HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7325
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7325)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/12/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Appeal of Avenidas Expansion Architectural Review Approval
Title: 450 Bryant Street [16PLN-92]: Consideration of an Appeal and Adoption
of Findings of Approval by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment for Architectural Review of an Expansion to a Category 2
Historic Resource (Avenidas) and Associated Approval of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council, by adoption of this item on consent calendar, deny the
appeal and uphold the Director’s approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Architectural Review application with the findings and
conditions attached (Attachments A-C).
Executive Summary:
Avenidas is a community-based, non-profit organization serving aging adults with services that
promote active living, maintaining independence and related support services. Avenidas’
facility in Palo Alto is located on city-owned property zoned Public Facilities and abutting
Cogswell Plaza and Parking Lot C. The organization is seeking city approval to modify, partially
demolish and construct new building area to an historic building to support their program
goals.
The City’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Historic Resources Board (HRB) each
independently reviewed the proposed project at three public hearings and recommended
approval to the Planning and Community Environment Director (Director). The Director’s
determination (Attachment A) was made on October 27 and subsequently appealed on
November 9 by La Comida, a sub-lessee using the kitchen and dining room to provide meal
service at the Avenidas facility.
Avenidas’ proposal is for an enlarged, updated kitchen but a smaller dining room. La Comida is
concerned that the smaller dining room will allow fewer people to be served at one time, as
City of Palo Alto Page 2
stated in the appeal (Attachment F). Avenidas contends that the same number of people can
be served in shifts, which is consistent with their current practice. The project plans are
available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47537.
This appeal is less about the AR findings and more about a dispute between the leaseholder
and sub-lessee, which may be more appropriately resolved outside of this appeal process.
Nonetheless, Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.070(f) requires that an appeal be placed
on the City Council’s consent calendar so that the City Council may adopt the findings and
decision of the director, or pull the item from consent (which takes three votes), and set it for a
public hearing. City staff continues to be engaged with Avenidas and La Comida to help
support their efforts toward an amenable resolution to this conflict and has informed both
parties that the hearing will take place on the same day if the item is pulled from consent.
Background:
The Appellant, La Comida, provides meals in accordance with and made possible through a
County of Santa Clara funding program with additional financial help from the City’s through
the Human Services Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP) at a discounted rate to seniors, at
three facilities in Palo Alto: Stevenson House (35 meals per day, temporarily suspended due to
construction), Cubberley Center (once per week), and at Avenidas, Mondays through Fridays.
The meals are required to be supplemented by other programs for seniors, in order to fit with
the County’s vision of the program for senior socialization. La Comida pays rent to Avenidas
every month on a month-to-month lease for use of the dining hall and kitchen for the meals
program. La Comida uses the kitchen at Avenidas to prepare meals for all of the senior meals
service throughout Palo Alto.
The applicant, Avenidas, has been serving Palo Alto and other mid-peninsula cities for over four
decades. It is a non-profit organization that is supported by donors, including the City of Palo
Alto, volunteers and Avenidas employees. The City has leased the building to Avenidas since
May 11, 1977. The current lease agreement between the City and Avenidas was entered into on
January 1, 2015 and runs for 50 years. The lease agreement allows Avenidas to sublet to other
entities with written City consent.
For the past several years, Avenidas has been exploring changes to the building to support its
stated project goals of more efficiently accommodating as many as 360 more people each day.
The expectation for increasing attendance at the facility is directly related to the anticipated
growth in the senior population; half of all city residents will be over 55 years old by 2020.
Avenidas’ program description, submitted in March 2016, is provided as Attachment J.
The existing building has 18,375 square feet (sf) of floor area. The original building was
designed by Birge Clark to serve as the city’s downtown police and fire station. In the 1970’s,
the current dining room was added. The partial demolition and expansion of the existing
building is subject to Architectural Review and, because it is listed on the City’s Historic
Resources Inventory as a Category 2 historic resource in the Downtown, review by the Historic
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Resources Board (HRB) was also required.
Project Description
The applicant’s proposal includes: 1) demolition of the existing dining hall; 2) construction of a
9,751 sf, three-story addition attached to the primary historic building via a glass hyphen; and
3) renovation of the interior of the Category 2 historic resource and preservation of the former
garage (also designed by Clark) that contributes to the significance of the historic resource.
The net new floor area, originally proposed at 8,129 sf, was reduced to 7,158 sf during the
public hearing process; the third floor area was reduced so that the volume steps back on all
facades. The design includes a courtyard with overlooking second floor balcony and third floor
deck. The Clark garage was recognized by two historic experts as contributing to the
significance of the listed historic resource; its retention for “the Villages” and location next to a
smaller courtyard space is key to Avenidas’ programming. Due to site limitations, no parking
spaces are feasible to add onto the site; in-lieu fees will be paid for parking spaces not provided
in association with 7,158 square feet of net new floor area. Further general description of the
project, history, architecture and reviews of the project are found in staff reports to the ARB
and HRB. Below further description relates to spaces used by La Comida for meal service.
Downsizing Dining Room – Subject of the Appeal
The proposed dining hall will be smaller than the existing hall. It will have large (bird-friendly)
windows facing the park and a door opening toward the park. The dining room will also have
windows facing the parking lot, which the current dining hall does not have, with access to the
kitchen and hallways leading to lobbies, stairs and elevators to upper floors, restrooms, the
courtyard, and the parking lot. Further description of the existing dining room and proposed
dining room design is provided in the Discussion section of this report.
Upsizing and Upgrading Kitchen
The existing kitchen, located next to the dining room, was added in the 1950’s to the original
building, and needs updating. It would be enlarged by approximately 250 sf and updated for
continued use by La Comida to prepare meals for seniors.
Temporary Relocation
During construction, Avenidas will be leasing 10,000 sf of space at the Cubberley Community
Center. La Comida plans to temporarily relocate the meal services either within a Downtown
church (which necessitates expenses for updates to the kitchen) or within a senior facility on
Charleston Road (Stevenson house, which is undergoing updates).
ARB / HRB Public Hearings
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted three public hearings, the last of which
occurred on October 20, 2016. The proposed size of the dining room has not changed since the
application submittal in March. However, the total floor area of the addition was reduced in
response to concerns about massing of the new addition with respect to the existing historic
buildings, courtyard, and adjacent park.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The HRB recommended approval of the revised project on October 12th and the ARB
recommended approval on October 20th. Meeting minutes of the most recent ARB and HRB
meetings are attached to this report. Staff reports for the ARB and HRB meetings (which
contain earlier meeting minutes) are provided in the below links, from most recent reports to
prior reports:
The ARB report of October 20, 2016, is viewable at this link,
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54327
The HRB report of October 11, 2016, is viewable at this link,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54162
The ARB report of September 1, 2016, is viewable at this link,
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53658.
The HRB report of September 8, 2016, is viewable at this link,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53712.
The ARB report of June 16, 2016, is viewable at this link,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52840. It provides
additional background regarding 2015 reviews of preliminary plans by the Parks and
Recreation Commission, ARB and HRB.
The HRB report of May 26, 2016 is viewable at this link,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52515.
Director’s Decision
The approval issued October 27, 2016 followed the Director’s determination with respect to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Director’s approval
includes AR findings and approval conditions upon which the decision was based; the AR
findings are provided as Attachment C. Approval conditions are provided as Attachment B. The
PCE Director’s decision was based upon Architectural Review Findings and made subject to the
Conditions of Approval which include a condition related to the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
Discussion
The appeal (Attachment F) was submitted by the Board of Directors of the La Comida Senior
Meal Program and takes issue with the reduction in the amount of interior space that La
Comida would lease from Avenidas for meal service following construction. The appeal notes
that the capacity would be reduced from the current 140 people1 in one seating to 78 to 90
people in one seating.
1 While the maximum seating capacity of the current dining room is 140 people, La Comida sets approximately
126-128 seats in order to accommodate wheelchairs and walkers. As a condition to its County funding, La Comida
is required to serve both Palo Alto and non-Palo Alto residents at the Avenidas facility.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The appellant had been in conversation with Avenidas for some time, but had not contacted
City staff nor submitted comments to the City until October 11, 2016. A petition (Attachment
H) followed on October 20. The appellant seeks to obtain “spillover space” for dining in the
front, corner room facing Bryant Street, adjacent to the kitchen; Avenidas plans to improve this
room as a “club” room. La Comida expressed a concern that the reduced area dedicated to
meal service would mean a change in their operations, and may cost more. The appellant
states that Avenidas has been unwilling to firmly commit any auxiliary space to La Comida for
use during lunch hours. La Comida wishes to decide now on the relocation of the program
during the renovation and states that not having a clear and definite commitment from
Avenidas for additional “spillover” space after the renovation hampers this decision. The
appellant also requests that the City “withhold final approval until an interior space plan
adequate for the needs of the La Comida Program is provided.”
During the review process, Avenidas approached the owner of an offsite location (a church)
regarding use of those facilities for Avenidas’ downtown operations during construction,
including housing the La Comida function. La Comida has noted receptivity to relocating to this
location permanently, if additional floor area is not found for the program at the Avenidas site.
La Comida believes the cost of updating the church kitchen for temporary use is prohibitive,
and has noted a preference for interim relocation to the Stevenson House facilities on
Charleston Road during construction, given the proximity of that facility to Cubberley, where
Avenidas would be located during construction at 450 Bryant.2
Dining Room Layout – Existing and Proposed
Existing: The dining room, square-shaped with closets in each corner (yielding 2,383 sf
net area), provides capacity for 140 people (actual seating is provided for 120 people).
Proposed: The replacement room would be L-shaped without closets in each corner; a
required staircase providing egress to the upper floor reduces the space to 1,512 sf of
net floor area and seating for between 78 and 90 people; this is 871 sf smaller than the
existing room, seating 30 to 60 less people in a single seating.
Existing Dining Room (highlighted) Proposed “L”-Shaped Room
2 Avenidas has offered to contribute funding for the relocation and kitchen upgrades, but again these particular
operational issues are outside the scope of this appeal.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Dining Room Visibility
Existing: The existing dining room has several windows and one door allowing views and
access to the park (Cogswell Plaza). The existing dining room also has three doors
allowing access to a courtyard which is nearly twice as large as the proposed courtyard.
The image below shows the existing dining hall’s north-facing windows. The existing
dining hall has no windows facing the public parking lot (Lot C).
Proposed: The proposed dining room would have a bank of north-facing windows
allowing park views, and a door allowing access to the park. The glass “hyphen”
connecting the historic building to the new addition may afford park views for diners
chosing to congregate near the kitchen. The glass hyphen and windows of the proposed
addition are shown below without the existing park vegetation that provides screening:
The below image shows the existing mature park vegetation that would be seen by the diners:
The below image shows the three windows of the dining room that face the public parking lot:
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Before and After - Gathering Spaces
Existing: The current dining hall leads directly to an uncovered courtyard.
Proposed: The gathering of diners before and after meals could take place in protected
lobbies and hallways, and in the game room. The portion of the proposed dining hall
near the kitchen would have double doors opening to hallways that lead to the lobbies
serving the center, the parking lot and the courtyard. The parking lot lobby would be
light-filled and weather-protected. The courtyard would be sunny in the summer with
partial afternoon shade in other seasons, for diners to enjoy after meals.
Applicant’s Response to the Issues Raised on Appeal
Avenidas has stated that the existing seating accommodates only 120 people, so the new dining
room would have 30 fewer seats than the existing dining room. Avenidas says they have
offered additional volunteers to help La Comida with multiple seatings, and that multiple
seatings are already occurring given the arrival time of Lytton Gardens diners nearly an hour
before noon. Avenidas further states:
They are considering using the corner space that La Comida seeks to use a ‘spillover
space’ as a “clubroom” for seniors to spend leisure time enjoying offerings on a flat
screen television and game tables.
They have offered to extend the hours of use to La Comida to allow for additional
servings.
They have explained to La Comida’s board that the improvements to the building are
necessary to meet current codes, and that the biggest room in the building is the dining
room that would be leased to La Comida.
They would like to reserve flexibility to change the meal program to address evolving
interests such as cooking and nutrition classes.
They have urged La Comida to enter into mediation to reach an agreeable solution.
They have made numerous efforts to make the new space work for La Comida, and
offered them various resources and suggestions including a new commercial kitchen.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
As of the writing of this report, La Comida representatives have agreed to participate in
mediation with Avenidas on December 1, 2016, regarding the operational issues.
As noted in this report, and shown in above images, the replacement dining room on the first
floor would be smaller than the existing dining room. The applicant maintains that the service
of meals would continue to take place with ‘wave’ seating (i.e. several seatings), with
opportunities for diners to engage in multiple activities before and after the meal services.
Architectural Review Findings as Related to Appeal Statement
The record shows the ARB followed their purview related to site planning, massing, articulation
and compatibility of the addition. While site circulation and design of ancillary functions are
also within the ARB’s purview, interior space planning is not typically within the ARB’s purview
to discuss. The ARB’s purview does include the placement and quantity of exterior windows
providing daylight into proposed interior spaces, as well as site circulation and functionality or
convenience with respect to access to ancillary functions. The AR findings related to
functionality could be considered by City Council as applicable to the dining room design. Staff
notes, after reviewing the appellant’s statement, three architectural findings may be relevant
to the appeal.
Finding 3: The design is appropriate to the function of the project.
Finding 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.
Finding 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.
Based on staff’s review of the appeal statement and conversations with the applicant and
appellant following the appeal, staff concludes that the issues expressed by La Comida are
mostly to do with La Comida’s desire to:
Continue operations without any changes, and
Secure the front corner room as an interior “spillover” area for diners, with the
assumption that the current practice of providing meals to diners in shifts may not be
adequate in the future.
Accordingly, staff does not believe the appeal is principally related to the Director’s decision
on the proposed project. The Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) recommendations and the
Director’s determination, and, if a hearing is conducted, the City Council’s action on this
project must be based on required AR approval findings. The AR findings do not reference
interior space planning, and any proposal for future interior changes within the building are
not subject to ARB review and approval. While these operational and programming issues are
important they do not fall under traditional design review purview. Even examining the
functionality findings, Avenidas has demonstrated that La Comida could continue to stagger
meal service, with help from Avenidas volunteers, so that the total number of people served
today can be served in the future. Staff believes Council can take action on consent based on
City of Palo Alto Page 9
the record without removing the item from consent calendar to further review the AR
findings approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
In addition, Real Estate, Community Service Department, Legal and Planning staff have met
with both parties and offered to facilitate and even participate in the pending mediation over
the operational issues.
Notwithstanding the above, the appeal is a request for a de novo hearing before the City
Council. If granted, the public hearing would not be limited to the appeal statement, but
include the entirety of the project and be subject to review based on the architectural review
findings. To conduct a hearing, three Councilmembers would need to agree to pull the item
from the agenda; since notice was provided regarding the potential hearing on December 12,
the hearing can occur the same night as the consent calendar review.
Resource Impact:
There are no financial impacts from the recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the
Director’s decision.
Policy Implications:
As noted, the Applicant has invited City staff to attend a facilitated discussion with the
appellant about the sub-lease. This mediation is targeted for December 1, 2016.
Approval of this application on consent by City Council would not preclude the conversation
continuing among the City staff representing the Human Services Commission, and
representatives of La Comida and Avenidas. A public hearing to discuss at length the project’s
compliance with Architectural Review approval findings would not result in resolution of the
issues raised in the appeal.
The current 50-year lease was provided as an attachment to an informational staff report about
this project provided to Council in June 2016. The report provided a brief history of Council
actions in 2014 and 2015 regarding financial support for several fiscal years.Council meeting
minutes from the October 19, 2015 meeting are found here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49560. The June 23, 2014 staff
report (ID #4922) regarding the lease update is found here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/42767
Timeline:
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.77 section 18.77.070 requires appeals to be
brought to City Council within 45 days of the City’s receipt of the appeal. The appeal was
submitted November 9, 2016.
Environmental Review:
The project was reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
City of Palo Alto Page 10
(CEQA), with circulation of an Initial Study and publication of revisions to that Initial Study to
address project revisions during the process. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved
by the PCE Director and a Notice of Determination for the project was filed at the County of
Santa Clara within five days of the PCE Director’s approval. The IS/MND is viewable at this
link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54166; the MND is attached
to this report (Attachment G), as is the initial Study (Attachment K). Another Notice of
Determination will be filed following the Council’s decision on this project.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Signed Approval Letter October 27, 2016 (PDF)
Attachment B: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B: MMRP 10.27.16 (DOCX)
Attachment C: ARB findings (DOC)
Attachment D: Excerpt October 12th HRB 2nd meeting (DOCX)
Attachment E: 10-20-2016 ARB transcript Excerpt (DOCX)
Attachment F: Appeal (PDF)
Attachment G: 450 Bryant MND adopted (DOC)
Attachment H: Petition from La Comida Diners (PDF)
Attachment I: October 11, 2016 HRB meeting minutes (DOCX)
Attachment J: Avenidas Project Description 3.1.16 (PDF)
Attachment K: Avenidas Initial Study Final (PDF)
ATTACHMENT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
450 Bryant Street, Avenidas Expansion (File 16PLN-92)
On October 20, 2016, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approvalof the application
referenced above, and the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the
project on October 27, 2016. Project Planner: Amy French.
GENERAL CONDITION
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans dated received
September 26, 2016, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. These conditions of
approval shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permits.
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
1. Mitigation Measures: The measures included in the MMRP attached as Exhibit 1 are hereby incorporated as a
condition of approval.
2. Architectural Review Approval:
a) 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 AR
approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect unless application for extension of this entitlement
is submit prior to the one year expiration.
b) The following additional conditions shall be satisfied in building permit plans: (1) bird friendly glass shall be
incorporated on the parking-lot facing side as well as the park-facing side of the addition, (2) reflect the
location of public art.
c) The following project details shall return to a subcommittee of the ARB to ensure project details listed
herein are consistent with the approval findings, prior to the submittal of associated building permits: (1)
consider revising the light fixtures (i.e. the art-deco sconces in the 10/20/16 ARB plan set), and include
courtyard trellis light fixture, photometric plan, and any exterior emergency egress lighting for the former
garage (if separate from the trellis lighting), (2) a detail of the trash enclosure roof/trellis showing material,
and (3) final palette showing the paint color to be used for the exterior of the existing Category 2 building
(which staff may present first to a subcommittee of HRB members).
d) All future signage proposed for this site and any exterior modifications to the building or property shall be
subject to Architectural Review/Historic Resources review prior to installation.
3. Legal Matters/Fees:
a) 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 attorney’s 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.
b) This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the time by which judicial
review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
c) Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who desires to protest the fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at
the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the
October 27, 2016 that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the project. Additionally,
procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions
are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY
PERIOD OR TO FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020,
YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES,
DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS.
d) Parking In-Lieu Fees: Fees in the amount of $1,955,441.00 shall be paid for 29 parking spaces associated
with the net new floor area but not provided on site. The amount reflects the rate in effect at the time of
planning entitlement ($67,429 per space); this amount shall be paid prior to the issuance of the building
permit associated with this entitlement.
4. Noise: All noise producing equipment shall not exceed the allowance specified in Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code.
UTILITIES - ELECTRICAL
5. Prior to Building Permit
a) The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted
during plan review.
b) The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private,
within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground
Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work.
c) Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
d) If this project requires padmount transformers, the location of the transformers shall be shown on the site
plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule &
Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below).
e) The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches,
and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City.
f) The location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the
Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department.
g) The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service
point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and
shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18.
h) The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to
the California Electric Code requirements and City standards.
i) For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned and maintained
by the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and
associated substructure required for the fault interrupter.
j) Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems
standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost
of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20.
k) Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite
electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility.
l) The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use.
6. Building Permit Requirements
a) Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering
and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and
construct the electric service requested.
b) A completed Utility Service Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications
involving electrical work. The Application must be included with the preliminary submittal.
c) The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a
signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be
disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be
issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed.
d) All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be
shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities
and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is
consistent with the building design and setback requirements.
e) Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the
street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips.
f) At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA)
at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for
underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by
the customer or contractor when construction is complete.
g) The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for
the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All
conduits must be sized according to California Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits
are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense.
Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may
be constructed by the Applicant.
h) All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30
inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500
feet in length require additional pull boxes.
i) All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected
by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling.
j) For services larger than 1600 amps, a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s
padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear may be required. See City of Palo Alto Utilities
Standard Drawing SR-XF-E-1020. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility
Engineering Division for review and approval.
k) For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the
transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct or x-flex cable must be used for connections to
padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary
terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required.
l) The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition
cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the California Electric Code and the City
Standards.
m) Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment
Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations.
n) Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for
review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project
Engineer, Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303
o) For 400A switchboards only, catalog cut sheets may be substituted in place of factory drawings.
p) All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection
Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
q) The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number
and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads.
r) The follow must be completed before Utilities will make the connection to the utility system and energize
the service:
o All fees must be paid.
o All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection
Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.
o All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant.
o Easement documents must be completed.
UTILITIES – WATER GAS WASTEWATER
7. Prior to Demolition Permit Issuance
a) The applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to
verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not
submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures.
b) The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed
affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of
request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services
and/or meters have been disconnected and removed (existing building).
8. Plan Requirements
a) The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and
location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters,
backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any
other required utilities.
b) The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray
water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc).
c) 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 (if required).
d) 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.
e) 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 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.
f) Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s
expense.
g) Existing water services that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s
expense.
h) The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with 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.
i) Each unit or 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.
j) A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape plan (≥ 1000
SQFT lawn area). Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as
an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape
plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto
water efficiency standards.
9. For Building Permit
a) 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).
b) The applicant's engineer may require to submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that
the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains (existing 5.4” PE sewer main) and services will
provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development
and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined
current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a
registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study
of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows
or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the
senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW
engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted.
c) 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.
d) Existing wastewater main is 5.4” PE on Bryant Street (sewer lateral to be 4”)
e) If a new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch
through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading
lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard
detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans.
f) If a new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water
service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire
system including all fire department's requirements. Please see a fire/domestic combination service
connection for your project - see City of Palo Alto standard WD-11.
g) If a new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas
meter location must conform to utilities standard details. Gas meter to be installed above ground.
h) A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans
i) All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW
utilities procedures.
j) Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot 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.
k) To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the
front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no
damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring.
l) All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas &
wastewater.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
10. Install a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14 standpipe and NFPA 72 fire alarm system. Extend fire sprinkler
protection to covered trash enclosure.
11. Public safety radio amplifier system is required in the facility if the property owner’s analysis determines
two-way fire/police radio transmission is not adequate.
12. New elevator car shall be sized to accommodate a gurney and two medical personnel.
WATERSHED PROTECTION
13. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities: New buildings providing centralized
solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a
dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm
system to prevent water run-on and runoff from the area. The current plans show a trash enclosure. Zero
Waste will determine whether all waste streams will fit into this structure. Such a waste stream shall
include tallow from the kitchen if applicable.
14. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater: Prior approval shall be obtained from the city
engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city
engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both
would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state
or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such
water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal
Code (16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to
discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set
forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule.
15. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water: Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect
connection to the sanitary sewer system. And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices,
Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system only if the area in which the drain
is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate
wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional information regarding
loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k)
16. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper: On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper
metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be
permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is
required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this
prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that
the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the
definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the
current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
17. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC: Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain
to the storm drain system.
18. PAMC 16.09.205 Cooling Towers: No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm
drain system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger, any substance that
contains any of the following:
(1) Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter;
(2) Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter;
(3) Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
(4) Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or
(5) Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to dilution with the cooling system,
pool, spa or fountain water.
A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blowdown water from the new cooling tower.
Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to meet a copper discharge
limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter.
19. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping: Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not
be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink
traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The
plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing.
20. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches: Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps.
21. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers: It shall be
unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the
storm drain system.
22. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling: Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No
dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent.
23. If any of the offices are used for medical purposes, including a dental facility, they must comply with PAMC
16.09.220 and install an amalgam separator.
24. If work occurs on the kitchen area, all Food Service Establishment Requirements must be met PAMC 16.09,
including Grease Control Device Requirements.
PUBLIC ART
25. The applicant intends to incorporate art into the project and has been working with public art program staff
to meet with the Public Art Commission. The final review with the Public Art Commission must be
completed and the project artist and artwork approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
artwork must be installed as approved prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. If the applicant
chooses to instead pay to the public art fund in – lieu of commissioning art on site, the funds must be
received prior to the issuance of a building permit.
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
26. Prior to Demolition Permit Issuance
a. LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall prepare a construction logistics plan for the
work associated with the building permits, including demolition. Plan shall be submitted to Public
Works Engineering and shall address 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, on-site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control,
dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact. The plan shall be prepared
and submitted along the building permit application. It shall include notes as indicated on the
approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site.
b. The plan provided shows that the applicant is proposing to take up the entire parking lot and
potentially close off lane 13. This is not acceptable. Revise the plan to show the 20-foot wide lane
13 is open and accessible to the public. The construction main entrance/exit shall be located at
the parking drive aisle that is immediately west of the project site, with primary access to the
lane. Gate swings to open into the parking area. The parking area (22 parking spaces) closest to
the street shall remain open to general public. Contractors will not be permitted to use this area
for temporary parking. A secondary construction gate may be required for larger cranes to exit
the work site. For the secondary exit, provide flagger control exit only at second gate (near the
proposed concrete washout area). Provide a note on the plans to indicate the second gate, exit
only is for crane or larger trucks use only. Relocate the VBI trailer to the parking spaces on the
other side of the landscape island or the contractor shall use the office within the building during
construction. Plot and label all of the construction fence area.
c. Provide the long term traffic control measures directly on the logistics plan, include no left turn
sign into the parking lot from the lane, flagger at the 2nd construction entrance, etc.
d. Demolition Plan: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and
Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no
closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division
contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”.
27. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
a. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If
the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans
for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set.
The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website.
b. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: Provide a separate Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a
qualified licensed engineer, surveyor or architect. Plan shall be wet-stamped and signed by the
same. Plan shall include the following: existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes
(cut and fill in CY), pad, finished floor, garage elevation, base flood elevation (if applicable) grades
along the project conforms, property lines, or back of walk. See PAMC Section 16.28.110 for
additional items. Projects that front directly into the public sidewalk, shall include grades at the
doors or building entrances. Provide drainage flow arrows to demonstrate positive drainage away
from building foundations at minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC Section 1804.3.
Label the downspouts, splashblocks (2-feet long min) and any site drainage features such as
swales, area drains, bubble-up locations. Include grate elevations, low points and grade breaks.
Provide dimensions between the bubblers and property lines. Bubblers shall not be closer than
10-feet from the property line. In no case shall drainage across property lines exceed that which
existed prior to grading per 2013 CBC Section J109.4. In particular, runoff from the new garage
shall not drain into neighboring property. For additional grading and drainage detail design see
Grading and Drainage Plan Guidelines for Residential Development.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717
c. As discussed at the DRC the applicant does not foresee any additional structural or excavation
associated with the basement. Should this change in the future, the project will be subject to
Basement Shoring, Dewatering and Geotechnical requirements applicable at that time.
d. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street
gutter or connect directly to the City’s infrastructure, revise the Grading and Drainage plan to
direct downspout runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. The storm drain plans
shall clearly show how this project will allow the site runoff to infiltrate on-site and reduce the
storm water quantity before it reaches the main line.
28. Stormwater (C3) Requirements: Based on the project site and size, it is assumed that this project will
trigger the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water
regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to small projects or
residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of
impervious surface area. If triggered the applicant must implement one or more of the following site design
measures on the grading and drainage plan:
a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.
b. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.
c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.
d. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.
e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.
f. Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces
29. 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.
a. Provide the following note adjacent to the area on the Site Plan: “Any construction within the city
right-of-way must have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to
commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE
BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.”
b. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not
stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.
Construction phasing shall be coordinated to keep materials and equipment onsite or within
private property.”
30. Utility Plan: Given the proposed scope of work, it appears that this project will trigger utility upgrades
including but limited to water meter, backflow prevention, transformers or a grease interceptor. Plot and
label the proposed utilities on the utility plan, note that these shall be located completely within the parcel
and out of the road or lane right-of-way.
31. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter: As part of this project, the applicant must replace all existing sidewalk, curbs,
gutters and driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. The site
plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work (at a
minimum all curb and gutter and sidewalk along the project frontage). 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. Pavement: Any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the
following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor may be responsible for resurfacing portions of
Bryant Street and parking lot area based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits
of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project
frontage and parking lot area may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the
site plan.
33. Stormwater Pollution Prevention: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet
must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732
34. Impervious Surface Area: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious
surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious
surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments
form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website.
BUILDING INSPECTION
35. The accessible elevator landings above or below the level of exit discharge (Grade level) shall include a Two-
Way communication system per CBC 1007.8
36. Show Type of Construction on the plans and submit building area calculations to verify the allowable story
height and floor area of the single use and/or mixed use buildings. Include which method is proposed,
Accessory, Separated or Non-separated. In addition, provide calculations to verify the total allowable
building area of the building. For mixed occupancies, the total allowable building area of a mixed occupancy
building with more than one story above grade shall comply with CBC 508.1. (2013 CBC 506.1)
37. A structural analysis of the horizontal resistance system(s) shall be included for the modifications to the
existing structure.
38. The materials used in the proposed construction shall be of a material that is consistent with the existing
structures building construction type.
GREEN BUILDING
39. Green Building Requirements. The project shall be subject to all applicable building codes, including
Green Building requirements. Requirements are subject to change. In particular, there will be new Palo Alto
ordinance amendments targeted to become effective January 1st, 2017. In addition, the project is subject to
the City Council’s 2007 Green Building Policy for City Facilities. You may email Liz Cordero at
Liz.Cordero@cityofpaloalto.org for specific questions about your project. Please also visit the Green Building
Compliance page for more details: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp
URBAN FORESTRY
40. Tree Protection Report (TPR): The TPR submitted with the Building Permit shall include protection and water
monitoring for any trees to be retained on the site and adjacent trees that overhang the project site. The
city parking lot adjacent to this site, outside the lease line, contains Regulated Trees, including trees that
overhang the project site.
41. Building Permit: The Building Permit shall include:
a. A Tree Disposition Sheet showing all existing conditions of the site, curb cuts, utilities and trees to
be retained, removed, and relocated.
b. Grading and drainage plan that includes existing and proposed contours @ 2-foot intervals,
shows any excavation proposed in the tree protection zone of any regulated trees including
parking lot trees overhanging the site. Drainage shall be directed away from any oak.
c. Plan notes for any excavation or activity proposed in the TPZ any regulated tree. Indicate on plans
the area and details for removal of existing concrete, grading, and irrigation system over tree
roots with the dripline area, consistent with TTM, Sec.2.40.
d. Accurate locations for TPZ fencing placement, specifying ‘Type I’ around the protected trees and
public street trees, as noted in the tree survey or tree preservation report.
e. All existing and proposed utility, telecommunication, driveway construction, transformer and pad
size, above and below ground locations within the dripline of any regulated tree. Avoid any
reference to utilities within 10 feet of public trees on either side of the sidewalk.
42. Tree Removal: One regulated Camphor tree in the City parking lot outside of the lease line is proposed to be
removed. The construction project may impact other existing mature shade trees beyond recovery. A
replacement plan consistent with the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.25 requires contribution to the
Forestry Fund to achieve parity with tree loss.
43. During Construction:
a. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work a written verification from the contractor
that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section
(derek.sproat@cityofpaloalto.org). The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in
place until final inspection of the project.
b. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or
trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference,
with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed
with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional
boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance,
shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor.
c. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be
reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, (name of certified arborist of record
and phone #), or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the
revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry.
d. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on
the plans submitted for building permit.
e. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and
inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in
the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The
required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the
project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity
report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall
be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification
approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11.
f. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting,
injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section
2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or
protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25.
g. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No
storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure
area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained
shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
44. Prior to Occupancy:
a. URBAN FORESTRY DIGITAL FILE & INSPECTION. The applicant or architect shall provide a digital file
of the landscape plan, including new off-site trees in the publicly owned right-of-way. A USB Flash
Drive, with CAD or other files that show species, size and exact scaled location of each tree on
public property, shall be delivered to Urban Forestry at a tree and landscape inspection scheduled
by Urban Forestry (650-496-5953).
b. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification
letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that
they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans.
c. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final
occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final
inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of
Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The
written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or
recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report
may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process,
when applicable.
d. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner
(650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures,
fixtures, colors and site plan accessories.
45. Post Construction: All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according
to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical
Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by
the current property owner within 30 days of discovery.
MMRP Page 1 of 8
Exhibit 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Project Name Avenidas Expansion Project Application
Number 16
PLN-92
Applicant
Agreement
Signed by applicant before final approval action Date 6/30/16
Approved by Signed by Director after MND approval action Date 10/27/16
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If feasible, vegetation on the
project site shall be removed outside of the bird-
nesting season. If the start of site clearing, tree
removal, or building demolition occurs between
February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction
survey for nesting birds protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist to identify the location of nests
in active use that were established prior to the
start of project implementation activities. The
pre-construction survey shall take place no more
than 7 days prior to initiation of construction. All
trees and shrubs on the site and on adjacent
properties shall be surveyed, with particular
attention to any trees or shrubs that would be
removed or directly disturbed. If an active nest of
a protected bird is found on site, the biologist
shall, in consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
Applicant/
Construction
Crew/ Project
Biologist
February 1
through
August 31
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
MMRP Page 2 of 8
determine whether construction work would
affect the active nest or disrupt reproductive
behavior. Criteria used for this evaluation shall
include presence of visual screening between the
nest and construction activities, and behavior of
adult birds in response to the surveyors or other
ambient human activity. If construction could
affect the nest or disrupt reproductive behavior,
the biologist shall, in consultation with CDFW,
determine an appropriate construction-free
buffer zone around the nest to remain in place
until the young have fledged or other appropriate
protective measures are taken to ensure no take
of protected species occurs. If it is determined
that construction will affect an active raptor nest
or disrupt reproductive behavior, then avoidance
is the only mitigation available. Construction shall
not be permitted within 300 feet of such a nest
until a qualified biologist determines that the
subject nests are no longer active.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit or tree
removal permit, the City of Palo Alto (City) shall
verify that pre-construction surveys have been
conducted within 10 days of the proposed start
of demolition. If active bird nests are present, the
City shall verify that CDFW has been consulted
and either determined that construction will not
affect an active bird nest or that appropriate
MMRP Page 3 of 8
construction-free buffer zones have been
established or other appropriate protective
measures have been taken.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: No earlier than 30 days prior
to initiation of construction activities, a pre-
construction survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist (i.e., a biologist holding a
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) collection permit and a Memorandum of
Understanding with CDFW allowing the biologist
to handle bats) to determine if active bat roosts
or maternal colonies are present on or within 300
feet of the construction area. Surveys shall
include the structures proposed for demolition.
Should an active maternity roost be identified,
the roost shall not be disturbed and construction
within 300 feet of the maternity roost shall be
postponed or halted until the juveniles have
fledged and the roost is vacated, as determined
by a qualified biologist. Consultation with CDFW
shall also be initiated. Under no circumstance
shall an active roost be directly disturbed.
If nonbreeding bat hibernacula are found on the
project site, the individuals shall be safely evicted
under the direction of a qualified bat biologist
Applicant/
Construction
Crew/Project
Biologist
Before
construction
activities
commence
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
MMRP Page 4 of 8
and with consultation with CDFW. These actions
shall allow bats to leave during nighttime hours,
thus increasing their chance of finding new roosts
with a minimum of potential predation during
daylight.
If it is determined that construction will not affect
roosting behavior or disrupt a maternal colony,
construction may proceed without any restriction
or mitigation measure.
If it is determined that construction will affect an
active bat roost or disrupt reproductive behavior,
then avoidance is the only mitigation available.
Under no circumstance shall an active roost be
directly disturbed. Construction within 300 feet
shall be postponed or halted until the roost is
naturally vacated as determined by a qualified
biologist.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the City
of Palo Alto (City) shall verify that pre-
construction surveys have been conducted within
30 days of the proposed start of demolition. If
bats are present, the City shall verify that CDFW
has been consulted and either determined that
construction will not affect an active bat roost or
disrupt a maternal colony, or that individuals in a
nonbreeding bat hibernacula have been safely
MMRP Page 5 of 8
evicted.
Due to regulations from the California Health
Department, direct contact by construction
workers with any bat is not allowed.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: A Tree Protection Plan shall
be prepared addressing each tree that would be
subject to project construction activities
occurring within the tree’s dripline. Further, the
tree protection measures recommended in the
Arborists report for the proposed project shall be
incorporated into project construction plans.
Specifically, the construction plans and Tree
Protection Plan shall include:
All existing trees shall be numbered on the site
plans to match the tree tag numbers used in the
arborist report.
Any trees that will be near construction or
demolition disturbance shall be well-hydrated
before any demolition or construction work
begins and throughout construction
A qualified tree service shall be used for all tree
pruning, which shall include only what is required
for site access, demolition, and construction
Tree protection fencing must be installed around
Applicant/
Project Arborist
Prior to
Building
Permit
Issuance
(including
Demolition)
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment/
Urban Forester
MMRP Page 6 of 8
trees within or adjacent to the construction area
that will not be removed. Fencing must be installed
as described in the Tree Protection Plan. The
fencing shall be inspected by an arborist prior to
initiation of construction and all construction
activities shall be conducted outside any tree
protection fencing.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If artifacts or unusual
amounts of shell or bone or other items
indicative of buried archaeological resources or
human remains are encountered during earth
disturbance associated with the proposed
project, the on-site contractor shall immediately
notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native
American Heritage Commission as appropriate.
All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100
feet of the discovery until a qualified
archaeologist, as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14
CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a
significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be
treated in accordance with California Health and
Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public
Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and
5097.99, which include requirements to notify
the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office
Applicant/Const
ruction Crew
During
construction
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
MMRP Page 7 of 8
and consult with Native American
representatives determined to be the Most Likely
Descendants, as appointed by the Native
American Heritage Commission. Identified
cultural resources shall be recorded on State
Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523
(archaeological sites). Mitigation measures
prescribed by the Native American Heritage
Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical
Examiner’s office, and any Native American
representatives determined to be the Most Likely
Descendants and required by the City shall be
undertaken before construction activities are
resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural
resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation
program, including measures set forth in the
City’s Cultural Resources Management Program
and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and
15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be
implemented.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition,
the project applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey
of the existing buildings has been conducted by a
qualified environmental specialist who meets the
requirements of the current U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-
containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based
Applicant
Prior to
building
demolition
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
And
Development
Services
MMRP Page 8 of 8
paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials
(ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely
to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a
contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead-
or asbestos-related construction work. If found,
LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of properly. If
PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed
in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of
1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections
42160–42185) and other state and federal
guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and
contract specifications shall incorporate any
necessary abatement measures in compliance
with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly
Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special
Handling, for the removal of mercury switches,
PCB-containing ballasts, and refrigerants.
__________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL
450 Bryant Street/Avenidas Senior Center
______________________________________________________________________________
The design and architecture of the proposed project complies with the Findings for Architec-
tural Review as required in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76 Section 18.76.020.
Comprehensive Plan and Purpose of ARB:
Finding #1: The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
Finding #16: The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural
review, which is to promote orderly and harmonious development in the city, enhance the
desirability of residence or investment in the city, encourage the attainment of the most
desirable use of land and improvements, enhance the desirability of living conditions upon
the immediate site or in adjacent areas, and promote visual environments which are of
high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each
other.
The project is consistent with Findings #1 and #16 because:
The project complies with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan), which notes
that the Senior Center (Avenidas) is a ‘central facility for delivery of services and a social
center for seniors’, and that the City promotes provision of senior services and intends
to facilitate permits for senior centers.
The Plan notes that the City supports implementation of the Downtown Urban Design
Guide (Guide) which, though not mandatory, provides ‘useful ideas and direction for
development.’
Avenidas is an “important landmark” in the Civic Cross Axis in the Guide, which also asks
that Cogswell Plaza be transformed into an “appealing and active public space”, and
encourages 2- to 3-stories on Bryant and Ramona facing Cogswell Plaza, to create an
‘outdoor room’. A 3-story addition facing Cogswell Plaza is proposed.
The project design is of high aesthetic quality and variety, as seen from different
viewpoints, and reflects a desirable use of land and improvements.
Compatibility and Character:
Finding #2: The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site.
Finding #4: In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character;
Finding #5: The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in
areas between different designated land uses.
Finding #6: The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site.
The project is consistent with Findings #2, #4, #5, and #6 because:
The project is to retain and rehabilitate the existing historic buildings (a Category 2
historic resource and the ‘garden room’/former garage of the same era that contributes
significance), and provide a compatible but differentiated addition meeting the
Secretary of Interior’s Standards.
The addition will not encroach upon the adjacent park (Cogswell Plaza), upon the public
parking lot, or into the alley.
The addition is connected to the historic building with a glass ‘hyphen’ in a way that
retains a view of the existing building and allows the addition to be subordinate to the
existing main building.
The La Comida dining room is a non-historic, later addition.
The addition is compatible with the historic resource, but reflects differentiation by not
‘mimicking’ the listed historic resource in a way that was evident in the existing dining
room to be removed.
The historic site is the northwesterly terminus of Civic Cross Axis which begins at the
Civic Center Plaza/City Hall, as cited in the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The Guide
notes this axis reflects a “Mediterranean style” of many existing buildings which is a
“positive and unifying element” that “future development should support but not
necessarily imitate.”
The expansion will allow continued use and upgrades to allow a successful program to
serve the senior community into the future.
The addition will be compatible with the character of the surrounding area, which
includes historical context:
o Avenidas is located across from the 50’ tall City parking structure, built in 2002.
o Avenidas is fairly distant from Ramona Street and Lytton Avenue, as follows:
95’ from the parking lot’s outer edge abutting Ramona Street right of way.
150’ from Cogswell Plaza’s northernmost edge abutting Lytton Avenue.
o There are two Category 3 historic resources fronting University Avenue: 251-255
University, a financial services building built in 1910, and 271 University, a
restaurant built in 1935; the other buildings are not listed nor deemed eligible in
1998 for listing on the California and National Registers (281 University, retail,
and 259-267 University, restaurants and personal services uses). The 15’ wide
Paulsen Lane separates Avenidas from these one- and two-story buildings.
o Two buildings on the opposite block of Ramona Street were deemed “potentially
eligible” for the California Register in 1998: 470 Ramona, built in 1925, and 235
University, built 1920-25. The remaining buildings on Ramona were built
between 1949 and 1986.
o Two buildings are listed as Category 4 resources on the opposite block of Lytton
Avenue: 251 and 255 Lytton; the other buildings were built in the 1970s.
The project site is zoned Public Facility and adjacent to a park and a parking lot, also
zoned and designated for public land uses.
The taller walls of nearby buildings (on Bryant, Lytton, and Ramona) help the park
(Cogswell Plaza) meet the Guide’s goal for an ‘outdoor room’. The placement of the
three story addition with its third floor step-back next to mature trees along the edge of
Cogswell Plaza, contributes to meeting the Guide’s goal.
The project’s design is intended to be compatible with, and differentiated from the
existing historic buildings on the site.
Though there are no approved improvements for the Lot C parking lot, the project
would not impede ADA improvements currently under consideration, nor any future
landscaping improvements. The Avenidas expansion project would be subject to
requirements for replacing damaged parking lot asphalt, curbs, and restriping, at a
minimum, following project construction.
Functionality and Open Space:
Finding #3: The design is appropriate to the function of the project.
Finding #7: The planning and siting of the building on the site creates an internal sense of
order and provides a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general
community.
Finding #8: The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and
the function of the structures.
The project is consistent with Finding #3, #7, and #8, because:
The main entry to the historic building will remain on the primary façade on Bryant
Street; new bike racks proposed along Bryant will serve the staff and visiting bicyclists.
The addition replaces the existing first floor dining room with an upgraded dining room,
and provides improved and expanded indoor facilities for other critical Avenidas senior
activities.
The addition retains a courtyard with an overlooking second floor balcony and two third
floor decks. The design will allow indoor-outdoor circulation and vibrancy for senior
activities to provide a desirable environment for occupants and visitors.
The addition provides a secondary entry to the main entry on Bryant Street, allowing
visitors to the center easy access from the parking lot behind the center. Improved
trash and recycling facilities are provided, accessible from the service alley.
The addition’s third floor would be set back from the first and second floor volume to
reduce the perceived scale of the building as seen from the park and courtyard. Roof
decks and the courtyard provide amenity space for the seniors and staff of Avenidas.
Circulation and Traffic:
Finding #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.
Finding #10: Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for
pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
The project is consistent with Finding #9 and #10 because:
A new trash enclosure is proposed to serve the needs of the center. The proposal
includes pedestrian and bicycle improvements to facilitate pedestrian movement
around and into the building.
Landscaping and Plant Materials:
Finding #11: Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the
project.
Finding #12: The materials, textures and colors and details of construction and plant material
are an appropriate expression to the design and function and compatible with the adjacent
and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions.
Finding #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 on the site and the landscape concept depicts an
appropriate unit with the various buildings on the site.
Finding #14: Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly
maintained on the site, and is of a variety that would tend to be drought-resistant and to
reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance.
The project is consistent with Finding #11, #12, #13, #14 because:
Existing natural features (street trees along the Bryant Street frontage, and mature trees
at the southerly edge of Cogswell Plaza) will be appropriately preserved. One Camphor
Tree in the parking lot adjacent to the project site will be removed; a City CIP project will
address future parking lot improvements.
The proposal includes materials that will be compatible and appropriate in that they will
not ‘mimic’ the historic materials, but the colors will help the addition to be compatible.
Bird-friendly glass will be used on large windows facing the park.
The proposed addition will be located behind mature screen trees in the park, which will
interrupt views of the addition from the park and provide “scale” for the addition.
The proposed landscape materials are well suited for the proposed environment.
Plantings along Bryant Street frontage and park frontage will be installed. New vine
plantings on the addition facing the parking lot will be compatible with existing vines on
the garden room facing the parking lot. The Japanese maple in the courtyard will be
retained and supplemented with new, appropriate plantings.
Sustainability:
Finding #15: The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design
elements including, but not limited to careful building orientation to optimize daylight
to interiors, high performance, low-emissivity glazing, cool roof and roof insulation
beyond Code minimum, solar ready roof, use of energy efficient LED lighting, low-flow
plumbing and shower fixtures, below grade parking to allow for increased landscape
and stormwater treatment areas.
The project is consistent with Finding #15. The project includes bird-friendly glass, and would
comply with the City’s green building requirements for the new addition, including CalGreen
Tier 2 and the local energy reach code. Given the long term lease of the building, an exemption
will be granted from the City policy requiring LEED Silver for City buildings.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Vice Chair Margaret Wimmer; Board Members David Bower, Roger Kohler, Patricia Di
Cicco [via conference call]
Absent: Beth Bunnenberg, Chair Martin Bernstein, Michael Makinen
Oral Communications
Vice Chair Wimmer: We’d like to call this meeting to order. Today is Wednesday, October 12th and this is
the meeting of the continuation of the meeting of yesterday for the City of Palo Alto Historic Resources
Board. We are again convening to pick up where we left off on our Action Item #2.
Ms. Cara Silver: Let the record reflect that we have one absent, and two recusals based on a common
law conflict of interest. I am Cara Silver. I’m the Senior Assistant City Attorney and I wanted to just say a
few remarks about the process that we will be following today for the continued hearing. As you know,
this has been a very difficult meeting to schedule. We have two members who have been recused. We
have one member who is out of town. One member who is at home, recovering from surgery and we
thank her for joining us telephonically. We also have another member that is scheduled to go out of town
on Thursday thus necessitating the need to conduct this meeting on a rather expedited basis this week.
As you know, the Brown Act does allow for telephonic meetings; however, when there are some
absences, the Brown Act says that telephonic meetings require that there be a quorum of people
participating within Palo Alto. Since there are so many absences, we needed to conduct this rather
unusual process of requiring that somebody who is out of town cannot participate telephonically. That
would not allow for a quorum to be present in Palo Alto. Yesterday, what happened is that we did not
notice that the meeting would be – that one of the Board Members would be participating telephonically
and so we have now corrected that technical issue. We have posted the agenda on the board outside and
publicly noticed that one of the Board Members will be participating telephonically. We’ve noticed the
address and any member of the public who would like to appear at the address and observe the Member
who is participating telephonically may do that, as allowed under the Brown Act. What we will proceed to
do now is to conduct a continued hearing. What we would suggest is that since there was a quorum
present yesterday but there was this technical issue, we would suggest what you do is that you make a
motion to incorporate by reference all of the comments that were made at the hearing yesterday. Those
comments were recorded through the media center and we would suggest that you would incorporate
them into the record of proceedings so that then you do not repeat your comments, but that you allow
members of the public who would like to participate today to make additional comments and then you
can, today, use your time to make any additional comments that you would like in response to the
comments you’ve received today. Then, we would ask that you do make a motion on the project and that
motion will be delivered to Architectural Review Board which is the next administrative body to hear this
item.
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
None
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: October 12, 2016
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
10:30 A.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Action Items
Member Pat DiCicco will be participating from her home at 860 University Avenue in
Palo Alto
1. QUASI‐JUDICIAL MATTER. 450 Bryant Street, Avenidas [16PLN‐92]: Recommendation
to the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Project’s Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Recommendation to the Architectural Review Board for
approval of an Architectural Review Permit to allow the renovation, partial demolition
and addition to an existing historic resource resulting in a net floor area increase of
7,128 square feet. The Project was evaluated in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. An Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA.
The public hearing for this project was continued to this date from October 11, 2016.
Vice Chair Wimmer: I guess first should we see if there are any members of the public who would like to
speak on behalf of the project in acknowledgment of what you have already said yesterday?
Ms. Lisa Hendrickson: May I just speak briefly?
Vice Chair Wimmer: Sure.
Ms. Hendrickson: Lisa Hendrickson and I will be very brief. I wanted, on behalf of all of us at Avenidas,
to thank you all for your considerable effort to be here today to conclude the business of yesterday’s
meeting. I also wanted to share with you how grateful we all are for your expressions of support and not
a little bit relieved. We agree with you. This building has only gotten better. The design has only gotten
better and largely because the suggestions you’ve made over the meetings that we’ve spent together.
We are really looking forward to building it and opening it to the public so that everybody may enjoy it.
At which time we will be truly able to say that it took a village, and so thank you for being part of that
village.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Thank you.
MOTION
Board Member Bower: Chair Wimmer, can I make a motion that we include all of our deliberations as
part of this meeting today so that the discussion we had yesterday can be part of the record and I hope
that we get the support of the rest of the Board and then a second and then an affirmative vote?
Vice Chair Wimmer: It sounds like we have a motion to kind of pick up where we left off yesterday and
yesterday we were all in support of the project. I guess the motion is to incorporate…(Crosstalk)
Board Member Bower: This is just to incorporate yesterday's information, public input, our discussion with
staff so that that body of information (Crosstalk) can be included.
Board Member Makinen: I’ll second that motion.
Vice Chair Wimmer: With Board Member Di Cicco on the phone, all those for that motion say I.
Everybody: I.
Vice Chair Wimmer: All those opposed? So, that passes unanimously.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Ms. French: 4-0 and then two…
Vice Chair Wimmer: With one absent and two…
Board Member Bower: two abstentions or two recusals, correct.
Vice Chair Wimmer: That passes.
Ms. French: Thank you.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Is there any new business or anything else we need to talk about.
Ms. Silver: The second piece of your discussion I think is that you should make a motion on the
substance of the project. So the first motion incorporated all of your deliberation and the public testimony
and then the second piece for you to discuss is whether to recommend approval of the project to ARB.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Ok.
MOTION
Board Member Bower: I would like to make two motions. Let's just start with the first one. I think one of
the things we need to weigh in on for both the director of planning and the ARB is the issue of the
negative declaration – neg. dec. – I can’t…
Ms. French: Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Board Member Bower: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Anyway, so I think that I’d like to move that we --
I think we support the report as it’s presented to the Board, which does show that negative impacts of
the projects can be mitigated, and it’s discussed in great detail, starting on page 35, I think, of our
packet? It’s the DUDEK report and it goes through all of the issues, the environmental issues. To my
reading this report, I think it’s thorough and demonstrates that the impacts can be mitigated. I’m
proposing that we accept the report.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Should we vote on that one?
Board Member Bower: We have to have a second.
Vice Chair Wimmer: I’ll second that.
Board Member Bower: Is there any discussion?
Vice Chair Wimmer: I don’t think so.
Board Member Bower: Pat? Any discussion?
Board Member Di Cicco: I would agree.
Vice Chair Wimmer: All those in favor of accepting the information on the negative – study – the
mitigated negative declaration. All those in favor of supporting that information say I.
Everybody: I.
Vice Chair Wimmer: All those opposed say nay. That also passes with 4 members present, two recused
and one absent. Then your second question.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Female: You’re doing a great job, David.
MOTION
Board Member Bower: I don’t want to monopolize the time here but since time is short and Pat – we’ve
done most of our work yesterday, I would like to move that we accept – that we recommend to the ARB
the project as is currently designed, and I’ll just read a couple of things into this motion: that we agree
that the garage is original fabric and should be retained, that the addition as described in the memo from
ARG, which is dated October 4th, 2016 and is part of our packet, convincingly discussed Secretary of
Interior Standards number 9 and 10, and how this project is now compatible in its massing and its
material selections and does not overwhelm the original building, one of the most important things that
we discussed as a Board over the many meetings. I’m hoping that the rest of the Board will join me in
supporting this and moving this on to construction.
Vice Chair Wimmer: I’ll second that motion. Let’s have a vote, all in favor…
Board Member Bower: Discussion?
Board Member Di Cicco: I agree. I vote yes.
Board Member Kohler: I’m voting yes as well, but I think David did a very appropriate summary that
really narrows it down. As we (Inaudible) noted yesterday that we thought that this was an excellent
project. I vote yes.
Board Member Bower: I’m also voting yes. That’s four yeses and no nays.
Board Member Kohler: Well, several absent.
Board Member Bower: With two recusals and one absence; seems to be a pattern here. I don’t know. Is
there anything else we need to do?
Vice Chair Wimmer: I think that pretty much concludes what we started yesterday so I think…
Board Member Bower: Right. I mean… (Crosstalk)
Board Member Di Cicco: (Inaudible)
Board Member Bower: … that’s what the staff had asked us in the report to weigh in on.
Ms. French: I would just say it would be important for me to acknowledge, because I don’t know if I did
yesterday, there was some email from a gentleman named David Hirsch, who you are familiar with, and I
did forward that email to all of you and you did receive that email. He was interested in knowing that, so
I would like to state for the record that it was forwarded and you did…
Vice Chair Wimmer: Yes, and we all received that, yes.
Board Member Di Cicco: I would agree with your statement. I did read it. I reviewed it. I did receive it, I
believe three or four days ago before the last meeting.
Ms. French: Thank you.
Board Member Di Cicco: Yes, and with that, I think, as far as I can understand, we’ve all unanimously
agreed that this project will go forward and that my vote will count. Ok?
Board Member Bower: Good.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Ms. French: Thank you so much for participating.
Board Member Bower: I guess we can adjourn the meeting.
Vice Chair Wimmer: I guess if there’s no – any other business or anything else we… (Crosstalk)
Board Member Kohler: We have any meetings of the future that you know of?
Ms. French: The next meeting we are targeting is November 10th. Due to the change in staffing here,
Matt’s last day is coming up next week. There is a note later, but we will be acknowledging his leaving in
a way you can participate in. Because of the staffing change, I think we’re going to wait until November
10th to pull together anything that needs to come forward. We have no projects right now, other than
follow up on the bulletin and…
Board Member Kohler: Is there a replacement planned?
Ms. French: We’re working on getting some consultant help for the moment in the interim.
Board Member Kohler: Alright.
Vice Chair Wimmer: One other item I just wanted to discuss with (Inaudible) – this is just a Board issue,
what can we learn from Board Members speaking in front of the ARB or speaking at other meetings, with
the result of them not being able to participate. I don’t think they realized that that would happen when
they did speak. Maybe just as a reminder or lesson for the Board is that maybe we need to gain
clearance or ask, is it ok if I speak at another Committee or Council Chamber or any kind of other ARB
meeting on the project that is also considered one of our projects that we’re reviewing. I think that was
the conflict that this was a project that was also a continuation project for us. I don’t think that they
realized that that would prevent them from participating as Board Members. That’s what I’m thinking. It’s
a lesson for us. I don’t know that…
Board Member Bower: Can I make a suggestion that since this is not on the agenda that we put this on
our next agenda?
Vice Chair Wimmer: Yes, I think we should.
Board Member Bower: That’s the suggestion I think you are making.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Yes, I think we should.
Board Member Bower: I think that maybe Cara you could come back and talk to us about this.
Ms. Silver: Good idea.
Board Member Bower: So that we understand. (Crosstalk)
Vice Chair Wimmer: (Inaudible)
Board Member Bower: I was intending to go to that meeting and had I gone, there’d be no quorum
today.
Ms. French: Well I think generally speaking we encourage the Chair – invite the Chair actually - to go and
convey what the Board as a Board did at their last meeting. You know we reviewed, we did this, we did
that, as a group. I think we can talk more about this on November 10th.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Ms. Silver: We will actually – we are preparing a confidential writing for you on these issues and it will
actually be delivered to you, either today or tomorrow and then I will be happy to come back and have a
public presentation with the whole Board and so members of the public can also learn about…(Crosstalk)
Vice Chair Wimmer: I think that would be educational and helpful for us to better understand that.
Board Member Bower: And the public can comment. (Crosstalk).
Board Member Kohler: Confidential?
Ms. Silver: Yes. (Inaudible)
Ms. French: Another item I might put on…(Crosstalk)
Board Member Bower: (Inaudible)
Ms. French: Another item for the November 10th meeting. I was thinking because we do have our joint
meeting coming up with the Council on December 12th, I think that’s the target date right now. We could
have a discussion of what we might bring to that joint meeting.
Vice Chair Wimmer: That would be great.
Board Member Bower: So is that technically scheduled with the Council?
Ms. French: I believe it is. I’ve seen it on the advanced scheduled, December 12th. Mark your calendars.
Hopefully, we can get a quorum to be there.
Board Member Bower: It’s important that we are there… to talk to the council. I think I’ll be in town.
Ms. French: It would be great. I can prepare a report from last year’s meeting with the Council and the
historic program for that meeting on the 10th.
Vice Chair Wimmer: With that, we are adjourned.
Adjournment
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Present: Chair Robert Gooyer, Vice Chair Alexander Lew, Kyu Kim
Absent: Board Member Baltay, Board Member Furth
Amy French: Board Member Furth and Board Member Baltay are recused on the two items today and will
not be participating. Thanks.
Action Item 3
3. 450 Bryant Street [16PLN-00092]: Recommendation to the Director of Planning and
Community Environment for Approval of an Architectural Review Permit to Allow the Renovation,
Partial Demolition, and Addition to an Existing Historic Resource Resulting in a net Floor Area
Increase of 7,158 square feet. Environmental Assessment: This project has been reviewed in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared for this Project. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF)
zoning district. The ARB hearing of this Project is continued from September 1, 2016. For
additional information contact amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org.
Chair Gooyer: If that's the case, why don't we start with Item 3, which is 450 Bryant Street,
recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for approval of an Architectural
Review permit to allow the renovation, partial demolition and addition to the existing historic resource
resulting in a net floor area increase of 7,158 square feet. Environmental assessment, this project has
been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA. An Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Zoning district, public facilities, PF,
zoning district. The ARB hearing of this project is continued from September 1st, 2016.
Ms. French: Good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. Today we are here for the third formal
hearing of the 450 Bryant Street, the Avenidas Senior Center, project. As you are aware, we have three
members participating today. We do have a quorum. This went to the HRB last week. On the 12th,
they rendered a decision which was to recommend to the ARB and the Director approval of the project.
Today we are seeking the ARB's recommendation. As the third formal hearing, today is the day, per our
Code, that we're looking for a recommendation one way or the other. We're interested in hearing your
comments on the revised Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration. It was revised to reference a
more recent report from the historic consultant on the project. There's been some discussion about
retention of the former garage called the garden room. They weighed in on that and on the more recent
project, which was the revisions made to address the ARB's comments made on the last meeting, which
was in August. I'm sorry; September 1st is when that occurred with the ARB. Our request today is that
you review and comment on the Architectural Review findings for approval, which is what staff is
recommending. We reference the Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Design Guide, which is referenced
in the Comprehensive Plan. Just a note. In the Public Facilities Zone, the Context Based Design Criteria
that you're accustomed to seeing do not apply. Those are not contained in that chapter of the Zoning
Code. The third floor has been reduced as you saw in plans. It's also been in-set as part of that
reduction. The garden room is retained, and there's a new deck over the courtyard, providing some
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES: October 20, 2016
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
City of Palo Alto Page 2
interaction there. Bird-friendly glass is being used on both the parking lot-facing elevation and the park-
facing elevation. There's some new details. Looking at the Bryant Street elevation, we have an addition.
This is the latest set of renderings showing the reduced third floor. The addition is definitely visible from
Bryant Street, but it is subordinate to the primary facade. The HRB found that to be the case. The view
from Cogswell Plaza with the trees shows that not a lot of it will be seen. It will be interrupted as far as
views from Cogswell Plaza. You can see the hyphen is how the addition and the Category 2 building are
connected. That allows visibility, viewing of the Category 2 building. Here we have a view from the
parking lot. This view does not show street trees along Ramona. If you're on the sidewalk, there will be
street trees to interrupt this view as well. There are a couple of trees in the parking lot, not a whole lot.
This glassed-in tree is not really a tree, as we are clear that that's a placeholder for public art. The
applicant is meeting with the art folks and will be going to the Public Art Commission to look at a piece of
art for that space. As I noted, bird-friendly glass is proposed. It's the dotted glass. Here's this new
courtyard. Sorry; this new deck where the third floor was pulled back. You can see in the June scheme
where the floor came out to. That floor has been pulled back, and it's now a deck overlooking this
courtyard. That does provide some interactive space. There were formerly panels, the metal panels, up
here. Those have been replaced by glass. Just in summary. From the park and alley elevations, as you
see here, you can see this glass hyphen. You can see the floor pulled back. Here's the courtyard where
they have the trash facilities and the nice, new gate that they're proposing. This is about 65 feet from
Bryant Street, so it's quite a distance from the main facade, the entry. Here I have the plans that are in
front of you. This is an elevation from the set that came to you in September, showing Approach 1. You
can see here that the pitch of the roof has changed a bit and flattened. It's gentler than it was in
September. The height has been reduced from this set in September to this now. You can see the
additional trim that comes out. As far as the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Dec, I noted it's been
revised to reflect the reduced square footage. This is the net square footage increase of 7,158 square
feet. In terms of net floor area, it's not a large project for this increase. We have the aesthetic section
of the document that is the purview of the ARB. That has not changed since the last time you saw this,
the aesthetic section. There is a reference to cultural resources. That section did change to reflect that
memo from the historic consultant. The AR findings are provided in this set. We are still on the findings
that are in the existing Municipal Code. Council has not finalized its deliberations on the Architectural
Review findings. We are still grouping those 16 findings into sets. I put those on the screen here. We
could come back to those later. That concludes staff's presentation. The applicant is here to make a
presentation.
Chair Gooyer: Does the applicant ...
Lisa Hendrickson, Avenidas: Good morning. I'm Lisa Hendrickson. I haven't spoken to you before. If I
may this morning take a couple of minutes. I'm currently the capital project manager at Avenidas. We're
returning today with modifications that respond to your comments at your September meeting. We're
very hopeful that you will approve this design. We agree with others that the numerous modifications
that we've made have only made this design better. I'd like to take a few minutes to explain why further
delays, however, would put this project at serious risk and also to respond to Mr. Hirsch's comments at
the last meeting and his letter to you requesting yet again that we demolish the old garage and start over
with a two-story design. Next month it will be 2 years since we first met on this project. In November
2014, there was a study session at the site. We presented a two-story design that eliminated both the
garage and the courtyard. At that meeting, we were urged by the City staff as well as members of the
HRB and perhaps members of this Board—I don't remember—to further study the historic characteristics
of the garage. We asked our historic consultants, ARG, to do that. They returned with a report that
asserted that the garage is part of the historic fabric of the site and should be retained. To be honest,
we were a little disappointed. The City accepted these findings, and it would have been, of course,
unethical to seek a firm that would return with different findings. In July 2015, we returned with an
entirely new design featuring a three-story addition where there is now a 1970s dining room and
preserving the garage and much of the courtyard. This design reflected many of the comments that we
received from this Board and the HRB. Our participants were very pleased that we were retaining much
of the courtyard. There was concern expressed that the design called for the removal of some of the
original eaves. We were asked to create a separation between the original building and the addition. We
City of Palo Alto Page 3
were also asked for a design that was more compatible with the historic building. We returned again in
May of 2016, this year, with a design that added a connector to preserve the eaves and with less
contemporary styling, more in keeping with the historic building. Your comments were generally
supportive, and we took note of the suggestions that you made with regard to massing and the
additional detail that you requested. Over the summer, the City obtained a peer review of the historic
resources evaluation, which confirmed ARG's findings about the garage. The CEQA document was
completed. Last month we returned again with a design that reflected additional modifications and
details that addressed your questions. We hope for your support for this design today for several
reasons. Notwithstanding the comments that have been made about the significance of the garage and
this design's compatibility with the Standards, that compatibility has been supported by two historic
resource experts. A new design that demolished the garage would trigger a focused EIR, adding several
more months to the entitlement process and could put the approving authority in the position of having
to approve a design that did not comply with the Standards. We have been advised that if the City were
to approve such a design, it would be risking a lawsuit for having approved the demolition of the garage.
We also understand that the City usually asks the applicant to bear the cost of defense of such a lawsuit.
Further delays put our project at risk for other reasons. Delays add unaffordable expense to the project.
We've already spent about $500,000 on design costs and City fees and another $400,000 on fundraising
expenses. Construction costs are escalating. There is only so much money that we can fundraise for this
project, and delays add to the difficulties of funding the costs. Delays also put our fundraising at risk.
We have a lead donor who will fund 20 percent of the project costs, but we will not be able to meet the
conditions of his gift unless we start construction in 2017. Another $250,000 gift comes with the
condition that the project be approved this year. Other gifts are contingent on design approval. Further
delays put these pledges at risk. Our almost 90-year-old building is sorely in need of modernization. Our
community's seniors deserve a better community center, one that is safer and with enough space for all
of the programs that they want. We are 2 years into this entitlement process and have made numerous
modifications to the design at the request of this Board and the HRB. The window to get this done is
closing. We urge you to support this design today and hope you do. Thank you very much. With that,
Kevin Jones, our architect, is going to describe the modifications.
Chair Gooyer: Thank you.
Kevin Jones: Good morning. My name is Kevin Jones. I'm with Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners
Architects. I'm going to try to just do a fairly brief overview of some of the things that we've presented
to you in the past, basically focusing on the comments that we heard from you and how we have
addressed those comments in our drawings. I think the comments that we've heard from both the ARB
and the HRB over these past couple of months have yielded a much better project as a result of those.
I'd like to share that with you now. Here's a little bit of a summary in kind of bullet form of the items
that we heard from this Board and how we've addressed them. I'd just sort of like to briefly walk
through them. Basically concerns about the overall height of the building. The approach was to step the
third floor back. In doing so, we reduced some floor area, but I think the result of it, as you can see in
some of the materials, really does a good job of altering the perception of the massing of the building.
In doing so, we also on the third level, as Amy pointed out, pulled the third level back along the
courtyard face to allow for much more of a two-story feel on that edge, and then creating an exterior
deck as well. The clay tile comment, which I think was a great one as well. We're utilizing a flat, clay tile
instead of the barrel tile that occurs on the existing building, further creating a differentiation between
the historic building and the proposed new building. The next items here are about some cornice details
and glazing. I'll walk you through those as we kind of go through it. As just a general overview, the
massing of the project consists of the main 1926 Birge Clark building, the garden room or the former
shed building, which we are retaining. There is the connector element that helps to create a glass
connection in some ways between the old and then the new addition. That vocabulary carries its way up
through the project as you proceed up the levels. Again, the second story of the Birge Clark building and
the connector between the Birge Clark building and then the new structure and then down at the one-
story level the existing, former shed building or the garden room. The third floor only here. Here's the
area where we pulled back the facade at the loss of some square footage, but we were able to create a
very pleasant deck that would look down into the courtyard as well as reducing the massing of the
City of Palo Alto Page 4
building along the courtyard face. At that level, we have an exterior patio deck here as well as a larger
one here that the original design had proposed. We've also done some work to try to reduce the roof
heights and the pitches to again create a much shallower impression of it. These are the elevations, one
from Bryant Street. The other one here is from the alleyway. The renderings give you a more true-to-
life appearance of what happens in terms of where the perspective enters into it. You can sort of see on
the wall here and also in your packet these renderings which help give you a better feel for what that
perception will be if you're really on the ground looking at the building. Those elements are highlighted
by the existing garden room building. This large glass element, which enters into a two-story, atrium-like
space, serves as both vertical circulation, a stair and elevator, and a connector between the old and the
new. Most of the program inside of the building in terms of the new elements are within this wing of the
building. The ground-level of it being the loo and the new dining room. The second level being a
wellness center, and the third level being a fitness center component. I'm getting this sign to sum up.
I'm going to zoom a little bit here. We spent some time developing particular details. Much of the
building is limestone-clad in large-scale pieces as well as precast concrete trim elements, which you'll see
through it further articulation of the glazing system on the third floor, which shows in the renderings as
well. Railing details, all of this is in your packet. Additional elements in terms of providing sunshading
throughout. Here the view of the project from Bryant Street with the addition in the background. A view
from the parking lot as Amy described. You can see here the stepping back of the third floor, reducing
the appearance of this element to be smaller than that of the main building. By pulling the building back
on the third floor, I think it does create a feeling of this as being the second story. In addition to having
the glazing here, it does create a much more ...
Chair Gooyer: If you'll start to wrap it up.
Mr. Jones: I can wrap it up now. Any questions you might have, please ask. I as well as our Avenidas
contingent can try to answer them. Thank you.
Chair Gooyer: I think we're good at the moment. Thank you. I have three speaker slips, starting with
Kathleen Basak and then Linda Jolie. You'll have 3 minutes.
Katherine Basak: My name is Katherine Basak. I'm presenting in behalf of my neighbor, David Hirsch,
who could not attend today. David is a respected, thoughtful and articulate architect with over 50 years
of experience designing public buildings in New York City. To the ARB. The entire Avenidas scheme that
you have seen for months is the result of a mistaken conclusion by the historic consultants with the
misguided urging of Avenidas and the approval of the Planning Department. This mistaken conclusion is
a garage structure behind the Birge Clark-designed building merits special consideration as a historic
feature. Consider the following. It was built after the original design as an afterthought by Birge Clark
and not included in his original drawings. It was hidden for years, hemmed in by other buildings. See
the Sanborn maps in the historic report. It was only exposed to view when the surrounding buildings
were torn down and this area became a parking lot. It was never the intention of Clark for it to be seen
from this open parking space as is clearly evident in its blank wall. It does not represent any of the
special, significant design characteristics of Birge Clark buildings. The question is why should you accept
this structure as a legitimate historical element. As architects, I am sure some of you know that
preserving it while the three-story addition is constructed immediately adjacent to it, with the deep
foundations that are required, will be an expensive piece of work and cause immeasurable complications
and cost to the project. If you ask, as the HRB did in an official vote, that the applicant show you a
scheme without the garage, you will discover that it is possible to construct a two-story structure
containing the entire Avenidas program completely in scale with the Birge Clark building. The applicant
and the City chose not to bother with this HRB request. You won't have the opportunity to see this
unless you do not accept what is being presented here today. This will be a hard choice because there is
a conspiracy between the applicant, City Planning and their hired historic consultant to preserve this
meaningless garage structure and its adjacent minimal courtyard to the detriment of a proper design.
These should not be the aesthetic judges. You should. Turn this proposal down and require the
applicant to redesign a two-story scheme by eliminating the garage. Respectfully, David L. Hirsch, RA,
AIA, 798 Palo Alto Avenue.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Now, I have Linda Jolie [phonetic], and then Wes Marinov.
Linda Jolie: Hi. I'm Linda Jolie. I actually have attended Avenidas and so has my friend, Wes Marinov.
We're familiar with the attitude of users there and we're familiar with the attitude of members of La
Comida which supplies the meal. To make a long story short, there is massive opposition among those
people to this proposal. The Board Members of La Comida have actually said that they can pull out of
Avenidas, ending the meal, ending the relationship. There's also a chance that they will propose legal
action to end this thing. This is a very disturbed proposal, which should not go any further. I have extra
copies of the architect's article exposing this, if Board Members would like to consider that. The users of
Avenidas do not want their program broken up. They don't want to be moved to another building during
construction. These are older people in walkers that should not have to undergo this. They're not here
because they are in walkers. I think we represent them. I think that the underpinnings of this project
have not been examined. The need for this project has not been adequately examined. I described the
mendacity behind us. It has been alleged that Avenidas is overcrowded and, therefore, has to expand.
Why don't you go there and see how overcrowded it is? The dining room is only half empty. There has
been an allegation that there will be seniors in the future who will need these facilities. I tell you I'm
over 70, and I don't see seniors like me using these facilities. There is loud music. There are other
things that we don't want. You're going to build a big, expensive, empty building if you build this. You
should reconsider the motives behind this, money or whatever it is. As far as we can see, we do not
want it. We don't want it.
Chair Gooyer: I now have Wes Marinov, and then Herb Borock.
Wes Marinov: Good morning. My name is Wes Marinov. I got involved in this project on the urging of
some vocal opponents of the project among the La Comida diners, the seniors who are the customers of
Avenidas and La Comida. I presented a list of 20 signatures, some of the more vocal opponents, during
the Historical Review Board meeting about a week or 10 days ago. I hope that committees for the City
Council communicate with each other so you can get a copy of that list. Unfortunately, the negative
sentiment continues to persist; although, there have been efforts on the part of the project management
to popularize it or to expose the diners to the truth of the project. The main objections are, one, the
people like that building, the current La Comida building. They like the cozy style, Spanish type. They
like the ability to look at the park and at the same time look at the patio. The patio is the other question
here. Most of the diners are opposed to have this patio be demolished. I understand the new version
will have part of the courtyard remaining. The current atmosphere of sitting in this building that people
have gotten used to love will not be maintained. I don't know how much time I have. There is another
point here. There were allegations that some of those opposed to the project, diners of La Comida, have
gone to the management and have complained and have not been listened to. Unfortunately, this was
not confirmed. I talked to the main opponent, Electra [phonetic] (inaudible). She was in the hospital. I
waited until she got out. She is in some—I'm sorry, I can't say that word—convalescent home. I talked
to her and she couldn't remember whom she talked to. I want to apologize to any present involved
managers who got (crosstalk).
Chair Gooyer: If you'll wrap it up.
Mr. Marinov: A couple of sentences more. There was an event which was quite discussed, and that was
an altercation between Bruce Felber [phonetic] and Phil. The La Comida management or manager did
not listen to one of the parties. Maybe that's why Electra imagined this thing. We can safely assume this
is not true, that the managers and La Comida and the Avenidas and the project ...
Chair Gooyer: Thank you.
Mr. Marinov: ... managers listened.
Chair Gooyer. Thank you. I now have Herb Borock, and then Bruce Heister.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Herb Borock: Good morning, Chair Gooyer and Board Members. This agreement between the historic
experts is a classic disagreement that the Council can decide on as an argument between experts. While
you're being threatened that if you agree with Mr. Hirsch, the City would be sued, whoever sues will lose
the case. There's no concern for economic reasons there. There is a potentially significant effect by
going along with the proposal. That is, you will be spending all this money building a big building that's
supposed to serve all the seniors, but it won't. We all know how crowded Downtown is with all the over-
development. It really doesn't serve people who are unable to get there. The alternative that should be
studied is to have an alternate, second location down at a place like Cubberley where you won't need all
this building Downtown. You have what purports to be a recommendation from the Historic Resources
Board. In fact, the Historic Resources Board could not make a legal recommendation because every
member who participated on the October 12th meeting had already expressed an opinion on October 11
which was not a legal meeting. Therefore, they demonstrated bias. They could not incorporate what
they did on October 11th into the October 12th meeting. If they could do that, they could do the same
thing for Chair Bernstein and Board Member Bunnenberg, who also expressed an opinion outside of the
regular meeting and, therefore, had to recuse themselves. I mentioned this on October 11th and urged
the HRB not to proceed and make comments, but they did anyway. The history is that there was a public
notice as required by environmental law that was not required to have a description that you would have
for the Brown Act. It omitted the fact that actions were being taken. The Brown Act notice was correct.
The agenda was posted and said that actions would be taken. There was someone participating from a
remote location. It wasn't noticed on the official notice that that person would be participating. The
agenda posted at the remote location was not the agenda for the Brown Act. It was what was published
in the public hearing notice, which omitted the fact that actions would be taken. It's very clear that the
meeting on October 11th was not a meeting of the HRB. What happened there could not be
incorporated into the October 12th meeting because members of the HRB were expressing an opinion
outside of a legal meeting and, therefore, had bias which prohibited them from participating in the action
on October 12th. As far as Mr. Hirsch is concerned, since he's new to Palo Alto, he may not be aware of
the process to preserve his rights going forward. The next stop would be, if he disagrees with the
Director's decision ...
Chair Gooyer: If you'll finish it up.
Mr. Borock: ... to appeal. Thank you.
Chair Gooyer: Thank you. I have one more speaker, and that is Bruce Heister.
Bruce Heister: I am a member of Avenidas. I am former Chair of the Board and still on the Board. I live
at 107 Emerson Street, within walking distance of Avenidas. I think that people have (inaudible) talked
about 20 people signing a petition, for instance, from La Comida. Avenidas serves over 7,500 people a
year, clients. Of that, 1,600 of them are actual members of Avenidas. Very few of the people who go to
La Comida have actually joined Avenidas as memberships. Avenidas hosts the La Comida program.
You're hearing not the majority of members who benefit from Avenidas, the 7,500. You're hearing from
at most 150 people that make up the dining set. With respect to what Avenidas has been doing, we
have started to look at obviously using Cubberley as a second point to relocate during construction but
also to use that as a place to start setting up classes. Avenidas carried on for over 5 years a discussion
with the City about actually locating a wellness center in conjunction with some other organizations at
Cubberley. Of course, because of the problems of Cubberley's ownership or joint ownership or lack of a
future, nobody was able to guarantee anything that would allow you to put money into a location down
there. It would be using the existing buildings but not adding any new building with the kind of facilities
that seniors demand today, particularly for physical fitness. Thank you for hearing me.
Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board on this item?
Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Board. Kyu, why don't you start?
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Board Member Kim: I'll start with two quick questions for clarification. In the staff report, it was noted
that the HRB meeting minutes from October 11th and 12th would be provided. I did not see those yet.
just wondering if ...
Ms. French: I think they weren't returned from our transcriptionist. It was just last Wednesday. I can
give a basic summary of that meeting. I think I provided a summary in the staff report itself. I apologize
...
Chair Gooyer: That would probably be a good idea.
Ms. French: ... that I did not have those available at places today. In essence, just to respond to
Mr. Borock's comments. The ad was correctly placed in the newspaper. The agenda was posted on the
Friday. It did not state that telephonic participation was going to happen. The morning of, we put
something out on the table to clarify that. It was not 24 hours in advance, which was the requirement
for that agenda. What happened then at that meeting on the 11th is at 10:30, there was a continuation
of the meeting to the next day beginning at 10:30. A notice was placed outside and at the HRB
member's house regarding that meeting the next day. The HRB incorporated the comments made on the
11th and made a decision on the 12th. That was posted, that agenda. All four members that were
participating, one telephonically, recommended approval of the project. I guess we don't have a number
here today to convey the Board's general opinion about that. To sum up, they were pleased at the
changes, the revisions. They did read and they announced, and I asked each one of them to clarify that
they had read Mr. Hirsch's letters to the Board. They had and considered all of that and considered the
report that ARG had prepared regarding the compliance of the project with Secretary of Interior
Standards 9 and 10, retention of the garage. They were resolved in their opinion and did forward that
recommendation for approval of both the Initial Study and the project.
Chair Gooyer: Thank you.
Board Member Kim: My second question is regarding the approximate construction year of the
garage/shed. In the architect's drawing set, it's been noted that it was an addition made in 1950.
However, in the historic report, it says approximately 1930. Is there clarification on that?
Ms. French: Yes. 1930 is the correct. The 1950s addition was the kind of kitchen area to the side that
you can see from Bryant Street. It's the Bryant Street-facing, one-story component of the building,
attached to the Category 2 building. The shed at the back is the 1930 building. I can show it on the
screen if that would help.
Board Member Kim: No, I think that's okay. Thank you. I just want to say thank you to the applicant
and to the architect for the presentation. I'm actually very pleased with the way this project has
progressed and the latest revisions that have been made. I actually find the project and the building to
be very poetic. I think there's kind of a beauty that's been—there's a certain beauty that's come up
throughout the evolution of the project. I think looking at the way that the old building is separated from
the new building, the transition, the way that the new building is kind of nestled between two parts of
the older buildings while also retaining the courtyard, the size, the massing, even though the new
structure is taller, I do think there has been quite an effort made to make the taller portion of the
building still feel subordinate to the historic structure. I think there's been a real careful kind of
punctuation to the way that this project has begun to situate itself on the site. I think in a project like
this it's the very little things that make a very big difference. I'm very pleased with the way that the
project has come to where it's been presented today. I appreciate the changes that you've made to the
metal panels along with the new entry on the parking lot side, changing them to glass, pulling back that
third-story portion facing the courtyard and also the other architectural details to the roof, the eaves.
The other accent elements, I think, make a big difference in bringing this project together. I do not find
this three-story scheme to be overly massive. I think I've stated several times in previous meetings that
facing towards Eleanor Cogswell Plaza, it's very well screened by those trees. Even if it wasn't for those
trees, I think a case can be made that this building does not look out of place. I think there are other,
City of Palo Alto Page 8
taller structures in the surroundings such as the parking structure itself even that do not make this
building feel too large. It's very hard finding a balance. I think you've really, truly come to find that
balance. I applaud your efforts and your resolution that you've come to. I would be more than happy to
approve this project, seeing the changes that you've made. Again, thank you for your revisions and
sticking through the process.
Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Alex.
Vice Chair Lew: Eloquently said, and I agree with everything that you described, Kyu. I think the only
difference that I have is—I have like a list of nitpicky things that I think should come back to the Board at
some point. I think ...
Chair Gooyer: The Board or the ...
Vice Chair Lew: I'll go through the list, and then we can talk about it. I think I did also want to
distinguish two elements regarding the third floor. It seems like there are two issues. There's one issue
which is the three-story mass overwhelming or over-scale to the park. There's a second issue of is the
three-story addition over-scale to the historic, existing building. I think those are two issues. There's
been opposition to them. I think that some of the other Board Members who aren't here today and then
also David Hirsch are mixed up. They both sort of wanted to redo this scheme but, I think, they were
making somewhat different arguments. With regard to the three-story, we have lots of three-story
buildings around open space or courtyards here in Downtown. If you go all throughout the Stanford
campus, you'll see lots of three-story buildings around courtyards. They're fine. They're beautiful
spaces, and they're attractive. I think that's the case with this particular project. I'm not in a position
to—I would not support somehow changing the ARG historic report and the peer review, which both
state that retention of the garage is the correct solution. My list of things that I think should come back
somehow. The new light fixtures; they seem like a little art deco style to me. They don't seem quite
right. That's just a minor issue for me, though. They're illuminating outward. I would prefer ideally like
some sort of shielded fixture or a down-light. We don't have a photometric plan of them. I think we
have a photometric cut sheet of the fixture itself, but we don't have the photometric plan for the project.
Also, I think you're showing trellis lights in the courtyard, but those don't appear in the lighting plan. I
think my question would be if you have required egress through the courtyard, then do you need to meet
the emerging lighting standards and whatnot for that. Also, in that courtyard, I think, we don't have any
details of the trellis or the trash enclosure roof. It seems like it's somewhat of a combined structure. I
would caution you that sometimes I've had like the Building Department require those trellises to be fire-
rated if it's part of the egress path of travel. It seems like some of the landscape drawings are showing
the trellis as wood, but in some other photos it looks like it's a metal structure. I think we need to see
that. Also, the landscape plan is showing a pittosporum hedge along the park side of the project. It
wraps into the—what do you call it? The hyphen, the glass connector window: that seems to me the
wrong solution to have like a 15-foot high hedge blocking the nice window that you have there. I think
that's like a feature window. It should make a connection between the building and the park. I'd like to
see that revised. We don't have any—at least in our packets, in our drawings we didn't really have any
of the colors or materials specified. I think maybe there's a color board. That's great. I haven't seen it.
I think my question would be for the architect. Sometimes there's an issue when you have like
sunshades and all the other metalwork. Sometimes it's hard to get those to match the windows. I don't
know how you figured that out. Depending on what you specified, sometimes it works and sometimes it
doesn't work. I think we just need to see all of the materials together. Also, I don't think we've seen any
of the paint colors for the existing building. I was wondering if you're doing all of this work, that maybe
the existing building would be repainted, maybe not. I don't know. We haven't seen anything for that.
If that is happening, I would like to see the colors and have the HRB weigh in on those. That's what it is.
They're nitpicky, but that's where I am. I can support the project.
Chair Gooyer: I agree. This project, I think, is very nicely done. I think it's come a long way since the
first time we saw it. It is a three-story building, but I don't think the way it's been designed that it
overpowers the existing two-story building. As far as the couple of items you have, those to me are
City of Palo Alto Page 9
subcommittee items if you want to do that. You're right with some of the things. As far as the anodized
aluminum, for instance, sometimes you won't know that until it actually comes out in the field. Then, it's
going to have to be a call on the architect's part to say, "I either accept these or don't accept these."
I've done it myself, where you just have to do some work between the various vendors and see if you
can get it done at the same time. I don't have a real problem with that. The same thing. I'm willing to
approve it as it stands right now. Can I get a motion from one of you?
Ms. Gerhardt: Chair, if I may. Can we just confirm that we've closed the public hearing before we make
a motion?
Chair Gooyer: I'm sorry?
Ms. Gerhardt: Can we just confirm that we have closed the public hearing before we make a motion?
Chair Gooyer: I'm sorry. I did close the public hearing already. I closed the public hearing and then
brought it back to us. Can I get a motion from one of you?
MOTION
Board Member Kim: Sure. I will move that we approve the project with the following things to come
back for subsequent review with the subcommittee. These items are to include possibly reconsidering
the light fixtures and also seeing the details for the light fixtures that we do not have spec sheets on; an
overall photometric light study; details of the trellis and also the trash enclosure roof, if they are separate
or if they are a single structure; and the final colors and materials palette and that they also be reviewed
one more time; and also to look at possibilities of repainting the existing historic structures.
Chair Gooyer: He got everything pretty much that you have?
Vice Chair Lew: I will second that.
Chair Gooyer: All those in favor? Against? Passes 3-0 or 3-0-2, I guess.
Ms. French: Two recused, absent actually.
Board Member Kim: Can I just say on the record that I'm very appreciative of the comments that were
made by the public, also including Mr. Hirsch. I think those comments are important. I do not want the
public to think that we disregard those comments. They are taken into consideration. I really hope to
see more of those kinds of comments and engagement by the public in the future. Thank you.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
450 Bryant Avenue 1 October 2016
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
California Environmental Quality Act
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
MND/Project Approval: October 27, 2016
Application No: 16PLN-00092
Address of Project: 450 Bryant Street
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 120-26-095
Applicant: Lisa Hendrickson, for Avenidas
Owner: City of Palo Alto
Project Description and Location: Avenidas proposes to renovate 15,783 square feet (sf) within the
existing Avenidas Community Center and construct a new 10,185-square-foot wing (inclusive of the 434-
sf, uncovered deck on the third floor). The project would provide Avenidas with a total of 25,534 sf of
new and modernized interior building space. The project would also provide for replacement and update
of old mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, seismic upgrades and installation of an ADA-
compliant elevator. The project includes demolition of the existing 2,592 sf dining room, such that the
total increase in floor area would be 7,158 square feet.
The proposed construction and building improvements would result in a facility that includes a ±11,000-
square-foot first floor (comprised of a lobby, reception, classroom, dining room and kitchen, and an
atrium in the lobby), a ±9,200-square-foot second floor spanning both the original and new buildings
(consisting of multipurpose rooms, meeting rooms, classrooms, a wellness area, and administrative
facilities), a ±2,342-square-foot third floor within the new building (containing a fitness room, restrooms,
and small lounge leading to two uncovered outdoor decks, a ±818-square-foot shed (used for program
space) and a renovated ±2,000-square-foot basement (encompassing a small auditorium).
The site is located on a portion of Assessor’s parcel number 120-26-095, at 450 Bryant Street. The
existing facility shares the block with a public parking lot and Cogswell Plaza. The project site is located
in the northwestern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County and across
El Camino Real (State Route 82) from Stanford University. The project site is located on the north side of
El Camino Real between Middlefield Road and Alma Street, more particularly, within the block bounded
by University and Lytton Avenues and Bryant and Ramona Streets.
II. DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project
Mitigated Negative Declaration
450 Bryant Avenue 2 October 2016
located at 385 Sherman Avenue could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that
study, the City makes the following determination:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation
measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
The initial study prepared for this project described above incorporates all relevant information regarding
the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not
required for the project. The following describes the areas of analysis and any mitigation measures
incorporated into the proposed project in accordance with CEQA.
A. AESTHETICS. The project will not have a significant impact on aesthetics or visual resources,
therefore no mitigation is required.
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. The project will not have a significant impact on agriculture
or forest resources, therefore no mitigation is required.
C. AIR QUALITY. The project will not have a significant air quality impact, therefore no
mitigation is required.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Biological Resource Impact 1:
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If feasible, vegetation on the project site shall be removed
outside of the bird-nesting season. If the start of site clearing, tree removal, or building demolition
occurs between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey for nesting birds protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify the
location of nests in active use that were established prior to the start of project implementation
activities. The pre-construction survey shall take place no more than 7 days prior to initiation of
construction. All trees and shrubs on the site and on adjacent properties shall be surveyed, with
particular attention to any trees or shrubs that would be removed or directly disturbed. If an active
nest of a protected bird is found on site, the biologist shall, in consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), determine whether construction work would affect the
active nest or disrupt reproductive behavior. Criteria used for this evaluation shall include
presence of visual screening between the nest and construction activities, and behavior of adult
birds in response to the surveyors or other ambient human activity. If construction could affect
the nest or disrupt reproductive behavior, the biologist shall, in consultation with CDFW,
determine an appropriate construction-free buffer zone around the nest to remain in place until the
Mitigated Negative Declaration
450 Bryant Avenue 3 October 2016
young have fledged or other appropriate protective measures are taken to ensure no take of
protected species occurs.
If it is determined that construction will affect an active raptor nest or disrupt reproductive
behavior, then avoidance is the only mitigation available. Construction shall not be permitted
within 300 feet of such a nest until a qualified biologist determines that the subject nests are no
longer active.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit or tree removal permit, the City of Palo Alto (City) shall
verify that pre-construction surveys have been conducted within 10 days of the proposed start of
demolition. If active bird nests are present, the City shall verify that CDFW has been consulted
and either determined that construction will not affect an active bird nest or that appropriate
construction-free buffer zones have been established or other appropriate protective measures
have been taken.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: No earlier than 30 days prior to initiation of construction
activities, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (i.e., a biologist
holding a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) collection permit and a
Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW allowing the biologist to handle bats) to determine
if active bat roosts or maternal colonies are present on or within 300 feet of the construction area.
Surveys shall include the structures proposed for demolition.
Should an active maternity roost be identified, the roost shall not be disturbed and construction
within 300 feet of the maternity roost shall be postponed or halted until the juveniles have fledged
and the roost is vacated, as determined by a qualified biologist. Consultation with CDFW shall
also be initiated. Under no circumstance shall an active roost be directly disturbed.
If nonbreeding bat hibernacula are found on the project site, the individuals shall be safely evicted
under the direction of a qualified bat biologist and with consultation with CDFW. These actions
shall allow bats to leave during nighttime hours, thus increasing their chance of finding new
roosts with a minimum of potential predation during daylight.
If it is determined that construction will not affect roosting behavior or disrupt a maternal colony,
construction may proceed without any restriction or mitigation measure.
If it is determined that construction will affect an active bat roost or disrupt reproductive
behavior, then avoidance is the only mitigation available. Under no circumstance shall an active
roost be directly disturbed. Construction within 300 feet shall be postponed or halted until the
roost is naturally vacated as determined by a qualified biologist.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the City of Palo Alto (City) shall verify that pre-
construction surveys have been conducted within 30 days of the proposed start of demolition. If
bats are present, the City shall verify that CDFW has been consulted and either determined that
construction will not affect an active bat roost or disrupt a maternal colony, or that individuals in
a nonbreeding bat hibernacula have been safely evicted.
Due to regulations from the California Health Department, direct contact by construction workers
with any bat is not allowed.
Biological Resource Impact 2:
Mitigated Negative Declaration
450 Bryant Avenue 4 October 2016
Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: A Tree Protection Plan shall be prepared addressing each tree that
would be subject to project construction activities occurring within the tree’s dripline. Further,
the tree protection measures recommended in the Arborists report for the proposed project shall
be incorporated into project construction plans. Specifically, the construction plans and Tree
Protection Plan shall include:
All existing trees shall be numbered on the site plans to match the tree tag numbers used in the
arborist report.
Any trees that will be near construction or demolition disturbance shall be well-hydrated before
any demolition or construction work begins and throughout construction
A qualified tree service shall be used for all tree pruning, which shall include only what is
required for site access, demolition, and construction
Tree protection fencing must be installed around trees within or adjacent to the construction area
that will not be removed. Fencing must be installed as described in the Tree Protection Plan. The
fencing shall be inspected by an arborist prior to initiation of construction and all construction
activities shall be conducted outside any tree protection fencing.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Cultural Resource Impact:
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items
indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth
disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify
the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All
soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified
archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14
CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be
treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California
Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to
notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American
representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native
American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State
Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures
prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical
Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely
Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are
resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation
program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and
in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be
implemented.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
450 Bryant Avenue 5 October 2016
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY. The project will not have a significant impact due to
geologic features either on or off-site, therefore no mitigation is required.
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. The project will not have a significant impact due to
greenhouse gas emissions, therefore no mitigation is required.
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact:
Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted
by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs),
including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs
shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related
construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of properly. If PCBs are found,
these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991
(California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines
and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary
abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175,
Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-containing
ballasts, and refrigerants.
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. The project will not have a significant impact on
hydrology and water quality, therefore no mitigation is required.
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING. The project will not have a significant land use impact,
therefore no mitigation is required.
K. MINERAL RESOURCES. The project will not have a significant impact on mineral resources,
therefore no mitigation is required.
L. NOISE. The project will not have a significant impact on noise, therefore no mitigation
is required
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING. The project will not have a significant impact on population
and/or housing, therefore no mitigation is required.
N. PUBLIC SERVICES. The project will not have a significant impact on public services,
therefore no mitigation is required.
O. RECREATION. The project will not have a significant recreation impact, therefore no
mitigation is required.
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC. he project will not have a significant impact on
transportation and traffic, therefore no mitigation is required.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
450 Bryant Avenue 6 October 2016
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. The project will not have a significant impact on
utility and service systems, therefore no mitigation is required.
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. As described above, the proposed project,
with the implementation of selected mitigation measures, would not have an impact on fish or
wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources. The proposed use is
appropriate for the site and would not result in an adverse visual impact. There is nothing in the
nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial
adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts once mitigation is
implemented to reduce potential impacts from hazardous materials and noise.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
The public review period began on July 1, 2016 and ended on July 30, 2016. Any comments received on
the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and project were submitted to Amy French, Chief Planning
Official, City of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Present: Vice Chair Margaret Wimmer; Board Members David Bower, Roger Kohler, Patricia Di
Cicco [via conference call]
3. QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER. 450 Bryant Street [16PLN-00092]: Recommendation to
the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Project’s Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Recommendation to the Architectural Review Board for Approval of an
Architectural Review Permit to Allow the Renovation, Partial Demolition, and Addition to an
Existing Historic Resource Resulting in a net Floor Area Increase of 7,158 square feet. The
Project was Evaluated in Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the CEQA Guidelines. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has Been Prepared
in Accordance With CEQA. This Project is Continued From September 8, 2016.
Chair Bernstein: Next on the agenda item is action items of 450 Bryant Street. Shall there be any
disclosures before we move ahead?
Ms. French: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: I have my copy. Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: On the advice of the Palo Alto City Attorney, I will recuse myself from
participating on the agenda item in regarding 450 Bryant Street because I spoke at an ARB meeting prior
to the rescheduling of an HRB meeting regarding this project. While this does not give rise to a conflict of
interest, under the political reform act. It could have the appearance of bias and thus I have elected to
recuse myself from future proceedings on this matter.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you Beth, Board Member Bunnenberg. I also have a disclosure to make and a
recusal comment. On behalf of the Palo Alto City attorney, I will recuse myself from participating on the
agenda item regarding 450 Bryant Street because I spoke at an Architectural Review Board meeting prior
to the rescheduled Historical Resources Board meeting regarding this project. While this does not give
rise to a conflict of interest, under the political reform act. It could have the appearance of bias and thus
I have elected to recuse myself from future proceedings on this matter. Now, I’m going to turn over this
meeting to Vice Chair Wimmer, thank you.
Ms. French: We are going to be calling or conferencing in our esteemed colleague Pat Di Cicco, from her
home in Palo Alto where she’s posted the agenda. Her home is at 860 University Ave. We’ll take a
moment to call in -- now Roger Kohler is the third member that is going to be sitting in this room along
with the fourth member that is sitting in Palo Alto – Roger is on his way; we might just take a 5-minute
break while we get Pat on the phone. Alright, thank you.
Short Break
Vice Chair Wimmer: Let’s continue the meeting and go onto our action item number 3 on the agenda.
Which reads QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER for 450 Bryant Street, also known as Avenidas. Recommendation
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
450 Bryant Street Project
October 11, 2016
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
to the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Recommendation to the Architectural Review Board for Approval of an Architectural Review Permit to
Allow the Renovation, Partial Demolition, and Addition to an Existing Historic Resource Resulting in a net
Floor Area Increase of 7,158 square feet. The Project was evaluated in compliance with California
Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines. An initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
has been prepared in accordance With CEQA. This Project is continued from our September 8, 2016,
meeting. I guess we should start with the Staff report.
Ms. French: Good morning, Amy French here, the project manager. Today, we are before the HRB with
three members present and the fourth member present in Palo Alto with an agenda posted and
discussing this, Patt DiCicco, who is on the teleconference now. Today our goal is to have comments
provided on the revised initial study and mitigated negative declaration, and to recommend the revised
project to the Architectural Review Board. The applicant is here to provide a brief presentation. The
applicant has brought the Architectural Resources Group, the historic resources consultant that has
prepared a recent memo as of last Tuesday. We have Katherine Waugh of DUDEK here, who was able to
review that ARG memo and has recently updated the initial study to annotate it. These are clarifications
again drawn from that recent ARG memo. She can summarize those after I give my presentation.
Basically, it has been determined from the group that I just mentioned that the project does meet the
Secretary of Interior Standards to rehabilitations. This is a point of discussion for the Board. The third
floor has been reduced. It’s been inset on all sides and it is more subordinate than the version that the
ARB saw and the HRB saw in September. Additional details have been provided. Bird-friendly glass, for
instance, facing the park and the parking lot and a glass deck railing. They removed the metal panel
railing and they have a trim projection that goes out a little further. They've retained the former garage.
The request to prepare additional studies about that garage removal on a possible alternative project; I’ll
let the applicant describe why they didn’t come forward with that. Basically, the main proposal showed
the metal panel deck railing at the top and also on the side facing the park. You can see that on the
update it’s now a glass – the storefront system extends up. It’s now a glass railing. The elevation on the
screen does not show the trees that are in front of the new addition facing the park. It’s just showing it
without those trees. Three sides of this building, the 1927 Category 2 building will be untouched and
visible. The rear addition is attached via a glass hyphen, as in previous versions of this project. Looking at
the second image up there on the screen, it’s an elevation view. It is not perspective view so that is not
how it will be seen from the street. That is an elevation view. The addition will recede because it is some
distance, 65 feet or so from Bryant Street. Here are just some visuals showing the two-foot inset all
around. On the courtyard of course it’s set back even farther at the third floor, and has some
engagement there with a deck, another deck has been provided to engage with the courtyard below.
These are responses made to the ARB’s comments regarding approach number 1 that was shown in
September to both ARB and HRB. These are just some of the changes that were made to the initial study
mitigated negative declaration that appeared in the packet, along with that ARG memo. Secretary’s
Standards number 9 and 10 are here on the screen. If you're familiar with those, those are the generic
standards. Then here is the note about the compliance with those standards; number 9, number 10. I
can go back and leave those up for discussion. Katherine would you like to say something there.
Ms. Katherine Waugh: Good morning, again, Katherine Waugh with DUDEK. Amy asked me to just quickly
summarize the additions we have made to the initial study. I know you have a version in your packet that
has some new information, (Inaudible) changes and then once we got the October 4th ARG memo we
added a little bit more. It’s basically what’s on the slide here. It’s just reiterating what ARG’s conclusions
where with respects with Standards 9 and 10. Finding that the – that although the proposed addition is
slightly taller than the original building, based on the – having the building step back on all sides and
other measures that they’ve used to reduce the massing of the building, ARG was able to conclude that it
is still compatible and subordinate to the existing historic building. With respect with Standard 10, the
placement of the addition at the rear of the building is in an area that has received the most modification
over time and so the design would preserve the historic features or the contributing features of the
historic property, and would ensure that the essential form and physical integrity are retained…
(Crosstalk)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Board Member Di Cicco: I’m having a little difficulty hearing you. I hear Amy French fine but you’re a little
more garbled and there’s like interference, like people moving phones or something.
Ms. Waugh: Sorry, I’ll repeat really quickly. The additional information added to…
Board Member Di Cicco: Thank you.
Ms. Waugh: ...is that better? Added to the initial study relies on the October 4th memo from ARG to
demonstrate how the proposed addition complies with the Secretary of Interior Standards 9 and 10, with
regard to the massing of the proposed addition relative to the existing building and the placement of that
addition in a way that retains the integrity of the existing or the historic building.
Amy French: Patt?
Board Member Di Cicco: Thank you. I can hear you better.
Ms. French: Ok, thanks. I was plugging in my iPhone to make sure it still had a battery.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Excuse me, Katherine, are those – can you reference what pages in our packets just
so it’s clear or what pages you just – I think it’s pages 17 and 18 but is that kind of the matrix that
itemizes each standard and it checks whether it’s consistent or inconsistent… (Crosstalk)
Ms. Waugh: Yes.
Vice Chair Wimmer: ...is that kind of what you’re referring to now.
Mr. Waugh: Yes. That’s the matrix that summarizes all of the conclusions and then also the October 4th
ARG memo, which is…
Ms. French: The ARG memo is packet page 192 through 196. That ARG memo is pulled out there, the
Secretary of Interior Standards 9 and 10, I believe that’s on the screen.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Does the Board have any questions for staff on the revised application? Oh, also
before we get to that, I wanted to remind members of the public – I have two speaker cards right now if
there’s any – we have more? (Inaudible) We have yours. I want to make sure I get them before I forget.
Ok, thank you. Any questions for staff?
Board Member Kohler: Maybe you can summarize what you’re expecting from the Board today in terms
of recommendation, whatever, just so that we all know what we are purposing.
Ms. French: Sure, Roger. Up on the screen, these are what we are recommending that the HRB provide
comments on the initial study mitigated negative declaration, which has some modifications just to clarify
based on that ARG memo and then recommend the project to the Architectural Review Board, who will
be reviewing it next. This is the third meeting of the HRB on this formal project. We’re looking at this
project; not a possible alternative, this project. And if you can give a recommendation on this project we
will take that to the ARB.
Board Member Kohler: The packet we have with these drawings, that’s it for…
Ms. French: That’s the project that’s requested for recommendation and no other project is before you.
Board Member Kohler: Alright.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Without any questions for staff, shall we have the applicant come up and make a
presentation?
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Ms. French: Yes.
Ms. Lisa Hendrickson: Good morning. I’m Lisa Hendrickson and I’m currently the capital project manager
at Avenidas. We are returning today, not with a new design that replaces the shed two of you suggested
last month, but rather with the three-story addition which you have seen before, with a few more
modifications. I’d like to explain why we are not, respectfully, changing direction. The historical
significance of the shed was questioned and thoroughly vetted two years ago. In November 2014, there
was a study session at the site. We presented a two story design that eliminated both the shed and the
courtyard. At that meeting, we were urged to further study the history and the value of the shed and
consider a design that preserved it. We directed architectural resource group, the consulting architects
that was undertaking the HRE, to do that and they returned with a report that asserted that the shed
does have historic characteristics and should be retained. Sarah Hahn and Charles Chase from ARG are
here today to answer any questions. In July 2015, we returned with an entirely new design featuring a
three-story addition, where there now is a 1970’s dining room, and preserving the shed and much of the
courtyard. This design reflected many of the comments that we received from this Board and the ARB but
this Board expressed concern that the design called for the removal of some of the original eaves and
asked for a design that was more compatible with the historic building. So, we returned again, in May of
2016, with a design that added a connector to preserve the eaves and with less contemporary styling
more in keeping with the historical building. Your comments in May were generally complimentary and
supportive and we took note of the suggestions that you made. Over the summer, the City obtained a
peer review of the HRE and the CEQA document was completed. Last month we returned again, with a
design that reflected additional modifications and details that addressed our questions and those of the
ARB. Your discussion, however, returned to the significance of the shed and the meeting concluded with
two of you reiterating support for the current design and two requesting that we bring back a design with
a small addition that demolished the shed. Today we are seeking your support for this design for several
reasons. The significance of the shed and this design’s compatibility with the Standards, has been
supported by two historic resource experts, ARG and DUDEK. A new design demolishing the shed – a
new design that demolished the shed would trigger a focused EIR, adding several more months to the
entitlement process, and could put the approving authority in the position of having to approve a design
that did not fully comply with the Standards. We have been advised by our counsel, that if the City were
to approve such a design that demolished the shed, both Avenidas, and the City would be risking a
lawsuit for having approved the demolition of the shed and the City often looks to the applicant to bear
the cost of the defense of such a lawsuit. Also, a smaller addition doesn’t meet our program needs. It is
very possible that the Avenidas Board of Directors would abandon the project if it can’t yield sufficient
additional program space. Also, starting over would add many, many months to our project timetable and
put the project at risk. Such a delay would add unaffordable expenses to the project. We’ve already spent
about $500,000 on design costs and City permit fees and another $400,000 on fundraising expenses.
Construction costs are rapidly escalating. There’s only so much money that we can fundraise for this
project and delays add to the difficulties of funding the costs. Delays put our fundraising at risk. We have
a lead donor, who will fund 20% of the project cost, up to 4 million dollars but we will not be able to
meet the conditions of his gift unless we start construction next year, in 2017. Another $250,000 gift
comes with the condition that the project be approved this year. Other gifts are contingent on design
approval and further delays will put these pledges at risk. Our almost 90-year-old building is sorely in
need of modernization. Our community seniors deserve a better community center, one that is safer and
with enough space for the programs that they want. We are two years into this entitlement process and
have made numerous modifications to the design at the request of this Board and the ARB. The window
to get this done is closing. We urge you to support this design today. Our architect Kevin Jones is going
to speak briefly about the modifications.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Jones: Good morning, I’m Kevin Jones with Kenneth Rodriques & Partners Architects. I’d like to
first just be sure that I’m addressing the things that interest you. We have ARG here today who wrote
the historic report and if… (Crosstalk)
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Board Member Di Cicco: (Inaudible) I can’t understand a word that who’s ever talking…
Ms. French: Ok, this is Kevin Jones from, the architect, he can try to speak up. Another suggestion I
might make if you have a laptop. Tune into the Palo Alto or, sorry, the mid-peninsula media center. It’s a
live coverage of the meeting on – so you could…
Vice Chair Wimmer: I think it’s also on channel 26 or channel 29 on (Crosstalk) on television.
Ms. French: Cable television. That’s another idea, but could you speak up Kevin?
Mr. Jones: Can you hear me now?
Ms. French: Can you hear alright?
Board Member Di Cicco: I can hear you fine.
Mr. Jones: It’s the distance.
Ms. French. Yeah. I’m going to bring the phone over, here you go.
Mr. Jones: Hello. Can you hear me now?
Board Member Di Cicco: Yes, I can hear you now.
Mr. Jones: Great. I would like to just ask the Board if it would be helpful to hear a little bit from ARG
about the context of their findings. I think that’s been one of the key aspects that you had expressed in
the past. My version of the presentation would be talking about some of the detailing that we’ve done
and changes that we’ve done. I’m not necessarily sure you need any further clarification on that but I
would like to offer that if you could give us some direction. I want to make this as fruitful as we can and
it’s our heartfelt wish to gain your support and approval for this so I’m willing to tailor my presentation to
you today on areas you have questions about or concerns about as well as Charles, as well.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Maybe if you could just go through very briefly, I know that Ms. Hendrickson has
already given some overview of the changes. Maybe you could briefly go over…
Mr. Jones: I can walk you through that.
Vice Chair Wimmer: …the main changes…
Mr. Jones: Ok perfect.
Vice Chair Wimmer: …since the last meeting and that would…
Mr. Jones: I will skip through a bunch of the slides. I’ll stop at this one. This one is largely the
appearance of the building from Bryant Street. All the work we’re doing, as you know is on the rear side
of the project. Again, the three components; we have the existing Birge Clark building, the La Cominda
dining area, as well as the shed building. Our concept, let me skip through the plans, basically, the
existing building, the shed, create an addition here, maintaining the courtyard. Creating a connector
piece that creates the separation that we talked to this Board about numerous times in the past. That
translates its way all the way up through the buildings so on the second floor you basically see the same
configuration, the existing Birge Clark building; connector between the two; the new addition to the
second story; the shed, the one story shed. The third floor, the change you’ll see here is that we’ve
pulled the area back here – this was a three story element originally, as a result of the comments that we
heard from the ARB, we pulled that element back. Making an additional exterior deck and reducing the
City of Palo Alto Page 6
height of the building at the courtyard. That reflected in the roof plan. One of the changes we have here,
we’re using a flat clay tile in the small color palette as the existing but it would be a flat tile to help
further distinguish the new from the old. You can sort of see these decks here as well. The height of the
building; we’ve gone back and vetted out the height of this to be sure, absolutely sure we can make this
as small as we can but also make the rooms and spaces in the building usable so you’ll see a little bit
more of that in one of the next plates. The imagery you see here, there’s some additional detailing which
I’ll sort of zoom too. This is what Amy had covered, but basically, this is where the deck is pulled back
here and the view of this in elevation from Bryant Street. We’ve modified the glazing here to include a
dotted spandrel frit to help bird-friendly design components. Modify the detailing of the railing at this
level. Pulled back two feet both the roof as well as the interior space, at a loss of square footage at these
second and third levels, rather all away around on that one room. Here you get to see a little bit about
what we’re trying to do in section. Drop this down underneath the structure to the floor is ten feet. We’ll
have mechanical systems in there as well as lighting so we’re trying to have at least the minimum of an
eight foot ceiling in the lower level on the second level; rather the upper lever is a result of the pitch we’ll
have an opportunity to have for a higher ceiling but we have about an eight-foot-six-inches at the
window, which we feel is pretty minimal for a room of this size, but we’ve done a lot of effort to ensure
that the reduction in height, that people have been concerned about, that we can accomplish but not
sacrificing the comfort in these rooms. The rendering from the street again here, seeing in perspective
the three-story addition in the back. Then we’ve taken a couple of plates here in details and identifying
some of the detailing that is proposed for the project. This being the third floor, creating some interesting
detail elements here between the window frames. Creating kind of the more decorative trim elements;
this would all be made of aluminum and similar to the window frames system. You can see we modified
some of the pre-cast concrete cornices and creating more elaborate shapes with greater projections.
Similar pre-cast, which the main building color, the building material is a limestone. That is also accented
with a variety of pre-cast concrete banding, which you see here. This is the typical ground floor. Also,
another pre-cast concrete element above the recessed window at the ground floor and then putting an
extrusion on the window systems to allow for additional sun shading in those rooms as well. That same
vocabulary sort of translates itself through the courtyard elevation and balcony. The punched window
openings on the second floor and etc. I’ll just skip this. I think one last thing that I would point out to you
if this will load, is this is just a little exhibit. This is an experience of walking down Bryant Street today.
You can see the large tree growth on the park side, over there to the right. I included this largely to try
to put this back into perspective that we’ve been really focusing on trying to maintain the quality of the
Birge Clark building and really not impeding on it. In the sense that is important to execute the Avenidas
program and the special things we’ve needed, but I want to just kind of give a real time feeling for what
you see. It’s about right here, where you would start to see something in the background as you’re
moving by. The trees are significantly large, as you can see. There you would see something rising in the
background. I think our new building is 42 feet, seven inches, the height of the parapet is 35 feet and
that sort of gap right there is what you would see and with the prospect of it, the appearance of it is
even reduced from what the elevational appearance would lend itself. That experience, as you walk
farther down the street, obviously you don’t see it at all. On the alleyway side, its presence is reduced as
well. I just wanted to spend a few moments to give everyone a refresher course on what the real
physical condition here is and I’d like to answer any specific questions you would have. If there is some
commentary you’d like to hear our finding on the historic side, I’d really encourage you – ARG have an
opportunity to give you the background on that, if you so desire.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Ok, Mr. Jones. Thank you so much.
Board Member Di Cicco: I have a question.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Oh, it sounds like Board Member Di Cicco has a question.
Ms. French: Yes, you’re at a microphone Pat. Go ahead.
Board Member Di Cicco: I just have a question. I know – I have to apologize I haven’t been at every
meeting on this project. I wasn’t at the last one and this may have been discussed or never discussed.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
For just further clarification and just something, I had considered that would maybe even make it more
compatible with the Secretary Standards. The (Inaudible) glass entry way that’s two floors up, nine
panels of glass, which you can see from A5.1 or .3, you still see that panel of glass from the front of the
building and then there’s the next row on the third level, which has been pushed back and on the other
side, you see all three – I don’t know if it was ever discussed and there is an issue that there isn’t enough
program space. If the two stories of glass, new entry, is it primarily for aesthetics (Inaudible) purposes
for the public to be able to see the first and second floor? Is it because it used to be a 12 to 15-foot
entryway, or it could be cut down to the glass door entry to just the first nine panels of glass and infill
that second floor with, say four smaller front windows. Rather than continued glass. I know it’s near the
end of this project and maybe that’s not even a consideration but you know, is it a matter of giving up
program space? If I could just get clarification on that. Also, my other question would be and then I’m –
I have to also appreciate the remarkable speed at which you’ve done work (Inaudible) to make it more
compatible with the Secretary Standards and more subordinate. I think these are all tremendous. The
other question I had is how far back, farther has the (inaudible) patio been set back? I think I read that it
was originally 400 square feet and it’s only been increased by 36 feet. It doesn’t sound like it could be set
back much farther. It’s hard to tell from the rendering (Inaudible).
Mr. French: Pat, this is Amy. I think the 36 square feet is a net increase over all of the square footage of
the decks. I believe that the deck facing the parking lot was reduced somewhat in the area and the deck
at the back is larger than 36 square feet. Is that correct Kevin?
Mr. Jones: Yes. If you have a plan set in front of you, Pat. I can direct you to sheet A4.5, which is the
third-floor area. What the reduction is on – if you look at the plan there’s the courtyard and at the third
floor, the exterior deck that is a new feature that’s been added. That has been created by moving the
exterior wall of the third floor back eight-foot-seven-inches, is what you see there on the drawing just
above the roof of the shed building. That area there was created by pulling the third floor back, taking
what once was interior space and making it a second exterior deck. The deck that faces the parking lot
remains the same size as it was but the entire perimeter of the fitness room on three sides has been
pulled back two feet all away around to help reduced the perceived mass or size of the third floor of the
addition.
Board Member Di Cicco: Thank you.
Mr. Jones: In terms of your first question, you’re really speaking to the atrium aspect of this. At our last
presentation here, I’m not sure if you were in attendance, but we had presented a number of alternatives
that we had explored over that last two years and then some of them were more recent ones that
explored illuminating this two story volume when you first enter into the building and infilling the floor,
that effect, illuminating the glass connector. One of the things that led us away from that concept is that
we thought that there was the tremendous value of having this light air-glass component serving as a
transition between the Birge Clark building and the new building. That element having a high level of
transparency would help to give this illusion of lightness that when we took that element and expanded
from the park all the way over to the shed with the limestone material. In our review, it became much
heavier in appearance and seemed a little larger and so this glass element in many ways became a way
to soften that effect. Originally, the atrium concept came about from the concept of losing some of the
patio courtyard area and concerns of staff as well as participants, in terms of losing some of that
lightness and the fairness that came about when you entered the building currently from the rear.
Although treated in a much different way using an atrium still tries to make this light and open and a
taller volume entry, than just entering into a building that would have a 12 foot or so entryway.
Hopefully, that addresses your comments. (Crosstalk)
Board Member Di Cicco: (inaudible)
Mr. Jones: Are there any further questions you have?
Board Member Di Cicco: Thank you for clarification.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Mr. Jones: Ok.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Does the Board have any other questions for the applicant? I just – I had a quick
question. I remember in some of your earlier versions, beyond that two story glass atrium entry, there’s a
two-story wall behind that’s several feet back. That was an opportunity for a display wall and I think in
some of your illustrations or some of your elevations you have maybe a big tree mural or something and
I thought that was really a neat feature. I hope that that’s… (Crosstalk) (Inaudible)
Mr. Jones: That’s still there. That’s very important concept for us. As part of our approval process, we
need to take part in the City’s art program and we’re looking to have that element serve as that
programmatic function. Better than that we think this idea of coming into this two-story atrium volume –
it’s a kind of experience that no one apparently has in the building right now. The plates go from building
a wall, building a wall instead of having this open more contemporary feeling and having a really
spectacular piece. It’ll be a two-story element. The tree was sort of emblematic of a way as a reference
point but Lisa and staff are currently working with an art consultant to come up with some ideas and
those ideas will be vetted to the City through their art review program. We are committed to that as well.
In addition to a history wall that speaks to the legacy of Birge Clark inside and trying to do a combination
on the first floor before you go out to the courtyard, where we can speak to that wealth of history that
this building has had and its difference uses over time.
Vice Chair Wimmer: I’m so glad that that’s still being incorporated. Any other comments or questions?
Thank you for your presentation and maybe we can move on and have members of the public speak on
this item and let’s invite Linda Jolley back to the microphone. We allow you three minutes’ time to speak,
thank you.
Ms. Linda Jolley: Members of the Board, I’m Linda Jolley and I’m with my friend Wes Marinov. We are
actual users of Avenidas, so we see what’s going on there and we urge you to examine the (Inaudible) of
this project and the feeling of users as opposed to statements of architects. I really don’t see why so
much time and money is going into this project because this project is opposed by many board members
of Avenidas, of La Comida I mean. La Comida. I’ve spoken to the Board Members, that do not approve of
this, the users of La Comida, the people eat there do not approve of this and it’s going to result in
tremendous disruption to these people if this project goes through. They will have to -- many elderly
people will have to be moved to a different area to eat. They resent the potential destruction of the patio
and dining hall. They do not want the facility disrupted. They do not want things torn down and under
pending of this project are highly suspect. Members of Avenidas Staff, who I believe are supervised by
Lisa Hendrickson appeared to the City Council about a year ago. There are photos of them waving signs
saying that the facility is overcrowded and this is the justification supposedly for tearing up these
buildings. I urge you to examine the actual facilities. The facilities are not overcrowded. The dining is
only about half full most of the time. If we get new people attending Avenidas, there’s currently plenty of
space for them. Why are we talking about tearing up a perfectly good building and disrupting people who
eat there right now? I think you should look a little deeper before you invest more time and money into
considering this project. We think that somebody is trying to make money off of tearing things up and
someone body is trying to make money off of an unnecessary bureaucratic expansion. The users – I’ll
wind it up. The users do not want this. Thank you.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Thank you, Ms. Jolley, for your comments and next can we have Wes Marinov come
and speak. The final speaker is Herb Borock. Thank you.
Mr. Wes Marinov: Good morning. My name is Wes Marinov. I came to represent the users of the La
Comida dining room. There is wide spread discontent about this whole project. The main objections were
first looking at the dining hall, which people find quite comfortable, cozy and having the advantages of
looking into the park and into the patio. Second was losing the patio and the third was being disrupted
with having to go far away for temporary dining. Now, I have discussed this with the project manager,
Lisa Hendrickson and she had gone out of her way to accommodate these needs and one of them has
City of Palo Alto Page 9
been satisfied. Mainly the – there is a dining hall, not dining hall but a dining place close by, but of a few
blocks. However, the other aspects, I mean the other complaints have not been quite satisfactorily
addressed. I collected signatures and the title is lists of seniors benefiting from La Comida dining, who
would like to preserve (1) the dining hall in its present form, and (2) the adjacent patio (Inaudible) the
planned Avenidas renovation. Now, there are only 20 names here and I observed also many of the
seniors, although they privately expressed their discontent, they’re not willing to go out and sign. It’s
difficult to say what proportions of the seniors are for it or against. On my way here today I was
approached by one of the dining seniors with a very interesting detail about the whole project that I think
the whole Board should address. The dining hall, the La Cominda dining hall was donated to by the
Kiwanis club with the specific condition to be used for dining for seniors and how this has been deeded to
Avenidas is not clear. Now, we have a danger of lawsuit about the shed. Now there is another sector
here looming. I don’t know any details. It was just conveyed to me today. Another detail that was
conveyed, the current dining space is 140 diners and the planned one was 90, which could be increased
of course but I don’t see any overcrowding being addressed. Well, I guess my time is up. Ok, thank you
very much.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Thank you for your comments and next we have Herb Borock. Thank you.
Mr. Herb Borock: Vice Chair Wimmer and two Board Members present. There are only three Board
Members legally present at this meeting. The state's opening meeting law, Ralph M. Brown Act, requires
that the official posted agenda, which must be posted in this case for a special meeting. Must be posted
24 hours before the meeting to indicate whether anybody is participating in the meeting by telephone,
the address…
Board Member Di Cicco: (Inaudible)
Ms. French: We’re going to let Herb finish speaking and then Pat I’ll let you speak to that. Ok, hold on.
Mr. Borock: The person participating by telephone is not the person to tell you whether or not there’s an
officially posted agenda that says she can legally participate by telephone. While Amy French was
introducing this topic to you, I went outside to confirm that the officially posted agenda omits any
indication that anyone is participating by telephone. The reason why it needs to be in the officially posted
agenda is so that anybody, reading that agenda can decide where they want to be to attend the meeting.
They could have been since 8:30 this morning at that official place. While this meeting was going on,
somebody created a new piece of paper, which reports to be the agenda. That’s false. For one thing, the
description of this item is not a correct description. If you take a look at the large packet that you have
with a copy of the agenda, you can see that the correct agenda indicates that you will be taking actions
on the project and on the environmental document. This phony agenda which appeared in the middle of
the meeting doesn’t even mention that. This phony agenda indicates that it’s to be published in a
newspaper by September 30th, that’s what the item at the bottom seems to indicate. I have a copy of the
item that was published in the Palo Alto weekly and it looks just like the item in your large packet. That
is, there’s nothing there about someone participating by telephone and it indicates that you’d be taking
actions. In other words, it’s the large description that you have down here. I was surprised earlier in this
meeting to hear that somebody in the City’s attorney’s office figured out that two of your members made
comments about your previous – about this item prior to your action but certainly if they can figure that
out, they can certainly know that you can’t create a phony agenda after the fact. Maybe while I’ve been
talking, your Hilary Gitelman went out and changed the agenda outside but the one that’s there and was
certainly was there at the beginning of this meeting and that was there when this agenda item started
says nothing about telephonic communication on the substance of this meeting. On page 80, packet page
80, it indicates that the project would expand the Community Center in order to meet the demands of the
surrounding neighborhoods. In fact, the senior center serves a much larger area for that and that is why
many of us have indicated that it’s more important to have two Senior Centers in Palo Alto; one at the
Cubberley Center, and one here. I support the remarks of those who referred to – I now hear is called
the shed, I thought was maybe referring to the garage, that using that as an excuse to have a big project
for architects and builders and people who want to make big donations and have their name on
City of Palo Alto Page 10
something, is not an historic idea and that is why it’s a mistake for such a large project. Since there is
only three of you and since you’re not a quorum all you can do is adjourn. Thank you.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Thank you for your comments Mr. Borock. I think that’s all of the audience members
who wish to speak on this item. With that, maybe we should close the public hearing and take it back to
the Board if the Board would like to discuss this item amongst themselves.
Ms. French: I’d like to just address something and that is that my understanding, from our City attorney,
was that the ad did not need to include the fact that we were going to have telephonic participation.
When we placed the ad, we had thought Mike Makinen would be participating from Cleveland but then
we learned it had to be somebody in Palo Alto to participate and we made sure that Pat could participate.
She’s in Palo Alto. She’s got the agenda posted and as to the agenda that came out through our minute
track process, it did not state that there was going to be telephonic participation. The agenda that we
prepared and put out on the table, I don’t know that it got out at the table before the meeting but it was
prepared before the meeting, and then I announced it during the discussion here, the address of where
Ms. Di Cicco would be participating from. It was posted at her house, it was placed out here before we
began this item and the agenda was prepared – we did have a holiday yesterday, so we were not here
posting the agenda outside City Hall. There may be concern but we’re conducting a hearing and ...
Vice Chair Wimmer: I think it’s our task, we’re not necessarily creating a motion or voting on this project.
It sounds, from our instructions we’re just providing comments to both the director of Planning and
Community of Environment and then also providing a recommendation to the ARB regarding the revised
project and I believe their meeting is coming up within a week or two. I think that’s why we are looking
at the agenda today. Does anyone want to start with making any comments or in support of or any
recommendations?
Board Member Bower: I wanted to, first of all, thank people who came today to speak. Audience
participation is important in making decisions. I also wanted to thank all the people at Avenidas and all of
the consultants. This has been a long project and the process – change is difficult in the best of
circumstances and this is a big change. I think this project has gotten better as it has gone through its
evolutionary steps. I was initially and publicly opposed to removing the garage because I think in every
seminar I have been to in the ten years I’ve been on this Board, that would be considered historic fabric
and we simply would not have supported the Secretary of Interior Standards to remove it. I think it’s
critical that it stay there and I actually think it fits with the new project. The other issue that was
troubling to me initially was how large the addition was and I have actually now come around to a totally
different attitude about that in part by going out to the site. Walking around and looking at the existing
building and I think today's tour, that video tour in front of the building is exactly the right way to look at
this. The addition is not on the front of the building, it’s in the back and I actually, when I was there last
week, could imagine a two-story parking garage on that parking structure. In which case, you wouldn’t
even be able to see the addition from the back. I think the focus of our evaluation of this addition has
always been from the back and yet the building, the original building is approached not necessarily from
the back but from the front. The historic portion of this building remains. The new addition that is now
nicely differentiated from the old by the glass enclosure and so I would like to congratulate the design
team. I’m not – we had a meeting earlier this year where I thought the design totally failed the client. I
think in this case, the design has taken the suggestions of the many, many hearings, and really made a
better project than it was. I gather, I mean understand diminished space may be diminished services but
I think this is a pretty good outcome and I’m completely in support of this. I think it’s time this project
moves forward through the process and got under construction.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Thank you Board Member Bower. Board Member Kohler would you like to speak?
Board Member Kohler: I haven’t disclosed in the past, which I don’t think is very important, but my
mother went to Avenidas quite a bit and I was sometimes taking her there and everything. I’ve always
been impressed with the way the program works and she was very pleased to be there...
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Board Member Di Cicco: I can’t hear who is speaking.
Board Member Kohler: Alright. (Crosstalk)
Ms. French: Can you speak closer to the mic?
Board Member Kohler: Yes, I can speak closer. What I was saying is that my mother was active in
Avenidas and went there quite a bit. I was somewhat familiar with the program and I remember walking
through the building at times, thinking this needs some help. As an architect, I was thinking but they do
a great job and I have to agree with David quite a bit that I was never quite comfortable with the
previous plans cause it just didn’t seem to – it seemed to be saying, look at me I’m a big new building.
Where right now, it’s a very large project but the slight reduction and the arrangements I think are quite
appropriate and will just feel comfortable walk, seeing it and walking through the structure. As from a
historic standpoint, I didn’t quite understand what the ferver was to remove this garage because garages
are actually fairly important in historic structures as we go work through them. I’ve done a number of
homes in Professorville, and the historic garages are there and they really contribute to the feeling of the
whole neighborhood. Some need some help but that’s part of the process and having the garage there, I
think it is going to create a nice little cozy courtyard behind it. The good news is also the new building
provides some outdoor space up above. Which I think will be quite appropriate. I’m very comfortable with
the way – I agree with David that – I remember going, when this first came up, I don’t know it’s been 18
months, two years, something. We had the meeting out there and I really thought that the purpose at
the time was – the concept I think was going to be very good so I’m – from a historic standpoint I think
the average person going by that building will not even know there is an addition in the back when it’s
done. Some day they are going to walk around and say, oh my goodness look at this wonderful glass
building in the back. I’m ready to approve of this project. I guess I can say that anyway, that’s my point.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Thank you Board Member Kohler. Would Board Member Di Cicco like to speak and
offer her comments?
Ms. French: Patt?
Board Member Di Cicco: Yes.
Ms. French: Would you like to give your comments on the project?
Board Member Di Cicco: I have given two comments that I thought deserved consideration and I did get
a response to clarify that. I still think it’s something maybe the ARB would be interested in at least
reviewing about the size of the entry and atrium. As far as the work that’s been done on lowering the
height of the building and the setback and the increased open patio of the second floor, I think is
compatible with the Secretary Standard. It is as it was set in from the consultant, it is more compliant
with the Standard. I guess I would question is it completely subordinate, no; but to me, there has to be
some give and take somewhere, and I recognize that some of the public uses the space, but there does
need to be increased space. It’s a beautiful location, after all would be said and done, for the seniors of
Palo Alto. It serves a lot of very important purposes. I think probably I would recommend proceeding
with the project as it stands.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Great. Thank you Board Member Di Cicco. I guess it’s my turn to offer my
comments. I’m really pleased by…
Board Member Di Cicco: I can’t hear whoever is (inaudible) now.
Ms. French: Hold on. Hold on. (Inaudible)
Board Member Di Cicco: (Inaudible)
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Board Member Kohler: You’re getting a lot of exercise today.
Vice Chair Wimmer: I’d like to offer my comments. I am very pleased with the progression of the project.
I think it has greatly improved since the first time we were able to take a look. I like how the project
seems, on this round of revisions, simplified, and I think it’s better organized. I think just the composition
and the lines tend to relate a lot better to the existing building and I’m really happy to see that. I like the
materials. I think it’s very complimentary. The mass and the scaling; I tend to agree a little bit with Board
Member Di Cicco’s comment about how ideally we like to see a new addition be a little bit more
subordinate to the historic building. And even though this proposal is a little bit higher, the overall height
exceeds the existing building, I understand the project program and the needs of the building and the
needs of the square footage, and I know that you’ve investigated ways of keeping it a two-story building
and that just didn’t seem possible. I do think the glass hyphen between the historic building and the
purposed building makes it really successful. I think it definitely differentiates. It protects the original
building and I think this is a great project. I’m in full support of it. I do want to be sympathetic to the
existing users of the facility and of the dining room. I’m sure that it’s going to be really difficult for them
to have the facility taken away from them during the time of construction but I think in any project like
this change isn’t so easy for some people but I think, in the long run, you’re going to have a much better
facility. It's code compliant, it’s going to be earthquake safe. I think there are public safety issues that we
really have to take seriously, even though it is unfortunate that the time to go through the construction
phase can be painful. We all know that, but I think in the end, I think it’s a project we should celebrate.
It sounds like we are all very supportive of the project. Do we need to formulate any paragraph or
wording or something or should we just offer our positive – Amy I was just saying, we seem to be in
agreement on how we feel about the project. In order to satisfy the requirement, do we need to
formulate anything or just say we are in support of the project?
Ms. French: The problem is, and I appreciate all of the comments, I guess the problem is that the
agenda was not posted in the official place outside the City Hall, yesterday at this time. It was just put
out today with the statement – I mean, the agenda was there about this meeting, but the participation of
a quorum through Pat’s participation from home telephonically was not stated on the agenda,
unfortunately. I think there’s a possibility we could continue this hearing to formalize or take votes. The
problem is, I believe David is on a plane later today – Thursday? Okay. So could – yeah…the agenda
itself was noticed and an ad was posted. Having a meeting today, we already conducted business on the
bulletin, and we’ve heard from folks on this project, but to take any action I guess would be something
we could potentially continue till tomorrow morning at this same time. The problem is, are you able to…
Board Member Bower: (Inaudible)
Ms. French: We can continue the hearing on this to 11 o’clock tomorrow, except that I need to have your
participation again, the four who are here, one telephonically as well. I don’t know if Pat is hearing this,
but would you be able to – you wouldn’t have to have the entire discussion again, it was just to get to
your recommendation on the project. (Inaudible)
Vice Chair Wimmer: I am available tomorrow. Roger, would you be available tomorrow at 11?
Board Member Kohler: I’m not sure but I’ll just make sure that I can be here.
Vice Chair Wimmer: David?
Board Member Bower: I’m available.
Ms. French: And then Pat?
Vice Chair Wimmer: Pat would you be available tomorrow to reconvene and make official our
recommendation on this project? Tomorrow at 11:00 or 11:30?
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Board Member Di Cicco: I have a rather important doctor appointment at 11:20 that I cannot cancel.
Vice Chair Wimmer: When would you be making your way back after that? Maybe we can make it in the
afternoon.
Board Member Di Cicco: I’m not sure… (Crosstalk)
Ms. French: 10:30?
Board Member Di Cicco: … how long I’m going to be there.
Ms. French: Can we meet at 10:30 for half an hour?
Vice Chair Wimmer: At 10:30 for a half an hour?
Ms. French: By phone.
Vice Chair Wimmer: By phone. You can be by phone.
Board Member Di Cicco: OK, I could do that. The 10:30. Make it 10:15 because I would have to leave
here by (Inaudible).
Ms. French: Has to be 24 hours, so 10:30 it is.
Vice Chair Wimmer: So we are looking at a 24-hour window that we need to abide by. It looks like it
would have to be 10:30, cause that’s what time it is now.
Ms. French: Thank you.
Board Member Di Cicco: Ok, if we do it right at 10:30.
Board Member Bower: Why don’t we all plan on coming early. (Crosstalk) (Inaudible)
Vice Chair Wimmer: Ok, we’ll do it right at 10:30.
Ms. French: Be in place at 10:30 (Crosstalk)
Vice Chair Wimmer: Yes, right at 10:30 and it should only take a matter of minutes.
MOTION
Ms. French: Ok, so someone move and second that.
Board Member Di Cicco: I will be available on my cell phone at 10:30, as I was this morning.
Vice Chair Wimmer: I move that we reconvene tomorrow at – to be here, seated at 10:30 and have
Board Member Di Cicco participate by telephone.
Board Member Bower: Try to be here by 10:20, I would.
Vice Chair Wimmer: We’ll all be here early but to have the actual event happen at 10:30 sharp and it
should only take a few minutes. That’s a motion.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Ms. French: Yes, we will post that with the requisite participation by Pat Di Cicco at her home with
(Inaudible).
Vice Chair Wimmer: All in favor of doing that, say I.
Everyone: I.
Vice Chair Wimmer: All opposed? We’re fine about doing that tomorrow at 10:30.
Board Member Di Cicco: Yes.
Board Member Bower: Ok.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Ok, so…
Board Member Di Cicco: We’re done?
Vice Chair Wimmer: I think we are finished with that item. Everyone - well done and moving on our
agenda for the rest of the meeting.
Board Member Bower: I think we did everything.
Vice Chair Wimmer: Oh yes, because Chair Bernstein moved up the item of Approval of Minutes so, we’ve
already done that. It looks like unless anyone has anything to add, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
Adjournment
1
March 1, 2016
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Avenidas has been the City’s provider of senior services, and the operator of its senior center,
since 1976. In this role, Avenidas makes it possible for the City to meet its goal of “providing
responsive, efficient, and cost-effective community services…to meet the needs of groups with
special needs.”1 The City leases the former Police and Fire Station to Avenidas under a long-
term lease and provides operating support in the form of an annual contract.
Avenidas’ Bryant Street Center at 450 Bryant Street is a community center with activities and
services for independent older adults and their family caregivers. At the Center, Avenidas offers
a broad range of health and wellness services including acupuncture, massage, fitness classes,
health screenings, and lectures; classes and workshops in computer learning, language, art,
travel, wine appreciation, etc.; information and counseling services and geriatric care
management for issues related to aging; and flexible transportation options for running errands,
getting to and from appointments, and participating in social activities. Many of these services
are provided directly by Avenidas while others are provided by organizations including Senior
Adults Legal Assistance, AARP, Foothill Community College, Stanford Hospital and Palo Alto
Medical Foundation. These activities and services are provided in multi-purpose spaces that are
both large and small. In addition, lunch is served each weekday by La Comida de California
(and independent not-for-profit which has a sublease) in a large dining room; the food is
prepared in an adjacent kitchen.
The Center is open weekdays from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and occasionally later to accommodate a
late class or early evening event. Avenidas makes the facility, or select rooms within the
Center, available for rental to organizations. It does not rent spaces for private parties.
Through this rental program, which is very modest, the facility is sometimes used on weekends
and evenings.
In fiscal 2015 (ending June 30, 2015), Avenidas served approximately 7,500 individuals, both at
the Center and by phone. Some of these individuals, such as those who volunteer in local
schools as part of Avenidas’ Early Literacy Program, rarely come into the Center while others
are regulars who come to lunch and/or participate in activities every day. The Center is
generally busiest between the hours of 10 and 2, with the highest use over the 11:15-12:15
lunch hour when 100+ diners are in the dining room. It is very quiet in the late afternoon.
Activity at the Center ebbs and flows with the quarterly calendar of classes; the Fall Quarter is
the most active, the Summer Quarter the least active, and the Center is the most quiet in the
interim days between quarters.
The Center is accessible and ADA compliant, but the small, old elevator is not large enough for
a gurney and must be replaced with a larger elevator.
1 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Community Services and Facilities, page C-1.
2
Community Spaces
The Center features a large central lobby which is largely unprogrammed. It is a place for
participants to informally meet, enjoy a cup of coffee, use the public computers and retrieve
information on resources for seniors throughout the community. There is a Front Desk from
which staff assists participants with everything from registering for a class to scheduling a ride
home.
Multi-Purpose Rooms
The larger multi-purpose rooms are used for classes such as French, History as Biography,
Current Events, Genealogy, Life Stories, Mandarin, Movie History, Ukulele, Watercolor and
Acrylic Painting. The rooms are generally set up conference style, as opposed to classroom
style, to facilitate discussion and engagement. Last year Avenidas offered 29 classes of this
sort, many of them in each of the four quarters.
These same larger multi-purpose rooms and the dining room (when not being used for lunch
service) are used for lectures and workshops on a variety of issues of interest to seniors. Some
of these are one-time-only events while others recur during the year. Examples of
informational and training programs in this category are AARP Drivers Safety workshop, Clutter
Busters Club, Emergency Preparedness Crime Prevention, Fair Housing & Tenant Rights, Improv
Workshop and Gardening Club. The number of people attending these lectures and workshops
range upwards to 100 and more.
Meetings of staff members and volunteers, including an active Board of Directors and various
Advisory Councils, and various supports groups (for adult children, spouse caregivers and
individuals with various chronic diseases) share the multi-purpose rooms with the classes,
lectures and workshops.
These same rooms are used for tax preparation in the winter and one-on-one appointments
with health insurance counselors and elder law attorneys.
Small Personal Service Rooms
Avenidas offers a number of personal services such as acupuncture, massage, reflexology,
podiatry, nail care and Reiki. These services are by appointment and offered by practitioners in
two small rooms. Health screenings (bone density, hearing and skin cancer as examples) are
also conducted in these small rooms.
Basement
There are two computer labs in the basement.
Administrative Offices
The Center also houses about two-thirds of the organization’s employees. Some, such as the
transportation coordinator and social workers, meet regularly with clients and volunteers in their
offices and, for the most part, run their programs from their offices Other employees are
administrative (finance and accounting, fund development, marketing and general
management).
One space is both administrative and public: the Avenidas Village office. The Avenidas Village
program (a membership program that provides high touch support to individuals who are aging
in their own homes) requires both dedicated staff space and a small public space where Village
members can gather and meet. It serves as its own Front Desk and lobby for those Village
3
members to come to the building for services.
At present there are two small rooms with copiers and other office equipment that is shared by
the employees, teachers and volunteers. There is no staff room.
Special Purposes Spaces
The current building has no special purpose spaces, with the exception of the kitchen.
The proposed addition will include a fitness room with appropriate flooring, mirrors and barres
and will, by design, not accommodate multiple uses. This fitness room will be used for such
classes as Matter of Balance, Tai Chi, Pilates, Low Impact Aerobics, Light Adaptive Yoga, Hatha
Yoga and Exercises for Parkinson’s. Last year, Avenidas offered 17 such classes.
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Avenidas operates out of the existing Category 2 historic building at 450 Bryant Street in
downtown Palo Alto. The building was designed by Palo Alto architect Birge Clarke and built in
1926 as the City of Palo Alto Police and Fire Station. Avenidas modified and renovated the
building in 1977-1978 when its occupancy began. Over the past six years, Avenidas has been
exploring how to continue to provide the highest level of services to the community and
accommodate the growing demand at the existing location. The senior population is large and
growing rapidly. The 55+ segment of Palo Alto’s population grew 25% between 2000 and 2010
and today represents almost one-third of the total population of the city. As indicated in the City
of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, Avenidas (formerly the Senior Coordinating Council) is the
sole provider of senior services on behalf of the City of Palo Alto. Consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan goals for community services, Avenidas must evolve and adapt to the
changing needs of the aging population.
Meeting these needs starts with our programs and extends into our physical infrastructure. The
expansion and remodeling of our facilities is fundamental to our abilities to continue to provide
the highest level of service to the Palo Alto community.
This expansion and remodeling also addresses Community Services goals of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan: “Goal C-4: “Attractive, Well-maintained Community Facilities That Serve
Palo Alto Residents… Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and appearance.
Avoid deferred maintenance of City infrastructure. (Policy C-24)”2
The proposed existing building and addition is +/-26,500 square feet. The first level is the
largest at +/-11,000 square feet and includes the main lobby, reception, classrooms, a dining
room and kitchen and the
addition of an atrium lobby.
The second floor is +/-9,200 square feet and includes multipurpose rooms, meeting rooms,
classrooms and administrative areas.
A third floor in the new wing will be +/- 3,300 square feet and will include a fitness room, a
small meeting room and an outdoor deck.
The circa 1925 shed at the rear (the “Garden Room”) will be renovated to house the staff and
2 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Community Services and Facilities, page C-16.
4
members of Avenidas Village.
The +/- 2,000 s/f basement below the original building will become a theater/small auditorium.
Parking
Part of the project’s challenge is the limited space available for development based on Avenidas’
leasehold area and the adjacent park and parking lot. The proposed addition will remain within
the current leasehold boundary. With no land on which to build parking spaces, it is our plan to
meet the project’s parking requirement by paying an in-lieu fee to the Downtown Parking
Assessment District. The project will add 8,129 square feet of net new space. The parking
requirement of one space for every 250 square feet is 33 spaces, resulting in a fee of
approximately $1,980,000 (at $63,848 per space, the in lieu fee for the Downtown Parking
Assessment District).
Historic Preservation
The City of Palo Alto’s Downtown design guideline recommends that a sense of history be
preserved and historic structures be emphasized. The architectural concept of the addition is to
significantly maintain the architectural features of the existing historic building by adding an
addition at the back of the building, replacing the 1976 dining room with a three story wing and
a two story atrium. The design aesthetic of the new addition is contemporary but with elements
that relate to the historic building, including a red tile roof and punch windows. The scale and
massing of the addition is such that it is in proportion to the existing historic building. The
existing rear wall of the historic building will become a prominent feature of the proposed new
wing. The main building entry will remain along Bryant Street. No exterior building modifications
are proposed to the other three sides of the existing building. Participants will enter the rear of
the building into a lobby/reception that will look out into the remaining courtyard. With the
remodeling of the interior space, the circulation and way finding throughout the facility will be
improved. No historic interior features remain after previous interior renovations.
Existing New Renovated and New
Basement 1,994 0 1,994
First Floor 9,738 3,852 13,590
Shed 818 0 818
Second Floor 5,825 3,556 9,381
Third Floor enclosed 0 2,915 2,915
Third Floor Deck 0 398 398
Total 18,375 10,721 29,096
1976 dining room addition
(to be rebuilt)-2,592 -2,592
Net New Space 8,129 26,504
450 Bryant Street
Square Footage to be Renovated and Constructed New
5
The renovated building will have less office space than it presently does. Except for a few staff
who interact directly and daily with participants and guests, staff will be consolidated into part
of the second floor in open space configured with workstations, a few private offices and shared
huddle rooms. We do not expect that more staff will be required as a result of the building
expansion.
Interior renovations are being designed to make the space feel open and inviting. We want
visitors to be able to walk through the building and see what is going on and be enticed to join
in. Small spaces will be combined into larger spaces. We also want pedestrians walking by on
the Bryant Street sidewalk to be able to look in and see what’s going on. Foundation landscape
will be replaced with low-scale plantings and there will be larger and more active multi-purpose
rooms flanking the front entrance.
PROJECT IMPACT DURING CONSTRUCTION
The project’s general contractor estimates that construction will take approximately 18 months.
Avenidas plans to re-locate its operations during construction to a location in south Palo Alto.
La Comida de California, the building’s only subtenant, has made arrangements to temporarily
re-locate the lunch service to a church in downtown Palo Alto.
PROJECT IMPACT ON FUTURE BUILDING USES
When Avenidas resumes operations after construction, its programming will be substantially the
same but it is expected that the larger, more efficient space, and double the current program
space, will accommodate as many as 360 more people each day. This growth in utilization is
directly related to the growth in the senior population which is expected to grow until 2020
when half of all residents will be age 55+.
FINAL
Initial Study Expansion at Avenidas
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Contact: Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Prepared by:
853 Lincoln Way Auburn, California 95603 Contact: Katherine Waugh
JULY 2016 UPDATED OCTOBER 2016
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 i July 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Objectives ................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Description.................................................................................................. 1 1.4 Permits and Approvals Needed ............................................................................... 2 1.5 Public Review Process ............................................................................................ 2 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .............................................................................................3 2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................... 3 2.2 Environmental Determination ................................................................................. 3 3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ......................................................................................5 3.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 11 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources...................................................................... 12 3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 14 3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................ 1718 3.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 22 3.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. 2625 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 2928 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................... 3029 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................... 3433 3.10 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................... 3837 3.11 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................ 3938 3.12 Noise ................................................................................................................. 4039 3.13 Population and Housing .................................................................................... 4241 3.14 Public Services .................................................................................................. 4342 3.15 Recreation ......................................................................................................... 4443 3.16 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................ 4645 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................ 4948 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................. 5251 4 REFERENCES AND PREPARERS ..........................................................................5453 4.1 References Cited ............................................................................................... 5453 4.2 List of Preparers ................................................................................................ 5655
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page No.
9567 ii July 2016
APPENDICES
A Historic Resources Evaluation B Focused Traffic Impact Study Memorandum
FIGURES
1 Regional Location ..........................................................................................................5857 2 Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................6059 3 Project Site .....................................................................................................................6261 4a Site Photos .....................................................................................................................6463 4b Site Photos .....................................................................................................................6665
TABLE
3-1 BAAQMD Screening Criteria............................................................................................16
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 1 July 2016
1 INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental effects that would result from the proposed expansion of the Avenidas facility (proposed project). This Initial Study has been prepared to satisfy the environmental review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applicable to the City of Palo Alto consideration of the proposed project.
1.1 Project Location
The site is located on a portion of Assessor’s parcel number 120-26-095, at 450 Bryant Street. The existing facility shares the block with a public parking lot and Cogswell Plaza. The project site is located in the northwestern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County and across El Camino Real (State Route 82) from Stanford University. The project site is located on the north side of El Camino Real between Middlefield Road and Alma Street, more particularly, within the block bounded by University and Lytton Avenues and Bryant and Ramona Streets. The proposed project site is currently used by the Avenidas Community Center. It is a corner lot on the block with frontages on Bryant Street and Paulsen Lane (Lane 31 E). La Comida operates within the center to serve lunch to the patrons. The site contains limited vegetation. The project’s regional location is shown in Figure 1; Figure 2 identifies the project vicinity, and Figure 3 identifies the project site and adjacent property.
1.2 Project Objectives
Provide for modernization of the existing facility to ensure that it remains attractive, well-maintained, and well-suited to the existing community center and public service use Expand facilities to serve more patrons and provide more appropriate spaces for the current programs Update electrical, mechanical and plumbing facilities Meet seismic requirements for the City of Palo Alto Install an ADA-compliant elevator Preserve the exterior of the historic building 1.3 Project Description
Avenidas proposes to renovate 15,783 square feet within the existing building and construct a new 10,185721-square-foot wing (inclusive of the 434-square-foot, uncovered deck on the third floor). The project would provide Avenidas with in order to obtain a total of 25,53426,504 square feet of new and modernized interior building space. The project would also provide for replacement and
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 2 July 2016
update of old mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, seismic upgrades and installation of an ADA-compliant elevator
The proposed construction and building improvements would result in a facility that includes a ±11,000-square-foot first floor (comprised of a lobby, reception, classroom, dining room and kitchen, and an atrium in the lobby), a ±9,200-square-foot second floor within spanning both the original and new buildings (consisting of multipurpose rooms, meeting rooms, classrooms, a wellness area, and administrative facilities), a ±3,300-square-foot second floor within the new building a ±2,342-square-foot third floor within the new building (containing a fitness room, a small meeting roomrestrooms, and small lounge and leading to two an outdoor deck, uncovered, outdoor decks), a ±818-square-foot shed (used for program space) and a renovated ±2,000-square-foot basement (encompassing a small auditorium).
Additional details regarding the project are provided in Section 3 Initial Study Checklist.
1.4 Permits and Approvals Needed
The proposed project would not require discretionary approvals from any agency other than the City of Palo Alto.
1.5 Public Review Process
This Initial Study has been prepared in support of a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The proposed MND is subject to a 30-day public review period. Adoption of the MND will be considered at a public hearing of the City of Palo Alto. The public is encouraged to provide written comments during the 30-day review, and/or attend and speak at the City’s public hearings.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 3 July 2016
2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This Initial Study considers the environmental issues identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Where appropriate, technical studies have been completed to evaluate potential adverse effects and recommend measures to reduce or avoid such effects.
2.2 Environmental Determination
As shown in the Initial Study, the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. However, implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study would reduce these potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, a mitigated negative declaration will be prepared.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 4 July 2016
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 5 July 2016
3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
1. Project title:
Expansion at Avenidas
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301
3. Contact person and phone number:
Amy French Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301
4. Project location:
Avenidas 450 Bryant Street, San Jose, California 95129
5. Project sponsor’s name and address:
Lisa Hendrickson, Avenidas 450 Bryant Street, San Jose, California 95129
6. General plan designation:
Regional/Community Commercial
7. Zoning:
Public Facility (PF)
8. Description of project:
The proposed project consists of demolition of about 2,500 square feet of the dining area in order to construct about 1110,000 square feet of in a new three-story facilitybuilding
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 6 July 2016
addition. The shed, built in 19251930, is proposed to be renovated and would continue to be used for programs and staff space. The non-protected tree in the rear of the building would be removed. In order to meet the parking requirement associated with the proposed 8,1297,158 square-foot increase in space (inclusive of outdoor deck space), Avenidas plans to pay an in-lieu fee to the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The proposed project would attempt to preserve the historic character of the building by complementing the existing architecture.
Site Description
At the Bryant Street Center, Avenidas provides a wide range of services to older adults, including health and wellness, independent aging, transportation, workshops and classes, legal and tax assistance, social activities, and volunteer opportunities. La Comida operates within the center to serve lunch daily. Avenidas leased the facility at 450 Bryant Street from the City beginning in 1976, completed interior improvements in 1977, and began operations at this facility in 1978. Avenidas serves approximately 350 people daily, with programs running generally between 9 am and 5 pm. The Center is closed during weekends. In 2015, Avenidas served over 7,500 people and hosted 233 classes.
The original main building on site was constructed in 1927 and the small shed at the rear was constructed sometime earlier (date unknownin approximately 1930 (ARG 2016a page 17). While a dining room was constructed as an extension of the main building and renovations have been made to the original buildings, the original main building and shed have has been designated as a historic structure and the shed has been identified as a contributing feature of the main buildings. The site contains limited vegetation, consisting of small landscaped areas around the building perimeter, street trees, and trees in a small courtyard interior to the site.
As shown in Figure 3, the project site is a corner lot with frontages on Bryant Street and Paulsen Lane (Lane 31 E). The Avenidas Center shares the block with Cogswell Plaza and a public parking lot (Lot C) that contains 51 parking spaces. Cogswell Plaza was originally developed in 1924 as City Hall Park. It was redesigned and renamed in 1955. It provides benches, walkways, a small area of open lawn, and informal landscaping consisting of trees and shrubs, as shown in the photographs in Figures 4a and 4b.
Proposed Project
In order to accommodate the fast growing senior population in Palo Alto, Avenidas plans to renovate 15,783 square feet within the existing building and construct a new 10,185721-square-foot wing in order to obtain a total of 26,50425,968 square feet of new and modernized
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 7 July 2016
space, including the proposed third-story deck. The project would also provide for replacement and update of old mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, seismic upgrades and installation of an ADA-compliant elevator
The proposed construction and building improvements would result in a facility that includes a ±11,000-square-foot first floor (comprised of a lobby, reception, classroom, dining room and kitchen, and an atrium in the lobby), a ±9,200-square-foot second floor within spanning both the original and new buildings (consisting of multipurpose rooms, meeting rooms, classrooms, a wellness area, and administrative facilities), a ±2,780342-square-foot third floor within the new building a ±3,300-square-foot second floor within the new building (containing a fitness room, restrooms, and a small meeting roomlounge leading to and a 400-square footn outdoor decks), a ±818-square-foot shed (used for program space) and a renovated ±2,000-square-foot basement (encompassing a small auditorium).
Currently, the Center offers a variety of academic classes, meeting spaces, health screenings, tax assistance, public computer labs, and senior specific fitness classes. The renovation would create a designated Fitness Room and create more areas for meetings, classes, and activities.
The main entry would continue to be off of Bryant Street. The new construction at the rear would also update the entrance from Lot C in the rear of the building.
Development Standards
The height limit for the Commercial District is 50 feet. The height of the two story existing building is approximately 36 feet while the height of the three story addition would range from 40’9” near the courtyard tobe approximately 43 42 feet and 8 inches.
Avenidas proposes to pay the City’s downtown in-lieu parking fee for additional required parking spaces that would not be provided on site, since Avenidas does not have its own parking lot. . The renovations would add 8,1297,593 square feet, 7158 square feet of which would be enclosed area; the Palo Alto Municipal code requires 1 parking space for every 250 square feet of commercial space. Therefore, the floor area added would require 3329 new parking spaces. Because the Center’s lease line is coterminous with the building, Avenidas does not have the land area to add parking spaces; therefore, the Center would pay $1,851,592980,000, or $63,848 per space at current rates, into the Downtown Parking Assessment District in-lieu of constructing new parking spaces. The proposed renovations would also add bike parking racks on Bryant Street.
The project site contains eight trees, four of which are protected. One tree would be required to be removed to facilitate the proposed construction. The tree that would be removed is a
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 8 July 2016
Camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora) and, as evaluated by a certified arborist, is in poor/fair condition likely due to the fact that its roots are restricted by concrete.
The facility is directly adjacent to Cogswell Plaza; during construction, fencing would be placed alongside the border to the plaza as to protect the trees and their root systems as well as the plaza’s landscaping. Three street trees on Bryant Street maintained by the city (a fern tree and two deciduous flowering pears) would also be fenced during construction to protect them. The 4.5-inch Japanese Maple near the alley would be encompassed within the courtyard that would be created by the proposed project. Except for the Camphor tree that would be removed from the site, the remaining seven trees would be protected during construction to ensure their survival.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings):
The proposed project site is currently used by the Avenidas Community Center. It is a corner lot on the block with frontages on Bryant Street and Paulsen Lane (Lane 31 E). La Comida operates within the center to serve lunch to the seniors. The site contains limited vegetation and shares the block with Cogswell Plaza and a public parking lot.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
The proposed project would not require discretionary approvals from any agency other than the City of Palo Alto.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 9 July 2016
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. However, all impacts would be reduced to Less Than Significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population and Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 10 July 2016
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature
July 1, 2016 Date
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 11 July 2016
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
3.1 Aesthetics
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact AESTHETICS – Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
The project site does not contribute to any scenic vistas. A scenic vista is defined as an expansive view of a highly valued landscape observable from a publicly accessible vantage point. The project is located in an urban environment where viewsheds are limited by buildings and trees. The proposed expansion and site improvements would not alter any scenic vistas. No impact to a scenic vista would occur as a result of the project.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
The project site is not visible from a state scenic highway, and the site does not support trees or rock outcroppings. The current building was built in 1925 and has been designated an historic site. As discussed further in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the proposed renovations and additions would not detract from the historical design and feel of the existing building. Therefore, no impact to scenic resources would result from the project.
c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
The site is located in a neighborhood that contains a mixture of public/institutional, commercial, and multifamily land uses. The project site is currently developed as a community center with limited landscaping. The visual character of the site and its immediate surroundings is highly urban. The proposed building expansion would be
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 12 July 2016
similar in scale to the nearby commercial buildings and would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site since the site is completely developed. Additionally, the project is subject to design review and approval by the City through the Architectural Review process, which ensures compliance with City standards to promote high quality visual environments. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The project site would continue to be used as a community center and would maintain the same hours of operation. No new sources of nighttime lighting would be added to the project site. Other than windows, no reflective materials are proposed for use. Due to the orientation of the building and the mature trees at the adjacent Cogswell Plaza, windows included on the new structure would not receive substantial direct sun exposure and would not be a source of glare. The project would have no impact related to creating new sources of light and glare.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary.
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 13 July 2016
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
The proposed project site is located in an urban area and is currently developed. The site is not identified as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance and the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract (DOC 2014). It is designated Regional/Community Commercial in the City’s General Plan. The site is not planned for or used for any agricultural purposes and there are no agricultural uses in the vicinity. The proposed expansion of the building and landscaping would not result in the conversion of any agricultural land, conflict with any agricultural use, or conflict with a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 14 July 2016
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The project site is not zoned as forest land, does not contain forest land or forest resources, and does not support any forest uses. The three story addition to the project site would not result in the conversion of any forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The site is located in an urban area and does not support any farmland, agricultural, or forest uses. The expansion of the existing facility on the project site would not result in conversion of any farm, agricultural, or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest uses. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary. 3.3 Air Quality
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 15 July 2016
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The project site is located within the Santa Clara Valley, which is part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin attains and maintains compliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review process. The BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAAQMD 2006) and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010a), which are the applicable air quality plans for the region. These plans account for air quality emissions based on the land uses and zoning designated by the City. The uses on the project site are consistent with the designated land use and zoning and the project would not change the land use on the project site. Therefore, the project is consistent with these plans and the impact would be less than significant.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
The San Francisco Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone (O3) standard, and is attainment or unclassified for all other federal standards (BAAQMD 2015). The area is designated nonattainment for state standards for 1-hour and 8-hour O3, 24 hour coarse particulate matter (PM10), annual PM10, and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (BAAQMD 2015). The BAAQMD has adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (BAAQMD 2010b) that establish air pollutant emissions thresholds that identify whether a project would violate any applicable air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The 2010
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 16 July 2016
BAAQMD Guidelines also establish a screening criteria based on the size of the project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate air pollution emissions is necessary. The screening criteria reflect the typical construction and operational emissions of a project, such those from use of motorized construction equipment as well as daily vehicle traffic associated with project operation. The BAAQMD Guidelines do not include a specific screening size for a community center type of land use. Instead, the screening sizes for other uses that may have some similarities to the Avenidas center are provided in Table 3-1 for reference.
For most of the commercial and retail uses included in the BAAQMD screening sizes table, the screening size for construction is 277,000 square feet. The proposed project would construct approximately 10,800185 new square feet of building space and would remodel the existing approximately 15,800 square feet. Construction would involve substantially less than 27,000 square feet and thus construction emissions would remain well-below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance.
With respect to project operation, the screening sizes identified by BAAQMD range widely depending on the land use, with smaller sizes being identified for those uses with higher vehicle trip generation rates. The proposed project would expand the existing Avenidas facility by approximately 10,800185 square feet. This is less than the 17,000 square-foot screening size for a bank with drive through use and less than the 42,000 square-foot screening size for a supermarket. As discussed further in section 3.16, Avenidas generates relatively small traffic volumes. The trip generation rate for the proposed project would be substantially smaller than trip generation rates for banks and supermarkets, thus the operational emissions of the proposed project would be less than those associated with these other uses and would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance as indicated by the screening size levels.
Since the proposed square footage of the building is substantially below the screening criteria listed in Table 3-1, emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds and the impact would be less than significant.
Table 3-1 BAAQMD Screening Criteria
Land Use Type Construction Related Screening Size Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Screening Size* General office building 277,000 sf (ROG) 346,000 sf (NOx) Quality restaurant 277,000 sf (ROG) 47,000 sf (NOx) Daycare center 277,000 sf (ROG) 53,000 sf (NOx)
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 17 July 2016
Table 3-1 BAAQMD Screening Criteria
Land Use Type Construction Related Screening Size Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Screening Size* Library 277,000 sf (ROG) 78,000 (NOx) Government (civic center) 277,000 sf (ROG) 149,000 sf (NOx) Medical office building 277,000 sf (ROG) 117,000 (NOx) Supermarket 277,000 sf (ROG) 42,000 (NOx) Ban with drive-through 277,000 sf (ROG) 17,000 (NOx) Source: BAAQMD 2010b, Table 3-1. * If the project size is less than the screening size, the project would have less than significant impacts. If the project size is greater than the screening size, detailed project-specific modeling is required. sf = square feet; ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = small particulate matter; du = dwelling units
d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
The project would include emissions during construction but these are expected to be short-term and temporary. The project is below the screening criteria for construction and operation related criteria pollutants, as discussed in items b and c above, and would not emit a substantial amount of pollutants. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
The project is not considered an odor generating facility as described in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2010b). The project would not generate odors that could affect a substantial number of people and there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required. 3.4 Biological Resources
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 18 July 2016
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The project site does not contain any habitats or biological resources with the potential to support any plant or wildlife species that are designated as threatened or endangered; however, there is potential for nesting birds to be present in trees on site that are proposed for removal or may be trimmed or otherwise affected by construction and there is potential for roosting bats to be present within the existing building. Many species of migratory birds are considered to have special-status under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act while bats are protected under the California Fish and Game Code.
If the proposed tree removal results in take of any migratory bird (as defined in federal code 50 CFR 10.13.), the effect would be considered a significant impact. In conformance with the California State Fish and Game Code and the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the project shall implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to reduce the impact to
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 19 July 2016
a less-than-significant level by requiring surveys by a qualified technician to evaluate the potential presence of nesting birds prior to tree removal and requiring protection of any active bird nest during construction.
If the proposed building demolition resulted in the removal or disturbance of roosting, this would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires the project applicant to complete a bat survey prior to demolition, and identifies protocols to be followed to ensure that impacts to bats are avoided. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, the project’s potential impacts to special status species would be less than significant.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The project site does not contain riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities, and does not provide any wildlife movement corridors or fish habitat. The addition of the proposed expansion on the site would have no impact on these resources.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The project site is located in an urban setting and currently supports an existing building, asphalt-paved parking lot, other asphalt and concrete pavement. The project site, which is defined by the land lease between Avenidas and the City, and includes only the areas up to and within the building limits within this property, supports one tree. There are an additional three trees within the City-owned parking lot, eight street trees, and seven trees in Cogswell Park that are immediately adjacent to the project site. The tree within the project site is proposed to be retained while one of the trees within the parking lot is proposed for removal. Construction of the project would not require removal of any other
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 20 July 2016
trees. The tree proposed for removal is not a protected tree under Chapter 8.10 Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, in the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
However, the street trees located adjacent to the project site are protected under the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations. Construction of the project could impact these protected trees if the trees are not properly protected. A Tree Protection Plan was completed for the project in accordance with the requirements outlined in the Tree Technical Manual (City of Palo Alto, 2001). Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would be implemented per the Tree Protection Specifications included in the Tree Protection Program to ensure that impacts to adjacent protected street trees are less than significant.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans within the City of Palo Alto. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to conflict with the provisions of such plans.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If feasible, vegetation on the project site shall be removed outside of the bird-nesting season. If the start of site clearing, tree removal, or building demolition occurs between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey for nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify the location of nests in active use that were established prior to the start of project implementation activities. The pre-construction survey shall take place no more than 7 days prior to initiation of construction. All trees and shrubs on the site and on adjacent properties shall be surveyed, with particular attention to any trees or shrubs that would be removed or directly disturbed. If an active nest of a protected bird is found on site, the biologist shall, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), determine whether construction work would affect the active nest or disrupt reproductive behavior. Criteria used for this evaluation shall include presence of visual screening between the nest and construction activities, and behavior of adult birds in response to the surveyors or other ambient human activity. If construction could affect the nest or disrupt reproductive behavior, the biologist shall, in consultation with CDFW, determine an appropriate construction-free buffer zone around the nest to remain in place until the young have fledged or other appropriate protective measures are taken to ensure no take of protected species occurs.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 21 July 2016
If it is determined that construction will affect an active raptor nest or disrupt reproductive behavior, then avoidance is the only mitigation available. Construction shall not be permitted within 300 feet of such a nest until a qualified biologist determines that the subject nests are no longer active.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit or tree removal permit, the City of Palo Alto (City) shall verify that pre-construction surveys have been conducted within 10 days of the proposed start of demolition. If active bird nests are present, the City shall verify that CDFW has been consulted and either determined that construction will not affect an active bird nest or that appropriate construction-free buffer zones have been established or other appropriate protective measures have been taken.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: No earlier than 30 days prior to initiation of construction activities, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (i.e., a biologist holding a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) collection permit and a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW allowing the biologist to handle bats) to determine if active bat roosts or maternal colonies are present on or within 300 feet of the construction area. Surveys shall include the structures proposed for demolition.
Should an active maternity roost be identified, the roost shall not be disturbed and construction within 300 feet of the maternity roost shall be postponed or halted until the juveniles have fledged and the roost is vacated, as determined by a qualified biologist. Consultation with CDFW shall also be initiated. Under no circumstance shall an active roost be directly disturbed.
If nonbreeding bat hibernacula are found on the project site, the individuals shall be safely evicted under the direction of a qualified bat biologist and with consultation with CDFW. These actions shall allow bats to leave during nighttime hours, thus increasing their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation during daylight.
If it is determined that construction will not affect roosting behavior or disrupt a maternal colony, construction may proceed without any restriction or mitigation measure.
If it is determined that construction will affect an active bat roost or disrupt reproductive behavior, then avoidance is the only mitigation available. Under no circumstance shall an active roost be directly disturbed. Construction within 300 feet shall be postponed or halted until the roost is naturally vacated as determined by a qualified biologist.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the City of Palo Alto (City) shall verify that pre-construction surveys have been conducted within 30 days of the proposed start of demolition. If bats are present, the City shall verify that CDFW has been consulted and
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 22 July 2016
either determined that construction will not affect an active bat roost or disrupt a maternal colony, or that individuals in a nonbreeding bat hibernacula have been safely evicted.
Due to regulations from the California Health Department, direct contact by construction workers with any bat is not allowed.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: A Tree Protection Plan shall be prepared addressing each tree that would be subject to project construction activities occurring within the tree’s dripline. Further, the tree protection measures recommended in the Arborists report for the proposed project shall be incorporated into project construction plans. Specifically, the construction plans and Tree Protection Plan shall include:
All existing trees shall be numbered on the site plans to match the tree tag numbers used in the arborist report.
Any trees that will be near construction or demolition disturbance shall be well-hydrated before any demolition or construction work begins and throughout construction
A qualified tree service shall be used for all tree pruning, which shall include only what is required for site access, demolition, and construction
Tree protection fencing must be installed around trees within or adjacent to the construction area that will not be removed. Fencing must be installed as described in the Tree Protection Plan. The fencing shall be inspected by an arborist prior to initiation of construction and all construction activities shall be conducted outside any tree protection fencing. 3.5 Cultural Resources
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 23 July 2016
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
The existing building on the project site was built in 1927 and the small shed at the rear was constructed sometime earlier (date unknownin approximately 1930). Interior improvements to the main building and construction of a dining room as an extension of the main building occurred in 1977. The original main building is designated as a historic structure and the small shed at the rear are designated as historic structureshas been identified as a contributing feature to the main building’s historic significance. The project includes demolition of the approximately 2,500 square-foot dining room added in 1977 and construction of a new 10,72110,185 square-foot three-story addition. The project also includes interior renovations of 15,800 square feet of the main building. The proposed addition would be placed at the back of the existing building. This would ensure that the architectural features of the existing historic building that are visible from Bryant Street are retained. The addition is proposed to include design elements that relate to the existing building such as a sloped red tile roof and punch windows, and is proposed with a scale and massing that would be in proportion to and subordinate to the existing historic building. Although the proposed addition is taller than the existing historic building, due to the perspective of views of the building, this additional height would not obscure views of the original roofline from Bryant Street and therefore would be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for additions to historic buildings. In particular, Standard 9 requires that a new addition preserve the historic building’s form/envelope, significant materials and features; and that it be compatible with the historic building’s massing, size, scale, and architectural features. In evaluating the compatibility of the proposed addition with the historic building with respect to Standard 9, ARG found:
“While the National Park Service notes that compatible additions are generally smaller than the historic building in both height and footprint, it does allow for additions that are slightly taller, given that other design features are incorporated to minimize the addition’s visual impact and ensure that the addition as a whole does not overpower the historic building.
Though the proposed rear addition is slightly taller than the original building, the greatest height difference is less than eight feet. These new volumes also step back from the original building to break up the massing and minimize visual impacts, as recommended by the NPS above. Also in keeping with the guidance above, the proposed addition attaches to the rear wall of the historic building using a hyphen connector that is inset from the wall planes where it joins the two buildings; this serves to reinforce differentiation between old and
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 24 July 2016
new, and further minimize the visual impact of the new addition on the historic building. Though the addition is slightly taller than the historic building, its footprint is smaller in size” (ARG 2016b).
In addition, Standard 10 requires that a new addition be constructed in a manner that preserves the essential form and integrity of the historic property. In evaluating compliance with this standard, ARG found “The location of the proposed addition in an area at the rear of the original building that has received the most modification over time. This limits removal of existing and unaltered historic materials, thereby maintaining the building’s essential form and physical integrity to the greatest extent possible. An alternative approach that would obscure or alter more of the historic building’s rear elevation could result in a cumulative impact to the building and further compromise to the existing form and integrity of the property” (ARG 2016b).
Portions of Tthe existing rear wall of the historic building would become a prominent feature remain visible from the parking lot to the rear of the building. The rest of the rear wall of the existing building would be integrated into the of the proposed new wing. and nNo other modifications are proposed for the exterior of the remaining three walls of the original historic building.
No historic features remain in the building’s interior after the 1977 renovations therefore the proposed interior renovations would have no impact on the historic significance of the building. Since the project would not modify or demolish any portion of the historic building and no historic features remain in the interior of the building, the project’s impact to the historical significance of the building would be less than significant.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Site disturbance associated with project construction has the potential to uncover subsurface archaeological or historical resources. The potential for this to occur is very low. However, Map L-8, Archaeological Resource Areas, in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, indicates that the project site falls within an area of “moderate to extreme sensitivity” for archeological resources (Palo Alto 2007). In compliance with the requirements of the California Public Resource Code, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 stipulates the procedures that must be followed should subsurface archaeological or historical resources be encountered during project construction. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the project would result in less than significant impacts to archeological resources.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 25 July 2016
c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The project site is completely developed with the existing buildings and limited landscaping. The site is not known to support any paleontological resources or geologic features that would be directly or indirectly impacted during project construction or operation. Therefore, the project would have no impact on these resources.
d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The proposed project involves construction activities within a fully developed and previously disturbed site. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the project site is located in an area identified as a moderate to extreme archaeological resource sensitivity zone. In the event any archaeological or human remains are discovered on the site, impacts would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that impacts remain less than significant by ensuring appropriate evaluation, recordation, and protection procedures are undertaken.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided,
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 26 July 2016
a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented.
3.6 Geology and Soils
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 27 July 2016
a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
The project site is located within Santa Clara County in the Bay Area, which is historically seismically active. However, there are no active or potentially active faults that cross the project site, and the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (DOC 1974). The closest active fault is the San Andres Fault, which is located southwest of the project site. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to exposure to people or structures to adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Given the project site is located in a seismically active region of the Bay Area, there is a potential for severe ground shaking during an earthquake. The project includes seismic retrofitting of the historic building and construction of the new building would be subject to the seismic safety standards in the California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 16, Section 1613. High intensity ground shaking during potential future earthquakes and soil conditions that may be unsuitable to support construction-related excavations and site improvements are typical issues of concern related to development in seismically active areas. These issues are routinely encountered in California and there is no evidence that unique or unusual geologic hazards are present on the site (e.g. landslides, collapsible soils, lateral spread) that would require additional mitigation beyond what is already required as part of the City’s standard development approval process. Compliance with the CBC would ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking are less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
According to a Seismic Hazards Zone map released by the State of California, Department of Conservation (DOC 2006), the project site is located within a known liquefaction zone. Compliance with the CBC requirements would ensure that the building is constructed in a way that would reduce potential liquefaction impacts to a level that is less than significant.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 28 July 2016
iv) Landslides?
According to a Seismic Hazards Zone map released by the State of California, Department of Conservation (DOC 2006), the project site is not located with a known earthquake induced landslide zone. Therefore, there will be no impact.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The project site is already developed and, therefore, there will not be a loss of topsoil or substantial soil erosion. The project will have no impact.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
The project site is completely developed and soils were mapped on the Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey (USDA 2016) as Urban land – Stevenscreek complex. Stevenscreek complex soils are typically composed of sandy loam, silt loam, silt clay loam, clay loam and sandy clay loam. The site is currently developed and the proposed project would not change the soil conditions on site.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The project would utilize existing wastewater infrastructure on the project site and does not propose to add any septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 29 July 2016
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
a and b) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
In 2006, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 requires reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The state’s plan for meeting the reduction target is outlined in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008 Scoping Plan; CARB 2008).
As described in Section C, Air Quality, the BAAQMD adopted the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines, which establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate GHG emissions is necessary (BAAQMD 2010b). Projects that are smaller than the GHG screening criteria size are considered to have less than significant GHG emissions and would not conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. Operational GHG screening sizes for various land uses range widely based on the vehicle trip generation from the land use, with a screening size of 3,000 square feet for a bank with drive-thru, 8,000 square feet for a supermarket, 15,000 square feet for a library, and 19,000 square feet for a strip mall (BAAQMD 2010b). The Focused Traffic Impact Study Memorandum prepared for the proposed project found that the proposed expansion of the community center would generate five net new vehicle trips in the AM peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and 14 net new vehicle trips in the PM peak hours (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) (Fehr & Peers, 2014). As these trip generation rates for the proposed project are substantially smaller than trip generation rates for the screening sizes of each land use mentioned above, GHG emissions associated with operation of the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds. In addition, the project would comply with the green building requirements
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 30 July 2016
identified in Chapter 16.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Project operation would not result in GHG emissions that would significantly affect the environment or conflict with applicable plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The project would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 31 July 2016
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
The project involves demolition of approximately 2,500 square feet of the existing structure on site and construction of a new 10,185721 square-foot facility. During construction, there is the potential for short-term use of hazardous materials and fuels including diesel fuel, gasoline, and other oils and lubricants. These hazardous materials would be handled, transported and disposed of in compliance with all existing local, state and federal regulations. Operation of the proposed project would not require the routine, use, transport or disposal of hazardous waste other than typical household materials. The types and quantities of these common household materials would not be substantial and would not pose a health risk to those utilizing the project site or adjacent users.
The original main building present on the project site was constructed in 1927 and the small shed at the rear was constructed at an unknown date sometime earlierin approximately 1930. Renovations were made to the main building’s interior in 1977 but the original character of the building was preserved. Due its early date of construction, the buildings may contain Asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paints. Demolition of the 2,500 square feet of the existing building could result in hazards related to the release or disposal of these hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require surveys and proper disposal methods to ensure that impacts remain less than significant.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
As discussed in item (a) above, there is a potential for ACMs, lead-based paints or other hazardous building materials to be present on the project site. Improper disposal of these hazardous materials during construction could lead to an accident causing the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires proper disposal methods, which would ensure that impacts would remain less than significant.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 32 July 2016
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The project site is located just over a quarter-mile away from the Stanford University campus. Operation of the proposed project would not require the use of acutely hazardous materials beyond common household materials. During construction, there is a potential for hazardous building materials to be encountered, which could be released into the air and would require proper transportation and disposal off-site. Transportation and disposal of these materials would be required to comply with all local, state and federal regulations. In addition, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would be implemented to ensure that impacts related to release or use of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school are less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The project site is not designated as a hazardous materials site on the Cortese List, and is not included on any state or federal list of potentially hazardous materials. There are no sites within 1,000 feet of the project site mapped on the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor database (DTSC 2016). There is one well listed on the California Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker GAMA database located near Lytton Avenue and Alma Street, approximately 0.18 mile southwest of the project site (California Water Resources Control Board, 2016a). The project does not require any excavating where groundwater would be disturbed and groundwater is not used as a water source for the project. Additionally, there are nine leaking underground storage tank sites and one cleanup program site shown within 1,000 feet of the project site on the California Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker database (California Water Resources Control Board, 2016b). All ten sites have undergone remediation and are listed as closed. The project would have a less than significant impact related to location on a listed hazardous materials site.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
There are no airports within two miles of the project site and the site is not identified within a safety zone in the Palo Alto Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Palo Alto Airport
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 33 July 2016
is located approximately 2.7 miles east of the project site. Therefore, no impact related to safety hazards associated with aircrafts would occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
The nearest private airstrip to the project site is a helipad on the Stanford Medical building approximately 1.10 miles southwest of the project site. The helipad is for use by emergency helicopters only and the land use is not changing from what currently exists on the project site. Therefore, impacts related to hazards from a private airstrip are less than significant.
g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The nearest designated evacuation route to the project site is University Avenue. The project currently shares the block bounded by University and Lytton Avenues and Bryant and Ramona Streets with Cogswell Plaza and a public parking lot. The public parking lot is accessed via Ramona Street, which would not change a result of the project. The project would not result in any changes to the University Avenue or to any of the surrounding roads. The project does not have a private parking lot but under the terms of its lease has non-exclusive use of 25 of the 51 parking spaces in the public lot. The project would not increase traffic or roadway congestion in the surrounding area such that use of the evacuation route on University Avenue would be hindered, and would not otherwise impair implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. Therefore, there would be no impact related to interference with the emergency response or evacuation.
h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The project site is located in an urban area that is not identified as a high or medium fire hazard on the map in Section 18.4.2.2.3 in the Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan (Santa Clara County, 2012). Therefore, no impact related to fire risks would occur.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 34 July 2016
containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of properly. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-containing ballasts, and refrigerants.
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 35 July 2016
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
The project site is fully developed and the proposed project would not substantially change the amount of impervious surface area on the project site. The project site consists of a 17,557 square foot main building and an 818 square foot shed, which are adjacent to a public parking lot with 51 parking stalls and a public park. According to the Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments prepared for the project (available at the City of Palo Alto Development Projects webpage), the project site currently contains 14,117 square feet of impervious surface with the existing building, which represents 91.8 percent of the total project site. The project is proposing to add 4,874 square feet of impervious surface area, which would increase the total percentage of impervious area on the project site by 0.3%. The project would not alter existing grades in the area and would not change the drainage patterns on the site or lead to increased erosion or sedimentation. The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates Stormwater runoff water quality to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from surface water discharge. The RWQCV worked with cities and counties throughout the region to prepare and adopt a Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit (Regional Permit). The Regional Permit for the City identifies minimum standards required for new development and redevelopment within the City limits. Additionally, the City’s standard conditions of approval include requirements for projects to develop and implement best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion during construction and permanent features to treat stormwater during project operation. The project would be required to comply with all city, state and federal standards pertaining to stormwater runoff and water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 36 July 2016
b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
As stated above in item (a), the project would increase impervious surface area by 0.3%, which would not substantially reduce the area available for groundwater recharge. The project would not rely on groundwater for its water supplies and would not require excavation that would impact groundwater flow. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge.
c and d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
The project site is completely developed and there are no streams or rivers located on the project site that would be altered during project construction. The project proposes to add a total of 4,874 square feet of impervious surface area to the project site. The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site since the project would only increase the total impervious surface area by 0.3%. This incremental increase in impervious surface area would not substantially increase the rate or amount of runoff resulting in flooding on- or off-site or increase erosion or siltation on or off site. The project would have a less than significant impact on alteration of the existing drainage pattern.
e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
The project would increase impervious surface area by 4,874 square feet, a 0.3% increase over the existing conditions. This minor increase would not result in substantial additional runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage system and the impact would be less than significant.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 37 July 2016
f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Potential impacts to water quality are addressed under item (a) above.
g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
The project does not propose to construct housing and is not located within a 100-year flood hazard zone (FEMA 2009). There would be no impact related to placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard area.
h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
The project site is located within Zone X on the Flood Rate Insurance Map (FIRM) map No. 06085C0010H. Zone X is defined as an area with a 0.2% change of flood; areas with a 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance floods (FEMA 2009). The project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area and would have no impact related to placing structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows.
i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
The nearest surface water in the vicinity of the project site is San Francisquito Creek, located approximately 0.34 mile northwest of the site. The project site is not located near a levee or dam and is not within an area identified as a dam failure inundation area on the map in Section 18.4.2.2.7 in the Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan (Santa Clara County, 2012). The project site is not subject to flooding and construction of the project would result in no impact associated with exposure of people to flood-related hazards.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
The project site is located in Downtown Palo Alto on relatively flat ground and is not near an open body of water or a hillside; therefore, there is no risk for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow hazards. No impacts related to these hazards would result from implementation of the proposed project.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 38 July 2016
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
3.10 Land Use and Planning
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
The project would not physically divide the existing neighborhood. The project would expand on the existing building on the project site, which is surrounded by commercial, mixed use and public service development. The proposed expansion would support the residential uses in this neighborhood. The project would have no impact related to dividing existing neighborhoods.
b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The proposed project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan. The General Plan designates the site regional/community commercial while the site zoning designation is Public Facility (PF). The existing building has been in operation (without conflicting) since 1978 and the expansion will continue the same operations. The proposed project does not conflict with zoning nor general plan designations and, therefore, there will be no impact.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 39 July 2016
c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans for the City. The proposed project would result in no impact related to conflict with such plans.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary. 3.11 Mineral Resources
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
a and b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
The project site is designated Regional/Community Commercial by the Palo Alto General Plan and has been used as a Community Center since 1978. There are no known mineral resources within the project site and no mineral recovery activities have been known to occur on site. The three-story addition on the project site would not adversely affect any mineral resources of value to the state or region. The project would have no impact related to mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 40 July 2016
3.12 Noise
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. NOISE – Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan table “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment” establishes a 70 dB exterior noise exposure limit as the normally acceptable limit and 80 dB as the conditionally acceptable limit for business commercial land uses (City of Palo Alto 2007). The current building meets the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan standards. Land uses on the project site would not change with implementation of the proposed project. The project would be required to ensure that the new addition meets the same noise standards as the main building in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, impacts related to exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of established standards would be less than significant.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 41 July 2016
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
The project does not require the use of construction equipment, such as pile driving that typically generates excessive groundborne vibrations. Some level of groundborne vibration may occur during project construction but would be short-term and intermittent. Project construction would comply with all applicable standards in the City’s Noise ordinance. Land uses on the project site would not change with implementation of the project and operation of the project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration. Therefore, impacts related to exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration would be less than significant.
c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
The project is not changing the land use on the project site and operation of the project would not change from activities currently occurring on the project site. The project is not expected to result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and the impact would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Project construction involves demolition of approximately 2,500 square feet of the existing building and construction of a new 10,185721 square-foot addition. Construction would be expected to generate short-term temporary noise in the project area. All construction activities would be required to take place between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and would not be allowed to occur on Sundays and Holidays (City of Palo Alto 2003). Additional provisions require that no individual piece of equipment produce a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet, and the noise level at any point outside of the project property does not exceed 110 dBA. Compliance with the requirements in Section 9.10 of the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that temporary construction noise impacts are less than significant.
e) Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
There are no airports within two miles of the project site and the site is not identified within a safety zone in the Palo Alto Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Palo Alto Airport
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 42 July 2016
is located approximately 2.7 miles east of the project site. The project would result in no impacts related to exposure of people to excessive noise levels.
f) Would the project be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The nearest private airstrip to the project site is a helipad on the Stanford Medical building approximately 1.10 miles southwest of the project site. The helipad is for use by emergency helicopters only and the land use is not changing from what currently exists on the project site. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on exposure of people to excessive noise levels.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
3.13 Population and Housing
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The project would expand the Community Center in order to meet the demands of the surrounding neighborhoods. The project would not induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly and it would have no impact related to population growth.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 43 July 2016
b and c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The site does not currently support any housing or residential use. No housing or residents would be displaced by the proposed project and the project would have no impact on housing or require construction of new housing.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
3.14 Public Services
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities?
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? Police protection?
The project site currently operates as a Community Center and receives services from the City Fire and Police Departments. The project would add approximately 7,1588,129 square feet to the project site but would not generate a new population or cause a substantial
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 44 July 2016
increase in the population that would demand additional service. The project would have a less than significant impact on the provision of fire protection and police services.
Schools?
The project would expand an existing Community Center but would not generate a new population that would increase the demand for local schools. The project would have no impact on schools.
Parks?
The project would not generate a new population that would increase the demand for local parks. Expanding the Community Center would allow the facility to serve approximately 360 additional persons per day. This would not cause a substantial increase in the population that would require parks. The City’s standard conditions of approval require fees to address any increased need for parks. Payment of the development fees for parks would ensure that the project’s impact is less than significant.
Other public facilities?
The project would not generate a new population that would increase the demand for other public facilities. The City’s standard conditions of approval require fees to address any increased need for community facilities, schools and housing. The project is a community facility and is not required to pay community facility fees. The project’s would have no adverse effect on other public facilities and would improve the services provided at Avenidas. Thus the project would have no impact on public facilities.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
3.15 Recreation
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 45 July 2016
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. RECREATION b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The project would not construct residential units and would not generate a new population requiring the use of neighborhood and regional parks. The 7,1588,129 square-foot increase in floor space is not expected to have a significant effect on existing parks or recreational facilities. The project would expand the existing community center to improve services to existing and future clients. It would not increase population in the area and would not increase demands for parks and recreation facilities. The project would have no adverse impact related to recreation.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The existing project site is a community center and includes recreational activities and classes for patrons. The project would be expanding this recreational facility to accommodate the growing demand for services provided by the community center. The project would not generate a new population requiring use of additional recreational facilities and the project would reduce the demand for use of recreational facilities by accommodating an estimated 360 additional people per day. The potential adverse impacts on the environment of the proposed project are evaluated throughout this IS; therefore, this impact is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 46 July 2016
3.16 Transportation and Traffic
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
A survey was conducted by Avenidas volunteers with training and oversight by Fehr & Peers on September 18th and September 23rd for the entire hours of operation of the facility and recorded time of arrival, mode of transportation, parking location (if applicable), and expected time of departure. According to Table 2 in the Focused Traffic Impact Study Memorandum on the day the facility was most crowded 58% of people arriving at Avenidas
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 47 July 2016
drove their car, 21% walked, 7% arrived as a passenger in a carpool, 7% used transit or shuttles, 4% were dropped off by another vehicle, and 3% biked (Fehr & Peers, 2014). According to Table 3 in the Focused Traffic Impact Study Memorandum, the expansion of the community center would generate five net new vehicle trips in the AM peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and 14 net new vehicle trips in the PM peak hours (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) (Fehr & Peers, 2014). The Focused Traffic Impact Study Memorandum concluded that the expansion would not negatively impact the traffic operations of the surrounding roadway network (Fehr & Peers, 2014). Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on conflicting with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures for evaluation the effectiveness of the circulation system.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County. The VTA administers the 2013 Congestion Management Plan (CMP), which contains five elements: traffic Levels of Service (LOS) standards, multimodal performance measures, transportation demand management and trip reduction, land use impact analysis and a Capital Improvement Program element. The CMP applies to all roadways and highways within the designated roadway network. None of the roadways surrounding the project are included in the designated roadway network highways, expressways, or principal arterials listed in Appendix B of the CMP (VTA, 2013). The nearest roadways included in this network are the Oregon-Page Mill expressway and El Camino Real/State Route 82. Since the none of the roadways immediately surrounding the project site are included in the CMP designated roadway network and the additional project generated traffic would not impact the surrounding roadway network, the project would not conflict with an applicable CMP and the impact would be less than significant.
c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
The proposed project would not affect air traffic. The project is not changing the land use on the project site and would not add a new population or increase traffic levels in the surrounding area. There would be no impact related to changing air traffic patterns.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 48 July 2016
d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
A majority of the project site is occupied by the existing community center building and there is no on-site parking. The project would increase the size of the community center but would not impact the parking lot located behind the building to the southwest and construction of the proposed project would not impact nearby traffic intersections. No dangerous design features or incompatible uses are expected to result from the project. The project would have no impact on increasing hazards due to design features or incompatible uses.
e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
The project currently shares the block bounded by University and Lytton Avenues and Bryant and Ramona Streets with Cogswell Plaza and a public parking lot. The public parking lot is accessed via Ramona Street, which would not change a result of the project. The project would not result in any changes to the University Avenue or to any of the surrounding roads. Therefore, the project would have no impact on emergency access.
f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.52.040 requires one bicycle parking space per 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, with a mix of 40% for long-term parking and 60% for short-term parking, in the Downtown University Avenue parking assessment district. Based on the project’s proposed net addition of 7,158 8,129 square feet, the project would be required to provide a total of three bicycle parking spaces (1 long-term and 2 short-term). The project would add bicycle parking along Bryant Street near the main entrance of the community center. In the Downtown University Avenue parking assessment district, the project is required to provide one parking space per 250 square-feet. Based on the addition of 8,1297,158 square feet, the project is required to add 3329 automobile parking spaces. The community center’s lease line is coterminous with the building and Avenidas does not have the land area to add parking spaces. The project would pay a fee at the rate specified by the University Avenue parking assessment district in-lieu of constructing new parking spaces as allowed under Section 18.52.060 (b). Provision of the required bicycle parking spaces and payment of the in-lieu fee would ensure that project impacts related to conflict with adopted policies, plans and programs regarding public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities are less than significant.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 49 July 2016
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Wastewater from the project site is treated at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant owned and operated by the City. The Regional Water Quality Control Plant is permitted under NPDES permit No. CA0037834. Wastewater flows on the project site are treated at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant in accordance with the NPDES permit. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on exceeding wastewater treatment requirements.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 50 July 2016
b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The project would expand the existing community center but would not generate an additional population. The expanded community center would connect to existing wastewater infrastructure and all flows would be directed to the Regional Water Treatment Plant. The project applicant would be required to submit calculations by a registered engineer to show that the on-site and off-site sewer systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties. This would ensure that sufficient wastewater infrastructure and capacity exists to serve the projected demand and this impact would be less than significant.
c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The project would not generate an additional population and the expansion of the existing community center would not require additional stormwater infrastructure. The project would increase impervious surface area on the project site by 0.3%, which would be result in substantial runoff requiring the construction or expansion of existing facilities. The project would be adequately served by existing infrastructure and the impact would be less than significant.
d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Expanding the existing community center would slightly increase the project’s water demand. The project would replace older fixtures with newer water efficient fixtures, which would reduce the project’s water demand. Additionally, standard conditions of approval require the applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off-site water systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. This would ensure that sufficient water supply is available to serve the project site and the impact would be less than significant.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 51 July 2016
e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
As discussed in item (b) above, the project applicant would be required to submit calculations by a registered engineer to show that the wastewater treatment provider is capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties. This would ensure that adequate capacity exists to serve the project and project impacts are less than significant.
f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
The expansion of the existing community center would not generate an additional population that would generate additional solid waste. Waste generated in the City is sent to the Sunnyvale Material Recovery Transfer station and ultimately the Kirby Canyon Landfill (Permit 43-AN-0008). The Kirby Canyon Landfill can accept 2,600 tons per day and has a remaining capacity of 16,191,600 cubic yards (CalRecycle 2015). The project’s current solid waste generation is adequately served by the landfill and the project’s solid waste generation is not expected to change substantially as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact.
g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The project would be required to comply with the green building requirements set forth in the California Green Building program and the City’s Build It Green Program. The project is proposed to attain a LEED Silver certification. This would ensure that water conservation and solid waste reduction measures are included in the project and that the project meets all local, state and federal regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 52 July 2016
3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The project site is developed and does not support riparian habitat, wildlife corridors, or any sensitive natural communities. There are trees on the project site that may be used for nesting by migratory birds and would be protected on site through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. The existing main building on the project site and the small shed at the rear of the building are both considered historic buildings. No changes or modifications would be made to the small shed. The demolition of the main building would include approximately 2,500 square-feet of the dining room that was added in 1977 and would not include demolition of any part of the main historic building. The internal improvements would not damage any historic features since no historic features remained after the initial internal improvements in 1977. The project would have a less than
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 53 July 2016
significant impact on degrading the quality of the environment, reducing fish and wildlife habitat or eliminating important examples of major periods of California history.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
The project site is fully developed and expansion of the community center would not contribute to the adverse visual impacts, loss of agricultural land, an increase in traffic, or the demand for additional public services and utilities. The project would have limited GHG air quality pollutant emissions that were far below the screening criteria for the BAAQMD, as discussed in Sections III and VII. The project would result in less than significant cumulatively considerable impacts.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
There is nothing in the nature of the proposed community center expansion that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings; therefore, there would be no impact.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 54 July 2016
4 REFERENCES AND PREPARERS
4.1 References Cited
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A through L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Adopted January 4, 2006.
Architectural Resources Group. 2016a. 450 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, California Historic Resource Evaluation. June 23, 2016
Architectural Resources Group. 2016b. 450 Bryant Street HRE Memorandum. October 4, 2016.
BAAQMD. 2010a. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Adopted September 15, 2010.
BAAQMD. 2010b. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2010.
BAAQMD. 2015. “Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status.” Last updated 2015.
California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 2008.
California Department of Conservation (DOC), California Geological Survey. 1974. “State of California Special Studies Zones: Palo Alto Quadrangle.” Effective July 1, 1974.
DOC. 2006. California Geological Survey. 2006. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for Palo Alto 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Santa Clara County, California. 2006.
DOC. 2014. Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map 2012. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Published August 2014.
California Department of Resources and Recycling (CalRecycle). 2015. “Facility/Site Summary Details: Kirby Canyon Recycling and Disposal Facility (43-AN-0008).” July 31, 2015. Accessed May 26, 2016. Available at http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/ Directory/ 43-AN-0008/Detail/.
California Public Resources Code, Section 21000–21177. California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
California Water Resources Control Board. 2016a. GeoTracker GAMA: 450 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, California. Accessed May 26, 2015. Available at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 55 July 2016
gama/gamamap/public/default.asp?CMD=runreport&myaddress=450+Bryant+st%2C+Palo+Alto%2C+CA.
California Water Resources Control Board. 2016b. Geotracker: 450 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, California. Accessed May 27, 2016. Available at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=450+Bryant+st%2C+Palo+Alto%2C+CA.
City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment. 2001. Tree Technical Manual Standards and Specifications. June 2001. Available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/ civicax/filebank/documents/6436.
City of Palo Alto. 2003. City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 9.10 Noise. Last Amended February 10, 2003. Available at http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/ California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca.
City of Palo Alto. 2007a. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. July 17, 2007. Available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp.
City of Palo Alto. 2007b. City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.52 Parking and Loading Requirements. September 10, 2007. Accessed May 26, 2016. Available at http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca.
City of Palo Alto. 2015. City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.14 California Green Building Code Standards. May 11, 2015. Accessed May 27, 2016. Available at http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016. EnviroStore 450 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, California. Accessed May 26, 2016. Available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ public/mapfull.asp?global_id=&x=-119&y=37&zl=18&ms=640,480&mt=m& findaddress=True&city=450%20Bryant%20st,%20Palo%20Alto,%20CA&zip=&county=&federal_superfund=true&state_response=true&voluntary_cleanup=true&school_cleanup=true&ca_site=true&tiered_permit=true&evaluation=true&military_evaluation=true&school_investigation=true&operating=true&post_closure=true&non_operating=true.
Fehr & Peers. 2014. Focused Traffic Impact Study Memorandum. March 2016.
Flood Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. “Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06085C0010H, Santa Clara County, California.” Effective May 18, 2009.
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 56 July 2016
Santa Clara County. 2012. Santa Clara County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. May 1, 2012.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016. Websoil Survey Avenidas. May 27, 2016. Available at http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). 2013. 2013 Congestion Management Plan. October 2013. Available at http://www.vta.org/cmp.
4.2 List of Preparers
DUDEK 853 Lincoln Way, Suite 208 Auburn, California 95603
Katherine Waugh, AICP, Senior Project Manager Samantha Murray, M.A., Senior Architectural Historian Kimberly Asbury, Planning Analyst Rachel Strowbridge, GIS Technician Devin Brookhart, Publications Specialist Lead David Mueller, Publications Specialist
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 57 July 2016
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Milpitas
San
Jose
Mountain
View
Palo
Alto
Gilroy
Campbell
San
Ramon
BlackhawkDanville
Moraga
Town
Alamo
Discovery
Bay
Orinda
Lafayette Walnut
Creek
Clayton Brentwood
Pleasant
Hill
OakleyConcord
PrunedaleElkhorn
Aptos
Hills-Larkin
Valley Interlaken
Santa
Cruz
Soquel Aptos Corralitos
Felton Day
Valley
Scotts
Valley
Ben
Lomond
Boulder
Creek Morgan
Hill
Lexington
Hills
San
Jose
Los
Gatos
Saratoga
Cupertino
Los
Altos
Hills
Los
Altos Santa
ClaraSunnyvale
Portola
Valley
Woodside
Atherton
San
CarlosHalf
Moon
Bay
Menlo
Park
BelmontEl Granada Redwood
City
Montara Hillsborough San
Mateo
Foster
City
Burlingame
San Bruno
Pacifica
South San
Francisco
San
Francisco
Newark Fremont
Union City
Hayward
PleasantonFairview Livermore
DublinSan
Leandro
Castro
Valley
Alameda
Oakland
Berkeley
Antioch
Vine
Hill
Richmond
Bethel
Island
Martinez Pittsburg
West
Pittsburg
Pinole
Rodeo
Hercules
Mill Valley
San
Rafael
Lagunitas-Forest
Knolls
Lucas Valley-
Marinwood
Inverness
Novato Benicia
Vallejo
Santa C
r
u
z
County
San Mateo
County
San Francisco County
Marin
County
Co
n
t
r
a
C
o
s
t
a
Co
u
n
t
y
Contra Cost
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
Sacramento County
Monter
e
y
County
Santa
C
l
a
r
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
Santa
C
r
u
z
C
o
u
n
t
y
Santa Clara County
Sa
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
Santa Cruz
County
San Mateo County
Alameda C
o
u
n
t
y
Alameda County
Ala
m
e
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
Sa
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
Pacific
Ocean
35
82
37
24
131
85
25
123
156
13
61
160
185
237
17
129
152
130
9
84
92
4
1
101
101
80
205
780
238
680
280
580
880
Regional Map
Expansion at Avenidas Project
Da
t
e
:
4
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
6
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
r
s
t
r
o
b
r
i
d
g
e
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
9
5
6
7
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
_
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
0105Miles
FIGURE 1
Project Site
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 59 July 2016
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
82
101
Vicinity Map
Expansion at Avenidas Project
SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series PaloAlto Quadrangle
Da
t
e
:
6
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
6
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
r
s
t
r
o
b
r
i
d
g
e
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
9
5
6
7
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
_
V
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
02,0001,000 Feet Project Boundary
FIGURE 2
Project Site
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 61 July 2016
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Project Site
Expansion at Avenidas Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps (Accessed 2016); Contra Costa County GIS
Da
t
e
:
6
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
6
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
r
s
t
r
o
b
r
i
d
g
e
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
9
5
6
7
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
_
S
i
t
e
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
0 10050Feet Project Boundary
FIGURE 3
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 63 July 2016
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FIGURE 4A
Site Photos
Expansion at Avenidas Project
Da
t
e
:
6
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
6
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
r
s
t
r
o
b
r
i
d
g
e
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
9
5
6
7
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
4
A
_
S
i
t
e
P
h
o
t
o
s
.
m
x
d
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 65 July 2016
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FIGURE 4B
Site Photos
Expansion at Avenidas Project
Da
t
e
:
6
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
6
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
r
s
t
r
o
b
r
i
d
g
e
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
9
5
6
7
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
4
B
_
S
i
t
e
P
h
o
t
o
s
.
m
x
d
Expansion at Avenidas Initial Study
9567 67 July 2016
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
APPENDIX A Historic Resources Evaluation
Architecture
Planning
Conservation
Prepared for
Avenidas
Prepared by
Architectural Resource Group, Inc.
San Francisco, California
FINAL
2ϯ June 2016
450 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, California
,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞ ǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶ
SAN FRANCISCO
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107
San Francisco, California 94111
T: 415.421.1680
F: 415.421.0127
argsf.com
PASADENA
8 Mills Place, 3rd Floor, Suite 300
Pasadena, CA 91105
T: 626.583.1401
F: 626.583.1414
arg-la.com
PORTLAND
ϭϭϭ^t&ŝŌŚǀĞŶƵĞ͕ϮϰƚŚ&ůŽŽƌ
Portland, OR 97204
T: 971.256.5324
arg-pnw.com
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA
23 June 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................2
2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................3
3. SITE AND BUILDING DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................4
3.1 Site Description ................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Building Description ............................................................................................................................ 4
4. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT.................................................................................................6
4.1 Palo Alto .............................................................................................................................................. 6
4.2 Site Development ................................................................................................................................ 6
4.3 450 Bryant Street .............................................................................................................................. 10
4.4 Birge Clark ......................................................................................................................................... 16
5. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY ............................................................................................... 17
5.1 Building Chronology .......................................................................................................................... 17
6. EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................. 20
6.1 California Register of Historical Resources ....................................................................................... 20
6.2 Local Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 21
7. EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................................................................. 22
7.1 Previous Evaluations ......................................................................................................................... 22
7.2 Updated Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 23
7.3 Evaluation of Integrity ....................................................................................................................... 24
7.4 Character-Defining Features ............................................................................................................. 25
7.5 Summary Significance and Integrity ................................................................................................. 26
8. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION & CONFORMANCE WITH THE SECRETARY’S STANDARDS ................................. 26
8.1 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation ............................................................ 26
8.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................ 28
8.3 Assessment for Conformance with the Secretary’s Standards ......................................................... 29
8.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 32
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. 33
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
1
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs of 450 Bryant Street
Appendix B: Historic Photographs of 450 Bryant Street
Appendix C: Original Plan Drawings
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
2
1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. (ARG) has completed this Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) in
connection with the proposed rehabilitation and new addition to the former Police and Fire Building at
450 Bryant Street in Palo Alto. The property is listed as a Category 2 building (“Major Building” of
regional importance) in Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory, and is recognized as a Point of Historical Interest
by the State of California. These designations qualify the building for consideration as a “historical
resource” per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In California, historical resources must be
considered in the environmental review process. In general, a project involving a historical resource that
has been determined to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards can be considered a
project that will not cause a significant impact on the historic resource per CEQA.
The first part of this report includes a physical description of the property, a summary of the building’s
historical background, a chronology of use and development, a summary of previous evaluations, and
identification of character-defining features. ARG has also provided an updated evaluation of the subject
building and associated garage structure per the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and
local criteria. The second component of this report uses the above-mentioned background information
to provide an assessment of the proposed project’s consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation.
Figure 1. 450 Bryant Street aerial view, subject property outlined in red (Source: Google Maps aerial view, amended by author).
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
3
The building at 450 Bryant Street was designed by prominent architect Birge Clark, who was responsible
for designing hundreds of buildings in Palo Alto and the surrounding area during the first half of the
twentieth century. From 1927 through 1970 the building housed the City’s police and fire departments,
including the Police Court and city jail facilities. As a new civic center began to develop in the mid-1960s,
some of these functions were transferred to other locations. The final vacancy occurred in 1970, with
the departure of the police department and the Communications Division. The building remained vacant
for most of the 1970s and was converted for use as a senior center by the Senior Coordinating Council
(SCC) in 1978. The SCC changed its name to Avenidas in 1996, and functions today as a community-
based nonprofit organization that provides services to older adults in Palo Alto and the larger Bay Area.
The proposed rehabilitation of 450 Bryant Street entails construction of a new three-story addition at
the rear of the building and a full rehabilitation of the interior of the existing building. A more detailed
project description is included below in Section 7.1.
To complete the HRE report for 450 Bryant Street, ARG:
›Conducted a site visit to examine and photograph the project area and its surroundings on June
12, 2014;
›Reviewed existing historic evaluations of 450 Bryant Street;
›Conducted additional research as necessary to supplement the existing record, including permit
research at the Palo Alto Development Center and archival research at the Palo Alto Historical
Association; and
›Reviewed proposed project drawings prepared by Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc., (set
dated March 16, 2016).
2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The former Palo Alto Police and Fire Building at 450 Bryant Street is locally significant for the quality of
design in its original exterior detailing, for its association with important local architect Birge Clark, and
as an important local municipal building. Built around the same time, the former garage building was
also designed by Clark and served the building’s historic function as the Police and Fire building. Though
the interiors of both buildings have been significantly modified over time, they retain an adequate
amount of original exterior character defining features to communicate their historic significance, and
the property as a whole qualifies as a historic resource per CEQA.
The project applicant has significantly modified their proposed design based on comments from
consultants and City Staff. ARG has reviewed the updated project proposal and finds it to be compliant
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
4
3. SITE AND BUILDING DESCRIPTION
3.1 Site Description
The building at 450 Bryant Street is located in Downtown Palo Alto, on the south side of Bryant Street
between Lytton and University Avenues. It lies between Cogswell Plaza to the west and an alleyway to
the east. The original building, 1950 addition, 1978 cafeteria wing, garden walls, and an auxiliary
building used as an activity room define an enclosed courtyard on the south side. A parking lot occupies
the south portion of the lot behind the building. The surrounding neighborhood is generally commercial
in nature.
3.2 Building Description
Figure 2. 450 Bryant Street, primary elevation (ARG, June 2014).
The main building at 450 Bryant Street is constructed of reinforced concrete and wood framing with a
with a stucco exterior finish. Stylistically, it is a Spanish Colonial Revival building with a first-floor arcade,
carved rafters exposed at the eaves, and clay barrel-tile roofing. A finely detailed door surround marks
the original central entrance to the building with “Police Court” carved into a panel above the door. The
surround is concrete, tooled and colored to contrast with the stucco walls and to have the appearance
of stone. The second story is characterized by three sets of French doors; each door opens to balcony
featuring decorative ironwork. Other exterior features include decorative wrought iron details and
original light fixtures. The window type found throughout the building is a steel multi-pane casement,
arranged in various configurations.
The interior of the building has been altered considerably from its original appearance. The present
interior configuration dates primarily to the 1978 rehabilitation, when the building was converted for
use as a senior center. The original exterior walls and features generally remain intact despite later
additions, but the original interior configuration has been altered so that no original interior spaces and
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
5
few to no original features remain. It is possible that some original features of the building, such as the
skylights and their sub-frames, have been concealed within the present finishes.
Two additions were made to the original Police and Fire building: one for additional fire department
facilities in 1950, and the other for a kitchen and dining room when the building was converted for use
as the senior center in 1978. The 1950 addition attaches to the north end of the original building, and
the 1978 addition attaches to both buildings at the southwest corner. Both additions were designed for
compatibility with the original 1927 construction and feature stucco cladding and red clay tile roofs. The
roofs are hipped like the original building and have open eaves with exposed rafter tails. The 1950
addition has rectangular multi-pane casement windows, and the dining room addition has arched
window openings reminiscent of those on the front of the original building.
Figure 3. Rear entrance into Avenidas courtyard (ARG, June 2014).
The rear (south) elevation of the original building faces a courtyard flanked by the 1978 addition to the
west and the former garage building (now a classroom) at the property’s south corner. The courtyard is
secured at the east and south perimeter by stucco-clad privacy walls and wood and metal gated
enclosures. The courtyard features a colorful tiled fountain, wood trellises, a small refuse enclosure, and
wood benches, all of which were installed as part of the 1978 rehabilitation.
Note: See Appendix A for additional existing conditions photographs.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
6
4. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
4.1 Palo Alto
Although the land was once occupied by the Ohlone and later part of vast Spanish land grants, modern-
day Palo Alto was formed in the late 1800s by Leland and Jane Stanford, the founders of Stanford
University. The Stanfords “decided that the new university should have an accompanying college town
to provide a clean-living place for student housing and other services.”1 After both the neighboring
towns of Menlo Park and Mayfield refused to stop serving alcohol, Stanford decided to create his own
dry town and called it University Park. In contemporary advertisements, the area was described as “a
tract of beautiful oak-park land, immediately opposite and adjoining the grounds of the Leland Stanford
Junior University.”2 The land was “subdivided into villa blocks, comprising about five acres each… in the
most artistic manner, with broad avenues intersecting each other at picturesque angles.”3 University
Park officially became Palo Alto in 1892. By the turn of the twentieth century, Palo Alto was a
developing town that “had solved many of the basic problems of survival by installing an efficient water
system, paving the roads, establishing schools, developing sewage management, and other municipal
functions.”4
4.2 Site Development
Figure 4. 1894 Sanborn Map detail, site of subject property outlined in red (map amended by author).
1 Pamela Gullard and Nancy Lund, History of Palo Alto: The Early Years (San Francisco: Scottwall Associates, 1989), 83.
2 Ibid, 85.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid, 137.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
7
Sanborn Maps dating to the 1890s indicate the area directly surrounding the subject block consisted of a
mix of vacant lots and single-family dwellings. A large residence and associated site features including a
“lawn tennis court” occupied the west half of the subject block as of 1894. The east half of the block
held a collection of small sheds, a carriage house, and a corral, as well as a number of vacant lots lining
University Avenue. By the 1920s, the area had developed further with a mix of single and multi-family
dwellings, lodging establishments, and businesses. The residential estate that had existed on the subject
block in the 1890s had been removed and replaced by a park on the western half of the block. Two
dwellings sat on the subject site.
Figure 5. Sanborn Map, detail, 1924, site of subject property outlined in red (amended by author).
Figure 6. Palo Alto City Hall, Ramona Street, c. 1920s (Source: Palo Alto Historical Association).
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
8
Palo Alto’s first City Hall building was constructed in 1907, just south of the subject property, facing
Ramona Street. This one-story building was initially intended to be a temporary facility, and a more
permanent City Hall building was to be constructed at University Avenue and Waverley Street; however,
these plans were never executed. To accommodate a growing need for space, the City added a second
story to the 1907 building around 1922, and other plans for expansion developed.5 According to a
history of the police and fire building:
[For] two-and-one-half years the City of Palo Alto studied the problem of locating a jail,
accommodating the fire and police departments together with the problem of relieving
increasing congestion at the City Hall…Finally a plan was outlined for the construction of a
permanent building to accommodate the fire department, police department and jail. It would
be located on municipal property facing Bryant Street behind the City Hall.6
Figure 6. Palo Alto Police and Fire Station, 450 Bryant Street, c. 1927
(Source: Palo Alto Historical Association).
On January 20, 1927, the City Council recommend a bond issue of $74,000. Construction of the Palo Alto
Police and Fire Building was completed at the end of 1927, and the building was formally dedicated on
December 6 of that year. To celebrate the dedication, a dinner and program were held in the new
quarters. An article in the Palo Alto Times gave the following report:
5 Palo Alto: A Centennial History, 229
6 History of the Fire/Police Building, Palo Alto Historical Association archives, 2.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
9
What with an old-time chicken dinner, music both vocal and instrumental, vaudeville
entertainment and speeches bristling with wit and praise of Palo Alto as one of the best – nay,
even possibly the very best town in California – a good time was had by all.7
The event, held in the club room of the Fire Department quarters, was attended by municipal officials,
employees, and guests. As noted in the Palo Alto Times article, the “event was voted so successful that
hopes were expressed that it could become an annual affair.”8
Figure 7. Sanborn Map, detail, 1949, site of subject property outlined in red (amended by author).
The 1924 Sanborn shows two ancillary structures associated with City Hall: a garage and a storage unit,
both rectangular in plan and located behind the building. These structures were later demolished to
accommodate a new garage, which may be the structure that remains behind the former Police and Fire
building today. A six-car garage and an office building had been constructed to the west of City Hall by
1949, but these two buildings are no longer extant.
The years following World War II marked a period of growth and expansion in Palo Alto. As part of this
development, the City made building a new City Hall a top priority. The relocation of City Hall to a site at
Embarcadero and Newell roads in 1950 was fiercely contested, since it was located in the middle of a
residential area.9 Although many voted against the proposed location, the City purchased the lot and
built new city hall there despite the objections. The City’s offices moved again about twenty years later,
7 Ibid, 4.
8 History of the Fire/Police Building, Palo Alto Historical Association archives, 4.
9 Ibid. 54.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
10
when the existing City Hall building at 250 Hamilton Avenue was constructed in 1970. The original City
Hall was demolished in 1953; the adjacent six-car garage and office building were also likely demolished
at this time.
The open space adjacent to the subject building, presently known as Cogswell Plaza, was originally
established as City Hall Park in 1924. The park offered grassy areas, a children’s playground, numerous
shrubs and trees, and several benches.10 Increased vehicular traffic in the downtown area, as well as
overcrowding at City Hall, led to a proposal in the early 1950s to convert the park for use as a parking lot
or as the site for a new City Hall annex. Local residents supported retention of the park, and neither
proposal passed. In 1955, the park was redesigned by Bay Area landscape architect Douglas Baylis, and
dedicated to Elinor Cogswell, who had been a leading advocate for preservation of the park.11 Cogswell
served as editor of the Palo Alto Times from 1938 to 1954.12 The park underwent a $150,000 renovation
in 2012, which included new landscaping, pathways, and light fixtures. The City also removed tall shrubs
and hedges from the site and replaced them with new low-growing vegetation. A key component of the
new design was a circular seating area of decomposed granite.13
4.3 450 Bryant Street
Police and Fire Building
The Palo Alto Police and Fire Building was designed by Birge Clark in 1926, and constructed in 1927.
Clark opened his architectural practice in Palo Alto in 1922, and the Police and Fire Building was his
second municipal commission, following an addition to the public library designed during his first year in
business.14 A written history of the building discusses the research that went into the design of the
building – a unique combination of police and fire facilities at the time:
In the 1920s there were many fire houses, there were fewer police stations or combined fire
and police stations, and still fewer included a jail. It was desired to have a jail as it was very often
inconvenient and sometimes a real problem to take an arrested person to the County Jail in San
Jose. Birge Clark, Alfred Seale, Chairman of the Board of Safety, William Clemo, the Fire Chief,
and Howard Zink, the Police Chief, visited several nearby jails and firehouses. They talked with
the famous Police Chief of Berkeley, August Vollmer, who provided several valuable hints about
constructing a small holding jail – eight cells for men and three for women and children. Since
there was the possibility that they might temporarily be holding a desperate criminal, it was
necessary that the steel bars of the cells be saw-proof and that locks could not be opened on
the inside of the cell.15
10 City of Palo Alto, “Cogswell Plaza,” http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=104&TargetID=14
(accessed 26 May 2015).
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 Jason Green, “Palo Alto’s Cogswell Plaza Gets a New Look,” Palo Alto Times, 17 December 2012.
14 Ibid, 1.
15 Ibid, 3.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
11
Upon completion of the building, a minor scandal erupted when it was discovered that the bars on the
jail cells could be easily cut. Soon thereafter, the company that had supplied the cells made the
appropriate corrections and new tamper-proof jail cells were installed.16
The construction costs for the Police and Fire Building totaled $53,000, including the steel jail cells in the
Police Department quarters.17 The structure was designed with reinforced concrete external walls,
columns, and girders, with floor joists and interior partitions of wood. One exception to the interior
wood partition walls was the jail, which was entirely enclosed with reinforced concrete internal walls.18
The following sections describe the building interior as it was originally designed and constructed.
Original Building – Exterior Description
As originally constructed, the “Central Police and Fire House” was a two-story, rectangular plan building
with stucco-clad exterior walls and multi-pane steel casement windows. Several skylights lit the second
floor interior, and a wide partial hipped roof topped the building. Spanish clay tiles covered the roof
planes, and the open eaves exposed decorative rafter tails.
Figure 8. Palo Alto Police and Fire building, c. 1938 (Source: Palo Alto Historical Association).
The primary (Bryant Street) elevation featured six arched openings at the ground level and a series of
multi-pane casement windows and three sets of wood frame French doors at the second story. A central
entrance provided access to a small entry vestibule and the stairway leading to the court room on the
second floor. On either side of this door were the entrances to the police department quarters on the
left, and the fire department quarters on the right. On the police department side, the outer arched
16 Ibid, 3.
17 Ibid, 1. Also: “Building for Fire and Police Departments; Palo Alto, California; Birge M. Clark, Architect.” The Architectural
Forum (November 1931), 580.
18 History of the Fire/Police Building, Palo Alto Historical Association archives, 1. Also: “Building for Fire and Police Departments;
Palo Alto, California; Birge M. Clark, Architect.” The Architectural Forum (November 1931), 580.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
12
openings had a tiled bulkhead wall with multi-pane steel sash windows above. The central arched
opening had a similar bulkhead and windows as well as a multi-pane glazed pedestrian entry door. The
original fire truck entry doors were composed of vertical wood boards with wrought iron hardware. On
the second story, the French doors opened out onto shallow balconies with decorative wrought iron
railings.
The park-facing (north) elevation had several steel multi-pane windows, but no entry doors. The south
elevation also had several windows as well as a steel entry door that led to the detention room corridor.
The rear four windows on this elevation – those that lit the interior detaining rooms and holding cell
areas – were secured with steel bars. On the rear (west) elevation, also in the location of the detention
rooms and holding cells, were six more windows secured with steel bars. The only exit door on this
elevation was a double-leaf wood plank vehicular door on the fire department side of the building.
Original Building – Interior Description
The original building interior was divided in half to house the functions of the fire department and the
police department and court. A reinforced concrete wall with pedestrian door openings divided the
interior of the building at center, and the interior spaces were further divided with wood frame interior
partitions clad with metal lath and plaster. According to the original plans, notable interior features and
finishes included wood paneled wainscot, chair rails, baseboards, and picture rails, as well as tiled
wainscot and wood plank doors with wrought iron hardware in the main entrance lobby. The interior
layouts and important spaces of both departments are described below.
Figure 9. Original architectural drawings by Birge Clark, first floor. The left side of building housed the police department
quarters, and the right side the fire department quarters (Source: Avenidas drawing file).
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
13
Police Department - Basement
The basement of the police department contained a narrow “Target Range” along the length of the
Bryant Street wall, and a boiler room set behind the stairwell. The boiler room was enclosed with a
hollow tile partition wall, and was physically separate from the “Battery Room” at the rear of the
basement, which was accessed by the rear stair. The space now occupied by the computer labs was
used for storage.
Police Department - 1st Floor
On the police department side of the building, the central pedestrian entry door (in the center arched
bay) accessed the main entrance lobby with tile floor and reception desk. Surrounding this lobby were
offices for the chief and sergeant, a filing room, an office for the welfare worker, toilets, and an
additional office space. As mentioned above, the police court entrance led to a small entry vestibule,
also with a tiled floor. This vestibule provided access to the second level via the central stair, as well as
interior access to both the police department and the fire department headquarters on either side.
The front offices on the first floor were separated from the detention and holding areas at the rear by a
long corridor leading from the exterior door at the alley. The rear spaces included six holding cells with
bunks, toilets, and sinks; an identification room; and two detention rooms. A rear staircase provided
secondary access to the court room level and access to the battery room on the basement level. On the
main floor, the front offices had wood floors with tiled floor surfaces at the lobby and courtroom
entrance vestibule. The rear detention room areas had cement floors.
Figure 10. Original architectural drawings by Birge Clark, second floor. The left side of building housed the police department
quarters, and the right side the fire department quarters (Source: Avenidas drawing file).
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
14
Police Department - 2nd Floor
At the second story, the two stairways led to a main corridor, which provided primary access to the
courtroom. The squad room, located at the front of the building, had metal lockers along the west wall
and led to a bedroom at the southeast corner of the space. Shower and toilet facilities were located
along the passageway leading to the squad room from the main corridor. Most of the space on the
second floor was occupied by the large courtroom. This room had a wood floor and received ample
natural light from two overhead skylights. A solid rail with two gated openings separated the audience
space from the head of the courtroom. A jury room, toilet facilities, and a “Supplies and Records” room
were located along the rear wall of the building. Most of the floor surfaces on this floor were wood, with
exception of the toilet facilities, which had cement floors.
Fire Department - 1st Floor
Most of the ground floor fire department space was occupied by a large “Apparatus Room” with a
cement floor. The front wall had three double leaf wood vehicular entry doors, and one double-leaf
vehicular door was located at the rear wall. Two firemen’s poles accessed this level from the second
story residential and lounging areas, and a spiral staircase was set along the north wall. An “Alarm
Room,” toilet room, and a “Watch Room” were located at the rear of the space.
Fire Department - 2nd Floor
The second story of the fire department building contained facilities for the fire department staff. A
dormitory with metal lockers occupied the front portion of the floor. This was separated from a large
“Lounging Room” by a kitchen area and toilet and washroom facilities. On the original plans, one
permanent office is shown in the south corner, with three “Future Offices” immediately adjacent.
Development and Use
The building was originally constructed to house the police department and jail, the fire department and
offices, and the municipal court, and these entities operated out of the 450 Bryant Street location for
nearly forty years. Research indicates that the use of the building was intensive. The “Fire Department
estimated that there were about fourteen employees in the building on each shift, with one to three
visitors daily. The police department had a peak number of 101 employees, and an estimated 150
visitors daily.”19 City documents did not include information on the number of employees or visitors to
the municipal court.20
The City of Palo Alto grew quickly in the first half of the 20th century, and with this growth came the
need for expanded police and fire department facilities. To meet this demand, a one-story addition to
the building was completed in 1950 for fire administration; the addition was later used for
communications dispatch.21 A new fire station at Newell and Embarcadero was also completed around
this time.22 Despite the addition to the Bryant Street station, the call for additional space continued to
increase, and the City began planning a new civic center to house municipal activities. This civic center,
completed in 1970, would house the police department, provide quarters and administrative facilities
for the fire department, and create a new office for the Fire Prevention Bureau. As the new facility
19 Elizabeth S. Crowder, “Environmental Impact Assessment for Old Police/Fire Building, Palo Alto” (19 April 1973).
20 Ibid.
21 History of the Fire/Police Building, Palo Alto Historical Association archives, 4.
22 “Ledford Says New Fire Station and Improvements are Needed,” Palo Alto Times, 8 December 1947.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
15
neared completion, the City began to transition the departments out of the building at 450 Bryant
Street. The fire department moved out in 1964 and was replaced by the Communications Division. The
municipal court moved out in 1965 and the police department and Communications Division moved out
in 1970.
The building remained vacant for most of the 1970s with the exception of temporary occupancy of the
former Fire Department quarters during the winter of 1972-1973 by a youth group making and selling
handicrafts (sponsored by the Recreation Department and supported by the Youth Advisory
Commission).23 In 1973 the City Council adopted a policy that dictated that the City maintain title to the
property for the foreseeable future, and that the architectural character and aesthetics of the building
be preserved and enhanced.
Figure 11. Jail cell removal, 1974 (Source: San Jose Mercury News, Palo Alto Historical Association).
Many new uses were proposed for the building during its vacancy, and two significant proposals – one
for a non-profit business and one for a Mexican-themed restaurant – were considered. In 1974, Richard
Nieto won the lease and intended to establish shops and a Mexican restaurant called “El Palacio de Luz
de Oro” on the site, but the lease was terminated by the City of Palo Alto in June 1975 after the City
determined that Nieto was in default of at least three articles in the lease agreement.24 Newspaper
articles from May 1974 indicate that Nieto held a public auction during his brief tenancy to sell off the
fittings and other items that remained in the building. Original features sold at the auction included the
23 Crowder, “Environmental Impact Assessment for Old Police/Fire Building, Palo Alto”.
24 George A. Sipel, City Manager, “Staff Report: Old Police/Fire Building,” 16 July 1975.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
16
jail cells, one of the fire poles (the other was stolen the night before the auction), the spiral staircase,
brass doorknobs, ceramic tiles, plumbing and light fixtures, chairs, tables, windows, doors, and many
other original features.25
In 1976, the City of Palo Alto agreed to lease the building to the Senior Coordinating Council of Palo Alto,
Inc. (SCC) for one dollar per year. The SCC, in turn, would be responsible for the remodeling and
furnishing of the building. Volunteers raised funds for the renovation of the building, which was to
include the addition of a new dining room and patio to the building, and conversion of the rear one-
story garage into a crafts shop. Other planned alterations included a full interior renovation to
accommodate new offices, classrooms, and spaces for community groups and county and federal
programs. On May 5, 1977, the groundbreaking ceremony took place. That same year, the building was
nominated as a Point of Historical Interest.
4.4 Birge Clark
The son of Arthur B. Clark – a noted architect in his own right – and Grace Clark, Birge was born on April
16, 1893 in San Francisco. His parents had moved to Palo Alto the year before when Arthur began a
professorship at Stanford University teaching architecture and art. Birge himself studied architecture at
Stanford University and later at Columbia University. He earned a Silver Star for gallantry in World War I,
after which he returned home to Palo Alto, where he enjoyed a successful career as an architect. Clark
resided in Palo Alto until his death on April 30, 1989.
Over the course of his prolific career, Birge Clark was considered by many to be the “man who built Palo
Alto.” When he opened his practice in 1922, Birge was only one of two licensed architects between San
José and San Francisco.26 His early works include the Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover House (1920) at
Stanford University, for which his father Arthur was the head architect, and several cottages on the
school’s campus. Birge also received the commission for the U.S. Post Office in Palo Alto, which was
completed in 1933. Many of Birge’s designs are in the “Early California” style – his version of the Spanish
Colonial Revival style. Birge Clark’s architectural contributions to Palo Alto cannot be understated,
having designed over four hundred residential and commercial buildings in Palo Alto and the
surrounding area.
Birge Clark’s autobiography provides the following reminiscence of the Police and Fire Building:
The Palo Alto Fire and Police Station…had as much of the ‘California Colonial’ feeling and, as a
city building, had a more formal balance of arches and windows. One-half had arches for the fire
engines to drive out through whereas the other half, occupied by the police, had the same
arches but filed in with windows and tile work.
The design of the firehouse portion of this building was far simpler, with a dormitory on the
second floor and two slide-down brass poles, as well as the normal stairway. The other half of
the second floor was occupied by the police court and reached only by a long stairway…[the
firemen] would not let the architect practice sliding down as they said ‘you have to be especially
25 “Unusual Items for Sale Lure Crowd to Old Fire-Police Building,” Palo Alto Times, 11 May 1974. “Old Jail Cells for Sale in Palo
Alto Auction,” San Jose Mercury, 10 May 1974.
26 Dave Weinstein, Signature Architects of the San Francisco Bay Area (Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith, 2006), 70.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
17
trained or you will break your ankle.’ I never could really see that sliding down the pole after
they had pulled their clothes on was going to save – at the most – more than ten seconds.27
Clark received an Honor Award from the Northern California Chapter of the American Institute of
Architects in 1928 for his design of the Police and Fire Building. The decorative ironwork on the building
was completed by Herman Bleiber, a craftsman who Clark retained for a number of his designs,
including the National Register-listed Norris House at 1247 Cowper Street in Palo Alto.
5. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY
5.1 Development Overview
The building at 450 Bryant Street was designed by Birge Clark in 1926 and was officially dedicated in
December 1927 as the Central Police and Fire Building for the City of Palo Alto. A 1950 addition at the
north end of the building was designed by Clark’s firm, Clark & Stromquist. The firm – at that point Clark,
Stromquist & Sandstrom – designed a full renovation of the building interior and cafeteria addition in
1977 to accommodate the Senior Coordinating Council of Palo Alto, which moved in the following year.
In 1995, the building underwent structural upgrades and another round of renovations. The lobby was
remodeled in 2001, and in 2003, the building’s HVAC system was modified and a fire alarm and
detection system was installed. More recently, HVAC modifications to the cafeteria area were
completed in 2013.
No building permits have been found for the construction of the one-story activity room building at the
rear lot line, but Sanborn maps indicate that building may have been part of the earlier City Hall
complex. A larger building marked as “storage” appears on the 1924 Sanborn in the general location of
the existing building, but by 1949, a smaller reinforced concrete garage had replaced this structure. An
undated drawing entitled “Proposed Automobile Sheds” is held in the Birge Clark archives at Stanford. It
shows a small rectangular plan garage in the same general location as today’s activity room, as well as a
larger parking structure to the west. The larger structure also appears the 1949 Sanborn.
Research indicates that the accessory building was used as a garage or carport when the building was in
use as the Police and Fire Building. The north wall of the garage – that facing the Police and Fire building
– was open, and the structure had room for four vehicles, two in each bay. The structure was later
converted for use as a wood shop, and it underwent a second conversion into an activity room for the
senior center in 1995. The building appears to retain its original form, but alterations include a full
interior refinishing, new windows and doors, and infill of vehicular entrances. The building retains its
rectangular plan, stucco cladding, and tile roof.
The following construction chronology provides dates and descriptive information for known alterations
undertaken at 450 Bryant Street since original construction. This chronology was compiled from building
permit records and other information gathered at the City of Palo Alto’s Development Center, as well as
from original and alteration plan drawings held onsite. The sections below the Construction Chronology
table provide additional information on the more significant construction campaigns in 1950, 1978, and
1995.
27 Birge Clark, “Unpublished Autobiography of Birge Clark,” 26-28. Held in the collection of the Palo Alto Historical Association.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
18
Construction Chronology
Date Permit
Issued or Year
Completed
Description of Work Contractor/
Architect Valuation
1927 “Central Police and Fire House for the City of Palo Alto”
completed.
Birge Clark,
architect $53,000
c.1930 Rear carport/garage accessory structure constructed Birge Clark,
architect
1950 One-story addition to Fire Station. (See details below.)
1978
Rear cafeteria/dining room addition and full interior
renovation for use as senior center. (See details below.)
Clark,
Stromquist, &
Sandstrom
1993
Minor interior alterations: new casework installed at
reception area to meet ADA requirements; new partition
wall 1st floor meeting room (now library); new partition
walls added in 2nd story office area, previous walls
demolished.
City of Palo
Alto
3/17/1995
Palo Alto Senior Center shop conversion to classroom –
rear one-story building (originally a garage/carport)
converted for classroom use: new doors and hardware,
new A/C unit and water heater; install interior sink,
cabinets, and drinking fountain; new closet and furnace
area partitions. (See details below.)
4/6/1995 Structural Upgrades and renovations to senior center.
(See details below.)
Baucentrum
Architects
3/2/2001 Remove and replace roof with 5-ply J.M. 5GNC terra cotta
color; only where repair is needed. $60,000
9/18/2001 Lobby & coffee room modifications, new ramp, new
suspended ceiling, and coffee room upgrades.
Peterson
Architects $10,000
9/23/2003
Ductwork, hot water reheat piping, direct digital controls
for fan coil units; also fire alarm & detection system
installed.
Kinetics
Mechanical
Service, Inc.
$138,700
7/20/2004
Existing classroom – add dishwasher, disposal, water
heater & refrigerator. Add upper cabinets & lighting (Int.
remodel to existing classroom bldg.)
Oxley Works /
David Oxley
7/11/2007 Install automatic fire sprinkler system. BFP Fire
Protection
8/1/2007 Install partition wall in basement, relocate electrical (to
be used as: two computer labs)
Jeffrey Sultan,
P.E.
$25,000
12/22/2007
Replacement of commercial restaurant equipment (like
for like) range, oven, sink, refrigeration equipment.
County
Restaurant
Supply
$40,000
2013 HVAC Modifications – La Comida
1950 Addition – Clark & Stromquist; Walter Huber, Structural Engineer
A one-story addition designed by Clark and Stromquist was added to the north side of the building in
1950 to provide additional office and vehicular space. The addition contained two office spaces along
the north wall and an “Apparatus Room” occupied the remainder of the floor space. Two overhead
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
19
vehicular doors were set at the rear wall, and one overhead door opened to Bryant Street on the front
elevation. A single-pane glazed pedestrian door provided access from Bryant Street to the interior
offices; a brick veneer bulkhead and multi-pane steel sash windows created a partial door surround at
this location.
1977 - Clark, Stromquist, & Sandstrom, architects; Artunian-Kinney Associates, Inc., landscape architects
x Elevator installed
x Kitchen and dining room/cafeteria addition to rear of 1950 addition and southwest corner of
original building
x Full interior renovation: reconfiguration of all interior spaces, only front central stair remains in
original location
x Installation of windows at former fire truck entry doors
x Rear patio/courtyard created and new enclosures installed at parking lot access and alley
x Removal of several original windows on rear elevation
x Installation of new second story exit door and new rear stairway
x Exterior doors and hardware replaced
x Basement egress on east side of building (originally a covered light well) converted to stairwell
x Interior of 1950 addition reconfigured, front entry doors/windows reconfigured, two windows
on west elevation infilled, and kitchen access door installed
x Exterior landscape improvements: new paving along Bryant Street and alley; courtyard
improvements including new wood trellis and benches, new fountain, paving
1995 – Structural Upgrades and Renovations – Baucentrum Architects
Renovation project consisting of primarily interior improvements to address current seismic code and
accessibility requirements. Major alterations included the following:
x New plumbing, mechanical, and electrical work throughout
x New cabinetry in lobby, corkboards, and other improvements in lobby
x Restroom upgrades throughout
x Handrail upgrades at stairs
x Remove west corner stage in dining room
x New signage throughout
x Replacement of existing wood doors, frames, trims, and thresholds, and hardware, with new
components compliant with current disabled accessibility requirements (selected locations
throughout)
x Replacement of existing metal handrail, pickets, and damaged galvanized metal stair tread at
the exterior exit stair from basement to alley
x Removal and replacement of existing clay barrel tiles at roof of 1950 addition for seismic
upgrading of roof structure; upon replacement, new tiles inserted to match existing where
broken or damaged
x Removal and replacement of existing 4-ply built up roofing system at roof of 1950 addition for
seismic upgrading
x Replacement of metal gutters at roof of 1950 addition to match existing
x Replacement of clear glass window at rear elevation (facing courtyard) to accommodate
expansion of restroom
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
20
Other notes
On the ground floor, the police station side, the central arched bay originally had a multi-pane wood
door, which was infilled to match the existing windows on either side prior to 1977 alterations. All three
of these window bays appear to have new bulkhead cladding to match that on the other side of the
building (where the fire truck entry doors have been infilled).
Cogswell Plaza Alterations
The City of Palo Alto adopted an ordinance in 1974 dedicating the Cogswell Plaza extension – a strip of
land immediately adjacent to the north side of the building – as park land. The service road that ran
from Bryant Street to the parking area behind the building was removed and the area was provided with
minimal landscaping. New walkways were installed to continue the curvilinear nature of the existing
park sidewalks, and a small walkway for delivery of kitchen supplied (on foot) was provided from Bryant
Street to the kitchen door.28
6. EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK
6.1 California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is the authoritative guide to the State’s significant
historical and archeological resources. It serves to identify, evaluate, register, and protect California’s
historical resources. The CRHR program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of
architectural, historical, archeological and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state
and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for historic preservation grant funding and affords
certain protections under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The California Register criteria are modeled on the National Register criteria established by the U.S.
Department of the Interior and the National Park Service. An historical resource must be significant at
the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following criteria:
1. It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United
States.
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction,
or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of
the local area, state or the nation.
For a property to qualify under the California Register’s Criteria for Evaluation, it must also retain
“historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance.”29 While a property’s
significance relates to its role within a specific historic context, its integrity refers to a property’s physical
28 Susan Strahorn, Project Manager, Senior Center. “Proposed Use of the Old Police/Fire Building, 450 Bryant Street, as a Senior
Center,” 11 February 1977.
29 National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 3, 44.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
21
features and how they relate to its significance. Evaluation for eligibility to the California Register
requires an establishment of historic significance before integrity is considered. To determine if a
property retains the physical characteristics corresponding to its historic context, the California Register
has based its seven aspects of integrity on those established by the National Register of Historic Places:
x Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the
historic event occurred.
x Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
x Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style
of a property.
x Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular
period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
x Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during
any given period in history or prehistory.
x Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of
time.
x Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic
property.30
6.2 Local Criteria
Criteria for Designation
The City of Palo Alto has identified the following criteria, along with the definitions of historic categories
and districts in Section 16.49.020 (see below), to be used as criteria for designating additional historic
structures/sites or districts to the historic inventory:
1. The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the
city, state or nation;
2. The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life
important to the city, state or nation;
3. The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now
rare;
4. The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now
rare;
5. The architect or building was important;
6. The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural
design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.31
30 Ibid, 44-45.
31 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.49 “Historic Preservation”.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
22
Definitions
The City of Palo Alto's Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of the work of important individual
designers and architectural eras and traditions as well as structures whose background is associated
with important events in the history of the city, state, or nation. The Inventory is organized under the
following four Categories:
Category 1: An “Exceptional Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These
buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific
architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States. These
buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall
appearance of the building is in its original character.
Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of
the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic
development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior
modifications, but the original character is retained.
Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an architectural style
and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other
factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the
original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or
wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.
Unlike the CRHR, the City of Palo Alto does not outline specific aspects of integrity for individual
resources.
7. EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
7.1 Previous Evaluations
The building at 450 Bryant Street has already been evaluated for its historic significance. It is recognized
on Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory as a Category 2 building. The California Department of Parks and
Recreation Historic Resources Inventory forms (DPR forms) for 450 Bryant Street provide the following
information:
Originally the Palo Alto Fire and Police Station, this building has undergone remodeling to serve
as a Senior Citizen Center…The most striking feature of the building, the elegant and inventive
ironwork of its second floor balconies, will be unaffected by the proposed changes. Only the
two-story portion was in the original design. The one-story addition on the west side came later.
Designed by the important architect Birge Clark, the building’s iron work shares workmanship
with wrought iron designs of the Norris House, whose ironwork craftsman, Herman Bleiber, was
a favorite of Clark. For the Senior Center, the interior was redesigned in 1978 by Walter
Stromquist, one of Clark’s colleagues.32
32 440-450 Bryant Street, California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources Inventory, prepared by Lydia
Moran, 1978.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
23
Though not explicitly stated in the DPR forms, the building is significant as an example of the Spanish
Colonial Revival style of architecture, as a work of noted local architect Birge Clark, and for its historical
use as an important municipal building. The building is also recognized as a Point of Historical Interest by
the State of California. Since the building at 450 Bryant Street is listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory,
it qualifies as a historic resource per the California Environmental Quality Act.
7.2 Updated Evaluation
California Register of Historical Resources
CRHR Criterion 1 [Association with Significant Events]
The subject property is associated with early municipal development of Palo Alto, and is the only
remaining built component of the original civic center complex in the city’s downtown. Therefore, the
subject property, including the rear accessory building, appears eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1
at the local level.
CRHR Criterion 2 [Association with Significant Persons]
Though the former Police and Fire Department played a notable role as an important municipal building
in Palo Alto, research did not identify an important association with any particular individual. As such,
the subject property does not appear eligible for listing on the CRHR under this criterion.
CRHR Criterion 3 [Architectural Significance]
The former Police and Fire Building at 450 Bryant Street is locally significant as an example of the
Spanish Colonial Revival style of architecture, and as a work of noted local architect Birge Clark. Though
altered on the interior, the exterior of the building retains many characteristic features of the style,
including a first-floor arcade, carved rafters exposed at the eaves, clay barrel-tile roofing, stucco wall
cladding, steel multi-pane casement windows, and decorative ironwork. Clark designed many buildings
in Palo Alto during his career, and received an Honor Award from the Northern California Chapter of the
American Institute of Architects in 1928 for his design of the Police and Fire Building. For these reasons,
the subject property appears eligible for listing on the CRHR at the local level under this criterion.
CRHR Criterion 4 [Potential to Yield Information]
Criterion 4 is generally applied to archeological resources and evaluation of the property for eligibility
under this criterion is beyond the scope of this evaluation.
Palo Alto Historic Inventory
The former Police and Fire building at 450 Bryant Street is listed as a Category 2 resource on the Palo
Alto Historic Inventory. Research and evaluation have not identified any information that would negate
the building’s historic status, so ARG concurs with this designation. Further, research has indicated that
the former garage building behind the resource was built around the same time as the main building
and was also designed by Birge Clark. It was used by the Police and Fire department as a garage and is
associated with the historic function of the building. As such, it should be considered a contributing
element to the building’s significance.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
24
Period of Significance
The period of significance is the length of time that a property was associated with the important
events, activities, or people for which it is significant. This period usually begins with the date of
construction. For properties like 450 Bryant Street that are found to be significant for association with
historic patterns of development (CRHR Criteria 1), the period of significance is the span of time when
the property actively contributed to that development. Likewise, properties that are significant for
architectural merit (CRHR Criterion 3) the period of significance is the date of construction and/or the
dates of any significant alterations and additions.
The period of significance identified for the building at 450 Bryant Street is 1927-1950. The subject
property is significant for association with early municipal development of Palo Alto, and is the only
remaining built component of the original civic center complex in the city’s downtown. It is also locally
significant as an example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style of architecture, and as a work of noted
local architect Birge Clark. The 1927-1950 period of significance begins with the date of construction and
ends when the building was first altered from its original configuration as a component of the City’s
original civic center complex.
7.3 Evaluation of Integrity
Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of
characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity involves several aspects
including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. These aspects
closely relate to the building’s significance and must be primarily intact for eligibility.
Location
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event
occurred.
The subject property remains in its original location and therefore retains integrity of location.
Design
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a
property.
Despite additions and alterations over time, the original 1927 building and associated outbuilding retain
integrity of design on the exterior of the building only. Overall, they retain their original form and
stylistic features from the original design, and many exterior character-defining features are extant. The
Main Police and fire building displays the most detail between the two buildings. The building interiors
have been extensively remodeled and no original features or design characteristics remain from the
original construction. Therefore, the building interiors retain no integrity of design.
Setting
Setting is the physical environment of a historic property, constituting topographic features, vegetation,
manmade features, and relationships between buildings or open space.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
25
Though the City Hall building has been demolished and some nearby buildings replaced over time, the
general scale and character of the surrounding built environment remains from the building’s era of
construction. As such, the subject property generally retains integrity of setting.
Materials
Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time
and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
The interiors of the original Police and Fire Building and associated outbuilding have lost all integrity of
materials due to extensive alteration over time. However, the original building exteriors retain material
integrity.
Workmanship
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture, people, or artisan during any
given period in history or pre-history.
The main Police and Fire building displays integrity of workmanship through its distinctive ironwork,
stucco detailing, and tooled concrete door surround at the former Police Court entrance. To a lesser
degree, the accessory building also retains integrity of workmanship through the exposed rafters and
wrought iron window grille.
Feeling
Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historical sense of a particular period of time.
The subject property as a whole expresses its historical character through a number of extant original
exterior features and materials, and therefore retains integrity of feeling.
Association
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
The property’s association with Birge Clark can still be communicated through the Spanish Colonial
design qualities that were a hallmark of his architectural style.
7.4 Character-Defining Features
This section identifies the exterior character-defining features of 450 Bryant Street. A character-defining
feature is an aspect of a building’s design, construction, or detail that is representative of the building’s
function, type, or architectural style. Generally, character-defining features include specific building
systems, architectural ornament, construction details, massing, materials, craftsmanship, site
characteristics, and landscaping that were present during the historic period. In order for an important
historic resource to retain its significance, its character-defining features must be retained to the
greatest extent possible. An understanding of a building’s character-defining features is a crucial step in
developing a rehabilitation plan that incorporates an appropriate level of restoration, rehabilitation,
maintenance, and protection.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
26
The historical significance for the Palo Alto Police and Fire Building is attributed primarily to the quality
of design in its original exterior detailing and its design by an important local architect. The building is
also significant as an important early municipal building. The character-defining features below
correspond with the building’s period of significance (1927-1950).
Exterior Character-Defining Features of 450 Bryant Street include:
›Red clay tile roof
›Open eaves with decorative rafter tails
›Two-story height and rectangular form
›Stucco finish and detailing (belt course at second floor and coves, cornices, imposts, etc.)
›Symmetrical façade on Bryant Street
›Arched openings at ground level
›Police Court signage and tooled concrete door surround
›Terra cotta floor tile at Police Court entry
›Ironwork, including balcony railings, grilles, and light fixtures
›Balconies at upper floor
›Multi-pane steel casement windows
›French doors at front balconies
›Minimal eave overhang
›One-story accessory building behind main building (gabled tile roof, stucco cladding,
window grille, one-story rectangular plan form – windows/doors not original)
7.5 Summary Significance and Integrity
The former Palo Alto Police and Fire Building at 450 Bryant Street is associated with early municipal
development of Palo Alto, and is the only remaining built component of the original civic center complex
in the city’s downtown. Therefore, the subject property, including the rear accessory building, appears
eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1 at the local level. The property is also significant for the quality of
design in its original exterior detailing and for its association with important local architect Birge Clark.
As such, it is eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion 3 at the local level. Though the building has
experienced alteration over time, it retains a sufficient amount of historical integrity to communicate its
significance, and the property as a whole qualifies as a historic resource per CEQA.
8. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SECRETARY’S STANDARDS EVALUATION
8.1 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (the Standards) are a series of concepts developed by the
United States Department of the Interior to assist in the continued preservation of a property’s
historical significance through the preservation of character-defining materials and features. They are
intended to guide the appropriate maintenance, repair, and replacement of historic materials, and to
direct the design of compatible new additions or alterations to historic buildings. The Standards are used
by Federal, state, and local agencies to review both Federal and nonfederal rehabilitation proposals.
In California, properties listed in, or formally determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of
Historical Resources or a local historic register qualify as “historical resources” per the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and must be considered in the environmental review process.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
27
(Resources formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places are
automatically listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.) In general, a project involving a
historical resource that has been determined to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
can be considered a project that will not cause a significant impact on the historic resource per CEQA.
The Standards offer four approaches to the treatment of historic properties—preservation,
rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. The Standards for Rehabilitation (codified in 36 CFR 67
for use in the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program) address the most prevalent
treatment. “Rehabilitation” is defined as “the process of returning a property to a state of utility,
through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those
portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural
values.”
The ten Rehabilitation Standards are:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal
change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic
materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that
create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or
architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in
their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that
characterize a property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old
in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement
of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials
shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using
the gentlest means possible.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If
such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
28
shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the
historic integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner
that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired.
8.2 Project Description
The following project description was provided by Avenidas, and is dated March 1, 2016:
The proposed existing building and addition is +/-26,500 square feet. The first level is the largest
at +/-11,000 square feet and includes the main lobby, reception, classrooms, a dining room and
kitchen and the addition of an atrium lobby. The second floor is +/-9,200 square feet and
includes multipurpose rooms, meeting rooms, classrooms and administrative areas. A third floor
in the new wing will be +/- 3,300 square feet and will include a fitness room, a small meeting
room and an outdoor deck. The circa 1925 shed at the rear (the “Garden Room”) will be
renovated to house the staff and members of Avenidas Village. The +/- 2,000 s/f basement
below the original building will become a theater/small auditorium.
Historic Preservation
The City of Palo Alto’s Downtown design guideline recommends that a sense of history be
preserved and historic structures be emphasized. The architectural concept of the addition is to
significantly maintain the architectural features of the existing historic building by adding an
addition at the back of the building, replacing the 1976 dining room with a three story wing and
a two story atrium. The design aesthetic of the new addition is contemporary but with elements
that relate to the historic building, including a red tile roof and punch windows. The scale and
massing of the addition is such that it is in proportion to the existing historic building. The
existing rear wall of the historic building will become a prominent feature of the proposed new
wing. The main building entry will remain along Bryant Street. No exterior building modifications
are proposed to the other three sides of the existing building. Participants will enter the rear of
the building into a lobby/reception that will look out into the remaining courtyard. With the
remodeling of the interior space, the circulation and way finding throughout the facility will be
improved. No historic interior features remain after previous interior renovations.
The renovated building will have less office space than it presently does. Except for a few staff
who interact directly and daily with participants and guests, staff will be consolidated into part
of the second floor in open space configured with workstations, a few private offices and shared
huddle rooms. We do not expect that more staff will be required as a result of the building
expansion.
Interior renovations are being designed to make the space feel open and inviting. We want
visitors to be able to walk through the building and see what is going on and be enticed to join
in. Small spaces will be combined into larger spaces. We also want pedestrians walking by on the
Bryant Street sidewalk to be able to look in and see what’s going on. Foundation landscape will
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
29
be replaced with low-scale plantings and there will be larger and more active multi-purpose
rooms flanking the front entrance.
Per the proposed plan drawings, the rear accessory building will be retained. The previously altered
interior and north façade will be remodeled. On the north elevation, the existing windows will be
demolished and replaced by folding doors and the existing doors will be removed and replaced. All other
exterior elevations will remain unaltered and the existing stucco finish will be maintained. Interior
alterations include creation of a new office area with four workstations and a reception/meeting area.
8.3 Assessment for Conformance with the Secretary’s Standards
This section provides an analysis of the project drawings prepared by Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc.
and dated March 16, 2016 and the proposed project’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation.
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its
distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
The proposed continued use of the building as a facility for seniors requires minimal change to the
character defining features of the building. New construction is focused in areas of prior alteration
thereby minimizing removal of historic windows, wall finishes, and other design details. Further, the
most extensive alterations to the existing building will occur on the building interior, which no longer
retains any original features, materials, or spatial relationships. As such, the proposed project is
compliant with this Standard.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive
materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be
avoided.
The proposed rehabilitation of the interiors of each building on site will not affect any significant interior
spaces or spatial relationships. Prior building campaigns have fully removed and/or altered all interior
spaces, and no original fabric remains.
The proposed new addition attaches to the rear elevation of the existing Police and Fire building in an
area that has been previously altered. The proposed addition will retain, to the greatest extent possible,
the exterior walls of the original building, and much of this wall surface will remain exposed and visible
within the new addition. The proposed project maintains the majority of the remaining multi-pane steel
sash windows that remain on the rear elevation in place. Only one original window will be removed and
infilled. The courtyard space behind the main building is not a character-defining feature of the complex,
so new construction in this area will not affect a significant feature or spatial relationship. No alterations
are proposed for the front or side elevations of the principal building that will affect historic features or
materials. Further, the one-story accessory building will remain in place and will be rehabilitated for
continued use by Avenidas.
Overall, the proposed project retains the historic character of the original buildings and is compliant
with this Standard.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
30
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a
false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic
properties, will not be undertaken.
The proposed new construction is modern in design and does not attempt to create a false sense of
historical development. New construction will be distinguishable from old and no architectural elements
from other buildings are proposed for use in the new design. As such, the proposed project is compliant
with this Standard.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and
preserved.
The period of significance 1927-1950 for 450 Bryant Street begins with the date of construction and
ends when the building was first altered from its original configuration as a component of the City’s
original civic center complex. Research did not indicate that later changes to the building, namely the
later additions, have acquired significance in their own right over time. Therefore, the demolition of the
1970s cafeteria addition for replacement with a new addition would not impact a historic portion of the
building and is compliant with this Standard.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship
that characterize a property will be preserved.
The proposed rear addition preserves the majority of the Police and Fire building’s distinctive features
and finishes, the most significant of which are located on the front elevation of the building. The
proposed project also maintains, in large part, the features and finishes of the rear accessory building
behind the main structure. Though the previously altered primary (northeast) elevation will be
reconfigured to meet programmatic needs, the remaining elevations will be unaltered, with finishes and
features preserved. As such, the proposed project is compliant with this Standard.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design,
color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by
documentary and physical evidence.
No deteriorated features are proposed for replacement as part of this project. As such, this Standard
does not apply.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
The proposed plan drawings do not indicate the use of chemical or physical treatments. As such, this
Standard does not apply.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed,
mitigation measures will be undertaken.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
31
An archeological evaluation is beyond the scope of this analysis. However, should materials be found
during the demolition or construction process, a qualified archeologist should be consulted for
assessment and mitigation recommendations.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials,
features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated
from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
The new addition to the existing Police and Fire building will remove a non-historic addition and exterior
stair. It will attach to the existing building in an area that has received more alteration than any other
portion of the building to date, and is therefore appropriately placed. The proposed project will also
remove non-historic courtyard walls, gates, and courtyard elements; these changes will not destroy
historic materials, features, or spatial relationships that characterize the property.
The historic materials, features, size, scale, proportion, and massing of the new addition are compatible
with that of the historic Police and Fire Building. The new building attaches to the old with a glazed
hyphen connector that is set back from each of the side elevations. This serves to provide a visual
delineation between the original building envelope and that of the addition. Proposed materials for the
new addition include flat clay roofing tiles, smooth limestone tiles for exterior cladding, precast concrete
trim, aluminum glazing mullions, and decorative metal panels. These modern materials will be
compatible with the color, finish, and quality of the existing stucco cladding, tile roof, and steel sash
windows of the existing building, but will clearly differentiate new construction from old. The new
design references the proportions and horizontal datum points of the existing building through
stringcourse details and continuous floor heights. Punched window openings in the new design also
serve to reference the original building, and are similar in size and scale, yet differentiated through
materials and design. Though the addition is one-story taller than the original building, its varied
massing and placement at the rear of the building result in an addition that does not visually or
physically overpower the existing resource.
No historic landscape features remain from the original design; as such, the proposed new landscape
elements do not destroy historic materials or features that characterize the property.
For the reasons discussed above, the project is compliant with this Standard.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if
removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would
be unimpaired.
As discussed previously, the new addition to the existing Police and Fire building will remove a non-
historic addition and exterior stair. It will attach to the existing building in an area that has received
more alteration than any other portion of the building to date, and is therefore appropriately placed.
The new addition also does not attach to the one-story accessory structure at the rear of the building. IN
the unlikely event that the proposed new addition is removed in the future, the essential form and
integrity of the historic property and its environment would remain intact.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
32
In summary, ARG has reviewed the proposed project and finds it to be compliant with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
8.4 Recommendations
x Where new construction is adjacent to or abuts historic fabric, care should be taken to protect
historic materials and features from damage through careful removal, storage, and
reinstallation; alternately, materials and features should be protected in place throughout the
period of construction. Preparation of a construction preparation plan by a qualified
preservation consultant is recommended; this would be appended to the final set of
construction documents for reference in the field.
x New material color selections should be verified in the field with actual material samples placed
adjacent to historic fabric where they will be permanently placed. Printed materials should not
be used for this purpose. Material location and sun orientation should be taken into
consideration when making selections.
x Modern material finishes should not attempt to emulate existing historic materials, patterns, or
finishes. Rather, selections should be similar, within the same color, hue, or tonal family, but not
an exact duplicate.
x To ensure that the final material choices are compliant with the Secretary’s Standards,
development of a materials selection guide is recommended. This guide would outline
parameters for materials selection in the field and should be prepared by a qualified
preservation consultant.
Historic Resource Evaluation Architectural Resources Group
450 Bryant Street – Palo Alto, CA 23 June 2016
33
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
California Office of Historic Preservation. California Register and National Register: A Comparison,
Technical Assistance Series 6. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation,
2001.
. California Register of Historical Resources: The Listing Process, Technical Assistance Series 5.
Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, n.d.
. User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historic Resources Inventory
Directory, Technical Assistance Bulletin 8. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and
Recreation, 2004.
Clark, Birge. An Architect Grows Up in Palo Alto, Memoirs of Birge M. Clark, F.A.I.A. September 1982.
Corbett, Michael and Denise Bradley. “Final Survey Report, Palo Alto Historical Survey Update, August
1997- August 2000.” February 2001.
Gullard, Pamela and Nancy Lund. History of Palo Alto: The Early Years. San Francisco: Scottwall
Associates, 1989.
440-450 Bryant Street, Historic Resources Inventory Form (DPR 523). Prepared by Lydia Moran. Palo Alto
Historical Association. 1978.
Historic Environment Consultants. “Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto.”
Prepared by Paula Boghosian and John Beach. February 1979.
Pacific Coast Architecture Database. https://digital.lib.washington.edu/architect/architects/759/
(Accessed June 17, 2014)
National Park Service. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register
Bulletin 15. Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior, 1997.
National Park Service. How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, National Register
Bulletin 16A. Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior, 1997.
Palo Alto Historical Association Archives – newspaper clippings files and historical photographs.
Sanborn Map Company Fire Insurance Maps for the City of Palo Alto
Weinstein, Dave. Signature Architects of the San Francisco Bay Area. Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith, 2006.
Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs of 450 Bryant Street
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA
Historic Resource Evaluation
Architectural Resources Group
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-1
Exterior
Exterior of original building, Bryant Street elevation, view looking southwest
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Bryant Street elevation with 1950 addition, view looking south
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-2
Bryant Street elevation with 1950 addition, view looking southeast
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
West elevation, view looking generally south
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-3
1978 dining room addition from rear parking lot, view looking northeast
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
View into rear courtyard from parking lot
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-4
Rear view of activity room building (former garage), view looking north
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
East elevations of original building and rear activity room building along alley
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-5
East elevation original building, view looking generally southwest
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
450 Bryant Street main entrance at former Fire Department entry
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-6
Former Fire Department entrance infill detail
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Detail of Police Court entrance
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-7
Exterior, detail of balcony, wrought iron work, and eave details
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Detail of existing Bryant Street entrance to 1950 addition
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-8
Exterior courtyard, view looking west
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Courtyard fountain and exterior stair, added in 1978
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-9
Courtyard trellis work and plantings
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Courtyard and activity room (former garage/carport) at right
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-10
Interior
Basement overview, taken from stair
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Basement stair, looking up
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-11
Photo composite overview of 1st floor office area (former Police Department quarters), taken from stair
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
1st floor office area (former Police Department quarters), looking toward stair
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-12
1st floor rear corridor (former Police Department quarters, detention areas), looking toward alley exit door
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
1st floor lobby area (former Fire Department quarters), taken from main entry
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-13
Office areas in 1950 addition
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
1978 dining room addition interior
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-14
2nd floor lobby at top of stair
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
2nd floor conference room (photo composite) in area of former Police Department squad room and bedroom
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-15
2nd floor activity room, in area of former Fire Department dormitory
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
2nd floor corridor, in area of former Fire Department kitchen/toilet and washrooms
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix A – Existing Conditions
A-16
2nd floor corridor, in area of former Fire Department lounge room and offices, looking toward rear of building
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
2nd floor rear corridor, in area of former Fire Department lounge room and offices, looking west
(Architectural Resources Group, May/June 2014)
Appendix B: Historic Photographs of 450 Bryant Street
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA
Historic Resource Evaluation
Architectural Resources Group
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix B – Historic Photographs
B-1
Palo Alto Fire/Police building, 450 Bryant Street, c. 1927
(Source: Palo Alto Historical Association)
Police-Fire Building, date unknown
(Source: Palo Alto Historical Association)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix B – Historic Photographs
B-2
Police Court, c. 1938
(Source: Palo Alto Historical Association)
450 Bryant Street, c. 1931
(Source: The Architectural Forum, November 1931, Palo Alto Historical Association)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix B – Historic Photographs
B-3
Palo Alto fire trucks in front of the Fire Department, 1933
(Source: Palo Alto Historical Association)
Palo Alto Fire Department Ladies Auxiliary, c. 1930s
(Source: Palo Alto Historical Association)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix B – Historic Photographs
B-4
A Vietnam War protest outside the Palo Alto Police Department, Bryant Street, 1968
(Source: Palo Alto Historical Association)
A Vietnam War protest outside the Palo Alto Police Department, Bryant Street, 1968
(Source: Palo Alto Historical Association)
Historic Resource Evaluation
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA Appendix B – Historic Photographs
B-5
450 Bryant preparing for construction
(Source: Senior Adult News, October 1976, Palo Alto Historical Association)
Appendix C: Original Plan Drawings
450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA
Historic Resource Evaluation
Architectural Resources Group
APPENDIX B Focused Traffic Impact Study Memorandum