HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3741
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3741)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/3/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 50 El Camino Real Ronald McDonald House Expansion
Title: Public Hearing: An Ordinance Approving the Rezoning of a 1.57-acre
Site from Community Commercial With a Landscape Combining District
(CC(L) to Public Facility with a Site and Design Combining District (PF(D))
Zone, a Resolution Amending the Site’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation From Streamside Open Space to Major Institution/Special
Facilities, and a Record of Land Use Action Approving a Conditional Use
Permit and Site and Design Review Application for the Construction of a 69-
Room, Three Story, 51,948 Square Foot Building to House an Expanded
Ronald McDonald House Program, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Project located at 50 El Camino Real.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), and the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) recommend a Council MOTION to approve:
(1) a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment M) for the project
(2) an Ordinance (Attachment A) to rezone a 1.57-acre site at 50 El Camino Real, from CC(L) to
PF(D) (from Community Commercial with a Landscape Combining District (CC(L)) to Public
Facility with a Site and Design Combining District (PF-D);
(3) a Resolution (Attachment B) amending the site’s Comprehensive Plan land use designation
from Streamside Open Space to Major Institution/Special Facilities; and
(4) a Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment C) approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
and Site and Design Review application for the construction of a 69-room, three story, 51,948
square foot building to house an expanded Ronald McDonald House program.
Executive Summary
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The Ronald McDonald House (RMH) provides lodging for families of children seeking medical
treatment at the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (LPCH). The demand for affordable
temporary lodging for families of children receiving medical care for life threatening illnesses
has increased dramatically. The current facility cannot meet this demand. This application
would permit the expansion of the RMH program allowing the construction of a new building
with 69 additional rooms adjacent to the current RMH facility. This adjacency allows for
efficiencies that would not be possible if the expansion occurred at an alternate location.
Construction of the new facility requires Council approval of a Zone Change, a Land Use Map
Amendment, a Site and Design Review application, a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Background
Site Information
The 1.57 acre project site is undeveloped land located on the west side of Sand Hill Road just to
the north of the existing Ronald McDonald House (RMH) facility, which is located at 520 Sand
Hill Road. A site map is provided as Attachment D. The site is owned by Stanford University and
would be incorporated into the existing RMH site through a lot line adjustment. The site of the
existing RMH is zoned PF, and has the same use as is requested for the adjacent project site,
which is zoned CC(L). The site has relatively flat terrain and supports 91 trees, consisting
primarily of Oak and Eucalyptus and an illuminated pedestrian/bike path that winds through
the property parallel with Sand Hill Road. Stanford Shopping Center is located to the east of the
project site, across Sand Hill Road. To the north of the site lies undeveloped land, bounded by
San Francisquito Creek (creek), El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road. Undeveloped area and the
creek are to the west, and further west are single-family residences in Menlo Park on Creek
Drive.
Project Description
The project is the expansion of the existing RMH facility to the 1.57 acre site, within a new
three-story building and the development is subject to Site and Design Review and approval.
The new building’s height would reach approximately 42 feet. The approximately 52,000 square
feet of floor area would be comprised of 69 guest rooms, kitchen, dining room, laundry
facilities, and other activity rooms. Of the 69 parking spaces, 43 of these spaces would be
located in a below grade garage; the remainder would be surface parking spaces. The existing
bike path would be realigned closer to Sand Hill Road, to make room for the new building and
surface parking area.
The project site is to be rezoned PF(D), and the Comprehensive Plan designation, currently
‘Streamside Open Space’, will be ‘Major Institution/Special Facilities’. The proposed use,
City of Palo Alto Page 3
“hospital accessory facility,” allows a place for families of LPCH patients receiving treatment to
stay during the treatment period. The demands for affordable temporary lodging for these
families have increased dramatically. The CUP amendment would allow an additional 69 guest
rooms within a new approximately building.
Ronald McDonald House
The RMH was established in 1979 and includes 47 guest rooms, a kitchen, dining room,
community room, activity centers, and a fitness center. The existing facility is approximately 41
feet tall, and provides a total of 64 parking spaces. The existing RMH facility is subject to the
existing Conditional Use Permit, (89-U-22) as amended by (01-CUP-12). Prior to December 12,
1989, RMH operated under provisions of the use permit granted for what was then the
adjacent Children’s Hospital. When the hospital was relocated, the RMH applied for and
received approval of a separate Conditional Use Permit (89-U-22) for the facility and a 10,519
square foot expansion, increasing the number of rooms from 13 to 24. On May 21, 2002, a CUP
(01-CUP-11) was approved to modify the 1989 CUP to allow the facility to expand from 24
rooms to 47 rooms.
Council Initiation of Rezoning
On February 13, 2012, Council initiated the Rezone Request and Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. There were seven public speakers at the hearing; all but one speaker spoke in
favor of the project. The comments generally covered the following topics:
• Need in the community for the expansion of the existing RMH, it was noted that the
facility typically has to turn away 40 families a day;
• Personal experiences of how the RMH has helped families;
• Location of the proposed expansion in relation to the Children’s Hospital being a
significant benefit. Many LPCH families must stay in hotels in adjacent communities as
there are not enough places to stay close to the hospital;
• One speaker voiced his concern the application was not complete.
The vote was 6-0-2-1 to initiate the Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
amendment, with two members not participating and one member absent. The meeting
minutes are provided as Attachment J.
Architectural Review Board (ARB) Review
On July 12, 2012, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted a Preliminary Review to
provide early feedback on the proposed building design. There were no public speakers at the
meeting. The ARB was generally supportive of the project, but there were several
recommendations for improvement. The members were in general agreement in making
suggestions to:
City of Palo Alto Page 4
• Realign the bike/pedestrian path further from the street;
• Provide greater back-of-the-building articulation;
• Refine the overall building design;
• Eliminate one garage entry next to the meditation garden to provide more open space
and a better pedestrian link;
• Reconfigure the parking area with more landscape shading and screening.
The ARB agreed the bike path had been pushed too close to the street and that greater
separation would be more appropriate. The ARB noted that the rear elevations of the building
were too flat and needed greater articulation and perhaps additional glazing. Lastly, the ARB
was concerned with the level of refinement in the building’s detailing. The ARB expressed
concern that the charm and detail of design in the existing Ronald McDonald House building
was not being met in the new building concept.
On January 24, 2013 the ARB reviewed the project and continued the item to a date uncertain,
asking the applicant to address and reconsider several items, including the location of the
generator, the concept of a meditation garden, the gate at the tot lot fence, the balance of
trees on both sides of the entry, lighting at the garage entry ramp, entry shed roof at the entry,
dormer window design, window pattern and placement, building color, roof and gutter details,
building base, overall surface of the building, expansion joints, and provide bike parking, trash
enclosure and expansion joint details. The ARB asked the applicant to explore adding character
and detail elements currently associated with the existing building and provide a summary of
the parking rational. The ARB’s list was mostly detail-related or clarification items. Many of the
ARB’s higher level issues noted during the preliminary review had been addressed.
At the April 4, 2013 ARB hearing, the ARB recommended approval on a 3-0-1-1 vote, and added
a condition to the draft RLUA (Condition # 17) to require the following items to be reviewed
and approved by the ARB subcommittee:
1. Removal or replacement of sheet 0A0.7;
2. Relocation or reduction of the long term bike lockers;
3. Coordination of the central element at the west elevation on the first level on the
building plans;
4. Study of the bracket design and placement;
5. Further evaluation of control or expansion joint pattern and scale;
6. Window details relative to adjacent elements on the roof terminations;
7. Cut sheets for all exterior light fixtures;
8. Photovoltaic plan;
City of Palo Alto Page 5
9. Coordination with the City’s Arborist relative to the oak and redwood trees to be
transplanted at the rear of the property;
10. Update of Attachment “A” to reflect the current plan information.
These items will return to the ARB subcommittee following Council action. The ARB also
directed staff to correct ARB findings regarding the building’s orientation to the creek and to
correct a typographical error; the RLUA has been revised accordingly.
ARB minutes are provided as Attachment L.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review
On November 14, 2012, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) conducted
its review and made a recommendation of approval to the City Council, on a 6-0-1 vote.
Commission minutes are provided as Attachment K.
The Commission discussed the following items:
• The visual and physical access to the creek;
• The parking facilities;
• The need for future expansion;
• The amount of paving in front of the building;
• The alternative modes of transportation, and
• The process.
The Commission questioned the ability for the public to access the large expanse of creek area
that would result behind the new building. It was explained that no new fences would be
introduced to prevent access to the creek behind the building and that the area would be open
and accessible to the larger open area beyond the building. The Commission asked if the
proposed expansion would meet the growing demand for rooms considering the expansion of
the Stanford Hospital and Children’s Hospital facilities. It was noted that the new Children’s
Hospital facility will also be incorporating living quarters to assist in offsetting the increased
demand for family living accommodations during medical treatments. The necessity of the
large amount of paving shown at the front of the project was questioned. The applicant
explained that the paving area was essential to RMH’s operation, ensuring safety while
shuttling children from one facility to the other, to ensure they do not enter the public
roadway. The Commission also noted that its ability to provide meaningful input on the project
was compromised by having the project initiated at the City Council level rather than by the
Commission. There was one public speaker, representing LPCH, who spoke in favor of the
project.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Discussion
Tree Impacts
During the review process, the applicant has worked with City staff to retain in place and
transplant additional oak trees previously marked for removal. These project changes will
significantly improve the visual screening of the building from the roadway and at the rear of
the property. Oak trees 35 and 36 will be protected in place. These trees are at the front and
center of the project site. The preservation of these two trees will add a screening element not
otherwise achieved with new planting for several years, and create a layering affect with old
and new landscape material. Tree 53 is also being retained in place. This tree is located at the
rear of the site and is the only significant tree between the building and the creek. The
retention of this tree will help to provide a landscape buffer not otherwise achieved for several
years. Protected oak trees 37 and 38, proposed to be transplanted, had previously been slated
for removal. These trees will be added in with the other transplanted trees to re-vegetate the
riparian area between the building and the creek. Several conditions of approval/ Mitigation
Measures are included in the RLUA to compensate for tree removals.
Bike/Pedestrian Path Realignment
The proximity of the bike/pedestrian path relative to Sand Hill Road has been a difficult design
issue. Staff has advocated moving the path further from the street while the site constraints in
terms of lot size and existing mature tree locations have proven to be difficult barriers to
overcome. The path is further away from the curb, two additional mature oaks are to be
preserved in place, and two other trees, previously slated for removal, will be transplanted
from this area. The current version of the plan is an improvement over earlier versions,
providing greater separation from the street, with additional landscape planting to help
separate the new building from the roadway and assist in maintaining the landscape aesthetic
of the Sand Hill Road Corridor.
Riparian Area
In order to ensure that the riparian area behind the new building is protected, the applicant’s
Biological Study recommends that the area be re-vegetated with native tree and shrub species.
It is currently open land with minor vegetation. Re-vegetation of this area will assist in limiting
possible erosion and create a buffer between the project and the creek. Staff is working with
the applicant to create a planting plan for this area. Many of the trees that are to be
transplanted would be planted in this area. Record of Land Use Action Condition of Approval
#14 will ensure this area is re-vegetated.
Timeline
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Application Submitted October 27, 2011
City Council Zone Change Initiation February 13, 2012
ARB Preliminary Review July 12, 2012
Planning and Transportation Commission Review November 14, 2012
Formal ARB Review January 24, 2013
Second Formal ARB Review April 4, 2013
City Council Review June 3, 2013
Resource Impact
ALH Economic has performed a Net Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Ronald McDonald House
(RMH) expansion project. The analysis projected General fund revenues and service costs. The
analysis estimtes that the annual net fiscal impacts range from a gain of $27,816 to a potential
loss of -$123,523 to -$192,207 depending on the analytical approach. Two separate
methodologies were employed, a marginal/case study approach and an average cost approach.
The $27,816 gain would occur if there are no incremental City staff and associated costs due to
the project. ALH Econimics believes this is likely given the infill nature of the project and its
expansion of an existing use. Moreover, the families that stay at the RMH are focused on
meeting family medical needs rather than establishing roots and taking advantage of the many
City services offered by Palo Alto. Due to this fact, RMH guests are less likey to use many
facilities or infrastructure that is beyond the immediate node around the RMH facility nor are
they likely to place high demands on City services. A potential loss in City revenue, pursuant to
the average cost approach, results from the project’s resident-oriented use (if treated similar to
other residential uses), coupled with its non-profit status, resulting in exemption from having to
pay property taxes. However, the direct spending by RMH and its employees, guests, and
volunteers are projected to increase sales achieved by the Palo Alto economic base by $1.6
million per year. This includes sales for retail goods, services, and lodging. This volume of
annual spending indicates that while the project may have a negative fiscal impact on the
General Fund, pursuant to the average cost approach, the project will be an overall net positive
contributor to the City’s economic base.
Policy Implications
The project includes a request to modify the site’s Land Use Designation from Streamside Open
Space to Major Institition/Special facilities. The amendment of the land use designation is
necessary to allow the construction of the proposed Ronald McDonald House expansion
project, because the current land use designation does not allow for development beyond the
construction of biking, hiking and riding trails. While the proposed project would not be
consistent with the current Steamside Openspace land use designation, it would be consistent
with the proposed land use designation, while not resulting in a negative impact to the riparian
City of Palo Alto Page 8
area behind the project. The project’s compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies and
Zoning are indicated in attached tables (Attachments F and G).
Environmental Review
The initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project is attached
(Attachment M). The 20-day public review and comment period began November 14, 2012 and
ended December 4, 2012. The environmental analysis notes there are a few potentially
significant impacts that would require mitigation measures to reduce them to a less than
significant level. One issue is the proposed removal of seven protected oak trees, as well as a
significant Black Oak tree from the site. As mitigation for the removal of these trees, the
applicant is required to transplant three of the protected oaks, seven other oak trees from the
site, and six redwood trees from the site to a location just behind the proposed building. The
applicant is also required to provide a monetary In Lieu fee for the four protected oak trees and
the large black Walnut tree that cannot be relocated, as mitigation for their removal. The
relocation of the trees behind the building also serves as mitigation for development near the
San Francisquito Creek. While the project will not impact the riparian corridor of the creek, it is
required that the area between the project site and the creek be re-vegetated, to ensure its
protection. This area currently has very little native plant material. The project would take
place outside the 50 foot creek stabilization area, and to further protect the riparian corridor
during construction, plastic construction fencing and silt fencing is required. Tree protection
measures are also required to mitigate any potential damage to protected trees that are to be
retained. As mitigation for any potential impacts to nesting birds, construction activity is
restricted to occur between August 15 and March 15 of any given year, or a qualified biologist is
required to conduct a preconstruction survey for nesting birds. If nesting birds are found,
buffer zones are required to be established until all chicks have fledged.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B: Draft Resolution (PDF)
Attachment C: Draft Record of Land Use (DOC)
Attachment D: Site Location Map (PDF)
Attachment E: Applicant's Project Description Letter (PDF)
Attachment F: Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table (DOC)
Attachment G: Zoning Compliance Table (DOC)
Attachment H: P&TC Staff Report, November 14, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment I: ARB staff report April 4, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment J: City Council Minutes, February 13, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment K: P&TC Minutes, November 14, 2012 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Attachment L: ARB Sense Minutes, April 4, 2013 (DOCX)
Attachment M: Draft Mitigated Declaration and Initial Study (PDF)
Not Yet Approved
1
130522 jb 0131082
Ordinance No. _______
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Zoning
Map of the City of Palo Alto to Change the Zone Designation for
Approximately 1.57 Acres at 50 El Camino Real, from Community
Commercial with a Landscape Combining District (CC(L)) to Public
Facility with a Site and Design Combining District (PF(D))
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The Planning and Transportation Commission, after duly noticed public hearings
on November 14, 2012 has recommended that the City Council rezone approximately 1.57
acres of land at 50 El Camino Real, from “CC L Community Commercial with a Landscape
Combining District” to “PF D Public Facility with a Site and Design Combining District.
B. The Planning and Transportation Commission has reviewed the facts presented
at the public hearing, including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the
director of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff.
C. The Planning and Transportation Commission finds that rezoning the parcel to
Public Facility with a Site and Design Combining District (PF(D)) is in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive Plan Policy B‐32 encourages the assistance of
the Stanford Medical Center in responding to changes and delivery of health services and Policy
H‐2 encourages increasing housing density and diversity in appropriate locations.
D. The Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on June 3,
2013, and has reviewed the environmental documents prepared for the project and all other
relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on
the matter.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare would be
furthered by an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3.
SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to
place a portion of 50 El Camino Real as shown in “Attachment A” to this document, 1.57 acres
of land, within the “PF D Public Facilities zone district with a Site and Design combining district”.
SECTION 4. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to environmental
review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Mitigated
Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and it has been determined that, no
potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property; therefore, the
project would have no significant impact on the environment.
Not Yet Approved
2
130522 jb 0131082
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty‐first day after its
passage and adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
__________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney ____________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
•• /
Legend
,
\
C>oo
~=':_~Il~~;~l Project Parcel -50 El Camino Real
GJIJ Project Site -Portion of 50 EI Camino Real f::,:! City Jurisdictional Limits
c::J Zone Districts
abc Zone District Labels
o;~---o· ..
The City of
Palo Alto
50 El Camino Real
Zone Change
CC (L) to PF
Project Area Map
This map is a product of the
City of Palo.Alto GIS
I-----I.~ ~ -.
Not Yet Approved
1
130522 jb 0131084
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting an Amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use
Designation for Approximately 1.57 Acres at 50 El Camino Real From
Stream Side Open Space to Major Institution/Special Facilities
R E C I T A L S
A. The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearings on November 14, 2012,
recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
as set forth below.
B. Upon consideration of said recommendation after duly noticed public hearing on June
3, 2013, the Council desires to amend said plan as hereinafter set forth.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo
Alto and the surrounding region would be furthered by an amendment of the Land Use Map of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation of the area depicted in “Exhibit A” from Stream Side
Open Space to Major Institution/Special Facilities. Exhibit A is attached to this resolution and
incorporated into it by this reference.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution will have no significant
adverse environmental impact.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
__________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney ____________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
•• /
Legend
,
\
C>oo
~=':_~Il~~;~l Project Parcel -50 El Camino Real
GJIJ Project Site -Portion of 50 EI Camino Real f::,:! City Jurisdictional Limits
c::J Zone Districts
abc Zone District Labels
o;~---o· ..
The City of
Palo Alto
50 El Camino Real
Zone Change
CC (L) to PF
Project Area Map
This map is a product of the
City of Palo.Alto GIS
I-----I.~ ~ -.
1
ACTION NO. 2013-01
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 50 EL CAMINO REAL: SITE AND
DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL
(11PLN-00388)
On June 3, 2013, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
approved the Site and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit
application for a hospital accessory facility in the proposed
Public Facilities (PF) zone district with Site and Design (D)
Combining District, making the following findings, determination
and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Huiwen Hsiao has requested the City’s approval for
Site and Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a three story, approximately 52,000 sq. ft.
expansion of the existing Ronald McDonald House facility as a
hospital accessory facility. The building would be approximately
42 feet tall, have 69 parking spaces, and would have 69 guest rooms
as well as other kitchen, recreation, and laundry spaces. Also
requested are changes to the zoning designation and the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. The zoning would change
from Community Commercial with a Landscape combining district
(CC(L)) to Public Facilities with a Site and Design combining
district (PF(D)). The Land Use Designation would be amended from
Streamside Open Space to Major Institution/Special Facilities.
B. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped and is
occupied by 91 trees and an illuminated bike and pedestrian pathway
that parallels Sand Hill Road. It is designated on the
Comprehensive Plan land use map as Streamside Open Space, and is
located within the Community Commercial (CC) zone district with a
Landscape (L) combining District.
C. Following staff review, the Planning and
Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project on
November 14, 2012, and recommended approval. The Commission’s
recommendations are contained in CMR: XXXX and the attachments to
it.
D. Following Commission review, the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) reviewed the Project on January 24, 2013, and continued
Attachment A
2
the project to a date uncertain. On April 4, 2013 the
Architectural Review Board reviewed revisions to the proposal and
recommended approval. The ARB’s recommendations are contained in
CMR: XXXX and the attachments to it.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City, as the lead
agency for the Project, has determined that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) will be required for the project subject to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
Public Notice period for the MND began on November 14, 2012 and
concluded on December 4, 2012. There were no comments on the MND.
SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings
1. The design is consistent and compatible with
applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the project incorporates quality design that preserves the creek,
compliments the existing buildings in the area, and provides a
valued service within the community.
2. The design is compatible with the immediate
environment of the site.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the project has attempted to preserve as many existing trees as
possible, working them into the site layout. The building has been
oriented parallel with the creek, preserving the adjacent riparian
area.
3. The design is appropriate to the function of the
project.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the design works well to serve the needs of the Ronald McDonald
House facility.
4. In areas considered by the board as having a unified
design character or historical character, the design is compatible
with such character.
This finding is not applicable to this project in that
this area does not have a unified design or historic character.
5. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale
and character in areas between different designated land uses.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the project maintains the same height as adjacent buildings and is
well screened from nearby single-family residential uses.
3
6. The design is compatible with approved improvements
both on and off the site.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the project’s design is intended to relate to the existing Ronald
McDonald House facility by incorporating architectural details form
the existing building into the new one.
7. The planning and siting of the various functions and
buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide
a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general
community.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the new building would be tied to the existing via a pedestrian
path through a circular garden. The circular garden features a
mature coast live oak tree and is the connection point between the
existing and new buildings. Vehicular connectivity is also
provided by a driveway that allows vehicular movement between the
existing and new buildings without the need to enter onto the
public roadway.
8. The amount and arrangement of open space are
appropriate to the design and the function of the structures.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the proposal provides ample outdoor patios, gardens, and play areas
to meet the needs of the buildings users.
9. Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support
the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with
the project’s design concept.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that a
new trash enclosure is proposed to be compatible with the new
building.
10. Access to the property and circulation thereon are
safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the proposal provides an onsite driveway that connects the two
buildings as well as multiple pedestrian pathways.
11. Natural features are appropriately preserved and
integrated with the project.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
many existing trees are preserved in place and others are
4
transplanted just behind the site to re-vegetate the riparian area
between the creek and the proposed building.
12. The materials, textures, colors and details of
construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the
design and function.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
proposal primarily includes earthy colors and materials as well as
native tree and plant species to blend with the natural
surroundings of the site.
13. The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by
the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms
and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional
environment.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the proposal includes native landscape materials that are used to
screen and soften the appearance of the building while also
providing a pleasing color pallet.
14. Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site,
capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a
variety which would tend to be drought-resistant to reduce
consumption of water in its installation and maintenance.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the proposed landscape materials are well suited for the proposed
environment.
15. The project exhibits green building and sustainable
design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and
nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content
materials. The following considerations should be included in site
and building design:
• Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading,
daylighting, and natural ventilation;
• Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-
climates and reduce heat island effects;
• Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit
access;
• Maximize on site stormwater management through
landscaping and permeable paving;
• Use sustainable building materials;
5
• Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient
energy and water use;
• Create healthy indoor environments; and
• Use creativity and innovation to build more
sustainable environments.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the project would comply with the City’s green building ordinance,
parking lot trees are provided to reduce the urban heat island
effect, and easy pedestrian access is provided.
16. The design is consistent and compatible with the
purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection
18.76.020(a).
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the project design promotes visual environments that are of high
aesthetic quality and variety.
SECTION 4. Site and Design Review Findings
1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner
that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or
potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The proposed expansion of the Ronald McDonald House as
a hospital accessory facility would be a compatible and harmonious
use in relation to adjacent and nearby uses. The proposed location
for the RMH is ideal in that it is adjacent to the existing
facility which creates efficiencies for the operation and is in
close proximity to the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital and the
Stanford Hospital where there tenants and family members receive
treatment. The proposed building is set away from the adjacent
riparian creek area so as not to negatively impact it. The RMH
would be conducted such that it would not result in an impact on
adjacent properties. The traffic and parking for the project have
been reviewed and it has been determined that the use would be
adequately parked and that the traffic volumes would not result in
an impact to local intersections or roadways. The new building is
proposed to be architecturally similar to the existing facility
next door.
2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring
the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business,
research, or educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
The approval of the project would maintain the
desirability of investment by supporting a use that is important to
the community. The proposal would be executed in a manner that
6
preserves the aesthetic quality of the area. The proposed building
would be setback 70 feet or more from Sand Hill Road providing a
significant setback to accommodate ample landscaping and preserve
the aesthetic of the corridor. Construction of all improvements
will be governed by the regulations of the current Zoning
Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to
assure safety and a high quality of development.
3. Sound principles of environmental design and
ecological balance are observed in the project.
The proposal respects the nearby natural riparian
corridor with an 80 foot setback from the top of bank. The
proposal does not remove riparian corridor vegetation and would
even add new native shrubs and trees to further ensure the
protection of the creek and the nearby natural environment. The
project would also meet all City and state requirements for green
building. Of the 70 trees to be removed, 16 of them will be saved
and relocated between the new building and the creek. The 21
remaining trees on site would be protected in place and 30 new
trees would be planted on site.
4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
The project is compliant with several comprehensive
plan policies as noted in the Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table
SECTION 5. Conditional Use Permit Findings
1. Not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
The project, as conditioned, would not result in
detrimental or injurious impacts to property or improvements in the
vicinity. The proposal has no significant impacts that are not
able to be mitigated and would propose a use identical to the use
existing on the adjacent parcel which currently functions without
negatively impacting the neighboring properties. The proposed
facility is large but is designed to mitigate the proposed building
mass and has significant building setbacks. It is located in close
proximity to the existing facility which creates operational
efficiencies between the existing and new RMH buildings. It is
also close to the hospital to minimize vehicle trips and adds
conveniences to the users.
7
2. Be located and conducted in a manner in accord with
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title
(Zoning).
The project is compliant with several comprehensive
plan policies as noted in the Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table
SECTION 6. Site and Design Review and Conditional Use
Permit Approval Granted. Site and Design Review and conditional
Use Permit Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).070, and Section 18.76.010 for
application 11PLN-00388, subject to the conditions of approval in
Section seven of the Record.
SECTION 7. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Kenneth
Rodriguez and Partners entitled “Ronald McDonald House Expansion”,
consisting of 36 pages, dated March 13, 2013, except as modified to
incorporate the conditions of approval in Section Six. A copy of
these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community
Environment. The conditions of approval in Section 6 shall be
printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the
Building Permit application.
SECTION 8. Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be
in substantial conformance with plans received on January 16, 2013,
except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of
approval and any additional conditions placed on the project by the
Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or City Council.
The following conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover
sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit
application.
2. All noise producing equipment shall not exceed the
allowances specified in Section 9.10 Noise of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
3. Any existing city street trees shall be maintained
and protected during construction per City of Palo Alto standard
requirements.
4. All landscape material shall be well maintained
and replaced if it fails.
8
5. Any exterior modifications to the building or
property shall require Architectural Review. This includes any new
signs.
6. Mitigation Measure Bio-1: Prepare a final Tree
Preservation Report for all trees to be retained. Activity within
the dripline of ordinance-regulated oak trees requires mitigation
to be consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan. An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR)
prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted for review and
acceptance by the City Urban Forester. For reference clarity, the
tree survey shall include (list and field tag) all existing trees
within the project area, including adjacent trees overhanging the
site. The approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including
mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to City Urban Forester.
The TPR shall be based on latest plans and amended as needed to
address activity or within the dripline area of any existing tree
to be preserved, including incidental work (utilities trenching,
street work, lighting, irrigation, etc.) that may affect the health
of a preserved tree. The project shall be modified to address
recommendations identified to reduce impacts to existing ordinance-
regulated and other trees to be retained. The TPR shall be
consistent with the criteria set forth in the tree preservation
ordinance, PAMC 8.10.030 and the City Tree Technical Manual,
Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urban_canopy.asp. To
avoid improvements that may be detrimental to the health of
regulated trees, the TPR shall review the applicant’s landscape
plan to ensure the new landscape is consistent with Tree Technical
Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks.
The project site arborist will also review the plans submitted for
building permit to verify in writing that all final design review
measures to protect trees are incorporated into the plans.
7. Mitigation Measure Bio-2: Prepare a Tree Relocation
Feasibility Plan for protected and non-protected trees to be
relocated. Because of inherent mortality associated with the
process of moving mature trees, a Tree Relocation and Maintenance
Plan (TRMP) shall be prepared subject to Urban Forester’s approval.
The project sponsor shall submit a TRMP to determine the
feasibility of moving the Protected Trees to an appropriate
location on this site. Feasibility shall consider current site and
tree conditions, a tree’s ability to tolerate moving, relocation
measures, optimum needs for the new location, aftercare,
irrigation, and other long-term needs.
If the relocated trees do not survive after a period of five years,
the tree canopy shall be replaced with a tree of equivalent size or
security deposit value. The TRMP shall be inclusive of the
following minimum information: appropriate irrigation, monitoring
inspections, post relocation tree maintenance and for an annual
arborist report of the condition of the relocated trees. If a tree
9
is disfigured, leaning with supports needed, in decline with a dead
top or dieback of more than 25%, the tree shall be considered a
total loss and replaced in kind and size. The final annual arborist
report shall serve as the basis for return of the tree security
deposit.
8. Mitigation Measure Bio-3: Provide a Tree
Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The natural tree resources
on the site include significant protected trees and neighborhood
screening, including 15 trees proposed for relocation. Prior to
building permit submittal, the Tree Security Deposit for the total
value of the relocated trees, as referenced in the Tree Technical
Manual, Section 3.26, Security Deposits, shall be posted to the
City Revenue Collections in a form acceptable by the City Attorney.
As a security measure, the project shall be subject to a Memorandum
of Understanding between the City of Palo Alto and the Applicant
describing a tree retention amount, list of trees, criteria and
timeline for return of security, and conditions as cited in the
Record of Land Use Action for the project. The applicant and
project arborist shall coordinate with the City Urban Forester to
determine the amount of bonding required to guarantee the
protection and/or replacement of the regulated trees on the site
during construction and within five years after occupancy. The
applicant shall bond for 150% of the value for the relocated trees,
and 50% of the value of the remaining trees to be protected during
construction (as identified in the revised and final approved Tree
Protection Report). The applicant shall provide the proposed level
of bonding as listed in the Tree Value Table, with the description
of each tree by number, value, and total combined value of all the
trees to be retained. A return of the guarantee shall be subject to
an annual followed by a final tree assessment report on all the
relocated and retained trees from the project arborist as approved
by the City Urban Forester, five years following final inspection
for occupancy, to the satisfaction of the director.
9. Mitigation Measure Bio-4: Retain protected oak
trees #53 and #35 with focused site planning. Oak #35 is a fine
specimen functioning as a significant aesthetic and biological
resource and screen tree. Specific roadway mitigation design shall
be implemented to enable the retention of this tree. Oak # 53,
along the creek side of the building perimeter, is a healthy oak of
significant character and function to provide screen, shade and
environmental benefits from the western sun exposure. Sufficient
root clearance, canopy clearance shall be afforded the tree, as
well as specific measures in the tree protection report to ensure
the tree’s survival.
10. Mitigation Measure Bio-5: Provide monetary in-lieu
fee for protected trees that cannot be relocated and will not
survive construction, after all design options have been exhausted
consistent with the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, Tree Value
Replacement Standard. The appraised value of protected trees that
10
are inadvertently removed shall be paid to the City of Palo Alto
Revenue Collections, Forestry Fund, prior to building permit
issuance.
11. Mitigation Measure Bio-6: Provide optimum public
tree replacement for loss of any public trees along Sand Hill Road.
As mitigation to offset the net loss for years of public resource
investments and minimize the future years to parity with
infrastructure benefits (Co2 reduction, extended asphalt life,
water mgmt., etc.) currently provided by the trees, the new Sand
Hill Road frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design
and materials to include the following elements:
• Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root
growing volume resources.
• Utilize city-approved best management practices for
sustainability products.
12. Mitigation Measure Bio-7: Provide monetary in-lieu
fee for Designated California Black Walnut # 48 that is too large
to be relocated and is within the project footprint. The appraised
value of Walnut #48 consistent with the Tree Technical Manual,
Section 3.00, Tree Value Replacement Standard shall be paid to the
City of Palo Alto Revenue Collections, Forestry Fund, prior to
building permit issuance.
13. Mitigation Measure Bio-8: Prior to construction, the
limits of work along San Francisquito Creek shall be demarcated
with plastic construction mesh fencing and silt fencing. The
fencing must be in place prior to any site improvements and only
removed when all construction work is completed.
14. Mitigation Measure Bio-9: The proposed area between
the creek top-of-bank and the development shall be re-vegetated
with native riparian plant species (trees and shrubs) to buffer the
creek resources. Native riparian trees and shrubs shall be used,
such as coast live oak, valley oak, western sycamore, blue
elderberry, toyon, coffee berry, and California wild rose. The
applicant shall work with City Staff to create a planting plan for
this area prior to building permit issuance.
15. Mitigation Measure Bio-10: Construction shall be
scheduled to occur between August 15 and March 15 of any given
year, which is outside the nesting season for this area. If this
is not possible, a qualified biologist shall conduct
preconstruction surveys for nesting birds. If nesting birds are
observed, buffer zone shall be established where no construction
will take place until the biologist has determined that all chicks
11
have fledged. The buffer zone shall be 50 feet for passerines and
200 feet for raptors.
16. Mitigation Measure Culture-1: A program of
mechanical subsurface presence testing shall be conducted.
Depending on the findings, a more comprehensive program of
evaluation of significance of the deposits may be recommended in
order to devise a responsible program of mitigation of impacts
through data recovery excavation combined with archeological
monitoring of all earthmoving activities to identify, record and/or
remove significant archeological materials and to limit damage to
human remains and associated grave goods which may be encountered
during construction related excavation. Presence/absence testing
would be limited to a series of trenches. Based on findings, a
plan for further evaluative testing and/or mitigation would be
prepared.
17. The following items are to return to the ARB
subcommittee for review prior to building permit issuance:
1. Remove or replace sheet 0A0.7;
2. Relocate the long term bike lockers or reduce the
number;
3. Coordination of the central element at the west
elevation on the first level on the building plans;
4. Bracket design and placement to be studied;
5. Control or expansion joint pattern and scale to be
evaluated further;
6. Window details relative to adjacent elements on the
roof terminations;
7. Provide cut sheets for all exterior light fixtures;
8. Coordinate wit the City arborist relative to the
oak and redwood trees to be relocated behind the
project site;
9. Update Attachment “A” to reflect the current plan
information;
10. In Section 3.2 of the ARB Findings rephrase the
statement such that it reflects how the building is
oriented parallel to the creek;
11. Correct the typo in Section 3.10.
18. If photo voltaics are proposed, they must return to
the ARB for review.
Green Waste
19. The access paving to the trash enclosure must be
able to support the trash collection vehicles that weigh 30 tons.
20. The trash enclosure shall be large enough to
accommodate three, three yard bins, one for each commodity.
12
Water Gas Waste Water
21. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-
wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of
Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information
requested for utility service demands (water in fixture
units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.).
The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new
loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any
existing loads to remain).
22. The applicant shall submit revised 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.
23. The applicant must show on the site plan the
existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray
water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc).
24. 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.
25. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow
calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and
off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide
the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity
needed to service the development and adjacent properties during
anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to
determined current flows and water pressures on existing mains.
Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil
engineer.
26. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains
or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering
section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation
of water and 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
13
submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater
engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign
off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the
contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per
City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures. For
contractor installed services the contractor shall install 3M
marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main
and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals.
27. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly
(RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and
new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with
requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections
7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the
owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet
of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead
free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans.
28. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is
required for the existing or new water connection for the fire
system to comply with requirements of California administrative
code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. reduced
pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's
property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property
line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly
on the plans.
29. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by
the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross
connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the
meter and the assembly.
30. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and
connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added
demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services,
meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost
of the person/entity requesting the relocation.
31. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is
required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location
of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be
designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will
be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans
submitted with the application for a grading or building permit
shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards.
32. A new water service line installation for domestic
usage is required. For water meter connections of 4-inch through
8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a
concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and
other required control equipment on private property with a public
14
utility easement (PUE) in accordance with the utilities standard
detail. 2” and smaller meters shall be installed in the street
right of way (planting strip or side walk).
33. A new water service line installation for irrigation
usage is required. Show the location of the new water service and
meter on the plans.
34. A new water service line installation for fire
system usage is required. The applicant shall provide to the
engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system
including all fire department's requirements.
35. A new gas service line installation is required.
Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter
location must conform with utilities standard details.
36. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is
required. If the sewer lateral must cross property/lease lines the
sewer lines on the neighboring property must have a PUE for the
sewer lines. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the
plans
37. The applicant shall secure a PUE for facilities
installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall
obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide
the utilities engineering section with copies of the public
utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to
serve the development.
38. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets,
concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing
water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal
clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing
utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with
existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from
the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may
not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater
mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater
services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees.
Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater
services/mains/meters.
39. To install new gas service by directional boring,
the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of
the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can
be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is
installed by directional boring.
15
40. All utility installations shall be in accordance
with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas &
wastewater.
Public Works Engineering
41. As part of this project, the applicant must replace
those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or
driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the
frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked,
displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted
pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at
650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine
the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the
building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement
work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined
no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the
right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed
contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public
Works at the Development Center.
42. Public Works will determine the condition of the
street surface on the frontages on the project at the completion of
construction and decide what type of street resurfacing, if any,
will be required prior to acceptance of the project.
43. The applicant shall grant to the City of Palo Alto a
Public Access easement on the leased parcel to encompass the
proposed relocated bike path if one does not already exist.
44. The applicant may be required to replace existing
and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the
property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-
496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street
tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site
plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the
street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the
tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements,
or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no
street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to
do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for
Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’
arborist (650-496-5953).
The following comments are provided to assist the applicant at the
building permit phase. You can obtain various plan set details,
forms and guidelines from Public Works at the City's Development
Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on Public Works’ website:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms_permits.
16
Include in plans submitted for a building permit:
45. Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City
and Public Works’ prohibiting the pumping and discharging of
groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of
the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site.
However, you must provide a trench drain at the ramp and any
interior drainage must drain to an oil separator and discharge into
the sanitary sewer.
46. Shoring for the garage, including tiebacks, must not
extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way
without having first obtained written permission from the private
property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works.
47. Basement excavations may require dewatering during
construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well
dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed.
Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to
inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical
report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater
level. We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil
boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater
immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by
drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be
within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If
groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a
drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the
contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit
groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and
install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate.
Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants
prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If
testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent
testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants
Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works.
Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a
Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in
the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the
plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will
still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to
dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above
dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works
has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines
available at the Development Center and on our website.
48. The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan
prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and
proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate
proper drainage of the site. Downspouts and splashblocks should be
17
shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as
swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto,
or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public
Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and
discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to
keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to
landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading &
Drainage Plan Guidelines on our website.
49. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a
grading & excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when
applying for a building permit. The application and guidelines are
available at the Development Center and on our website.
50. City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part
of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are
available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our
website.
51. Show all existing street trees in the public right-
of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or
excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees
must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953).
This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction
protection of the trees per City requirements.
52. The plans must clearly indicate any work that is
proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement,
driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include
notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the
contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work
Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new
driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway,
then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced
with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick)
section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for
abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and
planter strip.
53. The project will be creating or replacing 500 square
feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant
shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious
surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious
Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are
available at the Development Center or on our website.
54. This project shall comply with the storm water
regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm
water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land
18
development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or
more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential
permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the
applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent
site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that
serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of
the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size,
design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention
measures to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” as
specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal
storm drain system. In addition, the applicant shall designate a
party to maintain the control measures for the life of the
improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the
City. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to
building occupancy sign-off. The City will inspect the treatment
measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently a
$350 C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon issuance of a
grading or building permit.
• Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects such as this,
must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the
building permit review process to certify that the proposed
permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the
requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The
certification form, 2 copies of the approved storm water treatment
plan (stamped “Approved” or “Certified”), and a description of
Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the
third-party reviewer prior to approval of the building or grading
permit by the Public Works department. Notice: Additional, new,
regional requirements mandated by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board will affect private development projects beginning
December 1, 2011. For more information regarding the requirements
that went into effect on December 1, 2011, visit the Santa Clara
Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program website at
http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/Default.htm.
• Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water
treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit
for the building, the third-party reviewer shall also submit to the
City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent
measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the
approved permit drawings.
55. If the proposed development will disturb more than
one acre of land, the applicant will be required to comply with the
State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a
Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and
preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and
post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The
19
applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft
SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior
to issuance of the building permit. Also, include the City's
standard "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet in
the building permit plan set. Copies are available from Public
Works at the Development Center.
56. The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the
Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all
impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to:
pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material
deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work
hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution
prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses,
and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work
permit.
57. The applicant is required to paint the “No
Dumping/Flows to Barron Creek” logo in blue color on a white
background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils of the
logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance
Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may
be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the
instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and
drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous
Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project.
Building Department
58. Locate real and assumed property lines and show how
the buildings on the same lot comply with the building height and
area limitations per CBC 503.1.2. Clearly identify the lease lines
and the property lines.
59. Show Type of Construction on the plans and submit
Building Area calculations to verify the allowable story height and
floor area of the single use and/or mixed use buildings. Include
which method is proposed, Accessory, Separated or Non-separated. In
addition, provide calculations to verify the total allowable
building area of the building. If it is a single occupancy building
with more than one story above grade show compliance in accordance
with CBC 506.4.1. For mixed occupancies, the total allowable
building area of a mixed occupancy building with more than one
story above grade shall comply with CBC 508.1. (2010 CBC 506.1)
60. Provide occupancy load calculations, and an exit
diagram on each floor level to verify the required number of exits,
common path of egress travel and the travel distance complies with
the maximum allowed. In addition, show the exit doors are arranged
to be separated in accordance with the minimum diagonal dimensions.
CBC Sections 1014, 1015 and 1016, Include minimum egress width
20
calculations to verify width compliance with CBC 1005.1 (Table
1015.1. Table 1016.1).
61. Show distances from real property lines and locate
assumed property lines to verify all exterior wall openings and
parapets are in conformance with requirements of protected and
unprotected openings in CBC Chapter 705 and Table 602
62. Fire-resistance rating is required for exterior
walls in conformance with Tables 601 and 602, dimensions and
details are required on the permit plans to verify compliance.
63. Based on the scope of work for this project the City
of Palo Alto has the option to require the applicant to utilize a
third party plan check firm to conduct the building code plan
review. A list of plan check agencies approved by the City of Palo
Alto is available at the Development Center. The City of Palo Alto
Building plan check fees are reduced by 35% when a 3rd party plan
check agency is utilized.
64. The Building Permit Plans shall be prepared by a
licensed architect. When the plans are submitted for a building
permit, be sure to include the full scope of work including all
site development, disabled access and exiting for the entire site,
utility installations, architectural, structural, electrical,
plumbing, mechanical work associated with the proposed project. The
plans shall include the allowable floor area and entire building
area calculations on the project data sheet and where there are
multiple occupancies, provide unity calculations for either
separated or non-separated uses
Utilities Electric
65. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric
Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during
plan review.
66. The applicant shall be responsible for
identification and location of all utilities, both public and
private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the
site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA)
at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work.
67. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect
all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed
affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building
Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed
within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition
permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have
been disconnected and removed.
21
THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR
ELECTRIC SERVICE
68. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of
plans must be included with all applications involving electrical
work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary
submittal.
69. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow
sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and
Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees
have been paid) to design and construct the electric service
requested.
70. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per
parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
71. If this project requires padmount transformers, the
location of the transformers shall be shown on the site plan and
approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review
Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail
comments below).
72. The developer/owner shall provide space for
installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and
interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City.
73. The customer shall install all electrical
substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service
point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation
shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans.
Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18.
74. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be
shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review
Board and Utilities Department.
75. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow
preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the
landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will
occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition,
all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is
consistent with the building design and setback requirements.
76. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer
will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the
interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer
and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings
22
must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department
for review and approval.
77. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750
MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer
secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for
connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus
duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the
main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not
be required.
78. The customer is responsible for sizing the service
conductors and other required equipment according to the National
Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule
& Regulation #18.
79. If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500 kVA,
service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts
and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and
transformers.
80. For primary services, the standard service
protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned an maintained by
the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must
provide and install the pad and associated substructure required
for the fault interrupter.
81. Any additional facilities and services requested by
the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard
facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The
Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the
additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities
Rule & Regulation #20.
82. Projects that require the extension of high voltage
primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric
facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be
coordinated with the Electric Utility.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
83. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from
the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-
of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips.
84. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation,
the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-
227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked.
The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint.
23
All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor
when construction is complete.
85. The customer is responsible for installing all on-
site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the
electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in
a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to
National Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits
are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed
by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon
by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site
substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant.
86. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete
encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches.
No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit
run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull
boxes.
87. All new underground conduits and substructures shall
be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the
Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling.
88. The customer is responsible for installing all
underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition
cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall
meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards.
89. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in
accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements
Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards
for meter installations.
90. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and
greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and
approval prior to installing the switchgear to:
Gopal Jagannath, P.E.
Supervising Electric Project Engineer
Utilities Engineering (Electrical)
1007 Elwell Court
Palo Alto, CA 94303
91. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for
factory drawing submittal.
92. All new underground electric services shall be
inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and
the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
24
AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
93. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing
the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size),
conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and
switch/transformer pads.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT
94. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities
Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use.
95. All required inspections have been completed and
approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the
Electrical Underground Inspector.
96. All fees must be paid.
97. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements
need to be signed by the City and applicant.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Sheet A2.0:
98. The electric service location, below grade at the
basement level is not approved. All service equipment shall be
located above grade level unless otherwise approved by CPAU
Electric Engineering.
Sheet A2.1 and Sheet C-4.0
99. Transformer location is not approved. The
transformer location is in conflict with both the storm drain and
sanitary sewer.
100. The transformer shall meet all clearance
requirements listed in the City’s Electric Service Requirements.
Sheet C-4.0
101. The Utility Plan shall show the primary and
secondary electric conduit routes. Clearance requirements between
the different utilities shall be maintained.
Fire Department
102. Meet with the Palo Alto Fire Department to discuss
FD access and construction features.
25
Additional Conditions
103. California Government Code Section 66020 provides
that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a
development project must initiate the protest at the time the
development project is approved or conditionally approved or within
ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications,
reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project.
Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these
development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set
forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A
PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES
DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM
CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES,
DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS.
104. This matter is subject to the California Code of
Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial
review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
SECTION 9. Term of Approval.
Site and Design Approval. In the event actual
construction of the project is not commenced within two years of
the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of
no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.30(G).080.
SECTION 10. Term of Approval.
Conditional Use Permit Approval. In the event actual
construction of the project is not commenced within one year of the
date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no
further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.77.090(a).
SECTION 11. Indemnity Clause.
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall
indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its
officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and
against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party
against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set
aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the
Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its
actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the
litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend
any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
26
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
1. Those plans prepared by Kenneth Rodriguez and Partners entitled
“Ronald McDonald House Expansion”, consisting of 36 pages, dated,
March 13, 2013.
•• /
Legend
,
\
C>oo
~=':_~Il~~;~l Project Parcel -50 El Camino Real
GJIJ Project Site -Portion of 50 EI Camino Real f::,:! City Jurisdictional Limits
c::J Zone Districts
abc Zone District Labels
o;~---o· ..
The City of
Palo Alto
50 El Camino Real
Zone Change
CC (L) to PF
Project Area Map
This map is a product of the
City of Palo.Alto GIS
I-----I.~ ~ -.
1
C:\Users\rellner\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QC60T9IR\Project Description new version.doc
520 Sand Hill Road
PF ZONE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
_______________________________________________________
I. PROJECT APPLICANT.
The project applicant is Ronald McDonald House at Stanford. Ronald McDonald House
(“RMH”) at Stanford creates a home-away-from-home and supportive community for
families with a child being treated for a life-threatening illness. Located close to Lucile
Packard Children’s Hospital, the RMH is a shelter for the family to stay together and
provides respite from the stress of medical procedures.
For seriously ill little ones and their families every day can be a challenge. They are
confronted by a daunting situation emotionally and financially, the stress of which may
hamper the child’s recovery. As families leave the comfort of home to seek advanced
or specialized treatment, the experience becomes even more difficult without the
immediate support network of family and friends. At a time when tubes, bandages,
baldness, wheelchairs, needles, and tests are part of these families’ daily lives, Ronald
McDonald House at Stanford looks for ways to provide respite and relief from the
pressures each family faces so that they can focus on their number one priority: the
health of their child.
With Stanford Hospital’s expanded services, the need for rooms is consistently
expanding and families are turned away every night. With the forthcoming expansion of
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, that demand will continue to increase, even more
quickly. Fortunately, RMH has identified an ideal property – immediately adjacent to the
existing House - on which to grow and meet both current and projected needs. The
property, which represents a portion of the Designated Remainder of the Lands of the
Leland Stanford Junior University, will be incorporated into the current lot by means of a
lot line adjustment.
II. LOCATION AND CONTEXT.
The RMH is located at 520 Sand Hill on land leased from the Board of Trustees of
Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”). It is adjacent to the Vi senior community
and across Sand Hill Road from Stanford Shopping Center; across the creek to the
north are single-family residences in Menlo Park and to the east all the way to El
Camino Real is open space. When the original Children’s Hospital at Stanford was
relocated from Sand Hill Road to Welch Road, the RMH remained on Sand Hill Road
and retained its PF zone. It was categorized as a hospital accessory facility and
although that use is not specifically listed as a conditional use in the PF zone, similar
private uses (such as outpatient medical facilities, day care centers, private schools and
residential care facilities) are conditionally allowed. Section 18.28.040 of the Zoning
Code allows other uses which, in the opinion of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment, are similar to those listed, as permitted or conditionally permitted uses.
2
C:\Users\rellner\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QC60T9IR\Project Description new version.doc
The Director has determined that the RMH is similar to these uses and would be a
conditionally allowed use in the PF zone.
The RMH currently has a conditional use permit for 47 rooms, administrative offices,
and common rooms, including a large kitchen, teen room, day care room and computer
room used by the residents. The RMH is also subject to a recorded Affordable Housing
Agreement whereby the RMH covenants that all units are rented at affordable rates. In
fact, the RMH charges only $10.00/night for each room, and even that amount is waived
if it is a hardship on the occupant.
The expansion of the RMH will require the Comprehensive Plan designation of
Streamside Open Space to be changed to Major Institutions/Special Facilities for 1.57
acres of the approximate 8.52 acres of open space. The RMH is also requesting a
rezone of this same 1.57 acres to PF (D). Adding the (D) overlay zone to the PF zone
will assure that the design of the expansion is integrated into and justifies the expansion
of the PF zone. Additionally, an amended CUP (or new CUP) will be needed to expand
the use permit for the RMH. The additional 1.57 acres for the expansion will be set way
beyond the top of the creek bank and the expanded RMH will be at least 290 feet from
the closest residence on the north side of the creek.
III. DETAILS OF DRAFT DESIGN.
The proposed 52,000 square feet will more than double the size of the existing RMH.
The height of the proposed expansion will be approximately 42 feet, the same as the
existing RMH. The RMH intends to generally comply with required setbacks and site
coverage on the leased parcel. There will be an additional sixty-nine parking spaces,
including surface spaces and an underground parking garage. Although several groups
of trees will be removed, all the major oak trees on the site will be preserved.
The proposed new addition will be designed with the same architectural features and
vocabulary as the existing RMH buildings. It will be a wood frame construction on a
concrete basement foundation. A unique meditation garden is proposed in between the
existing RMH and the proposed expansion.
IV. HOUSING NEEDS AND FACILITIES
Currently, Ronald McDonald House at Stanford has 47 guestrooms and offers families a
place to stay that is designed to meet their specific needs during this challenging time.
The RMH features a Children’s Activity Room, Teen Recreation Center, Computer
Center, family library, and fitness center. Shared areas such as a large kitchen and
dining room, TV rooms on each floor and a multi-purpose “great room” create a sense
of community among the families.
Everything about Ronald McDonald House at Stanford is geared towards supporting
and healing the family. Often, the entire family is uprooted. For the siblings of ill
children, the experience can be very traumatic. Not only are they worried about the
3
C:\Users\rellner\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QC60T9IR\Project Description new version.doc
health of their brother or sister, but the majority of the family’s attention is focused on
their ill sibling. Having a place to stay that offers kid-friendly activities and a life as
much like home as possible helps maintain the family’s closeness and structure.
Additional benefits offered through the House help families with everyday tasks that
could otherwise be daunting: shuttles to and from the hospital, free laundry facilities,
group trips to the grocery store, breakfast provided seven days a week, and dinner
brought in about five nights a week. A story-time, dance, and acting workshop helps
kids role play and express the complex emotions they are experiencing. Programs such
as Kids Can Cook, Furry Friends Hour, Bingo, Arts and Crafts Night, scrapbooking, and
massage offer avenues for healing the whole family.
The new facility will add 69 guestrooms, a second kitchen and dining room, and
expanded activity centers. The number of rooms needed was ascertained through a
joint project between Ronald McDonald House at Stanford and Lucile Packard
Children’s Hospital. The study was conducted by Kaufman Hall & Associates, a third-
party independent consulting firm that offers strategic advisory services to hospitals and
healthcare organizations. Kaufman Hall found that the forecasted need would increase
after the hospital’s expansion and that 65-70 rooms would be needed to accommodate
the additional families traveling to Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital for life-saving
treatment.
As Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital is able to treat increasingly ill children who need
to stay locally for extended periods, the demand for services and housing at Ronald
McDonald House at Stanford continues to rise. Many procedures require patients to be
near the hospital for pre- and post-operative care as well as for outpatient treatments,
and more patients are staying at the House during part or all of their treatment. Chart 1
(attached) shows that the average length of stay has grown from 6 nights in 2003, when
the current expanded building re-opened, to 29 nights in 2012. In fact, many of our
families stay at the House for many months – and some for more than a year. It truly
becomes a home away from home.
Ronald McDonald House’s statistics demonstrate the need for expansion, with a greater
number of families being put on the waitlist each night. Chart 2 (attached) shows an
average number of families per night who are being turned away, many of them night
after night. The urgency for an expansion has grown with the number of families
needing housing. Because rooms are so limited, a family might remain on the waitlist for
weeks without ever getting an opportunity to stay in the House before their treatment is
complete. It is a hardship on these families that needs to be addressed.
Since the House opened in 1979, the fee requested from the families has remained at a
modest $10 per night and no family is ever turned away due to inability to pay. With the
high cost of medical care, many of the families are putting all their assets toward the
treatment of their child. Nearly two-thirds of the families served are so financially
impacted they cannot afford the $10 nightly fee. Because of generous community
4
C:\Users\rellner\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QC60T9IR\Project Description new version.doc
support, Ronald McDonald House at Stanford can continue to give these families a safe
place to stay when they need it the most.
A generous amount of the annual operating budget (6%) is supported by Bay Area
Ronald McDonald House Charities and local McDonald’s owner/operators; however, the
RMH’s largest supporters are members of the community, providing about 85% of the
operating budget. Every penny raised in support of the RMH is spent locally.
V. MINIMIZING NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS.
By adding guestrooms to Ronald McDonald House at Stanford, the RMH will
accommodate the families of critically ill children being treated at Lucile Packard
Children’s Hospital. With the RMH’s shuttles, bicycle loan program and walking
proximity to the hospital, this expansion is not expected to increase car traffic in the
area. The families stay for long periods and frequent the stores and restaurants near the
RMH and throughout Palo Alto. The RMH also provides vans for food and inexpensive
clothing shopping.
The RMH expansion will have no exterior lighting facing the creek and is not expected
to generate noise. The existing RMH has received no complaints from neighbors in the
nearly 10 years it has operated under its current use permit.
Ronald McDonald House at Stanford has been investigating alternative additional sites
throughout Palo Alto for many years, none of which have been appropriate for its needs.
By expanding on the land adjacent to the existing RMH, citywide impacts are minimized.
There is no location and no combination of services that could be created as efficiently
as this expansion can. It will offer the fewest complications for families staying at the
RMH and offer better cost-savings than a second RMH elsewhere in the City.
5
C:\Users\rellner\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QC60T9IR\Project Description new version.doc
• t ,
I
Chart 1: Average Length
of Stay
2003 2005 2O()g 2011 2012
-
6
C:\Users\rellner\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QC60T9IR\Project Description new version.doc
Chart 2: Average Number of
Families Turned Away Each
Night
6(1
20
.0
o I
V V V ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ v v v ~ ~ ~ ~ ,-f' ~{$ ~. >f'~.#' ,>< ".J' ./'. &' ~~ </" ..f' # ~+' .,.Q"
.-
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENT F
APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
50 El Camino Real
11PLN-00388
______________________________________________________________________________
Business and Economics
Policy B-32: Assist Stanford Medical Center in
responding to changes in the delivery of health
care services.
The expansion of the RMH facility would assist in
providing temporary logging for families with
children seeking medical treatment at the Lucile
Packard Children’s hospital. The existing facility
must continually turn people away and a
significant need for the proposed facility is need.
Natural Environment
Policy N-12: Preserve the habitat value of creek
corridors through preservation of native plants and
the replacement of invasive, non-native plants
with native plants.
The project keeps away from the riparian corridor
and further protects it by adding native riparian
trees and shrubs between the building and the
creek.
Policy N-13: Discourage creek bank instability,
erosion, downstream sedimentation, and flooding
by minimizing site disturbance and vegetation
removal on or near creeks and carefully reviewing
grading and drainage plans for development near
creeks and elsewhere in the watersheds of creeks.
The project stays 80 feet away from the top of the
creek bank and would provide mesh fencing and
silt fencing to keep project activities away from
the creek.
Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees,
including native oaks and other significant trees,
on public and private property
The project site has 14 protected oak trees on site.
Seven of these trees would be protected in place
and three would be transplanted as part of the
project. Four of the trees would be removed.
Land Use and Community Design
Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative
design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces.
The proposed building would be the same height
as the adjacent facility and would be
architecturally compatible with it. The design will
receive review by the ARB to ensure quality of
design.
Policy L-66: Maintain an aesthetically pleasing
street network that helps frame and define the
community while meeting the needs of
pedestrians, bicycles, and motorists.
Large setbacks and ample landscape areas in front
of the building have been proposed to fit in with
the aesthetic of the Sand Hill Road corridor as
well as the adjacent open space. The winding
bicycle/pedestrian path that currently runs through
the site is preserved in an altered location.
Housing
Policy H-1: Meet community and neighborhood
needs as the supply of housing is increased.
Ensure the preservation of the unique character of
the City’s existing neighborhoods.
The proposal would provide needed temporary
affordable housing to families with children
seeking medical care at Stanford while
maintaining the quality design aesthetic of the
area.
Policy H-2: Identify and implement a variety of
strategies to increase housing density and diversity
in appropriate locations. Emphasize and
encourage the development of affordable and
attainable housing.
While the proposed project is not permanent
housing, it is a form of temporary affordable
housing in a very appropriate location. Its close
proximity to the Stanford medical facilities is one
of its key benefits to its users.
ATTACHMENT G
ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE
50 El Camino Real / File No. 11PLN-00388
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR PF(D) ZONE DISTRICT
ZONE DISTRICT
STANDARD
PROPOSED
PROJECT
CONFORMANCE
Minimum Building setbacks
Front Yard (Sand Hill Road)
24’ Special Setback 59’ conforms
Rear Yard 10’ 10’
conforms
Interior Side Yard (right) 10’ 58’ conforms
Interior Side Yard (left)
10’ 25’ conforms
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1:1 (68,260 sq. ft.) 0.76:1(51,948 sq. ft.) conforms
Maximum Site Coverage 30% (20,478 sq. ft.) 28% (19,218 sq. ft.) conforms
Maximum Height 50’ 42’-7” conforms
Daylight Plane none
No requirement conforms
Parking Requirement
1 space per guest
room (69 spaces)
69 spaces conforms
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
FROM:
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Russ Reich DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: November 14, 2012
SUBJECT: Request by Huiwen Hsiao on behalf of The Board of Trustees of the Leland
Stanford Junior University for a Rezone ofa 1.57-acre site from Community
Commercial with a Landscape Combining District (CC(L)) to Public Facility
with a Site and Design Combining District (PF(D)), an amendment to the
site's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Streamside Open
Space to Major Institution/Special Facilities, Site and Design review and a
Conditional Use Permit amendment for a proposed 70 room, three story,
51,948 square foot building for an expansion to the existing Ronald
McDonald House program, and Approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the property located at 50 EI Camino Real.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that
the City Council approve a Rezone of a 1.57 -acre site from Community Commercial with a
Landscape Combining District (CC(L)) to Public Facility with a Site and Design Combining District
(PF(D)), amend the site's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Streamside Open Space
to Major Institution/Special Facilities, approve the Site and Design Review application and an
amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit for a proposed 70 room, three story, 51,948
square foot building for an expansion to the Ronald McDonald House program, and the associated
Mitigated Negative Declaration, for the property located at 50 EI Camino Real.
BACKGROUND:
Process History
The existing RMH facility is subject to the existing Conditional Use Permit, (89-U-22) as amended
by (01-CUP-12). Prior to December 12, 1989, RMH operated under provisions of the use permit
City of Palo Alto Page 1
granted for what was then the adjacent Children's Hospital. When the hospital was relocated, the
RMH applied for and received approval of a separate Conditional Use Permit (89-U-22) for the
facility and a 10,519 square foot expansion, increasing the number of rooms fi'om 13 to 24. On May
21,2012 CUP (01-CUP-12) was approved to modity the 1989 CUP to allow the facility to expand
from 24 rooms to 47 rooms.
On February 13, 2012 the City Council initiated a Rezone Request from Community Commercial
with a Landscape Combining District (CC(L)) to Public Facility with a Site and Design Combining
District (PF -D) and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Streamside Open Space to Major
Institution/Special Facilities. There were seven public speakers at the initiation hearing. All but one
of the speakers spoke in favor of the project. There comments generally covered the following
topics:
• Need in the community for the expansion of the existing RMH, it was noted that the facility
typically has to turn away 40 families a day;
• Personal experiences of how the RMH has helped families;
• Location of the proposed expansion in relation to the Children's Hospital being a significant
benefit. It was noted that many families seeking treatment at the hospital must stay in hotels
in adjacent communities because there are not enough places to stay close to the hospital;
• One speaker voiced his concern that the application was not complete.
The vote was 6-0-2-1 to initiate the rezone and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment,
with two members not participating and one member absent.
On July 12, 2012, the application went before the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for a
Preliminary Review of the proposed project to get early feedback on the proposed building design.
There were no public comments provided at the hearing. The ARB was generally supportive of the
project, but there were several recommendations for improvement they were in general agreement
on:
• Bike/pedestrian path realignment further from the street;
• Back-of-the-building articulation;
• Refinement ofthe overall building design.
The ARB agreed that the bike path had been pushed too close to the street and that greater separation
would be more appropriate. The ARB noted that the rear elevations of the building were too flat and
needed greater articulation and perhaps additional glazing. Lastly, the ARB was concerned with the
level of refinement in the building's detailing. While it was just a Preliminary Review, the ARB
expressed concern that the charm and detail of design in the existing Ronald McDonald House
building was not being met in the new building.
Site Information
The project site is located on the west side of Sand Hill Roadjust to the north of the existing Ronald
McDonald House (RMH) facility. The site is owned by Stanford University and would be
incorporated into the existing RMH site through a lot line adjustment. The new area added to the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
existing RMH property would be approximately 1.57 acres. To the north of the site lies
undeveloped land, bounded by San Francisquito Creek, EI Camino Real and Sand Hill Road. Just to
the west ofthe site is the remainder of the undeveloped area and San Francisquito Creek. Beyond
the creek, further to the west, are single family residences in Menlo Park along Creek Drive. To the
east of the site, across Sand Hill Road, is the Stanford Shopping Center. The existing RMH lies
immediately adjacent to the south (520 Sand Hill Road). The property is currently undeveloped and
has no built structures. The terrain is relatively flat and there are 91 trees, consisting primarily of
Oak and Eucalyptus, on the site. There is also an illuminated pedestrian/bike path that winds
through the property parallel with Sand Hill Road.
Project Description
A project description letter has been provided by the applicant (Attachment D). The project would
be situated within a lease line boundary area of 1.57 acres to accommodate the construction of an
expansion to the existing RMH facility. The new building on the site would be three stories tall, at
approximately 42 feet high, consisting of approximately 52,000 square feet in floor area. The
building would provide 70 rooms along with a kitchen, dining room, laundry facilities, and other
activity rooms. There would be a total of69 parking spaces, 43 in a.new below grade garage and 30
surface parking spaces. The existing bike path through the site would be adjusted closer to Sand
Hill Road to make room for the new building and parking. The project would be adjacent to the
existing RMH facility, which was established in 1979 and includes 47 guest rooms, a kitchen, dining
room, community room, activity centers, and a fitness center. The existing facility is approximately
41 feet tall, and provides a total of 64 parking spaces.
f Companson 0 EXlstmg an d Expan ed RMH Faci ities d ·1
Existing Expansion Combined
Site Area(sa. ft} 78,275 sa. ft. 68,260 sa. ft. 146,535 sq. ft.
B·uilding Area (sa. ft.) 20,634 sq. ft. 51,948 sa. ft. 72,582 sq. ft.
Number of Rooms 47 rooms 70 rooms 117 rooms
Building Height 41 feet 42' -7" 42'-7"
ParkinQ: Snaces 64 spaces 69 snaces 133 spaces
The site is currently zoned CC(L) and the proposed project necessitates the rezoning to Public
Facility as well as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Streamside Open Space to Major
Institution / Special Facilities. The proposed use, "hospital accessory facility," would allow families
of patients receiving treatment at the Lucille Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH) a place to stay
during the treatment period. The site of the existing RMH is zoned PF, and has the same use as is
requested for the new adjacent site. The demands for affordable temporary lodging for families with
children being treated for life threatening illnesses at LPCH have increased dramatically and the
current application requests to amend the existing use permit to allow an additional 70 guest rooms
within a new approximately 52,000 square foot building.
City of Paro Alto Page 3
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION:
Commission Purview
The Commission is requested to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Draft Ordinance and
Resolution for the rezone and land use amendment, and Site and Design Review application. The
Commission's recommendations will be forwarded to Council following ARB public hearing and
review ofthe project. The ARB public hearing will be another public comment opportunity on the
environmental document and project as a whole, but the ARB focus is on the ARB findings to ensure
good site design, landscaping and building design, and the sustainability of the project, whereas the
Commission's focus is more on the environmental document, land use and Site and Design Review
findings. The Council will receive both recommendations and minutes ofthe public hearings in the
staff report and presentation to Council.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
Tree Impacts
The site is currently, zoned with a Landscape (L) combining district, with 91 trees within the project
area. Many ofthese trees would be potentially impacted by the proposed development. Some of the
trees would need to be relocated or removed to accommodate the new building, surface parking area,
and other site improvements such as the trash enclosure, pedestrian pathways, a new driveway
access, and new landscape improvements. A total of70 trees would be removed and 15 those trees
would be transplanted and randomly layered between the creek and the new bUilding. Of the
existing 91 trees, 21 would remain on site and be protected during construction. A total of30 new
trees would be planted in the project. Most of the trees to be removed are non-native eucalyptus
trees. Only seven protected oak trees would be removed, three of which would be saved by
transplanting them just off site, behind the new building. All of the transplanted trees would be
placed in a random pattern behind the building to keep the trees on the property and adjacent to the
creek. These trees would also serve to buffer the proposed building from off-site views from the
other side of the creek.
Bike/Pedestrian Path Realignment
To make room for the new site improvements, the existing pedestrian/bike path that winds through
the site adjacent to Sand Hill Road is proposed to be moved closer to the street. The applicant
intends to mimic the winding pattern of the existing pathway but it would be much closer to the
street than it currently is. Staff has encouraged the applicant to move the path further from the
roadway and retain as many mature trees as possible. The ARB also commented on the path's
proximity to the street and felt it should be moved further back. One idea presented at the hearing
was to make the driveway be for the RMH shuttle only, and that the driveway could then be
narrower, allowing more room for the path to move even further away from the street. The applicant
has revised the plan to retain another existing oak tree and has moved the path a few feet further
from Sand Hill Road.
Staff requests the Commission's feedback on the current proposal relative to the bike/pedestrian
path's proximity to the street.
City of Palo Afta Page 4
Zoning
The permitted land uses in the PF zone are facilities owned or leased by a governmental agency,
park uses, and uses incidental to park operations. The RMH facility has been categorized as a
hospital accessory facility. This use is not specifically listed as a conditionally allowed use in the PF
zone. However, similar uses are conditionally allowed in the PF zone. Conditionally Permitted uses
in the PF zone include both hospitals and outpatient medical facilities associated with medical
research. Section 18.28.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) allows the Director to
determine this use to be similar to a permitted or conditionally permitted use. The RMH has been
deemed to be similar to these uses since 1989 and therefore, the additional floor and site area for this
use can be allowed via the CUP.
Rear Building Facade
The ARB commented that the back of the building did not appear to have been designed with the
same level of detail as the front. They felt that the back ofthe building facing the creek was flat and.
needed addition articulation so as not to appear so massive from the open space area behind. Based
on these concerns, the applicant removed the buttresses, varied the roof heights, introduced wall
sections that come forward of the rest with gable roof elements, created ground floor arcades,
provided a deep roof overhang, and introduced a large covered balcony.
Design Details
The ARB felt that the proposed building plans did not convey the same quality of detail, character,
and level of charm as the existing facility. They felt that some of the design elements were bland,
blocky, chunky, and clunky and that further refinement was necessary. The applicant responded to
the comments by revising the plans to include gable roof elements, dormer windows, accent
windows, wood eve brackets, large squared columns, and a tall entry portal.
Emergency Generator Location
There were several comments by the ARB regarding the importance of the meditation garden and
how this garden, with the mature oak tree, binds the old and the new project together. Staff is
concerned that the current location of the emergency generator will be in the center of the proposed
garden. It was not clear in earlier versions ofthe plans that the generator was proposed to stay in its
current location. Currently, the generator is not very noticeable, but in the current design, it would
become a central feature in the center of the proposed meditation garden. As of the drafting of this
report, staff had not yet received drawings that address how this element will be screened. Staff is
recommending that the applicant propose a combination offencing and landscape materials to screen
the generator from view.
Offsite Views
One neighbor, across the creek in Menlo Park, has commented that the proposed building would be
too large. Concern has been raised that the new building would be too visible unless additional
landscape screening is provided. The current plan includes on site trees to be transplanted across the
back of the site for on-site retention and screening.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Land Use
The proposed project is a request to modifY the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from
Streamside Open Space to Major Institution/Special Facilities. The Ronald McDonald House
(RMH) is considered an auxiliary function of the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital. The RMH
facility has a symbiotic relationship with the hospital by providing affording lodging for families of
children receiving treatment at the hospital. Due to the unique nature of its use as a non-profit
community facility, the Special Facilities Land Use designation appears to be the most appropriate
one for the project. The facility consistently turns away on average 40 families per day that are in
need oflodging. This demonstrates a significant need for this facility within the community. Policy
B-32 says "assist Stanford Medical Center in responding to changes in the delivery of health care
services". Recognition of the significant need for low cost temporary housing for the families of
children receiving medical care at Stanford will help to support this policy.
Trees and Riparian Corridor
The site planning ofthe proposed expansion project was designed to respect the riparian corridor of
the San Francisquito Creek by maintaining more than the minimum 50 foot setback from the top of
bank. The proposed project, at 80 feet and greater from the top of stream bank, respects this code
requirement. The riparian corridor and the stream bank are unaffected by the project and compliant
with Policy N-12 and N-13. Mitigation measures, to further ensure the protection of the riparian
corridor, require the re-vegetation of the area between the proposed project and the riparian corridor
with native plant species. As part of this re-vegetation process, 14 native oaks will be transplanted
from the building site to the area just behind the building. Program N-16, requiring the replacement
of trees lost to new development offsite when not practical to replace them onsite, is also
implemented in the mitigation measures for tree removal. Policy N-17 calls for the preservation of
native oaks. The proposal protects several of the oaks onsite. Many of the oaks that cannot be
retained are proposed to be transplanted.
Scenic Route
Policy L-48 says to promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces, and Policy L-66 says to maintain an aesthetically
pleasing street network that helps frame and define the community while meeting the needs of
pedestrian, bicyclists, and motorists. Sand Hill Road is also designated as a scenic route. The
project is designed to exhibit some of the characteristics ofthe existing Ronald McDonald House
while not replicating its design. It is sited to maintain a significant setback from the riparian corridor
and provides a deep setback from Sand Hill Road to maintain to existing character ofthe street. The
existing bike/pedestrian pathway is maintained at the front of the project with the addition of new
native trees and plant material. The trees would be planted in a somewhat random pattern to relate
to the adjacent undeveloped area.
Housing Supply
Policy H -I says to meet community and neighborhood needs as the supply of housing is increased
and to ensure the preservation of the unique character of neighborhoods and Policy H-2 says to
City of Palo Alto Page 6
identifY and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in
appropriate locations and to emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and attainable
housing. While the project is not a traditional housing project, it does provide a unique form of
affordable and temporary housing that is in very high demand within the community.
TIMELINE:
Application submittal:
Initiation by city council:
Preliminary ARB:
Mitigated Negative Declaration available for Public comment:
Planning and Transportation Commission Review:
Architectural Review Board Review:
City Council Review:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
October 27,2011
February 13,2012
July 12,2012
November 9, 2012
November 14,2012
TBD
TBD
An initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project and the 20
day public review and comment period began on November 9, 2012. The environmental analysis
notes there are a few potentially significant impacts that would require mitigation measures to
reduce them to a less than significant level. One issue is the proposed removal of seven protected
oak trees, as well as a significant Black Oak tree from the site. As mitigation for the removal of
these trees, the applicant has been required to transplant three ofthe protected oaks, seven other oak
trees from the site and five redwood trees from the site to a location just behind the proposed
building. The applicant will also be required to provide a monetary in Lieu fee for the four protected
oak trees and the large black Walnut tree that cannot be relocated as mitigation for their removal.
The relocation of the trees behind the building would also serve as mitigation for development near
the San Francisquito Creek. While the project will not impact the riparian corridor ofthe creek, due
to its proximity to it, it is recommended that the area between the project site and the creek be re
vegetated to ensure its protection. This area currently has very little native plant material. The
project would take place outside the 50 foot creek stabilization area, and to further protect the
riparian corridor, plastic construction fencing and silt fencing will also be required. Tree protection
measures are also required to mitigate any potential damage to protected trees that are to be retained.
As mitigation for any potential impacts to nesting birds, construction activity is restricted to Occur
between August 15 and March 15 of any given year, or a qualified biologist is required to conduct a
preconstruction survey for nesting birds. If nesting birds are found, buffer zones are required to be
established until all chicks have fledged.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Draft Ordinance
C. Record of Land Use Action (at places)
D. Location Map
E. Applicant Submittal*
F. Comprehensive Plan Table (at places)
G. Zoning Table
H. Previous Staff Reports, City Managers Report, February 13, 2012/Architectural Review
City of Palo Afto Page 7
Board, July 12, 2012
I. City Council Minutes, February 13, 2012
J. 1989 Conditional Use Permit
K. 2001 Conditional Use Permit
L. Mitigated Negative Declaration (at places)
M. Plans (Commission only)*
* Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff
COURTESY COPIES:
Huiwen Hsiao, Architect
Amy Taylor, Project Engineer
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, property owncr
PREPARED BY: Russ Reich, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Amy French, Chief Planning Official
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:A~;;X;~~~?nf~;:;:;;;;:--'-__
Aam
City of Palo Allo Paga8
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
1 Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
flkJUIl1)mmm1!unmm!lJl1UIlUn!Hrma!!llmm!11lIUmliIJ11111i!!lilllhUU1!1I!Wll!mIUlwnmtW!lmmmlmlllililtillmmWIlI!1J1Illlf!11!IJfI1lU1!U11JmnH!i!lMIillRl!lIt!I!1111111Blfll!mlU1!t
April 4, 2013
Architectural Review Board
Russ Reich, Senior Planner Department: Planning and
Community Environment
50 El Camino Real [llPLN-00388): Request by Huiwen Hsiao on behalf
of The Board of Trustees ofthe Leland Stanford Junior University for Site
and Design Review of the construction ofa 69-room, three story, 51,948
square foot building on a 1.57-acre site, to house an expanded Ronald
McDonald House program. The project includes a rezoning to Public
Facility with a Site and Design Combining District (PF(D» zone, and
Comprehensive Plan re-designation (from Streamside Open Space to Major
Institution/Special Facilities), and a Conditional Use Permit amendment.
Zone District: Community Commercial with a Landscape Combining
District (CC(L». Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) recommend that the City Council approve the Site and Design Review application
for the construction of a 69-room, three story, 52,278 square foot building on a 1.57-acre site, to
house an expanded Ronald McDonald House program.
BACKGROUND
Site information, a detailed project description, and the project history are provided in the
previous ARB staff report (Attachment I). On January 24, 2013 the project was reviewed by the
ARB and they continued the item to a date uncertain asking that the applicant consider the
following items:
I. Reconsider location of generator or concept of meditation garden;
2. Review the gate at the tot lot fence;
3. Review the balance oftrees on both sides of the entry;
4. Provide lighting at garage entry ramp;
5. Provide bike parking cut sheet;
File Number 11 PLN-00388 Page 1 of4
6. Provide trash enclosure details;
7. Reconsider the shed roof at the entry;
8. Reconsider the dormer window design;
9. Review the window pattern and placement;
10. Consider having the proposed building color match the existing building color;
II. Resolve the roof and gutter details between the plan view and the elevation images;
12. Consider adding a building base;
13. Study the overall surface of the building;
14. Review the expansion joints;
15. Explore the possibility of adding character and detail elements currently associated with
the existing building;
16. Add ARB findings to the Record of Land Use Action, and;
17. Summary of the parking rational.
DISCUSSION
The applicant has attempted to address all ofthe comments provided by the ARB at the January
24,2013 hearing. The changes made by the applicant are numbered below to correspond to the
ARB's comments above:
I. Plan has been amended to eliminate the term "meditation" from the garden area with the
existing emergency generator. The generator will remain in place and greenscreen with
vine planting would be added to reduce its visibility.
2. Two gates have been added to the rear fence to provide access to the open space beyond.
3. The four crape myrtle trees, originally proposed to the right of the entry, have been
replaced with a single coast live oak tree. Due to the required handicapped parking spaces
to the left of the entry, there is no room for trees in this location.
4. Lighting has been added to the garage entry ramp.
5. The bike parking cut sheet has been provided on sheet A 1.2.
6. The elevation of the proposed trash enclosure is provided on sheet A3.2.
7. The previously proposed shed roof at the entry has been revised into a gable roof, relating
better to the gables on the new and the existing building.
8. Some of the dormers have been eliminated and the others have been modified into wall
dormers to better relate to the wall dormers of the existing RMH.
9. The window pattern and placement have been modified. The windows on the second and
third floor have been modified to align with each other and the ground floor windows have
been deeply recessed to add greater depth and articulation to the building. A third window
was added at the third floor level.
10. The RMH would like to move away from the shades of pink in the existing building color
and shift to colors with more earth tones. They propose that both buildings be painted the
same colors as provided on the color/material board.
II. The roof and gutter details between the plan and elevation drawings have been resolved.
12. The plan has been revised to propose a heavier stucco texture at the base, as well as a
different color, to set is apart from the rest of the building. Ground floor windows have
also been recessed in to create greater depth and further distinguish the base from the rest
of the building.
13. The overall surface of the building has been addressed in multiple ways. The use of two
different stucco textures and colors to accentuate the base and the gable features,
File Number llPLN-00388 Page 2 of4
realignment of the windows, recessing the ground floor windows, adjustment of the score
lines, and narrowing ofthe wall surfaces with gable elements.
14. The expansion joins have been revised in relation to the realignment of the windows.
15. The building design has been revised to attempt to bring in additional character elements
from the existing building such as an increase in the scale ofthe eve brackets and the
elimination of the roof dormers in exchange for wall dormers. The building mass has also
been broken down further to better relate to the existing building. This has been done by
accentuating the base of the new building, recessing the ground floor windows, reducing
the width of the gable elements in several locations, and modification of the dormers.
16. Staff has added the ARB findings to the Record of Land Use Action. (Attachment A)
17. Required parking is calculated based on the rate of one parking space per guest room. The
requirement acknowledges that both staff and guests need places to park. This is the
requirement applied to hotels, which is the most similar use to the proposed facility. The
existing facility has 47 guest rooms and 64 parking spaces. Site visits to the site confirm
that the existing facility is over parked and that many of the existing spaces go unused.
The total number of guest rooms with the existing and proposed facility combined would
be 116 rooms. The total number of parking spaces will be 133 spaces. This will be 17
spaces more than is required by code.
The applicant has provided a letter addressing the ARB's comments. This is provided as
Attachment D. The applicant has also provided a comparison narrative document that includes
details of the existing RMH facility, elements of the previous design, and new versions of those
elements in a side by side comparison to assist in detailing how the plans have been revised to
respond to the ARB's comments (Attachment E).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project and the 20
day public review and comment period began on November 14, 2012 and ended on December 4,
2012. A summary of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is provided in the previous ARB staff
report (Attachment I).
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Record of Land Use Action
B. Site Location Map
C. Applicant's Project Description Letter*
D. ARB Response Narrative*
E. Comparison Narrative (ARB Members only)*
F. Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table
G. Zoning Compliance Table
H. Previous Staff Reports, City Managers Report, February 13, 2012/Architectural Review
Board, July 12, 20 I 2/Planning and Transportation Commission, November 14,2012
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/bom·ds/architectural.asp
I. Previous Architectural Review Board staff report, January 24, 2013
J. City Council Minutes, February 13,2012/ Planning and transportation commission minutes
November 14, 2012 -http://www.cityofpaloaito.org/gov/boards/architectural.asp
K. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
File Number IlPLN-00388 Page 3 of4
L. Plans (ARB Members only)*
* Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff
COURTESY COPIES
Huiwen Hsiao, applicant
Amy Taylor, applicant
Linda Poncini, applicant
Alex Ingram, applicant
Laura Boudreau, applicant
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, owner
Prepared By: Russ Reich, Senior Planner M
Manager Review: Amy French, Chief Planning Officia~
File Number lIPLN-00388 Page 4 of4
)
City Council
Sense Minutes
February 13, 2012
EXCERPT
)
PUBLIC HEARING: Initiation of: (1) a Zone Change from CC-L (Community
Commercial with a Landscape Combining District) to PF-D (Public Facility with a Site
and Design Combining District) and (2) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from
Streamside Open Space to Major Institution / Special Facilities, for the Ronald
McDonald House at 50 EI Camino Real/520 Sand Hill Road.
Mayor Yeh advised he would not be participating in this Item as his wife was a Stanford
University student.
Council Member Klein advised he would not be participating in this Item as his wife was
a Stanford University faculty member.
Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams indicated Amy
French would make the presentation, and noted Russ Reich, Project Manager was
present.
Planning Manager, Amy French reported Staff requested the Council initiate requests for
rezoning and Comprehensive Plan re-designation to support the expansion of the existing
47-room Ronald McDonald House at 520 Sand Hill Road, adjacent to this site. She stated
the proposal was for the same zoning and land use designation as the current Ronald
McDonald House, established in 1979 via a CUP approval. She indicated the Ronald
McDonald House was associated with Lucille Packard Children's Hospital and provided
services to young patients and their families during treatment. She noted representatives
from the Ronald McDonald House were present. She said the 1.7-acre site was owned by
Stanford University, and was to be created by a proposed lease-line boundary. She
reported the site was significantly vegetated with oaks and eucalyptus, and an existing
pedestrian bike path wound through the property roughly parallel with Sand Hill Road.
She reported the site's current zoning was Community Commercial with a Landscaped
Combining District, and proposed zoning was Public Facility with a . Site and Design
Combining District. She noted the existing Comprehensive Plan designation was stream
side, open space; and the proposed designation was Major Institution, Special Facilities.
She stated following initiation the applicant would submit an application for Site and
Design Permit Review and CUP. She explained the Planning and Transportation
Commission would review the applications and the Environmental Review document
prior to final Council action on the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan designation, as
well as the CUP and Site and Design Review. She indicated the Architectural Review
Board would review the site and building design. She reported the proposed building was
) )
approximately 46,000 square foot; the applicant would share the plans; the building
would provide approximately 68 new rooms and 79 parking spaces; and the new building
would be approximately I foot taller than the existing Ronald McDonald House building.
She said the building would not impinge upon the San Francisquito Creek stability area,
as the proposed lease-line boundary was outside of the streamside slope protection area.
She indicated the building as shown in concept plans was approximately 70 feet from
Sand Hill Road, significantly beyond the site's 24-foot special setback along SandHill
Road. She said the current sidewalk would be moved closer to Sand Hill Road; and trees
would be relocated or removed to accommodate the new building and surface parking
area; the existing signalized intersection at Sand Hill Road and London Plane Way would
provide access to the project driveway. She indicated a traffic impact analysis would be
prepared to ensure no adverse impacts from traffic or parking; and the analysis of the
project's consistency with Comprehensive Plan Policies, Site and Design Review, CUP
findings, and Environmental Review would be presented to the Planning and
Transportation Commission for review and recommendation to Council.
Honey Meir-Levi, from the Barron Park Neighborhood, stated she would explain the
genesis of the project, and then the architect would provide a detailed review of the
architectural picture and the site plan analysis. She explained Ronald McDonald House
was the community's home-away-home for critically ill children and their families. She
reported over 90 percent of the young residents were facing a life-threatening illness; and
their parents and families were facing financial impacts and the need to disrupt their
family lives to find the advanced medical treatment their child needed. She commented
they were seeing the demand for extended care grow due to the amazing medical
advances of recent years. She noted the average length of stay was six nights in 2003 and
24 nights in 2011, with stays lasting one and two nights to a year or more. She remarked
the needs of longer-term families were quite different from families who stayed six
nights. She stated the House expansion, while meeting the specialized needs of these
families, was also meeting the needs of the community as the Lucille Packard Children's
Hospital expansion would increase the need for services. She indicated the greatest
impact by far was the change in medicine. She reported they were seeing sick children
who needed longer stays with much higher degrees of disruption to their families. She
said previously only parents stayed at the House while their children stayed in the
hospital; today children, their siblings and parents stay at the House for many months.
She explained the wait list expanded six years ago to the point that an expansion was
necessary; therefore, they began the process of evaluating and planning for growth. She
stated the wait list had continued to grow from 15 to 20 families to 30 to 40 families a
night being turned away to hotels and waiting rooms. She indicated growing demand and
needs determined expansion was critical to provide housing for desperately ill kids and
their families. Not only was Ronald McDonald House the best equipped to support the
families and assist them, but also instrumental in mitigating the impact of these families
on the community. She noted the House provided a shuttle service to and from the
hospital, marketing, and clothing shopping. She explained families arrived at Ronald
McDonald House in May only to realize in October they would need winter clothing, and
they were there to respond to those needs. She reported the House, using its own
minivans and volunteers, kept families safe, healthy and off the roads; provided a trusted
) )
environment where doctors could release their patients early, freeing up beds for another
ill child; and partnered with the hospital to enrich the families' experience and hold the
family safe during this transition. She explained the current and planned facilities were
specifically designed to bring together families; offer them privacy; offer them an
extremely high level of cleanliness that their immunosuppressed children needed; and to
support them through their tumultuous stay. She presented photos of the current building,
the "pollywog" down to El Camino Real, and the building site. She noted it was a well
conceived building that tied into the current site. She reported the expansion would save
$1 million a year in annual operating costs over the cost on a per-room basis of the
current building, due to economies of scale. She indicated the expansion was an
exceedingly efficient use of land with communal kitchens, communal dining rooms, play
rooms, playgrounds, minimal office space, and entire housing pods which could be
converted into immunosuppressed wings. She said hard work was going to trip
abatement, because so many families were unable to bring cars due to financial
constraints.
Wei Wen Shau, Architect for Ronald McDonald House, presented a design solution for
the needed expansion for the House. An aerial photograph indicated the most appropriate
if not the best expansion of the house. He stated the proposed design continued the beauty
and line from the existing House along Sand Hill Road to the London Plane Way to form
a sense of urban street enclosures. He indicated both sides of Sand Hill Road would
extend to a shopping center to the east. He noted there would be many functional spaces
and a shared program between the new and existing facility. He said his first design
concept would be to form a circulation spine, which would link both facilities through a
so-called activities tree created by adjoining an existing outdoor meditation garden
located under a large oak tree. He commented that the concept should drive the design,
and attempt to create a sense of community among guest families, as similar to a home
setting as possible. He explained the proposed expansion would be designed with the
same architectural features and vocabulary as the existing building with wood-frame
construction on a concrete foundation. He believed this project would be a positive
contribution to the community while adding interest to the skyline of the City.
Council Member Espinosa asked Staff to discuss zoning and possible uses for the
property down to El Camino Real.
Senior Planner, Russ Reich asked if his question was possible future uses for the rest of
the parcel or the part being rezoned.
Council Member Espinosa replied no.
Mr. Reich reported the current zoning was Community Commercial.
Council Member Espinosa inquired if that zoning applied all the way down to El Camino
Real.
Mr. Reich responded yes, but it had a landscape overlay.
)
Council Member Espinosa asked what the required setback from San Francisquito was; if
it became so narrow that there was a possibility of development closer to El Camino
Real.
Mr. Reich indicated there was a 50-foot streamside bank stabilization area that came from
the top of the bank. He stated Staff had not reviewed that question to determine how
narrow the property became at that end. He reported there was a special 24-foot setback
from Sand Hill. He said the property became narrow at that point and there wasn't a lot of
opportunity for development.
Council Member Espinosa stated there was a likelihood of development at least partway.
He thought lots from the curve on probably would not allow development. He understood
this project was addressing a backlog, but was trying to understand the increased need
that came with the additional growth of Children's Hospital. He inquired whether this
project would address anticipated need or current overcapacity.
Ms. Meir-Levi responded they had partnered with Children's Hospital to bring in a
medical strategic planning consulting firm. It was their considered opinion that, including
the Children's Hospital's expansion, the Ronald McDonald House expansion should add
between 65 and 70 rooms. She stated the House expansion planned for 68 rooms.
Council Member Espinosa referenced correspondence from a member of the public
raising concerns about the process and the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). He asked for the City Attorney's feedback on the appropriateness of tonight's
discussion.
City Attorney, Molly Stump stated the process was appropriate in that the Council could
initiate. It was one of the ways that these types of projects could move forward under
City Ordinances. She stated CEQA would flow from the Council's decision. She had
reviewed the comment and understood the commenter's perspective, but did not believe
there was a problem.
Council Member Espinosa expressed concerns with families crossing San Antonio to
reach the mall and hospital. He asked ifthere had been discussions, among Staff or with
the applicant, regarding crossing improvements, especially for people with disabilities, at
the previous and proposed sites. He knew the City was trying out new technology for
accessibility at crossings.
Mr. Williams reported Staff was aware of those issues at those intersections and had
alerted the Transportation Department, but had not studied that. He indicated they would
study it as part of the circulation network with the project as it moved forward.
Public Hearing opened at 10:22 P.M.
) )
Kate Yablonskly stated she was a social worker for the bone marrow transplant team at
Lucille Packard Children's Hospital, and was present to offer her wholehearted support
for the proposed expansion of the Ronald McDonald House. She hoped to convey the
urgency and desperation of the need for more capacity at the Ronald McDonald House.
She noted Lucille Packard Children's Hospital funds provided to assist families with the
cost of hotels was quickly dwindling as it was close to the end of the month. Even" with
the discounts, the cost of local hotels was prohibitively expensive for more than one or
two nights. She indicated she had been at Packard for over four years, and Ronald
McDonald House had always been a scarce and precious resource.
Gloria Ramos introduced herself and her daughter, Ariana Ramos, who was
13 years old and had undergone a kidney transplant. She stated they were currently
staying at the Ronald McDonald House, and had tried to stay at the Ronald McDonald
House while locating a donor; however, the Ronald McDonald House and nearby hotels
were full. She reported they stayed in a hotel quite a distance from the hospital which
they could afford. She said they had stayed at three different hotels before and after the
transplant, and at the Ronald McDonald House for three weeks. She explained Ariana
caught an infection and they had to move from the Ronald McDonald House, which was
absolutely crushing. She said the Ronald McDonald House was phenomenal in providing
opportunities for families to meet and share stories. She noted organizations provided
meals for families staying there. The House had a computer room, weight room and
activities for children. She explained the Ronald McDonald House and its Staff was a
tremendous help and alleviated a lot of stress and frustration.
Ariana Ramos said the Ronald McDonald House provided activities for kids such as the
click room and the Riley pets. She stated people provided lunch and dinner, and the
House had shuttles and cares for trips to the hospital and shopping.
Gloria Ramos added an additional benefit was walking to the hospital.
Bri Carpano-Seoane reported she was the Family Services Director at the House, where
she and her team provided services to the families and served the families daily. She
explained when a family stayed at the House for six days, services such as massage
therapy and scrapbooking seem sweet and nice; and when that stay is beyond six days or
20 days, the opportunity to provide community became a necessity. She stated what the
House provided could not be duplicated in a hotel, nor in a sleep space shared with
strangers. She said it was the opportunity to provide families with the services needed so
they could focus on their children's well-being
Mike Baird stated he was a CPA with an office on Park Boulevard and a volunteer. He
explained the click room mentioned earlier was a computer room for kids. He reported
the House created a playroom and other areas for children to be involved in other
interests. He noted it was amazing to see whole families engage in conversations with
distant family members through Skype. He reported Ronald McDonald was affordable
housing and was world-class healthcare. He stated the number one discussion and debate
in America was quality healthcare and affordability, and Ronald McDonald House
represented quality healthcare and affordability.
)
B"rn Beecham stated he was present as a Board Member ofthe Ronald McDonald House
Board and as a volunteer at the front desk every week. He referenced prior discussion of
families turned away and Children's Hospital's future growth. He explained one of his
tasks as a volunteer was to call families turned away, which was difficult. He indicated
the Ronald McDonald House had negotiated rates with a few hotels; however, as the
economy slowly improved the number of hotel rooms was decreasing. He knew families
couldn't afford even the discounted rates at hotels. He noted the Ronald McDonald House
charged $10 per night, but didn't turn away anyone who couldn't pay. He said the need
was there for expansion and for the families served. He noted the Council had many
decisions to make based on the facts of the issue and on how the proposal fit into zoning
requirements. With regard to intersections and crossings, he noted the Ronald McDonald
House provided shuttles to the hospital and shopping, and made it possible for families
not to travel throughout Palo Alto, which was a benefit to the community overall. He
looked forward to the Council approving the Staff Recommendation.
Christopher Dawes felt he couldn't add much to the good comments previously made. He
appreciated the support behind the hospital renewal project. He noted the construction
was well underway and Council Members would receive an invitation to the official
groundbreaking in the fall. He stated it was scheduled to open for patient care in
December 2016. He thought the project was very important to the hospital, patients and
entire community; and was a great resource which would be utilized and valued.
He strongly urged the Council to support the project.
Herb Borock commented two contradictory events were happening concurrently. First
Staffs recommendation was to initiate a rezoning. Under that Agenda Item, he stated the
Council couldn't rezone based on what a project might be or the kinds of information
presented this evening. Second, he said the Council had treated this Item as if an
applicant had applied for rezoning rather than a recommendation from Staff for rezoning.
He noted Vice Mayor Scharff had given the applicant an opening statement of 10 minutes
and Council Member Espinosa had asked a question of the applicant; however, there was
no applicant on this Agenda Item. He explained there was a project that had been
segmented into two parts: one part occurring tonight, and the other was the future Sight
and Design Review and CUP. He noted there would then be an Environmental Review
for the Council's action and for the applicant's action. He stated the only justification in
the Staff Report was that the process would give the Ronald McDonald House the
feasibility of moving quickly in order to avoid the need to commit resources to purchase
other sites. He stated this was not moving forward quickly. He indicated the Ronald
McDonald House had filed an application for rezoning on October 27 and paid fees;
however, the application did not include the fees for an Environmental Assessment, a
CUP, or the Architectural Review. He thought Staff should have told them they needed a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and suggested a Site and Design Review, at which
point the Ronald McDonald House could have completed the application. He stated they
would have already had the hearings before the Planning and Transportation
Commission, the Architectural Review Board, and possibly the City Council. He didn't
think the main issue was not paying fees because the Council initiated the zoning. He
)
thought they and Staff wanted to believe the Council's action tonight would approve the
project before there was an Environmental Review or application. He believed it was a
bad idea and the Council should provide clear direction to Staff that this was not the kind
of report the Council should receive.
Public Hearing closed at 10:42 P.M.
Mr. Williams stated the Code was clear that a zoning change could be initiated by the
City Council, by the Planning and Transportation Commission or by the applicant. He
indicated the applicant had made application to the City in this case, and Staff felt it was
appropriate to initiate that through the Council, because of the nature of the request, the
public good being presented by this applicant, and prior discussions of alternative sites.
Staff thought it was important to receive initial feedback to provide the applicant. He
reported the Code was not clear regarding the initiation process, but was very clear about
the zoning process proceeding through the Planning and Transportation Commission
(P&TC) and then to the City Council. Staff felt it was within the parameters and intent of
the Code to come before the Council for initiation of this application. Staff did advise the
applicant that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be necessary, and indicated the
Site and Design issue was a Staff recommendation. He indicated the applicant would
want to obtain the whole package, including rezoning and Site and Design, because that
was needed for action by the Council. He noted Site and Design would be performed
when the Environmental Review was performed. He stated the Council and P&TC would
have the whole package of Environmental Review, Site and Design, zoning change and
Comprehensive Plan when the project was next presented.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to accept
Staff recommendation to initiate the rezone request from Community Commercial with a
Landscape Combining District (CC(L» to Public Facility With a Site and Design
Combining District (PF(D» and initiate the request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment from Streamside Open Space to Major Institution/Special Facilities for 50 El
Camino Real.
Council Member Price believed the Staff Report was clear in its presentation. She
appreciated the applicant's and public's comments. She stated it was clear from the
presentation that an expansion of Ronald McDonald House was necessary and overdue to
meet the increasing needs for extended services for critically ill children and their
families. She said it was important that children and families in these circumstances have
easy access to advanced medical treatment and to support. She indicated the Site Plan and
Architecture and Design were well articulated and compatible with the existing building
and site characteristics. She was sure there would be additional comments regarding the
details of the design, but she was impressed and thought it would be a wonderful project.
She commended the relationship between the outdoor space and the building. She stated
it was wrenching and moving to hear these stories and experiences, and she could only
imagine the extreme stress these families suffered in these circumstances. She explained
this project and the details before the Council clearly illustrated the success, warmth and
compassion of the program designed to meet the extreme needs of ill children and their
) )
families. She felt it was an impressive program, and Palo Alto was fortunate to have the
program in the community. She said it provided hope and a caring environment and
created a future for children and their families. She was pleased to make the Motion and
stated it was an exciting opportunity to move forward.
Council Member Burt concurred with Council Member Price's statements. For those
concerned about additional development within tbe community, he stated this project
would likely demonstrate a net negative trip impact as people would be walking and
taking a shuttle rather than driving. He felt it was an exceptional service, and it was
important to recognize that. He said Ronald McDonald House was s\lpported by
volunteers and donors within the community and elsewhere as a basis of shared values.
He thought taking this initiative to help support the Ronald McDonald House was the
least the City could do, thought the Council wholeheartedly supported the Ronald
McDonald House efforts and he looked forward to the task ahead and the services to be
provided.
Council Member Espinosa thanked everyone for attending. He was excited by the project
and glad the site had worked out. He commented the proximity of housing to the hospital
was important to the healing that takes place. He stated the Council was not approving a
project tonight, was not usurping a process. He was glad the Council was able to publicly
acknowledge that it was excited to identify this site which was perfect for the Ronald
McDonald House.
Council Member Shepherd thanked the Ronald McDonald House supporters for sitting
through a long meeting. She stated the stories touched her heart and reminded her of tours
of Stanford Hospital and Children's Hospital. She felt Stanford had an ability to create
community and it was felt in the hallways of the hospital. She indicated it was a very
busy place and yet a very kind and exciting place to be. She was grateful this particular
site was so close to Palo Alto and available to Palo Alton's. She explained having this
accommodation was an appropriate use of this particular property at this particular site.
She didn't take it lightly that the Council was moving property into the zoning category
Public Facility, as it was intended for the highest and best use of the community. She
couldn't think of a better or higher use for this site.
Council Member Schmid was delighted to participate in the initiation ofthis project, and
looked forward to the detailed review by the Planning and Transportation Commission,
Architectural Review Board and the Environmental Review.
Vice Mayor Scharff found the applicant's and former Mayor Beecham's stories moving.
He stated it was a fantastic community asset and appreciated their work.
MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Klein, Yeh not participating, Holman Absent
) )
1 50 El Camino Real: Request by Huiwen Hsiao on behalf of The Board of Trustees of the
2 Leland Stanford Junior University for a Rezone of a 1.57-acre site from Community
3 Commercial with a Landscape Combining District (CC(L)) to Public Facility with a Site
4 and Design Combining District (PF(D)), an amendment to the site's Comprehensive Plan
5 Land Use Designation from Streamside Open Space to Major Institution/Special
6 Facilities, Site and Design review and a Conditional Use Permit amendment for a
7 proposed 70 room, three story, 51,948 square foot building for an expansion to the
8 existing Ronald McDonald House program, and Approval of a Mitigated Negative
9 Declaration for the property located at 50 El Camino Real.
10
11 Chair Martinez: Ok we are going to move to item, which was previously item one now two,
12 which is a site and design review of 50 El Camino Real, the expansion of the Ronald McDonald
13 House. And we shall begin with a staff report.
14
15 Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Good evening. Thank you Chair Mattinez and Commissioners. The
16 application before you this evening is for the expansion of the existing Ronald McDonald House
17 facility. The proposal includes the following: a zone change request from Community
18 Commercial with Landscape Combining District to Public Facility with a Site and Design
19 Combining District; a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation amendment from Streamside
20 Open Space to Major Institution/Special Facilities; a Site and Design for a proposed new
21 building with three stories, 42 feet tall, 52,000 square feet, 70 guest rooms, and 69 parking
22 spaces; and a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed hospital accessory use. Another aspect of
23 the proposal not included here would be a lot line adjustment to incorporate the area delineated
24 in the plans into the existing Ronald McDonald House site through a lot line adjustment so they
25 become one parcel.
26
27 Chair Martinez had asked me to provide the public and the Commission just with some kind of
28 clarity and a definition of the description of the different zoning designations and Comp Plan
29 Land Use definitions. So the Community Commercial zoning designations intended to create
30 and maintain major commercial centers accommodating a broad range of commercial uses of
3 1 community wide or regional significance. The Landscape Combining District is intended to
32 provide landscape open space as a separation between commercial and residential uses. The
33 proposed Public Facilities zone district is intended to accommodate governmental, public utility,
34 educational, and community services or recreational facilities. The Site and Design Combining
35 District is intended to provide process for review of development in environmentally sensitive
36 areas including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factor,
37 excessive noise, increased traffic, or other disruptions in order to assure that the use and
38 development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity will be compatible with
39 the environmental and ecological objectives and will be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
40
41 The land use designations Streamside Open Space is defined as a corridor by pairing vegetation
42 along natural streams ranging from 80 to 310 feet wide. And the Major Institution/Special
43 Facilities land use designation is defined as uses that are institutional,academic, governmental,
44 and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as nonprofit
45 organizations. And examples include hospitals and City facilities.
46
47 A little history, the City Council initiated the rezone application back in February of this year
48 and then the application, the Applicant went through a preliminary architectural review in July of
1 this year and their comments are provided in your staff report. There were some public
2 comments at the initial City Council hearing. Relatively all of them were positive in relationship
3 to the proposed project and there was one member of the public who felt the application was
4 incomplete. In terms of any other public comments there was one phone call from a resident in
5 Menlo Park who had concerns about potentially viewing the building. So we've actually worked
6 with the applicant to take steps to transplant some of the trees that would have otherwise been
7 removed, from the site to the area between the building and the creek providing additional
8 screening back there.
9
10 Really the tree impacts are the only significant impacts identified for the project. There's 91
11 trees on the site 70 of which are proposed to be removed. Only 14 of these trees are protected by
12 City ordinance, but under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review to remove
13 an ordinance protected tree would be a potentially significant impact. And so there's a series of
14 mitigations proposed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to address the tree removal
15 issue. So 14 of those protected trees 7 of them would be removed and 4 of those 7, excuse me 3
16 of those 7 would actually be transplanted. So we're really only losing 4 of the code protected
17 Oak trees.
18
19 Another mitigation measure to note was that this area is an area of high sensitivity related to
20 potential archeological remains. And so there is a condition of approval to do a mitigation
21 measure to do further testing to ensure that whether or not there are archeological remains and
22 whether further measures will be needed in order to preserve those. With that I will go ahead
23 and finish and let the applicant do their presentation. Thank you.
24
25 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Let's hear from the applicant. You will have 15 minutes for your
26 presentation.
27
28 Laura Boudreau, Chief Operating Officer Ronald McDonald House: Good evening, I'm Laura
29 Boudreau and I am the Chief Operating Officer at the Ronald McDonald House at Stanford.
30 Great, thank you. And I want to thank you for taking the time to talk with us a little bit about our
31 expansion plans, but before we get into the details I want to give you a little bit of background on
32 the organization and why the need is so critical for this expansion.
33
34 For more than 30 years the Ronald McDonald House at Stanford has been providing a home
35 away from home for the families of critically ill children who are being treated at the wonderful
36 Lucile Packard Children's Hospital. Everything about the house is really geared towards the
37 whole family. It's a place where parents and siblings and often the patients themselves can stay
38 together during treatment and recovery. The house is really designed to build a sense of
39 community among the families. We have very modest sleeping rooms, but we have these
40 wonderful communal spaces where people can come together for meals, family activities, and
41 it's a place where people bond with other families and really create lifelong bonds. The house
42 also helps ease financial concerns for families. We ask for $10 a night to stay at the house and
43 we never turn anyone away for an inability to pay.
44
45 In our 30 year history we've expanded twice already to keep up with the growing demand. And
46 with the advances in medical science and with the reputation of Packard and with their upcoming
47 expansion we're currently seeing an unprecedented demand for services. Ten years ago the
48 average length of stay at the house was 6 days. It is now 29. What that means is we have fewer
49 rooms that turnover. We are currently turning away 40 to 50 families every night from Ronald
) )
1 McDonald House. In fact, we recently hit an all-time high of 67 families on our waiting list. I
2 think you would find that the hospital social workers, the doctors, the families all agree that the
3 Ronald McDonald House is where they need to be. So on behalf of the 67 families on the
4 waiting list we want to thank you for taking the time to discuss this project with us. And right
5 now I want to turn it over to Gregg Davis to talk about the details.
6
7 Gregg Davis, Board of Directors Member Ronald McDonald House: Thank you Laura, thank
8 you Commissioners. My name is Gregg Davis; I am the Member of the Board of Directors for
9 the Ronald McDonald House at Stanford. I'm also the Chairperson for the Building Committee
10 and I was heavily involved in the first expansion back in 2002 so many of these issues are very
11 familiar to me as well.
12
13 Let's see, which one of these. So many of you are already familiar with the site and the area and
14 I believe staff has done a great job of rounding out the project and what it consists of. So the
15 area we're speaking of is the area adjacent to our existing house. The red indicates the lot line
16 adjustment that we are requesting to make that one large parcel for the house and the zoning
17 change. The next slide shows you approximately where the house is proposed to be built. The
18 shape and size are all in respect to the trees in the area as well as the creek setback and the
19 neighbors in Menlo Park adjacent and close proximity to the existing house as possible.
20 Obviously the dream or the best scenario would be to have the houses connected in some way,
21 but it is physically impossible out of respect for the site and the trees to accomplish that. So we
22 are doing our best to mitigate and have a happy medium between the two houses being adjacent
23 to each other.
24
25 This is the rendering of the current site 'and where it sits and then the new house is going to be
26 tucked closer up and to Sand Hill respect the creek setback. Clearly the existing house is not
27 within the creek setback and cannot be touched or mitigated, which was the same case in 2002.
28 So we're bringing the whole structure forward to the house.
29
30 The trees I think are extremely important which Mr. Reich has commented on. We are adding
3 1 trees per the plan. We have taken steps in addition to the staff report that already occurred. We
32 have changed our plans to save trees 53 and 35. I believe that's comment D4. So we have
33 altered the bike path to make it a little more meandering. We have narrowed the driveway to the
34 minimum of20 feet in front of the spaces there and done that to accommodate saving two more
35 additional trees that are on the list to be saved. And I believe this is showing you here really how
36 green and how blocked the house will be and how the greenery and the trees surrounding it are
37 going to be planted back through and some of these of course are new and some are existing
38 trees. These are just the standard tree protection plans which we'll be taking of course to protect
39 all ofthe heritage trees and so on which you are very familiar with.
40
41 I wanted to give you a perspective, I know the bike path and the trees have always been a big
42 concern. It is being maintained and will continue to be a class one bike path. The bike path this
43 is the perspective of what it looks like now standing right about London plane facing toward the
44 bike path. And when the house is there this is the view and then we were adding the additional
45 trees here to continue the greenery and allow the bike path to meander through the trees and
46 continue on with just the one breakage in London plane.
47
48 The preliminary Architectural Review Board (ARB) there was a driveway at the side of the
49 building that led to, allowed us to have the wider width to get to the underground parking garage.
) )
1 We removed this driveway completely. This saved an additional tree as well as allowed us to
2 narrow that driveway significantly to allow the trees to be saved.
3
4 It is important in our minds that the houses be connected at least through this narrow driveway
5 because most of our families are transported by shuttle. I think that's very important. Very few
6 families have vehicles at the house. If they do it may be one. Many times that vehicle goes back
7 with one of the parents to their jobs and to work. Many times both parents can't stay with us
8 during the course of treatment during the length of time. So they use the shuttle service
9 continually throughout the day. It is a private separate shuttle from the Marguerite bus due to the
10 health concerns for the patients and their families. So this shuttle will be in our minds we are
11 planning the stops to be at the old house and then of course at the new house. And we want to
12 avoid that shuttle having to go multiple times a day onto Sand Hill Road to make the loop. So
13 this is why we're trying to maintain that driveway and connectivity. Also we envision people
14 not knowing what house they're going to check into the old side or the new side. So we would
15 have that convergence for them to move between the two houses.
16
17 These are some of the renderings for the exterior. We know it's very important to reduce the
18 massing to have different roof undulations and so on to make it not look as massive and large.
19 And we've also been designing and making sure we've designed elements from the existing
20 house into the new house so they fit together into one look and feel for the area as close as we
21 can. This is the front entry structure with the children on top. And we'll show you through these
22 series of slides these are the elements from the existing house and as Commissioner Michael said
23 he drove by recently or today on bicycle and some of the design elements from the existing
24 house, the children's wall, the star windows and so on you can see continuing the continuity in
25 the new house in the new structure. From the back we are of course adding a significant number
26 of trees to help the sight lines and also to enhance the area. And these trees are all indicated with
27 these renderings and drawings here.
28
29 The square footage is 52,000. It's 1.57 acres. We're about 28 percent parcel coverage so we're
30 well within all the parameters that would be required. Parking wise a correction to staff was
31 we've actually changed it a little bit and we actually are now going to get 72 parking spaces on
32 the site. So we have a total of 72 on the site. We actually lose three from the old building but
33 we have 69 and we only have 47 rooms so we're well over. But the actual new project has 72
34 parking spaces in and of itself.
35
36 I think also staff did a tremendous job summarizing in the comments that all the other impacts
37 that have been noted are all minimal. I don't think it's, I'm happy to address them in any way,
38 shape, or form. But noise and all the other things are addressed very well in the staff comments.
39
40 I do want to address the archeological situation. I was heavily involved with that when that
41 occurred at the first Ronald McDonald House. We did find some Native American bones and
42 remains primarily on the west side of the project, west of the elevator shafts. There was some
43 found at the Vi Hyatt area. We found very little or minimal artifacts to the east side more closely
44 called the El Camino side. Certainly there is a chance for that to exist. We are very familiar
45 with that and we are more than happy to follow all of the mitigation recommendations to ensure
46 that we do not disturb what is there and then if it is disturbed to properly handle it per the
47 recommendations which we did comply with in 2002.
48
) )
1 Other than that we would greatly appreciate your support. This project is' desperately needed for
2 the community, The number of families we're turning away is pushing the traffic and pushing
3 the people into different areas including sleeping in their cars, The hospital hasn't even
4 expanded and we are over blowing the wait list. And we would appreciate the Commission's
5 support in this project. Thank you,
6
7 Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. We're going to open the public hearing, We don't have
8 any speaker cards, but." Oh, so we do, But before going to the speakers, I'm going to ask
9 Commissioners if they have any questions of either the applicant or staff on this matter, Yes,
10 Commissioner Panelli.
11
12 Commissioner Panelli: Yeah, I have a couple questions for both, I want to get some clarification
13 on the parking so I'm going to ask the applicant. You said there will be 72 new spaces, but that
14 sounds like gross new spaces. You're going to lose three from the old site though. Is that
15 accurate?
16
17 Mr, Davis: Correct.
18
19 Commissioner Panelli: Ok. And then my question for staff is I noticed that for the existing
20 building 47 rooms, 64 spaces. I'm not sure if that's before or after you lose the three, It seems
21 like there's so many more parking spaces per room, My question for the Applicant there is why
22 is that ratio so much lower? And my question for staff is what's required under the code? Go
23 ahead, applicant.
24
25 Mr. Davis: Our understanding is it's under the zoning that would be proposed and the use permit
26 we're required to have one parking spot per room, So the 72 would comply, The over existence,
27 the large number of parking had occurred because we share a back lot with the Vi which was the
28 Hyatt at the time, So the, that lot is a large lot that is shared through a joint agreement that was
29 all done in 2002 and so on, so there's a lot of parking spaces in the back of the house, We also
30 have an underground garage in the existing house that has a lot of spaces, So we ended up with a
31 lot more spaces than we actually needed or even use today.
32
33 Chair Martinez: Commissioner can I do a follow up question to your parking? I would assume
34 that in your existing house and from looking at the drawings for the new plan that there are a
35 number of volunteers and staff, It looks like there could be up to 20 offices in the new plan, So
36 there's a, I don't want to call it significant, but there's an administrative function and a service
37 provider function that I would assume that's there. Can you talk about how that impacts your 70
38 parking or your joint parking analysis? We didn't get that in the staff report,
39
40 Mr. Davis: We felt that the additional parking we have since we're so far in excess on the other
41 side would be, that would be the additional parking for staff and so on that would be necessary to
42 use, Again the majority, you know, there's meeting the technical requirement of one per room,
43 but then the majority of the families, a large number of them do not have a vehicle, Many of the
44 families either bring one, drop one off, and they take it off site, They don't really see a need to
45 leave their car there for 40, 60, some families have stayed for a year, And all transportation is
46 done through the shuttle service, So we certainly want to comply but we have always been very
47 high on parking. I mean we have lots of parking normally. So we do not anticipate that being an
48 issue, but between the two sites together and being connected we will have plenty of parking in
49 our opinion for staff and for the guests.
)
1
2 Chair Martinez: It seems that way, but how many staff and volunteers do you expect between the
3 two facilities?
4
5 Mr. Davis: We currently have eight employees, is that about right? Eight full time? Laura can
6 probably address this better.
7
8 Ms. Boudreau: We currently have about 15 full time staff. We'll be adding about 12 more staff.
9 But a lot of that is also shifts, so we'll have people there on the weekends, evenings, and
10 overnights so it won't be that everyone's there at the same time. And again with the parking
11 situation that we currently have we don't use all the spaces that we need. It's the same situation
12 with volunteers. We have a large number of volunteers; we actually have about 150 currently
13 and will be ramping that up somewhat proportionately. But again those are shift volunteers so
14 there are only a few people on at any given time.
15
16 Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you. I'm sorry Commissioner. Did you have a follow up Vice-Chair?
17
18 Vice-Chair Michael: Yeah I had a question that relates to the Streamside Open Space, which is
19 the current zoning. And just coming down Sand Hill Road starting with Stanford West and Vi at
20 Hyatt and the existing Ronald McDonald House I have the distinct impression that what you're
21 proposing is very appropriate to that area. However, the, when you get to the Streamside Open
22 Space, it's quite, it is open and it's very attractive and the trees and such as you go closer to El
23 Camino that isn't going to be built on under the current plans, but I notice when you go behind
24 the Vi at Hyatt there's a road and there's people who are out walking there and they're walking
25 their dogs and so forth and it gives them visual access to the creek, which is pleasant. And I
26 wondered, and then when you come to the Ronald McDonald House your existing facility has
27 just a fence so that access to the creek doesn't continue past the back of your facility. Is there
28 going to be access to the public to the creek side? It looks from the plan as if that would be
29 possible. Could you talk about that?
30
31 Mr. Davis: I don't have the exact plan in front of me, but in essence we've, I don't know if we
32 can go? Russ, does this go back? Let's see. Oh, sorry. The back. Thank you. So there is lots
33 of room behind the proposed project to go to the creek. There's actually close to 80 feet back
34 there. So there is lots of room and none of that area will be en fenced or enclosed. It will not be
35 part of our project so the public definitely has full access to go through the open space and
36 wander all the way up to the existing house currently.
37
38 Chair Martinez: I'm sorry Commissioner Panelli. We kind of cut you off so continue.
39
40 Commissioner Panelli: Alright so going back to staff about my question about what's required so
41 I'm hearing one space per room, but then there are also a number of administrative space uses in
42 that building. So can you shed some light or give a little more color on the parking needs?
43
44 Mr. Reich: Be happy to. So the use is pretty unique it's not a standard use that's defined in our
45 code but we look at it as a hotel type use. It provides guestrooms for people to stay. And so the
46 requirement of the code is one parking space per room and that doesn't assume that every guest
47 staying in the facility is going to be driving to the facility. It accounts for staff as well. So the
48 code requirement of one space per room is inclusive of the people staying as well as the staff that
49 would be working there.
)
1
2 I actually did an onsite inspection to look at their existing parking and there were 21 spaces that
3 weren't being used and I was only looking at the underground garage and the spaces at the front.
4 I wasn't sure all the spaces in the back which ones were for this facility and which ones are for
5 the adjacent because I know that they have some shared agreement. But I did note that there was
6 a number of open spaces back there as well. So, they're not incon'ect in saying that they're over
7 parked right now. They've got a lot of parking spaces that they don't use. So per the code
8 because there's going to be 117 rooms we would expect that the sites combined would have at
9 least 117 parking spaces, but it looks like they are going to have 133. So they are significantly
10 over still in terms of what the code would require.
11
12 Commissioner Panelli: But I have the same concern that our esteemed Chair has, which is when
13 you add full time staff, which I understand is limited and shift based, but then volunteers as well
14 and although hotels generally don't have 100 percent occupancy it sounds like Ronald
15 McDonald House will for quite some time. And I just don't want to see a situation where we
16 assume one thing and in reality .. (interrupted)
17
18 Mr. Reich: Right. The parking requirement for hotels is of the understanding of full occupancy
19 so while they may not always be fully occupied the requirement established in the code is geared
20 toward the understanding as if it was fully occupied.
21
22 Commissioner Panelli: But dido't you just say that doesn't account for any staff?
23
24 Mr. Reich: No what I was saying is that the calculation does account for staff. So it doesn't
25 assume that everyone coming to the facility is driving a vehicle. So there may be staff that take
26 the bus or take the train or that walk and there may be family members that do the same. People
27 may take a taxi or arrive in another way. And so the calculation doesn't assume that every
28 person occupying a room is going to have a car parked at the facility.
29
30 Commissioner Panelli: Ok, but the long and short of it is for this zoning designation that's being
31 requested the amount of forecast parking spaces is sufficient?
32
33 Mr. Reich: Yes, it's sufficient and especially based on physical observance of how the facility is
34 used. They really don't use all the parking that they even have currently.
35
36 Chair Martinez: Ok, before we go further with Commission comments and questions I would
37 like to give the public a chance to speak. And we have four speakers? Four speakers and you'll
38 each be given three minutes.
39
40 Vice-Chair Michael: So the first card I have is from Michael Rubenstein followed by Gregg
41 Davis.
42
43 Michael Rubenstein: I'm going to pass for right now.
44
45 Vice-Chair Michael: Ok, Gregg Davis followed by the speaker Laura Boudreau
46
47 Laura Boudreau: We've just presented
48
49 Vice-Chair Michael: Ok and then Sherri Sager would be the speaker to follow or Sherri Sager.
1
2 Chair Martinez: We don't usually come back though, so if you're thinking about speaking we'll
3 call on you again towards the end.
4
5 Sherri Sager: Thank you Commissioners, Commission Chair Martinez. I'm Sherri Sager and I'm
6 hearing representing Lucile Packard Children's Hospital this evening. And we are here in total
7 support ofthe application by the Ronald McDonald House. We are very proud of the pattnership
8 that we have with Ronald McDonald House in caring for the patients who come to the hospital
9 who are critically ill. Over the last year in particular, but over the last several years we have
10 looked to strengthen that partnership in terms of some shared programing and working very
11 closely together.
12
13 This project is a necessity in order to be able to continue to care for the patients that we care for.
14 And the way it's being laid out we're looking at ways where we can minimize the impact on our
15 patients in terms of being able to have more programing at the house when they don't need to be
16 at the hospital so they aren't coming back and forth. And in order to do that they need the bigger
17 house for the programming during the day as well as the rooms and the spaces for the families at
18 night. It's an incredible community service and we stand in full support. And I'm happy to
19 answer any questions on behalf of the hospital. Thank you.
20
21 Chair Mattinez: I do have a question for you. I was going to let you walk a little further.
22
23 Ms. Sager: It's ok.
24
25 Chair Mattinez: The Children's Hospital is expanding and with the new expansion is 70 new
26 rooms going to meet the demand? What's your expectation?
27
28 Ms. Sager: We believe so because as you may recall from our countless public hearings before
29 the Commission over the last four or five years we are building into the hospital into the new
30 rooms private rooms that will have capability and capacity for two parents or guardians to stay at
31 the hospital. Where the Ronald McDonald House plays an incredibly important role, for
32 example on our patients, for our patients who may be awaiting a transplant or getting cancer
33 therapy where even the kids don't have to be in the hospital all the time but they have to be very
34 close by. And so having the Ronald McDonald House allows those kids to maybe have their day
35 treatment or their waiting on their list, but to have that proximity. So we fully expect that with
36 the capacity that we're building into the new building as well as what Ronald McDonald is
37 proposing that we will be able to meet the demand.
38
39 Chair Martinez: Thank you for that.
40
41 Ms. Sager: You're welcome.
42
43 Chair Martinez: Next speaker?
44
45 Vice-Chair Michael: So I believe everybody who's submitted a card has been heard from. Have
46 we missed anybody?
47
48 Chair Martinez: We are going to hold the public hearing open. If we say something that you
49 don't really agree with and care to speak just raise your hand and we'll try to call on you
)
1 throughout this deliberation, or something you like. We'll put it positively. Commissioners,
2 comments, questions? Commissioner Keller.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So I have a few questions. First if you look at the site plan
5 which is A1.0 the alignment of the bike and pedestrian path at the driveway seems to be
6 somewhat problematic. And firstly I'm wondering whether there's a tree that divides the
7 driveway and is that an existing tree or a new tree?
8
9 Mr. Reich: That's a new tree.
10
11 Commissioner Keller: And it looks like if you see the path, which is the right of way property
12 line it looks like the bike path sort of impinges slightly to the bottom of the page from that and
13 then if you see the width of the bike path it doesn't look like it will pass by where the oval is for
14 the divider of the driveway. Am I looking at it right or is, or am I confused here?
15
16 Mr. Reich: There may be a slight narrowing of the path in this image. We can certainly have that
17 adjusted to move the planter for that proposed tree the foot or so that it might need to maintain
18 the width ofthe path. But we would make Sill'e the width of the path is maintained.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: Great. So I think that that's a good thing to move that back slightly so
21 that the width of the path is maintained. I mean that's important. Great, thank you.
22
23 The second thing is a comment about the 70 feet that there is behind from the top of bank there's
24 a 50 foot easements for the, what's HCP? I'm not Sill'e what HCP stands for, but I assume that's
25 related to the creek? But there was a comment in the staff report about 70 feet needing to be
26 maintained by Oill' streamside ordinance and I noticed that it looks like you get 70 feet possibly
27 where I guess where it says, "ease line boundary." The building recesses in there, but when you
28 get to the driveway on the right hand corner by my eye I realize I'm not, I don't have a meaSill'e
29 here, but it looks like the corner of the driveway is within 70 feet of the top of bank in the right
30 hand corner. And I'm wondering if there are issues with having a driveway being with that? It's
31 outside the easement, but it's within 70 feet as far as I can tell.
32
33 Mr. Reich: So the, I believe it's 80 feet that was referenced in the code and that's in reference
34 from the building to the top of bank. So the parking lot and that corner, I guess the upper right
35 hand corner of the project that certainly is closer to top of bank, but it doesn't put a structill'e
36 there. It's the parking lot and landscaping, it's still 50 feet away which is the basically the key
37 limitation. It's Oill' code requirement that there be a no development within 50 feet of the creek
38 and there's also other jill'isdictions that would get involved ifthere was anything proposed within
39 50 feet of the creek. So their out of that with the entirety of the project, but what was referenced
40 was the location of the building relative to the top of bank.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: Thank you and thank you for correcting my thing that that's 80 feet rather
43 than 70. The next issue is to what extent is this site required to treat groundwater onsite versus
44 have it runoff? Sorry, let me repeat that. To what extent is the site supposed to treat the
45 groundwater as opposed to there being runoff that's collected by the sewer system?
46
47 Chair Martinez: You mean storm water?
48
49 Commissioner Keller: Storm water, yes. Right. Storm water, thank you.
) )
1
2 Chair Martinez: And you mean retain rather than .. (interrupted)
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Retain, that's right. Retain storm water as opposed to having it runoff
5 onto other sites. Thank you.
6
7 Mr. Reich: The site is subject to the C3 requirements is what I think you're referring to and they,
8 if you notice in the drawings they've actually created a number of areas for retention onsite for
9 storm water. I believe the engineer is here if they wanted to go into detail about the measures
10 that they're employing in order to comply with the C3 requirements. But yeah, they will be
11 preventing onsite storm water from running off site.
12
13 Commissioner Keller: And there's no need for pervious paving over by the driveway, by the
14 parking lot to do that?
15
16 Mr. Reich: They're actually doing some pervious paving in the project. Again if you want to
17 have the engineer go into detail they can talk about that, but there's adequate landscaped areas
18 around for the water to drain into.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Is this site add to our, does this site fulfill the requirements
21 for housing units under the Housing Element or does it not because it doesn't have kitchens or
22 whatever? I mean can we use this, can we use this development to say we're "Hey, we have
23 more housing" for the Housing Element?
24
25 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: No, generally housing is not something that would be a
26 temporary stay. It's got to be a long term stay and so I wouldn't count these towards our housing
27 numbers for Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) purposes.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Ok, thank you.
30
31 Ms. French: There's no kitchen. It's not a dwelling unit. These do not count as dwelling units
32 because they don't have a kitchen.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The next question is does Ronald McDonald House have
35 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures? Is it eligible for any of the measures
36 that Stanford has, does a fine job with or is it not eligible for any of those? Or does it have its
37 own?
38
39 Mr. Reich: I actually don't know if they employ any measures currently. Based on the parking
40 requirement they're not required to employ any, but we could ask the, well they do have their
41 shuttle that actually reduces a lot of vehicle trips. But maybe the house manager could explain
42 whether or not they do have other measures that they employ to reduce vehicle trips.
43
44 Commissioner Keller: Well in particular it seems that this is a particularly impacted location for
45 commutes. So to the extent that it's possible for at least the employees, I'm not sure that much
46 can be done with the visitors and the residents, but in terms of the employees to the extent that
47 there could be things like Go Passes or the like or eligibility to use the shuttles. For example,
48 like the U line that comes from the East Bay to Stanford. I'm wondering if that kind of thing
49 were available to the Ronald McDonald employees then that would reduce the impact on an
) )
1 already impacted road. Not that it's required, I'm just wondering to the extent which that's
2 something that is possible. Is that something the applicant can talk to? Can you speak to the
3 micro ... [trails off!
4
5 Ms. Boudreau: Yes, that's not something that we're currently doing, but we would be very
6 interested in looking into that as the staff grows.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: Great, thank you. I think that that would also help in terms of retention of
9 staff and reduction of people being late because they couldn't get to you because of traffic.
10 Exactly. And my final question had to do with how is schooling provided for those who are
11 currently at the Children's Hospital or at Ronald McDonald? And please identify yourself for
12 the record.
13
14 Sherri Sager, Chief Govermnent Relations Officer Lucile Packard Children's Hospital: I would
15 be happy to answer. I'm ShelTi Sager, Chief Govermnent Relations Officer for Lucile Packard
16 Children's Hospital. That's actually one of the things I'm really excited about. Right now the
17 schooling is all done at Packard and so we have worked out an arrangement with the school
18 district and with Ronald McDonald House that we're actually going to have a classroom at
19 Ronald McDonald House so that the kids that are staying at the house can do their schooling at
20 the house rather than being shuttled back and forth to the hospital. So we think that's a win-win
21 for everybody.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: Thank you very much. That's all of my questions.
24
25 Chair Mattinez: Follow up. Related to the Transportation Management Progratn is the Ronald
26 McDonald House eligible for the Go Passes that are part of the development agreement for the
27 hospital or is this something that we would have to nudge them to provide?
28
29 Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: That's something we'd have to look into and work with the
30 applicant on. We don't have an answer to that right now.
31
32 Chair Martinez: Ok, that's fine. Commissioners? Commissioner Tanaka.
33
34 Commissioner Tanaka: So one question is, I heat'd the comment that because the rooms are all
35 booked all the time that people are sleeping in their cars and I was wondering where are these
36 cars being parked?
37
38 Mr. Davis: The majority of those that are sleeping in their cars or staying in their cars are at the
39 hospital, adjacent to the hospital because they want to be next to their fatnily member. I think
40 it's also very important that even though the hospital's doing a tremendous job with their
41 expansion in having sleeping spaces for the two parents I think if anybody's tried to get any real
42 sleep in a hospital that's not going to really happen. The other thing that's very important is that
43 the hospital does not allow the siblings into their structure for health purposes obviously. So we
44 support the entire family and encourage the siblings when they can to stay with their family
45 member getting treatments and so on and so forth. So it's more of a family community situation.
46
47 Commissioner Tanaka: Do you happen to know how many people actually are sleeping in their
48 cars on average?
49
) )
1 Mr. Davis: We don't know, I mean the hospital and the social workers does a tremendous job of
2 trying to find them local hotels when they're available and when they're willing to give space,
3 some at discounted rates. Many times the university or the area is having events that the local
4 hotels will not allow the families to stay during that time period. I don't know if Laura has any
5 statistics or Sherri but we certainly do know that many people have been staying in their cars in
6 different places. I don't know if we have any statistics. I wonder if the hospital does?
7
8 We do have some local families that offer to have people stay. I mean there's all kinds of
9 programs we're trying to relocate these people now. I'm sorry is that what you're talking about?
10 So we do have local families that offer their homes at times when it's convenient for them that
11 they offer those. And there's the hospital arranges with those and people can sign up for that.
12 So we do have a philanthropic community that attempts to help as well.
13
14 Commissioner Tanaka: And do you think that once this is built that that problem would be
15 alleviated or do you think it would still continue?
16
17 Mr. Davis: We believe it will be alleviated. The hospital and the Ronald McDonald House
18 commissioned a study with a professional group that does hospital management and room
19 management and that study bore out somewhere around 68 to 72 rooms, which is what we're
20 building. I don't have the exact study in front of me but that was pretty much what we based this
21 structure on. That study was done in conjunction with the hospital and included the expansion of
22 the hospital and what their new room makeup will be. These are the best guestimates of the
23 experts that they think this is will hold the capacity for a long time, but of course it's very
24 difficult to predict. I mean the great thing is the hospital has been able to save a lot more
25 children and therefore they're staying there a lot longer. So, and the acute rate at Lucile Packard
26 Children's Hospital is obviously extremely high. So the length of stay just keeps increasing with
27 the advances in technology. So the study took all those things into account and we are building
28 to that study and we believe that it is adequate.
29
30 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok great. Thank you. And then just a question for staff. Was a traffic
31 study done on this in terms of how much, maybe staff could just briefly comment on if they think
32 this is going to be a net increase in traffic or roughly the same or perhaps a decrease in traffic?
33
34 Mr. Reich: So there was a traffic study done. It's associated with the environmental document
35 and it does specify that they found that it would not increase the volume of traffic.
36
37 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, great. And then my last question is for the crosswalks are going to
38 go directly to the new building. Are these signalized or are there, because I imagine some kids
39 might be walking between here and the shopping mall and maybe you coiild talk a little about the
40 safety issues there.
41
42 Mr. Reich: It is a fully signalized intersection so that the new driveway would be the fOUlih leg
43 of what's now a three way intersection. It's important to note that the bike path will actually be
44 directed to the intersection such that it will be controlled by the lights so to avoid conflicts with
45 the bike and the driveway.
46
47 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok and then the crosswalks I don't know what they are right now. Are
48 they lit? Because I imagine there might be kids walking and maybe kids who are less than able?
49
) )
1 Mr. Reich: What is the question? You're asking ifthey're lit?
2
3 Commissioner Tanaka: You know, what, I guess sometimes the, I was wondering about the
4 safety issues with the crosswalks. Do they have lights in them?
5
6 Mr. Reich: No.
7
8 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Thank you.
9
10 Chair Martinez: Commissioners we have three items. The Land Use Designation, the Site and
11 Design Review, and Rezoning. I'd like to see if we can get through Site and Design Review and
12 have a motion on it. So if we can direct our comments towards that first we can come back to
13 the initial study and rezoning. Commissioner Alcheck? Anyone else on site and design issues?
14 I have some.
15
16 I love the project, so I don't want to come across that somehow I'm in opposition but I am in
17 opposition to the process because as I looked at the drawings they're quite well developed.
18 They've gone, the Council initiated the process. The ARB gave their initial review and we find
19 ourselves having to make a recommendation site design and initial study and I think it's fairly
20 late in the process for us to make anything of substantial value other than saying we like the
21 project as I did initially. And that's troubling because the project can only get better as its
22 reviewed in its right sequence like land use and that's a big prerogative of the Planning
23 Commission to talk about land use and traffic and circulation. And I would have been inclined
24 to make some comments about the site plan early on, that I feel a bit hesitant about because the
25 development and the ideas of it, the enviromnental review of it have gone forth so far. And I
26 really want to make a point to staff more than to the applicant for this project that this isn't the
27 right time for us to be having our first review of the project. And I would like to see us, like I
28 don't know why but after the Council initiated it for us to really look at the site issues, at the
29 traffic issues, at the circulation issues, things that are important to the project and important to
30 the Plarming Commission and for us to be looking at that now is just unfortunate.
31
32 For example, I would have suggested that the frontage road in front of the new expansion is kind
33 of an unfortunate use of land. That the entrance to the site is at the signal, which makes sense
34 from a traffic engineering point of view, but if you miss that signal in the entrance you're going
35 to see the entrance to the building as you pass by and have to go back again. If the entrance
36 could have been placed near the lobby entrance we could have done away with all of that
37 frontage road development. We could have probably preserved many more trees. And hearing
38 that there's a shuttle that takes people even are concerned about left hand turns could have been
39 mitigated because it's a shuttle coming back from the hospital that would be making a V-turn to
40 get back to the entrance to the building. So the whole sort of arrival and circulation and all that
41 paving in front impacts the use, the sense of the friendliness, the safety to families that are
42 walking on this street, and the initial study, because one of the things that is offered' in the initial
43 study in the Neg Dec is that there are no impacts because the building is set 70 feet back from the
44 road. Well, yeah, but it's 70 feet of paving in front of the building that I, in my view would have
45 been unnecessary if we would have been able to weigh in at an earlier date. That we could've
46 raised the issue, staff and the applicant could have gone back to the drawing board and really
47 come back with a better parking circulation entrance plan then what we're going to go forward
48 with now.
49
) )
1 And I support the project. I feel the need. I hope it's enough. But it's part of our process that
2 when you look at the role of the Planning Commission only serves to help. It doesn't serve to
3 diminish a project like this. Because I don't want to say, but I don't think there's anybody here
4 that doesn't really appreciate everything that Ronald McDonald House does and the children's
5 hospital, but it's really the City's fault. I don't want to say the Planning or, but it's our fault for
6 not being able to weigh in earlier on this. So, Commissioners any further comments on Site and
7 Design? Ok. Do we have a Motion? I think, pardon?
8
9 Commissioner Keller: I believe we have to let the Applicant respond to the comments and a
10 closing.
11
12 Chair Martinez: Oh, before we have a Motion on that?
13
14 Commissioner Keller: That's correct.
15
16 Chair Martinez: Ok. So we're taking these one at a time. Does the applicant care to address
17 anything that's been stated or have any closing remark in terms ofthe site and design issues?
18
19 Mr. Davis: I just had a couple of quick comments. I appreciate your comments regarding the
20 process and we respect the input. In fact many of these things have been changed and altered
21 several times because of feedback from different organizations within the City. It is important to
22 us that they are connected only because there will be probably confusion between the old and the
23 new and if they do miss that driveway then they can very easily make the next right hand turn
24 and come back through our internal connecting driveway rather than having to go back out onto
25 Sand Hill, but we completely respect the trying to mitigate that and that flow. Again we've
26 narrowed that down to 20 feet, which is the minimum that we can squeeze there to try to
27 minimize the impact of that road and we eliminated a undergronnd parking garage entrance next
28 to the meditation garden which was brought to our attention doesn't make a lot of sense to have a
29 meditation garden next to a driveway so to an underground garage. So we agree that we respect
30 all of your input and we think the project has only gotten better because of the input from the
31 different organizations and we appreciate that. Thank you.
32
33 Chair Martinez: Ok. Thank you very much for that. Commissioners, comments, motion on Site
34 and Design? Commissioner Keller.
35
36 Commissioner Keller: I'm wondering if we should do Site and Design first because in some
37 sense if we, it's hard to do site and design first if we do the Rezone it's sort of a sequence. So
38 we probably should, I would recommend that we do the rezoning first and then the Land Use
39 Designation. I'm not sure ifthere's anything else or if we should just do it all at once?
40
41 Chair Martinez: Staff, do you have any, want to weigh in on the process?
42
43 Mr. Aknin: Typically you can do it all at once. I mean it's up to the Commission though the way
44 that you want to do it. If you want to take individual comments on each that could be a way to
45 go, but typically you can do it, you can do it all in one motion.
46
47 Chair Martinez: Ok, well if there's, let's do it as one motion then I don't seem to get any great
48 sense of a preference here. Commissioner Keller do you have a preference one way or the other?
49
) )
1 MOTION
2
3 Commissioner Keller: Yes. I'll just move the staff recommendation. I don't think anybody has
4 made any recommendations for any changes, so I'll just move the staff recommendation as
5 stated.
6
7 SECOND
8
9 Chair Martinez: Ok, motion by Commissioner Keller and second by Commissioner Alcheck.
10 You want to speak to your motion?
11
12 Mr. Aknin: There was just one, there was just Commissioner Keller commented on the bike path
13 and alignment with the tree well.
14
15 Commissioner Keller: Yes, but that's just a design element. I don't think that that rises to the
16 level that it needs to be in the motion.
17
18 Mr. Aknin: That's fine.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: Yeah.
21
22 Mr. Aknin: Duly noted.
23
24 Commissioner Keller: I, that, and sometimes that's what the ARB can consider. So basically this
25 is a project that should be rezoned that it as stated. The Comprehensive Plan should be changed
26 accordingly, and the Site and Design Review should be recommended for approval and the
27 Mitigated Negative Declaration should be accepted. All those are recommendations for the City
28 Council. I believe I've covered all of them. And also the Conditional Use Permit should be
29 granted for this particular project.
30
31 I think that the rezoning meets the necessary requirements. I think this is an excellent proj ect
32 and I think, I'm very sympathetic to what the Chair said in terms of the process. When the
33 Council makes an initiation it sort of does limit the ability for the Planning Commission to
34 provide useful early feedback to the process, but I think that other than that I think that we have a
35 good project that should proceed forward for the benefit ofthe community. Thank you.
36
37 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck, speak to your second?
38
39 Commissioner Alcheck: I appreciate hearing from all the speakers tonight about this project. I
40 also sympathize with Chair Martinez' comments. I think that the land use here is appropriate.
41 It's all, it's not without caution that we consider the idea of rezoning open space and in particular
42 the loss of so many mature trees. I think there's something poetic that we're losing 70 trees but
43 we're gaining 70 rooms. I think what you do as an organization is very important and a major
44 public benefit, but the goal whenever we're reviewing projects like this is that the ultimate
45 design, the prevailing development represents the best development that was possible. And so I
46 really appreciate the sentiments that you mentioned, but I think that this is a very positive
47 development and a good, and a preferred land use. So, I second the motion.
48
49 VOTE
) )
1
2 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Any other, anybody else want to speak to the motion? I have a
3 couple of comments on the Neg Dec. As much as we all want to support the project as fully as
4 we can I think we also have to be diligent about the quality of the documents that we produce to
5 support it. And I don't know whether it's under aesthetics or under another category, but
6 Commissioner Alcheck did refer to this. The taking of what's called creek side open space and
7 rezoning it to a public facility requires more than saying there's no significant impact. Taking,
8 changing the landscape, losing open space has to be addressed I think in a much more substantial
9 way in our initial study and our Neg Dec that, and I would urge you to put some more work into
10 that it's a significant, consider it a significant impact and what we are doing to mitigate that
11 impact and planting more Live Oaks along the street. Making the gardens really more of what
12 this open space is that we're losing. I don't know what it is, but it comes up a little bit empty.
13
14 When we read the negative impact, the Neg Dec and we don't see that we are really considering
15 the loss of this California landscape to another use without putting forth some significant
16 mitigations. And so my comment is that I will vote to support it, but I would really ask that it
17 undertake a little bit more work to really make it stand on its own. There's no question that the
18 use is outstanding. The change of use that the community is sacrificing open space for a very
19 substantial use, but we need to put the, take the responsibility to say how we are addressing these
20 changes in a I think a more responsible way. So with that I'm going to also support the project.
21
22 So any further comments Commissioners? None. Then let's call for the vote. Those in favor of
23 the Motion say aye (Aye). Any opposed? The Motion passes unanimously. Thank you all and
24 thanks for your great work and good luck with it. Yeah, we will take a 10 minute break before
25 picking up item number 3.
26
27 MOTION PASSED (6-0)
28
29 Commission Action: Motion to approve staff recommendation by Commissioner Keller, second
30 by Commissioner Alcheck. 6-0
31
1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Verbatim Minutes 2
November 14, 2012 3
4
EXCERPT 5
6
Public Hearing 7
8
50 El Camino Real: Request by Huiwen Hsiao on behalf of The Board of Trustees of the 9
Leland Stanford Junior University for a Rezone of a 1.57-acre site from Community 10
Commercial with a Landscape Combining District (CC(L)) to Public Facility with a Site 11
and Design Combining District (PF(D)), an amendment to the site’s Comprehensive Plan 12
Land Use Designation from Streamside Open Space to Major Institution/Special 13
Facilities, Site and Design review and a Conditional Use Permit amendment for a 14
proposed 70 room, three story, 51,948 square foot building for an expansion to the 15
existing Ronald McDonald House program, and Approval of a Mitigated Negative 16
Declaration for the property located at 50 El Camino Real. 17
18
Chair Martinez: Ok we are going to move to item, which was previously item one now two, 19
which is a site and design review of 50 El Camino Real, the expansion of the Ronald McDonald 20
House. And we shall begin with a staff report. 21
22
Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Good evening. Thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. The 23
application before you this evening is for the expansion of the existing Ronald McDonald House 24
facility. The proposal includes the following: a zone change request from Community 25
Commercial with Landscape Combining District to Public Facility with a Site and Design 26
Combining District; a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation amendment from Streamside 27
Open Space to Major Institution/Special Facilities; a Site and Design for a proposed new 28
building with three stories, 42 feet tall, 52,000 square feet, 70 guest rooms, and 69 parking 29
spaces; and a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed hospital accessory use. Another aspect of 30
the proposal not included here would be a lot line adjustment to incorporate the area delineated 31
in the plans into the existing Ronald McDonald House site through a lot line adjustment so they 32
become one parcel. 33
34
Chair Martinez had asked me to provide the public and the Commission just with some kind of 35
clarity and a definition of the description of the different zoning designations and Comp Plan 36
Land Use definitions. So the Community Commercial zoning designations intended to create 37
and maintain major commercial centers accommodating a broad range of commercial uses of 38
community wide or regional significance. The Landscape Combining District is intended to 39
provide landscape open space as a separation between commercial and residential uses. The 40
proposed Public Facilities zone district is intended to accommodate governmental, public utility, 41
educational, and community services or recreational facilities. The Site and Design Combining 42
District is intended to provide process for review of development in environmentally sensitive 43
areas including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factor, 44
excessive noise, increased traffic, or other disruptions in order to assure that the use and 45
development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity will be compatible with 46
the environmental and ecological objectives and will be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 47
48
2
The land use designations Streamside Open Space is defined as a corridor by pairing vegetation 1
along natural streams ranging from 80 to 310 feet wide. And the Major Institution/Special 2
Facilities land use designation is defined as uses that are institutional, academic, governmental, 3
and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as nonprofit 4
organizations. And examples include hospitals and City facilities. 5
6
A little history, the City Council initiated the rezone application back in February of this year 7
and then the application, the Applicant went through a preliminary architectural review in July of 8
this year and their comments are provided in your staff report. There were some public 9
comments at the initial City Council hearing. Relatively all of them were positive in relationship 10
to the proposed project and there was one member of the public who felt the application was 11
incomplete. In terms of any other public comments there was one phone call from a resident in 12
Menlo Park who had concerns about potentially viewing the building. So we’ve actually worked 13
with the applicant to take steps to transplant some of the trees that would have otherwise been 14
removed from the site to the area between the building and the creek providing additional 15
screening back there. 16
17
Really the tree impacts are the only significant impacts identified for the project. There’s 91 18
trees on the site 70 of which are proposed to be removed. Only 14 of these trees are protected by 19
City ordinance, but under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review to remove 20
an ordinance protected tree would be a potentially significant impact. And so there’s a series of 21
mitigations proposed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to address the tree removal 22
issue. So 14 of those protected trees 7 of them would be removed and 4 of those 7, excuse me 3 23
of those 7 would actually be transplanted. So we’re really only losing 4 of the code protected 24
Oak trees. 25
26
Another mitigation measure to note was that this area is an area of high sensitivity related to 27
potential archeological remains. And so there is a condition of approval to do a mitigation 28
measure to do further testing to ensure that whether or not there are archeological remains and 29
whether further measures will be needed in order to preserve those. With that I will go ahead 30
and finish and let the applicant do their presentation. Thank you. 31
32
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Let’s hear from the applicant. You will have 15 minutes for your 33
presentation. 34
35
Laura Boudreau, Chief Operating Officer Ronald McDonald House: Good evening, I’m Laura 36
Boudreau and I am the Chief Operating Officer at the Ronald McDonald House at Stanford. 37
Great, thank you. And I want to thank you for taking the time to talk with us a little bit about our 38
expansion plans, but before we get into the details I want to give you a little bit of background on 39
the organization and why the need is so critical for this expansion. 40
41
For more than 30 years the Ronald McDonald House at Stanford has been providing a home 42
away from home for the families of critically ill children who are being treated at the wonderful 43
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital. Everything about the house is really geared towards the 44
whole family. It’s a place where parents and siblings and often the patients themselves can stay 45
together during treatment and recovery. The house is really designed to build a sense of 46
community among the families. We have very modest sleeping rooms, but we have these 47
wonderful communal spaces where people can come together for meals, family activities, and 48
it’s a place where people bond with other families and really create lifelong bonds. The house 49
3
also helps ease financial concerns for families. We ask for $10 a night to stay at the house and 1
we never turn anyone away for an inability to pay. 2
3
In our 30 year history we’ve expanded twice already to keep up with the growing demand. And 4
with the advances in medical science and with the reputation of Packard and with their upcoming 5
expansion we’re currently seeing an unprecedented demand for services. Ten years ago the 6
average length of stay at the house was 6 days. It is now 29. What that means is we have fewer 7
rooms that turnover. We are currently turning away 40 to 50 families every night from Ronald 8
McDonald House. In fact, we recently hit an all-time high of 67 families on our waiting list. I 9
think you would find that the hospital social workers, the doctors, the families all agree that the 10
Ronald McDonald House is where they need to be. So on behalf of the 67 families on the 11
waiting list we want to thank you for taking the time to discuss this project with us. And right 12
now I want to turn it over to Gregg Davis to talk about the details. 13
14
Gregg Davis, Board of Directors Member Ronald McDonald House: Thank you Laura, thank 15
you Commissioners. My name is Gregg Davis; I am the Member of the Board of Directors for 16
the Ronald McDonald House at Stanford. I’m also the Chairperson for the Building Committee 17
and I was heavily involved in the first expansion back in 2002 so many of these issues are very 18
familiar to me as well. 19
20
Let’s see, which one of these. So many of you are already familiar with the site and the area and 21
I believe staff has done a great job of rounding out the project and what it consists of. So the 22
area we’re speaking of is the area adjacent to our existing house. The red indicates the lot line 23
adjustment that we are requesting to make that one large parcel for the house and the zoning 24
change. The next slide shows you approximately where the house is proposed to be built. The 25
shape and size are all in respect to the trees in the area as well as the creek setback and the 26
neighbors in Menlo Park adjacent and close proximity to the existing house as possible. 27
Obviously the dream or the best scenario would be to have the houses connected in some way, 28
but it is physically impossible out of respect for the site and the trees to accomplish that. So we 29
are doing our best to mitigate and have a happy medium between the two houses being adjacent 30
to each other. 31
32
This is the rendering of the current site and where it sits and then the new house is going to be 33
tucked closer up and to Sand Hill respect the creek setback. Clearly the existing house is not 34
within the creek setback and cannot be touched or mitigated, which was the same case in 2002. 35
So we’re bringing the whole structure forward to the house. 36
37
The trees I think are extremely important which Mr. Reich has commented on. We are adding 38
trees per the plan. We have taken steps in addition to the staff report that already occurred. We 39
have changed our plans to save trees 53 and 35. I believe that’s comment D4. So we have 40
altered the bike path to make it a little more meandering. We have narrowed the driveway to the 41
minimum of 20 feet in front of the spaces there and done that to accommodate saving two more 42
additional trees that are on the list to be saved. And I believe this is showing you here really how 43
green and how blocked the house will be and how the greenery and the trees surrounding it are 44
going to be planted back through and some of these of course are new and some are existing 45
trees. These are just the standard tree protection plans which we’ll be taking of course to protect 46
all of the heritage trees and so on which you are very familiar with. 47
48
4
I wanted to give you a perspective, I know the bike path and the trees have always been a big 1
concern. It is being maintained and will continue to be a class one bike path. The bike path this 2
is the perspective of what it looks like now standing right about London plane facing toward the 3
bike path. And when the house is there this is the view and then we were adding the additional 4
trees here to continue the greenery and allow the bike path to meander through the trees and 5
continue on with just the one breakage in London plane. 6
7
The preliminary Architectural Review Board (ARB) there was a driveway at the side of the 8
building that led to, allowed us to have the wider width to get to the underground parking garage. 9
We removed this driveway completely. This saved an additional tree as well as allowed us to 10
narrow that driveway significantly to allow the trees to be saved. 11
12
It is important in our minds that the houses be connected at least through this narrow driveway 13
because most of our families are transported by shuttle. I think that’s very important. Very few 14
families have vehicles at the house. If they do it may be one. Many times that vehicle goes back 15
with one of the parents to their jobs and to work. Many times both parents can’t stay with us 16
during the course of treatment during the length of time. So they use the shuttle service 17
continually throughout the day. It is a private separate shuttle from the Marguerite bus due to the 18
health concerns for the patients and their families. So this shuttle will be in our minds we are 19
planning the stops to be at the old house and then of course at the new house. And we want to 20
avoid that shuttle having to go multiple times a day onto Sand Hill Road to make the loop. So 21
this is why we’re trying to maintain that driveway and connectivity. Also we envision people 22
not knowing what house they’re going to check into the old side or the new side. So we would 23
have that convergence for them to move between the two houses. 24
25
These are some of the renderings for the exterior. We know it’s very important to reduce the 26
massing to have different roof undulations and so on to make it not look as massive and large. 27
And we’ve also been designing and making sure we’ve designed elements from the existing 28
house into the new house so they fit together into one look and feel for the area as close as we 29
can. This is the front entry structure with the children on top. And we’ll show you through these 30
series of slides these are the elements from the existing house and as Commissioner Michael said 31
he drove by recently or today on bicycle and some of the design elements from the existing 32
house, the children’s wall, the star windows and so on you can see continuing the continuity in 33
the new house in the new structure. From the back we are of course adding a significant number 34
of trees to help the sight lines and also to enhance the area. And these trees are all indicated with 35
these renderings and drawings here. 36
37
The square footage is 52,000. It’s 1.57 acres. We’re about 28 percent parcel coverage so we’re 38
well within all the parameters that would be required. Parking wise a correction to staff was 39
we’ve actually changed it a little bit and we actually are now going to get 72 parking spaces on 40
the site. So we have a total of 72 on the site. We actually lose three from the old building but 41
we have 69 and we only have 47 rooms so we’re well over. But the actual new project has 72 42
parking spaces in and of itself. 43
44
I think also staff did a tremendous job summarizing in the comments that all the other impacts 45
that have been noted are all minimal. I don’t think it’s, I’m happy to address them in any way, 46
shape, or form. But noise and all the other things are addressed very well in the staff comments. 47
48
5
I do want to address the archeological situation. I was heavily involved with that when that 1
occurred at the first Ronald McDonald House. We did find some Native American bones and 2
remains primarily on the west side of the project, west of the elevator shafts. There was some 3
found at the Vi Hyatt area. We found very little or minimal artifacts to the east side more closely 4
called the El Camino side. Certainly there is a chance for that to exist. We are very familiar 5
with that and we are more than happy to follow all of the mitigation recommendations to ensure 6
that we do not disturb what is there and then if it is disturbed to properly handle it per the 7
recommendations which we did comply with in 2002. 8
9
Other than that we would greatly appreciate your support. This project is desperately needed for 10
the community. The number of families we’re turning away is pushing the traffic and pushing 11
the people into different areas including sleeping in their cars. The hospital hasn’t even 12
expanded and we are over blowing the wait list. And we would appreciate the Commission’s 13
support in this project. Thank you. 14
15
Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. We’re going to open the public hearing. We don’t have 16
any speaker cards, but… Oh, so we do. But before going to the speakers, I’m going to ask 17
Commissioners if they have any questions of either the applicant or staff on this matter. Yes, 18
Commissioner Panelli. 19
20
Commissioner Panelli: Yeah, I have a couple questions for both. I want to get some clarification 21
on the parking so I’m going to ask the applicant. You said there will be 72 new spaces, but that 22
sounds like gross new spaces. You’re going to lose three from the old site though. Is that 23
accurate? 24
25
Mr. Davis: Correct. 26
27
Commissioner Panelli: Ok. And then my question for staff is I noticed that for the existing 28
building 47 rooms, 64 spaces. I’m not sure if that’s before or after you lose the three. It seems 29
like there’s so many more parking spaces per room. My question for the Applicant there is why 30
is that ratio so much lower? And my question for staff is what’s required under the code? Go 31
ahead, applicant. 32
33
Mr. Davis: Our understanding is it’s under the zoning that would be proposed and the use permit 34
we’re required to have one parking spot per room. So the 72 would comply. The over existence, 35
the large number of parking had occurred because we share a back lot with the Vi which was the 36
Hyatt at the time. So the, that lot is a large lot that is shared through a joint agreement that was 37
all done in 2002 and so on, so there’s a lot of parking spaces in the back of the house. We also 38
have an underground garage in the existing house that has a lot of spaces. So we ended up with a 39
lot more spaces than we actually needed or even use today. 40
41
Chair Martinez: Commissioner can I do a follow up question to your parking? I would assume 42
that in your existing house and from looking at the drawings for the new plan that there are a 43
number of volunteers and staff. It looks like there could be up to 20 offices in the new plan. So 44
there’s a, I don’t want to call it significant, but there’s an administrative function and a service 45
provider function that I would assume that’s there. Can you talk about how that impacts your 70 46
parking or your joint parking analysis? We didn’t get that in the staff report. 47
48
6
Mr. Davis: We felt that the additional parking we have since we’re so far in excess on the other 1
side would be, that would be the additional parking for staff and so on that would be necessary to 2
use. Again the majority, you know, there’s meeting the technical requirement of one per room, 3
but then the majority of the families, a large number of them do not have a vehicle. Many of the 4
families either bring one, drop one off, and they take it off site. They don’t really see a need to 5
leave their car there for 40, 60, some families have stayed for a year. And all transportation is 6
done through the shuttle service. So we certainly want to comply but we have always been very 7
high on parking. I mean we have lots of parking normally. So we do not anticipate that being an 8
issue, but between the two sites together and being connected we will have plenty of parking in 9
our opinion for staff and for the guests. 10
11
Chair Martinez: It seems that way, but how many staff and volunteers do you expect between the 12
two facilities? 13
14
Mr. Davis: We currently have eight employees, is that about right? Eight full time? Laura can 15
probably address this better. 16
17
Ms. Boudreau: We currently have about 15 full time staff. We’ll be adding about 12 more staff. 18
But a lot of that is also shifts, so we’ll have people there on the weekends, evenings, and 19
overnights so it won’t be that everyone’s there at the same time. And again with the parking 20
situation that we currently have we don’t use all the spaces that we need. It’s the same situation 21
with volunteers. We have a large number of volunteers; we actually have about 150 currently 22
and will be ramping that up somewhat proportionately. But again those are shift volunteers so 23
there are only a few people on at any given time. 24
25
Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you. I’m sorry Commissioner. Did you have a follow up Vice-Chair? 26
27
Vice-Chair Michael: Yeah I had a question that relates to the Streamside Open Space, which is 28
the current zoning. And just coming down Sand Hill Road starting with Stanford West and Vi at 29
Hyatt and the existing Ronald McDonald House I have the distinct impression that what you’re 30
proposing is very appropriate to that area. However, the, when you get to the Streamside Open 31
Space, it’s quite, it is open and it’s very attractive and the trees and such as you go closer to El 32
Camino that isn’t going to be built on under the current plans, but I notice when you go behind 33
the Vi at Hyatt there’s a road and there’s people who are out walking there and they’re walking 34
their dogs and so forth and it gives them visual access to the creek, which is pleasant. And I 35
wondered, and then when you come to the Ronald McDonald House your existing facility has 36
just a fence so that access to the creek doesn’t continue past the back of your facility. Is there 37
going to be access to the public to the creek side? It looks from the plan as if that would be 38
possible. Could you talk about that? 39
40
Mr. Davis: I don’t have the exact plan in front of me, but in essence we’ve, I don’t know if we 41
can go? Russ, does this go back? Let’s see. Oh, sorry. The back. Thank you. So there is lots 42
of room behind the proposed project to go to the creek. There’s actually close to 80 feet back 43
there. So there is lots of room and none of that area will be en fenced or enclosed. It will not be 44
part of our project so the public definitely has full access to go through the open space and 45
wander all the way up to the existing house currently. 46
47
Chair Martinez: I’m sorry Commissioner Panelli. We kind of cut you off so continue. 48
49
7
Commissioner Panelli: Alright so going back to staff about my question about what’s required so 1
I’m hearing one space per room, but then there are also a number of administrative space uses in 2
that building. So can you shed some light or give a little more color on the parking needs? 3
4
Mr. Reich: Be happy to. So the use is pretty unique it’s not a standard use that’s defined in our 5
code but we look at it as a hotel type use. It provides guestrooms for people to stay. And so the 6
requirement of the code is one parking space per room and that doesn’t assume that every guest 7
staying in the facility is going to be driving to the facility. It accounts for staff as well. So the 8
code requirement of one space per room is inclusive of the people staying as well as the staff that 9
would be working there. 10
11
I actually did an onsite inspection to look at their existing parking and there were 21 spaces that 12
weren’t being used and I was only looking at the underground garage and the spaces at the front. 13
I wasn’t sure all the spaces in the back which ones were for this facility and which ones are for 14
the adjacent because I know that they have some shared agreement. But I did note that there was 15
a number of open spaces back there as well. So, they’re not incorrect in saying that they’re over 16
parked right now. They’ve got a lot of parking spaces that they don’t use. So per the code 17
because there’s going to be 117 rooms we would expect that the sites combined would have at 18
least 117 parking spaces, but it looks like they are going to have 133. So they are significantly 19
over still in terms of what the code would require. 20
21
Commissioner Panelli: But I have the same concern that our esteemed Chair has, which is when 22
you add full time staff, which I understand is limited and shift based, but then volunteers as well 23
and although hotels generally don’t have 100 percent occupancy it sounds like Ronald 24
McDonald House will for quite some time. And I just don’t want to see a situation where we 25
assume one thing and in reality..(interrupted) 26
27
Mr. Reich: Right. The parking requirement for hotels is of the understanding of full occupancy 28
so while they may not always be fully occupied the requirement established in the code is geared 29
toward the understanding as if it was fully occupied. 30
31
Commissioner Panelli: But didn’t you just say that doesn’t account for any staff? 32
33
Mr. Reich: No what I was saying is that the calculation does account for staff. So it doesn’t 34
assume that everyone coming to the facility is driving a vehicle. So there may be staff that take 35
the bus or take the train or that walk and there may be family members that do the same. People 36
may take a taxi or arrive in another way. And so the calculation doesn’t assume that every 37
person occupying a room is going to have a car parked at the facility. 38
39
Commissioner Panelli: Ok, but the long and short of it is for this zoning designation that’s being 40
requested the amount of forecast parking spaces is sufficient? 41
42
Mr. Reich: Yes, it’s sufficient and especially based on physical observance of how the facility is 43
used. They really don’t use all the parking that they even have currently. 44
45
Chair Martinez: Ok, before we go further with Commission comments and questions I would 46
like to give the public a chance to speak. And we have four speakers? Four speakers and you’ll 47
each be given three minutes. 48
49
8
Vice-Chair Michael: So the first card I have is from Michael Rubenstein followed by Gregg 1
Davis. 2
3
Michael Rubenstein: I’m going to pass for right now. 4
5
Vice-Chair Michael: Ok, Gregg Davis followed by the speaker Laura Boudreau 6
7
Laura Boudreau: We’ve just presented 8
9
Vice-Chair Michael: Ok and then Sherri Sager would be the speaker to follow or Sherri Sager. 10
11
Chair Martinez: We don’t usually come back though, so if you’re thinking about speaking we’ll 12
call on you again towards the end. 13
14
Sherri Sager: Thank you Commissioners, Commission Chair Martinez. I’m Sherri Sager and I’m 15
hearing representing Lucile Packard Children's Hospital this evening. And we are here in total 16
support of the application by the Ronald McDonald House. We are very proud of the partnership 17
that we have with Ronald McDonald House in caring for the patients who come to the hospital 18
who are critically ill. Over the last year in particular, but over the last several years we have 19
looked to strengthen that partnership in terms of some shared programing and working very 20
closely together. 21
22
This project is a necessity in order to be able to continue to care for the patients that we care for. 23
And the way it’s being laid out we’re looking at ways where we can minimize the impact on our 24
patients in terms of being able to have more programing at the house when they don’t need to be 25
at the hospital so they aren’t coming back and forth. And in order to do that they need the bigger 26
house for the programming during the day as well as the rooms and the spaces for the families at 27
night. It’s an incredible community service and we stand in full support. And I’m happy to 28
answer any questions on behalf of the hospital. Thank you. 29
30
Chair Martinez: I do have a question for you. I was going to let you walk a little further. 31
32
Ms. Sager: It’s ok. 33
34
Chair Martinez: The Children’s Hospital is expanding and with the new expansion is 70 new 35
rooms going to meet the demand? What’s your expectation? 36
37
Ms. Sager: We believe so because as you may recall from our countless public hearings before 38
the Commission over the last four or five years we are building into the hospital into the new 39
rooms private rooms that will have capability and capacity for two parents or guardians to stay at 40
the hospital. Where the Ronald McDonald House plays an incredibly important role, for 41
example on our patients, for our patients who may be awaiting a transplant or getting cancer 42
therapy where even the kids don’t have to be in the hospital all the time but they have to be very 43
close by. And so having the Ronald McDonald House allows those kids to maybe have their day 44
treatment or their waiting on their list, but to have that proximity. So we fully expect that with 45
the capacity that we’re building into the new building as well as what Ronald McDonald is 46
proposing that we will be able to meet the demand. 47
48
Chair Martinez: Thank you for that. 49
9
1
Ms. Sager: You’re welcome. 2
3
Chair Martinez: Next speaker? 4
5
Vice-Chair Michael: So I believe everybody who’s submitted a card has been heard from. Have 6
we missed anybody? 7
8
Chair Martinez: We are going to hold the public hearing open. If we say something that you 9
don’t really agree with and care to speak just raise your hand and we’ll try to call on you 10
throughout this deliberation, or something you like. We’ll put it positively. Commissioners, 11
comments, questions? Commissioner Keller. 12
13
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So I have a few questions. First if you look at the site plan 14
which is A1.0 the alignment of the bike and pedestrian path at the driveway seems to be 15
somewhat problematic. And firstly I’m wondering whether there’s a tree that divides the 16
driveway and is that an existing tree or a new tree? 17
18
Mr. Reich: That’s a new tree. 19
20
Commissioner Keller: And it looks like if you see the path, which is the right of way property 21
line it looks like the bike path sort of impinges slightly to the bottom of the page from that and 22
then if you see the width of the bike path it doesn’t look like it will pass by where the oval is for 23
the divider of the driveway. Am I looking at it right or is, or am I confused here? 24
25
Mr. Reich: There may be a slight narrowing of the path in this image. We can certainly have that 26
adjusted to move the planter for that proposed tree the foot or so that it might need to maintain 27
the width of the path. But we would make sure the width of the path is maintained. 28
29
Commissioner Keller: Great. So I think that that’s a good thing to move that back slightly so 30
that the width of the path is maintained. I mean that’s important. Great, thank you. 31
32
The second thing is a comment about the 70 feet that there is behind from the top of bank there’s 33
a 50 foot easements for the, what’s HCP? I’m not sure what HCP stands for, but I assume that’s 34
related to the creek? But there was a comment in the staff report about 70 feet needing to be 35
maintained by our streamside ordinance and I noticed that it looks like you get 70 feet possibly 36
where I guess where it says, “ease line boundary.” The building recesses in there, but when you 37
get to the driveway on the right hand corner by my eye I realize I’m not, I don’t have a measure 38
here, but it looks like the corner of the driveway is within 70 feet of the top of bank in the right 39
hand corner. And I’m wondering if there are issues with having a driveway being with that? It’s 40
outside the easement, but it’s within 70 feet as far as I can tell. 41
42
Mr. Reich: So the, I believe it’s 80 feet that was referenced in the code and that’s in reference 43
from the building to the top of bank. So the parking lot and that corner, I guess the upper right 44
hand corner of the project that certainly is closer to top of bank, but it doesn’t put a structure 45
there. It’s the parking lot and landscaping, it’s still 50 feet away which is the basically the key 46
limitation. It’s our code requirement that there be a no development within 50 feet of the creek 47
and there’s also other jurisdictions that would get involved if there was anything proposed within 48
10
50 feet of the creek. So their out of that with the entirety of the project, but what was referenced 1
was the location of the building relative to the top of bank. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: Thank you and thank you for correcting my thing that that’s 80 feet rather 4
than 70. The next issue is to what extent is this site required to treat groundwater onsite versus 5
have it runoff? Sorry, let me repeat that. To what extent is the site supposed to treat the 6
groundwater as opposed to there being runoff that’s collected by the sewer system? 7
8
Chair Martinez: You mean storm water? 9
10
Commissioner Keller: Storm water, yes. Right. Storm water, thank you. 11
12
Chair Martinez: And you mean retain rather than.. (interrupted) 13
14
Commissioner Keller: Retain, that’s right. Retain storm water as opposed to having it runoff 15
onto other sites. Thank you. 16
17
Mr. Reich: The site is subject to the C3 requirements is what I think you’re referring to and they, 18
if you notice in the drawings they’ve actually created a number of areas for retention onsite for 19
storm water. I believe the engineer is here if they wanted to go into detail about the measures 20
that they’re employing in order to comply with the C3 requirements. But yeah, they will be 21
preventing onsite storm water from running off site. 22
23
Commissioner Keller: And there’s no need for pervious paving over by the driveway, by the 24
parking lot to do that? 25
26
Mr. Reich: They’re actually doing some pervious paving in the project. Again if you want to 27
have the engineer go into detail they can talk about that, but there’s adequate landscaped areas 28
around for the water to drain into. 29
30
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Is this site add to our, does this site fulfill the requirements 31
for housing units under the Housing Element or does it not because it doesn’t have kitchens or 32
whatever? I mean can we use this, can we use this development to say we’re “Hey, we have 33
more housing” for the Housing Element? 34
35
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: No, generally housing is not something that would be a 36
temporary stay. It’s got to be a long term stay and so I wouldn’t count these towards our housing 37
numbers for Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) purposes. 38
39
Commissioner Keller: Ok, thank you. 40
41
Ms. French: There’s no kitchen. It’s not a dwelling unit. These do not count as dwelling units 42
because they don’t have a kitchen. 43
44
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The next question is does Ronald McDonald House have 45
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures? Is it eligible for any of the measures 46
that Stanford has, does a fine job with or is it not eligible for any of those? Or does it have its 47
own? 48
49
11
Mr. Reich: I actually don’t know if they employ any measures currently. Based on the parking 1
requirement they’re not required to employ any, but we could ask the, well they do have their 2
shuttle that actually reduces a lot of vehicle trips. But maybe the house manager could explain 3
whether or not they do have other measures that they employ to reduce vehicle trips. 4
5
Commissioner Keller: Well in particular it seems that this is a particularly impacted location for 6
commutes. So to the extent that it’s possible for at least the employees, I’m not sure that much 7
can be done with the visitors and the residents, but in terms of the employees to the extent that 8
there could be things like Go Passes or the like or eligibility to use the shuttles. For example, 9
like the U line that comes from the East Bay to Stanford. I’m wondering if that kind of thing 10
were available to the Ronald McDonald employees then that would reduce the impact on an 11
already impacted road. Not that it’s required, I’m just wondering to the extent which that’s 12
something that is possible. Is that something the applicant can talk to? Can you speak to the 13
micro… [trails off] 14
15
Ms. Boudreau: Yes, that’s not something that we’re currently doing, but we would be very 16
interested in looking into that as the staff grows. 17
18
Commissioner Keller: Great, thank you. I think that that would also help in terms of retention of 19
staff and reduction of people being late because they couldn’t get to you because of traffic. 20
Exactly. And my final question had to do with how is schooling provided for those who are 21
currently at the Children’s Hospital or at Ronald McDonald? And please identify yourself for 22
the record. 23
24
Sherri Sager, Chief Government Relations Officer Lucile Packard Children's Hospital: I would 25
be happy to answer. I’m Sherri Sager, Chief Government Relations Officer for Lucile Packard 26
Children's Hospital. That’s actually one of the things I’m really excited about. Right now the 27
schooling is all done at Packard and so we have worked out an arrangement with the school 28
district and with Ronald McDonald House that we’re actually going to have a classroom at 29
Ronald McDonald House so that the kids that are staying at the house can do their schooling at 30
the house rather than being shuttled back and forth to the hospital. So we think that’s a win-win 31
for everybody. 32
33
Commissioner Keller: Thank you very much. That’s all of my questions. 34
35
Chair Martinez: Follow up. Related to the Transportation Management Program is the Ronald 36
McDonald House eligible for the Go Passes that are part of the development agreement for the 37
hospital or is this something that we would have to nudge them to provide? 38
39
Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: That’s something we’d have to look into and work with the 40
applicant on. We don’t have an answer to that right now. 41
42
Chair Martinez: Ok, that’s fine. Commissioners? Commissioner Tanaka. 43
44
Commissioner Tanaka: So one question is, I heard the comment that because the rooms are all 45
booked all the time that people are sleeping in their cars and I was wondering where are these 46
cars being parked? 47
48
12
Mr. Davis: The majority of those that are sleeping in their cars or staying in their cars are at the 1
hospital, adjacent to the hospital because they want to be next to their family member. I think 2
it’s also very important that even though the hospital’s doing a tremendous job with their 3
expansion in having sleeping spaces for the two parents I think if anybody’s tried to get any real 4
sleep in a hospital that’s not going to really happen. The other thing that’s very important is that 5
the hospital does not allow the siblings into their structure for health purposes obviously. So we 6
support the entire family and encourage the siblings when they can to stay with their family 7
member getting treatments and so on and so forth. So it’s more of a family community situation. 8
9
Commissioner Tanaka: Do you happen to know how many people actually are sleeping in their 10
cars on average? 11
12
Mr. Davis: We don’t know, I mean the hospital and the social workers does a tremendous job of 13
trying to find them local hotels when they’re available and when they’re willing to give space, 14
some at discounted rates. Many times the university or the area is having events that the local 15
hotels will not allow the families to stay during that time period. I don’t know if Laura has any 16
statistics or Sherri but we certainly do know that many people have been staying in their cars in 17
different places. I don’t know if we have any statistics. I wonder if the hospital does? 18
19
We do have some local families that offer to have people stay. I mean there’s all kinds of 20
programs we’re trying to relocate these people now. I’m sorry is that what you’re talking about? 21
So we do have local families that offer their homes at times when it’s convenient for them that 22
they offer those. And there’s the hospital arranges with those and people can sign up for that. 23
So we do have a philanthropic community that attempts to help as well. 24
25
Commissioner Tanaka: And do you think that once this is built that that problem would be 26
alleviated or do you think it would still continue? 27
28
Mr. Davis: We believe it will be alleviated. The hospital and the Ronald McDonald House 29
commissioned a study with a professional group that does hospital management and room 30
management and that study bore out somewhere around 68 to 72 rooms, which is what we’re 31
building. I don’t have the exact study in front of me but that was pretty much what we based this 32
structure on. That study was done in conjunction with the hospital and included the expansion of 33
the hospital and what their new room makeup will be. These are the best guestimates of the 34
experts that they think this is will hold the capacity for a long time, but of course it’s very 35
difficult to predict. I mean the great thing is the hospital has been able to save a lot more 36
children and therefore they’re staying there a lot longer. So, and the acute rate at Lucile Packard 37
Children's Hospital is obviously extremely high. So the length of stay just keeps increasing with 38
the advances in technology. So the study took all those things into account and we are building 39
to that study and we believe that it is adequate. 40
41
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok great. Thank you. And then just a question for staff. Was a traffic 42
study done on this in terms of how much, maybe staff could just briefly comment on if they think 43
this is going to be a net increase in traffic or roughly the same or perhaps a decrease in traffic? 44
45
Mr. Reich: So there was a traffic study done. It’s associated with the environmental document 46
and it does specify that they found that it would not increase the volume of traffic. 47
48
13
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, great. And then my last question is for the crosswalks are going to 1
go directly to the new building. Are these signalized or are there, because I imagine some kids 2
might be walking between here and the shopping mall and maybe you could talk a little about the 3
safety issues there. 4
5
Mr. Reich: It is a fully signalized intersection so that the new driveway would be the fourth leg 6
of what’s now a three way intersection. It’s important to note that the bike path will actually be 7
directed to the intersection such that it will be controlled by the lights so to avoid conflicts with 8
the bike and the driveway. 9
10
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok and then the crosswalks I don’t know what they are right now. Are 11
they lit? Because I imagine there might be kids walking and maybe kids who are less than able? 12
13
Mr. Reich: What is the question? You’re asking if they’re lit? 14
15
Commissioner Tanaka: You know, what, I guess sometimes the, I was wondering about the 16
safety issues with the crosswalks. Do they have lights in them? 17
18
Mr. Reich: No. 19
20
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Thank you. 21
22
Chair Martinez: Commissioners we have three items. The Land Use Designation, the Site and 23
Design Review, and Rezoning. I’d like to see if we can get through Site and Design Review and 24
have a motion on it. So if we can direct our comments towards that first we can come back to 25
the initial study and rezoning. Commissioner Alcheck? Anyone else on site and design issues? 26
I have some. 27
28
I love the project, so I don’t want to come across that somehow I’m in opposition but I am in 29
opposition to the process because as I looked at the drawings they’re quite well developed. 30
They’ve gone, the Council initiated the process. The ARB gave their initial review and we find 31
ourselves having to make a recommendation site design and initial study and I think it’s fairly 32
late in the process for us to make anything of substantial value other than saying we like the 33
project as I did initially. And that’s troubling because the project can only get better as its 34
reviewed in its right sequence like land use and that’s a big prerogative of the Planning 35
Commission to talk about land use and traffic and circulation. And I would have been inclined 36
to make some comments about the site plan early on, that I feel a bit hesitant about because the 37
development and the ideas of it, the environmental review of it have gone forth so far. And I 38
really want to make a point to staff more than to the applicant for this project that this isn’t the 39
right time for us to be having our first review of the project. And I would like to see us, like I 40
don’t know why but after the Council initiated it for us to really look at the site issues, at the 41
traffic issues, at the circulation issues, things that are important to the project and important to 42
the Planning Commission and for us to be looking at that now is just unfortunate. 43
44
For example, I would have suggested that the frontage road in front of the new expansion is kind 45
of an unfortunate use of land. That the entrance to the site is at the signal, which makes sense 46
from a traffic engineering point of view, but if you miss that signal in the entrance you’re going 47
to see the entrance to the building as you pass by and have to go back again. If the entrance 48
could have been placed near the lobby entrance we could have done away with all of that 49
14
frontage road development. We could have probably preserved many more trees. And hearing 1
that there’s a shuttle that takes people even are concerned about left hand turns could have been 2
mitigated because it’s a shuttle coming back from the hospital that would be making a U-turn to 3
get back to the entrance to the building. So the whole sort of arrival and circulation and all that 4
paving in front impacts the use, the sense of the friendliness, the safety to families that are 5
walking on this street, and the initial study, because one of the things that is offered in the initial 6
study in the Neg Dec is that there are no impacts because the building is set 70 feet back from the 7
road. Well, yeah, but it’s 70 feet of paving in front of the building that I, in my view would have 8
been unnecessary if we would have been able to weigh in at an earlier date. That we could’ve 9
raised the issue, staff and the applicant could have gone back to the drawing board and really 10
come back with a better parking circulation entrance plan then what we’re going to go forward 11
with now. 12
13
And I support the project. I feel the need. I hope it’s enough. But it’s part of our process that 14
when you look at the role of the Planning Commission only serves to help. It doesn’t serve to 15
diminish a project like this. Because I don’t want to say, but I don’t think there’s anybody here 16
that doesn’t really appreciate everything that Ronald McDonald House does and the children’s 17
hospital, but it’s really the City’s fault. I don’t want to say the Planning or, but it’s our fault for 18
not being able to weigh in earlier on this. So, Commissioners any further comments on Site and 19
Design? Ok. Do we have a Motion? I think, pardon? 20
21
Commissioner Keller: I believe we have to let the Applicant respond to the comments and a 22
closing. 23
24
Chair Martinez: Oh, before we have a Motion on that? 25
26
Commissioner Keller: That’s correct. 27
28
Chair Martinez: Ok. So we’re taking these one at a time. Does the applicant care to address 29
anything that’s been stated or have any closing remark in terms of the site and design issues? 30
31
Mr. Davis: I just had a couple of quick comments. I appreciate your comments regarding the 32
process and we respect the input. In fact many of these things have been changed and altered 33
several times because of feedback from different organizations within the City. It is important to 34
us that they are connected only because there will be probably confusion between the old and the 35
new and if they do miss that driveway then they can very easily make the next right hand turn 36
and come back through our internal connecting driveway rather than having to go back out onto 37
Sand Hill, but we completely respect the trying to mitigate that and that flow. Again we’ve 38
narrowed that down to 20 feet, which is the minimum that we can squeeze there to try to 39
minimize the impact of that road and we eliminated a underground parking garage entrance next 40
to the meditation garden which was brought to our attention doesn’t make a lot of sense to have a 41
meditation garden next to a driveway so to an underground garage. So we agree that we respect 42
all of your input and we think the project has only gotten better because of the input from the 43
different organizations and we appreciate that. Thank you. 44
45
Chair Martinez: Ok. Thank you very much for that. Commissioners, comments, motion on Site 46
and Design? Commissioner Keller. 47
48
15
Commissioner Keller: I’m wondering if we should do Site and Design first because in some 1
sense if we, it’s hard to do site and design first if we do the Rezone it’s sort of a sequence. So 2
we probably should, I would recommend that we do the rezoning first and then the Land Use 3
Designation. I’m not sure if there’s anything else or if we should just do it all at once? 4
5
Chair Martinez: Staff, do you have any, want to weigh in on the process? 6
7
Mr. Aknin: Typically you can do it all at once. I mean it’s up to the Commission though the way 8
that you want to do it. If you want to take individual comments on each that could be a way to 9
go, but typically you can do it, you can do it all in one motion. 10
11
Chair Martinez: Ok, well if there’s, let’s do it as one motion then I don’t seem to get any great 12
sense of a preference here. Commissioner Keller do you have a preference one way or the other? 13
14
MOTION 15
16
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I’ll just move the staff recommendation. I don’t think anybody has 17
made any recommendations for any changes, so I’ll just move the staff recommendation as 18
stated. 19
20
SECOND 21
22
Chair Martinez: Ok, motion by Commissioner Keller and second by Commissioner Alcheck. 23
You want to speak to your motion? 24
25
Mr. Aknin: There was just one, there was just Commissioner Keller commented on the bike path 26
and alignment with the tree well. 27
28
Commissioner Keller: Yes, but that’s just a design element. I don’t think that that rises to the 29
level that it needs to be in the motion. 30
31
Mr. Aknin: That’s fine. 32
33
Commissioner Keller: Yeah. 34
35
Mr. Aknin: Duly noted. 36
37
Commissioner Keller: I, that, and sometimes that’s what the ARB can consider. So basically this 38
is a project that should be rezoned that it as stated. The Comprehensive Plan should be changed 39
accordingly, and the Site and Design Review should be recommended for approval and the 40
Mitigated Negative Declaration should be accepted. All those are recommendations for the City 41
Council. I believe I’ve covered all of them. And also the Conditional Use Permit should be 42
granted for this particular project. 43
44
I think that the rezoning meets the necessary requirements. I think this is an excellent project 45
and I think, I’m very sympathetic to what the Chair said in terms of the process. When the 46
Council makes an initiation it sort of does limit the ability for the Planning Commission to 47
provide useful early feedback to the process, but I think that other than that I think that we have a 48
good project that should proceed forward for the benefit of the community. Thank you. 49
16
1
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck, speak to your second? 2
3
Commissioner Alcheck: I appreciate hearing from all the speakers tonight about this project. I 4
also sympathize with Chair Martinez’ comments. I think that the land use here is appropriate. 5
It’s all, it’s not without caution that we consider the idea of rezoning open space and in particular 6
the loss of so many mature trees. I think there’s something poetic that we’re losing 70 trees but 7
we’re gaining 70 rooms. I think what you do as an organization is very important and a major 8
public benefit, but the goal whenever we’re reviewing projects like this is that the ultimate 9
design, the prevailing development represents the best development that was possible. And so I 10
really appreciate the sentiments that you mentioned, but I think that this is a very positive 11
development and a good, and a preferred land use. So, I second the motion. 12
13
VOTE 14
15
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Any other, anybody else want to speak to the motion? I have a 16
couple of comments on the Neg Dec. As much as we all want to support the project as fully as 17
we can I think we also have to be diligent about the quality of the documents that we produce to 18
support it. And I don’t know whether it’s under aesthetics or under another category, but 19
Commissioner Alcheck did refer to this. The taking of what’s called creek side open space and 20
rezoning it to a public facility requires more than saying there’s no significant impact. Taking, 21
changing the landscape, losing open space has to be addressed I think in a much more substantial 22
way in our initial study and our Neg Dec that, and I would urge you to put some more work into 23
that it’s a significant, consider it a significant impact and what we are doing to mitigate that 24
impact and planting more Live Oaks along the street. Making the gardens really more of what 25
this open space is that we’re losing. I don’t know what it is, but it comes up a little bit empty. 26
27
When we read the negative impact, the Neg Dec and we don’t see that we are really considering 28
the loss of this California landscape to another use without putting forth some significant 29
mitigations. And so my comment is that I will vote to support it, but I would really ask that it 30
undertake a little bit more work to really make it stand on its own. There’s no question that the 31
use is outstanding. The change of use that the community is sacrificing open space for a very 32
substantial use, but we need to put the, take the responsibility to say how we are addressing these 33
changes in a I think a more responsible way. So with that I’m going to also support the project. 34
35
So any further comments Commissioners? None. Then let’s call for the vote. Those in favor of 36
the Motion say aye (Aye). Any opposed? The Motion passes unanimously. Thank you all and 37
thanks for your great work and good luck with it. Yeah, we will take a 10 minute break before 38
picking up item number 3. 39
40
MOTION PASSED (6-0) 41
42
Commission Action: Motion to approve staff recommendation by Commissioner Keller, second 43
by Commissioner Alcheck. 6-0 44
Architectural Review Board
Sense Minutes
April 4, 2013
EXCERPT
50 El Camino Real [11PLN-00388]: Request by Huiwen Hsiao on behalf of The Board
of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University for Site and Design Review of the
construction of a 70-room, three story, 51,948 square foot building on a 1.57-acre site, to
house an expanded Ronald McDonald House program. The project includes a rezoning to
Public Facility with a Site and Design Combining District (PF(D)) zone, and
Comprehensive Plan re-designation (from Streamside Open Space to Major
Institution/Special Facilities), and a Conditional Use Permit amendment. Zone District:
Community Commercial with a Landscape Combining District (CC(L)). Environmental
Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in
accordance with CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended that the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend that the City Council approve the Site
and Design Review application for the construction of a 69-room, three story, 52,278
square foot building on a 1.57-acre site, to house an expanded Ronald McDonald House
program.
David Royce, expressed concerns about construction impacts, noise, and that the bike and
pedestrian path remain open during construction.
Brad Lyman, President of the Board of Director of Roland McDonald, he is supporting
the project and hopes the construction would be done before the rainy season.
Architectural Review Board Action: Board Member Popp moved seconded by Board
Member Lew to approve the project with the following conditions to return to the
subcommittee:
1. Remove or replace sheet 0A0.7
2. Relocate the long term bike lockers or reduce the number
3. Coordination of the central element at the west elevation on first level on the
building plans
4. Bracket design and placement be studied
5. Control or expansion joint pattern and scale be evaluated further
6. Window details relative to adjacent elements on the roof terminations
7. Present cut sheet for all exterior light fixtures
8. If photo voltaics are proposed they must return for review
9. Coordination with the City’s Arborist particularly with the oak and redwood trees
to be relocated at the rear of the property
10. Update Attachment “A” to reflect the current plan information
Attachment L
11. In Section 3.2 of the ARB Findings rephrasing the statement to have more to do
with the building oriented parallel to the creek
12. Correct typo in 3.10
Vote: 4-0-1-0 (Lippert absent)
DRAFT ADOPTED ON: ___ --,---
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
California Environmental Quality Act
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date: November 13, 2012
Project Name:
Project Location:
Project Proponent:
City Contact:
Project Description:
Ronald McDonald House Expansion
The project site is located in the northern portion of the City of Palo Alto, in
the northern part of Santa Clara County, west ofEI Camino Real and north of
Sand Hill Road
Huiwen Hsiao
Russ Reich, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
The applicant has proposed to apply for a lot line adjustment to incorporate 1.57 acres of the 50 EI
Camino Real property into the existing RMH property at 520 Sand Hill Road to accommodate the
constrnction of an expansion to the existing RMH facility. The new building on the site would be three
stories tall, at approximately 42 feet high, consisting of approximately 52,000 square feet in floor area.
The building would provide 70 rooms along with a kitchen, dining room, laundry facilities, and other
activity rooms. There would be a total of 69 parking spaces, 43 in a new below grade garage and 30
surface parking spaces. The existing bike path through the. site would be adjusted closer to Sand Hiil
Road to make room for the new building and parking. The project would be adjacent to the existing
RMH facility, which was established in 1979 and includes 47 guest rooms, a kitchen, dining room,
community room, activity centers, and a fitness center. The existing facility is approximately 41 feet tall . ,
and provides a total of 64 parking spaces.
II. DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto's procedures for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine
whether the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. On the
basis ofthat study, the City makes the following determination:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant' effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this
case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and,
therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
'.'>ll'.;'I"f~"''''Jd·;-l"~:~';'~::'~U~~''~~-''>1=Ufu:'!,\iiR='};w~me:>~~~l!a:;=-,-=~~\..,m'.{'-="""'Wf'Mi!!~~~!""f'm"er:::Z'P'%'~.!l111
The attached initial study incorporates. all relevant infonnation regarding the potential
environmental effects of the project and confinns the detennination that an EIR is not required
b~~~ .
!,;~""i>~;wnill;;2l~'a~..!MJ.8iL">1ill'~Z'~~"2ffiW9J!ra i *' '!1f1!<i\1Fl sm}1'9i""...q""'1'iWF""~~
In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project:
Mitigation Measure Bio-l: Prepare a Tree Preservation Report for aH trees to be retained.
Activity within the dripline of ordinance-regulated oak trees requires mitigation to be consistent
with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. An updated tree survey and tree
preservation report (TPR) prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted for review and
acceptance by the City Urban Forester. For reference clarity, the tree survey shall include (list
and field tag) all existing trees within the project area, including adjacent trees overhanging the
site. The approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including mandatory inspections and
monthly reporting to City Urban Forester. The TPR shall be based on latest plans and amended
as needed to address activity or within the dripline area of any existing tree to be preserved,
including incidental work (utilities trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, etc.) that may
affect the health of a preserved tree. The project shall be modified to address recommendations
identified to reduce impacts to existing ordinance-regulated and other trees to be retained. The
TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the tree preservation ordinance, P AMC
8.10.030 and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org!environmentlurban_canopy.asp. To avoid improvements that may
be. detrimental to the health of regulated trees, the TPR shall review the applicant's landscape
plan to ensure the new landscape is consistent with Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and
Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks. The project site arborist will also review the plans
submitted for building pennit to verify in writing that all final design review measures to protect
trees are incorporated into the plans.
Mitigation Measure Bio-2: Prepare a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan for protected and non
protected trees to be relocated. Because of inherent mortality associated with the process of
moving mature trees, a Tree Relocation and Maintenance Plan (TRMP) shall be prepared SUbject
to Urban Forester's approval. The project sponsor shaH submit a TRMP to detennine the
feasibility of moving the Protected Trees to an appropriate location on this site. Feasibility shall
consider current site and tree conditions, a tree's ability to tolerate moving, relocation measures,
optimum needs for the new location, aftercare, irrigation, and other long-term needs.
If the relocated trees do not survive after a period of five years, the tree canopy shall be replaced
with a tree of equivalent size or security deposit value. The TRMP shall be inclusive of the
following minimum infonnation: appropriate irrigation, monitoring inspections, post relocation
tree maintenance and for an annual arborist report of the condition of the relocated trees. If a tree
isdisfigured, leaning with supports needed, in decline with a dead top or dieback of more than
25%, the tree shall be considered a total loss and replaced in kind and size. The final annual
arborist report shall serve as the basis for return of the tree security deposit.
Mitigation Measure Bio-3: Provide a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The natural
tree resources on the site include significant protected trees .and neighborhood screening,
Page 2 of4
including 15 trees proposed for relocation. Prior to b~~~~~~:;JJi;l~!)'~~~~~!~:
DepO"sif.:tOfJ1).etotal vallllu~eJo~:~fi t~hi~e: m~rfb~~;~~~ ... Section 3.26, Security D . .
acceptable by the City Attorney. As a secluritymleasllre, shaTlbe subject to a
Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Palo Alto and the Applicant describing a
tree retention amount, list of trees, criteria and timeline for retum of security, and conditions as
cited in the Record ofLand Use Action for the project. The applicant and project arborist shall
coordinate with the City Urban Forester to detennine the amount of bonding required to
guarantee the protection andlor replacement· of the regulated trees on the site during construction
and within five years after occupancy. The applicant shall bond for 150% of the value for the
relocated trees, and 50% of the value of the remaining trees to be protected during construction
(as identified in the revised and final approved Tree Protection Report). The applicant shall
provide· the proposed level of bonding as listed in the Tree Value Table, with the description of
each tree by number, value, and total combined value of all the trees to be retained. A return of
the guarantee shall be subject to an armual followed by a final tree assessment report on all the
relocated and retained trees from the project arborist as approved by the City Urban Forester,
five years following final inspection for occupancy, to the satisfaction of the director.
Mitigation Measure Bio-4: Retain protected oak trees #53 and #35 with focused site plarming.
Oak #35 is a fine specimen functioning as a significant aesthetic and biological resource and
screen tree. Specific roadway mitigation design shall be implemented to enable the retention of
this. tree. Oak # 53, along the creek side of the building perimeter, is a healthy oak of significant
character and function to provide screen, shade and enviromnental benefits from the western sun
exposure. Sufficient root clearance, canopy.clearance shall be afforded the tree, as well as
specific measures in the tree protection report to ensure the tree's survival.
Mitigation Measure Bio-5: Provide monetary in-lieu fee for protected trees that carmot be
relocated and will not survive construction, after all design options have been exhausted
consistent with the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, Tree Value Replacement Standard. The
appraised value of protected trees that are inadvertently removed shall be paid to the City of Palo
Alto Revenue Collections, Forestry Fund, prior to building pennit issuance.
Mitigation Measure Bio-6: Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of any public trees
along Sand Hill Road. As mitigation to offset the net loss for years of public resource
investments and minimize the future years to parity with infrastructure benefits (Co2 reduction . ,
extended asphalt life, water mgmt., etc.) currently provided by the trees, the new Sand Hill Road
frontage should be provided maximum Streetscape design and materials to include the follOWing
elements:
Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume resources.
Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products.
Mitigation Measure Bio-7: Provide monetary in-lieu fee for Designated California Black Walnut
# 48 that is too large to be relocated and is within the project footprint. The appraised value of
Walnut #48 consistent with the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00,Tree Value Replacement
Standard shall be paid to the City of Palo Alto Revenue Collections, Forestry Fund, prior to
building pennit issuance.
Page 3 of4
Mitigation ¥easure Bio-8: Prior to construction, the limits of work along San Francisquito Creek
shall be demarcated with plastic construction mesh fencing and silt fencing. The fencing must be
in place prior to any site improvements and only removed when all construction worK is .
completed.
Mitigation Measure Bio-9; The proposed setback area between the creek top-of-bank and the
development shall be revegetated with native riparian plant species (trees and shrubs) to buffer
the creek resources. Native riparian trees and shrubs shall be used, such as coast live oak, valley
oak, western sycamore, blue elderberry, toyon, coffee berry, and California wild rose.
Mitigation Measure Bio-I 0: Construction shall be scheduled to occur between August 15 and
March 15 of any given year, which is outside the nesting season for this area. If this is not
possible, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting birds. If nesting
birds are observed, buffer zone shall be established where no construction will take place until
the biologist has determined that all chicks have fledged. The buffer zone shall be 50 feet for
passednes and 200 feet for raptors.
Mitigation Measure Culture-I: A program of mechanical subsurface presence testing shall be
conducted. Depending on the findings, a more comprehensive program of evaluation of
significance of the deposits may be recommended in order to devise a responsible program of
mitigation of impacts through data recovery excavation combined with archeological monitoring
of all earthmoving activities to identify, record and/or remove significant archeological materials
and to limit damage to human remains and associated grave goods which may be encountered
during construction related excavation. Presence/absence testing would be limited to a series of
trenches. Based on findings, aplan for further evaluative testing and/or mitigation would be
prepared.
Prepared by Project Planner
Adopted by City Council, Attested by Date
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THE INITIAL STUDy AND
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT DESCRIBED ABOVE AND AGREE
TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED THEREIN.
Project Applicant's Signature Date
Page 4 of4
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application
Initial Study
Prepared by
City of Palo Alto
November13, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of PaloAlto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. .3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ..................... 7
A., AESTHETICS ......................................................................................................... 7
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ........................................... 8
C. AIR QUALITy ........................................................................................................ 8
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 10
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 15
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY .............................................................. 16
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 17
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................... : ............ 18
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................... 19
J. ,LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................ 21
K. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 22
L. NOISE .................................................................................................................... 22
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................... 24
N. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. 24
O. RECREATION ...................................................................................................... 25
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................ 25
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................. 27
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................... 28
III. SOURCE REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 28
IV. DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................... 29
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 2 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
Ronald McDonald House Expansion
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Russ Reich, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
650-617-3119
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
Huiwen Hsiao
32245 Derby Street
Union City, CA 94587
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
11PLN-00388
6. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the northern portion ofthe City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of
Santa Clara County, west of EI Camino Real and north of Sand Hill Road, as shown on Figure 1,
Regional Map. The project site is 50 EI Camino Real, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map.
50 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page3 Initial Study
Figure 1: Regional Map
Figure 2: Vicinity Map
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 4 Initial Study
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The project area is designated as Streamside Open Space in the Palo Alto 1998 -20 I 0
Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation genera\1y a\1ows hiking, biking and riding trails
to be developed. The designation typica\1y takes place within a corridor of riparian vegetation
along a natural stream. The width of the corridor will genera\1y vary between 80 and 310 feet .
. . The application· proposes to amend the land use designation for a portion of the site to Major
institution/Special facilities to match the land use designation of the adjacent parcel to
accommodate the expansion of the adjacent Ronald McDonald House (RMH). It must be noted
that the area to be amended is adjacent to the riparian corridor but is not within the riparian
corridor. The riparian corridor and the natural stream are outside· the project boundaries and will
not be disturbed.
8. ZONING
The project area is zoned Community Commercial with a Landscape Combining District. The
zone district is intended to create and maintain major commercial centers accommodating a
broad range of office, retail sales, and other commercial activities of community-wide and
regional ·significance. The associated Landscape Combining District however, only a\1ows
landscaping, screening, and fences. The project applicant is proposing to rezone the property to
Public Facility with a Site and Design Combining District to accommodate the proposed
expansion of the existing RMH facility on the adjacent parcel. The Public Facility zoning
designation is intended to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and
community service or recreational facilities. The RMH has been categorized as and accessory
hospital facility as it provides temporary affordable housing for families with children receiving
treatment at the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has proposed to apply for a lot line adjustment to incorporate 1.57 acres of the 50
. El Camino Real property into the existing RMH property at 520 Sand Hill Road to accommodate
the construction of an expansion to the existing RMH facility. The new bUilding on the site
would be three stories ta\1, at approximately 42 feet high, consisting of approximately 52,000
square feet in floor. area. The building would provide 70 rooms along with a kitchen, dining
room, laundry facilities, and other activity rooms. There would be a total of 69 parking spaces,
43 in a new below grade garage and 30 surface parking spaces. The existing bike path through
the site would be adjusted closer to Sand Hill Road to make room for the new building and
parking. The project would be adjacent to the existing RMlJ: facility, which was established in
1979 and includes 47 guest rooms, a kitchen, dining room, community room, activity centers,
.and a fitness center. The existing facility is approximately 41 feet tall, and provides a total of 64
parking spaces.
The site is currently zoned CC(L) and the proposed project necessitates the rezoning to Public
Facility with a site and design combining District as we\1 as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
from Streamside Open Space to Major Institution / Special Facilities. The proposed use,
"hospital accessory facility," would a\1ow families of children receiving treatment at the Lucille
Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH) a place to stay during the treatment period. The site of the
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 5 Initial Study
existing RMH is zoned PF, and has the same use as is requested for the new adjacent site. The
demands for affordable temporary lodging for families with children being treated for life
threatening illnesses at LPCH have increased dramatically and the current application requests to
amend the existing Conditional Use Permit to allow an additional 70 guest rooms within a new
approximately 52,000 square foot building.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The project site is located on the west side of Sand Hill Road just to the north of the existing
Ronald McDonald House (RMH) facility. The site is owned by Stanford University and would
be incorporated into the existing RMH site through a lot line adjustment. The new area added to
the existing RMH property would be approximately 1.57 acres. To the north of the site lies
undeveloped land, bounded by San Francisquito Creek, EI Camino Real and Sand Hill Road.
Just to the west of the site is the remainder of the undeveloped area and San Francisquito Creek.
Beyond the creek, further to the west, are single family residences in Menlo Park along Creek
Drive. To the east of the site, across Sand Hill Road, is the Stanford Shopping Center. The
existing RMH lies immediately adjacent to the south (520 Sand Hill Road). The property is
currently undeveloped and has no built structures. The terrain is relatively flat and there are 91
trees, consisting primarily of Oak and Eucalyptus, on the site. There is also an illuminated
pedestrian/bike path that winds through the property parallel with Sand Hill Road.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED
None
50 EI Camino Real Rezone-Application Page 6 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
DISCUSSION OF IMP AC'l'S
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identifY environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and
a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A AESTHETICS .
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Les. Than No
Resources Signifi.cant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact
Would tbe project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a I, 2-Map L4, X
scenic vista? 5
I b) Substantially damage scenic resources, I, 2-Map L4, X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock 5,
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 1,2,5 X
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or 1,5 X
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
DISCUSSION:
The subject site is located on a scenic route, as shown in the Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010. The rezoning and
development of the property would not have a negative impact on the corridor. The project has a deep 70 foot
setback such that any new development of the site would not impede views and would be landscaped to maintain
the character of the corridor. Although the project is identified with an El Camino Real address, which is a state
scenic highway, the project site on that property is adjacent to Sand Hill road and is not located on a state scenic
highway.
Any future project proposal for the site would be subject to review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and
compliance with the Municipal Code and Architectural Review findings would ensure that the design and lighting
are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with their surroundings. The project would have a deep setback from
the street with abundant tree and natural vegetation planting to maintain the aesthetic of the corridor. Any future
project would be designed to be compatible with the scale of the surrounding development in the area.
Mitigation Measures: None required
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 7 Initial Study
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than . No SignlOcant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
IncorDorated
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 1,12,13 X or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program ofthe California
Resources Agency, to non-agriculturaluse?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2-MapL9, X
use, or a Williamson Act contract? 13
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause 1 X
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)) or
timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 4526) or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 511 04(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion I . X
offorest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing 1 X
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
DISCUSSION:
The project area is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide·
Importance" area, as shown on Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map 2010, published June 201 i by the
California Department of Conservation. The site is not zoiled for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the
Williainson Act. The project area is within an urban area and has no impacts on forest or timberland .. The site is
undeveloped with a multitude of trees but it is not forest or timberland. Most of the trees on the site are oak and
eucalyptus, planted by Stanford, therefore, the proposed project will result in a less than significant impact on the
City andlor Regional agricultural resources, forest land, and timberland.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
C AIR QUALITY .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No SignlOcant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
IncorDorated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation 1,5 X of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 1,5,7 X
substantially to an existing or projected air
Quality violation?
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 8 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact -
Would tbe project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,5,7 X increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone I
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels 1,5 X
of pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 1,5 X substantial number of people?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto uses the threshold of significance established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) to assess air quality impacts. Based on the BAAQMD screening level, projects that are less
than 259,000 square feet for construction activities and 553,000 square feet in operational activities are not
considered major air pollutant contributors and do not require a technical air quality study. As this project could
result in the eventual construction of approximately 52,000 square feet, no air quality report was prepared.
In the case of any future development of the site, to further red.uce temporary air quality impacts from demolition
of the existing structure(s), excavation of soil, and other construction activities on the subject site, the project
proponent andlor contractor will implement the following standard construction measures, recommended for all
proposed projects in accordance with BAAQMD requirements, to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving the
site.
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods to prevent visible
dust from leaving the site; active areas adjacent to windy periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses
shall be kept damp at all times, or shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of
freeboard;
• Pave, apply water at least three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,
parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep daily (or more often if necessary) to prevent visible dust from leaving the site (preferably with water
sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and-staging areas at construction sites; water sweepers shall
vacuum up excess water to avoid runoff-related impacts to water quality; and
• Sweep streets daily, or more often if necessary (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets.
MitigatioD Measures: NODe Required
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 9 Initial Study
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
t)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would tbe project: . Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incoroorated
Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1,2-MapNI, X
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
5, 16
or special status species in local or regional .
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department ofFish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any 1,2-MapNI, X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
5,16
policies, regulations or by the California
Department ofFish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service? .
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 1 ,2-MapN 1 , X
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 5,16
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of I ,2-MapNI , X any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 5,16
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nurserv sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2,3,4,5,6 X
protecting biological resources, such as a tree 16, 17 preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted 1,5,16 X Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
Riparian Corridor
The riparian corridor of the San Francisquito Creek is located in relative close proximity to the project. Riparian
woodland occurs as a band of native and non-native trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation along the creek bank
and on low-elevation gravel deposits. The riparian habitat is one of the highest value habitats for wildlife species
diversity and abundance in California. The riparian vegetation occurs primarily within the stream bank which is
located approximately 80 feet from the project. the proposed project would not directly impact the riparian
corridor, but due to its close proximity to the corridor, mitigation measures D-8 and D-9 are recommended to
ensure that no indirect impacts occur.
No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects and plant species have been identified at the project site.
Trees
The project site is located in an undeveloped area of annual grassland and upland landscape trees. There are
91 trees within the project area. Many of these trees would be potentially impacted by the proposed
development. Some of the trees would need to be relocated or removed to accommodate the proposed
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 10 Initial Study
building, surface parking area, and other site improvements such as the trash enclosure, pedestrian pathways,
a new driveway access, and new landscape improvements. A total of 70 trees would be removed and 15
those trees would be transplanted and randomly layered between the creek and the new building. Of the
existing 91 trees, 21 would remain on site and be protected during construction. A total of 30 new trees
would be planted in the project. Mostofthe trees to be removed are non-native eucalyptus trees. Only seven
protected oak trees would be removed, three of which would be retained by transplanting them just off site,
behind the new building. These transplanted trees would also serve as a native vegetation buffer between the
proposed project and the riparian corridor.
Palo Alto's Regulated Trees
The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code regulates specific types of trees on public and private property for the'
. purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without first being reviewed and permitted by the City's
Planning or Public Works Departments. Three categories within the status of regulated trees include protected
trees (PAMC 8.10), public trees (PAMC 8.04.020) and designated trees (PAMC 18.76, when so provisioned
to be saved and protected by a discretionary approval.)
Palo Alto Municipal Code Tree Preservation Ordinance
Chapter 8.10 of the Municipal Code (the Tree Preservation Ordinance) protects a category of Regulated
Trees, on public or private property from removal or disfigurement. The Regulated Tree category includes:
• Protected Trees. Includes all coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak trees 11.5 inches or
greater in diameter, coast redwood trees 18 inches or greater in diameter, and heritage trees
designated by the City Council according to any of the following provisions: it is an outstanding
specimen of a desirable species; it is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto; or it possesses
distinctive form, size, age, location, andlor historical significance.
• Street Trees. Also protected are City-owned street trees (all trees growing within the street right-of
way, outside of private property)
• Designated Trees. Designated trees are established by the City when a project is subject to
discretionary design review process by the Architecture Review Board that under Municipal Code
Chapter 18.76.020(d)(I I) includes as part of the findings of review, "whether natural features are
appropriately preserved and integrated with the project." Outstanding tree specimens contributing to
the existillg site, neighborhood or community, and that have a rating of "High" Suitability for
Preservation as reflected in Table 3.6-1 would constitute a typical designated tree.
Palo Alto Tree Preservation Guidelines
For all development projects within the City of Palo Alto, discretionary or ministerial, a Tree Disclosure
Statement (TDS) is part of the submittal checklist to establish and verifY trees that exist on the site, trees that
overhang the site originating on an adjacent property, and trees that are growing in a City easement, parkway,
or publicly owned land. The TDS stipulates that a Tree Survey is required (for multiple trees), when a Tree
Preservation Report is required (development within the dripline of a Regulated Tree), and who may prepare
these documents. The City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (Tree Technical Manual) describes acceptable
procedures and standards to preserve Regulated Trees, including:
• The protection of trees during construction;
• If allowed to be removed, the acceptable replacement strategy;
• Maintenance of protected trees (such as pruning guidelines);
• Format and procedures for tree reports; and
• Criteria for determining whether a tree is a hazard.
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page II Initial Study
Site Tree Resources Impact Assessmeut
An Initial Tree Impact Analysis (prepared by Walter Levison Consulting Arborist) identified 91 trees of
various species on the subject property. The following breakdown was ascertained by staff:
• Protected trees. Of the 91 trees, 14 trees are defined as protected ordinance size trees within the
formal project site. They include #13, 14,35,36,37,38,40,42,43,51,53,57,60 and 62. The total
appraised value of the ordinance size protected trees is $157,840. The roadway footprint is located on
the location of a large protected coast live oak #42 representing a conflict with the tree ordinance. The
tree has defects, but according to the project arborist, it appears to be healthy enough to remain. Two
ordinance size oak trees (#37 and 38) are at risk of destruction from ihe new driveway extension and
bike path. An alternative. to destruction and preservation of these two trees is relocation to an
optimum area of the site with sufficient room to allow continued growth .
. ,-.
• Protected oak trees #53 and 35 are significant trees that shall remain protected with focused site
plarming. Oak #35 is a fine specimen functioning as a significant aesthetic and biological resource
and screen tree. Specific roadway mitigation design shall be implemented to enable the retention of
this tree. Bike path alignment shall also be designed to avoid significant impact to Oak #35 roots. Oak
# 53, along the creek side of the proposed building perimeter, is a healthy oak of significant character
and function providing screen, shade and environmental benefits from the western sun exposure.
Sufficient root clearance, canopy clearance shall be afforded the tree, as well as specific measures in
the tree protection report to ensure the tree's survival.
• Public trees. Of the 91 trees, several are defined as publicly owned street trees due to being situated
within the public right-of-way along Sand Hill Road. These are required to be protected in place. If a
public tree is approved to be removed, it would require mitigation replacement sufficient to offset the
net loss to years of public resource investment and several more years of future growth for parity with
infrastructure benefits (Co2 reduction, extended asphalt life, water mgmt., etc.) currently provided by
the trees.
• Designated trees. The California Black Walnut #48 has been designated as a tree of high value
because of its Aesthetic prominence and visibility to the Sand Hill Road and Stanford Shopping
Center.
The City Tree Technical Manual (TIM) development guidelines require the appraised value for each tree to
be presented with the development application for the purpose of identifying asSet value, security bond
i.ncentive for protection and care and/or damage or replacement value in the event of a destroyed tree. Trees
classified as protected trees have a combined value of$157,840.
The tree evaluation report identifies mitigation measures to be incorporated in the plans to reduce the
potertilal impact on protected and public trees. These include Design Review, advising tree protection zone
setback clearances for buildings and grading, above ground measures for walkways, structures, landscaping
and flatwork.
Summary
The tree inventory and evaluation, inclusive of the design guidelines and preliminary protection measures
submitted for the project have been deemed adequate for the assessment and scope of this environmental
study, dependent upon forthcoming project site information, additional staff recommendations, precautions
and the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential impact on protected and public tree resources to
a less than significant level. Trees to be relocated qualify under the tree ordinance as 'retained' providing that
specific mitigation measures are drafted (see Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan) and a security guarantee is
secured in the event a relocated tree dies (see Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee).
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 12 Initial Study
Black Walnut
California Black Walnut #48 is a fine specimen with significant aesthetic and habitat value, prominently
visible to Sand Hill Road and Stanford Shopping Center. Its age is estimated to· be at the century mark and is
a healthy tree of sound stature. The tree is 52.5 inches in diameter, 55 feet high and 90 foot canopy spread.
Intrinsic qualities of this tree are many and profound, equaling the criteria found in the city's HeritageTree
program, PAMC 8.10.090. A tree may be designated as a heritage tree by city council finding that it is unique
and of importance to the community due to any of the following factors: (I) it is an outstanding specimen of a
desirable species; (2) it is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto; (3) it possesses distinctive form, size,
age, location, and/or historical significance.
Recognizing that the tree meets the criteria for a potential of either a Heritage Tree, or to be protected in place
as a condition of discretionary approval by the Director, staff has detennined the California Black Walnut #48
is of equal value to the tree. ordinance category (oaks, redwoods). This designation does not imply the tree
cannot be removed but, if so, it would be mitigated by applying the Tree Value Replacement Method,
outlined in the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00.
Breeding Birds
All nesting migratory birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and various CDFG codes.
Construction has the potential to directly impact nesting birds during vegetation removal if any are present.
Noise from construction may cause nesting birds to abandon eggs or chicks.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure D-I: Prepare a Tree Preservation Report for all trees to be retained. Activity within the
driplirie of ordinance-regulated oak trees requires mitigation to be consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by a certified arborist
shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the City Urban Forester. For reference clarity, the tree survey shall
include (list and field tag) all existing trees within the project area, including adjacent trees overhanging the site.
The approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to City
Urban Forester. The TPR shall be based on latest plans and amended as needed to address activity or within the
dripline area of any existing tree to be preserved, including incidental work (utilities trenching, street work,
lighting, irrigation, etc.) that may affect the health of a preserved tree. The project shall be modified to address
recommendations identified to reduce impacts to existing ordinance:regulated and other trees to be retained. The
TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the tree preservation ordinance, PAMC 8.10.030 and the City
Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environmentlurban_canopy.asp.
To avoid improvements that may be detrimental to the health of regulated trees, the TPR shall review the
applicant's landscape plan to ensure the new landscape is consistent with Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and
Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks. The project site arborist will also review the plans submitted for
building permit to verilY in writing that all final design review measures to protect trees are incorporated into the
plans.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the construction impacts to protected and retained trees
to a less than signifkant level.
Mitigation Measure D-2: Prepare a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan for protected and non-protected trees to be
relocated. Because of inherent mortality associated with the process of moving mature trees, a Tree Relocation
and Maintenance Plan (TRMP) shall be prepared subject to Urban Forester's approval. The project sponsor shall
submit a TRMP to determine the feasibility of moving the Protected Trees to an appropriate location on this site.
Feasibility shall consider current site and tree conditions, a tree's ability to tolerate moving, relocation measures,
optimum needs for the new location, aftercare, irrigation, and other long-term needs.
If the relocated trees do not survive after a period of five years, the tree canopy shall be replaced with a tree of
equivalent size or security deposit value. The TRMP shall be inclusive of the following minimum infonnation:
50 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page 13 Initial Study
appropriate irrigation, monitoring inspections, post relocation tree maintenance and for an annual arborist report
of the condition of the relocated trees. If a tree is disfigured,leaning with supports needed, in decline with a dead
top or dieback of more than 25%, the tree shall be considered a total loss and replaced in kind and size. The final
annual arborist report shall serve as the basis for return ofthe tree security deposit.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the relocation risk potential impact of the protected and
non-protected trees to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 0-3: Provide a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The natural tree resources on the
site include significant protected trees and neighborhood screening, including 15 trees proposed for relocation.
Prior to building permit submittal, the Tree Security Deposit for the total value of the relocated trees, as
referenced in the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.26, Security Deposits, shall be posted to the City Revenue
Collections in a form acceptable by the City Attorney. As a security measure, the project shall be subject to a
Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Palo Alto and the Applicant describing a tree retention
amount,list of trees, criteria and timeline for return of security, and conditions as cited in the Record of Land Use
Action for the project. The applicant and project arborist shall coordinate with the City Urban Forester to
determine the amount of bonding required to guarantee the protection and/or replacement of the regulated trees on
the site during construction and within five years after occupancy. The applicant shall bond for 150% of the value
for the relocated trees, and 50% of the value of the remaining trees to be protected during construction (as
identified in the revised and final approved Tree Protection Report). The applicant shall provide the proposed
level of bonding as listed in the Tree Value Table, with the desctiption of each tree by number, value, and total
combined value of all the trees to be retained. A return of the guarantee shall be subject to an annual followed by
a final tree assessment report on all the relocated and retained trees from the project arborist as approved by the
City Urban Forester, five years following final inspection for occupancy, to the satisfaction of the director.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the potential security risk to retained trees to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measure 0-4: Retain protected oak trees #53 and #35 with focused site planning. Oak #35 is a fine
specimen functioning as a significant aesthetic and biological resource and screen tree. Specific roadway
mitigation design shall be implemented to enable the retention of this tree. Oak # 53, along the creek side of the
building perimeter, is a healthy oak of significant character and function to provide screen, shade and
environmental benefits from the western sun exposure. Sufficient root clearance, canopy clearance shall be
afforded the tree, as well as specific measures in the tree protection report to ensure the tree's survival.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact to Oaks #57 and 35 to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measure 0-5: Provide monetary in-lieu fee for protected trees that carmot be relocated and will not
survive construction, after all design options have been exhausted consistent with the Tree Technical Manual,
Section 3.00, Tree Value Replacement Standard. The appraised value of protected trees that are inadvertently
removed shall be paid to the City of Palo Alto Revenue Collections, Forestry Fund, prior to building permit
issuance.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the potential loss of protected trees to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measure 0-6: Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of any public trees along Sand Hill
Road. As mitigation to offset the net loss for years of public resource investments and minimize the future years
to parity with infrastructure benefits (Co2 reduction, extended asphalt life, water mgmt., etc.) currently provided
by the trees, the new Sand Hill Road frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design and materials to
include the following elements:
50 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page 14 Initial Study
• Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume resources.
• Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact of the loss of public trees to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measure D-7: Provide monetary in-lieu fee for Designated California Black Walnut # 48 that is too
large to be relocated and is within the project footprint. The appraised value of Walnut #48 consistent with the
Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, Tree Value Replacement Standard shall be paid to the City of Palo Alto
Revenue Collections, Forestry Fund, prior to building permit issuance.
Mitigation Measure D-8: Prior to construction, the limits of work along San Francisquito Creek shall be
demarcated with plastic construction mesh fencing and silt fencing. The fencing must be in place prior to-any site
improvements and only removed when all construction work is completed.
Mitigation Measure D-9: The proposed setback area between the creek top-of-bank and the development shall be
revegetated with native riparian plant species (trees and shrubs) to buffer the creek resources. Native riparian
trees and shrubs shall be used, such as coast live oak, valley oak, western sycamore, blue elderberry, toyon, coffee
berry, and California wild rose.
Mitigation Measure D-IO: Construction shall be scheduled to occur between August 15 and March 15 of any
given year, which is outside the nesting season for this area. If this is not possible, a qualified biologist shall
conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting birds. If nesting birds are observed, buffer zone shall be established
where no construction will take place until the biologist has determined that all chicks have fledged. The buffer
zone shall be 50 feet for passerines and 200 feet for raptors.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
E CULTURAL RESOURCES .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources PotentiaUy PotentiaUy Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) CauSe a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-MapL7, X significance of a historical resource as defined 8 in 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-X
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.57 MapL8,I8
0) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique . l,2-MapL8, X paleontological resource or site or unique 18
~ealo~ic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-X
interred outside offorrnal cemeteries? MapL8,18
DISCUSSION:
The project is located on land designated as "Extreme sensitivity" for archeological reSOurces. The proposed
development of the site includes a below grade parking garage that would involve excavation at the site.
Excavation of the soil has the potential of disturbing archeological resources that may be in the ground. The
Archeological Analysis determined that there was a high potential that prehistoric archeological materials may
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 15 Initial Study
extend into the project area. It has recommended that a program of mechanical subsurface presence testing be
done inside areas where deep excavation is planned to search for archeological deposits.
The following standard project conditions, consistent with State and County regulations, would be included in any
future development permit. .
I. Should evidence of prehistoric cultural resources be discovered during construction, work within 50 feet of
the find shall be stopped, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be notified, and the
applicant shall hire a qualified professional archaeologist to examine the find to make appropriate
recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate measures needed.
Recommendations could include collection, recordation and analysis of any significant cultural materials.
Prior to obtaining a Use and Occupancy permit, a report of findings documenting any data recovered during
monitoring shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
2. In the event that human skeletal remains are encountered, the applicant is required by County Ordinance No.
B6-18 to immediately notify the County Coroner and the Director of Plarming and Community Environment.
Upon determination by the County Coroner that the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall contact
the California Native American Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the
Health and Safety Code and the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. No further disturbance of the site may
be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs in accordance with the provisions
of State law and the Health and Safety Code.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure E-I: A program of mechanical subsurface presence testing shall be conducted. Depending
on the findings, a more comprehensive program of evaluation of significance of the deposits may be
recommended in order to devise a responsible program of mitigation of impacts through data recovery excavation·
combined with archeological monitoring of all earthmoving activities to identify, record andlor remove significant
archeological materials and to limit damage to human remains and associated grave goods which may be
encountered during construction related excavation. Presence/absence testing would be limited to a series of
trenches. Based on findings, a plan for further evaluative testing and/or mitigation would be prepared.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Would tbe project:
a) Expose people or
substantial adverse effects,
iii)
as
delineated on the most recent Alquist
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Publication 42.
ground failure, including
50 El Camino Real Rewne Application
2-MapN5
Significant
Issues
Page 16
x
Initial Study
b)
d)
e)
f)
iv) Landslides? 2-MapN5 X
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 1,15 X
topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 2-MapN5,15 x
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 2-MapN5,15 x
Table 18-I-B ofthe Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting I X
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water "disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
DISCUSSION:
The site is not located within a Geologic Hazard Zone or Liquefaction Zone. However, the project site is located
within the seismically active San Francisco region, which requires that buildings be designed and built in
conformance with the requirements of the 2010 California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. According to the
Comprehensive Plan map N-5 the project is located in an area of expansive soils. Expansive soils can present
engineering challenges for seismic safety. The Geotechnical investigation has determined that the soils have a
low expansion potential when subject to fluctuations in moisture. It is recommended that the adjacent ground
surface promote proper drainage a diversion of water away from the structure. The potential for geologic and
soils impacts resulting from conditions on the site can be controlled by utilizing standard engineering and
construction techniques. The project would include these required building code measures, the potential for
seismic impacts will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
G GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unles. Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either 1,5,7 X
directly' or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or 1,5,7 X
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
DISCUSSION:
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and
national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards. SFBAAB's nonattairunent
status is attributed to the region's development history. Past, present and future development projects contribute
to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a
cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself; result in nonatlainment of ambient air
quality standards. Instead, a project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse
50 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page 17 Initial Study
air quality impacts. If a project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project's impact
on air quality would be considered significant.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) has established project level screening criteria to
assist in the evaluation of impacts. The proposed "Hospital Accessory Facility" is most similar to a hotel use.
Under the project screening criteria for a hotel project, 83 rooms is the trigger to require that the lead agency
perform a detailed air quality assessment. The proposed project includes 70 guest rooms. This is below the
BAAQMD screening criteria level. The rezoning would not result in a project that would be considered as
contributing to a cumulative impact, and would be considered to have a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
H HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5,6, X environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5,6, X
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 1,2-X
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or MapCI,S,6
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or , proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list 1,2-MapN9 X
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use 1 X plan or, where such a plan has not been .
adopted, within two miles of a P1Jblic airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in . the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private I X
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the
pr"ject area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically 1,2-X
interfere with an adopted emergency response MapN7,6
plan or emerj!ency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2-X
ofloss, injury, or death involving wildland MapN7,6
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 18 Initial Study
DISCUSSION:
The City has Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements (posted on the City's website) based on the model
Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance (HMSO) developed in 1982 and adopted by all cities and the county i~
Santa Clara County in 1983. The HMSO established the quantities of 55 gallons (liquids), 500 pounds (solids), or
200 cubic feet (compressed gases) for a specific hazardous material as the threshold for filing a Hazardous
Materials Management Plan (HMMP) and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (HMIS). Below the
threshold, a facility could file a Short Form HMMP (now called a Registration Form). For new construction, the
City's Fire Department (the regulatory entity for the use and handling of hazardous materials) uses the general
quantities of 10 gallons, 100 pounds, or 200 cubic feet as thresholds of nominal use, below which no specific
permits or special construction would be required; above these levels, the thresholds in Chapter 27 of the
California Fire Code would be applied on a site-specific case-by-case basis, with permits and special construction
required for use levels above those specified in the model HMSO. (Certain exceptions include any quantity of
gases regulated under the Toxic Gas ordinance, which must be reported on the HMIS. Other hazardous materials
. below the reporting threshold may be required to be reported if they present an unusual hazard, such as water
reactive materials, or materials that are highly toxic, radioactive, carcinogenic or explosive.)
The proposed development of the site would. meet the current requirements for hazardous material s~orage per the
Palo Alto Municipal Code, California Fire Code and Health and Safety Code.
The current proposal to expand the RMH would not disturb contaminated soil or result in the exposure of humans
to hazardous materials, therefore, the project will have a less-than-signijlcant impact as it relates to hazards and
hazardous materials.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
I. HYDROLOGY ANDWATEROUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorn.rated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,2,5 X dischar~e reauirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 2-X interfere substantially with groundwater MapN2, recharge such that there would be a net deficit 15 in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been ~rantedl?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,5,15,16 X of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,5,15,16 X of the site or area, including through the
alteration ofthe course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in floodinl! on-or off-site?
50 EI Camino ~eal Rezone Application Page 19 Initial Study
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,5 X exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stonnwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoft'l
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,5 X
g) Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard 2-MapN6 X area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area 2-MapN6 X
i)
j)
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk 2-MapN8 X
ofloss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or darn or being located within a IOO-year
flood hazard area?
[nundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2-MapN6 X
DISCUSSION:
• FloodinglDrainage
According to comprehensive plan Map N-8 the project would be located in an area that could potential1y be
inundated by flood flows as a result of dam failure.
Per Chapter 16.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code submittal of a final grading and drainage plan for City
approval is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. The application of standard grading, drainage, and
erosion control measures as part of the approved grading and drainage plan would reduce the potential for site
runoff to cause erosion or siltation that could degrade water quality. Implementation of the required NPDES
SWPPP and the Soil Management Plan and Remedial rusk Management Plan, as monitored and enforced during
construction by the City of Palo Alto, would ensure compliance with stormwater quality standards and would
ensure the project creates a less than significant impact.
• Water Quality -During and Post-Coustruction
The project shall comply with the storm water regulations cOlltained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal
stann water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and
incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development
projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential
permanent impacts of a project on storm water quality, the applicant would incorporate into a project a set of
pennanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality,
subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shal1 identify, size, design and incorporate
pennanent storm water pol1ution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based· treatment controls such as
bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term
maintenance) to treat the runofffrom a "water quality storm" specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge
to the municipal storm drain system. In addition, the applicant would designate a party to maintain the control
measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City. The City
would inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee.
Implementation of the fol1owing standard measures, consistent with NPDES Permit and City Ordinance
requirements, would reduce potential construction impacts to surface water quality to less than significant levels:
50 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page 20 Initial Study
1. Prior to issuance of a Use & Occupancy pennit, an Elevation Certificate based on finished construction is
required for each built structure.
2. Prior to issuance of a Building pennit, the project applicant shall submit a certification by a qualified third
party reviewer that the design of the project complies with the requirements of PAMC Chapter 16.11.
3. Pri.or to issuance of a Use & Occupancy pennit, the project applicant shall submit a certification by a qualified
third-partY reviewer that the project's pennanent stonn water pollution prevention measures were constructed
or installed in accordance with the approved plans.
4. Before submittal of plans for a building pennit, the applicant shall submit a drainage plan which includes
drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties.
5. The Applicant shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP's) to be incorporated into a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. The SWPPP shall include both temporary BMP's to be
implemented during demolition and construction.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
J LAND USE AND PLANNING .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Le .. Than No
a)
b)
c)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Physically divide an established community? 1,5 X
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 1,2,3,4,5 X
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted .
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat 1,2 X
conservation pJan or natural community
conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
Projects that have the potential to physically divide an established community include new freeways and
highways, major arterials streets, and railroad lines. The proposed project will not physically divide an
established community.
The project would conflict with the existing zoning and Land Use Designations of the propertY. The rezoning
request is accompanied by a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation as well as a
Conditional Use Pennit for the facility.
Zone Change
The site is currently zoned Community Commercial with a Landscape combining district (CC(L» and the
proposed project necessitates the rezoning to Public Facility. The proposed use, "hospital accessory facility,"
would allow families of patients receiving treatment at the Lucille Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH) a place to
stay during the treatment period. The site of the existing RMH is zoned PF, and has the same use as is requested
for the new adjacent site.
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 21 Initial Study
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The proposed project includes a request to modify the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Streamside Open
Space to Major Institution/Special Facilities. RMH is considered an auxiliary function of the Lucile Packard
Children's Hospital. Due to the unique nature of its use as a non-profit community facility, the Special Facilities
Land Use designation appears to be the most appropriate one for the project.
Conditional Use Permit
The permitted land uses in the PF zone are facilities owned or leased by a governmental agency, park uses, and
uses incidental to park operations. The RMH facility has been categorized as a hospital accessory facility. This
use is not specifically listed as a conditionally allowed use in the PF zone. However, similar uses are
conditionally allowed in the PF zone. Conditionally Permitted uses in the PF zone include both hospitals and
outpatient medical facilities associated with medical research. Section 18.28.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) allows the Director to determine this use to be similar to a permitted or conditionally permitted
use .. The RMH has been deemed to be similar to these uses since 1989 and therefore, the additional floor and site
area for this use can be allowed via the CUP.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
K MINERAL RESOURCES .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Resultin the loss of availability of a known 1,2 X
mineral resource that would be of value to the .
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-1,2 X important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of
California Geological Survey (CGS) as a Mineral Resource Zone I (MRZ-l). This designation signifies that
there are no aggregate resources in the area. The CGS has not classified the City for other resources. There is
no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources
within the City of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
L NOISE .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than NoImpact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1,2,10,14 X
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 22 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated .
b) Exposure of persons to or genetation of 1,2,10,14 X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial pennanent increase in ambient .
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
1,2,10,14 X
existin2 without the nroiect?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2,10,14 X
e)
t)
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existin. without the project?
Fora project located·within an airport land use I . X plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private I X airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
DISCUSSION:
Noise Impacts
Section 9.10.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code limits noise generation to no more than eight dB above the
local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. The Noise Study conducted by Environmental
Consulting Services found that any potential sources of project noise, such as outdoor play activities and traffic
noise would not violate the city of Palo Alto's noise ordinance. The project would not increase existing noise at
the site; therefore there are no noise impacts associated with the project.
Temporary construction of a future project that complies with the Noise Ordinance could result in impacts that are
expected to be less than significant. Although not identified as a significant impact under CEQA, the project, per
Section 9.10.060, would include the following measures as Conditions of Approval.
• Construction hours shall be limited to 8:00am to 8:00pm Monday through Friday and 9:00am to 6:00pm
on Saturdays. No construction is allowed on Sundays or Holidays as specified in Title 9 of the Muni
Code. .
• No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding one hundred ten dBA at a
distance of twenty-five feet.
• The noise level at any point outside of the property plane ofthe project shall not exceed 90 dBA.
• Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this pennit, along
with the name and telephone number of a developer appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in
a prominent location at the entrance to the job site.
Mitigation Measures: None Reqnired
50 EI Camino Real Rewne Application Page 23 Initial Study
M POPULATION AND HOUSING .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Induce substantial population growth in an I X
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing I X
housing, necessitating the construction of
repiacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, I X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
DISCUSSION:
The project does not displace existing housing or induce substantial population growth. The proposal includes 70
units for temporary lodging.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
N PUBLIC SERVICES .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
W ouid the project resuit in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmenta; facilities, .
need for new or physically aitered governmentai
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,2-X
MapN7
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? 1 . ·X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project site is located in a developed area ofthe City, where public services are already available.
The proposed project would not impact fire service to the area and the site is not located in a high fire hazard area.
The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The project would not by itself
50 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page 24 [nitial Study
result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. The City's development impact fees are
also applicable to address any demands on City facilities.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
O. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than NoImpact Significant Significant Significant
Would tbe project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of I X
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational I X facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would house families that may use parks or other City facilities but the number of users and
the amount of use is anticipated to be small such that it would not create impacts to existing City recreational
facilities.
Mitigation Measures: NoneRequired
P TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sourees Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance 1,5,11 X
Or policy established measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion 1,5,11 X
management program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
50 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page 25 Initiai Study
c)
d)
e)
f)
Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1,5,11 X
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a 1,5,11 X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.~., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,5,11 X
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1,2,5,11 X
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of such facilities?
DISCUSSION:
The traffic study, prepared by Sandis Engineers, analyzed the potential traffic and transportation related impacts
associated with the expansion of the existing RMH.
Intersection Traffic Signal Operations
The results of the analysis of existing plus project conditions indicated that the four signalized intersections are
forecast to continue operating at existing LOS with minimal changes in critical delay and capacity ratios. All
intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an LOS A-C during the morning peak and evening peak
. evening periods and not experience any adverse traffic related impacts.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic
The proposed expansion is expected to generate some amount of both bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The facility
is within one half mile of both the Lucile Packard and Stanford Hospitals as well as the Stanford Shopping
Center. There is an exclusive bike/pedestrian path paralleling SandHill Road past the project site as well as
numerous other pedestrian and bicycle facilities located throughout the Stanford Campus which all combine
together to provide a very bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment. The proposed expansion will add some
traffic but would not impact any facilities. The existing path on the northerly side of Sand Hill Road adjacent to
the site will be required to cross the project's new driveway but this will be controlled with traffic signals.
Parking
The project would include 69 new parking spaces associated with the new 70 room expansion. Of these, 30
would be surface parking at grade and the remaining 39 would be located in a garage under the new building. The
existing 47 facility has 64 parking spaces exceeding the code requirement of one space per guest room by 17
spaces. The two projects together would have a total of 117 rooms and 133 parking spaces. The combined
project would exceed the code requirement by 16 spaces.
Site Access
A new driveway would be provided at the expansion site as the extension of London Plane Way which will
provide direct access from Sand Hill Road to the new surface. parking area and an underground garage. The
intersection of London Plane Way with Sand Hill Road is currently signalized and the new driveway will simply
become the fourth leg of a fully signalized intersection. Review of the LOS analysis shows the intersection is
forecast to operate acceptably with the project by City standards (LOS D or better). However, the median in Sand
Hill Road wiIl need to be modified to provide a left hand tum pocket and the signals will have to be modified to
accommodate the new driveway with an exclusive eastbound left tum pocket.
Mitigation: None Required
50 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page 26 Initial Study
..
Q UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .
Issues and Supporting Information Resourees Sources Poteniially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would tbe project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 1,5,6 X
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new 1,5,6 X
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new 1,5,6 X
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to 1,5,6 X
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements.needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,5,6 X
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 1,5,6 X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
proiect's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1,5,6 X
and regulations related to solid waste?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed rezoning project would not require construction of new facilities for wastewater treatment, storm
drainage, water, or waste disposal. The subject site is located within the City of Palo Alto where adequate Utility
facilities exist, and have the capacity to serve the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
50 EI Camino Real Rezone Application Page 27 Initial Study
R MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
a)
b)
c)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incoroorated
Does the project have the potential to 1,2,3,5,8,18 X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples ofthe major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are 1,5 X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects oforobable future nroiects)?
Does the project have environmental effects 1,5 X
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectlv?
DISCUSSION:
The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal. The proposed project would not eliminate an important example of California history.
The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable nor does it have
substantial environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either. directly or
indirectly. The project is located within an existing urban area in an urbanized City. The project would not result
in considerable effects to the environment.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 -Zoning Ordinance
4. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001
5. Project Plans, dated received November 7, 2012
6. Departmental communication/memos such as Transportation, Fire, Utilities, Public Works, Building, and
Arborist that address environmental issues.
7. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June 2011
8. Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory
50 El Camino Real Rezone Application Page2S initiai Study
9. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
10. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10-Noise Ordinance
11. Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Sandis, May 17,2012
12. Important Farmland in California Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource
Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2010.
13. Agricultural Preserves Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources·Protection.
14. Noise Impact Study, prepared by Environmental Consulting Services, May 16,2012
15. Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Silicon Valley Soil Engineering, May 11,2012
16. Biological Report, prepared by Biotic Resources Group, May 22, 2012
17. Arborist Report, prepared by Walter Levison, November 15,2011
18. Archeological Analysis, Sandis Engineers, May 10,2012
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD·NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that althongh the proposed project could have a significant effect on the X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project propon~nt. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pnrsuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets., An ENVmONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
bnt it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier Em or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Em or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required. .
Russ Reich, Senior Planner Date
50 E1 Camino Real Rezone Application Page 29 Initial Study