to
do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit
for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public
Works’ arborist (650-496-5953).
The following comments are provided to assist the applicant at
the building permit phase. You can obtain various plan set
details, forms and guidelines from Public Works at the City's
Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on Public Works’
website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms_permits. Include
in plans submitted for a building permit:
14
37.STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized
"Pollution Prevention -It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be
included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public
Works at the Development Center or on our website.
38.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 Public Works' arborist
(phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the
plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City
requirements.
39.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 Street Work Permit 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 and driveway approaches for
abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter
and planter strip.
40.SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan
that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on
an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is
safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection
must be provided per the 2010 California Building Code Chapter
33 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or
less, the contractor must place construction railings
sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If
the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor
must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the
Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered
walkway or to close the sidewalk.”
41.SIGNS: If the installation of the signs will require
the installer to occupy the public sidewalk, add a note to the
plans that says, “Installation of the signs must be done in a
manner that is safe for pedestrians using the public sidewalk.
The work area must be coned or taped off while still leaving
at least 5 feet for pedestrian travel. Otherwise, he must
obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works to close the
sidewalk.”
15
42.LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics
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, traffic
control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s
parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise
control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention,
contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and
schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work
permit.
Public Works Department Water Quality
43.Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section
16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes:
1. The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and
installation details of all proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2)
2. GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007
California Plumbing Code.
3. GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 500
gallons.
4. GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans.
See a sizing calculation example below.
5. The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger
than what is specified on the plans.
6. GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be
installed in food preparation and storage areas. Santa
Clara County Department of Environmental Health prefers
GCDs to be installed outside. GCDs shall be installed
such that all access points or manholes are readily
accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of all
contents. GCDs located outdoors shall be installed in
such a manner so as to exclude the entrance of surface
and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5)
7. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of
three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping,
baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping.
The plans shall clearly indicate the number of proposed
manholes on the GCD. The Environmental Compliance
Division of Public Works Department may authorize
variances which allow GCDs with less than three manholes
due to manufacture available options or adequate
visibility.
8. Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs.
9. All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent(s). (CPC 1002.2
& 1004)
16
10. GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated
and indicated on plans.
44.Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 &
cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes
11. To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the
correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall be
clearly labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures
and their discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or
grease waste line, shall be included on the plans.
12. A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD
shall be included on the plans. This can be
incorporated into the sizing calculation.
13. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to
a GCD. These include but are not limited to:
a. Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks
b. Three compartment sinks (pot sinks)
c. Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except
for dishwashers shall connect to a GCD
d. Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to
entering a dishwasher), small drains on busing
counters adjacent to pre-rinse sinks or
silverware soaking sinks
e. Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens
f. Prep sinks
g. Mop (janitor) sinks
h. Outside areas designated for equipment washing
shall be covered and any drains contained
therein shall connect to a GCD.
i. Drains in trash/recycling enclosures
j. Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other
grease generating cooking equipment with drip
lines
k. Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated
floor drains/sinks
14. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines
and non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is
prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a
GCD:
a. Dishwashers
b. Steamers
c. Pasta cookers
d. Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens
e. Hand sinks
f. Ice machine drip lines
g. Soda machine drip lines
h. Drainage lines in bar areas
17
15. No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a
FSE. (PAMC 16.09.075(d)).
16. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking,
food preparation and storage areas.
17. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be
individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5)
45.Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC,
16.09.075(q)(2):
a.Newly constructed and remodeled buildings to house FSEs
shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins,
carts or container used for the collection of trash,
recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and
grease (FOG) or tallow.
b.The area shall be designed and shown on plans to
prevent water run-on and run-off from the area.
c.Drains that are installed within the enclosure for
recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins
serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed
shall be connected to a GCD.
d.If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately
sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be
included in the covered area.
46.Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B): FSEs
shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to a
GCD and large enough for cleaning the largest kitchen equipment
such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc. Recommendation:
Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than a typical
mop/janitor sink are more useful.
SECTION 11.Indemnity.
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify
and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers,
employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against
any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against
the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or
void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City 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 12.Term of Approval.Architectural Review
Approval. The approval shall be valid for one year from the
original date of approval, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.77.090.
18
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
_____________________________________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by prepared by Steinberg Architects titled
Casa Olga Boutique Hotel, consisting of 36 pages, and received May
24, 2012.
116 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 415-284-1544 FAX 415-284-1554
www.nelsonnygaard.com
M E M O R A N D U M
To:Sandy Sloan and Chip Conley
From:Brian Canepa and Francesca Napolitan
Date:May 15, 2012
Subject:Final Parking Demand Analysis and TDM Program
INTRODUCTION
The Joie de Vivre hotel is a proposed four star upscale boutique hotel, designed to serve the needs
of domestic and international business travelers, Stanford associates, as well as those travelling
for leisure. The proximity and allure of downtown Palo Alto may also attract customers from
throughout the Bay Area looking for an easily accessible weekend getaway.
The new hotel will be located at 180 Hamilton Avenue in downtown Palo Alto and will contain 86
rooms, two-thirds of which will be a one-bed guest room and one-third will be two-bed guest
room. A 1,300 square foot restaurant serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner will be located on the
ground floor, serving both guests as well as visitors to downtown Palo Alto.
The location of the proposed hotel is well served by numerous transportation options making it
attractive for both guests and employees to access the hotel via public transportation. The hotel
will be located three blocks from the Palo Alto Caltrain Station which provides service to San
Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties as well as six Marguerite shuttle routes run by
Stanford University that provide access to various parts of the university campus. In addition, the
hotel is within a short walking distance of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority bus routes
22, 35, 522, and the Dumbarton Express as well as SamTrans bus routes, 280, 281, 297, 390, 397,
and the KX express bus service. In addition, to further encourage the use of alternative modes of
transportation, the hotel will offer a number of services such as a free loaner bike program for
guests, transit passes for employees, and a guaranteed ride home program for employees.Many
of these programs and services particularly appeal to the sophisticated business travelers
anticipated to stay at the Joie de Vivre hotel who wish to maximize their productivity.
This memorandum details the transportation demand management (TDM) and parking measures
that the Joie de Vivre hotel in Palo Alto will implement in order to help mitigate the potential
parking impacts of this development by reducing both employee and visitor parking demand and
that will take advantage of the hotel’s proximity to the Palo Alto Caltrain station, other public
transportation options, and the Stanford University campus.
The memo is divided into two sections; the first section consists of the parking demand analysis
while the second section describes the proposed guest and employee TDM and parking measures.
Attachment E
Parking Demand Analysis and TDM Program | Revised Draft
Joie de Vivre Hotel
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2
PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS
A parking demand analysis was undertaken in order to determine the potential parking impacts
generated by the proposed Joie de Vivre hotel. This section describes the methodology that was
used, the projected parking demand generated by the hotel and restaurant, and the impact that
the guest and employee TDM program will have on reducing parking demand.
Methodology
In order to determine the parking demand that would be generated by hotel guests, employees,
and restaurant patrons, a number of assumptions were made regarding the hotel, restaurant, and
associated guests and employees. These assumptions were informed by the client’s experience
with other hotels and parking demand and occupancy information from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition. It is important to note that
these assumptions are for weekdays only, as it is estimated that weekday occupancy will be higher
than weekend occupancy. Thus the analysis is focused on weekdays which will generate the
highest parking demand. Listed below are the relevant assumptions and data points:
§Hotel Guests
-Average weekday occupancy of 1.25 per room
-75% occupancy on an average day
-25% of guests drive to the hotel
§Restaurant Guests
-Breakfast: 50 guests (75% hotel guests, 25% visitors)
-Lunch: 75 guests (20% hotel guests, 20% driving visitors, 60% walking downtown
workers)
-Dinner: 40 guests (35% hotel guests, 32.5% driving visitors, 32.5% walking
downtown workers)
§Employees
-40 to 50 full time employees
-Weekday employment
o 20 employees at 9:00 am
o 25 employees at 3:00 pm
o 20 employees at 6:00 pm
o 12 employees at 9:00 pm
-Weekend employment is 90% of weekday employment
-25% of employees drive to work1
§Parking Occupancy for the Hotel 2
-9:00 am, 96% of spaces occupied
-12:00 pm, 60% of spaces occupied
1 Although there is a drive alone rate of 76% for all Palo Alto employees (2000 U.S. Census), Joie de Vivre reports that
its hourly paid workers typically drive alone at one-third that rate.
2 Parking occupancy numbers were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual,
4th Edition, using ITE Land Use Code 310 (Hotel). Without meeting or convention space in the hotel, guest parking
occupancy in the middle of the day is anticipated to be much lower.
Parking Demand Analysis and TDM Program | Revised Draft
Joie de Vivre Hotel
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3
-6:00 pm, 62% of spaces occupied
The drive alone rates for hotel guests and employees are based on Joie de Vivre’s observed data
from hotels in urban settings where access by alternative modes is higher than traditional stand-
alone suburban sites. Figure 1 shows the driving rates for various hotels in the Bay Area.
Figure 1 Guest and Employee Drive Alone Rates
Hotel Location Guest Drive Rate Employee Drive
Alone Rate
Hotel Keen Palo Alto 1%N/A
Garden Court Palo Alto 35%N/A
Palo Alto Average 18%N/A
Hotel Avante Mountain View 50%48%
Hotel Vitale San Francisco 10%8%
Galleria Park Hotel San Francisco 10%7%
Moorpark San Jose 65%70%
Total Average 28.5%33.3%
It should be noted that the hotels listed in Figure 1 are located in a variety of settings, each with
different available travel options. For example, hotels in San Francisco with the most transit
access and walking options experience the lowest rates of driving while those in San Jose with
fewer alternative mode options face the highest rates of driving. The average guest rate of driving
for hotels listed in Figure 1 in downtown Palo Alto is 18%. Although the Palo Alto employee drive
alone rate is unavailable, if the same average guest driving ratio between hotels in Palo Alto and
all hotels (18%/28.5%) were applied to employees, it is anticipated that Palo Alto employee drive
alone rate would be roughly 21%. Given these figures, the analysis of demand for Joie de Vivre
conservatively assumes both a guest and employee driving rate of 25%.
Taking these assumptions, weekday parking demand is calculated by time of day (morning,
midday, and evening) by group type (employees, hotel guests, restaurant guests). Parking
demands were calculated using the following formulas:
Hotel Guests
§Number of rooms (86) x average occupancy rate (75%) x % drive (25%) x ITE occupancy
(varies by time of day)
Employees
§Number of employees (varies by time of day) x drive alone rate (25%)
Restaurant Patrons
§Number of restaurant guests (varies by time of day) x % of restaurant guests that are
visitors not hotel guests (varies by time of day)
Parking Demand Analysis and TDM Program | Revised Draft
Joie de Vivre Hotel
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4
Analysis
Using the methodology described above, the parking demand was calculated by group and time of
day. As shown in Figure 2 the maximum total parking demand associated with the hotel occurs in
the morning, with a parking demand of 33 spaces.
Figure 2 Hotel Parking Demand
Morning (9:00 am)Noon Evening (6:00 pm)
Hotel Guests 15 10 10
Restaurant 13 15 13
Employees 5 6 5
Total 33 31 28
Figure 3 below compares the maximum total parking demand calculated as part of this analysis to
the number of parking spaces required under City Code and to the parking demand calculated
using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition.
Figure 3 Weekday Parking Demand Compared with City Code Requirements and ITE Parking
Demand Rates
Local Data City Code3 ITE Parking Demand4
Hotel 15 86/195 77
Restaurant 13 5 14
Employees 5 NA NA
Total 33 91/200 91
Figure 3 shows that both the City Code and ITE analysis result in significantly higher parking
demands than the analysis using local data. The primary reason for this discrepancy is likely due
to the suburban nature of Palo Alto’s parking requirements, the use of ITE data that is largely
drawn from sites with little transit access, a poor walking environment, free and abundant
parking, and hotels with conference facilities.5 Given the mix of uses around the hotel and its
proximity to transit and major destinations such as Stanford, local data represents a more
accurate estimate of parking demand.
Joie de Vivre will be implementing a number of transportation demand management and parking
programs which will help reduce the parking demand generated by employees and guests (for a
detailed description of these programs please refer to the second section of this memo). Figure 4
below shows the percentage reduction in parking demand that is projected based on the proposed
guest and employee TDM programs. It should be noted that no reduction in restaurant parking
3 The City Code lists two rates for hotel uses. The general Zoning Code requires one space per hotel room, which results
in a requirement of 86 spaces. In the Downtown Parking Assessment District where this property is located, all uses pay
for one parking space for every 250 square feet of built space. The Joie de Vivre property pays for 195 spaces and
will pay in-lieu fees for five additional on-site spaces to be removed.
4 For this analysis ITE Land Use Code 310 Hotel and ITE Land Use Code 931 Quality Restaurant for the weekday peak
period were used. Demand estimate assumes full occupancy of the hotel.
5 Some hotels observed by ITE also contain conference space, which increases its estimates of parking demand.
Parking Demand Analysis and TDM Program | Revised Draft
Joie de Vivre Hotel
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5
demand is projected as there are no TDM programs targeted at restaurant patrons. However, it is
anticipated that many of the restaurant patrons will be hotel guests who will not driving.
Figure 4 Mitigated Parking Demand with TDM
Currently Proposed TDM
Measures
%
Reduction
AM
Demand
with TDM
Noon
Demand
with TDM
Evening
Demand
with TDM
Guest Program
§Not reimbursing guests for
parking
§Bicycle program
§Transportation information
15%13 8 8
Employee Program
§Bicycle parking
§Parking cash-out
§Transit passes
§Pre-tax transit benefits
§Carpool program
§Guaranteed Ride Home
program
§Welcome packets
§Transportation Coordinator
20%4 5 4
Restaurant Parking Demand 0%13 15 13
Total Parking Demand 30 28 25
Total % Reduction from
Baseline Demand 10%9%9%
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAM
The following section describes the proposed guest and employee TDM program.
Guest TDM Programs
Bike Share Program
Bike share systems provide a network of public bicycles from self-service bike share stations
located around town.Similar to carsharing, members can check out a bicycle, ride to their
destination and return the bicycle to any bike share pod in the system.For convenience, bike
share systems typically provide real time information on the status of available bikes and empty
docks through the web, kiosk and mobile application.Users will also have access to any bike
share bicycle in the system including those outside of Santa Clara County.
Parking Demand Analysis and TDM Program | Revised Draft
Joie de Vivre Hotel
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, in partnership with the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) will be launching a pilot bike share program to serve the Bay
Area that will open in July, 2012.The pilot program will provide 1,000 bicycles and
approximately 100 bike share stations along the Caltrain corridor in San Jose, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, Redwood City and San Francisco.Of these, 400 bikes will be available at the Caltrain
stations and downtown areas in San Jose, Mountain View and Palo Alto.In Santa Clara County,
the Palo Alto, Mt. View and San Jose Diridon Caltrain transit centers will serve as the main bike
share hubs with the largest number of bikes and docks.Within three miles of the transit centers,
multiple bike share pod stations will be placed at high activity areas such as downtown,
universities, shopping centers, city halls and major employment centers.Within the vicinity of
Joie de Vivre Hotel, bike share pods will be located at City Hall and University Avenue at
Emerson Street.
By covering the access costs to the bike share program, Joie de Vivre Hotel will provide guests
with a non-auto mode option for exploring Palo Alto enabling guests to feel more comfortable
taking public transit or a car service to the hotel, knowing that they will have a way to get around
once they arrive. In addition, the hotel should provide guests with bicycle helmets and locks free
of charge to further encourage the use of bicycles.
Transportation Information
Providing guests with information regarding transportation options to the hotel can help
encourage guests to consider non-auto options. This information should be emailed or mailed to
guests as part of their registration confirmation process providing guests with the information
early on to assist in their logistics planning for arrival to the hotel. Information on public transit
services, including Caltrain and the Stanford Marguerite shuttle, as well as contacts for town car
services, and Zipcar should be included to appeal to the differing needs of various types of guests.
In addition, an on-site transportation board including bicycle maps, transit routes and schedules,
and contact numbers for taxi and town car services should be included in the reception area to
assist guests.
Employee TDM Programs
The following section describes the proposed employee TDM programs for the Joie de Vivre hotel.
Bicycle Parking
The first floor of the hotel will house a storage room to accommodate three bicycles where
employees will be able securely store their bicycles while at work. Providing secure long-term
parking for employees is a critical component of encouraging employees to bike to work as the
lack of secure parking is often cited by employees as a deterrent. In addition, the hotel will
provide hotel-maintained racks outside along the sidewalk space of the hotel for up to ten bicycles
for visitors or other short-term users.
Parking Cash-Out
Many North American employers provide free or reduced price parking for their employees as a
fringe benefit. Under a parking cash-out program, employers are allowed to continue this practice
on the condition that they offer the cash value of the parking subsidy to any employee who does
not drive to work. Offering employees the option of a “cash out” incentive to use an alternative
Parking Demand Analysis and TDM Program | Revised Draft
Joie de Vivre Hotel
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7
mode of transportation (transit, bike, walk, or carpool to work) will help to reduce vehicle
commute trips and emissions. The cash value of the parking subsidy can be offered in one of three
forms:
§A transit/vanpool subsidy equal to the value of the parking subsidy (of which up to $230
is tax-free for both employer and employee).
§A taxable carpool/walk/bike subsidy equal to the value of the parking subsidy.
§Alternately, employees can be given a general “transportation fringe benefit” equal to the
market value of an employee parking space, and all employee parking can simply be
priced with a daily fee.
Parking cash-out is already state law in California, but the current state law only applies to
employers with 50 employees or more who lease their parking and whose parking costs can be
separated out as a line item on their lease. While this law will likely not apply to Joie de Vivre
Hotel, employees who do not drive alone will be offered a $2 per day alternative mode subsidy.
Joie de Vivre Hotel will provide the City with a quarterly list of employees participating in the
Cash-Out Program as their right to purchase a parking permit for access to permit parking within
the downtown should not be allowed. This amount equates to $40 per 20-workday month and is
roughly equivalent to the $420 cost for a yearly pass in City of Palo Alto garages.
Caltrain Go Pass
The Caltrain Go Pass is a type of annual pass purchased by a company for its full-time employees.
All employees receive the Go Pass,whether they use it or not. The passes are purchased at a
significant discount and provide all employees with free Caltrain travel between all zones, seven
days a week. The Go Pass is much more effective at reducing vehicle trips than a transit subsidy,
because it provides a transit benefit to all regular, non-regular and potential transit riders.
Stanford has managed to increase its Caltrain ridership from 4% to 12% in two years by providing
Go Pass to all employees.
Currently the Go Pass program costs $10,850 annually accommodating companies with 70 or
fewer employees, and $155 annually per full-time employee for companies with more than 70
employees. The passes are non-transferable stickers applied directly to the Employee ID card
(prevents cheating, which can otherwise be a problem with transit subsidies). This is a notable
savings over the cost of purchasing passes individually as the cost of a monthly pass ranges from
$73 to $338 depending on the number of zones of travel it covers.
In addition, Caltrain Go Pass customers are eligible to purchase a Monthly Parking Permit
through the Caltrain ticket vending machines between the 21st of the month prior to the parking
permit being valid until the 9th of the designated month. Only one permit may be purchased per
month with the cost for a Monthly Parking Permit set at $40 per month.
A Go Pass program for the hotel will result in two benefits. First, employees using the Caltrain Go
Pass will be able to take the train to work, thereby encouraging alternative mode use and
decreasing parking demand. Secondly, employees using the pass will be able to park their
vehicles in the Caltrain lot rather than utilizing City parking facilities.
VTA Eco Pass Program
The Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA) offers a discounted transit pass program for
employees. Similar to Caltrain’s Go Pass program, the VTA’s Eco Pass is an annual pass that is
Parking Demand Analysis and TDM Program | Revised Draft
Joie de Vivre Hotel
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8
purchased by a company for its full-time employees. All employees receive the Eco Pass,whether
they use it or not. The pass is valid for unlimited use on all VTA bus routes and light rail services.
In addition, the VTA offers a Guaranteed Ride Home Program to all employees who use Eco Pass
to commute on VTA Bus, Light Rail or Paratransit from home to work. The cost of the taxi ride
(excluding optional tip) is paid by the VTA.
The cost of the Eco Pass is based on the number of employees and the level of VTA services at a
given worksite. Assuming that there will be 50 employees, the total annual cost would $3,600 or
$72 per employee for Joie de Vivre. This is a significant discount from the cost of purchasing
passes individually as annual adult passes range from $770 to $1,540, depending on the coverage
area of the pass.
Pre-Tax Transit Benefits
Pre-tax programs such as a Commuter Checks program allow employees to pay for transit passes
with pre-tax earnings and can help encourage transit use among employees. Commuter Checks
are vouchers that can be provided to employees as a substitute for taxable salary. Employees can
redeem vouchers for transit passes at sales offices, retail sales outlets, or online to have passes
mailed to them or loaded onto a Clipper Card. By substituting taxable salary for a tax-free
voucher, employees can save 40% in after-tax value while Joie de Vivre Hotel can save 10% in
payroll-related costs.
Carpool Program
Carpooling is one of the most common and cost-effective alternative modes of transportation and
one which commuters can adopt part-time. There are numerous benefits to ridesharing.
Carpooling can reduce peak-period vehicle trips and increase commuters’ travel choices. It
reduces congestion, road and parking facility costs and pollution emissions. Carpooling tends to
have the lowest cost per passenger-mile of any motorized mode of transportation, since it makes
use of a vehicle seat that would otherwise be empty. Carpooling also provides consumer financial
savings by decreasing fuel and parking costs.If employees agree to carpool, then the owner will
reimburse the cost of a parking permit.
Carpooling tends to experience economies of scale: as more people use the service the chances of
finding a suitable carpool increase significantly. Typical conditions for ridesharing success
include:
·Corridors that offer a time and/or cost savings, such as avoiding bridge tolls or taking
advantage of carpool lanes.
·Locations far enough from the hotel that driving is a hassle, and where transit service is
limited.
·Locations with a significant concentration of commuters within close proximity of each
other.
·Commuters with regular schedules particularly staff.
·Discounted carpool parking or priority carpool parking locations
Given the relatively small number of employees working at on-site at one time, Joie de Vivre
Hotel will provide employees with information on 511.0rg’s free ridematching service which is
available online.
Parking Demand Analysis and TDM Program | Revised Draft
Joie de Vivre Hotel
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 9
Guaranteed Ride Home Program
Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) is a program that provides a “back-up” ride to employees who use
transit, carpool, biking/walking, or other alternative as their commute mode. For example, if that
employee needs to leave work for an emergency, such as a sick child or other unexpected need,
they will be redeemed for the cost of taxi ride to get them home.This is an important supportive
measure to encourage employees not drive alone to work.
Joie de Vivre Hotel will create its own GRH program that will offer free taxi rides home to
employees in cases of emergency up to six times per year.
Welcome Packet for New Employees
Joie de Vivre Hotel will provide new employees with a welcome packet containing relevant
transportation information. The packet could include Samtrans, VTA, Caltrain and shuttle
schedules and maps, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and Mid-Peninsula Bicycle maps, 511.org
ridematching services, information on the guaranteed ride home program, information on the
parking-cash-out program, and instructions on how to sign up for pre-tax commuter benefits.
Transportation Coordinator
Having a part-time staff person dedicated to overseeing and managing the guest and employee
TDM program will be very helpful in ensuring the ongoing success of these programs.
Duties of the transportation coordinator could include:
§Create and distribute employee transportation information welcome packets
§Maintain and update the transportation information kiosk board
§Provide guests with information on amenities accessible on foot, by bicycle, and by public
transit
§Distribute Mid-Peninsula Bicycle and Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition maps
§Oversee the guest bicycle loaner program and monitor employee bicycle parking to
ensure that there is sufficient space
§Administer the parking-cash-out program
§Administer the pre-tax employee benefit program
§Sell or distribute transit passes
§Market the TDM program and transit service
§Oversee and manage the Guaranteed Ride Home program
§Promote 511.org’s ridematching program
TDM Conformance Report
In addition to the guest and employee TDM measures described above, Joie de Vivre Hotel will
complete an annual TDM Conformance Report for the useful life of the project. This report will
provide a summary of Joie de Vivre’s transportation program over the preceding year and
intended upcoming changes, including those for both TDM measures and parking management.
Parking Demand Analysis and TDM Program | Revised Draft
Joie de Vivre Hotel
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 10
PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Parking management, and in particular charging guests and employees for parking is a key
component to managing parking demand and to encouraging the use of alternative modes of
transportation. Parking pricing is one of the most significant factors affecting motorists’ choice of
whether to drive or travel by another mode. Managing on-and off-street parking pricing is also an
important strategy for reducing peak-hour trip generation and localized traffic congestion.
Research shows that having even a moderate level of parking pricing can considerably impact
parking demand. As noted above, the Caltrain Go Pass will offer employees a large inducement to
park their vehicles in the Caltrain lot rather than paying for parking in City facilities. Whereas the
Caltrain Go Pass parking permit will be subsidized by the hotel, employees wishing to park in
downtown parking lots will need to pay their own way.
Since the hotel will not have any on-site parking, alternative parking arrangements will need to be
made to accommodate guests with off-site parking. Joie de Vivre hotel has two potential options
to meet this need. The first is to provide valet parking. The hotel will first attempt to secure lease
agreements with nearby private garage owners or operators. Depending on the number of spaces
needed, it may be necessary to secure spaces in more than one facility. It is also possible that
valet parking may be located in underutilized public lots. This is typically done on a case by case
basis.
The second option available is to provide guests with daily parking passes that the hotel can
purchase ahead of time from the City of Palo Alto for $16 and distribute to guests who can then
self-park their cars in a nearby parking garage. It is important to note that for both of these
options guests will be required to pay for parking, which in turn will decrease parking demand.
As an alternative, some guests may also opt to park on-street. The City of Palo Alto’s color zone
parking allows for two hours of free on-street parking from 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through
Friday, with no time restrictions outside of those hours. Peter Friedman, general manager of the
Hotel Keen, reports that due to the business nature of a majority of weekday guests’ stays, many
visitors simply park on-street when arriving in the evening and take their vehicle to their
destination in the morning before enforcement hours take effect. Weekend guests, who are more
likely to be visiting for leisure, can park on-street all weekend without restriction.
CONCLUSION
The findings of the parking demand analysis using local data (see Figure 3) estimate a total peak
parking demand of 33 spaces in the morning.6 By contrast, the general Zoning Code requires one
space per hotel room, resulting in a requirement for 86 spaces. Joie de Vivre, however, is paying
for the equivalent of 195 spaces as part of the Downtown Parking Assessment District, plus paying
in-lieu fees for five additional on-site spaces to be removed.7
The proposed TDM and parking program will result in an estimated 15% reduction in guest
parking demand and 20% in employee parking demand, bringing the total peak parking demand
6 The noon parking demand is estimated to be 31 spaces and the evening parking demand is estimated to be 28
spaces. Guest parking peaks in the morning with a parking demand of 15 spaces whereas parking demand from
restaurant guests peaks at noon with 15 spaces. Employee parking demand also peaks at noon with 6 spaces.
7 In the Downtown Parking Assessment District where this property is located, all uses pay for one parking space for
every 250 square feet of built space.
Parking Demand Analysis and TDM Program | Revised Draft
Joie de Vivre Hotel
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 11
down to 30 spaces in the morning. The mid-day and evening parking demands will decrease by
9% to 28 and 25 spaces, respectively.
Overall, the proposed TDM program will encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation
and help reduce guest and employee parking demand to minimize impacts on the business and
residential streets in Palo Alto.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Attachment F
1
2
Architectural Review Board Meeting3
Thursday June 7, 20124
REGULAR MEETING -8:30 AM5
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor6
250 Hamilton Avenue7
Palo Alto, CA 943018
ROLL CALL: 9
Board members: Staff Liaison:10
Judith Wasserman (Chair)Russ Reich, Senior Planner11
Clare Malone Prichard (Vice Chair)12
Alexander Lew Staff:13
Lee Lippert Alicia Spotwood, Administrative Associate14
Amy French, Acting Assistant Director15
Margaret Netto, Contract Planner16
Clare Campbell, Planner17
Jodie Gerhardt, Planner18
19
20
180 Hamilton Avenue [12PLN-00147]:Request by Steinberg Architects, on behalf of Casa Olga and 21
Joie de Vivre Hospitality, for Architectural Review of an existing eight story building and conversion 22
to an 86 room hotel use and ground floor restaurant with a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for a 23
roof extension and new entrance canopy and Sign Exceptions for one canopy sign and a projecting 24
sign. Zone: CD-C (P). Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the 25
project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).26
27
Chair Wasserman: Everybody, we are back in business. Everybody ready to go here? Ok. We are 28
resuming the Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting for the last item on the agenda, Item #5. At 29
180, we seem to have a lot of 180’s today. 180 Hamilton Avenue. Different place. A request by 30
Steinberg Architects, on behalf of Casa Olga and Joie de Vivre Hospitality,can you guys hold it down 31
back there please? for Architectural Review of an existing eight story building and conversion to an 86 32
room hotel use and ground floor restaurant with a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for a roof 33
extension and new entrance canopy and Sign Exceptions for one canopy sign and a projecting sign.We 34
are in the CD-C (P) zone and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance 35
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).Do you have a Staff report?36
37
Clare Campbell: Good morning. This project, this morning we have the project for the Casa Olga 38
Hotel which you’ve seen, let me just pause and start over, excuse me. This morning we have the Casa 39
Olga project back for formal review. As noted in the Staff report, you have seen this project on two 40
occasions for preliminary review and for a study session. The basic design of the project has not 41
changed since you first saw it back in February and in the review of the project it was determined that 42
the project requires a DEE and a Sign Exception. A DEE request is for the extended building length to 43
accommodate a new entrance canopy for the primary entrance on Emerson Street and for the extension 44
of the roof to the property line on Hamilton. The Sign Exception request is for the placement of signage 45
above the entrance canopy and for a projecting sign that exceeds the allowable area and height limit. 46
47
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Attachment A of the Staff Report provides the project’s compliance with the required findings to 1
support these exceptions,and as required in the conditions of approval the details of the sign text will 2
need to return to the ARB for formal review and approval and this is Condition #3 of Attachment C of 3
the Staff Report. As for the CEQA on the project the 20 day public comment period ended yesterday 4
and Staff did not receive any comments on the draft Negative Declaration. This concludes Staff’s 5
presentation.the Applicant is prepared to provide a detailed presentation for you this morning. Thank 6
you.7
8
Chair Wasserman: Thank you. The Applicant you have 10 minutes. Welcome back.9
10
Rob Steinberg, Steinberg Architects: Good morning, good morning. Happy to be here, Rob Steinberg, 11
Steinberg Architects. We would like to walk you through our presentation, which is really a refinement 12
of what we looked at a couple of weeks ago and then if necessary we’d save just a minute for Sandy 13
Sloan to speak before you close the public hearing. There are issues that need to be addressed as well. 14
15
Chair Wasserman: If that doesn’t work out she can speak as a member of the public too.16
17
Mr. Steinberg: Ok. Thank you. So we’re all familiar with the site at the corner of Emerson and 18
Hamilton. Originally built in 1975, permitted as a hotel. Fairly solid building, I kind of think it looks 19
like its sitting back on its heels a little bit. Low key appearance to the residential neighborhood and 20
fairly solid heavy block building. Just to refresh your memory,we are orienting the restaurant and the 21
restaurant entry to Hamilton and pulling the cars and the canopy entrance to the hotel and the lobby off 22
Emerson although they are connected, you could get into the building in either direction. A lot of 23
thought about the street furniture, both for the extension of the restaurant that can open up to the street 24
as well as sort a transitional zone between the public sidewalk as you come into the building with 25
planters and seating to really make it feel residential and home like. 26
27
We have a canopy that projects out around the building of different height, of different dimension. It 28
brings the building scale down to the pedestrian level and you might remember that we’re wrestling29
with a share wall that comes and wraps around this part of the building. And it’s very difficult to 30
penetrate that share wall, so we’ve come up with a strategy to put LED lights behind a perforated metal 31
screen that would illuminate that solid part of the building and our proposal is Emerson is such a tree 32
street, physically with the trees it’s got the mural up above and our intention is to use a perforated metal 33
screen that abstracts the idea of tree. And I think you would enjoy that, it would glow whether you 34
were close to it and you saw that it was the tree or you were farther back, I think that it works on 35
several different levels.36
37
On Hamilton we’re really opening up most of the first level with bi-fold doors so that the relationship 38
between the restaurant and the street is very transparent. You asked a little bit about some of the details 39
for the trellis over the restaurant. Excuse me. So from the slab we’re supporting it on a steel frame 40
structure and then attaching a wood frame trellis below that,that would bring the scale down and give a 41
little sense of enclosure, help connect the inside and the outside. There will be Tivoli lights integrated 42
within that space as well as space heaters.43
44
So just talking a little bit about the design, we have talked about this before but I just refresh your 45
memory. The existing profile of the building really the middle section protrudes out quite a bit. And 46
what our thought was,was to wrap this big block building with a new skin and begin to change the 47
proportions. Where this is quite wide and solid to be able to narrow this up and get a little bit more 48
City of Palo Alto Page 3
vertical, to wrap the older building and then to use the existing horizontal balconies as an accent to 1
weave the two together. 2
3
We’re proposing a composite metal panel that would simulate a wood tone, warm colors that would 4
complement the building, dark window frames. There was questions a little bit about the detailing on 5
the panel when we had our study session about a month ago and one of the things that we’re doing is 6
we’re taking the metal panel and we’re wrapping it in so that it doesn’t feel thin, but it feels like it has a 7
thickness and a dimension with a gap so that those gaps would read though and as you got close to it or 8
as you looked at it you didn’t get the appearance that it was thin but that it had depth. And we’ve also 9
looked at how we turned the corners when the wood comes down and miters back and we’ve worked 10
out a detail where we think that using a solid piece on the corner and changing the grids could really be 11
quite elegant.12
13
We’ve also tried to think about the transition from the adjacent building that has a certain kind of scale 14
to help break down the full block size of this into smaller pieces and lighten it up so that that transition 15
is a little more comfortable than it is today. We’ve wanted to be very thoughtful about the lighting and 16
the impact to our neighbors, to the residential side, so we’re proposing very small ground level lighting 17
that would wash the horizontal surface and then deeply recessed lights that again would wash the 18
horizontal surface with extra lenses that would hide the light source, so very little impact to our 19
neighbors. And our strategy is to continue this wrap idea but to be very modest in how we do that on 20
this elevation. 21
22
On the Hamilton Street side we are extending the roof and because we have a little higher ceiling height 23
at the transom we’re gonna mount a light fixture that would very gently wash the underside of the roof 24
extension so that at night that really glowed and it added a light and an energy and a sparkle to this part 25
of downtown. So that’s our general presentation we’d be happy to answer questions. Thank you.26
27
Chair Wasserman: Terrific. Would you like to speak to us now?28
29
Sandy Sloan: I was gonna speak just briefly about parking because even though it seems like no one 30
from the public is here there was a letter earlier asking questions about, about parking. This property is 31
in the downtown parking assessment district and it pays for 195 spaces and that’s because the 32
downtown parking assessment district requires that all buildings in downtown Palo Alto pay for one 33
space for each 205 square feet. And interestingly enough, hotels under the zoning code require only 34
one space per room, plus one space for every 250 square feet of restaurant. So if we not in the 35
downtown parking assessment district the requirement would be for 91 spaces. So this property 36
essentially has been paying double what it needed to pay into the assessment district and as you know 37
buildings that are in the assessment district the way that they meet the parking is by paying into the 38
assessment district.39
40
And then in addition to that I wanted to mention that the Planning Director has approved our removing 41
the five parking spaces that are in that sort of hole on Emerson Street and we will be paying 42
approximately $61,000.00 per space into the in lieu parking fund. And that I also wanted to emphasize 43
that we’re not removing any two hour or three hour parking stalls along the street in Emerson with the 44
lobby being on that side because there’s the curb cut and then there’s a loading zone and then there’s a45
30 minute parking space there.So those will be removed for valet parking backup and we are working 46
with the private property owner right now on finding a place for valet parking. So if you have any 47
more questions on that let me know.48
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Is there anyone here from the public to speak on this 2
project? Could you come, I’ll let you speak first and fill out a card later. You have three minutes.3
4
Rob Fischer:Hi, my name is Rob Fischer and I have some concerns about things that, I’m a restaurant 5
owner in the town, and one of them is garbage. I want to make sure that we address the proper size of 6
area for garbage cause it’s a problem with us for our neighbors that have just moved in and I spent a 7
whole afternoon going through the City trying to find someone to address this before the permits were 8
issued and after four hours I gave up. I just, I got sent from one side of the street to the other side of the 9
street to GreenWaste and we ended up not having enough space for the new property that went up and 10
it’s a mess. We have garbage containers everywhere. 11
12
The entrance for this hotel, the turnabout, how many, I’d like to know how many cars it can 13
accommodate at once so that when people pull in, I’m concerned about traffic congestion. It’s not just 14
the entrance of the hotel, it’s also for deliveries and what the impact is gonna be on the actual traffic for 15
the street, for the flow. We spent a lot of time on the Stanford Shopping Center talking about this, this 16
is even more critical as it’s gonna, it could conceivably create problems for other businesses in the area 17
as far as deliveries go. How many deliveries a day? What time of day? And, let’s see, I’d also like to 18
know how many seats are proposing for inside the restaurant and the size of the area for that and the 19
kitchen so that, I would just like to know so that… the competition is good for everybody in town, 20
don’t get me wrong, ok? I would just like to know so we make sure that everything is accommodated 21
as far as the deliveries and the garbage. I mean it’s not just the hotel/restaurant that there will be 22
garbage for. There’s rooms, there’s offices and other things. 23
24
What’s happened next to me is that we have a restaurant and then two floors of office space and there’s 25
not enough room for the garbage and how’s it gonna get picked up and those types of things. And 26
these things are gonna impact my businesses, I have three businesses within walking distance of this 27
hotel so I just like to see if we can get it resolved ahead of time so that we’re not fighting it afterwards 28
like I am with our neighbors now. So, ok.29
30
Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Would the Applicant like to respond to those concerns 31
please? Could the speaker fill out a speaker card so we have a record of, of your, fact that you did 32
come and speak to us? So talk about deliveries, garbage, and how many seats you have outside, please.33
34
Mr. Steinberg: Ok. First of all we have room for about approximately three cars there for loading and 35
drop off, for guests arriving at the hotel, which as Sandy pointed out are not eliminating any parking 36
currently. Service is over on this side of the building, it’s recessed back and it’s where the existing 37
loading dock is currently.So we’re not making any changes there.38
39
Chair Wasserman: There’s a curb cut?40
41
Man off microphone and camera: I’m sorry, what (unintelligible)saying?42
43
Mr. Steinberg: It is right here and there is a roll up loading dock door currently. It’s where the service 44
(interrupted)45
46
Man off microphone and camera: What street is that?47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Mr. Steinberg: That, That’s on Hamilton. This was the service area. There was a restaurant, a food 1
service in this when in its previous life and with a service elevator in this location so we’re keeping the 2
service patterns exactly as they have been since the beginning (interrupted). 3
4
Chair Wasserman: And is there a curb cut there? 5
6
Mr. Steinberg: There is an existing curb cut;we’re not modifying anything there.7
8
Chair Wasserman: Ok, and the size of your garbage and where that’s gonna be?9
10
Mr. Steinberg: So we have been working with the City, we’ve been working with GreenWaste, we 11
actually in this last go round we’ve increased the size for our trash and we’re still working with them 12
on exactly what size bins we’ll use, but we think we’re very close to resolving that. And we have made 13
some changes since we saw you last time. 14
15
Chair Wasserman: Ok and how many seats will you have in your outdoor terrace?16
17
Mr. Steinberg: Well we have about 85 seats that we’re showing inside in the restaurant and the outside 18
is still in flux and that will be moveable furniture and we’ll see how that works, so there isn’t really a 19
hard count for that. But that’s about 85 seats in the restaurant.20
21
Chair Wasserman: So you thinking about one row of tables or two rows of tables on the street?22
23
Mr. Steinberg: We’re, well, on this side we have one row of tables and here we’ve got, sort of little 24
more informal kind of like cocktail sitting area, so it’s a modest, it’s a modest expansion. But the idea I 25
think more important is that this whole wall is foldable glass so that we’re trying to make a connection 26
between the inside and the outside so that it really activates the street and as the pedestrians are moving 27
along, you’re part of the life inside the building.28
29
Chair Wasserman: Ok, thank you. Are there any other speakers to this project? I’m gonna close the 30
public hearing and take this back to the Board. Alex, why don’t you start? 31
32
Board Member Lew: I have some questions I guess for Staff. So on the, the, for the DEE for the 33
entrance canopy, I was wondering if that was, if you guys had reviewed that with the Planning Arborist 34
and the street trees because looking from the plans it looks like there’s a potential conflict with the 35
street trees and the depth of that overhang.36
37
Clare Campbell: So Dave, Dave Dockter has reviewed the plans when it first went though, you know a 38
couple months ago and he did not have any issues with the proposed placement of the tree and the 39
canopy. 40
41
Board Member Lew: Ok. It seems like there’s, I think are you proposing new, all new street trees? Or 42
are any of them, or are any of them going to remain? It seems like if they’re all new then we don’t 43
have an issue.44
45
Mr. Steinberg: We are, we are proposing new street trees.46
47
Board Member Lew: Ok, on Emerson as well as Hamilton?48
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
Mr. Steinberg: Yes.2
3
Board Member Lew: Ok. Then I think that solves that problem. Also for Staff, on the signage. Oh, 4
I’m sorry Clare. So, on the signage, are you asking for like, conceptually that the Board say it’s ok that 5
these are larger and (interrupted)6
7
Clare Campbell: Yes.8
9
Board Member Lew: But even though we don’t have an actual design?10
11
Clare Campbell: Yes.12
13
Board Member Lew: Or do you think that, should the sign should actually should come back to us, you 14
know, at another date.15
16
Amy French: I think the concept that you’re speaking of the vertically oriented, yes17
18
Board Member Lew: The vertical sign, yeah. Projecting sign.19
20
Amy French: You know the concept that that’s a, you know, that’s a, the, what did we call that? 21
Projecting sign through a DEE process, that’s what’s requested today. The letters, what the letters say, 22
the materials of the letters and the sign, the size of those letters and the signage itself, you know, can be 23
saved for another day, but the thing that it sits on, the width of it (interrupted)24
25
Board Member Lew: Right, just the idea, the concept.26
27
Amy French: The concept does, yeah.28
29
Board Member Lew: Because the plans are showing different size signage on different sheets and stuff 30
so it’s hard for me to like say what, to make a determination, but I mean conceptually I’m ok with the 31
big idea. But I, but we have so many issues with the details on signs (interrupted)32
33
Amy French: I think we have findings too if you want to look at those with respect to that.34
35
Board Member Lew: Ok. I think also so there are a lot of, also another question I had for Staff was the 36
planters along the sidewalk. So I know it’s come up before on other projects about the drainage for the 37
planters and stuff and I was wondering if that was, if you guys had had any issues with that, you know. 38
39
Clare Campbell: Staff actually did not go into that level of detail with the plans, but we can have the 40
Applicants look at that further and bring that back to us.41
42
Board Member Lew: Ok. And then I just had a question about the valet parking requirement. And I 43
was just, this was not, I don’t necessarily have an issue with it on this project but I was curious because 44
we have had other hotel projects come through. So how does that, what is the mechanism for the valet 45
parking? Like what triggers, like the valet parking requirement? 46
47
Clare Campbell: It’s the Applicant’s request to do, we’re actually not requiring.48
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
Board Member Lew: Ok, that’s what I thought. Ok, thank you. Ok then I had a couple of questions on 2
the building. So on the, I think on some of the plans that you’re showing you know the new railings, 3
the metal railings, I think they were calling that out to be painted and I was wondering what the, I don’t 4
think we have a color on the material board for that. I was wondering what the idea was for that color.5
6
Mr. Steinberg: The idea is for the railings to disappear, for the slab edge, the white horizontal lines to 7
be dominant, so I’m not sure if we had put that on the board or not, but it would be either to match the 8
window sash, but sort of in a grey or brown that would recede. That would disappear.9
10
Board Member Lew: Ok. So the windows are dark, right?11
12
Mr. Steinberg:Correct. 13
14
Board Member Lew: Ok, but the, I see. Ok. I think I understand. And then the, and the perforated I 15
think you were calling the perforated metal [roof] screen on the plans and I was wondering, I don’t, 16
wondering what that was, I don’t think that appears on the color board unless it’s the same as the art 17
screen, you know, down near the sidewalk. 18
19
Mr. Steinberg:It is similar to that, what it is, is it’s the dividers between the balconies between the 20
individual units, so it would be these.21
22
Board Member Lew: Ok, good. And on the, on Mr. Fischer’s comment about the garbage I’m glad to 23
see you’ve enlarged it since, I think the first time we saw it. I was wondering, oh and I did want to 24
comment that on the life kitchen thing, I mean that was an issue, I mean I think what the Board 25
recognized that it was really, really small and just very complicated to get it to work but we didn’t 26
really see any other ways to resolve it given the (interrupted). I’m sorry.27
28
Man not miked or on camera: You have to go inside the building which they made me do on a project 29
and I just, I wanted to be fair, ok?30
31
Chair Wasserman: Excuse me, I’m sorry the public hearing is closed. I’m sorry.32
33
Board Member Lew: And yeah, it did seem like previously the garbage area seemed really small for a 34
hotel and a restaurant. So we do want to make that work because otherwise I think we’ve seen some, 35
like what happens elsewhere downtowns that sometimes like they, it spills over out into the alleys and 36
stuff like that and it’s really, it’s sort of very unattractive and in this case you don’t really have any 37
other choice but to have the service entrance on Hamilton. Like you don’t have an alley or anything to 38
provide, you know, better more appropriate service location.39
40
So, so in general though I’m in support of the project. I do support the DEE’s for the, for the, for the 41
extended, you know, lengths. And I do think this is a really beautiful addition to, to downtown and I’d 42
be happy to make a Motion to approve it.43
44
Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much Alex. Clare.45
46
Vice Chair Malone Prichard: I don’t have a lot to say because we’ve seen this how many times before 47
but thank you for bringing it so many times. I’m quite comfortable with it. In fact, I know I initially 48
City of Palo Alto Page 8
had an issue with the brick being reused, but I’m actually warming up to that now after spending some 1
time with it. So, I actually don’t have any design comments. I am fully in support of the Sign 2
Exception findings. 3
4
I had a couple of comments on the approval findings. A couple of them were shown as “not 5
applicable,” but I think they actually are applicable and can be made in the affirmative. That’s finding 6
#9 having to do with ancillary functions. We were just discussing garbage, etcetera, back of the house. 7
I think that had been handled well. #10 access to the property being convenient is also applicable and 8
can be made in the affirmative. And I think it was finding #7 that the building planning and siting 9
create an internal order. And that would also be true in this case based on where they’ve located the 10
restaurant and the lobby. So I am fully in support of the project.11
12
Chair Wasserman: Thank you Clare. Lee.13
14
Board Member Lippert: First of all I just wanted to ask that Staff address Mr. Fischer’s comments 15
privately with regard to his own problems and direct him to the appropriate code compliance person on 16
Staff so that he gets his concerns dealt with toot sweet.17
18
I’d like to thank the Applicant and the project team. The work that you’ve done here in terms of the 19
groundwork I think has really paid off for you. My comments are really rather minimal because you’ve 20
done so many preliminary reviews with us that those comments have really been addressed and they’ve 21
been addressed in very positive way. I do have a couple of additional thoughts here and I just wanted 22
to flesh it out with Staff a little bit. 23
24
With regard to the parking I know that that’s a tremendous concern from neighbors and with the 25
parking, with the payment that has been made into the parking assessment district, what it really does is 26
it pays for structured parking elsewhere. But for a hotel you really park at your own peril. People 27
come to a hotel, they come to stay, they have to find parking. If it’s in a City garage it’s timed 28
generally only for a couple hours during daylight, daytime hours. A lot of these people are going to be 29
parking during the daytime. You’re talking about valet parking. Valet parking is problematic in the 30
sense that the valets poach or use public parking and oftentimes use on street or the City surface 31
parking lots which take up the parking from other people that would be coming to the City. So it’s 32
almost like those little games that you play with the squares and you move them around to get the 33
numbers or the alphabet in order. It’s really all in the mechanics of how you, you’re able to make this 34
work. So maybe you wanna talk a little bit about that and how the valet parking is going to work 35
mechanically.36
37
Ms. Sloan:Well, I think as Clare explained there’s no requirement that anyone have valet parking. It’s 38
something an Applicant asked for, it’s actually not in the zoning ordinance it’s in another part of the 39
code and you apply for a permit to the Police Department. However in this case one of the conditions 40
of approval is that we get approval from both the Planning Department and the Police Department on 41
our valet scheme and what we’re trying to do, which is hard, but we have one good, good possibility so 42
far, which is to find some private property that has underutilized parking and have that be first choice 43
and then if that doesn’t work out or there are not enough spaces then to work with Planning and the 44
Police Department on what might be available in sort of some obscure locations where people never go. 45
For example, there’s a parking lot under 800 High Street. Nobody ever goes there for the public 46
parking. So that’s just an example. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 9
The way that we envision it working is the valet would only be available to the hotel guests; it’s not for 1
the restaurant. Even though there are restaurants like Evvia as you’re familiar with have, well that’s a 2
very big restaurant and they have valet parking. So it would only be available for hotel guests and 3
people would pull up on Emerson and as, as we pointed out earlier there are three spaces there and so 4
the valet attendant would, would come out and would take the car to the appropriate location. Is, is that 5
enough? 6
7
Board Member Lippert: I think that begins to address the issue and I think that what we don’t want to 8
have happen, I mean it’s easy. It’s easy to have people arrive at your hotel and then have to go park 9
their car elsewhere. They do it at the Cardinal Hotel no problem. However, and they also do that I 10
believe at the Keen Hotel as well. In this case my concern is simply that, that a program be worked out 11
that we’re not poaching public parking from, from what other citizens driving to the downtown and 12
they would be displaced and they would be hard put to, to finding parking because what it does that 13
really takes it away from other merchants in the downtown area.14
15
Ms. Sloan:No, and we understand that, how sensitive this issue is right now and we will continue 16
working with Planning and Police on where the appropriate places are.17
18
Board Member Lippert: Ok.19
20
Ms. Sloan: Thanks.21
22
Board Member Lippert: Ok, other than that I don’t have any other concerns. I think you’ve done a 23
great job.24
25
Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. I have very few concerns also. I just had a question about 26
the valet parking. Would it, if things get really sticky could you buy permits and use permit parking 27
spaces for any guests that might come?28
29
Ms. Sloane: I think that’s a possibility. Frankly that’s what we understand that Hotel Keen does is that30
they buy permits. Permits are supposed to be for one. The basic program is a permit is for one person.31
32
Chair Wasserman: It could be your valet.33
34
Ms. Sloane: Yeah. And it’s too bad Jaime’s not here, because I think because of all the attention on 35
downtown parking recently I think the Planning Department is in the, or the Transportation Division of 36
the Planning Department is in the throes of looking at all sorts of different things. I mean they are 37
looking at paid parking like Redwood City where you put in quarters and they’re looking at issuing 38
more permits and a way to have permits shared. And the simple answer is yes, that’s a possibility but 39
the whole program is in flux.40
41
Chair Wasserman: Yeah. Ok, thank you. That’s hardly an architectural issue. I did have a question 42
about the canopy, the DEE for the canopy. Does that, that canopy does not project beyond the property 43
line, does it?44
45
Clare Campbell: The canopy on Emerson?46
47
Chair Wasserman: Yes, the one that we need the DEE for.48
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
Clare Campbell: Yes it does it goes substantially into the right of way.2
3
Chair Wasserman: And how high is it above the ground? I mean this is more of a Public Works issue 4
then, I mean it’s sort of a combination thing but basically if Public Works doesn’t come down on your 5
head then I’m fine with it.6
7
Clare Campbell: And Public Works has commented that they’re fine with the project.8
9
Chair Wasserman: Oh, good for them. Can you put your, the sign that you have above the canopy can 10
you put it on the face of the canopy?And that would eliminate the need for the other thing.11
12
Mr. Steinberg: It’s possible. I think what we would like to do, what we’ve been anticipating is we have 13
to refine the specific signage and come back to you.14
15
Chair Wasserman: Yeah.16
17
Mr. Steinberg: But we would like to leave that option open at this time. 18
19
Chair Wasserman: Yeah, cause I mean we don’t know what the name of the hotel is yet. Casa Olga 20
Boutique Hotel is a lot of signage. So if it were maybe just the Casa Olga Hotel and there was a high 21
contrast between the letters and the background then that would take up quite a lot of that canopy and 22
have sufficient presence so that people would know what you were. I mean we’re not (interrupted)23
24
Mr. Steinberg: It could, it could, we’ve talked about having it on the fascia. We do have the backlit 25
screen below it, so you know maybe the signage wants to be a different vocabulary but both options I 26
think are in play at the moment.27
28
Chair Wasserman: Ok so it comes back to us anyway. I have a question for Staff about the projecting 29
sign which is the vertical one. Could that be interpreted as a wall sign? Because that little thing could 30
be a piece of a wall? What is going on here?31
32
Amy French: Wait, wait. I had just called for Attorney Larkin to come down while there was parking33
discussion in case there was questions but I didn’t hear your question. Could you please?34
35
Chair Wasserman: Oh it was a question of that vertical piece of wall that says “Hotel” on it, could it be 36
called a wall and that be called a wall sign? I’m in favor of the thing, I just don’t know that we need to 37
jump through hoops.38
39
Amy French: We’re, we’re breaking new grounds calling it a projecting sign. We understand that. 40
41
Chair Wasserman: Well that’s what a, that’s what a projecting sign is but my question is could it call a 42
wall sign?43
44
Amy French: Yeah. It’s a blade sign, it’s a blade sign basically underneath the canopy that they’re 45
proposing.46
47
Chair Wasserman: Yeah in which case it would be legal.48
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
Amy French: Well, no a blade signs, I mean projecting signs are supposed to be much smaller than this, 2
so the exception is for the very large size of the projecting sign.3
4
Chair Wasserman: Ok, so if you call it a wall sign then is it different?5
6
Amy French: Well then we’re, then we’re saying you’re putting a wall in the special setback, which is a 7
variance and then it’s Planning and Transportation.8
9
Chair Wasserman: Oh, ok. Never mind. I’ll go for the DEE. It’s not worth the trouble. 10
11
Board Member Lew: Can I ask a follow up? I’m just reading the, the findings. So then we’re actually 12
saying that that whole, not just the letters “Hotel” we’re actually saying that whole fin, the 76 feet, that 13
entire thing is a sign?14
15
Amy French: Yes. It’s a projecting sign.16
17
Board Member Lew: Got it. Ok.18
19
Amy French: Here.20
21
Chair Wasserman: So I have two little dinky questions about what I think are mistakes in the drawings 22
but clear me up. On the, the Emerson Street elevation the upper part of what is called out as “painted 23
existing brick veneer wall” the, the elevation doesn’t match the perspectives. I think there’s a mistake. 24
There’s some piece of stucco that’s called out next to it, painted cement plaster, and I don’t, I think that 25
either stucco doesn’t belong there or the brick doesn’t belong there. It doesn’t make sense and I don’t 26
think, I think it’s just a drafting error.27
28
Mr. Steinberg: I think it is. It should be all brick.29
30
Chair Wasserman: Ok, so that little, so it’s either all brick or all stucco at the upper level. Ok. And 31
then the other question has to do with on Page A21 at the upper part of the Section on the, Section #1 at 32
the upper left, it says “guest room balconies” and then there’s a big fat solid wall. So either it’s a 33
balcony or it’s a room, or the wall isn’t there, and I think that is also just an error or an unfortunate 34
place to cut your Section.35
36
Mr. Steinberg: Are you on Section 1 or 2?37
38
Chair Wasserman: Section 1, the top level on the left where it says, “guest room balconies” 8 39
something. 8 eleven, 8 thirteen. There’s a solid wall shown at the outside, the exterior wall. So that 40
couldn’t be a balcony because it would have a solid wall. So it’s either mistake in the label or mistake 41
in the drawing. You wouldn’t want somebody to build it wrong, would you?42
43
Mr. Steinberg: It’s a little bit of an anomaly on where the Section (interrupted)44
45
Chair Wasserman: So the Section’s cut in an unfortunate place. Ok. I really like this project a lot. I 46
think this is great, I think the solution of the perforated screen at the bottom is a very creative solution 47
and I think it’s gonna be really fun and if the rooms aren’t too expensive I’ll probably have some guests 48
City of Palo Alto Page 12
stay there. Ok, I think we’re ready for a Motion, anybody want to make a Motion. You were the first 1
Alex, you were the first person to say you would support this project. Do you want to move it?2
3
Board Member Lew: I had one follow up question. 4
5
Chair Wasserman: Go ahead.6
7
Board Member Lew: So, so we had a big to do on sidewalks on a recent project and I saw that you had 8
like two different colors of stained concrete in the drawing set.9
10
Mr. Steinberg: Let me pull it. Yeah for the sidewalk. So we (interrupted)11
12
Board Member Lew: Sheet A25.13
14
Mr. Steinberg: Ok.15
16
Board Member Lew: I guess my, the big question that I have is, well, is, what is the design intent and 17
then are you trying to differentiate the patio seating for the restaurant from the regular City sidewalk?18
19
Mr. Steinberg: What I can tell you is that we have modified the paving since the last time we saw you 20
to the stained concrete. The two tones I need a little, I need a moment to understand that I’m not quite 21
sure. 22
23
Woman not introduced: We have changed the outside concrete color where you have the dark gray 24
patches to integral color, one gray color and that’s according to City standards. Then the second color 25
that you see would be used in the lobby, in the elevator lobby inside and it’s gonna be a laid in carpet as 26
well in that area. But the idea is to make the outside flow inside. 27
28
Board Member Lew: Got it. And then when you said like it meets the City standards, I mean we 29
actually allow any, I think, my understanding we allow any other any color. Oh but you’re saying 30
you’re matching the normal, you know the normal concrete sidewalks have like some [lamp lock] in 31
them.32
33
Woman not introduced: You can have some integral color to it, yeah. 34
35
Board Member Lew: Right but you’re saying you’re actually trying to make something different from 36
the regular City sidewalks, yes.37
38
Woman not introduced: Yes. It would be a gray that distinguishes the entry of the hotel because we 39
have so little to work with there on that side.40
41
Board Member Lew: Ok. It think that, I guess I think the only thing I would like to see like a 42
[heartscape]plan is how, I think what you know we had last meeting is how that ties, how all of the 43
sidewalks tie together like the new and the old and the curb and the handicapped curbs and all that.44
45
Mr. Steinberg: If you remember last time we were proposing a paver in the right of way and someone 46
brought up have you really reviewed that with Public Works so when we went back that was not 47
acceptable. So we have modified it to be a concrete, but an integral color concrete that gives, that 48
City of Palo Alto Page 13
meets their requirements but gives some, some cues when you’re going from the public to the semi-1
private and you’re transitioning and then we’ve tried to carry that into the building.2
3
Board Member Lew: Ok, that’s fine. I don’t think that, I doubt that the Board has a design issue with 4
that, I was just thinking we should see the hardscape plan.5
6
Chair Wasserman: And were you making a Motion?7
8
Board Member Lew: Well if you, if there’s support of that I would like to include that in a Motion that 9
we, yeah.10
11
Chair Wasserman: Ok, so I think I heard a, well, why don’t you make one?12
13
MOTION14
15
Board Member Lew: Ok, so Motion to approve the project as conditioned in the Staff Report with the 16
following clarifications on like the railing color, on the mechanical screen material and color, and the 17
and a hardscape, like a final hardscape, paving plan, and I think that could come to subcommittee 18
unless the rest of the board wants to see this.19
20
Chair Wasserman: Any other conditions? Is there a second?21
22
Clare Campbell: Excuse me, there was one mention about the planter, the drainage for the planters. 23
Did you want that to return to subcommittee?24
25
Board Member Lew: No, I mean I think this is something that’s been brought up to, I don’t think the 26
Board necessarily has a condition, issue with it. I think that this is come up on other downtown 27
projects done by Staff.28
29
Amy French: We should disclose we’ve only have one of the pages of the conditions as is30
inadvertently left out so we, there will be more conditions than just that one page showing in the 31
approval letter that would come out following for the other departments, yeah.32
33
Chair Wasserman: do we have a second to Alex’s Motion?34
35
Vice Chair Malone Prichard: I had a question first, are we also folding in those revisions to the 36
approval findings that I listed?37
38
Board Member Lew: Yes.39
40
Chair Wasserman: Yes.41
42
Board Member Lew: So that would be 9, 10, and 7.43
44
SECOND45
46
Vice Chair Malone Prichard: Second.47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Chair Wasserman: We have a Motion and a second and conditions. Is there any other discussion of this 1
Motion? Ok. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Sounds like no. You’re good to go. So the 2
conditions will come back to the subcommittee. Thank you. 3
4
MOTION PASSED (4-0-0)5
6
ATTACHMENT G
Page 1 of 1
ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE
180 Hamilton Avenue / File No. 12PLN-00147
CD-C ZONE
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS STANDARD PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMS
Minimum Building Setback
Front Yard –Hamilton
Avenue Special Setback
7’Existing:9’-6”Yes
Rear Yard None Required Existing:none Yes
Interior Side Yard None Required Existing:none Yes
Maximum Site Coverage
(building footprint)
None Required Yes
Maximum Height 50’Existing:76’No; Legal Non-
Complying
Daylight Plane Same as abutting
residential zones
Not Applicable Yes
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)17,000 s.f. (2.0:1)
(up to 3.0:1 allowed
with bonus)
Existing:51,051 s.f.No; Legal Non-
Complying
Parking Requirement
(within the Downtown Parking
Assessment District)
1 space/250 s.f.*None; Applicant will pay in-
lieu fees for the 5 removed
spaces
Yes
Bicycle Parking 20 spaces
1 space/2,500 s.f.
8 short term**
89 long term
Yes
*At the time the parking assessment was calculated for this site, the City staff determined that
200 spaces were required for the building. With five spaces provided on-site, the property was
assessed for 195 parking spaces. The proposed project would eliminate the five on-site spaces,
requiring the applicant to pay in-lieu fees towards the construction of future parking for these
removed spaces (at the current rate of $60,750 per space).
** The project complies with the number of bike spaces needed. The applicant is required to
allow guests to store their bikes in their hotel room (86 rooms) and the hotel has a small bike
storage room on the first floor (holds 3 bikes). The required short term bike spaces is 12; the City
has conditioned the project to provide additional spaces if the City deems it necessary.
5964.txt
Text only.
Page 1