HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-02 City Council (9)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
6
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APRIL 2, 2001 CMR:184:01
325 CHANNING AVENUE: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL,
AFTER REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD/HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD,
OF AN APPLICATION BY SUMMERHILL HOMES TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A 36-UNIT, THREE-STORY CONDOMINIUM
COMPLEX, SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE AND RELATED
SITE IMPROVEMENTS. ZONE DISTRICT: AMF. FILE NUMBER
00-ARB-112.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning
and Community Environment’s approval of the proposed project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to construct a 76,950-square-foot, three-story condominium
complex, a subterranean parking garage containing 77 parking spaces, and related site
improvements. The building would contain 36 condominium units yielding an .overall density
of 30 units per acre. The project would be located on the southwestern comer of Block B of
the property formerly owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF).
The site consists of one parcel totaling 51,300 square feet, or 1.18 acres, on the block
bounded by Channing and Homer Avenues b.nd Bryant and Waverley Streets. The proposed
building footprint would be 23,541 square feet at grade, resulting in a coverage of 46 percent.
The proposed building would be set back 15 feet from Bryant Street and Channing Avenue
and ten feet along the proposed public park to the north. A 40-foot-wide landscaped public
CMR:184:01 Page 1 of 12
access easement extending from Channing Avenue to the proposed public park ~vould
separate the project from the. proposed~single family homes to the east. ~.
Parking would be on a single subterranean level and would provide 77 uni-stalls, including
three standard stalls and one van-accessible stall. The parking level extends approximately
10 feet below grade. Vehicular access to the site would be provided fi:om a single, two-way
driveway on Bryant Street that connects to the parking level. Pedestrian access would be
provided from the primary entry on Channing Avenue into the courtyard, with entries to
individual units on both Channing Avenue and Bryant Street, as well as through the central
courtyard and mews. Rear units have pedestrian access to the proposed park through
individual patios. Transit access would be provided from existing bus stops on CIi~inning and
Homer Avenues and Ramona Street. Bicycle access would be provided by an existing bike
boulevard located along Bryant Street.
The building architecture would be traditional, with a modem interpretation of the California
Shingle Style that is intended to complement the design character of the adjacent
Professorville neighborhood. Building materials and features include transparent stained
wood shingles with contrasting wood trim, blue-green, architectural details, and dark
composition shingle roof.
Please refer to the applicant’s written description and plans for further details regarding the
project. Photographs and plans will be presented at themeeting.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed project has been reviewed by the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Architectural
Review Board/Historic Resources Board (ARB/HRB) at five meetings (July 12, 2000,
August 3, 2000, August 24, 2000, September 20, 2000, and October19, 2000). On July 12,
2000, the applicant provided an overview and history of all three projects on Blocks A and
B. The ARB/H conducted a preliminary review of this project on August 3, 2000. (See
Attachment E: Minutes from ARB/HRB meeting of August 3, 2000). At the August 3, 2000
meeting, the ARB/HRB reviewed the general parameters of the project including site
planning, architecture, and landscape components. At the meeting held on August 24, 2000,
the ARB/HRB requested additional details on solar features, balcony projections, chimney
materials and the interface between the building and the public park, the Mews, and the
public rights-of-way. The applicant incorporated the suggestions into the revised plans dated
September 14, 2000. The ARB/HRB reviewed the revised plans for the project on September
20, 2000. At that meeting, the ARB/HRB focused on the architectural aspects of the project
and requested that the applicant provide additional details demonstrating the quality of
building materials. The applicant provided and the ARB/HRB reviewed these building
details on October 19, 2000. At the conclusion of the meeting, the ARB/HRB recommended
3-2 (with one absent) that the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve
the project subject to the conditions contained in the September 20, 2000 staff report. The
CMR: 184:01 Page 2 of 12
Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the project on January 25, 2001
with the conditions recommended by the ARB/HRB, in addition to three conditions required
by the D~rector. These three conditions provided for a third party architectural review of the
project to ensure its consistency with the design approved by the ARB/H as well as to
ensure compatibility with the neighborhood.
Public. testimony regarding the project was also taken at each meeting. The concerns
expressed by the public focused mainly on the scale and massing of the building. A detailed
summary of the project is contained in the ARB/HRB staff report dated September 20, 2000
(Attachment C). Verbatim minutes from these meetings are also attached to this report
(Attachments D, E; F, G and H).
DISCUSSION
On February 7, 2001, an appeal of the project approval was filed by Steve Reyna and Aysen
Kutlu (Attachment B). The appellants’ areas of concern are summarized below and
responded to individually. The numbering of the concerns and responses corresponds to the
organization of the appellant’s letter. Direct citations from the appel!ant’s letter are shown
in quotation marks.
ARB/HRB Review Process
1. Appellant Concern: The ARB/HRB "operated under conflicting directions
between satisfying the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) and perceived guarantee
from the Development Agreement. An example of this is how staff and the applicant
stated that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was guaranteed."
Staff Response: At several of the ARB/HRB meetings, staff explained that
each of the non-single family projects proposed within the SOFA area is subject to the
policies and standards in the SOFA CAP as well as the provisions in the
Development Agreement. Staff further explained that the Development Agreement
and the SOFA CAP were both approved by the City Council and found to be
consistent. Each project must comply with both documents.
2. Appellant Concern: "Significant elements of the standards for review of the
ARB (PAMC 16.48.120) were not included in the ARB/HRB consistency review
standards." Omitted review findings include consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan, and site development characteristics such as lot size, building coverage,
setbacks, building and height.
Staff Response: The process for review of projects by the HRB/ARB was
developed by the City Attorney and Planning staff to specifically address the intent
and procedures established in the SOFA CAP. ARB fmdings (PAMC 16.48.120)were
CMR: 184:01 Page 3 of 12
not included because the ARB/HR_B review process is unique to the SOFA area and
differs from typical ARB project review. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
policies as well as review of site development Characteristics such as lot size, building
coverage, setbacks, building and height are included in the ARB/HRB staff report
(Attachment C).
3. Appellant Concern: Members of the ARB/HRB "stated objections about
constraints placed on their ability to have a full and proper design review, including
references to having their hands tied. The members went on record describing the
project as incompatible while not having the freedom to vote on the design, only
details."
Staff Response: At the beginning of the process that was established for review
of the PAMF/SOFA projects, some ARB/HRB members exPressed frustration at their
role in reviewing projects vis-h-vis the Development Agreement. Their concerns
involved the ARB/HRB process and how it differed from the typical ARB process;
as well as the conditions of the Development Agreement. After several meetings,
ARB/HRB members became more comfortable with the process, provided valuable
comments and suggested revisions to all aspects of the project including overall
building design, site planning, height, mass, articulation, fenestration, materials,
colors, and landscaping as well as building details such as porches roof eaves,
dormers, chimneys etc. Revisions included in the final set of architectural plans
reflected, to a significant extent, the design recommendations made by the ARB/HRB
members.
Specific to this project, the major concerns that were raised by the ARB members
included the "derivative" design that had been proposed by SummerHill, and
furthermore, how far along the design had been developed for their first review,
confining their ability to review and add design comments..They were concerned that
for this project, their comments would be simply cosmetic in nature. However, the
same Board members did provide substantial comments as to the details and quality
of the materials, all of which are included in the final approval.
It is important to identify that the ARB members strongly endorsed the mass, scale
and density of the project. Their reason for voting no was the architectural style that
they felt was imposed on them. As the Council is aware, this is the one project that
went through-significant "design review" with the community prior to the Council
approval of the Devel.opment Agreement. SummerHill was essentially directed to
develop a style that was compatible with the neighborhood. Their application for
ARB/HRB review was a refmement of the design that was very thoroughly presented
and discussed during the community and Council review of the SOFA plan and
Development Agreement.
CMR:184:01 Page 4 of 12
Appellant Concern: "An ARB member’s term expired in September 2000
making him ineligible to participate in the ARB/HRB joint board, thus rendering any
subsequent votes invalid."
Staff Response." Robert Peterson volunteered to serve on the ARB/HRB at its
inception and agreed to continue serving on the ARB/HRB following his retirement
from the ARB. Mr. Peterson was appointed by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment as Chairman of the ARB/HRB prior to the meeting on July
12, 2000. The Director accepted Mr. Peterson’s offer to continue his role on the
ARB/HRB after SePtember 2000 to ensure consistency through completion of the
PAMF/SOFA projects.
5. Appellant Concern: "Project approvals are supposed to be acted on by the
Director within 3 working days of the ARB/HRB approval. The ARB/HRB voted to
approve the Block B AMF (Attached Multi,Family) project on October 19, 2000. The
Director Signed the approval on January 25,2001 ."
Staff Response: ARB projects typically are approved by the Director within
three working days from the date of recommendation by the ARBI The SOFA CAP
does not specify a time frame within which the Director must make a decision
(Chapter IV, Section AI.II "All other uses" on page 84 of the SOFA CAP). The intent
of the SOFA CAP is to provide a review process that is unique to the SOFA area by
having all non-single family projects reviewed by a joint review board consisting of
representatives from the ARB and HRB. Because of community sensitivity to projects
in the SOFA area, staff retained a third party architectural consultant to review the
plans for the condominium projects proposed on Block A and Block B after
ARB/HRB review was .complete. The architect determined that the buildings
generally were well designed and composed of high quality materials. The architect
had several detailed suggestions for improving detailed components of the buildings
(such as porch columns and roofs). As a result, the Director added two conditions to
ensure that the building permit plans are compatible with the architectural style
envisioned by the ARB/HRB. This third party review required additional time; it
resulted in the Director’s approval on January 25, 2001.
Project Deficiencies
6. Appellant Concern." "The project is not consistent with the PAMF/SOFA
policy framework adopted by the City Council on September 22, 1997. ’Promote high
quality design and construction that preserves and continues the existing character of
the area, including.the scale of the development, the high degree of visual interest,
and the variety of compatible land uses within a historic pattern.’ "
CMR: 184:01 Page 5 of 12
Staff Response: The ARB/HRB staff report dated September 20, 2000 (page
10) is quoted in the appellants’ letter as follows: "The FAR, mass and height of the
proposed project exceed that of most buildings in the vicinity." The appellants’ letter
omits the following sentence in the staff report which reads: "However, they are
within that allowed by the SOFA CAP and are specifically provided for in the
Development Agreement approved by the City Council for this site." The staff report
elaborates by noting that the building has been designed to appear as several smaller
building blocks rather than one large structure. The site plan indicates four building
segments that are visually separated by the interior courtyard and hallways, the two
major entryways on Channing Avenue, and the garage entry on Bryant Street. The
landscaped garden at the comer of Channing Avenue and Bryant Street and the
staggered building setbacks along the Mews also serve to break up the mass of the
.structure. All four facades are provided with ample building articulation. Visual
interest is provided by numerous windows, roof overhangs, chimneys, porches and
balconies on all four facades. On this basis, staff concluded that the project, as
revised, was consistent with Council Policy Framework (9/97), as well as the policies
and standards contained, in the SOFA CAP, and therefore would be compatible with
the surrounding area. Staff recommended approval based on the findings and
conditions contained in the staff report.
The project is consistent with the Council’s review of the Development Agreement
and SOFA CAP in March and April 2000 (CMR: 192:00 and CMR:218:00).
7. Appellant Concern: "The project is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. ’Maintaining the physical qualities of the City is an overarching consideration,
incorporated in all parts of the Plan...’ The larger scale, massing and height of the
AMF development does not promote compatibility and preservation of neighborhood
character, as Policy L-12 requires."
Staff Response: The ARB/HRB staff report dated September 20, 2000
evaluates the consistency of the projectwith relevant Comprehensive Plan policies
(pages 2 and 3) as well as consistency with SOFA CAP policies (pages 3 and 4) and
concludes that the project is consistent with both policy documents. The project
complies with the development standards and guidelines for the SOFA CAP AMF
designation. The ARB/HRB design review also found the project in conformance
with the SOFA policies and therefore it is consistent with Policy L-12 of the
Comprehensive Plan.
It should be noted that the proposed affordable housing project would be developed
to the same AMF standards, design guidelines and SOFA policies as this project.
Furthermore, as discussed initially with the Development Agreement and throughout
CMR’. 184:01 Page 6 of 12
the SOFA design review, the density for the affordable housing project is anticipated
to be higher (36-40 du/ac) than this SummerHill project. ’
8. Appellant Concern: "The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP
policies. ’Policy H-6: Housing types in the plan area should include a range of
densities and should be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles, and
incomes.’ The majority of units are more than 2,000 square feet, thus targeting the
same income bracket."
Staff Response: The intent of Policy H-6 is to provide for a range of housing
types within the SOFA area, not necessarily within each project. The project would
provide 36 two-bedroom units. The units would range in size from 1,439 to 2,474
square feet. The mix of units is limited by the space available in the underground
parking garage and the SOFA CAP parking requirements. The parking garage is
limited to 77 parking spaces, all of which are required by the condominiums. The
SOFA CAP parking standards require 1.25 spaces for studios, 1.5 spaces for one-
bedroom units, and two spaces for two-bedroom units. Redistributing the mix of units
would require additional parking spaces. For example, separating a two-bedroom unit
into one one-bedroom unit and one studio would increase the number of required
parking spaces from two to three. Any corresponding division of units would result
in a proportional increase in required spaces.
Furthermore, Policy H-6 is addressed more completely through the implementation
of the entire Development Agreement with SummerHill Homes. This would include
the development of attached market rate multi-family units, as well as detached single
family units. Within this context, the types of residential units that would result from
the implementation of the development agreement would include a variety and range
of condominiums, new single family houses, carriage units, rehabilitation of historic
houses and below market rate rental units for families (multiple bedroom units
developed under AMF density and standards). Therefore, it is in conformance with
Policy H-6.
9. Appellant Concern: "The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP AMF
Design guidelines." The project provides 36 units, all two-bedroom, with most units
over 2,000 square feet in size thus failing to satisfy Guideline 4.1 (e) which call for
a variety of unit sizes to support different family sizes, age groups, income levels,
etc."
Staff Response." This project is proposed for market-rate family units. AMF
Design Guideline 4.1 (e) states "The use of a variety of unit sizes and floor plans is
strongly encouraged..,." All projects designated AMF are evaluated by staff for
compatibility with this guideline and all other relevant design guidelines in the SOFA
CMR:184:01 Page 7 of 12
CAP. The project is generally consistent with these guidelines, but it does not provide
a mix of units because of the constraints created by the parking garage and the SOFA
~CAP parking requirements. Please see .the staff responses to appellant concern #8
regarding the mix of housing units.
The affordable housing project, while they are rentals, will also be developed
predominantly as family units with two and three bedrooms.
10. Appellant Concern: " The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP
Attached Multi-Family (AMF)Development Standards. The building violates
standard 3.4 (f) (daylight plane) on the public park."
Staff Response: The SOFA CAP provides for minor exceptions, in this case
dormer intrusions on the building side facing the park, provided that findings can
be made. Staff prepared findings for approval of this exception which were
reviewed and approved by the ARB/HRB (see Attachment C of the ARB/HRB staff
report). Dormers on both sides of the projec.t extend into the daylight plane.
Intrusions for dormers and similar architectural features are allowed under the
SOFA regulations, provided that the horizontal length of all such features does not
exceed a total of 15 feet on each side or 20 percent of the building length. The
applicant has revised the plans to reduce the intrusion into the daylight plane to less
¯ than 20 percent on the Channing Avenue side but was unable to reduce the
intrusions on the public park side without losing floor area on the fourth floor
because of the narrow setback (ten feet) allowed on that side. A sun/shadow study
was required of the applicant that demonstrates that ttie impact from the daylight
plane was acceptable. Although it would be possible to stepback the fourth floor
facade, it was not considered as an alternative by the ARB/HRB. The dormers serve
to articulate the building mass and create the appearance of a series of smaller
buildings, staff believes that the intent of the SOFA regulations has been met.
It should be noted that for the ARB/HRB review, their strongest concern was how
the project would relate to the future park. SummerHill Homes has committed to
their architects working with the City and its landscape architects to develop a f’mal
landscape design to interface with the park.
11. Appellant Concern: "The project is not consistent with the Development
Agreement. The Development Agreement declares that ’the City desires to obtain the
binding agreement of PAMF for the development of the property in accordance with
the provision of this agreement, the SOFA CAP, and the various approvals and
conditions related thereto.’ As described above, the project is not consistent with the
SOFA CAP, and is therefore not consistent with the Develo ~ment Agreement.’ "
CMR:184:01 Page 8 of 12
StaffResponse." Please see the staff responses to appellant concern #1
regarding the SOFA CAP and the Development Agreement (above).
The project is .consistent with the Council’s review and action on the Development
Agreement and SOFA CAP (CMR: 192:00 and CMR:218:00).
12. Appellant Concern: "The exceptions approved were based on inadequate
findings."
Finding 1: Consistency with the SOFA CAP: a) Policy L-8 is a SOFA
Phase II policy, b)Policy H-l: The project provides 36 new housing
units, although it uses maximum FAR and height while providing only
the minimum density required, c) Policy H-6 states that housing types
in the plan area should include a range of densities and should be
suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and incomes, Most
of the units are over 2,000 square feet in size with very few smaller
units provided, thus targeting the same income bracket.
Finding 2: The daylight plane intrusion should be a negative finding.
Finding 3: An enhancement would not be achieved by the exception
that would not otherwise be achieved through reducing the mass of the
building.
Finding 4: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. a) Policy L-9
does not apply, b) Policy B-21 does not apply.
Staff Response: Staff prepared findings for approval of this exception which
were reviewed and recommended for approval by the ARB/HRB (see Attachment
C of the ARB/HRB staff report).
a) Finding 1: Consistency with the SOFA CAP: a) Policy L-8 is
included in the SOFA CAP Phase I document, but is subject to
modification and implementation in Phase II. Phase 1 of the SOFA
CAP calls for a mix of uses and includes a mixed use overlay on a
portion of Block C adjacent to the project site, consistent with this
policy, b) Policy H-l: The project does, in fact, provide only the
minimum density required (31 units per acre where the maximum
allowed is 50 units per acre; and c) Please see the staff response to
appellant concern #8 regarding Policy H-6 (above).
CMR: 184:01 Page 9 of 12
b) Finding 2: Staff believes that the intrusion of dormers on the
building side facing the park is, in fact, minor and is consistent with the
intent of the SOFA CAP provisions for minor exceptions. The SOFA
CAP (page 87) indicates that an exception can be considered minor in
scope when it: 1) involves only a small portion of the structure, 2) does’
not involve majorarchitectural features and 3) meets other
requirements that may be established by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment. That portion of the building that intrudes
into the north daylight plane is confined to only a small portion of the
third floor and involves only a portion of the dormer elements. Dormers
are a minor architectural feature that are specifically allowed to intrude
into daylight planes in the SOFA CAP. A sun/shadow study was
required to demonstrate that this impact was acceptable. The SOFA
CAP provides that the Director of Planning and Community
Environment shall make the determination of what constitutes a minor
exception and he has determined that this case is a minor exception
c) Finding 3: Reduction of the building mass would, in fact, eliminate
the need for the daylight plane exception. Such a reduction, however,
would affect the coherency of the building design, particularly the
vertical expression of individual building elements. Reduction of the
building mass also could result in a loss of housing units. At its meeting
of February 20, 2001, Council members discussed the need for
additional housing in the project proposed at 800 High Street (in the
SOFA Phase 2 area) and in the City in general to improve the
jobs/housing balance throughout Palo Alto. A reduction in the mass of
this, and other buildings in the SOFA area, would undoubtedly reduce
neighbors’ concerns about bulk and mass of new buildings. However,
such a reduction would affect the positive contribution made by this
and other PAMF projects to the citywide jobs/housing balance. Overall,
the PAMF projects are proposing to contribute 86 new housing units on
Blocks A and B as well as 20 new units on Blocks C, D, E and F.
d) Finding 4: a) Staff believes that the project is consistent with Policy
L-9: "Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the
planning and zoningprocess to create opportunities for new mixed use
development. " The project proposes a multiple family residential use
which contributes to the mix of existing residential, office and
commercial uses in the area; and contributes to a desirable
neighborhood character by including street trees and pedestrian
amenities (improved sidewalk and landscaping) at ground level; b)
Staff believes that the project is consistent with Policy B-21 "Maintain
CMR:184:01 Page 10 of 12
uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the
Downtown business district, allow for the continued operation of
automotive service uses, and serve the needs of nearby
neighborhoods. " The project provides 36 housing units close to
Downtown services, transit, and local serving retail uses.
Appellants’ Supplemental Issues -- Block B AMF -- March 26, 2001
12. Appellant concern." We have a number of supplementary issues to add to our
appeal of the 325 Channing (Block B AMF) application. These issues can be
summarized as follows:
Required elements of the building were not counted when totaling FAR.
Bedrooms on the fourth story are incorrectly identified as ’lofts’. Fourth story
specifically removed on Block B by action of Council.
Bedrooms on the fourth story are underreported as 500 square feet.
There are entrances to condominium units onto the public park with no
walkways to support them provided on AMF property.
Staff Response: The appellants have raised an issue regarding the calculation of floor
area and the design of entryways in their communication entitled "Supplemental
Issues Block B AMF Appeal" (March 27, 2001). The appellants contend that portions
of the fourth level loft space was not included in the calculation of floor area and that
the lofts constitute a fourth floor unit. The applicant and project architects are aware
of the City’s code requirements for calculating floor area and would revise final
building permit plans accordingly, if necessary. The lofts on the fourth level are only
accessible from the third floor via an internal staircase and are not, as proposed,
separate fourth floor living units. Staff considers this layout to be consistent with
Council’s intent in the Development Agreement provisions applicable to this site.
(April 10, 2000; CMR:218:00).
The appellants also contend that there are doorways on the ground floor that may
require walkways on the park property. The landscape plans show doorways leading
from the ground floor units onto private patios that are linked to the park with step
pads. These pads are located within the landscaped perimeter area on private property.
Although the park layout has not yet been designed, staff does not believe that
walkways serving the condominiums would be required on the park property. The
developer has committed to final landscape design for their project to be completed
in concert with the City’s park design landscape architect.
CMR: 184:01 Page 11 of 12
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared
for the SOFA CAP including the project. The EIR was reviewed and certified by the City
Council on March 27, 2000. The project, as currently proposed, has been reviewed in
comparison with the project that was evaluated in the EIR. Staff has determined that the
current project is consistent with that evaluated in the EIR and therefore, no subsequent
environmental analysis is required. Copies of the EIR and the findings made by the City
Council pursuant to CEQA (Resolution No. 7950) are available for public review in the
Planning Department on the Fifth Floor of City Hall.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Appellant’s Letter and Supporting Materials, dated February 7, 2001 and March 27, 2001
C. Letters from SummerHill, dated March 28, 2001, and Berliner Cohen, dated March 27,
2001
DARB/HRB Staff Report dated September 20, 2000 (including attachments)
E. Excerpts .of the ARB/HRB minutes of July 12, 2000
F. Excerpts of the ARB/HRB minutes of August 3, 2000
G. Excerpts of the ARB/HRB minutes of August 24, 2000
H. Excerpts of the ARB/HRB minutes of September 20, 2000
I. Excerpts of the ARB/HRB minutes of October 19, 2000
J. Plans (Council Members only)
C~~u~ent Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
G. EDWARD GAWF ~/
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY
Assistant City Manager
CMR:184:01 Page 12 of 12
Phase 1
|
O
Ig
B
a
ng
D
i
g~
|
I
I
Wavede¥ St
Bryant St
Emerson St
st
Alma St
~Blocks and Parcels Included in the Proposed Development Agreement
March 27, 2000
Attachment 15
¯ - CITY OF PALO ALTO, CACITY CLERK’S OFFICE
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Office of the City Clerk 01 FEB -’/ PM 5:19
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT (ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATIONS)
To be .filed in duplicate
’Stree~ .~{ City "
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No / ~ - l -7- /~" I Zone District /~ ~ i~
Name’of Property Owner (if other than appellant) .~UptH,~.~,[[ (~tA-/J~JllxJ~ ~
Prop.ertyOwner’sAddress. ""7"7"7 ~t.~,F-u"ttJ~’,,’J,- t~,..I’~L~/ITI~~:~’ ~J3r-. Ci~3OL/"
Street" ’City ZIP ¯
The rJeclsion of the Director of Planning and Cemmunity Environment dated/(~(’1,~(-~4 o~" ,
(original applicant)
for architectural review was ~)~0~ZP’~’~o/. Is hereby appealed for the reason.s stated
(aPrl~r~ved/d enied)
in the attached letter (in duplicate).
Date ~. 7, 2.Z)O/ Signature of Appellant ~~---~ f--*-.~r---
CITY COUNCIL DECISION:
Date
Remarks and/or Conditions:
Approved Denied
SUBMI’I-I’AL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Plans /~1,~By:
2.Labels AJ’//~By:
3.Appeal Application Forms
"~
By:
4.Letter By:
5.Fee ~}~’-"By:
12189
NOTICE OF APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING-
DIRECTOR FOR A 36 UNIT CONDOMINIUM
COMPLEX AT 325 CHANNING AVENUE
On October 5, 2000 the AP, B/HRB reviewed and recommended approval of an
application for construction era 36 unit condominium complex on Block "B" of the
property formerly occupied by the Pale Alto Medical Foundation. Staff has determined
that the project is consistent with the policies, programs and in~ent of the South of Forest
Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA CAP) provided that a minor exception for an
encroachment into the daylight plane is allowed.
The Director of Planning and Community Environment has reviewed the project, the
AR.B/HRB recommendation and has approved the project subject to the findings and
conditions.
The approval of this project is granted in accordance Chapter IV Section A "R.evie~
Procedures" of the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA CAP). Th
approval is for a "coordinated development permit" as specified in Section 19.10.060
the Pale Alto Municipa! Code. This permit will become effective eight working
following the mailing of this notice, unless an appeal is filed as provided by as Chapt~
16.48 of the Pale Alto Municipal Code.
The project is located at 325 Channing Avenue. Below is a brief description of tt
application for the project. Plans, f’mdings and conditions are on file at City Hall and m=
be reviewed weekdays_: between 8 AM and 4 PM, at the Development Cent~
285 Hamilton Avenue. For further information, please call Bhavna Mistry at (650) 32
2441.
325 Chanhing Avenue (File #00-ARB-112): Application for a Coordinated
Development Permit and minor exception to the north daylight plane restrictions for a 3t
unit three story.condominium complex, subterranean parking garage and related site
improvements at 32.~ Channing Avenue. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental
ImpactR.epof’t has been prepared subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Zone District (AMF).
You may appeal this decision by submitting a written request to the City Clerk. This requ
must be received by the City Clerk by 5:30 PM on Februar)’ 7, 2001. If no appeal is filed with
Clerk by that time, the Director’s decision will b~ final.
If you wish to appeal this item, you may contact the Planni.ng Department (329-2441) for assistan
lf~6u challenge this land us~ decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues y~
or someone else raised at an appeal hearing or in written correspondeace deliveied to the City of"
Pale Alto, at or prior to the appeal hearing.
Appeal of 325 Channing (Block B AMF)Application 00-ARB-i 12
Dear Council Members,
We agree with the intention and goals of the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA
CAP) including the housing density. Howev.er, the implementation does not conform with the
policies, programs or intent of the SOFA CAP.
Failures in the process prevented project deficiencies from being corrected.
As a consequence, we are appealing the Director of Planning’s decision to approve the
Coordinated Development Permit for the application by SummerHill Homes for construction of a
36 unit three story condominium complex, subterranean parking garage and related ’site
improvements at 325 Channing Avenue with a minor exception to the north daylight plane
restrictions.
Our goal with this appeal is:
1.Get a decision based on a flawed process vacated,
2.Have a full and proper ARB/HRB review which will bring the project into
conformance with the policies, programs ’or intent of the SOFA CAP..
We believe a proper ARB/HRB review can result in a project that is compatible with the existing
environment and that we can all be proud to put our names on.
Our appeal is based on, but not limited to, the following reasons:
ARB/HRB Review Process Issues
Conflict in direction
¯ While the SOFA CAP clearly states that "Compliance with both (Development)
Standards and (Design) Guidelines is required for approval of a development
project within the SOFA Plan Area", the review board operated under conflicting
directions between satisfying the SOFA CAP and perceived guarantee from the
Development Agreement. An example of this is how staff and the applicant stated
that FAR was guaranteed. When conflicting rules exist, the most stringent applies.
An applicant is not allowed to pick and choose which conditions they wish to
satisfy. For example, FAR (with or without a development agreement) is not
allowed to override compliance with other development standards.
Truncated ARB/HRB Review Guidelines
¯ Significant elements of the Standards for review of the ARB (PAMC 16.48.120)
were not included in the ARB/HRB consistency review standards.
One of the justifications giv, en for omitting 16.48.120 findings is "the finding has
been committed by the development agreement". (Aug 23, 2000 ARB/I-IRB
Memorandum, Attach. A, the very document which is titled "All Approvals shall be
consistent with the CAP")
February 7, 2001 1
Appeal of 325 Channing (Block B AMF)Application 00-ARB-112
Omitted review findings include: consistency and compatibility with the Comp
Plan; site development characteristics such as lot size, building coverage, setbacks,
building height; the ability to make recommendations more restrictive than Title 16
and/or Title 18 (PAMC 16.48.120 (c))
o ARB/HRB members express dissatisfaction with process
¯ Members of the review board stated objections about constraints placed on their
ability to have a full and proper design review, including references to having their
"hands tied". As a consequence of this constrained process, the members went on
record describing the projects as incompatible while not having the freedom to vote
on the design, only details. . .~.
The ARB/I-IRB votes of record reflect only a vote on these details, and do not
reflect a vote of approval on the projects.
Review Process Violations
o Board member ineligibility
¯ An ARB member’s term expired in September 2000 making him ineligible to
participate in the ARB/HRB joint board, thus rendering any subsequent votes
invalid.
5. Late
¯
Approval
Project approvals are supposed to be acted on by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment within 3 working days of the ARB/HRB approval. The
ARB/HRB voted to approve the Block B AMF project on October 19, 2000. The
Director signed the approval on January 25, 2001.
Project Deficiencies
6.The project is not consistent with the PAMF/SOFA CAP Policy Framework adopted
by the City Council on September 22, 1997.
"Promote high quality design and construction that preserves and continues the existing
character o~ the area, including the scale of development, the high degree of visual interest,
and the variety of compatible land uses within a historic pattern."
¯"The FAR,mass and height of the proposed project exceed that of most buildings in
the vicinity." (staff report, October 19, 2000)
o The project is not consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010.
"Maintaining the physical qualities of the City is an overarching consideration,
incorporated in all parts of the Plan .... " (Comp Plan, page I-3)
¯The larger scale, massing and height of the AMF development does not promote
compatibility and preservation of neighborhood character, as Policy L- 12 requires.
February 7, 2001 2
Appeal of 325 Channing (Block B AMF)Application 00-ARB-112
So The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP Policies.
¯ Policy H-6: "Housing types in the plan area should include a range of densities, and
should be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and incomes"
The majority of units are more than 2000 sq. ft thus targeting the same income
bracket.
o The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP AMF Design Guidelines.
¯ The project provides 36 housing units, all 2 bedroom, with.most units over 2000 sq.
ft. in size thus failing to satisfy Guideline 4.1 (e) which calls for a variety of unit
sizes to support different family sizes, age groups, income level, etc.
10. The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP AMF Development Standards.
¯ The building violates standard 3.4 (f) (daylight plane) on the Public Park. This a
violation of public welfare and should not be dismissed.
11. The
¯
project is not consistent with the Development Agreement
The Development Agreement declares that "City desires to obtain the binding
agreement of PAMF forthe development of the Property in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement, the SOFA CAP, and the various other approvals and
conditions related thereto." (Recital (3) >>As described above, the project is not
consistent with the SOFA CAP, and is therefore not consistent with the
¯Development Agreement.
12. The
¯
exceptions approved were based on inadequate findings.
Note: The application is for a minor exception. However, the violations of the AMF
Development Standard listed in item 10 above are major in character and should be
treated as such. The SOFA CAP lists four findings, all of which must be met before
a minor exception can be granted. The staff findings in all of the four categories are
inadequate as shown below. "
Finding Requirement 1: Consistency with the policies of the SOFA CAP
Policy L-8 is a SOFA Phase II policy and as such cannot be used as findings for
a SOFA Phase I project.
Policy H-1: "Provide up to 300 or more units of new housing throughout the
plan area, with residential use as the predominant land use for the former PAMF
site". The Finding claims consistency because 36 new units are being added.
>>The project does provide 36 new units. It is worth noting that it uses the
maximum FAR and the maximum height while providing only the minimum
housing density required.
Policy H,6: "Housing types in the plan area should include a range of densities,
and should be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and incomes"
>>Most of the units are over 2000 sq. ft. in size with v~ry few smaller sized units
provided. The target buyers seem to be generally of the same income level.
February 7, 2001 3
Appeal of 325 Channing (Block B AMF)Application 00-ARB-112
Finding Requirement 2: The exception relates to a minor feature and would
not be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity nor detrimental
to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
The Finding concludes that daylight plane violations are not detrimental as they
would not affect any adjacent residential use. We assert that a daylight plane
violation onto a public park should be a negative finding.
Finding Requirement 3: An enhancement is achieved by the exception in a
manner that would not otherwise be achieved through a strict application of
the standard
Staff asserts the necessity of exceptions in order to accomplish the design goals of
the SOFA CAP. The goals of the exception can be achieved, if, for example, the
building mass is reduced. This would achieve
"The purpose of the. Attached Multiple Family (AMF) land use
category is to provide for medium to high density apartments,
townhouses, or condominiums with site regulations which ensure
compatibility with the physical scale of the Plan Area but that reflect
current economic realities." (SOFA CAP, page 93)
Finding Requirement 4: The project is consistent with the 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan
The Finding claims consistency with the Comp Plan by citing the following Policies.
Policy L-9 encourages the enhancement of mixed use areas. >>The AMF site is
primarily a residential neighborhood. It is generally-understood that the area closer
to Alma is the mixed use portion of SOFA. This policy does not apply.
Policy B-21 states: "Maintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that
complement the Downtown business district, allow for the continued operation of
automotive service uses, and serve the needs of nearby neighborhoods;"
>> Business use policies do not apply to residential developments.
As previously stated, we believe a proper ARB/HRB review can result in a project that is
compatible with the existing environment and that we can all be proud to put our names on.
We greatly appreciate Council’s attention to the community concerns outlined in this letter.
Respectfully,
Steve Reyna Aysen Kutlu
February 7,2001 4
Overview of Block A & B Appeals
Appeals have been filed, onthe two condominium projects and the single family home development on the former
PAMF Clinic site.
The bases for the appeals are:
1) The constrained and conflicted review process
2) The resulting projects inconsistencies with South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA CAP),
SOFA Development Agreement, SOFA policy framework, and omp Plan.
3) The projects incompatibility with the existing neighborhood
4) The multiple exceptions to zoning standards without adequate findings
Our goal is to have the approvals overturned, the process flaws cleared up, and the projects sent back to the ARB/HRB
review board for a full and proper t:eview.
NOTE: If required condit.ions within a CAP or development agreement appear to. be in conflict,
the most restrictive apply. For example; FAR allowance cannot override daylight plane considerations.
Examples from the appeal !etters
Daylight plane standards have been set aside to allow maximum floor area ratio (FAR). For instance, the condominium
project at 325 Channing, which abuts the new public park, is designed to the maximum FAR (1.5) and height (45 feet).
Its impact on the park is exacerbated by daylight plane violations being allowed.
Public land is being given aw~y for private gain. An easement for emergency vehicles is bei.ng pr.oposed on the
Williams House driveway for the condominium project at 777 Bryant.. As a result, the condominium project is not
providing access on its own property and the size of the building grows proportionately, without proper compensation.
The joint Architectural and Historic Review Board was given conflicting directions as.to what parts of the design they
were allowed to review. An example of this is that the Board was given direction that the size and basic design of the
projects were fixed: the Board could only revie~w details
even though compatibility with the neighborhood is a requirement of the SOFA CAP. They felt the projects were
incompatible. This led to the great frustration of Board members about their constrained ability to have a proper design
review. One Board ’member even discussed resigning from the BOard because of feeling "handcuffed" (Story in the
Daily October 27., 2000).
An incompatibility example: 777 Bryant condominium project is 48 feet tall (3 feet taller than its zoning allows). Its
neighbor, the Williams House, is approximately 24 feet.tall.
Supplemental Issues: Block B AMF Appeal
Appeal of application 00-ARB- 112
325 Channing (Block B AMF)
RECEIVED
~IAR ~ 7 2001
Department ot Planning and
Community Environment
March 27th, 2001
Dear Council Membe .rs,
We have a number of supplementary issues to add to our appeal of the 325 Channing (Block B
AMF) application. These issues can be summarized as follows:
-Required elements of the building were not counted when totaling FAR .
-Bedrooms on the fourth story are incorrectly identified as ’lofts’. Fourth story specifically
removed on Block B by action of Council.
-Bedrooms on the fourth story are underreported as 500 sq.ft.
-There are.entrances to condominium units onto the public park with no walkways to
support them provided on AMF property
Incorrect FAR
Defined in PAMC 18.04.030 (65)(A), Gross Hoor Area :’means the total area of all floors of a
building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, and including the following: (i) Halls;
(ii) Stairways: (iii) Elevator shafts; (iv) Service and mechanical equipment rooms; ...".
As is shown in the SummerHill plans, elevator shafts and stairways, at the least, are not counted in
the total square footage on floors 2 & 4.
The bedrooms on the fourth story, ’lofts’, are identified on the plans as 500 sq. ft. An example
’loft’ has been measured as 525 sq. ft. plus its stairwell of 112 sq. ft. which brings the total to 637
sq. ft. There are many ’lofts’.
Since the tallied square footage is at the maximum, any uncounted square footage is in excess. The ¯
plans must be reexamined, all missing square footage accounted for, and the building must be
redesigned to fit within the maximum allowed FAR. Exceptions to maximum FAR are not
permitted in AMF zoning.
There is a Fourth Story
The lofts on the fourth story show no openings to rooms below, thus they appear to be bedrooms
rather than lofts. The consequence is that a true fourth story exists in this building. Council
specifically voted to eliminate a fourth story on Block B. The building must be redesigned to
comply with this condition.
Additionally, there are many living rooms on the third floor with 17 foot high ceilings. These are
enormous volumes of space that contribute to the overall massive bulk of the building as well as
demanding considerable energy to heat and cool. Reducing these ceilings to 10 or 12 feet would
significantly reduce the bulk of the structure and the load on the utilities.
Supplemental Issues: Block B AMF Appeal
Park Entrances for Condominium Units
There are four visible doorways fronting onto the public park with their porches coming within
four feet of the park. If the AMF lot is not providing walkways for these units, where will the
walkways exist? In the public park?
If the public park is providing the walkways to the condominium entrances facing towards the
park, tlfis is the use of public land being given to private development. Because the AMF lot does
not have to provide its own walkways on its own land, the building is able to expand and extend
into that space.
The result is a private easement being placed on publicland.
Remedies
-Comply with the code. Review the plans and count all missing square footage. Redesign the
building to fit within the allowable ma. ximum FAR.
-Remove the fourth story. Comply with the Council directive.
-Redesign the 1"7 foot ceilings.and reduce the overall bulk of the building thus getting closer to
compatibility with the neighborhood.
-Require the AMF property to take responsibility for its own circulation needs. The public park
should belong to the public.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Steve Reyna Aysen Kutlu
SummerHill Homes
777 California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Tel: 650 857 0122
lZax: 650 857 1077
March 28, 2001
Attachment C
Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembers
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo alto, California 94303
ILE: ARB/I-IRB Design Approvals
Dear Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembers,
I am writing at this time to ask for your support to uphold the Planning Directors approval of our
designs for three residential projects included in the Sofa Plan..SummerHill has been diligent in
its effort to deliver an ambitious program of development.and community benefits. The City will
no doubt benefit greatly through the dedication of parkland, affordable housing and historic
resource, not to mention the significant development of much needed market housing within a
very wide range of product types. Council understood, last year, that public/private cooperation
was necessary to make the program work at many levels, and that not everyone would get all
they may want. The objections heard in the appeals before you are the very same issues that were
addressed and concluded a year ago. I have included a letter written by the same attorney who
negotiated the legal terms of the Development Agreement on SummerHill’s behalf. His letter
specifically addresses the legal basis of three appeals before you.
At issue is whether SummerHill faithfully executed and articulated the agreed upon development
programs in a manner consistent with the plan. We believe this has been achieved. The process
of evaluation and public review has been exhaustive. SummerHill presented its designs at no
fewer than ten publicly noticed hearings before the prescribed ARB/HRB Committee.
Throughout this design review process, we have remained committed to improving our ideas,
pushing the quality of design to the highest possible levels, and being sensitive to surrounding
context and issues of scale without sacrificing agreed upon programmatic objectives. There were
numerous significant improvements made to our designs over the course of the past year.
SummerHill has been actively engaged in a very involved process of architectural design and
approvals for its various projects within theSofa I Area. The CAP Zoning and Development
Agreement which were unanimously approved by Council last March, have provided
SummerHill and City staff with very thorough guidance from which to work. In developing and
articulating the designs for the three projects currently under appeal, SummerHill has not
SummerHill Homes
deviated from the specific program statements outlined in the Agreement. The proposed designs,
which have been approved by the Director of Planning, are very consistent with the plans
illustrated before you in December of 1999. The site plan, architecture, building massing and
density all match.
It is tempting to tamper with designs and question the validity of numerous physical trade-offs
that become inevitable..The CAP Guidelines wisely included latitude for design discretion and
minor variation from standards that prove too rigid to support the very best solutions. A panel of
lay experts, both historic and architectural, debated at length our proposals. They made
suggestions relating both to style and massing. With the full support of staff, SummerHill
negotiated an involved and educated debate through the course of these public hearings.
The following is a synopsis of the Minor Variations form the Sofa Development Standards that
were approved with our designs.
¯Block A Condominium
The building design includes a three foot increase to the maximum height of 45’. The
increase in height was proposed to Council more than a year ago and the motion for
approval specifically included an allowance for four stories on this project. Four stories
within absolute height to the building ridge of 45’ would not result in an attractive design
with a first floor elevated between two and three feet to allow for a limestone building
base and an enhanced sense of privacy along the street. Likewise an cave height of 35’ is
not possible with four floors of units and the selected architectural expression.
¯Block B Condominium
The side building setback along the park side of the 36 Unit park facing condominium is
10 feet pursuant to specific provision of the CAP Development Standards. The Standards
did not specifically make provision for a modified Daylight Plane in this location. The
attic dormers and gable ends on this side of the building intrude into the daylight plane to
a minor extent. The presence of these dormers and attic bedroom elements was discussed
with council last year and resulted from a compromise not permitting fourth story units
on this site. The height limits have not been broken, and the proposed building section
matches a diagram shown to Council last February when we spoke of our intention to
include fourth floor dormer element. These elements were referenced in Mr. Beecham’s
approval motion.
¯Block B Single family Homes
Suggestions made by the ARB/HRB resulted in minor variations fi:om the standards, such
is the case with variation of the front yard setback for single family homes fronting the
pedestrian muse. Their direction was debated in detail and it was agreed that frontage on
a pedestrian way is different than street frontage. The thought being that a more intimate
distance from the public way would be desirable. Variation also resulted from the need to
resolve apparent conflict between standards. This is the case with variation to side
setback and daylight plane affecting the accessory units and two of the garages on the
SummerHill Homes
single family site, Without some flexibility in the standard, two of the ten accessory units
would be lost. These units are a required element of the design program.
SummerHill has been faithful to its vision and sacrificed considerable time and energy to a
lengthy public process. We believe that our projects along with the host of community benefits
that have been leveraged will be an enduring complement to this historic setting. We anxiously
look forward to the commencement of our construction as well as the park improvements and the
development of affordable housing. To further delay these approvals puts not only the spirit of
our agreement at risk, but also potentially undermines the financial commitments SummerHill
depends upon to enable construction of much needed housing this year. We have endured a long
standing~ minority of unfettered opposition based on the same issues that were heard and
defeated a year ago. Much has been done to ensure that this project will benefit the community at
large. We are confident that our projects will be of a quality that not only endures but will
become wok, en into the neighborhood fabric over time. Hopefully the architecture and housing
which it represents will be treasured for the residential revitalization of an area previously
subject to institutional intrusion.
Your support and swift action on this important matter will be greatly appreciated and warranted.
’Very truly yours
Richard T. Wurzelbacher
Vice President
BERLINER COHEN
SANFORD A. BERLINER*
ANDREW L FABER
WILLIAM J. GOINES*
ROBERT W. HUMPHREYSRALPH J, SWANSON
PEGGY L SPRINGGAYJOSEPH E. DWORAK
SAMUEL L. FARB
ALAN J. PINNER
"A Professional Corporation
RETIREDSAMUEL J. COHEN
FRANK R. UBHAUS
LINDA A. CAI I.ON
JAMES P. CASHMANSTEVEN J. CASAD
NANCY J. JOHNSON
JEROLD A. REITON
ROBERT L. CHORTEK
JONA’I’HAN D. WOLF
KATHLEEN K. SIPLE
KEV1N F. KELLEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD
ELEVENTH FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-2233
TELEPHONE: (408) 286-5800
FACSIMILE: (408) 998-5388
www.berliner.com
March 27, 2001
WILLIAM E. ADAMS
MARK MAKIEWlCZ
THOMAS P. MURPHYTHOMAS M. GROSS
NADIA V. HOLOBER
MARK V. ISOLA
BRIAN L SHETLER
JOLIE HOUSTON
JAMIE LEE BRANDS
EILEEN P. KENNEDY
HARRY A. LOPEZ
JOHN F. DOMINGUE
SETH J. COHENPATRICK LIN
JENNIFER J. CUNNINGHAM
KRISTIN GENC
DAVID D, WADE
TIFFINY C, EVANS
DENNIS J. LOPUT
BRIAN I~ KEELEY
OF COUNSEL
HUGH L, ISOLA°
STEVEN L. HALLGRIMSON
ERIC WONGNANCY L. BRANDT
CHARLES W. VOLPE
Mayor Eakins and City Cotmcilmembers
City 6f Palo Alto
P~O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Appeals from ARB/ttRB Hearings
File Nos. 00-ARB- 111, -112-113
April 2, 2001 Agenda
SummerHill Project
Dear Mayor Eakins and Councilmembers:
This letter is in response to the appeals filed by Steve Reyna and Aysen Kutlu on the
above-referenced approvals by the combined Architectural Review. Board/Historical Review
Board. On behalf of SummerHill, we would urge that these appeals be denied and the
applications be approved as they were approved by.the ARB/I-IR .
In essence, the appeals attempt to re-argue policy direction that was established in the
SOFA CAP and in the Development Agreement between the City of Palo. Alto and PAM~.
These policy issues were decided, however, after extensive public input and many hearings last
year at the time the SOFA CAP. and the Development Agreement were approved. The SOFA
CAP. has established the policy direction for the City, and the Development Agreement gave
vested rights to the developer to build the project to the maximum density and intensity of uses
specified in the Development Agreement and the SOFA CAP. These issues cannot be re-opened
at this time without violating the Development Agreement. ..
The following is a response to specific¯ numbered paragraphs in the various appeals. We
note that almost all the numbered paragraphs are identical from appeal to appeal, so they will be
discussed jointly.
~ALFk511595.1
02~32709427013
Mayor Eakins ant~ ty Councilmembers
March 27, 2001
Appeal Item No. 1: Conflict in Direction
The appellants argue that there are conflicts between the SOFA CAP and the
Development Agreement. This issue was put to rest when the entitlements were .approved. In
fact, the City Council specifically found in the Development Agreement that the SOFA CAP and
the Development Agreement are compatible. Thus, paragraph 9(b)(i) in part reads as follows:
(i) Entitlement to Develop. As of the Effective Date,
PAMF has acquired and been granted the vested right to develop
the Project to the extent and in the manner provided in this
Agreement, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Project
Approvals, and in accordance with the Applicable Rules and
Subsequent Applicable Rules when required by this Agreement,
and City hereby finds the Project consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the SOFA CAP, and the Zoning Ordinance.
To the extent that there may be any elements of the Program
Development Statements set forth in Exhibits "D-1" through "D-
10" that have inadvertently not been included within the SOFA
CAP, the Parties intend that such components be deemed
consistent with and a part of the SOFA CAP so that they may be
approved in the exercise of the reasonable discretion of the
Director of Planning and Community Environment.
Furthermore, the compatibility of the SOFA CAP and the Development Agreement was
stressed throughout the negotiation of the Development Agreement, and was certainly the City
Attomey’s position. In other words, the City Council was to make the original neighborhood
compatibility decision in their adoption of the SOFA CAP and in their adoption of the
entitlements and the Development Agreement for the project. Once those maximum intensities
of usage were agreed to, then the specific design of each element would still require City
approval, but the intensity of development could not be cut .back through the design process.
Thus, the first full paragraph on page 25 of the Development Agreement and the two following
paragraphs cover this issue in great detail. They read as follows:
Any subsequent Discretionary Actions by City or any
conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for such
¯ Discretionary Actions by City, shall not, without PAMF’s consent,
prevent development of the Property for the uses and to the
maximum density or intensity of development and other site
development standards set forth in this Agreement, unless City
determines it is necessary to protect against conditions which
create a substantial and demonstrable risk to the physical health or
safety of residents or users of the Project or the affected
surrounding region. [Emphasis added.]
(ii) Consistency with Applicable Rules. City finds, based
upon all information made available to City prior to or
concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, that there are
no Applicable Rules that would prohibit or prevent the full
~A!..F~11595.2
03-032809427013
Mayor Eakins and City Cotmcilmembers
March 27, 2001
completion and occupancy of the Pi’oject in accordance with uses,
densities, designs, heights and sizes incorporated and agreed to
herein. The Project Approvals anticipate the need for further
Discretionary Approvals by City, and such approvals shall be
reasonably conditioned and reasonably granted when consistent
with this Agreement.
(iii) Subsequent Discretionary Actions. With respect to
any Discretionary Action or Discretionary Approval that is
required subsequent to the execution of this Agreement, City
agrees tha~ it will not unreasonably withhold from PAMF or
unreasonably condition or delay any such Discretionary Action or
Discretionary Approval which must be issued by City in order for
the Project to proceed to construction and occupancy, in addition,
no. condition shall, without PAMF’s consent, preclude or otherwise
limit PAMF’s ability to develop the Project in accordance with the
density and intensity of use and site development specifications set
forth in this Agreement nor otherwise conflict with any provision
of this Agreement, unless City determines it is necessary to protect
against conditions which create a substantial and demonstrable risk
to the physical health or safety of residents or users of the Project
or the affected surrounding region.
It is significant that these provisions allow development at the maximum intensity
contemplated by The Development Agreement and by the SOFA CAP as well as by the other
entitlements.. Furthermore, the ability of the City to cut back on that density would only be as. a
direct result of a "physical" risk. This is different than the normal standard employed for design.
review, which is the more general "public health, safety and welfare.". My recollection is that
this issue was specifically discussed in this context, and the agreement reached was that the .
development at the maximum density permitted by the entitlements could not be restricted
simply on a general welfare standard. In other words, it could not be restricted simply because
of concerns about aesthetics or "neighborhood compatibility." "
Appeal Item No. 2: Truncated ARB/HR_B Review Guidelines.
The ARB/I-~B approvals properly note that certain findings have been made by the
adoption of the Development Agreement, and are not open for additional review at this time.
Appeal Item No. 3: ARB/I-IRB Members Expressed Dissatisfaction with
the Process
This is an opinion of the appellants and is not relevant to any issue in front of the
City Council.
Appeal Item No. 4: Board Member Ineligibility
Appeal Item No. 5: Late Approval
We assume that the City Attorney will respond to these issues of alleged
deficiencies of City process.
~,LF~11595.1
02-032709427013
3
Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembers
March 27, 2001
Appeal Item No. 6: Inconsistency with SOFA CAP Policy Framework
The fact that the FAR, mass and height of the proposed project may exceed most
buildings in the vicinity was accepted by the City Council when it approved the SOFA CAP and
the Development Agreement.. With respect to the DHS houses, the appellants’ claim that they do
not "continue the character, scale, or front setback pattern of existing residences..." is a matter of
opinion. The ARB/HRB, after numerous public hearings, came to the opposite conclusion.
Appeal Item No. 7:. Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan
Appeal Item No. 8: Inconsistency with SOFA/CAP Policies
These again are matters of opinion. The appellants site Policy H-6 of the SOFA CAP,
arguing that each housing type should have a range of densities, etc. However, there are and will
be. a range of densities in the SOFA area, including within the various elements of this project
itself.
Appeal Item No. 9: Inconsistency with SOFA CAP. A_MF Design Guidelines/SOFA CAP
DHS Design Guidelines.
This is the same argument as the previous paragraph, that the units in each of these
¯ separate portions of the project must contain a larger variety of unit sizes.. This is not required:by
the SOFA CAP, and contradicts the vested right of the developer under the Development
Agreement to develop¯ at the maximum FAR (see response to Appeal Item No.-1):
Appeal Item No. 10: Inconsistency with SOFA CAP AMF/DHS Development Standards
These paragraphs quibble over minor variations and exceptions in design standards which
were approved by the ARB/I-I after extensive public hearings, and in an attempt to approve
the best possible project given the dictates of the SOFA CAP. and the density of use allowed¯
under the Development Agreement.. In some eases, small exceptions to standards have been
required.. This again is recognized under the Development Agreement, as paragraph 9(b)(i)
quoted earlier in this letter explicitly recognizes in providing for exceptions to be made in the
exercise of"the reasonable discretion", of the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
Appeal Item No. 11: Inconsistency with Development Agreement
This is a circular argument that should be ignored.¯ These projects as approved are fully
consistent with the SOFA CAP and the Development Agreement.
Appeal Item No. 12: Inadequacy of Findings
In this paragraph, the appellants attempt to re-argue the policies of the SOFA CAP by
putting a different spin on them, and alleging that findings of consistency should not be made.
This is no different than the earlier paragraphs alleging that these projects were inconsistent with
the SOFA CAP, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Development Agreement.. This paragraph
~ALF~511595.1
02-032709427013
4
Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembers
March 27, 2001
adds nothing new to the appeal. In fact, appropriate findings were made, and there is substantial
evidence in the record of the hearings to support them.
In summary, we urge the Council to reject this attempt to revisit the polic.ies of the SOFA
CAP and revisit the agreements made by the City in the adoption of the Development Agreement
and other entitlements. These appeals should be denied.
Very truly yours,
BERLINER COHEN
ANDREW L. FABER
E-Mail: alf@berliner.com
ALF:cem
cc:Rick Wurzelbacher
Frank Benest
Ed Gawf
Ariel Calolme, Esq.
~,LF~11595.1
02-032709427013
5
Supplemental Issues: Block B AMF Appeal
Appeal of application 00-ARB- 112
325 Channing (Block B AMF)
RECEIVED
~AI~ 2 7
Department ol Planning and
Communl~ Environment
March 27th, 2001
Dear Council Member.s,
We have a number of supplementary issues to add to our appeal of the 325 Channing (Block B
AMF) application. These issues can be summarized as follows:
-Required elements of the building were not counted when totaling FAR
-Bedrooms on the fourth story are incorrectly identified as ’lofts’. Fourth story specifically
removed on Block B by action of Council.
-Bedrooms on the fourth story are underreported as 500 sq.ft.
-There are.entrances to condominium units onto the public park with no walkways to
support them provided on AMF property
Incorrect FAR
Defined in PAMC 18.04.030 (65)(A), Gross Floor Area ~’means the total area of all floors of a
building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, and including the following: (i) Halls;
(ii) Stairways: (iii) Elevator shafts; (iv) Service and mechanical equipment rooms; ...".
As is shown in the SummerHill plans, elevator shafts and stairways, at the least, are not counted in
the total square footage on floors 2 & 4.
The bedrooms on the fourth story, ’lofts’, are identified on the plans as 500 sq. ft. An example
’loft’ has been measured as 525 sq. ft. plus its stairwell of 112 sq. ft. which brings the total to 637
sq. ft. There are many ’lofts’.
Since the tallied square footage is at the maximum, any uncounted square footage is in excess. The
plans must be reexamined, all missing square footage accounted for, and the building must be
redesig-aed to fit within the maximum allowed FAR. Exceptions to maximum I~AR are not
permitted in AMF zoning.
There is a Fourth Story
The lofts on the fourth story show no openings to rooms below, thus they appear to be bedrooms
rather than lofts. The consequence is that a true fourth story exists in this building, Council
specifically voted to eliminate a fourth story on Block B. The building must be redesigned to
comply with this condition.
Additionally, there are many living rooms on the third floor with 17 foot high ceilings. These are
enormous volumes of space that contribute to the overall massive bulk of the building as well as
demanding considerable energy to heat and cool. Reducing these ceilings to 10 or 12 feet would
si~cantly reduce the bulk of the structure and the load on the utilities.
Supplemental Issues: Block B AMF Appeal
Park Entrances for Condominium Units
There are four visible doorways fronting onto the public park with their porches coming within
four feet of the park. If the AMF lot is not providing walkways for these units, where will the
walkways exist? In the public park?
If the public park is providing the walkwa.ys to the condominium entrances facing towards the
park, this is the use of public land being g~ven to private development. Because the AMF lot does
¯ not have to provide its own walkways on its own land, the buildingis able to expand and extend
into that space.
The result is a private easement being placed on publieland.
Remedies
-Comply with the code, Review the plans and count all missing .square footage. Redesign the
building to fit within the allowable maximum FAR.
-Remove the fourth story. Comply with the Council directive.
-Redesign the 1"7 foot ceilings.and reduce the overall bulk of the building thus getting el0ser to
compatibility with the neighborhood.
-Require the AMp. property to take responsibility for its own circulation needs. The public park
should belong to the public.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Steve Reyna Aysen Kutlu
Attachment D
Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
Item No.
Agenda Date:
To:
September 20, 2000
Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board
From: Chandler Lee, Planner Department: Planning
Subject:325 Channing Avenue, 00-ARB-112 - Application by SummerHill
Homes ~for major Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and
recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment to allow demolition of an existing 9,000 square foot
medical office building and construction of a 36 unit three story
condominium complex, subterranean parking garage and related site
improvements. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact
Report has been prepared.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board recommend to the Director of
Planning and Community Environment approval of demolition of an existing 9,000 square
foot medical office building and construction of a 36 unit three story condominium complex,
subterranean parking garage and related site improvements, subject to the findings in
. Attachment Band C and the conditions in Attachment D.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to construct a 76,950 square foot, three-story condominium
complex, a subterranean parking garage containing 76 parking spaces, and related site
improvements. The building would contain 36 condominium units yielding an overall density
of 30 units per acre. The project would be located on the southwestern corner of Block B of
the property formerly owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF).
S :\plan\pladiv\pam fso fa\summerhi\blockbmf.ar b Page 1
The site consists of one parcel totaling 51,300 square feet or 1.18 acres on the block bounded
by Channing and Homer Avenues, Bryant and Waverly Streets (see Attachment A - Location
Map). The proposed building footprint would be 23,541 square feet at grade resulting in a
coverage of 46 percent. The proposed building would be setback 15 feet fi’om Bryant Street
and Channing Avenue, ten feet along the proposed public park to the north, and 40 feet fi’om
the proposed single family homes to the east.
Parking would be on a single subterranean level and would provide 76 uni-stalls, including
three standard and one van accessible stalls. The parking level extends about 11 feet below
grade. Vehicular access to the site would be provided from a single, two-way driveway on
Bryant Street that connects to the parking level. Pedestrian access would be provided from
the primary entry on Channing Avenue into the courtyard with entries to individual units on
both Channing Avenue and Bryant Street as well as through the central courtyard and mews.
Rear units have access to the proposed park through individual patios. Transit access would
be provided from existing bus stops on Channing and Homer Avenues and Ramona Street.
Bicycle access would be provided by an existing bike boulevard located along Bryant Street.
The building architecture would be traditional, with a modem interpretation of the California
Shingle Style that is intended to complement the design character of the adjacent
Professorville neighborhood. Building materials and features include: Transparent stained
wood shingles with contrasting wood trim, blue-green architectural details, and dark
composition shingle roof.
Please refer to the applicant’s written description and plans for further details regarding the
project. Photographs and plans will be presented at the meeting.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA CAP).
Comprehensive Plan Compliance
The project is consistent with the following policies:
Policy L-9: "Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and
zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development."
Consistency Review: The project proposes a multiple family residential use which
contributes to the mix of existing residential, office and commercial uses in the area. The
S:\plan\pladiv\pamfso fa\summerhi\blockbmf.arb Page 2
project contributes to a desirable neighborhood character by including street trees and
pedestrian amenities (improved sidewalk and landscaping) at ground level.
Policy H-2: "Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in
appropriate locations."
Consistency Review: The project includes 36 residential units that will increase opportunities
for scarce housing in the area.
Policy B-21: "Maintain uses in the .South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the
Downtown business district, allow for the continued operation of automotive service uses,
and serve the needs of nearby neighborhoods. "
Consistency Review: The project provides 36 housing units close to Downtown services,
transit, and local serving retail uses.
SOFA Coordinated Area Plan
The project is located within the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan (CAP)
area. Staff review of the project with the SOFA CAP policies is as follows:
Policy L-2:"Provide adequate open space through development of a new neighborhood
park within the area currently occupied by PAMF facilities to serve the
neighborhood and downtown. "
Consistency Review: The project is part of the former PAMF properties, which collectively
contributed to the dedication of a portion of the two-acre park to the City.
Policy L-8:"Preserve and enhance the historically mixed use development pattern of the
South of Forest Area including residential uses. This mixed use development
shall include mutually compatible uses that provide both vitality and
convenience for residents, businesses and visitors. "
Consistency Review: The project proposes a multiple family, residential use which
contributes to the mix of existing residential, office and commercial uses in the area. The
project contributes to neighborhood vitality by including street trees and pedestrian amenities
(improved sidewalk and landscaping) at ground level, j
Policy H-l:"Provide up to 300 or more units of new housing throughout the plan area,
with residential use as the predominant land use for the former PAMF sites. "
S:\plan\pladiv\pamfsofa\summerhi\blockbmf.arb Page 3
Consistency Review: The project provides 36 new housing units.
Policy H-6: "Housing types in the plan area should include a range of densities, and
shouM be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and incomes. "’
Consistency Review: The project provides 36 multiple family units of varying sizes. The
project, together with the remainder of the PAMF properties, have contributed to the
provision of affordable housing by contributing towards the City’s acquisition of an
affordable housing site in accordance with Program H-2 of the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy T-7:"Decrease the adverse visual impacts of surface parking and street level
parking garages by encouraging parking for mixed use and multiple family
residential parking to be either underground or otherwise not visible from
adjacent roadways. "
Consistency Review: The project proposes 77 parking spaces, all of which would be
underground and not visible from public streets.
PolicyDC-3: "Any new development ... shall consider the replacement of any "missing"
street trees at an interval of approximately 20 to 25feet on center. "
Consistency Review: The project proposes seven new street trees which will be added to
existing street trees to provide a row of street trees at intervals of approximately 25 feet.
Downtown Urban Design Guide
The Downtown Urban Design Guide is considered an incentive and guide for redevelopment,
rather than policy. It calls for maintaining the eclectic character and scale of the area,
improving landscaping and green spaces, encouraging private investment, and creating
usable open spaces and a gathering spot for the district. The proposed project is generally
consistent with the Urban Design Guide.
DISCUSSION
Project History
The site is currently occupied by one building and a portion of another that were left vacant
when PAMF relocated to its new facility on E1 Camino Real. The site comprises
S:\plan\pladiv\pam fso fa\sununerhi\blockbm f.arb Page 4
approximately 30 percent of the entire block that was designated for detached houses on
small lots (DHS), attached multiple family (AMF) and public facilities (PF) in the SOFA
CAP. The City Council approved these zoning designations for this site as well as for the
remainder of phase I of the SOFA area in March 2000. The City Council also approved a
development agreement with SummerHill Homes for this site that allows construction of
multiple family uses up to the maximum limits allowed under the AMF designation (1.5
FAR, 45 foot height at the peak of the roof, 35 foot height at the roofeave and no fourth floor
units). Since Council’s approval, SummerHill Homes has submitted applications for Parcel
Maps and certificates of compliance to reconfigure this block (Block B) as well as the other
blocks formerly owned by PAMF. ’~
The Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board conducted a preliminary review
of the project on July 12, August 3, and August 24, 2000. (See Attachment F: Minutes from
ARB/HRB meeting of August 24, 2000). The ARB/HRB generally supported the site
planning, architecture, and landscape components of the project and were generally in favor
of the project contingent on several design revisions (discussed under Significant Issues,
below) most of which the applicant has since incorporated into the revised plans dated
September 14, 2000.
Site Description
The site is a rectangular shape and consists of a single parcel of land totaling 1.18 acres
(51,300 square feet) with a 270 foot frontage along Channing Avenue and a 190 foot frontage
on Bryant Street. The site is presently occupied by a portion of the multi-story Lee Building
and a single story office building and related site improvements. The existing buildings are
currently vacant and dilapidated. The existing site slopes from the rear of the parcel to the
two street frontages. The site is surrounded by a parking lot which is planned for new single
family homes (across Channing Avenue), single family residential and PAMF Research
Building (across Bryant Street), the historic Roth Building to the north and a parking lot
proposed for single family homes to the east. The site is about 1,600 feet from the University
Avenue Business District.
S:\plan\pladiv\pam fso fa\summerhi\blockbm f.arb Page 5
Project Information
Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor’s parcel number, Comprehensive Plan
designation, zoning district, existing land use, and parcel size in shown below in Table 1.
TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:SummerHill Homes
Owner:SummerHill Channing LLC
Assessor’s Parcel Number:120-17-X1
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Zoning District:
Surrounding Land Use:
Parcel Size:
Multiple Family Residential
AMF (Attached Multiple Family Residential)
North: Roth Building/Proposed Public Park
South: Parking Lot/Proposed Single Family
Residential
East: Parking Lot/Proposed Single Family
Residential
West: Single Family Residential and PAMF
Research Building
51,300 s.f. or 1.18 acres
Issues and Analysis
The staff analysis for this project relates to site planning, architectural design, landscaping,
subdivision and SOFA CAP zoning compliance.
Site Planning: The site plan calls for the condominiums to be surrounded with landscaped
setbacks on all sides and served by entryways on each street frontage. The condominiums,
private open space, and courtyard would be located on the three floors above grade while all
parking would be located below grade. The building faces Channing Avenue but provides
pedestrian entryways along both the Channing Avenue and Bryant Street frontages as well
as along the Mews and the public park. Both street frontages provide pedestrian interest with
ample fenestration, patio alcoves on the ground floor and balconies on the upper floors that
provide building articulation. The proposed building provides setbacks along both Channing
S:\plan\pladiv\pamfsofa\summerhi\blockbmf.arb Page 6
Avenue and Bryant Street that provide a pedestrian experience along the public right-of-way.
All four perimeter areas would be landscaped to protect adjacent uses and provide visual
interest from the street frontages and public areas. The large significant oak tree will be
removed. Overall project density would be about 30 units per acre.
Architectural Design: The building architecture would be traditional, with a modem
interpretation of the California Shingle Style that is intended to complement the design
character of the adjacent Professorville neighborhood. Building materials and features
include: Transparent, stained wood shingles with contrasting wood trim, blue-green
architectural details, and dark composition shingle roof. The design features natural
materials, ample fenestration and generous building articulation to provide visual interest at
all levels above grade.
Landscaping: The landscape plan proposes a mix of perimeter landscape screening and an
interior open air courtyard. The Channing Avenue frontage features a row of accent trees and
a variety of plants and ground cover within the 15 foot landscaped setback. The project also
proposes to plant three new Red Maple street trees (Acer Capillipes) to replace three
overgrown and Sweet Gum trees along Channing Avenue within the public right-of-way. The
Bryant Street frontage will remove one Pistache crowding the large Oak and remove one
Sweet Gum at the driveway entrance. A variety of plantings and ground cover will be planted
within the 15 foot setback. The eastern interior setback (including the Mews) is planted with
a variety of accent trees, shrubs and ground cover including special paving to attract
pedestrian circulation between Scott Park and the proposed public park to the north. The rear
setback is 5 feet wide and includes a variety of accent trees and shrubs as well as special
paving within the rear courtyard entrance. The project proposes an outdoor courtyard that
provides private pedestrian circulation between Channing Avenue and the proposed public
park. The courtyard faces Channing Avenue and includes a water feature, special paving,
raised planters with seats and benches. The project also proposes a public landscaped area
at the comer of Bryant Street and Channing Avenue. This landscaped garden is designed
around the existing, large Oak tree and would feature decorative porous paving, a variety of
low shrubs and groundcover with seating. The plaza is intended for use both by building
users and the public. A Landscape Concept Statement is included in the attached Program
Development Statement (Attachment E)
There are 25 existing trees on-site 18 of which would need to be removed. The large Oak in
the southwestern comer as well as three Redwood trees within the Mews would be saved.
One heritage tree, the large Valley Oak located in the southwestern comer of the site, would
be preserved. Over 40 new trees are proposed on-site including 40 twenty four inch boxed
S:\plan\pladiv\pamfso fa\summerhi\blockbmf.arb Page 7
trees that are proposed as replacements for those removed in addition to the seven new street
trees. An arborist’s report has been submitted as part of the application and reviewed by the
City’s arborists. Overall, the City’s arborists have determined that the tree removal plan is
acceptable and the new landscape and street tree theme would be a positive replacement.
Subdivision: The project requires a subdivision map to divide the property into 36 separate
air rights condominiums. Draft findings for approval of a subdivision are included as
Attachment B.
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The following table on page 9 compares the project to the existing AMF Attached Multiple
Family Residential District regulations established in the SOFA CAP.
THIS SPACE INTENTIALY LEFT BLANK
S :\plan\pladiv\pam fso fa\summerhi\blockbm f. arb Page 8
Project Comparison With SOFA CAP Development Standards - AMF District
Proposed
Dwelling Units 36
Density 31 units/acre
Floor Area (sq.ft.)76,950 s.f.
Floor Area Ratio 1.5:1
Maximum Height 45 feet
Daylight Plane
-side: Channing
-side: Public Park
-rear
Setbacks
- Bryant St. (front)
- Public Mews (rear)
- Interior Side: Park
- Street Side: Channing
Open Space
-private
-public
Automobile Parking
-Resident Parking
-Guest Parking
Total Parking
Bicycle Parking
- resident spaces
- guest spaces
Total spaces
-intrusions < 20%
-intrusions > 20%
-OK
18 feet
40 feet
10 feet
15 feet
- provided
-17,228 sf(34%)
72 spaces
5 spaces
77 spaces
AMF Zoning
35 - 59 units
30 - 50 units/acre
76,950 s.f.
1.5:1
45 feet
60 degrees @ 12’ *
-from property line
-from property line
-from setback line
15 feet
10 feet
10 feet
15 feet
- 1 O0 sf/unit
- 20 % of lot area
72 spaces
5 spaces
77 spaces
36 Class I
4 Class Ill
40 spaces
36 Class I
4 Class III
40 spaces
Recycling Storage Provided Required
* minor intrusions into daylight planes allowed for chimneys, dormers, eaves, etc. not to exceed 15 lineal
S:\plan\pladiv\pam fso fa\summerhi\blockbnff, arb Page 9
feet or 20 % of building length
The proposal meets all the development regulations of the AMF zoning district except the
daylight plane on the north (public park) side and all requirements of the Off-Street
Parking Ordinance.
Daylight Planes: The SOFA CAP establishes side and rear daylight plane regulations. The
side daylight planes are defined by a point 12 feet in height along each side lot line,
extending upward at a 60 degree angle into the site. Because the Bryant Street frontage is
narrower than the Channing frontage, the Zoning Ordinance defines the front as Bryant
Street and the sides of the project as facing Channing Avenue and the public park. The rear
daylight plane is defined by a point 12 feet in height at the rear setback line (in this case
ten feet into the site from the property line at the Mews), extending upward at a 60 degree
angle into the site. These daylight planes are shown on the plans. The project meets the
SOFA requirements for the rear daylight plane because, of the ~0 foot rear setback
provided by the Mews. Dormers on both sides of the project extend into the daylight plane.
Intrusions for dormers and similar architectural features are allowed under the SOFA
regulations provided that the horizontal length of all such features does not exceed a total
of 15 feet on each side or 20 percent of the building length. The applicant has revised the
plans to reduce the intrusion into the daylight plane to less than 20 percent on the Channing
Avenue side but is unable to reduce the intrusions on the public park side because of the
narrow setback (ten feet) allowed on that side. Because the dormers serve to break up the
building mass and create the appearance of a series of smaller buildings, staff believes that
the intent of the SOFA regulations has been met. The SOFA CAP provides for minor
exceptions, in this case dormer intrusions on the building side facing the park, provided
that findings can be made. Staff has prepared draft findings for approval of this exception
(see Attachment C).
Below Market Rate Units
Mixed use projects are typically required to provide either: 1) 10 percent of total units as
Below Market Rate (BMR), or 2) pay an in-lieu housing fee for the commercial and
industrial floor area, whichever value is greater. The Development Agreement that was
approved by the City Council in conjunction with the project stipulates that the dedication
by PAMF of an option on .60 acres of land for affordable housing satisfies the project’s
BMR obligations.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Significant issues for this project relate to site planning, landscaping, and architectural
S:\ plan\pladiv\pamfso fa\ summerhi\blockbm f. arb Page 10
design.
Site Planning: The site plan calls for the two-story townhouses and the interior courtyard to
be located on the ground floor, the second story of the two-story townhouses on the second
floor and remainder of the units (flats) on the third and fourth floors. Parking is located
entirely on a single underground level. The ground floor townhouses generally would have
entryways from the main entry to the interior courtyard on Channing Avenue. Four units
would have entryways directly connecting to the sidewalk on Bryant Street. The revised
plans have added entries for the three units facing Channing Avenue. Rear entries would be
provided for those units that face the public park and the Mews. The patios facing Channing
Avenue, Bryant Street, the Mews and the public park serve as private open space for the
residential units while the interior courtyard would serve as common open space for the
entire building. The landscaped area surrounding the existing Oak tree at the comer of
Bryant Street and Channing Avenue would be available for use by residents and the public.
The Channing Avenue frontage would provide staggered building setbacks ranging from 15
to 42 feet from the property line and the Bryant Street frontage would provide an 18 foot
building setback. There would be a ten foot separation between the building and the public
park in the rear and a 40 foot setback to the proposed single family homes across the Mews
to the east. Private patios would intrude six feet into the setbacks on all four sides of the
building. All four perimeter areas will be landscaped to provide visual interest along the
street frontages and public areas.
Building Density, Mass and Height: Overall project density is about 31 units per acre which
translates to a 1:1.5 floor area ratio (FAR) for the entire building. The building height ranges
from 31 feet at the bottom of the roof cave to 45 feet at the top of the roof ridge. The building
has been designed to appear as several smaller building blocks rather than one large
structure. The site plan indicates four building segments that are visually separated by the
interior courtyard and hallway in the interior, the two major entryways on Channing Avenue,
and the garage entry on Bryant Street. The landscaped garden at the comer of Channing
Avenue and Bryant .Street and the staggered building setbacks along the Mews also serve to
break up the mass of the structure. All four facades are provided with ample building
articulation. Visual interest is provided by numerous windows, roof overhangs, chimneys,
porches and balconies on all four facades. The FAR, mass and height of the proposed project
exceed that of most buildings in the vicinity. However, they are within that allowed by the
SOFA CAP and are specifically provided for in the Development Agreement approved by
the City Council for this site.
Landscaping: The landscape plan proposes a mix of perimeter landscape screening and a
S:\plan\pladiv\pamfsofa\summerhi\blockbmL arb Page 11
landscaped interior courtyard that connects Channing Avenue and the public park. At the
meeting held on August 24, 2000, the ARB/HRB requested additional details on the
courtyard landscaping and the interface between the building and the public park, the Mews,
the public rights-of-way and the corner garden. The landscape plans have been revised to
address these issues as follows:
Courtyard Landscaping: The applicant has revised the plans to provide larger planter areas.
The arbor area has been removed and replaced with planters, seating and more trees. This
results in planter areas that are about 20 percent larger than the previous plans.
Park and Mews Interface: The applicant has revised the plans to reconfigure the patios
facing the public park. A portion of the patio hardscape has been replaced with landscaped
area to create green pockets that recede into the building envelope. A five foot hedge has
been added between the patios and the park to enhance privacy.
Street Interface: The applicant has revised the plans to save three additional trees along the
Channing Avenue frontage. This, in combination with the existing and proposed street trees,
will help screen the building from the public right-of-way.
Corner garden: The applicant will bring a photographic pruning diagram to the ARB/HRB
meeting to demonstrate which branches will be removed and how the tree will be integrated
into the park and relate to the building mass.
The Planning Arborist has requested that additional details be shown on the final landscape
plans. A final landscape plan and irrigation plan, subject to staff review and approval, will
be required as a condition of project approval.
Architectural Design: The building architecture would be traditional, with a modern
interpretation of the California Shingle Style. The applicant initially proposed a Spanish
Mediterranean style but redesigned the architectural theme to be more compatible with the
design character of the adjacent Professorville neighborhood. All four of the building facades
provide pedestrian interest with ample building articulation, fenestration, patios, landscaping
and entryways on the ground floor and varied window openings, balconies and building
articulation on the upper floors.
At the meeting held on August 24, 2000, the ARB/HRB requested additional details on
solar features, balcony projections, chimney materials and the interface between the building
and the public park, the Mews, and the public rights-of-way. The building plans have been
revised to address these issues as follows:
S:\plan\pladiv\pam fso fa\summerhi\blockbmf, ar b Page 12
Solar Features: The applicant has revised the plans to remove the roofs over porches and
reduce the roof coverage to a small entry canopy at the entryways facing the park. This will
allow more sun exposure on the northern exposure of the building. The plans also have added
fixed, solid solar shade elements to provide sun shading on facades subject to the greatest sun
exposure (Channing Avenue and Bryant Street).
Balcony and Dormer Projections: The applicant has revised the plans to reduce the
projection of a majority of the balconies on the third story in order to better integrate the
balconies into the building mass. The balconies have been reduced from about six feet of
projection to about 3.5 feet. The dormer projections also have been pushed back into the
building to reduce intrusions into the daylight plane in conformance with the SOFA CAP.
Chimney Materials: The previous plans (enlarged building elevations) indicate brick as the
chimney material. The applicant has agreed to consider either brick or shingle for the
chinmey material.
Park and Mews Interface: The applicant has revised the plans to reconfigure the patios
facing the public park as described above under "Landscaping." The applicant will bring
sections that show the relationship of the building to the park and Mews to the ARBiHRB
meeting on September 20, 2000.
Street Interface: The applicant has revised the plans to add front entries that directly
connect the three units facing Channing Avenue with the sidewalk.
Overall, these revisions have improved the architectural design of the building. However, the
scale, mass and height of the proposed building is greater than many of the older, existing
buildings in the area. The perceived mass and height have been softened in several ways by
the design and layout of the building on the lot. Although the site is 51,300 square feet (more
than one acre) the building footprint is only 23,541 square feet resulting in a lot coverage of
46 percent. Most of the site at ground level along the two pedestrian streets (Bryant Street
and Channing Avenue) and the Mews is dedicated to public and private open space (the
public plaza along the Mews; the comer garden as well as the private patios and front yards
along the street), landscaping (in the public spaces as well as along the perimeter of the site
and the edges of the patios), and walkways (the Mews, comer garden area and entries to the
ground floor apartments).
All building frontages provide pedestrian interest with ample fenestration, patios,
S:\plan\pladiv\pam fso fa\ summe rhi\blockbmf.arb Page 13
landscaping and entryways on the ground floor and varied materials, window openings and
building articulation on the upper floors. The building design emphasizes pedestrian activity
by locating ground floor entries along all four frontages.
Based on the building plans and the proposed revisions, staff is recommending approval of
the project subject to the conditions in Attachment D.
An Architectural Concept Statement and a Landscape Design Concept Statement are
included with the attached Program Development Statement (Attachment E).
CONDITIONS
Draft subdivision findings (Attachment B), exception findings
conditions of project approval (Attachment D) are attached.
(Attachment C) and
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Notice of this ARB review of project requirements was provided by publication of the
agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility
customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card.
NEXT STEPS
Following ARB review, the project is will be scheduled for Planning Commission and City
Council review of the subdivision map.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared
for the SOFA CAP including the project. The EIR was reviewed and certified by the City
Council on March 27, 2000. The project, as currently proposed, has been reviewed in
comparison with the project that was evaluated in the EIR. Staff has determined that the
current project is consistent with that evaluated in the EIR and therefore, no subsequent
’environmental analysis is required. Copies of the EIR and the findings made by the City
Council pursuant to CEQA (Resolution No. 7950) are available for public review in the
Planning Department on the Fifth Floor of City Hall.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval of Subdivision
S:\plan\pladiv\pam fsofa\summerhi\blockbm f.ar b Page 14
Attachment C: Draft Findings for Approval of Exception to Side Daylight Plane
Attachment D: Draft Conditions of Project Approval
Attachment E: Program Development Statement
Attachment F: Minutes from ARB/HRB meeting of August 24, 2000
Revised Plans, dated September 14, 2000 (Architectural Review Board members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Rick Wurzelbacher, SummerHill Homes, 777 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304
Henry Chaikin, BAR Architects, 1660 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94109
Shari Van Dorn, Melvin Lee Associates, 1650 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94109
Jim Baer, Premier Properties, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Prepared By:
Manager Review:
Chandle~r Le.~e, Contr.~_act Planne.~r_
JohnLusardi, Current Planning
(S :\plan\pladiv\pamfsofa\summerhi\blockbmf. arb)
S:\plan\pladiv\pam fso fa\summe rhi\blockbmf.arb Page 15
ATTACHMENT A.
|
|
I
I
|
I
I
I
I
|
|
I
I
|
I
I
|
|
I
I
I
g~,
J~iplina St
PROJECT SITE
Phase 1
Emerson St
i
North
High St
Alma St
~Blocks and Parcels Included in the Proposed Development Agreement
, i
¯..D:\G~oda D~Sola\Wb032700C mrAttac~SofaKeyMa p.ai
SOFA Key
March 27,2000
ATTACHMENT B
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION FOR
THE NORTH SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANE
325 CHANNING AVENUE
Recommended Findings for Approval
The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan and
that the objectives and goals of the Plan are substantially achieved; the project would be
consistent with the following SOFA CAP policies: Policy L,2:"Provide adequate open
space through development of a new neighborhood parkwithin the area currently
occupied by PAMF facilities to serve the neighborhood and downtown" in that the
project is part of the former PAMF properties which collectively contributed to the
dedication of the two acre park to the City; Policy L-8: "Preserve and enhance the
historically mixed use development pattern of the South of Forest Area including
residential uses. This mixed use development shall include mutually compatible uses
that provide both vitality and convenience for residents, businesses and visitors"in
that the project proposes a multiple family residential use which contributes to the
mix of existing residential, office and commercial uses in the area. The project
contributes to neighborhood vitality by including street trees and pedestrian amenities
(improved sidewalk and landscaping) at ground level; Policy H-l:"Provide up to 300
Or more units of new housing throughout the plan area, with residential use as the "
predominant land use for the former PAMF site." in that the project provides 36.new
housing units; Policy H-6: "Housing types in the plan area shouM include a range of
densities, and should be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and
incomes. "in that the project provides 36 multiple family units of varying sizes. The
project, together with the remainder of the PAMF properties, have contributed to the
provision of affordable housing by contributing towards the City’s acquisition of an
affordable housing site in accordance with Program H-2 of the Housing Element of
the Comprehensive Plan; Policy T-7: "Decrease the adverse visual impacts of surface
parking and street level parking garages by encouraging parking for mixed use and
multiple family residential parking to be either underground or otherwise not visible
from adjacent roadways" in that the project proposes 77 parking spaces all of which
would be underground and not visible from public streets; Policy DC-3: "Any new
development ... shall consider the replacement of any "missing" street trees at an
interval of approximately 20 to 25feet on center" in that the project proposes seven
new street trees which will be added to existing street trees to provide a row of street
trees at intervals of approximately 25 feet.
2.The exception is related to a minor feature that will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that dormers are a minor.
architectural feature that are specifically allowed to intrude into daylight planes in the
SOFA CAP (AMF development standards section 2.4(0 (2) (B); the dormers are not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the
dormers would face onto a public park and would not affect the light, air or privacy
of any adjacent residential use.
The granting of the exception will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or
improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve the existing or
proposed architectural style, in a manner that would not otherwise be accomplished
through the strict application of the development standards and/or design guidelines
in that the provision of dormers on this side of the building would enhance the
appearance and design of the project by providing building articulation and visual
interest consistent with the goals and objectives of the SOFA CAP and would
preserve the architectural style of the building which would be traditional, with a
modem interpretation of the California Shingle Style that is intended to complement
the design character of the adjacent Professorville neighborhood.
o The proposed project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: Policy
L-9: "Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and
zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development" in that the
project proposes a multiple family residential use which contributes to the mix of
existing residential, office and commercial uses in the area and the project contributes
to a desirable neighborhood character by including street trees and pedestrian
amenities (improved sidewalk and landscaping) at ground level; Policy H-2:
"Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in
appropriate locations" in that the project includes 36 residential units that will
increase opportunities for scarce housing in the area; Policy B-21: "Maintain uses in
the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the Downtown business district,
allow for the continued operation of automotive service uses, and serve the needs of
nearby neighborhoods" in that the project provides 36 housing units close to
Downtown services, transit, and local serving retail uses.
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
DRAFT FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION
325 CHANNING AVENUE
Recommended Findings for Approval
The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and
programs and ihe design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.20),
in that the proposed subdivision is compatible with neighboring properties and consistent
with the SOFA CAP; the project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive
Plan policies: Policy L-9: "Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the
planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development" in that
the project proposes a multiple family residential use which contributes to the mix of existing
residential, office and commercial uses in the area and the project contributes to a desirable
neighborhood character by including street trees and pedestrian amenities (improved
sidewalk and landscaping) at ground level; Policy H-2: "Consider a variety of strategies to
increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations" in that the project includes
36 residential units that will increase opportunities for scarce housing in the area; Policy B-
21: "Maintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the Downtown
business district, allow for the continued operation of automotive service uses, and serve the
needs of nearby neighborhoods" in that the project provides 36 housing units close to
Downtown services, transit, and local serving retail uses.
The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed 36
condominium units are within the density range allowed by existing zoning and compatible
with the scale of neighboring multiple family buildings;
o The design of the condominium complex will not cause significant environmental impacts
in that potential environmental impacts have been mitigated by the measures contained in
the EIR prepared for the SOFA CAP and the project;
The design of the condominium complex will not result in serious public health problems,
would not be detrimental to the existing pattern of the neighborhood and would result in
development of multiple-family homes that would be consistent with the adjacent buildings
in the neighborhood in that the project meets the development regulations and guidelines of
the SOFA CAP; and
o The design of the condominium complex will not conflict with public easements for access
through the use of the property in that the resulting lots would have frontage on a public
street for vehicular access and utility service.
CONDITIONS FOR SUBDIVISION
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF FINAL MAP
The subdivider shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering,
Planning, Planning Arborist, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this map
and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed
and approved by the City prior to submittal of a parcel or final map.
All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City’s
jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and
Utility Department.
The subdivider shall coordinate with the Utilities Department to determine all utility design
and capacity requirements including water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable facilities.
All new construction shall have underground utility, telephone and cable service. The project
shall be limited to single service laterals for each lot for sewer, water and gas. Each parcel shall
have separate electrical service. All utility plans shall be approved by the Utilities Department
before the Parcel map is recorded.
PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP
The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto. The
agreement shall be recorded with the approved final map at the office of the Santa Clara
County Recorder and shall include the following agreements:
The subdivider shall be responsible for installing any required off-site improvements,
including utilities, to the satisfaction of the Utilities, Public Works, and Planning
Departments. These improvements shall be guaranteed by bond or .other form of
guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney.
b)The subdivider shall grant the necessary public utility easements to the City for the
location and maintenance of required utilities. The required easements shall be shown
on the face of the Parcel map.
c)The subdivider shall preserve all existing trees shown for preservation on the site plan
and shall include all trees in the final landscape plans.
o In compliance with Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the
Development Agreement that was approved by the City Council in conjunction with the
project stipulates that the dedication by PAMF of an option on .60 acres of land for
affordable housing satisfies the project’s BMR obligations.
The final parcel map shall be filed with the Planning Division within four years of the approval
of the preliminary parcel map.
7.The subdivider shall submit to Public Works Engineering one (1) permanent mylar with
reproducible set of "as built" drawings for the work in the City right-of-way.
The subdivider 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 Permittee shall
contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning
work.
The subdivider shall submit a storm water pollution protection plan to be included in the
improvement plan submittal.
10.The subdivider shall construct public curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the
project frontage of Channing Avenue and Bryant Street. The improvements shall meet the
City’s standard requirements and shall be to the City’s satisfaction.
(S :\plan\pladiv\pamfsofa\summerhi\blockbmf.fnd)
ATTACHMENT D
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
ATTACHMENT D
325 CHANNING AVENUE
General
The project shall be in substantial conformance with the plans dated September 14, 2000. A
final site plan shall, be prepared and approved by the Planning Division which reflects any
modifications by the ARB/HRB. The revised site plan shall reflect the following conditions:
a) The arbor area shall be removed and replaced with planters, seating and more trees. The patios
facing the public park shall be reconfigured such that a portion of the patio hardscape is replaced
with landscaped area to create green pockets that recede into the building envelope. A five foot
hedge shall be added between the patios and the park to enhance privacy. Three additional trees (#92,
93 and 95) along the Channing Avenue frontage shall be preserved.
b) The projection of a majority of the balconies on the third story shall be reduced in order to better
integrate the balconies into the building mass. The balconies shall be reduced from about six feet of
projection to about 3.5 feet. Front entries shall be added that directly connect the three units facing
Channing Avenue with the sidewalk.
c) The selected species of street tree for the right-of-way shall be three new Maple street trees (Acer
Capillipes) to fill in the row of five existing Maple and Sweet Gum trees along Channing Avenue
within the public right-of-way.
d) The courtyard planters shall be designed in provide adequate soil volume.
e) The Oak Tree in the landscaped area at the southwest comer of the building shall be preserved
with tree protection measures suitable to the Planning Arborist. Tree protection notes shall be
indicated on the final plans including the pruning and fertilizing specifications indicated in the report
prepared by Walt Bemis Associates. Protection shall consist of fencing and trtmk wrap per Palo Alto
Standard Tree protection measures. Monthly arborist inspections of the Oak Tree are required. A
status memo shall be faxed to the Planning Arborist during the first week of every month.
f) The specific mechanical units and their acoustical rating shall be selected to minimize the
protrusion of these units and require that they meet the City’s noise standards for residential areas.
Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit
Utilities Electric
2. The Permittee 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 Permittee shall
contact Underground Service Alert @ (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning
work.
3.The new electrical service for the project shall be underground.
Page 1 of 12
The applicant shall provide electrical load sheet, a full set of plans showing main and meter
location, switch board drawings and load breakdown for review and approval by the Utilities
Engineering Electrical Division. Depending on the load, a new padmount transformer may be
required and, if so, the applicant shall dedicate a location and easements to accommodate the
transformer.
Public Works Operations
5.PAMC Sec. 8-04-070 shall apply to all public trees to be retained.
o All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree inventory or landscape plan shall be
protected during construction. The.following tree protection measures shall be approved by the
City Arborist and included in construction/demolition plans and contracts. Any modifications
to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. The Planning
Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the developer or project arborist verifying that
the tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction Permit issuance unless otherwise
approved. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained:
All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences
are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to
a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the
entire area under the dripline of the trees. If the sidewalk will be blocked by the above, the
entire planting strip may be fenced off to allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. The
fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection
of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be
done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard
specification detail #505).
b.No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree
enclosure area.
c. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered.
d.Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure
survival.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
7.The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including
a signed affidavit of vacancy. The form is available at the Building Department. 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.
Prior to Submittal of a Building Permit
Page 2 of 12
Fire Department
o The applicant shall submit final plans for review and approval by the Fire Department that
include the following: a) Section 902 of the CFC requires 20 foot wide access roads to reach
within 150 feet of the building. The proposed EVA on the adjacent park shall be permanently
established by an easement; b) Additional contamination discovered during the closure of the
PAMF facilities shall be mitigated prior to coveting with new construction and shall be a
condition of the demolition permit; c) Four story buildings require roof access from stairwells
pursuant to the UBC and CFC. The roofline shall be revised to accommodate this requirement;.
d) The building type shall be revised to provide one hour fire construction and adequate
sprinkler systems to meet Code requirements; e) an approved standpipe system shall be
provided for the underground parking structure and the building above to the satisfaction of the
Fire Department. Standpipe systems require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau;
f) a fire sprinkler system shall be required which meets the requirements of NFPA-13, as
modified. Fire sprinkler system installation requires a separate submittal to the Fire Prevention
Bureau; g) Additional fire hydrants may be required in the vicinity of the building in accordance
with Appendix III-B of the 1998 California Fire Code; and h) elevator car shall be sized for Fire
Department gurney access based on gurney dimensions of 24" by 82" plus a minimum of two
emergency response personnel.
Planning/Zoning
9.The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit drawings
for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features.
10.Final landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plan table areas out to the
curb must be submitted to and approved by the Utility Marketing Services Division. A
Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations, a grading plan, and a statement of
design intent shall be submitted for each project. These plans should be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and irrigation plans shall
include:
a.All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including private and public
street trees.
b.Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations.
c.Irrigation schedule and plan.
d.Fence locations.
g.
e°Lighting plan with photometric data. All lighting must be shielded in a manner to prevent
visibility of the light source, eliminate glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the
development. The lighting plan, photometric and specification sheets should be revised to
meet these guidelines and submitted to Planning staff for review and approval.
Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
All new trees planted within the public right-of-way, as shown on the approved plans,
shall be installed per Public Works Standard Tree Well Diagram #504,
Page 3 of 12
jo
shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. The
Public Works Detail #504 shall be shown on Landscape Plans.
Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the
soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2,inches
of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch.
Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, details on the
irrigation plans shall show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing
placed at the edge of the root ball for each tree. Bubblers shall not be
mounted inside the aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be
connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover,
pursuant to the City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation
in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works
standards.
Landscape Plan shall ensure’ the backflow preventer is adequately obscured by
planting the appropriate size and type shrubbery, fitted with green wire
cage, or painted dark green to minimize visibility.
The Landscape Plan shall also address the following comments and changes:
The landscape strip in the right-of-way shall be planted and irrigated per
direction by Public Works Operations.
The following street trees shall be removed and replaced with 24 inch box trees
planted according to Public Works Detail #503.
¯Liquidambar B91 with Red Maple
¯Liquidambar B97 with Red Maple
¯Liquidambar B99 with Red Maple
c. Street entry to the Mews.Another species should be selected to replace the
Redwoods tree at the sidewalk entry--as they will get too large for the space
provided.
Pedestrian crossing surface material must be identified with details such as
manufacturer, color, vehicle rating, base course material, ect.
The plant palette lists Sophora and Albizia genus. Both of these are extremely
messy and should be avoided for the constraints of this project.
The size of all trees planted on site must be a 24 inch box minimum. Special
feature areas, such as the open areas in the Mews, may warrant larger
specimens to enhance the landscape.
Approved Planting Soil Mix. The planting soil in the planter areas shall show
a uniform soil mix to a 24-inch depth. Prior to planting, the contractor shall
provide soils lab report to the City Arborist verifying that the following soil
mix has been delivered to the site.
Page 4 of 12
ao Palo Alto Soil Mix by volume (pre-mix off site)
65% sandy loam (mostly medium to coarse grade)
*15% clay
*10% 1/4-inch fir bark
*10% volcanic rock
*Fertilizer. Combine Osmoeote 18-6-12 or equivalent at
label rates per yard in the 12-inch area surrounding
each root ball.
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan. A Tree Protection and Preservation Plan for trees to
be retained shall be prepared by an ISA Certified Arborist and submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Arbofist. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree to be retained
in which no soil disturbance is permitted shall be established and be clearly designated on
all improvement plans, including grading, utility and irrigation, and show that no conflict
occurs with the trees. The plan shall specify, but not be limited to, monthly arborist
inspections, pruning, protective fencing, grading limitations and any other measures
necessary to insure survival of the trees. Key elements of this plan shall be printed on the
Tree Protection Instructions sheet with the Project Arborist contact number.
11.A separate TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION INSTRUCTIONS sheet
shall accompany the plans submitted for building permit and referenced on all Civil
drawings (Utility, Storm, Grading, Erosion, etc.); Demolition; Staging; Building;
Landscape, Planting and Irrigation Plans. The Tree Protection and Preservation sheet
shall contain the following notes: Conditions of Approval listed below and a Tree
Protection Report to be prepared by Walt Bemus, Project Arborist. This sheet shall
clearly show the tree protection zone, indicating where the fencing will be placed and
denote all trees to be retained and those to be removed.
12.
13.
All utilities, both public and private, requiring trenching or boring shall be shown on
the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between
the utilities and any landscape or trees to be retained. This shall include publicly
owned trees within the right-of-way.
Arborist Progress Report. The project arborist shall perform a site inspection to
monitor tree condition on a minimum of four-week intervals. The Planning Arborist
shall be in receipt of the progress report during the first week of each month until
completion at fax # (650) 329-2154.
14.
15
Tree Protection Statement: A written statement shall be provided to the Building
Department verifying that protective fencing for the trees is in place before
demolition or grading or building permit will be issued, unless otherwise approved
by the City Arborist.
Protective Tree Fencing: All street trees and on site trees to be retained, as shown
on the approved plans shall be protected during construction to the satisfaction of
Page 5 of 12
the City Arborist. The following tree preservation measures apply.
ao Type l Tree Protection. All existing trees to be retained shall be protected
with five-foot high chain link fences enclosing the entire canopy dripline
under the trees. Each fence shall be mounted on two-inch diameter
galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground every 10 feet to a depth of at
least 2-feet. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and shall
remain in place until final inspection, except during work specifically
required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected.
Type II Tree Protection. For trees situated within a narrow planting strip,
only the. planting strip shall be enclosed with the required chain link
protective fencing in order to keep the sidewalk and street open for public
use.
16.
17.
18.
Type III Tree Protection. Trees situated in a small tree well or sidewalk
planter pit, shall be wrapped with 2-inches of orange plastic fencing from
the ground to the first branch with 2-inch thick wooden slats bound securely
with additional orange plastic fencing (which shall not be allowed to dig into
the bark). During installation of the plastic fencing, caution shall be used to
avoid damaging any branches. Major scaffold limbs may also require plastic
fencing as directed by the City Planning Arborist.
Signs; A ’Warning’ sign shall be prominently displayed on each tree
protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18-inches square and shall
state: ’PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING - This fence shall not be removed
without approval. Violators will be prosecuted and are subject to fine
pursuant Section 8.10.110 of the PAMC.’
Prior to the installation of the required protective fencing, any necessary pruning work
on trees to remain shall be performed in accordance with the following:
ao All work on Protected Trees shall be done in a manner that preserves the tree
structure and health, pursuant to the Western Chapter of the International
Society ofArboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines; Standard Practices for Tree Care
Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995; ANSI Z133-1994 and Chapter 8.10
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
bo Any work on trees within the right-of-way must first be approved by Public
Works at (650) 496-6974.
Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate ARB application.
The project shall provide for trash and recycling to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto
Recycling Division and Department of Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. The
applicant shall submit and implement s solid waste management and recycling plan, waste
Page 6 of 12
management report for contractors and adherence to permit conditions, as stipulated in City
guidelines. Trash/recycling enclosures should accommodate a two cubic yard cardboard bin,
five 64 gallon wheeled cans for newspapers and a trash bin meeting PASCO specifications. The
applicant shall provide PASCO with unrestricted access to recycling and trash areas. The
applicant shall consult with PASCO on service requirements for the underground location. The
trash/recycling enclosure should open full width from the center of the enclosure so that bins
can be easily serviced. The applicant shall recycle construction materials to the maximum extent
feasible per City of Palo Alto guidelines.
19.In compliance with Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the project
has been determined to meet the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement by dedicating
an option on .60 acres of land for affordable housing per the Development Agreement for the
project.
Public Works Engineering
20.
21.
The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering,
including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate
that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered.
The proposed development will result ~n a change in the impervious area of the property. The
applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building
permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the
final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division.
22.Permit-tee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building inspection Division
if exEavation exceeds 100 cubic yards.
23.The applicant shall Submit a construction logistics plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan
shall address, at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the
provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes
shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48,
and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo
Alto.
24.The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works
Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way.
25.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works Engineering for
pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during construction.
26.A detailed site specific soil report must be submitted which includes information on water table
and basement construction issues.
Page 7 of 12
27.In addition to the standard preliminary grading, drainage, and storm water pollution plan
(SWPPP) condition, the applicant shall meet with Public Works Engineering and Operations
to discuss the use of materials such as permeable pavers, special sidewalk and street treatments,
oil/water separators, and other items proposed and required for this project.
28.Handicap ramps shall be installed at the comers of Channing and Bryant, Channing and
Waverley, Homer and Waverley, and Homer and Bryant, and shall conform to Public Works
Engineering standards. ~
29.All unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter according to Public
Works Engineering standards.
30. The applicant shall slurry seal Channing Avenue as part of this development.
31.The applicant shall show how the West side condominiums will receive utility services and
associated easements.
The developer/applicant is required to apply for and receive approval of a Tentative Map for
subdivision into 36 condominium units prior to submittal of a building permit.
The applicant shall submit improvement plans and construct the two landscape bulbouts on
Channing Avenue adjacent to the Mews. The applicant shall consult with the Public Works
Department to identify an appropriate arrangement for maintaining the bulbouts within the
public right-of-way.
Transportation
34.Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance requirements of PAMC 18.83.080,
applicable to project frontages where driveways are present, and in parking lots. All
landscaping in the middle of the garage ramp and to each side must be planted with
groundcover or shrubs with a maximum untrimmed growth height not exceeding 2.5 feet above
the level of the driveway (trees excepted). A statement to this effect must be included on the
plans and landscaping shall be specifically identified in the landscape plan as meeting these
height requirements. No berming or signs will be permitted in this area. On-street parking will
need to be removed for at least 40 feet on either side of the ramp driveway. All of the above is
for the purpose of maintaining optimal sight distance for exiting drivers when they cross the
sidewalk and enter Bryant Street.
35.Bicycle parking facilities (make and model) must be specified on the plans and be chosen from
the City’s list of acceptable facilities.
Utilities Electric
36. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall
Page 8 of 12
be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur
between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects
the building design and setback requirements.
.237. The apphcant shall meet all the standard conditions listed in the memo from Michael Blodgett
dated August 7, 2000 (attached).
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
38.The applicant shall meet all the standard conditions listed in the memo from Roland Ekstrand
dated September 1, 2000 (attached).
Building Inspection
39.The applicant shall submit to the Building Inspection Division: 1) calculations showing
allowable floor area, type of construction and occupancy pursuant to the UBC, 2) detailed
design of the residential units pursuant to the UBC, 3) clarification of property lfne location on
east side (Mews), 4) revision to cross corridor doors on third floor corridors to meet City/UBC
standards, 5) revision to third floor corridor that leads directly to stair enclosure and not elevator
lobby, 6) calculations showing fourth floor living area, 7) fireplaces shall not be wood burning,
8) address.UBC section 503.3 for building with courts (fire protection of court walls and include
court areas in allowable building area).
During Construction
Utilities Electric
40.All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building
Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
41. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling.
42.Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public
Works before digging in the street right-of-way.
Planning/Zoning
43.All street trees shall receive monthly watering, a written log of each application shall be kept
updated at the site construction office. The log shall be forwarded to the Planning Arborist
before final sign off is approved.
44.Any existing trees on adjacent property, including the public right-of way, that
overhang the site shall be protected from impacts during construction, to the
satisfaction of the City Planning Arborist.
Page 9 of 12
45.
46.
The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned
trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
The following tree preservation measures apply to all existing trees that are to be
retained:
ao 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.
All trees to be retained shall receive monthly watering during all phases of
construction. A written log of each application of water shall be kept at the site.
The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of this log before final inspection
is requested.
Police
47.All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise
Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and
that construction times be limited as follows:
8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday
9:00 AM.to 8:00 PM Saturday
10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday.
Public Works Engineering
48.To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary.
Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall
be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the
contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the
contractor’s expense.
49.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any
work performed in the public right-of-way.
Page 10 of 12
No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior
approval of Public Works Engineering.
The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for
storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa
Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division
shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s cofistruction activities on private property;
and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s
construction activities on public property. It is ,unlawful to discharge any construction debris
(soil, asphalt; sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm
drains. The applicant also will be required to paint a "No Dumping/Flows into the Bay" logo
near all drainage inlets.
52.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City
jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility
Departments.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
53.The applicant shall meet all the standard conditions listed in the memo from Roland Ekstrand
dated September 1, 2000 (attached).
Prior to Finalization
Planning/Zoning
54.The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to Planning Division, and call for
inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the
approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and that irrigation has been
tested for timing and function, and all plants including street trees are healthy.
55.The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification 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.
Public Works Engineering
56.All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in
compliance with Public Works approved standards.
57.The Public Works Inspector shall sign offthe building permit prior to the finalization of this
permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off.
After Construction
Public Works Water Quality Control
Page 11 of 12
58.No wastewater (including equipment cleaning wash water, vehicle wash water, cooling water,
air conditioner condensate, and floor cleaning washwater) shall be discharged to the storm drain
system, the street or gutter.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
59.
60.
The customer shall give the City written notice of any material changes in size, character, or
extent of the equipment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before
making any such change.
Project construction shall include installation of irrigation supply to all street trees. Details shall
specify an in line loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the rootball at a point one-third
of rootball diameter. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from other
shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City
of Palo Alto (V-C)(o).
Planning/Zoning
61.Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be well-maintained,
watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and American national Standards
for Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance- Standard Practices (ANSI
A300-1995). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation
repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery.
(S:\PLAN~LADIV\pamfsofa\summerhi\blockbmf.cnd)
Page 12 of 12
Memorandum
From:
Date:
Re:
Planning: City Of Palo Alto Development Center
Merajul Hoque/Tom Finch/M: Blodgett, - Utilities Engineering.
Monday, August 07, 2000
OLD PAMF.Site Redevelopment @ 325 Channing Lot B4 #00-ARB-112.
Following are the comments for the proposed Parcel plans to Redevelop Old PAMF Site:
1.Electric Service is governed by the City of Palo Alto’s "Electric Service Requirement
Manual" dated NOV. 1999. This manual is available upon request at the Development
Center. The text portion is also available on the City of Palo Alto’s Web Page (under:
"Utility"). All plans submitted are subject to review & approval by Electdc Utility
Engineering.
A "LOAD SHEET" (Commercial and/or Residential) must be filled out and submitted for
each service requested. Along with this form the following items are required:
¯- A detailed load calculations & break down of equipment i.e.: A/C & Motor
loads, load & power factors if available.
¯- Manufacture cut-sheets, Switch Board Specification, and one-line electrical
diagram drawings must be provided for all panels rated 400amp and above
~ingle or three phase.
¯- A site plan with the proposed meter location cleady marked. This location is
subject to change dependant on electric utility point of service.
¯- A plan showing dedicated easements existing and/or requested by Utility
Engineering to serve your development. (When applicable)
An incomplete submittal is subject to delays towards final comments and approval by
August7, 2000
Electric Engineering DepartmenL
This project requires P.U.E. dedications to accommodate electric service installation. Plan
mark-ups for the easement dedication have been completed and sent back to the Civil
Engineer B.K.F. to show on the plans and to initiate the process for dedication documents.
The applicant is responsible for the installation of all on-site Conduits and substructures
required by the Electric Utility Department to serve this project. The applicant may be
given the option to install the required conduits and substructures off-site if needed.
The applicant is responsible to notify the joint participants (i.e.: Pacbelland CATV) for their
substructure requirements on and off-site. This work is subject to inspections by the
Electric Utility UG Inspector. It is recommended that contact is made before trenching or
excavation is performed to review the route and requirements in the field. (Contact Phone
Number for appointments is (650) 496-6965).
All service equipment (i.e. Transformers, Switches, or Load Breaks) required to serve this
project will be Padmount Equipment.
The contractor (or Owners’ authorized representative for the project) is responsible for
identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work
/demolition area. Before any trenching andlor excavation work, the contractor shall contact
Underground Service Alert @ 8001642-2444, at least 72 hours in advance.
The applicant is responsible for the installation of the service cable (sized per N.E.C ) from
the panel to the source. The city will make the final connection atthe source after Bldg.
Dept. Inspector approves the Meter Panel.
CC:Tomm Marshall
2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER - GAS - WASTEWATER ENGINEERING
1007 ELWELL COURT, PALO ALTO, CA 94301
MAIN PHONE: 6501566-4501; FAX: 650/566-4536
Subject Address:
Reviewed By:
Reviewed date:
325 Channing (S.O.F.A.), Application #00-SUB-07
Roland Ekstrand, WGW Util. Eng. Phone: 650/566-4511
September 1, 2000
WATER, GAS & WASTEWATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL NOTES
Demolition of services:
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.
2 New services:
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 g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and
sewer in g.p.d.).
3 All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for
water, gas & wastewater.
4
5
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.
The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated with the installation of the new
utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation
of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the
person requesting the relocation.
Page I of 3
6 Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water meter and gas meter.
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. The
applicant’s contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the utility improvement plan
has been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section.
WATER NOTES
The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary
water supply.
The applicant’s engineer shall submit water flow calculations which will show that the on-
site and off-site water distribution system will provide the domestic, irrigation, andfire
flow water demands 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 main. Calculations must be signed and stamped
by a registered civil engineer.
10 The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for any fire
systems including all fire department’s requirements.
11 A separate water meters shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plans for
commercial sites and multifamily dwellings. These meter shall be designated as irrigation
accounts and no other water service will be billed on the accounts.
12 An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device)
shall be installed 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. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required
for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.
13 An approved detector check valve shall be installed for existing or new water
connections for fire systems to Comply with requirements of California administrative
code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Inspection by the utilities cross
connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the
assembly.
14 All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division,
inspected by the utilities cross connection inspector and tested by a licensed tester prior
to activation of the water service.
15 For contractor installed water mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW
engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water
utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design
criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans
that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor
shall also submit a complete schedule of work, rriethod of construction and the
Page 2 of 3
16
17
manufacture’s literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities
engineering section. The applicant’s contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the
improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and
wastewater engineering section.
Changes from the utility standards or approved submittals will require new submittals, as
specified above, showing the changes. The new submittals must be approved by the
utilities engineering section before making any change.
All unused existing water and wastewater services shall be abandoned per the
City of Palo Alto’s procedures at the applicants expense.
SEWER NOTES
18 The applicant’s engineer shall submit a complete sewer system capacity study to
determine that the on-site and off-site sewer mains have the capacity to accommodate
the sewer flows from the proposed development and adjacent properties during
anticipated peak flow demands. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a
registered civil engineer.
19 The applicant may be 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.
20 For contractor installed wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the
WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of
wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the Utilities
Department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly
shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil
engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of
construction and the manufacture’s literature on the materials to be used for approval by
the utilities engineering section. The applicant’s contractor will not be allowed to begin
work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water,
gas and wastewater engineering section.
21 Changes from the utility standards or approved submittals will require new submittals, as
specified above, showing the changes. The new submittals must be approved by the
utilities engineering section before making any change.
Page 3 of 3
Project Narrative
Block B
AMF-Multi Family
TOTAL UNITS: 36
(20 two-story townhomes; 2 single story flats;
14 master down units with attic bedrooms)
7/31/00
The plan is organized around a central courtyard with town
homes fronting four sides. The townhomes have formal entries and
porches facing the exterior with p~ivate access available from the court
side. Along the east side, townhomes face a pedestrian muse providing a
clear public connection between Scott Park and the new neighborhood
park. The end of the U-shaped courtyard is open to allow direct park
access. In these ways the project pedestrianizes the streetscape and
places residents in close proximity to the park. In this way, the park
becomes a friendlier and perhaps more secure environment.
Parking for the development is located substantially below
grade, and typically is not evident from exterior inspection. The garage
doors which face Bryant Street are flush with the building face, and
designed to be small in scale. The ground floor is raised above grade
approximately two feet, allowing residents a small separation for privacy
and vista.
The building is three stories, with fourth level loft spaces
integrated i6to the steeply sloping roof. The accommodation of attic
bedrooms minimizes the massing impact of the enclosed floor area. In
addition to the steep slope, dormers and variations in massing intended to
reduce the apparent scale and to create visual interest break up the roof.
By stacking only one living unit above townhomes, the building mass
assumes a row house character and avoids the horizontal striations typical
of stacked flat programs.
Stylistically, the project is a shingle-style craftsman bu~Id~ng,
which attempts to recall the design character of the adjacent
"Professorville" neighborhood. Sloping roofs, front porches, and divided
light windows help define this style. The exterior color scheme consists of a
transparent stain over wood shingles, with contrasting window trim. The
building base will be treated with a rustiC brick water table. Architectural
details will be a "classic" craftsman blue-green color. The roof is dark
(composition shingles).
The SOFA Coordinated Area Plan approved by City Council
in March, 2000 set forth development standards and design guidelines
governing this project. This project is designed to comply with the
standards established in this document. The building program is at the
lower threshold of the permitted density, 30 units per acre, and does not
exceed an FAR of 1.5:1. Set backs are a minimum of 15’ along Bryant and
Channing, 10’ along the park, and 40’ as a public muse to the east.
Building height is in conformance with the CAP development standards.
There are no known design exceptions for this project.
The AMF design guidelines strongly encourage architectural
styles to be similar and compatible with the historical heritage of the SOFA
area. The surrounding architecture is very eclectic, with a multitude of
styles reflecting periods spanning from the mid 18(~0’s through the 1940’s.
During public hearings and a neighborhood meeting, the .community
expressed a clear preference for "Professorville" style architecture. As
such, original plans depicting a Spanish Revival style architecture were
scuttled in favor of a shingle expression. The Arts and Crafts period was
highly expressive and well established in Professorville. Some of the best
historic examples are fairly large in scale, .and serve as either homes or
community buildings in the area. By using this reference for the design,
the massing, materials and scale of the project are SYmpathetic to the
residential context of our neighbors to the south and east.
Other features
follows:
of the design which respond to the guidelines are as
Variety of floor plans and unit sizes.
(Plan provides seven plans for thirty-six units; 1400-2475 Sq. Ft.)
¯Enhance the pedestrian environment with public/private open
space and right of way improvements.
(Pedestrian. muse connects two parks over private land.
Proposed bulb- outs ease crossing mid-block at Scott.)
¯Variations in roofline. (see above)
¯Gateposts, trellises and wide verandas marking the transition
from private to public.
¯Open porches, stairs and stoops.
¯Roof forms should complement building mass and style using
pitched roofs, dormers, chimneys and traditional residential
forms. Mechanical equipment screened from view.
¯Common open space is encouraged along major circulation.
(Open court faces Channing with access through the court
to the park beyond)
¯Parking should be screened from view. Curb-cuts minimized.
(No visible openings into parking)
Sep 15 O0 11:22a Chandler Lee RICP 415 282 9816
M|LVIN LEE
ASSOCIATES
ASLA LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
& PLANNERS
1650 Pacific Avenue
¯ San Francisco, CA 94109.2518
PHOND (413) 441-8988
FAX: (415) 441-8528
E.MAIL: mlo88@jps,nc!
SENIOR
ASSOCIATES
Kenneth Nobela
5hari Van Darn
LANDSCAPE DESIGN CONCEPTS (Block B Multifamily and Single
Family)
The primary objective of the landscape design is to integrate the project into the fabric and
character of the existing neighborhood~ The existing neighborhood has a beautiful garden
quality with mature trees and well maintained gardens unique to each home. We intend to
capture that unique garden quality and extend it into this project and make this project a part of
the neighborhood.
One of our design goals is to create a dynamic streetscape. By individualizing the unit entries
with the use of low walls, textured paving, unique planting, and porches or stoops facing the-
street and the park we can help to create the kind of dynamic streetseape that contributes to the
kind of front stoop interaction which brings vitality to a neighborhood.
Another goal is to provide some continuity and identity to the design. The strong street tree
patterns already prevalent in the neighborhood will be strengthened by in filling the existing
street trees wherever they have gaps to create the desired 25’. Another way of unifying the
project will be to use a carefully woven layering and repetition of colors and textures that
repeat in a pattern through the landscape to help weave the gardens together.
We will also bring in pedestrian resting areas to invite interaction along the street consisting of
a seating area, low craftsman style brick wall and overhead arbor with vines which will be
repeated in the mews, and along Homer and Bryant streets at block A as well as in the garden
areas between block A and 737 Bryant. These elements will help create a unifying character
along the street tying the project together and inviting interaction with the public.
Another amenity that belongs to the neighborhood is the large Oak at the comer of Bryant and
Channing’which will be preserved. We plan to integrate a paver walkway with benches and a
resting garden so that pedestrians can actually pause and enjoy the magnificent Oak and in that
way g~ve it back to the neighborhood to enjoy. The paver walkway will allow water and air
to reach the tree roots.
The Mews will provide a pedestrian link between Scott park and the new city park. In
addition to being a pedestrian link, the mews offers a continuation of the park setting through
the projeet, offering not only visual and physical access, but also resting areas which repeat
Re design theme for the pedestrian amenities along the Street. There will be a rhythm of light
fixtures through the mews which could be carried through to the future park to further tie
them together. The large Redwoods will be preserved in the mews and a few more added to
help balance and visually extend the grove and link it with the Redwoods in direct view
across the park at the Williams Residence and in the courtyard between block A and 737
Bryant. The Mews also serves as the front entry to the single family homes with both a direct
wa!l~vay link to the park and houses and a more gentle park like walk linking Block B with
the Mews and the Park.
The singl~ family homes will alI be individuallylandscaped in keeping with the character of
the Architecture. Low walls, textured paving, arbors with vines, and individual gardens will
integrate the homes into the neighborhood. The front yards are designed to be usable gardens
with a low wall or planting to delineate between public and private space. This will keep
activity and vitality along the street as well as to provide visual access from the street to the
gardens in keeping with the garden atmosphere of the neighborhood. Again the street tree
pattern will be strengthened by in filling to a denser spacing along the right of way.
ISSUES RAISED AT LASTMEETING
SHARED DRIVEWAY AT SINGLE FAMILY
One of the issues raised at the last meeting was the concern that the single family shared
driveway into the rear garages was too stark. To address this concern, we have taken a look
at enhancing this area further by adding a cobble paver to enrich the shared driveway. We
have a!so a.dded vines to the arbors over the garages bringing more of a garden alley feeling
into the drives. In addition to that we have developed more of the single family landscaping of
Rece.l.ve~l’- g/15/ 0 10:12;
Sep 15 O0 11:~2a
415 282 g816 ->. PLANNING DEPT.; Page
ChandleP Lee RICP 415 282 9816 p.3
the rear yards which will bring a layering of tree canopies behind the garages and open
parking spaces helping to integrate the driveway into the garden and into the neighborhood.
Thearchitecture is very nicely articulated down the drive and presents a nice streetscape in its
own right. With a layering of trees and the garden scale of the vines and arbors, the driveway
presents a rich atmosphere. We have also changed the wall at the end of the drive to a low
picket fence to allow views through to the park. In addition we added tree guards to protect
the trees from cars.
MULTIFAMILY COURTYARD
Another issue raised was a concern over the multi-family courtyard. This courtyard is
designed to create both an entry into the project, and a visual amenity for homeowners as well
as a v~sual link between the street and the park. We have raised planters with trees and
shrubs, a fountain element, enriched paving and an overhead arbor with seating area below.
We have improved upon this since the last meeting by enlarging the planter areas to allow for
more trees and landscaping. We have removed the arbor area and replaced it with planters,
seating and trees. By maximizing the trees in the coi~rtyard, we are also able to provide more
shade in the summer while allowing sun into the court during winter when the trees go
deciduous.
SECTIONS
We have added sections through the project in all directions to show the relationships between
the new buildings, existing buildings, mews and park.
SINGLE FAMILY WALLS
We have revised the elevations from the park looking towards the single family site to
incorporate a softer treatment. We have jogged the wall to allow for a hedge between the park
and the houses in two locations. We have lowered the walls where they connect to the Mews
and to Waverly Street to create a garden wall concept. The walls will be enriched with brick
from the single family homes to the mews with the front yard garden wall at Waverly being
enriched with stone. The area along the alley has been revised to an open picket wrought iron
look and lowered to allow views through from Channing to the Park. The front yard wails
along Waverly and along the mews are low garden walls. These will vary in their location
and material to individualize the front yard gardens. Some homes will have no front yard
garden wall. The idea is to create usable front gardens which can be viewed from the street
similar to the types of gardens found throughout the neighborhood. Each front garden will be
individual to the house. Some will use a low garden wall to transition from the street, others
will use shrub borders or a small arbor over the dntry walk.
MULTIF/u~ILY PARK TRANSITION
The porches facing the park have been revised to allow for more green pockets recessed into
the building envelope. A 5’ hedge was added between the porches and the park to enhance
the privacy of both the homeowners and the future park users. We hope to be able to work
with the City’s Landscape Architect to accomplish a smooth transition to the park. One
opportunity to link the neighborhood street,scape and mew’s to the new park would be for the
city to incorporate the new pedestrian seating area’s with low walls as well as the fight
fixtures into the new park. This could help to create a continuous theme through the
neighborhood visually linking block b, block a, the mews, Scott Park, the new park and the
streetscape.
SIGHT LINES
Sight line concerns at both the single family driveway entrance and the multi-family garage
entry will be addressed by designing with low planting (2-1/2’ max. shrub height) within the
sight line zone. In addition the single family drive entry has been shifted to save the existing
magnolia tree.
FAvdSTING OAK AT MULTI:FAMILY
We will provide a photographic pruning diagram for the existing oak to demonstrate which
branches will be removed. The branches to be removed were recommended by the arborist.
In addition, we would be willing to provide further verification that the proposed building
wi!l not conflict with any other healthy limbs of the tree.
ATTACHMENT F
SOFA I ARB/HRB Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, August 24, 2000
2:00.PM
Council Conference Room
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ARB/HRB Board Members:
Joseph Bellomo
Roger Kohler
Michael Makinen
Carol Murden
Robert Peterson, Chair
Staff:
Ed Gawf, Director
John Lusardi, Assistant Planning Official
Chandler Lee, Planner
Bhavna Mistry, Planning Technician
Diana Tamale, Office Specialist
The meeting consisted of a presentation from SummerHill Homes and Premier Properties
for the South of Forest Area Phase I area.
¯Why is podium 2 feet above grade, because 18 inch slope down from center of site to
Channing Avenue and Bryant Street.
¯Balcony projections are 6-7 feet.
¯Courtyard landscape - needs larger planter area with trellis.
¯Need to protect and enhance Oak tree.
DHS Homes are sympathetic to but, not same as Block B condominiums.
Bellomo: Relation of AMF and DHS to park; landscaping within DHS driveway cobble
paver and vines on arbors over garages and canopy trees behind garage hammerheads for
turnaround at end of DHS driveway.
Bellomo: Basis for derivative architecture = rejected Spanish
Maran: Height difference of condominiums (30-45 feet) vs. single-family (25-30 feet) -
shading studies (minimal shading. Next time bring material boards for AMF and DHS
and Detailed elevation for DHS.
Makinen: Garage -turnaround radius -) backup meets code.
Bellomo: Fences along park (open); low walls around homes (3 feet) - balconies - some
are recessed and will recess more, but need to meet SOFA open space requirements.
Murden: 5 color groups - only 2 are same, 6 are stucco plus 4 are wood --) mixed
chimney are rubble stone or wood/stucco-siding for DHS; shingle and brick for AMF
raised single-family entries (+/- 3 feet) create sense of privacy.
Peterson: Exposure to sun from park. Need elevation comparison for AMF and DHS to
existing single-family. Why not wood shingle roofs?
Maran: What steps to have sustainable design, e.g. solar orientation (HVAC), materials
(recycled), new materials from sustainable sources.
Public Comment
Steve Reyna: Pressure existing character of neighborhood - 2-story garages are not
therefore put studio unit on ground floor (357-411 square foot studios). 3 foot fences on
Channing and garages within 3 feet of Channing are safety hazard.
Pria Graves (2130 Yale): Garage entry on Bryant conflicts with Bike Boulevard. Wood
chimneys are unsafe and non-conforming. Massive appearance, no individual building
like Birge-Clarke on Ramona. Studious are monsters.
David Bubenik (420 Homer): Granny units not currently in neighborhood. Wants
reproductions of existing style.
Rubenstein (501 Kingsley): Buildings overwhelm park therefore need screening. How
will park uses be located near AMF patios without impact? Therefore need buffer or
hedge.
Elaine Meyer (601 Kingsley): Park frontage on Homer is unusual (wants more like
Johnson Park) need to separate with buffer and double parking.
Lynne Ciapella: A1VIF and DHS are too dense; too tight fortress in DHS driveway.
Comments
¯Status of park
¯DHS are discretionary review and are SOFA Neighborhood Compatibility
Guidelines.
Beliomo: Buildings don’t respond to sun (turnaround plans) e.g. Need rooflines that
protect,from sun on the west edge landscaping is key. Minimize granny unit -
neighborhood. Acoustical and shade analysis. How to transition from public to private
spaces.
Maran: Need overview and purpose of project at beginning of each meeting to illustrate
holistic approach and visitor of park. Disagree with SOFA Plan --) don’t have to have
grannyunits. Environmental issues: Resources, sustainability, should be included earlier
on.
Makinen: Higher density than existing. Need to diminish reliance on cars and parking.
Murden: Variety of single family homes. Need more so doesn’.t like subdivision. Granny
units can be one or two story. 2-story is okay on Block B but not on D, E, and F.
Peterson: Need streetscape and sections of existing and proposed of buildings and variety
of new buildings. Orientation of living unit are key and need to be addressed. Materials
need to be use in an authentic manner (don’t tack wood onto chimneys). Historic roots of
neighborhood (opposed to derivative styles). Need to Solve structures, use orientation.
Then materials and style emerge (downtown Philadelphia ’ IM Pei).