HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3813
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3813)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/3/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Appeal of 260 California Avenue Architectural Review
Approval
Title: Appeal of the Director of the Planning and Community Environment’s
Architectural Review Approval of a 3-story, 27,000 s.f. building, including
Design Enhancement Exceptions for a zero rear property line setback (at New
Mayfield Lane) and a 42-foot tall stair tower (five feet over the 37 foot height
limit) within the CC-2-R-P zone district, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
at 260 California Avenue
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends a Council MOTION to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment
D) and the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment A) for Architectural Review Approval
of a new three-story, approximately 27,000 sq. ft. commercial/retail building, including design
enhancement exceptions for rear yard setback and height limit encroachments.
Executive Summary
Council is requested to approve the Architectural Review application for a three-story
commercial project in the California Avenue Business District. The PCE Director’s April 22, 2013
approval (Attachment B) was appealed on May 6, 2013. The Palo Alto Municipal Code specifies
a two-step Council review process when the Director’s decision on an Architectural Review (AR)
application is appealed; the first step is Consent Calendar approval, or removal from Consent
Calendar by three Councilmembers to set a hearing. The appeal letter (Attachment G) cites
concerns related to noticing, traffic, parking, and alley access; these topics are addressed in the
report. The appellant is located beyond the 600 feet of the project site, which is why he did not
receive a mailed notice card for the ARB public hearings of the project and did not attend those
hearings.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Background
Site Information
The project site is comprised of two parcels located on California Avenue within the California
Avenue Business District. The combined lot area of the two parcels is approximately 13,509
square feet (sf). The site is located mid-block on the north side of the street between Birch
Street and Park Boulevard, within the Community Commercial Zone District with Retail and
Pedestrian Combining Districts (CC(2)(R)(P)). A site map is provided as Attachment G. The
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation is Community Commercial.
The site is currently occupied by an 11,290 sf, one-story building, built in 1961 as a Purity
Market. Use of the site as a restaurant and/or nightclub began in 1973; these businesses were:
Club Illusions (2005), Icon Super Club (1998), The Edge (1990), The Vortex (1986), Keystone
(1977), and Zinzinnati Oom Pah Pah (1973). Grocery use of the site prior to 1973 included The
New Age Natural Foods and Deli (1970) and the G and A Super Market (1969). To the west of
the property is a two-story retail and office building, and to the east is a single-story building in
use as a dry cleaner. To the north of the site, a public access alleyway known as New Mayfield
Lane provides access to an adjacent two-story public parking garage. The site includes five on-
site parking spaces, and has been assessed for 56 parking spaces. The five parking spaces are
accessible via the New Mayfield Lane, and are located between a dining patio next to the
California Avenue sidewalk and the rear of the property.
Project Description
The project is a new three-story building having approximately 27,000 sf of gross floor area, and
a lot line adjustment to merge the two parcels into one parcel of 13,509 sf. Retail floor area
and a parking facility would be located at ground floor level, and office space would be
provided at the second and third floors. Additional parking spaces are proposed one level
below grade. Vehicular access to the site would continue to be from New Mayfield Lane, the
alley located at the rear of the property.
At the street level, the retail storefront would be recessed back from the sidewalk while the
upper floors would protrude forward, supported by a series of columns forming a colonnade at
the ground floor. The colonnade would provide shade and weather protection for pedestrians
at the retail entries. The office lobby would be set farther back from the sidewalk, separated
from the retail storefronts, resulting in a deeply recessed entry lobby. The recessed area in
front of the lobby would be landscaped to soften the large side wall of the adjacent two-story
building. Exterior materials would include cement plaster walls, stone, metal column cladding
and shades. Clear, dual-glazed windows with deep mullions for shading would fill the openings.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The project would provide 41 vehicle parking spaces on site, while 56 assessed spaces are
already provided through the California Avenue Parking Assessment District, for a total of 97
vehicle parking spaces provided, where 94 spaces are required for the new building. The 41
spaces would consist of 13 covered spaces, provided at grade, and 28 spaces in the below grade
garage. Bicycle parking would be provided both at grade level in front of the building and in the
below grade garage.
The total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be 1.99:1, with 3,873 sq. ft. of retail space and 23,127
sq. ft. of office space. In the California Avenue District, structured parking, as an accessory use,
does not count against the allowable FAR. The project application includes two Design
Enhancement Exception (DEE) requests. One DEE request is to allow the building to exceed the
37-foot height limit by five feet, to align the stair tower with the adjacent elevator tower
height. The second DEE request would allow the building to encroach 20 feet into the 20 foot
required setback at the rear of the property. The existing structures on the sites would be
demolished and the two lots would be merged prior to building permit issuance.
In accordance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance, the applicant states that the building
would comply with the City’s locally amended California Green Building Code (Cal Green Tier 2
mandatory). The proposed office and retail uses are permitted uses and consistent with the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Architectural Review Board Review
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted a preliminary review on June 21, 2012, and a
public hearing on the formal application on December 20, 2012. All hearings were noticed in
the Palo Alto Weekly and via notice cards to property owners and tenants/residents within a
radius of 600 feet from the project site.
On December 20, 2013, the ARB voted 3-0-1-1 to recommend PCE Director approval. One ARB
member was absent and one member recused himself from voting. There were three public
speakers, who expressed concerns about construction impacts and parking issues. The speakers
were Momoyo Homma, Yuri Homma, and Cathy Lee; the appellant did not attend the meeting
or speak to the ARB. The ARB added a condition to require the applicant to finalize minor items
and details with staff, including additional bike parking, window and lighting details, and to
work with neighbors to create a construction logistics plan. The ARB staff report and draft
verbatim meeting minutes are provided as Attachment E and F, respectively.
The applicant requested a delay of the Director’s approval after the final public hearing and
recommendation by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), as he worked on several private
agreements with neighboring property/business owners regarding their construction related
City of Palo Alto Page 4
concerns.
A Council approval would uphold the Planning and Community Environment (PCE) Director’s
decision to approve the project (and deny the appeal). The City Council may only remove the
item from the Consent Calendar if three Council members vote to do so in order to schedule a
Council hearing of the project.
Discussion
The appeal letter (Attachment G), states the appellant’s concerns with public notice, traffic,
parking and alley access, discussed in the report sections below.
Adequate Notice
The appellant has stated that adequate notice was not provided for the project. Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.77.070 specifies that the City shall provide notice of the project,
notice of the hearing, and notice of the decision to residents and owners of properties within
600 feet of the subject property. For this project, these required notices were sent out.
Unfortunately the appellant’s residence is located over 1,580 feet from the subject property
and as such, the appellant did not receive a notice card in the mail. In addition to the three
separate cards that were mailed to occupants and owners within a 600 foot radius of the
project, there were several other City postings and advertisements. There was a newpaper ad
that was published 12 days in advance of the ARB hearing, a website posting of the ARB hearing
agenda 72 hours in advance of the hearing, and a physical posting of the ARB agenda on the
notice board on the City Hall Plaza. A copy of the agenda and project plans were provided at
four of the City’s public libraries, and a project notification sign wasposted at the subject
property. The project was appropriately noticed as required by the code.
Parking and Traffic
The appellant, stating concerns related to traffic and parking, noted that the applicant did not
conduct an adequate traffic analysis and that the project would not provide an adequate
number of parking spaces. The City’s threshold for a project to provide a detailed traffic
analysis is 50 net new peak hour vehicle trips. The traffic consultant conducted a trip
generation analysis and determined the project would result in only 35 net new peak hour
vehicle trips. Transportation staff has reviewed this analysis and determined it to be valid. This
is a small number of new trips and is below the City’s threshold to conduct a formal traffic
allaysis and below the level to trigger any impacts under the City’s traffic thresholds. Despite
being below this threshold, the consultant studied four local intersections to determine if the
project would impact them. The analysis determined that the new vehicular trips would not
impact the intersections, which would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The number of parking spaces required for a project is based on the gross floor area for the
proposed uses. Based upon the amount of office and retail square footage proposed, 94
parking spaces would be required. This project is located within the California Avenue Parking
Assement District. The purpose of the parking assement district is to provide off-site parking
spaces for the properties within the assesment district such that some or all of the parking
demand associated with a property is not required on-site. The property is currently assessed
for 56 parking spaces. The 56 spaces that the property is currently assessed for are deducted
from the 94 spaces required for the gross floor area, resulting in the requirement to provide 38
parking spaces on site. The project includes 41 parking spaces on site, exceeding the City’s
parking requirement by three spaces.
Alley Access
The appellant questioned the adequacy of vehicular access from the alley behind the building.
Staff determined that the rear alley (New Mayfield Lane) is the most appropriate location for
vehicles to access the site. The project is designed such that pedestrians may enter the building
from either the alley or from California Avenue but vehicles may only access the property from
the alley. Staff believes that vehicular access from California Avenue would be less desirable,
due to the greater volume of pedestrian foot traffic on the street, versus the alley. Placing a
driveway on California Avenue would increase opportunities for conflicts between pedestrians
and cars. At 20 feet, the alley width is more than adequate for vehicles to access the site. This
width provides opportunity for vehicles to pass, even when a delivery truck has parked in the
alley. While the project includes a DEE for rear setback encroachment up to the property line,
the ground floor of the building would not be built right up to the edge of the right of way.
Though the existing building is built to the edge of the right of way at grade level, the new
building would not be built to the edge. The project includes a surface parking lot, just off the
alley at the rear of the building, below the second and third floors. There are 41 parking spaces
proposed on site. This number of parking spaces is not anticipated to result in a line of cars
queuing up in the alley. There are many parking facilities in the California Avenue area that
provide hundreds of parking spaces, which don’t result in vehicle queues or backups. The Fire
Department has analyzed the application and has determined that adequate fire access has
been provided.
Resource Impact
The project will add 23,127 square feet of new office space and 3,873 square feet of new retail
space. The City would therefore receive annual revenues in the form of property taxes, sales
taxes, and utility user taxes, estimated in the $30,000 to $40,000 range per year. The current
nightclub/banquet/restaurant use has resulted in more than occasional demand for Police
services and code enforcement. The new project, with office and retail uses, would reduce the
need for Police Department services associated with this property.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
One-time revenues would include impact fees of approximately $359,410, but no documentary
transfer tax, as the property will not change hands.
On the expenditure side, the project’s net new commercial square footage is not likely to add
additional demand for City services. Any costs for services are anticipated to be offset by the
Development Impact Fees mentioned above. All application processing costs are covered as
part of the cost recovery application.
Environmental Review
Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment D) were prepared and circulated, with a
required 30-day public review and comment period that began December 14, 2012 and ended
on January 14, 2013. The environmental analysis provided in the Initial Study noted that the
soil and groundwater beneath portions of the project site have been contaminated by off-site
sources: the dry cleaner to the right, and the property to the left, which was once a gas station.
To prevent the migration of soil vapors into the project, a vapor barrier has been required as a
mitigation measure. Also included as mitigation measures are requirements to screen and
profile the excavated soil, to ensure that no contaminated soil is improperly disposed of, and to
off-haul any contaminated soil to a Class 2 landfill for disposal. These are the only mitigations
measures required for the project and implementation would reduce the potential impacts to a
level of less than significant.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (DOC)
Attachment B: 260 California Avenue Director's Approval Letter (PDF)
Attachment C: Applicant's Project Description Letter (PDF)
Attachment D: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declartion (PDF)
Attachment E: ARB Staff Report, December 20, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment F: Architectural Review Board Minutes of December 20, 2013 (DOC)
Attachment G: Appellant's Letter of Appeal (PDF)
Attachment H: Site Location Map (PDF)
Attachment I: Project Plans (TXT)
1
DRAFT
ACTION NO. 2013-02
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 260 CALIFORNIA AVENUE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 12PLN-00352
(HAYES GROUP, APPLICANT)
On June 3, 2013, the Council upheld the Director of
Planning and Community Environment’s April 22, 2013 decision to
approve the Architectural Review of a new three story,
approximately 27,000 square foot retail/office building at 260
California Avenue making the following findings, determination and
declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On December 20, 2012, following staff review, the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of a new
three story, approximately 27,000 square foot retail/office
building at 260 California Avenue.
B. On April 22, 2013, following the ARB’s recommendation
for approval, the Director of Planning and Community Environment
(Director) approved the project for a new three story,
approximately 27,000 square foot retail/office building at 260
California Avenue. Notices of the Director’s decision were mailed
notifying neighbors of the decision.
D. Within the prescribed timeframe, an appeal of the
Director’s decision was filed by Palo Alto resident Dan De Camp.
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 this project
subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA. The public notice period for the MND began on December
14, 2012 and concluded on January 14, 2013.
SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings.
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable
elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates quality
design that recognizes the regional importance of the area as
described in the Comprehensive Plan and reinforces its pedestrian
character.
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of
the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
Attachment A
2
project, proposed at three stories tall, fits into its midblock
location among an eclectic mix of commercial buildings of various
heights and massing. Other three story buildings are located
across the street with even taller buildings at the each end of the
commercial district. The building has been designed to encourage
pedestrian activity.
(3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the design
would accommodate the proposed residential office uses and retail
uses. The proposed building would have ample storefront glass,
recesses, and a colonnade to create an inviting pedestrian
environment.
(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 is not applicable in that it is not an area of different
land uses. It is a commercial building proposed within a
commercial district.
(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 new building is compatible with the existing context of
the California Avenue commercial area environment.
(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
building has been designed to provide pedestrian amenities at the
street level, outdoor balconies for the office users, and parking
off the alley for improved pedestrian safety on California Avenue.
(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 building has provided an
adequate amount of recesses as required in the zoning requirements
of the “P” overlay with the intent to add interest at the ground
floor for pedestrians as well as a number of balconies for the
upper floor office tenants.
(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
3
affirmative in that features such as trash enclosures, electrical
meters, and HVAC equipment have been designed to keep them out of
public view.
(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 project has been designed to
encourage pedestrian activity with recessed floor to ceiling
storefront and a covered colonnade for weather protection.
Pedestrian access is provided at the front and the rear of the
project as well as the ability to pass through the building from
California Avenue to New Mayfield Lane behind.
(11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated
with the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in
that all three of the existing street trees will be preserved.
(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 the
proposed colors and materials will add detail and interest and are
compatible with the commercial environment.
(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
landscape materials are used wherever possible to soften the
building and create a more inviting pedestrian experience at the
entry.
(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;
4
• Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping
and permeable paving;
• Use sustainable building materials;
• 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 incorporate many features included in the LEED project
checklist.
(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. Context Based Design Considerations and
Findings
(1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment. The design of new
projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly
environment, and connectivity through design elements. This finding
can be made in the affirmative in that the new building would
provide the ability for pedestrians to walk from the front of the
property to the rear through the building. the building can be
accessed both from the front on California Avenue or from the rear
at New Mayfield Lane. The proposal also incorporates ample floor
to ceiling storefront glass that is recessed from the sidewalk with
a covered colonnade for weather protection at the retail entries.
There are bike racks proposed at the sidewalk in front of the
building and in a designated area of the below grade parking
garage.
(2) Street building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to
provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s),
to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian
activity through design elements. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the building has been designed to encourage
pedestrian activity by providing ample storefront glass, a large
inviting covered entryway, and an articulated building mass facing
the street that differentiates the first floor pedestrian level
colonnade from the upper floors of the building. The building has
multiple entries with the upper floors having a prominent but
recessed entry while the retail entries are closer to the street
5
with a more pedestrian scale. There is also a landscape feature at
the front entry that will help to soften the large blank wall of
the adjacent building.
(3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to
minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can
be made in the affirmative in that the building would be designed
with an articulated base body and roof. The ground floor is
recessed back from the second floor with a pedestrian colonnade and
the projecting roof overhang is a significant visual element
capping the top of the building. The third floor is setback from
the second floor with a balcony at the front of the building with
punched recesses in the street facing wall and in the roof above to
lighten the massing at the third level.
(4) Low-Density Residential Transitions. Where new projects are
built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care
shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring
properties. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
building is not directly adjacent to existing residential
development.
(5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be
provided so that it is usable for residents, visitors, and/or
employees of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative
in that the project includes large balcony areas for the office
tenants at the second and third floors.
(6) Parking Design. Parking needs shall be accommodated but
shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or
detract from the pedestrian environment.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that project meets
the parking requirements of the code. It has been placed at the
rear of the site, accessed by a public alley, and placed underneath
the proposed building, to screen it from public views and ensure
that the parking area does not visually dominate the site.
Section 5. Design Enhancement Exception Findings
(1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district.
This finding can be made in the affirmative. The building is
located mid-block where most of the other buildings within the
block, including the subject property, do not setback from the
alley. Setting the new building back from the alley would not
result in the widening of the alley since the other buildings on
6
the alley are also built up to it. The buildings on each side of
the proposed building are not as tall as the proposed building and
the upper floors of the new building and the stair tower would be
visible from off-site views. Allowing the stair tower height to
match that of the elevator tower would eliminate the awkward
transition in height.
(2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance
of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of
the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural
style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished
through strict application of the minimum requirements of this
title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in
Section 18.76.020(d).
This finding can be made in the affirmative. The 20 foot setback
is not followed by the other properties in the vicinity and it
would be inconsistent with the existing development pattern for the
new building to follow it. It would also hinder the ability to
provide the recessed setbacks at the California Avenue street
frontage. The height exception would allow the stair tower to be
the same height as the adjacent elevator tower creating a cohesive
architectural tower element on the front elevation of the building.
(3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or
site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed
setback encroachment would match the existing condition and not
introduce a new impact to properties within the vicinity. The
height exception is for a small element and would improve the
appearance of the building.
SECTION 6. Architectural Review Approval Granted.
Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Project by
the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
SECTION 7. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared The Hayes Group
titled260 California Avenue, consisting of 21 pages, and received
September 4, 2013, except as modified to incorporate the conditions
7
of approval in Section 8. A copy of these plans is on file in the
Department of Planning and Community Development.
8
SECTION 8. Conditions of Approval.
Planning Division
1. The plans submitted to obtain all permits through the
Building Inspection Division shall be in substantial conformance
with the revised plans, project details and materials received on
September 4, 2012, except as modified to incorporate these
conditions of approval.
2. The ARB approval letter with the attached conditions of
approval shall be printed on the plans submitted for building
permit.
3. All noise producing equipment shall not exceed the
allowances specified in Section 9.10 Noise of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
4. The city street trees shall be maintained and protected
during construction per City of Palo Alto standard requirements.
5. The project shall be subject to the mandatory Green
Building Ordinance.
6. All active construction areas shall be watered at least
twice daily and more often during windy periods to prevent visible
dust from leaving the site; 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.
7. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of
freeboard;
8. Water shall be applied at least three times daily, or apply
(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking
areas and staging areas at the construction site.
9. 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 the
construction site; water sweepers shall vacuum up excess water to
avoid runoff-related impacts to water quality.
10. Sweep streets daily, or more often if necessary (preferably
with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets.
9
11. 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.
12. 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 Planning
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.
13. A sub-slab vapor barrier shall be installed to prevent
contaminated soil vapors from migrating into the building. The
vapor barrier shall be designed by a Registered Professional
Engineer in the State of California. The design shall be submitted
to the RWQCB and the City of Palo Alto for review and approval.
14. Soil excavated from the northeast and southwest portions of
the site shall be field screened, segregated, and profiled
(sampled) to ensure it has not been contaminated.
15. Any impacted (contaminated) soil shall be off-hauled to a
Class 2 landfill for disposal.
16. Prior to issuance of a Use & Occupancy permit, an Elevation
Certificate based on finished construction is required for each
built structure.
17. Prior to issuance of a Building permit, 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.
18. Prior to issuance of a Use & Occupancy permit, the project
applicant shall submit a certification by a qualified third-party
10
reviewer that the project’s permanent storm water pollution
prevention measures were constructed or installed in accordance
with the approved plans.
19. Before submittal of plans for a building permit, the
applicant shall submit a drainage plan which includes drainage
patterns on site and from adjacent properties.
20. 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.
21. Construction hours shall be limited to 8:00am to 6:00pm
Monday through Friday and 9:00am to 6:00pm on Saturdays unless
otherwise approved by the City. No construction is allowed on
Sundays or Holidays as specified in Title 9 of the Municipal Code.
22. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise
level exceeding one hundred ten dBA at a distance of twenty-five
feet.
23. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane
of the project shall not exceed 90 dBA.
24. Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction
activities and limitations identified in this permit, 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.
25. A logistics plan shall be submitted by the applicant and
approved by the City prior to the issuance of any permit related to
the project.
Water Quality Control Plant
26. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
The project is located close to an area of suspected or known
groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).
If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the
following procedure for construction dewatering:
Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the
water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using
EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The analytical results of the
VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598. Contaminated ground water that
exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable
11
waters may not be discharged to the storm drain system or creeks.
If the concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits
for discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional
Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge
to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC concentrations exceed the
toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a treatment system for removal of
VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary
sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer
system or storm drain system must be free of sediment.
27. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking
Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to
an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and
to the sanitary sewer system.
28. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled
Facilities
New buildings and residential developments providing centralized
solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex
residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area
shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with
grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the
area.
29. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal
gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing
asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential,
commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is
required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small
copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement
roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt,
provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at
the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of
"historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1
or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto
Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
30. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the
storm drain system.
31. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall
not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact
with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths
of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not
12
practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be
used for wastewater plumbing.
32. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain
sumps.
33. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains,
Boilers and Heat Exchangers
It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems,
pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm
drain system.
34. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling
Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No
dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent.
Undesignated Retail Space:
35. PAMC 16.09
Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of
the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet
all requirements that would have been applicable during design and
construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food
service facility the following requirements must be met:
Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project:
A. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section
16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes
1. The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and
installation details of all proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2)
2. GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007
California Plumbing Code.
3. GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 500
gallons.
4. GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans.
See a sizing calculation example below.
5. The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger
than what is specified on the plans.
6. GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be
installed in food preparation and storage areas. Santa Clara
County Department of Environmental Health prefers GCDs to be
installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access
points or manholes are readily accessible for inspection, cleaning
and removal of all contents. GCDs located outdoors shall be
installed in such a manner so as to exclude the entrance of surface
and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5)
13
7. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of
three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping, baffle
(divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping. The plans shall
clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes on the GCD. The
Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department may
authorize variances which allow GCDs with less than three manholes
due to manufacture available options or adequate visibility.
8. Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs.
9. All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent(s). (CPC 1002.2
& 1004)
10. GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated
and indicated on plans.
B. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited
Bldg/Plumbing Codes
11. To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the
correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly labeled
on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their discharge
connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be
included on the plans.
12. A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD
shall be included on the plans. This can be incorporated into the
sizing calculation.
13. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to a
GCD. These include but are not limited to:
a. Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks
b. Three compartment sinks (pot sinks)
c. Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for
dishwashers shall connect to a GCD
d. Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to entering a
dishwasher), small drains on busing counters adjacent to pre-rinse
sinks or silverware soaking sinks
e. Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens
f. Prep sinks
g. Mop (janitor) sinks
h. Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be
covered and any drains contained therein shall connect to a GCD.
i. Drains in trash/recycling enclosures
j. Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other grease
generating cooking equipment with drip lines
k. Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated floor
drains/sinks
14. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and
non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is prohibited.
The following shall not be connected to a GCD:
a. Dishwashers
b. Steamers
c. Pasta cookers
d. Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens
14
e. Hand sinks
f. Ice machine drip lines
g. Soda machine drip lines
h. Drainage lines in bar areas
15. No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a
FSE. (PAMC 16.09.075(d)).
16. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking,
food preparation and storage areas.
17. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be
individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5)
C. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC,
16.09.075(q)(2)
18. Newly constructed and remodeled FSEs shall include a
covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for
the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking
fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow.
19. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent
water run-on to the area and runoff from the area.
20. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle
and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are
optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a GCD.
21. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized,
segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered
area.
22. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted
facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility being
remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement.
D. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B)
23. FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is
connected to a GCD and large enough for cleaning the largest
kitchen equipment such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc.
Recommendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than a
typical mop/janitor sink are more useful.
E. GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation
(2007 CPC)
Sizing Criteria: GCD Sizing:
Drain Fixtures DFUs Total DFUs GCD
Volume (gallons)
Pre-rinse sink 4 8 500
3 compartment sink 3 21 750
2 compartment sink 3 35 1,000
Prep sink 3 90 1,250
Mop/Janitorial sink 3 172 1,500
Floor drain 2 216 2,000
Floor sink 2
15
Quantity Drainage Fixture & Item Number DFUs Total
1 Pre-rinse sink, Item 1 4 4
1 3 compartment sink, Item 2 3 3
2 Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor sink, Item 4 3 6
1 Mop sink, Item 5 3 3
1 Floor trough, Item 6 & tilt skillet, Item 7 2 2
1 Floor trough, Item 6 & steam kettle, Item 8 2 2
1 Floor sink, Item 4 & wok stove, Item 9 2 2
4 Floor drains 2 8
1,000 gallon GCD minimum sized Total: 30
Example GCD
Sizing Calculation:
Note:
• All resubmitted plans to Building Department which include
FSE projects shall be resubmitted to Water Quality.
• It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next
size larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge
prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning. There
are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different
shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass,
reinforced concrete and metal)
• The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge
prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution
prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use
Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include
requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record
keeping and construction projects.
Fire Department
36. Install a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, a NFPA 14 standpipe and a
NFPA 72 fire alarm system.
37. Elevator car to size to be capable of transporting a
medical gurney and two attending personnel.
38. Discharge from sprinkler main drain shall be directed to a
holding tank or other suitable means to attenuate the high rate of
flow during testing to a level allowed by the Utilities Department.
Electric Utilities
39. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility
Engineering Department service
requirements noted during plan review.
16
40. 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.
41. 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.
THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR ELECTRIC
SERVICE
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel.
Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
45. This project requires a 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.
46. The customer shall install all electrical substructures
(conduits, boxes and pads) required from the high voltage vault to
the transformer and from the service point to the customer’s
switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the
City standards and shown on plans.
47. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown
on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and
Utilities Department.
48. 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
17
aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is
consistent with the building design and setback requirements.
49. 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 must be submitted to
the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and
approval.
50. 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.
51. The customer is responsible for sizing the service
conductors and other required equipment
according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City
standards.
52. 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.
52. For primary services, the standard service protection is a
padmount fault interrupter owned and maintained by the City,
installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must provide and
install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault
interrupter.
53. 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.
54. 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
18
55. 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.
56. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the
customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-
2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked.
The areas to be checked by USA shall be delineated with white
paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or
contractor when construction is complete.
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be
installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the
Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and
associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior
to installing the switchgear to:
19
Gopal Jagannath, P.E.
Supervising Electric Project Engineer
Utilities Engineering (Electrical)
1007 Elwell Court
Palo Alto, CA 94303
63. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing
submittal.
64. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and
approved by both the Building
Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before
energizing.
AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
65. 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
66. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for
the transformer installed on the property for City use.
67. All required inspections have been completed and approved by
both the Building Inspection
Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.
68. All fees must be paid.
69. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to
be signed by the City and
applicant.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
• CPAU will need a location as well as its easement (10’x10’) for
the padmouted transformer
on the property. This location will require a clearance of 8 feet
in the
front, 3 feet all other sides and 30 feet above. It also has to be
accessible to
CPAU’s crane truck for initial installation as well as emergency.
Bollards are
required if this location is near traffic/ parking entrance.
• What is the rough total electric load and at 208V or 480V does
the new building
require?
• The proposed plan needs to show electric and other utilities also
(from service point
20
to the meter).
• Additional conduit for future fiber optic cable are optional but
strongly
recommended.
Water Gas Waste Water
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT
70. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the
existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built
plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee
credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit
loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing
water/wastewater fixtures.
71. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all
utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of
vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10
working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will
be issued by the building inspection division after all utility
services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed.
FOR BUILDING PERMIT
72. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater
service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto
Utilities for each unit or place of business. 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).
73. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility
construction. The plans must show the size and location of all
underground utilities within the development and the public right
of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service
requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and
any other required utilities.
74. 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).
75. 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
21
costs associated with the design and construction for the
installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services.
76. 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
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.
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS,
PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense.
22
81. 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.
82. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and
gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water
service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the
plans.
83. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be
reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures.
84. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete
bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water,
gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear
separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing
utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with
existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from
the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may
not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater
mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater
services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees.
Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater
services/mains/meters.
85. 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.
86. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the
City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater.
Public Works Engineering
87. The plans show a “Kristar” treatment device for storm water
treatment. This device may or may not be able to be used under the
current C.3 regulations. The applicant shall contact Public Works
Engineering to discuss storm water treatment options and
calculations used for this project. See also C.3 conditions below.
88. The applicant shall contact Public Works Engineering to
discuss the storm water design for the development. If the
discharge of storm water is allowed, the existing storm drain pipe
along N. California Ave. shall be extended and a new catch basin
23
installed to the perpendicular discharge point of the site and a
lateral pipe connected to the back of the new catch basin.
89. The curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street shall be removed and
replaced per CPA standards along the frontage of the development.
Include in Submittal for Building Permit
90. Grading & excavation permit: A Grading and Excavation
Permit is required for the project if the total quantity of cut
and/or fill outside of the building(s) footprint exceeds 100 cubic
yards or if the disturbed area is 10,000 sq.ft. or greater. A
grading permit only authorizes grading and storm drain
improvements, therefore, the following note shall be included on
each grading permit plan sheet: “This grading permit will only
authorize general grading and installation of the storm drain
system. Other building and utility improvements are shown for
reference information only and are subject to separate building
permit approval.” No utility infrastructure should be shown inside
the building footprints.
91. Storm Water Treatment (C.3): STORM WATER TREATMENT: This
project may trigger the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations
(incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11)
that apply to land development projects that create or replace
10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. The applicant
shall provide a calculation of the amount of impervious surface
area being created or replaced. If 10,000 sf of impervious surface
area is created or replaced, then the City’s regulations require
that the project incorporate a set of permanent site design
measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to
protect storm water quality. The applicant will be required to
identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water
pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment
controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavers
rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance)
to treat the runoff from a specified “water quality storm” prior to
discharge to the municipal storm drain system. The applicant must
designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of
the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with
the City. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and
charge an inspection fee. There is currently an $350 C.3 plan
check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or
building permit.
a. 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
24
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.
b. 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.
Information regarding storm water control measures can be found on
the web at these addresses:
http://www.cabmphandbooks.org/Development.asp
http://www.scvurppp.org/
92. Survey datum: Plans shall be prepared using North American
Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and
NGVD 1929 for vertical survey controls throughout the design
process.
93. Final grading & drainage plan: The plans shall include a
final grading and drainage plan prepared by a licensed
professional. This plan shall show existing and proposed spot
elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper
conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm
drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including
accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be
maintained. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this
plan. Public Works 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 for New Single Family Residences on our website:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/eng-documents.html.
94. Impervious surface area: The proposed development will
result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The
applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed
25
impervious surface areas with the building permit application. For
non-residential properties, a Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the
applicant’s monthly City utility bill will take place in the month
following the final approval of the construction by the Building
Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and
instructions are available from Public Works Engineering at the
Development Center and on the Division’s website:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/eng-documents.html.
95. Stormwater sheet: The City's full-sized "Pollution
Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the
plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the
Development Center or on our website:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/eng-documents.html.
96. Basement drainage: 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. A drainage system is, however, required for all
exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or
stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a
backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a
dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line,
such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can
percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The
device must not allow water to accumulate or stagnate.
Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level
spaces are at least 8” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills
to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works
recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and
inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the
basement.
97. Basement Shoring: Shoring for the basement excavation,
including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property
or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written
permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment
permit from Public Works.
98. Basement light/stairwells: All exterior basement-level
spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells, are required to
have a drainage system separate (up to the sump) from the basement
wall/slab drainage system. Also, 8" of freeboard is required
between the floors of the exterior basement-level spaces and any
adjacent windowsills or doorsills.
99. Dewatering: Basement excavations may require dewatering
during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown
26
well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed.
Dewatering is only allowed from April 15th through October 31st 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.
100. Work in the right-of-way: The plans must clearly indicate
any work that is to be conducted in the public right-of-way, such
as sidewalk, driveway approach, curb, gutter or utility lateral
work. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per
Public Works’ standards and that the contractor performing this
work must first obtain a Permit for Construction in the Public
Street from Public Works at the Development Center.
101. Street trees: Show all street trees in the public right-
of-way or state that there are none. Include street tree
protection details in the plans. Any removal, relocation or
planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement
installation within 10 feet of a street tree, must be approved by
CPA arborist, Dave Dockter (phone: 650-617-3145). This approval
shall appear on the plans.
Prior to Construction
27
102. Streetwork permit: A Permit for Construction in the Public
Street (“streetwork permit”) is required from all contractors
performing work in the public right-of-way. All construction
within the right-of-way, easements or other property under City
jurisdiction shall conform to the standard specifications and
details of the Public Works and Utility Departments.
103. Logistics plan: Prior to building permit issuance a
construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all
impacts to the public and including, at a minimum: work hours,
noticing of affected businesses, construction signage, dust
control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job
trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete
pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian
safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the
City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter
10.48, and the route map, which outlines truck routes available
throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and
other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available
from Public Works Engineering at the Development Center or online
at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/documents/eng-
LogisticsPlanPreparationGuidelines.pdf. Typically, the
construction logistics plan is attached to an encroachment permit
or a Permit for Construction in the Public Street.
During Construction
104. Inspection: The contractor must contact Public Works’
Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the
public right-of-way.
Prior to Public Works’ Acceptance
105. Storm drain logo: The applicant is required to paint “No
Dumping/Flows to (insert name of creek) Creek” in blue on a white
background adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. The name of
the creek to which the proposed development drains can be obtained
from Public Works Engineering. Stencils of the logo are available
from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may
be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint
the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan.
105. Record drawings: At the conclusion of the project
applicant shall provide digital as-built/record drawings of all
improvements constructed in the public right-of-way or easements in
which the City owns an interest. The digital files shall conform
to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal
survey controls and NGVD 1929 for vertical survey controls. In
addition, a digital copy of any project parcel map, subdivision
28
map, or certificate-of-compliance shall also be provided. All
files should be delivered in AutoCad format.
106. Development Impact Fess, estimated at $359,410.00, must be
paid prior to building permit issuance. The exact fees shall be
calculated at the time of fee payment.
107. 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.
108. Provide more bike parking at the grade level in the
garage.
109. Add vertical strip windows on the side of the stairwell
at the main entry.
110. Revise lighting levels along the alley to avoid
spillover lighting as required by code.
111. Work with the neighbors on a logistics plan.
112. Consider adding windows in the retail space that open
into the main lobby.
Additional Conditions
113. 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
29
CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES,
DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS.
114. 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. Indemnity.
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify
and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers,
employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against
any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against
the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or
void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual
attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation.
The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such
action with attorneys of its own choice.
SECTION 10. Term of Approval. Architectural Review
Approval. The approval shall be valid for one year from the
original date of approval, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.77.090.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by AT&T titled Palo Alto ODAS – 3706 Carlson
Circle, consisting of 3 pages, and received April 29, 2013.
30
,
~!~_Q!r.~QM~
April 22, 2013
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Hayes Group Architects
2657 Spring Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
Subject: 260 California Avenue: Architectural Review; 12PLN-00352
Dear Mr. Hayes,
On December 20, 2012, the Architectural Review Board (ARa)."reCO!Jlmel,\Q~d approval of
the application referenced above, and the Director otP<lan,plp'g:;;ma@oAuriurii~)~~IVjro~ent
(Director) approved the project on April 22, 21)) (}Tlte approv~lwill b~*come,~lfectlv,i' ~4
days from the postmark date of this letter, Nril~is-lm ~P1lal is filld.iff l\¢~~rda~e with Title,
18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. ,A " ,-\:..!:, -l, ,,,·~l f!:'!f~~~ "\,
,/:-t,>'~), ~~'~c. -.':,'j' ~; !~
The approval was based on the ti',~i6~s in' ""B,land e; m4is'su~Jecf~'io
conditions of approval as noted i~jl}tfac~ent 'a'Sfol1Qw~: '
Request by Hayes Group on be''a1~QfT~6b'MtiC lnve~~~rs, LLC fd~(tia}OrArchitecrun:~,'"
Review Board Review for ~~,~6n~truction' qfa '~w three story, 27,000 square
foot building. Enviromnent~I'Assllssifi-el1t: AMitfgated Negative been'
Prepared. ,,"'/ '. ~-?
,,"""'-/
Unless an appeal is filedk':tl1islprojeb~ ~pprq\'al shall be effective
2013, within which time &si'psfm.l.£ti,RP o;f th~ project shall have
extension of this entitlen(l;p;t may"oe m~de prior to the one ' '
for a project may be ext~n~ed once for ani,additional year by
shall be open to appeal at,J:hat time. I~ thel, event the buildin
project within the time liIi\iti( spec;!tleg above, the Arc'hitl~ct~ln
expire and be of no furthet:ro\,ce ot!elfec( \, \ ,-.f:;. .' -~ .
If you have questions rega1:i;liilg this ARB"ac;tii)n, please
Reich at (650) 617"3119. 'ii' ,',' ,
Amy French, AICP
Chief Planning Official
~,wiih:.anv_bilV!d inkR nn 100% rnvded Daoer olOCf!8Sed wIthout cltlorlne
250 HamlItonAvenue p.o. Box 10250
PaloAlto,CA 94'lO3
650.329.2441
650.329.2154
from May 6,
Application for
The, time period
Planning and
ecured for the
aOlllroval shall
Attachments:
A. Architectural Review Board Approval Findings
B. Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings
C. Design Enhancement Exception Findings
D. Conditions of Approval
CC: Hayes Group, 2657 Spring Street, Redwood City, CA 94063
Tarob M&C Investors, LLC, 1390 Market Street, Suite 112, San Francisco, CA 94102
Gary A. Patton, Of Counsel Wittwer & Parkin, LLP, 147 South River Street #221 ,Santa
Cruz, CA 95060
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
260 California Avenue I File No. 12PLN-00352
The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings
for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76.
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project
incorporates quality design that recognizes the regional importance of the area as
described in the Comprehensive Plan and reinforces its pedestrian character.
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. This finding can
be made in the affirmative in that the project, proposed at three stories tall, fits into its
midblock location among an eclectic mix of commercial buildings of various heights
and massing. Other three story buildings are located across the street with even taller
buildings at the each end of the commercial district. The building has been designed to
encourage pedestrian activity.
(3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the design would accommodate. the proposed office and retail Uses.
The proposed building would have ample storefront glass, recesses, and a colonnade to
create an inviting pedestrian environment.
(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 inthat this area does not have a unified design or historic character.
(5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between
difftrent designated land uses. This finding is not applicable in that it is not an area of
. different land uses. It is a commercial building proposed within a commercial district.
(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 new building is compatible with the
existing context of the California Avenue commercial area environment.
(7) The planning and siting of the various jitnctions 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 building
has been designed to provide pedestrian amenities at the street level, outdoor balconies
for the office users, and parking off the alley for improved pedestrian safety on
California Avenue.
(8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the
jitnction of the structures. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
(9)
(10)
(II)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
building has provided an adequate amount of recesses as required in the zoning
requirements of the "P" overlay with the intent to add interest at the ground floor for
pedestrians as well as a number ofba1conies for the upper floor office tenants.
Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main jUnctions of the prOject
and the same are compatible with the project's design concept. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that features such as trash enclosures, electrical meters, and
HVAC equipment have been designed to keep them out of public view.
Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenie'nt for pedestrians
cyclists and vehicles. this finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project h~
been designed to encourage pedestrian activity with recessed floor to ceiling storefront
and a covered colonnade for weather protection. Pedestrian access is provided at the
front and the rear of the project as well as the. ability to pass through the building from
California Avenue to New Mayfield Lane behind.
Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. This
finding can be made in the affirmative in that all three ofthe existing. street trees will be
preserved,
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 the proposed colors and materials will add detail and interest and are
compatible with the commercial environment.
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 landscape
materials are used wherever 'possible to soften the' building and create a more inViting
pedestrian experience at the entry. .
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.
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;
• Designfor easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access;
• Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable
paving;
,~ .. ':;, •. -,-...:.-..
• Use sustainable building materials;
• 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 affinnative in that the project would incorporate many
features included in the LEED project checklist.
(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 affinnative in that the
project design promotes visual environments that are of 'high aesthetic quality and
variety.
f
ATTACHMENT B
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS
260 California Avenue / File No. 12PLN-000352
Pursuant to PAMC 18.l6.090(b), in addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained
in PAMC 18.76.020(d), the following additional findings have been made in the affirmative:
(1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment. The design of new projects shall promote
pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design
elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the new building would
provide the ability for pedestrians to walk from the front of the property to the rear
through the building. the building can be accessed both from the front on California
Avenue or from the rear at New Mayfield Lane. The proposal also incorporates ample
floor to ceiling storefront glass that is recessed from the sidewalk with a coVered
colonnade for weather protection at the retail entries. There are bike racks proposed at
the sidewalk in front of the building and in a designated area of the below grade parking
garage.
(2) Street building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong
relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports
and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. This finding can be made
in the affirmative in that the building has been designed to encourage pedestrian activity
by providing ample storefront glass, a large inviting covered entryway, and an
articulated building mass facing the street that differentiates the first floor pedestrian
level colonnade from the upper floors of the building. The building has multiple entries
with the upper floors having a prominent but recessed entry while the retail entries are
closer to the street with a more pedestrian scale. There is also a landscape feature at the
front entry that will help to soften the large blank wall of the adjacent building.
(3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and cOriform
to proper setbacks. This finding· can be made in the affirmative in that the bUilding
would be designed with an articulated base body and roof. The ground floor is recessed
back from the second floor with a pedestrian colonnade and the projecting roof
. overhang is a significant visual element capping the top of the building. The third floor
is setback from the second floor with a balcony at the front of the building with punched'
recesses in the street facing wall and in the roof above to lighten the massing at the third
level.
(4) Low-Density Residential Transitions. Where new projects are built abutting existing
lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and
privacy of neighboring properties. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the building is not directly adjacent to existing residential development.
• J
(5), Project' Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is
-usable for residents, visitors, and/or employees of the site. This finding can be made in
the affinnative in that the project includes large balcony areas for the office tenants at
the second and third floors.
(6) Parking Design. Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to
overwhelm the charaCter of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that project meets the parking
requirements of the code. It has been placed at the rear of the site, accessed by a pUblic
alley, and placed underneath the proposed building, to screen it from public views and
ensure that the parking area does not visually dominate the site.
ATTACHMENT C
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION FINDINGS
260 California Avenue/ File No. 12PLN-00352
In the CC(2) zone district there is a 20 foot setback requirement from the alley way, New
Mayfield Lane. The applicant has proposed a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to
encroach 20 feet into the 20 foot setback, bringing the building to the rear property line.
The height limit for the zone district is 37 feet. The applicant has proposed a second
DEE to exceed the 37 foot limit by 5 feet for a total height of 42 feet for the stair tower.
The requested Design Enhancement Exceptions are consistent with the following findings
as stated in PAMC 18.76.050 (c).
(l) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the
same zone district.
This. finding can be made in the affinnative. The building is located mid-block where
most <if the other buildings within the block, including the subject property, do not
setback from the alley. The buildings on each side of the proposed building are not as tall
as the proposed building and the upper floors of the building would be visible from off
site views.
(2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or
structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing
or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished
through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the
architectural review findings set forth in Section 18. 76.020(d). .
This finding can be made in the affinnative. The 20 foot setback is not followed by the
other properties in the vicinity and it would be inconsistent with the existing development
pattern for .the new building to follow it. It would also hinder the ability to provide the
recessed setbacks at the California Avenue street frontage. The height exception would
allow the stair tower to be the same height as the .adjacent elevator tower creating a
cohesive architectural tower element on the front elevation ofthe building.
(3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that
will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience.
This finding can be made in the affinnative in that the proposed setback encroachment
would match the existing condition and not introduce a new impact to properties within
the vicinity. The height exception is for a small element and would improve the
appearance of the building.
1
Planning Division
ATTACHMENT D
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
260 California Avenue! File No. 12PLN-00352
1. The plans submitted to obtain all permits through the Building Inspection Division shall be in
substantial conformance with the revised plans, project details and materials received on
September 4,2012, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.
2. The ARB approval letter with the attached conditions of approval shall be printed on the
plans submitted for building permit.
3. All noise producing equipment shall not exceed the allowances specified in Section 9.10
Noise of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
4. The city street trees shall be maintained and protected during construction per City of Palo
Alto standard requirements.
5. The project shall be subject to the mandatory Green Building Ordinance.
6. All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily and more often during
windy periods to prevent visible dust from leaving the site; 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.
7. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain
at least 2 feet of freeboard;
8. Water shall be applied at least three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site.
9. 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
the .construction site; water sweepers shall vacuum up excess water to avoid runoff-related
impacts to water quality.
10. Sweep streets daily, or more often if necessary (preferably with water sweepers) if visible
soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
11. 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
260 California Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 2
• t-,··
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 EJ,lviromnent.
12. 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 Planning
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 ofIndian Affairs. No further disturbance of the site may be made
except as authorized by the County Coordinator ofIndian Affairs in accordance with the
provisions of State law and the Health and Safety Code.
13. A sub-slab vapor barrier shall be installed to prevent contaminated soil vapors from
migrating into the building. The vapor barrier shall be designed by a Registered Professional
Engineer in the State of California. The design shall be submitted to the RWQCB and the
City of Palo Alto for review and approval.
14. Soil excavated from the northeast and southwest portions of the site shall be field screened,
segregated, and profiled (sampled) to ensure it has not been contaminated.
15. Any impacted (contaminated) soil shall be off-hauled to a Class 2 landfill for disposal.
16. Prior to issuance of a Use & Occupancy permit, an Elevation Certificate based on finished
construction is required for each built structure.
17. Prior to issuance of a Building permit, 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.
18. Prior to issuance of a Use & Occupancy permit, the project applicant shall submit a
certification by a qualified third-party reviewer that the project's permanent storm water
pollution prevention measures were constructed or installed in accordance with the apprOved
plans.
19. Before submittal of plans for a building permit, the applicant shall submit a drainage plan
which includes drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties.
20. 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.
21. Construction hours shall be limited to 8:00am to 6:00pm Monday through Friday and
9:00am to 6:00pm on Saturdays unless otherwise approved by the City. No construction is
allowed on Sundays or Holidays as specified in Title 9 of the Municipal Code.
260 California Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 3
22. No individual piece of equipment shaH produce a noise level exceeding one hundred ten dBA
at a distance of twenty-five feet.
23. The noise level at any point outside ofthe property plane of the project shaH not exceed 90
dBA.
24. Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this
permit, along with the name and telephone number of a developer appointed disturbance
coordinator, shaH be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site.
25. A logistics plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of any permit related to the project.
Water Quality Control Plant
26. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
The project is located close to an area of suspected or known groundwater contamination
with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans
must include the foHowing procedure for construction dewatering:
Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The
analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598. Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or
federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the stonn
drain system or creeks. If the concentrations of poHutants exceed the applicable limits for
discharge to the stonn drain system then an Exceptional Discharge Penn.it must be obtained
from the RWQCP prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. Ifthe VOC concentrations
exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in thePaio Alto Municipal Code
(16.09.040(m» a treatment system for removal ofVOCs will also be required prior to
discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer
system or storm drain system must be free of sediment.
27. PAMC l6.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking
Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator
with a minimum capacity of 1 00 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system.
28. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(1O) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities
New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste coHection,
except for single-family and duplex residences, shaH provide a covered area for a dumpster.
The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm
system to prevent water runon· and runoff from the area.
29. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1,2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down
spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any
".,:.
260 California Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 4
residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper
flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this
prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt,
provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at thefactory. For the purposes
of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as .
Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and
Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
30. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(S) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system.
31. PA,MC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines,
connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and
short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The
plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing.
32. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps.
33. PAMC 16.09.20S(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers
It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers
and heat exchangers to the storm drain system.
34. PAMC 16.09.16S(h) Storm Drain Labeling
Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping -Flows to Bay," or
equivalent.
Undesignated Retail Space:
3S. PAMC 16.09
Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated
tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable
during design and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service
facility the following requirements must be met:
Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project:
A. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.07S& cited
BldgIPlumbing Codes
I. The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and installation details of all
proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2)
2. GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code.
3. GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of SOO gallons.
4. GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans. See a sizing calculation
example below.
S. The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger than what is specified on the
260 California Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 5
plans.
6. GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be installed in food preparation
and storage areas. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health prefers
GCDs to be installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access points or
manholes are readily accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents.
GCDs located outdoors shall be installed in such a manner so as to exclude the
entrarice of surface and stormwater. (Cpe 1009.5)
7. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow
visibility of each irilet piping, baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping.
The plans shall clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes on the GCD. The
Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department may authorize
variances which allow GCDs with less than three manholes due to manufacture
available options or adequate visibility.
8. Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs.
9. All GCDs shall be fitted with reliefvent(s). (CPC 1002.2 & 1004)
10. GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and indicated on plans.
B.Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes
II. To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the correct drain lines, each
drainage fixture shall be clearly labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their
discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be included on the
plans.
12.A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall be included on the plans.
This can be incorporated into the sizing calculation.
13. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to a GCD. These include but are
not limited to:
a. Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks
b. Three compartment sinks (pot 'sinks)
c. Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for dishwashers shall connect to a
GeD
d. Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to entering a dishwasher), small
drains on busing counters adjacent to pre-rinse sinks or silverware soaking sinks
e. Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens
f. Prep sinks
g. Mop Ganitor) sinks
h. Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be covered and any drains
contained therein shall connect to aGeD.
1. Drains in trash/recycling enclosures
j. Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other grease generating cooking
equipment with drip lines
k. Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated floor drains/sinks
14. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and non-grease generating
drainage fixtures to a GCD is prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a
GeD:
a. Dishwashers
b. Steamers
c. Pasta cookers
" 260 California Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 6
d. Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens
e. Hand sinks
f. Ice machine drip lines
g. Soda machine drip lines
h. Drainage lines in bar areas
IS. No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a FSE. (PAMC 16.09.07S(d».
16 .. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food preparation and storage
areas. .
17. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD·shall be individually trapped and
vented. (CPC 1014.S)
e. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.07S(q)(2)
18. Newly constructed and remodeled FSEs shall include a covered area for all
dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, fOod
scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow.
19. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area
and runoff from the area.
20. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters
and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be
connected to a GCD.
21. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a
tallow bin shall be included in the covered area.
22. These requirements shall apply toremodeJed or converted facilities to the extent that
the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement.
D. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMe 16.09.07S(m)(2)(B)
23. FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to a GCD and large
enough for cleaning the largest kitchen equipment such as floor mats, containers,
carts, etc. Recommendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than a typical
mop/janitor sink are more useful.
E. GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation (2007 CPC)
Sizing Criteria: GeD Sizing: Drain Fixtures DFUs Total DFUs GeD
. (ghlf&ns) Pre-nnse SI 4 8
3 compartment sink 3 21
2 compartment sink 3 3S
Prep SInk 3 90
Mop/Janitorial sink 3 172
Floor drain 2 216
Floor sink 2
SOO
7S0
1,000
1,2S0
I,SOO
2,000
Vol\Une
260 California Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 7
Note:
ExampleGCD
Sizing Calculation: Quantity
I
I
2
I
I
I
I
4
Drainage Fixture & Item Number
Pre-rinse sink, Item I
3 compartment sink, Item 2
Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor sink, Item
4
Mop sink, Item 5
Floor trough, Item 6 & tilt skillet,
Item 7
Floor trough, Item 6 & steam kettle,
Item 8
FloQr sink, Item 4 & wok stove, Item
9
Floor drains
1,000 gallon GCD minimum sized
DFUs Total
4 4
3 3
3 6
3 3
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 8
Total: 30
• All resubmittec\ plans to Building Department which include FSE projects shall be
resubmitted to Water Quality.
• It is frequently to the FSE's advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for
mor~ efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning.
There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and
materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal) .
• The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer
and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use
Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs,
OCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction proj ects.
Fire Department
36. Install a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, aNFPA 14 standpipe and a NFPA 72 fire alarm system.
37. Elevator car to size to be capable of transporting a medical gurney and two attending
personnel.
38. Discharge from sprinkler main drain shall be directed to a holding tank or othersuitable
means to attenuate the high rate of flow during testing to a level allowed by the Utilities
Department.
Electric Utilities
39. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service
requirements noted during plan review.
260 Cl!Hfomia Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 8
,.
40. The applicant shan 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.
41. The applicant shan 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.
THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR ELECTRIC
SERVICE
42. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with an
applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary
submittal.
43. 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 beenpaid) to design and construct the electric service requested.
44 .. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
45. This project requires a 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.
46. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required
from the high voltage vault to the transformer and from the service point to the customer's
switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shoWn
on plans.
47. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by
the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department.
48. 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, an
aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building
design and setback requirements.
49. 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 must be submitted to the Electric
Utility Engineering Department for review and approval.
50. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be
260 California Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 9
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 andthe main switchgear, the installation ofa transition
cabinet will not be required.
51. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required
equipment
according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards.
52. 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.
52. For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned
and maintained by the City, installed at the customer's expense. The customer must provide
and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter.
53. 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.
54. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or
reinforcement of off site electric facilities will be at the customer's expense and must be
coordinated with the Electric Utility.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
55. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before
digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways l\lld planter strips.
56. 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. Theareas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA
markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete.
57. 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 112 -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 CttY and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed
by the Applicant.
58. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the
depth of30 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.
260 California Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 10
59. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and
shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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
63. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal.
64. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building
Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. .
AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
65. 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
66. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for the transformer installed on the
property for City use. .
67. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection
Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.
68. All fees must be paid.
69. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and
applicant.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
·CPAU will need a location as well as its easement (lO'xIO') for the padmoutedtransformer
on the property. This location will require a clearance of 8 feet in the
front, 3 feet all other sides and 30 feet above. It also has to be accessible to
'.;,.
260 California Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 11
CPAU's crane truck for initial installation as well as emergency. Bollards are
required if this location is near traffic/ parking entrance.
• What is the rough total electric load and at 208V or 480V does the new building
require?
• The proposed plan needs to show electric and other utilities also (from service point
to the meter).
• Additional conduit for future fiber optic cable are optional but strongly
recommended.
Water Gas Waste Water
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE 9F DEMOLITION PERMIT
70. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit
loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee
credit for the existing load. Ifthe applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not
receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures.
71. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including
a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working
days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building
inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and
removed.
FOR BUILDING PERMIT
72. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application
-load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities for each unit or place of business. The applicant
must provide all the informlltion 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).
73; The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show
the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right
of way including meters; backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer
cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities.
74. 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).
75. 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.
76. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit
.: .
260 California Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 12
to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation
of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plails in accordance with the utilities
department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly
shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer.
The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and
the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities
engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the
improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and
wastewater engineering section. 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
vvastewater service tap to the main and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals.
77. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is
required for all existing and new wilter connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with
requirements of Cali fomi a administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive. The RPP A shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the Water
meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPP A' s for domestic service shall be lead free.
Show the location of the RPP A on the plans.
78. 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 ofthe reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans.
79. 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.
80. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the
applicant's expense.
81. 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.
82. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans.
Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown
on the plans.
83. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the
main per WOW utilties procedures.
84. Utility vaults, transfonners, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be
_W~:;.7
260 California Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 13
placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain l' 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/vaultslbases 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.
85. 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.
86. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for
water, gas & wastewater.
Public Works Engineering
87. The plans show a "Kristar" treatment device for storm water treatment. This device mayor
may not be able to be used under the current C.3 regulations. The applicant shall contact
Public Works Engineering to discuss storm water treatment options and calculations used
for this project. See also C.3 conditions below.
88. The applicant shall contact Public Works Engineering to discuss the storm water design for
the development. If the discharge of storm water is allowed, the existing storm drain pipe
along N. California Ave. shall be extended and a new catch basin installed to the
perpendicular discharge point of the site and a lateral pipe connected to the back ofthe new
catch basin.
89. The curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street shall be removed and replaced per CPA standards
along the frontage of the development.
Include in Submittal for Building Permit
90. Grading & excavation permit: A Grading and Excavation Permit is required for the project
if the total quantity of cut and/or fill outside of the building(s) footprint exceeds 100 cubic
yards or if the disturbed area is 10,000 sq.ft. or greater. A grading permit only authorizes
grading and storm drain improvements, therefore, the following note shall be included on
each grading permit plan sheet: "This grading permit will only authorize generalgrading
and installation of the storm drain system. Other building and utility improvements are
shown for reference information only and are subject to separate building permit approval."
No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprints.
91. Storm Water Treatment (C.3): STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project may trigger
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board's revised provision C.3 for storm
water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that
apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of
impervious surface. The applicant shall provide a calculation of the amount of impervious
•
-.--...~,
•.
260 California Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 14
surface area being created or replaced. If 10,000 sf of impervious surface area is created or
replaced, then the City's regulations require that the project incorporate a set of permanent
site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm
water qUality. The applicant will be required to identify, size, design and incorporate
permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment
controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavers rather than mechanical
devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a specified "water
quality storm" prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. The applicant must
designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must
enter into a maintenance agreement with the City. The City will inspect the treatment
measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently an $350 C.3 plan check fee
that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit.
a. Effective Febrnary 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.comlDefault.htm.
b. 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.
Information regarding storm water control measures can be found on the web at these
addresses:
http://www.cabmphandbooks.org/Development.asp
http://www.scvurppp.org/
92. Survey datum: Plans shall be prepared using North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone
3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1929 for vertical survey controls throughout the
design process.
93. Final grading & drainage plan: The plans shall include a final grading and drainage plan
prepared by a licensed professional. This plan shall show existing and proposed spot
elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to
the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including
accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. Downspouts and
splashblocks should be shown on this plan. Public Works encourages the developer to keep
rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious
260 California Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 15
areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family
Residences on our website: www.cityofpaloalto.orglpublic-works/eng-doclIDlents.html.
94. Impervious surface area: The proposed development will result in a change in the
impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and
proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. For non-residential
properties, a Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant's monthly City utility bill will
take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building
Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available
from Public Works Engineering at the Development Center and on the Division's website:
www.cityofualoalto.org/public-works/engcdocUments.html.
95. Stormwater sheet: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention -It's Part of the Plan" sheet
must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the
Development Center or on our website: www.citvofualoalto.ol'g/public-works/eng
documents.htm!.
96. Basement drainage: Due to high groIDldwater throughout much of the City and Public
Works.prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage
systems at the exterior ofthe basement walls or IDlder the slab are not allowed for this site.
A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as
lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow
preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet
from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can
percolate into the soil andlor sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow water to
accumulate or stagnate. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level
spaces are at least 8" below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential
for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be
retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement.
97. Basement Shoring: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not·
extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first
obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment
permit from Public Works.
98. Basement light/stairwells: All exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or
stairwells, are required to have a drainage system separate (up to the sump) from the
basement wall/slab drainage system. Also, 8" of freeboard is required between the floors of
the exterior basement-level spaces and any adjacent windowsills or doorsills.
99. Dewatering: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public
Works only allows groIDldwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater
dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 15th through October 31 st
due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site
must list the highest anticipated groIDldwater level. We recommend a piezometer to be
installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater
"
260 California Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 16
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 altematively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope
not to hit groundwater, but ifhe 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. Altematively, 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.
100. Work in the right-of-way: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is to be conducted
in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk, driveway approach, curb, gutter or utility
lateral work. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per Public Works'
standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Permit for
Construction in the Public Street from Public Works at the Development Center.
101. Street trees: Show all street trees in the public right-of-way or state that there are none.
Include street tree protection details in the plans. Any removal, relocation or planting of
street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement installation within 10 feet of a street tree
must be approved by CPA arborist, Dave Dockter (phone: 650-617-3145). This approval
shall appear on the plans.
Prior to Construction
,
102. Streetwork permit: A Permit for Construction in the Public Street ("streetwork permit') is
required from all contractors performing work in the public right-of-way. All construction
within the right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to
the standard specifications and details of the Public Works and Utility Departments.
1 03. Logistics plan: Prior to building permit issuance a construction logistics plan shall be
provided addressing all impacts to the public and including, at a minimum: work hours,
noticing of affected businesses, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm
water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors' parking, truck routes, staging, concrete
pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All
truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance,
Chapter 10.48, and the route map, which outlines truck routes available throughout the City
of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics
plan is available from Public Works Engineering at the Devlillopment Center or online at:
260 California Avenue
12PLN-00352
Page 17
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org!public-works/documents/eng
LogisticsPlanPreparationGuidelines.pdf. Typically, the construction logistics plan is
attached to an encroachment permit or a Permit for Construction in the Public Street.
During Construction
104. Inspection: The contractor must contact Public Works' Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to
any work perfonned in the public right-of-way .
. Prior to Public Works' Acceptance
105. Stonn drain logo: The applicant is required to paint "No Dumping/Flows to (insert name of
creek) Creek" in blue ona white background adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. The
name of the creek to which the proposed development drains can be obtained from Public
Works Engineering. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works
Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650).329-2598. Include
the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan.
105. Record drawings: At the conclusion of the project applicant shall provide digital as
built/record drawings of all improvements constructed in the public right-of-way or
easements in which the City owns an interest. The digital files shall conformto North
American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1929
for vertical survey controls. In addition, a digital copy of any project parcel map,
subdivision map, or certificate-of-compliance shall also be provided. All files should be
delivered in AutoCad format.
106. Development ImpactFess, estimated at $359,410.00, must be paid Prior to building pennit
issuance. The exact fees shall be calculated at the time offee payment.
107. 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 GovernmentCode Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN
THE 90-DA Y 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.
ARCHITECTURE
& INTERIORS
)
. September 4'd, 2012
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, 51h floor
Palo Alto, CA 94303
1
IIAY E SI(~R()lJP
Re: 260 California Avenue ARB Major Review Project Description
To Planning Staff and ARB Members:
Attached is Hayes Group Architect's submittal package for 260 California Avenue for
ARB Major review. The project applicant is Hayes Group Architects on behalf of Tarob
M&C Investors, LLC. This package includes 14 sets of half size drawings and 16 sets of
full size drawings containing the site survey, contextual photos, the proposed site plan,
floor plans, elevations, and perspectives.
1. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site is located at mid-block on the northern side of California Avenue between Birch
Street and Park Boulevard, in the CC(2) zone with (R) & (P) overlay. The existing site is
occupied by a one-story (with mezzanine) restaurant and nightclub building (with a high
vaulted ceiling). The site abuts and extends partially behind a smaller lot to the east. On
the west is a two-story building with retail space on the ground floor and commercial
office space on the second floor. The rear of the property faces New Mayfield Lane,
which provides vehicular access to the property. The two-story city parking garage is on
the other side of New Mayfield Lane. The site is adjacent to or in the vicinity of two,
three, and four-story commercial and retail buildings along California Avenue.
2657 SPRING STREET, REDWOOD CITY, CAJ.tFORNIA 94063. PHONE, 650·365·0600. FAX, 650.365.0670.
,)
2. PROPOSED PROJECT
The project proposes to demolish the existing building and construct a new, three-story,
commercial office and retail building. Gross floor area will be 27,000 SF after deduction
of covered parking space per PAMC 18.04.030(65)(8)(i), which states:
For all zoning districts other than the R-E, R-1, R-2 and RMD residence districts, 'Gross
Floor Area' means the total area of all floors of a building measured to the outside
surfaces of exterior walls. 'Gross Floor Area' shall not include parking facilities
accessory to a permitted or conditional use and located on the same site.'
An existing twelve-foot effective sidewalk width is provided along California Ave. There
are no side or front setback requirements for the site. Due to the retail and pedestrian
zone overlay, retail space is located on the ground floor, with commercial office space
occupying the upper floors. The building canopy tops off at 37'-0" above grade to corn ply
with the current CC2 zoning requirement for height. Elevator penthouse and roof top
mechanical equipment screen projects another 5'0" above the canopy as allowed by the
zoning code (this is a reduction in height from the preliminary design's equipment
screen, which was at 50'0", 8' higher than the current design). In addition to reducing the
proposed building's height to 37'0" (from the prior design's 42'6"), the proposed building
has been modified to address the following objectives: (1) to enhance the streetscape
and pedestrian experience by providing a setback on the ground level thereby providing
building relief and facilitating sidewalk dining and shopping; (2) to provide a strong
building presence on the street (similar to the three story building across the street); (3)
to provide for public space and building relief along California Ave at the office entry; and
(4) to provide for a comfortable pedestrian experience from the street by providing some
building relief at the third floor. The proposed building's design addresses all these
objectives by providing a 6' setback on the ground floor with the retail space; providing a
landscaped open area and building setback at the office entry; and stepping back the
third floor by 7' feet and locating a balcony on this level with a glass railing, thereby
providing transparency and relief. With the partial roof, open balcony on the third floor,
the street block face is reinforced and interest is introduced on the fagade with activity,
shadow and light.
The overall building massing utilizes the majority of the site to achieve the permitted
FAR. of 2:1. Portions of the elevations are recessed to create shadow and visual relief
while also providing opportunities for the landscaped pedestrian entry plaza, upper level
balconies, and the driveway at the rear.
Proposed materials include cut stone and cement plaster walls, integral colored pre-cast
concrete walls and columns, stainless steel and aluminum metal canopies, and clear
dual-glazed windows with mullion extensions to shade the openings.
Design Enhancement Exception Findings
Section 18.76.050 provides for a Design Enhancement Exception to permit a minor
exception to the zoning regulations. One minor Design Enhancement Exceptions is
required for the proposed project related to the rear yard setback.
,) )
A Design Enhancement Exception may be granted when doing so will "Enhance the
design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site, or its impact
on surrounding properties." The rear setback encroachment enhances the building
design by creating opportunities to provide (where not required) front yard setbacks
(which results in providing usable public open space) along California Ave and does not
impact any surrounding property since the rear yard setback to New Mayfield Lane is not
provided by the existing (60 year old) building on the property and is not provided by
nearly any of the other properties on the block.
18.76.050 provides that Design Enhancement Exceptions are available for minor
changes "to the setback" and other minor features.
The findings necessary for a Design Enhancement Exception are satisfied by the
application for 260 California Ave:
(1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the
same zone district. 260 California Ave is a mid-block building which abuts a two story
public parking garage to the rear and only has access via New Mayfield Lane. There is
also an opportunity to create a much better pedestrian retail experience along California
Ave than currently exists (to include greater setbacks than required by code).
(2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure,
or improve the neighborhood character. The reduced setback will improve the
appearance of the structure by creating voluntary front yard setbacks along California
Ave to provide greater building relief and open space and improve the pedestrian
experience along California Ave by providing a wider sidewalk to facilitate sidewalk
dining. The proposed building design provides the opportunity to create a stronger retail
pedestrian experience thereby helping to extend the retail further down California Ave
than what currently exists.
(3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will
not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The requested
exception will not impact any neighboring property because the existing building (which
has been there for over 60 years) does not provide this setback and almost none of the
other properties on the same block of New Mayfield Lane provide this setback.
In the context of the proposed project, the requested Design Enhancement Exception is
minor.
3. PARKING & BICYCLE SPACES
The existing facility is being assessed by the parking district for 56 spaces. After
crediting the parking provided by this assessment, 38 parking spaces are required for
this project. A combination of ground floor and below grade parking provides 41 parking
stalls, some of which are tandem, to satisfy the parking requirement. Short-term bicycle
parking is provided near the main entrance. Long-term bicycle parking is provided in a
secure area in the basement.
, )
4. TRASH/RECYCLING
A trash and recycling facility will be located at the back of the property accessible from
New Mayfield Lane.
5. GREEN BUILDING STANDARD
In accordance with the city's Green Building Ordinance, this project will comply with
California Green Building Code (CaIGreen, Tier 2) with Local Amendments.
We look forward to a staff review and scheduling of a Major ARB hearing so that we can
proceed with the development of this project.
Please call me at (650) 365-0600 x15 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ken Hayes, AlA
Principal
cc: Mark Conroe, Tarob M&C investors, LLC
THE
GUZZARDO
PARTNERSHIP INC.
Landscape Architects· Land Planners
181 Greenwich Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T 415 4334672
F 415 4335003
www.tgp-inc.com
260 CALIFORNIA AVENUE
LANDSCAPE STATEMENT OF DESIGN INTENT
September 4, 2012
The landscape design for the new commercial office building on California Avenue provides a feature
planter at the building entrance to enhance the office entry and street pedestrian experience.
A raised planter at seating height provides a rich garden of colorful textured plantings, Including a
sculptural multi-trunk Mediterranean Fan Palm, flowering Yucca plants. colorful Agave shrubs, and
succulent groundcovers, all set on a bed of recycled glass mulch. The plants were selected based upon
their colorful foliage and flower characteristics, which will provide great interest in this small area. At
night, uplights below the glass mulch will glow and cast light on to the sculptural Palm tree,
highlighting the tree and casting interesting patterns on the adjacent architectural walls.
Evergreen Creeping Fig vines are placed on the entry court and driveway entrance walls to create
softening and an Interesting tracery of foliage in these areas.
The seat wall will be cast concrete, and will have a smooth cap that will match the building stone. LED
strip lights with diffuse light plates will be set In the face of the wall to provide a soft glow of light for
the entry paving. Downlights are also included on the property line wall in recesses to add interest to
the wall at night.
The existing new street trees on California Avenue will remain and be protected. Two Camphor trees in
an existing courtyard are proposed for removal.
A new bicycle rack is provided on the California Avenue sidewalk to provide convenient parking near
the building entrance.
The plant materials selected are drought tolerant, and will be watered with an efficient sub-surface
Irrigation system to minimize water use.
The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc.
Gary D. La~'nl'o.n
Principal
California Registered Landscape Architect #2397
A Rel-Il T!iCTlJRE
& INTERIOR:'
"I I )
October 22nd, .2012
CitY of Paio Alto
Department of PI.nning &. Commu.nity Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, Stllfloor
Palo.Alto, CA 94303
Re: 260 California Avenue ARB Malor Review Project Description:
Supplemental LeUer
to Planning Staff and ARB Members:
We are providing this supplemental letter to our application in orderto request a Design
Enhancement Exception relating to our stair tower element which extends beyond tll.e ~7'
height by 5' to align with the adJacent elevator tower which is allowed by code to exceed the 37'
height limit.
The Palo Alto Municipal Co.de s.ection 18.40,090 Height Exceptions states:
Except in as, RE, R-l, and R-2 districts, flues, chimneys, exhaust fans or oil conditioning
equipment, elevator equipment,cooling towers, antennas, and similar architectural, utility, or
mechanlcalfeatu(es may.exceea the height limit established illQliy district/:Jy lIot more than
fifteen feet; provided, however, that no such feature or structure in excess of the height limit
shall /)e used for habitable space, or for any commercial or advertising purposes.
The top of the elevatortower forthe proposed building is situated at 42'-0" above grade (5'
above the 37' height limit). Based on the above staled exception, thelower is permitted to
exceed \he>37'-0" height limit. FOr exiting purpose, tbe egreSs stair is located adjacentto the
elevator tower. The egress stair contains 'a roof hatch which provides access from the top of th./!
stair tower to the roof for servicing purpose. The proposed top of stair tower was·designed to
align with the adjacent elevator tower for architectural consistency. A D.E.E.is requested for
thestalrtower to conform in height with the elevator tower.
Design Enhancement Exception F"nding~
I') )
Section~l!. 76.050 provides for a Design Enhoncement Exception to permit d minor exception to
the zoning regulations. One minor Design Enhancement Exception is required for the proposed
project related to the height of the stair tower.
A Design Enhancement Exception may be granted when doing sa will "Enhance the design of a
proposed project without dlterlng the function or use of the site, or Its Impact on surrounding
properties. "
The elevator tower and the stair tower are adjacent to one another. Both are visible from the
west.and alsoftorn California Ave. Establishing a uniform height for these two adjoining
elements willimprave the aesthetic althe building. Thefunttian or use afthe site, or its
surrounding properties will remain the same.
The findings necessary for a Design Enhancement Exception are satisfied by th.e application for
260 California Ave:
(1) There are exceptionol or extraordln(lry Circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
or site Improvements involved that do not apply general/yto property in the same z,one
district. 260 California is a mid-block three story building abutting a two stories property. Any
inconsistency i.n height between the elevator tower and stair tow~r will be highly visible from
the street.
(2) The granting of the application wil/ enhance the qpplfarance olthe site or structure, or
improve the neighborhood chawcter. 260 California exercises an architectural language that
is consistent With the neighboring building. The stair/elevator tower fronting California Avenue
is meant to reinforce the building's street presence in a simple way that is complimentary to the
overall building design. Having the stair/ elevator tower at the same height conforms to the
building's language and contributes to the overall aesthetic of the building.
(3) The exception Is related to (I minor architecturalfeoture or site improvement that will not be
detrimental of injurious to property or improvements In the vicinity and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, genewl welfare or convenience. The requested
exception is a minor architectural feature that will not impact any neighboring property because
it is a small change to the building that is located at the roof level.
In the context of the proposed project, the requested Design Enhancement Exception is minor In
nature.
Please call me at (650) 365-0600 x15 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ken Hayes, AlA
Principal
CC: Mark Conroe
Notice of Determination· )
TO:
D Office of Planning and Research Public Agency
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
I8J County Clerk
County of Santa Clara
70 W. Hedding St., E. Wing, I" FI
San Jose, CA 95110
)
File#: 18011 FROM:
City of Palo Alto, Planning Division
250 Hamilton Ave, 5th FI
Palo Alto, Ca 94301
Contact: Elena Lee
Phone: 650-617-3196
4/26/2013
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public
Resources Code.
Project Title:
Project Location:
State Clearinghouse Number:
Project Description:
260 California A venue
The project site is located in the central portion of the City
of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County,
east ofEI Camino Real and north of Page Mill Road.
2012121041
The project includes demolition of the existing building on the site and construction of a new three
story building having approximately 27,000 s.f. gross floor area on a 13,509 s.f. project site. The
"project site" is currently two parcels that are proposed to be merged into one through a lot line
adjustment. Office and ground floor retail uses are proposed within the new building.
The proposal includes retail and parking at the ground floor with the second and third floors to be used .
as office space. At the street level, the retail storefront would be recessed back from the sidewalk with
the upper floors protruding forward. A series of columns would support the upper floors, forming a
colonnade at the ground floor. This would provide shade and weather protection at the retail entries.
The office lobby would be separated from the retail storefronts by an increased setback, creating a
deep recessed entry. A landscaped area is proposed in the recess in front of the lobby that would assist
to soften the large blank wall of the adjacent two story building. Exterior materials would include
cement plaster walls, stone, metal column cladding and shades. Clear, dual-glazed windows with deep
mullions for shading would fill the openings.
The project would provide a total of 97 vehicle parking spaces where 94 sPaces are required. There
would be 41 new spaces provided on site and 56 spaces that are currently provided through the
assessment district. The 41 new spaces would consist of 13 covered spaces provided at grade and 28
spaces in the below grade garage. Vehicular access to the site would come from the alley at the rear of
the property, New Mayfield Lane. Bicycle parking would be provided both at grade level in front of
the building and in the below grade garage.
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be 1.99:1 with 3,873 sq. ft. of retail space and 23,127 sq. ft. of
office space. In the California Avenue District, structured parking, as an accessory use, does not COunt
against the allowable FAR. The project application would include two Design Enhancement
Exception (DEE) requests. The DEE requests would allow the building to encroach 20 feet into the 20
foot required setback at the rear alley way and the other is to allow the stair tower to exceed the 37
foot height limit by five feet for a total height of 42 feet.
·. . )
This is to advise that the City of Pall Alto (Lead Agency) has approved the above described project
. on April 22, 20 Band has made the following determinations regarding the above described
project:
1. The project [0 will 181 will not] have a significant effect on the environment.
2. 0 An Environmental Impact Report and Addendum thereto was prepared for this project pursuant to.
the provisions of CEQA.
181 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures [181 were 0 were not] made as'a condition of the approval of the project.
4. For an EIR, a statement of Overriding Considerations [0 was 181 was not] adopted for this project.
5. For an EIR, findings [0 were 181 were not] made pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA ..
This is to certifY that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval, or the
Negative Declaration, is available to the General Public at:
April 24, 2013
Date
) )
DRAFT ADOPTEDON:~ _________ _
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
California Environmental Quality Act
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date: April 24, 2013
Project Name:
Project Location:
Project Proponent:
City Contact:
Project Description:
260 California Avenue
The project site is located in the central portion of the City of Palo Alto, in the
northern part of Santa Clara County, east ofEI Camino Real and north of Page
Mill Road
Jacob K wan, Hayes Group Architects
Russ Reich, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
The project includes demolition of the existing building on the site and construction of a new three-story
building having approximately 27,000 s.f. gross floor area on a 13,509 s.f. project site. The "project site"
is currently two parcels that are proposed to be merged into one through a lot line adjustment. Office and
ground floor retail uses are proposed within the new building.
The proposal includes retail and parking at the ground floor with the second and third floors to be used as
office space. At the street level, the retail storefront would be recessed back from the sidewalk with the
upper floors protruding forward. A series of columns would support the upper floors, forruing a
colonnade at the ground floor. This would provide shade and weather protection at the retail entries. The
office lobby would be separated from the retail storefronts by-an increased setback, creating a deep
recessed entry. A landscaped area is proposed in the recess in front of the lobby that would assist to
soften the large blank wall of the adjacent two story bUilding. Exterior materials would include cement
plaster walls, stone, metal column cladding and shades. Clear, dual-glazed windows with deep mullions
for shading would fill the openings.
The project would provide a total of 97 vehicle parking spaces where 94 spaces are required. There
would be 41 new spaces provided on site and 56 spaces that are currently provided through the
assessment district. The 41 new spaces would consist of 13 covered spaces provided at grade and 28
spaces in the below grade garage. Vehicular access to the site would come from the alley at the rear of
the property, New Mayfield Lane. Bicycle parking would be provided both at grade level in front of the
building and in the below grade garage.
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be 1.99: 1 with 3,873 sq. ft. of retail space and 23,127 sq. ft. of office
space. In the California Avenue District, structured parking, as an accessory use, does not count against
the allowable FAR. The project application would include two Design Enhancement Exception (DEE)
requests. The DEE requests would allow the building to encroach 20 feet into the 20 foot required
setback at the rear alley way and the other is to allow the stair tower to exceed the 37 foot height limit by
five feet for a total height of 42 feet.
) )
File": 18011 4/26/2013 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 of that study, the City makes the following determination:
The. proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this
case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and,
therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
~KJrnii!\'WI_1ImW1Jl~~liIru'iUlwl;WnlM~eJ'aI:S'1S1.1j'ilI;W~~JW:W."\itIV:liifi'l1!.Wffl!V>l_v,1~_nW!l11iM=!Y.ru(.u>mlfl!llt{~lI";m:hllill\IDgrti}l';"l'MI;MII'JIM'!!I~lm~
The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential
environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required
for the project.
1llA\W!k'Mlt'Vlrol!m.lfWJ!Wl\"~mlWn~@O,,<;m'<l'l.Wru_1:WlIWJ'i:illIl!llnll'm~~'lIDWlmn<il.\lllrulfml~"'~lW>fMmp.w::'~MI'.n.W!Wl~YlUl!iIDmt:rnJmfill'U
In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project:
Mitigation Measure Haz. I: A sub-slab vapor barrier shall be installed to prevent contaminated
soil vapors from migrating into the building. The vapor barrier shall be designed by a Registered
Professional Engineer in the State of California. The design shall be submitted to the RWQCB
and the City of Palo Alto for review and approval.
Mitigation Measure Haz. 2: Soil excavated from the northeast and southwest portions of the site
shall be filed screened, segregated, and profiled (sampled) to ensure it has not been
contaminated.
Mitigation Measure Haz. 3: Any impacted (contaminated) soil shall be off-hauled to a Class 2
landfill for disposal.
Prepared by Project Planner
Approved by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment
Page2of2 .. ~.-.
)
260 California Avenue
Initial Study
Prepared by
City of Palo Alto
December 7,2012
)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
) )
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ..................... 6
A. AESTHETICS ......................................................................................... , ..... '" ....... 6
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .......................................... 7
C. AIR QUALITY .... : .................................................................................................. 8
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 9
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 11
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITy ............................................................. 12
G. GREENHOUSE G~S EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 13
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................. 13
1. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................... 15
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................ 17
K. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 18
L. NOISE ................................................................................................................... 18
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................... 19
N. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. 20
O. RECREATION ...................................................................................................... 20
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................ 21
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................. 22
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .............................................. 23
III. SOURCE REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 24
IV. DETERMINATION ...................................................................................................... 24
260 California Avenue Eage2 Initial StUdy
) )
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
260 California Avenue
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
Jacob Kwan, Hayes Group Architects
2657 Spring Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
12PLN-00352
6. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the central portion of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of
Santa Clara County, east of El Camino Real and north of Page Mill Road, as shown on Figure 1,
Regional Map. The project site is 260 California Avenue, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map.
260 California Avenue Page 3 Initial Study
) )
Figure 1: Regional Map
Figure 2: Vicinity Map
260 California Avenue Pago4 Initial Study
) )
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The project area is designated as Regional Community Commercial in the Palo Alto 1998 -2010
Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation generally includes larger shopping centers and
districts that have wider variety goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They
rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores ,
toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non·retail services such as offices and banks.
Non·residential floor area ratios range from 0.35 to 2.
8. ZONING
The project area is zoned Community Commercial with retail and Pedestrian combining districts
CC(2)(R)(P). 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 R and the P combining districts are intended to
ensure that the ground floor spaces are limited to those uses and treatments that preserve retail
uses and encourage pedestrian activity.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project includes demolition of the existing building on the site and construction of a new
three-story building having approximately 27,000 s.f. gross floor area on a 13,509 s.f. project
site. The "project site" is currently two parcels that are proposed to be merged into one through
a lot line adjustment. Office and ground floor retail uses are proposed within the new building.
The proposal includes retail and parking at the ground floor with the second and third floors to
be used as office space. At the street level, the retail storefront would be recessed back from the
sidewalk with the upper floors protruding forward. A series of columns would support the upper
floors, forming a colonnade at the ground floor. This would provide shade and weather
protection at the retail entries. The office lobby would be separated from the retail storefronts by
an increased setback, creating a deep recessed entry. A landscaped area is proposed in the recess
in front of the lobby that would assist to soften the large blank wall of the adjacent two story
building. Exterior materials would include cement plaster walls, stone, metal column cladding
and shades. Clear, dual-glazed windows with deep mullions for shading would fill the openings.
The project would provide a total of 97 vehicle parking spaces where 94 spaces are required.
There would be 41 new spaces provided on site and 56 spaces that are currently provided
through the assessment district. The 41 new spaces would consist of 13 covered spaces
provided at grade and 28 spaces in the below grade garage. Vehicular access to the site would
come from the alley at the rear of the property, New Mayfield Lane. Bicycle parking would be
provided both at grade level in front of the building and in the below grade garage.
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be 1.99:1 with 3,873 sq. ft. of retail space and 23,127 sq. ft.
of office space. In the California Avenue District, structured parking, as an accessory use, does
not count against the allowable FAR. The project application would include two Design
Enhancement Exception (DEE) requests. The DEE requests would allow the building to
260 California Avenue PageS Initial StUdy
) )
encroach 20 feet into the 20 foot required setback at the rear alley way and the other is to allow
the stair tower to exceed the 37 foot height limit by five feet for a total height of 42 feet.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The project site is comprised of two parcels located on California Avenue within the California
Avenue Business District. The. site is located mid-block on the north side of the street between
Birch Street and Park Boulevard. The combined lot area of the two parcels is approximately
13,509 square feet (s.f.) and are located within the Community Commercial Zone District with
Retail and Pedestrian Combining Districts (CC(2)(R)(P». The site is currently occupied by an
11,290 s.f. one story building, built in 1961, with an outdoor patio that runs from the front of the
site through to the public access alley at the rear. The existing use is a restaurant and nightclub
known as l11usions Supper Club (2005), formerly known as Icon Super Club (1998), and The
Edge nightclub (1990), The Vortex (1986), Keystone (1977), and Zinzinnati Oom Pah Pah
(1973). Before that is was The New Age Natural Foods and Deli (1970) and in 1969 it was the
G and A Super Market. To the west of the property is a two story retail and office building and
to the east is a single story dry cleaner. To the north of the site is a public access alleyway
known as New Mayfield Lane accessing an adjacent two-story public parking garage.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and
a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incoroorated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1, 2-Map IA, X
scenic vista? 5
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 1, 2-Map IA, 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?
260 California Avenue Page 6 Initial Study
) )
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incol]lOrated
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 not located on a scenic route, and would not interfere with an existing scenic vista as shown in
the Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010. The re-development of the property would not have a negative impact on the
visual character of the area. The proposal will receive Architectural Review by the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) and will not be approved until the project is compliant with the ARB's findings of approval which ensure
aesthetic quality and contextual compatibility. At three stories tall, the building is similar in height to other
buildings in the district and has been designed with quality details and materials.
Mitigation Measures: None required
B AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, I, 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-agricultural use?
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 I X
rezoning of, forest land (as defmed in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)) or
timberland (as defmed in Public Resources
Code section 4526) or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defmed by
Government Code section 511 04(g))1
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion 1 X
offorest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing I 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 2011 by the
260 California Avenue Page 7 Initial Study
) )
California Department of Conservation. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the
Williamson Act. The project area is within an urban area and has no impacts on forest or timberland. The site is
currently developed with an existing building and is not forest or timberland.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
c. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation 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?
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
_ precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels 1,5 X
e)
of pollutant concentrations?
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 27,000 square feet, no air quality report was prepared.
In the case of any future development of the site, to further reduce 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.
260 California Avenue Page 8 Initial Study
) )
• 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 shan
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.
Mitigation Measures: .None Required
D BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated .
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1,2-MapNI, X directly or through habitat modifications, on 5,
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
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?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 1,2-MapN1, X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 5
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies,-regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 1,2-MapN1, X
protected wetlands as defmed by Section 404 of 5
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of 1,2-MapN1, X
e)
f)
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 5 species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2,3,4,5,6, X
protecting biological resources, such as a tree 15
_ preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted 1,5 X Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
The site is currently developed with no natural areas occurring on the site. No endangered, threatened, or rare
animals, insects and plant species have been identified at the project site.
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
260 California Avenue Page 9 Initial StUdy
) )
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, and/or 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)(1l) 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 existing 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 (TOS) 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 TOS stipulates that a Tree Survey is required (for multiple trees), when a Tree
Preservation Report is required (development within the drip line 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.
Site Tree Resources Impact Assessment
An Initial Tree Impact Analysis (prepared by Arbor Resources) identified 5 trees of various species on or
adjacent to the subject property. The following breakdown was ascertained by staff:
• Street Trees: There are three City street trees that are located in front of the subject property, planted
in tree wells in the public sidewalk. These three trees are identified in the arborist report as trees # 1,
#2, and #3. Trees one and two are Silver Lindens and tree number three is a Southern Live Oak. The
trees are young and have been recently planted. The arborist has found them all to be in good
condition and to have a high suitability for preservation. These trees are protected by City ordinance.
The project proposal does not intend to impact these trees and they will be protected from
construction impacts throughout the duration of the construction. The recommended tree protection
260 California Avenue Page \0 Initial Study
) )
measures identified within the arborist report shall be incorporated as conditions of approval and no
special mitigation is required.
• On site private property trees: There are two Camphor trees within a courtyard on the subject
property. These two trees are not protected by ordinance and are proposed to be removed as part of
the project.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
E CULTURAL RESOURCES .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
IncorDorated
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-MapL7, X significance of a historical resource as defmed 8
in 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-MapL8 X
significance of an archaeological resource
pursDantto 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2-MapL8 X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-MapL8 X
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
DISCUSSION:
The project is located on land designated as "Moderate Sensitivity" for archeological resources. The proposed
development of the site includes one level of below grade parking that would involve excavation to a depth of
approximately 12 feet at the site. Excavation of the soil has the potential of disturbing archeological resources
that may be in the ground so the following standard conditions will be applied to the project.
The following standard project conditions, consistent with State and County regulations, would be required for
any future development.
1. 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 Envirorunent 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 Planning 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 ofIndian Affairs. No further disturbance of the site may
260 California Avenue Page 11 Initial Study
) )
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: None Required
F.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 9
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
soil erosion or the loss 1,15
d) ana
unstable, or that become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on· or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
soils incapable of adequately supporting I
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
for the
DISCUSSION:
Significant
Issues
No
Impact
x
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. 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
260 California Avenue Page12 Initial Study
.' -... ",;' .
) )
G GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless 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) Contlict 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 natiohal particulate matter ambient air quality standards. SFBAAB's nonattainrnent
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 nonattainment of ambient air
quality standards. Instead, a project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse
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. Under the project screening criteria for a general office building, 53,000
square feet is the trigger to require that the lead agency perform a detailed air quality assessment. The proposed
project only proposes 27,000 square feet of commercial square footage and is far below the BAAQMD screening
criteria level. The project, would not 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 1,5,6,16 X
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials? .
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5,6,16 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,5,6
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
260 California Avenue Page 13 Initial Study
) )
.
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the nublic 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, withfu two miles of a public airport Or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the nroiect area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1 X airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the
nroiect area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically 1,2-X interfere with an adopted emergency response
vlan or emergencv evacuation ':'lan? MapN7,6
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2-X of loss, injury, or death involving wildland MapN7,6 fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
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 in
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 (HMJS). 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 storage per the
Palo Alto Municipal Code, California Fire Code and Health and Safety Code.
The current proposal would not result in the exposure of humans to hazardous materials, therefore, the project will
have a no impact as it relates to hazards and hazardous materials.
The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment conducted by Tetra Tech OEO did find the dry cleaning
solvent tetrachloroethene ("peE", or "perc") in the soil vapor beneath the northeast portion of the
property. Due to the presence of peE in the soil, a sub-slab vapor barrier has been recommended as a
mitigation measure to prevent vapor migration into the proposed below grade parking garage and
building. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment also found soil and groundwater in the southern
portion of the site to be impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons at a depth of 14.5 feet to 26 feet. The
proposed excavation for the below grade parking garage is anticipated to be at a depth of only 12 feet
and is not anticipated to disturb the hydrocarbons in the soil or groundwater. However, to ensure that
any tainted soil be properly handled, the soil excavated from the southwest and the northeast portions of
260 California Avenue Page 14 Initial Study
) )
the site shall be field screened and profiled (sampled) during excavation. Any impacted soil shall be off
hauled toa Class 2 landfill for disposal.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure Haz 1: A sub-slab vapor barrier shall be installed to prevent contaminated soil
vapors from migrating into the building. The vapor barrier shall be designed by a Registered
Professional Engineer in the State of California. The design shall be submitted to the RWQCB and the
City of Palo Alto for review and approval.
Mitigation Measure Haz 2: Soil excavated from the northeast and southwest portions ofthe site shall be
filed screened, segregated, and profiled (sampled) to ensure it has not been contaminated.
Mitigation Measure Haz 3: Any impacted (contaminated) soil shall be off-hauled to a Class 2 landfill
for disposal.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
I HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,2,5 X
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 2-X
interfere sUbstantially with groundwater MapN2,
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,5,6 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 1,5,6 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 flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,5,6 X exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide
260 California Avenue Page 15 Initial Study
) )
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
1) 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 1 DO-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-MapNS X
of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam or being located within a I DO-year
flood hazard area?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2-MapN6 X
DISCUSSION:
• Flooding/Drainage
According to comprehensive plan Map N-S the project would be located in an area that could potentially be
inundated by flood flows as a result of darn failure.
Per Chapter 16.2S 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 pennit. 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 Risk Management Plan, as monitored and enforced during
construction by the City of Palo Alto, would ensure compliance with stonnwater quality standards and would
ensure the project creates a less than significant impact.
• Water Quality -During aud Post-Construction
The project shall comply with the stonn water regulations contained in provision C,3 of the NPDES municipal
storm water discharge pennit 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 stonn water quality, the applicant would incorporate into a project a set of
permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect stonn 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 (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as
bioswales, filter strips, and penneable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term
maintenance) to treatthe runoff from a "water quality stonn" specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge
to the municipal stonn 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 following standard measures, consistent with NPDES Pennit and City Ordinance
requirements, would reduce potential construction impacts to surface water quality to less than significant levels:
I. Prior to issuance of a Use & Occupancy penn it, an Elevation Certificate based on finished construction is
required for each built structure.
260 California Avenue Page 16 Initial Study
) )
2. Prior to issuance of a Building permit, the project applicant shall submit a certification by a qualified third
party reviewerthatthe design of the project complies with the requirements ofPAMC Chapter 16.11.
3. Prior to issuance of a Use & Occupancy permit, the project applicant shall submit a certification by a qualified
third-party reviewer that the project's permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were constructed
or installed in accordance with the approved plans.
4. Before submittal of plans for a building permit, the applicant shall submit a drainage plan which includes
drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties.
5. The Applicant shall identity 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 Less Than No
a)
b)
c)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incoroorated
Physically divide an established conununity? 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 plan or natural conununity
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 for the property. The project includes two Design
Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs). The first exception would allow the building to encroach 20 feet into the 20
foot rear yard setback. This is not a typical rear yard setback but rather a 20 foot setback from the service
alleyway at the rear of the property. The existing building, as well as most of the other buildings on the block, do
not meet this setback. To follow the setback would be inconsistent with the existing neighborhood context. By
allowing the encroachment into the setback, it affords the applicant the opportunity to create a richer pedestrian
experience at the front of the building along California Avenue with greater setbacks than required. The second
exception would allow the stair tower to exceed the 37 foot height limit by five feet for a total height of 42 feet.
This exception allows the stair tower to stand apart from the roof and to align with the height of the elevator tower
for architectural consistency.
The requested exceptions to the code are minor exceptions and would not have a negative impact on adjacent
properties.
260 California Avenue Page 17 Initial Study
) )
Mitigation Measures: None Required
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
a)
b)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
1,2 X
region and the residents of the state?
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-I). 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 No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
IncorDorated
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?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 1,2,10,14 X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1,2,10,14 X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2,10,14 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existin~ without the project?
e) For a 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?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private I X airstrip, would thOjlroiect expose.JlOople
260 California Avenue Page 18 Initial Study
.
) )
Issues and Snpporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 Charles M. Salter
Associates Inc. found that any potential sources of project noise, such as proposed condenser equipment noise,
would not violate the City of Palo Alto's noise ordinance and would be less than the eight dB abouve local
ambient.
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 Municipal
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 of the project shall not exceed 90 dBA.
• Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this permit, along
with the name and telephone number of a developer appointed disturbance coordioator, shall be posted in
a prominent location at the entrance to the job site.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
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
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, I X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
260 California Avenue Page 19 Initial StUdy
) )
DISCUSSION:
The project does not displace existing housing nor would it induce substantial population growth.
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
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other perfonnance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,2-X
MapN7
b) Police protection? I X
c) Schools? I X
d) Parks? I X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project site is located in a developed area of the 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 higITfire hazard area.
The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The project would not by itself
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 No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of 1 X
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
260 California Avenue Page 20 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) 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 include office and retail uses. People that would be working within the project may
use local parks during the workday, to eat lunch for example, or after work for recreation activity, but the amount
of use is anticipated to be small such that it would not create impacts to existing City recreational facilities.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
P TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Contlict with an applicable plan, ordinance 1,5,11 X
or policy established measures of
effectiveness for the perfonn,ance 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) Contlict 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?
c) 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?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 1,5,11 X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., fann equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,5,11 X
t) Contlict with adopted policies, plans, or 1,2,5,11 X
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
260 California Avenue Page 21 Initial Study
)
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease
the erformance or safe of such facilities?
DISCUSSION:
)
TJKM Transportation Consultants perfonned a trip generation analysis which concluded that a detailed traffic
study would not be required. They also detennined that the Level of Service of the study intersections would
continue to operate at acceptable levels.
Mitigation: None Required
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 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
project'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 project would not require construction of new facilities for wastewater treatment, stonn 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.
260 California Avenue Page 22 Initial Study
)
Mitigation Measures: None Required
R MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -Issues and Supporting Iuformation Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
a)
b)
c)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Does the project have the potential to 1,2,3,5,8 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 nnmber or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
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 of probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects 1,5 X
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
DISCUSSION:
The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality ofthe 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 Phase II Environmental
Site Assessment did find the dry cleaning solvent tetrachloroethene ("PCE", or "perc") in the soil vapor beneath
the northeast portion of the property. Due to the presence of PCE in the soil, a sub-slab vapor barrier has been
recommended as a mitigation measure to prevent vapor migration into the proposed below grade parking garage
and building. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment also found soil and groundwater in the southern
portion of the site to be impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons at a depth of 14.5 feet to 26 feet. The proposed
excavation for the below grade parking garage is anticipated to be at a depth of only 12 feet and is not anticipated
to disturb the hydrocarbons in the soil or groundwater. However, to ensure that any tainted soil be properly
handled, the soil excavated from the southwest and the northeast portions of the site shall be field screened and
profiled (sampled) during excavation. Any impacted soil shall be off-hauled to a Class 2 landfill for disposal.
Mitigation Measures:
260 California Avenue Page 23 Initial Study
)
Mitigation Measure Haz I: A sub-slab vapor barrier shall be installed to prevent contaminated soil vapors from
migrating into the building. The vapor barrier shall be designed by a Registered Professional Engineer in the
State of California. The design shall be submitted to the R WQCB and the City of Palo Alto for review and
approval.
Mitigation Measure Haz 2: Soil excavated from the northeast and southwest portions of the site shall be filed
screened, segregated, and profiled (sampled) to ensure it has not been contaminated.
Mitigation Measure Haz 3: Any impacted (contaminated) soil shall be off-hauled to a Class 2 landfill for
disposal.
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 September 4,2012
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
9. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
10. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10-Noise Ordinance
II. Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants, October 10,2012
12. Important Farmland in California Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource
Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 20 I O.
13. Agricultural Preserves Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection.
14. Noise Impact Study, prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates Inc., September 4,2012
15. Arborist Report, prepared by Arbor Resources, August 24, 2012
16. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Tetra Tech Geo, October 20,2011,
including supplemental Recommendations Letter, December 3, 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 proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
260 California Avenue Page 24 Initial StUdy
)
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on tbe earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adeqnately
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, inclnding revisions or mitigation measnres that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
17-/7/W/'2-
Russ Reich, Senior Planner Date
260 California Avenue Page 25 Initial Study
)
Appendixc
Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613
For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 SCH#
Project Title: 260 California Avenue
Lead Agency: City of Palo Alto
Mailing Address: 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor
City: Palo Alto
Contact Person: Russ Reich
Phone: 650-617;-:-3;:;1~19~""--'-------
Zip: 94301 County: Santa Clara
-----Project Location: County:Santa Clara CitylNearest Community: P=-:a:::l.:::o..:.A"'lt::::O ___ -::-:::--::-:::-:=_--'-_
Cross Streets: California Ave=n:::ue=a'::nd::=:'BI"'rc"'h"'S"'t'-re-e'"t----Zip Code: 94306
LongitudeJLatitude (degrees, minutes and seconds): __ ' __ ' __ " N I __ ' __ ' __ u W Total Acres: __ -::-____ _
Assessors Parcel No.: 124-28-033 Section: Twp.: Range: Base:
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: EI Camino Real Waterways: ----
Airports: Railways: Cal Train Schools: ________ _
-------------------------------------------Document Type:
CEQA: 0 Nap o DraftEm NEPA: o NOI Other: o lointDocument o Early Cons o Neg Dec lEI Mit Neg Dec
o Supplement/Subsequent Em
(Prior SCH No.) ____ _
Other: -------
o EA o DraftEIS o FONSI
o Final Document o Other: _____ _
---------------------------------------------Local Action Type: o General Plan Update o General Plan Amendment
o Specific Plan o MasterPlan o General Plan Element o Community Plan
o Planned Unit Development o Site Plan
o Rezone o Prezone o Use Permit o Land Division (Subdivision, etc.)
D Annexation
1&1 Redevelopment
D Coastal Permit D Other: ----'------------------------------------------------Development Type: o Residential: Units __ Acres __ _
[8J Office: Sq.ft. 23.127 Acres Employees __ _ D Transportation: Type, ___________ _
[8J Commercial:Sq.ft. 3,873 Acres Employees __ _ o Industrial: Sq.ft. --Acres Employees __ _
o Mining: Mineral _____ "m, ____ _
o Educational: __ ~~_-_-___________ _
o Power: Type ______ MW
D Waste Trearment:Type MGDr;------D Hazardous Waste:Type ____________ _ o Recreational: o Water Facilit·'cie::cs'":Ty=pe:----------;M=G"'DC'_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-o Other: _______________ _
Proj.Cil;~S-Di;c~s;din-D;c;m;nt - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
o AesthetieNisual o Agricultural Land o Air Quality o Archeological/Historical o Biological Resources o Coastal Zone o Drainage/Absorption o Economic/lobs
o Fiscal D RecreationlParks o Flood PlainlFlooding D SchoolslUniversities o Forest LandlFire Hazard D Septic Systems o Geologic/Seismic 0 Sewer Capacity
..... b1.11egetation .. o Water Quality
lEI Water Supply/Groundwater o WetIandlRiparian o Minerals lEI Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading o Growth Inducement
Oland Use o Noise 0 Solid Waste o PopulationiHousing Balance lEI ToxiclHazardous o Public Services/Faciiities 0 Traffic/Circulation
o Cumulative Effects D Other: _____ _
Pre;.;t Land iis;lZ~nj;,giG;n;rai Plan-D;sign;ll;n~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - -
CommercIal I Community Commercial wIth Retail and PedestrIan combining distrIcts (CC(2)(R)(P)) I Community Commercial
Proieci Descripll;;'n;" (please use a separBtepagelf iiecessa;yf - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --- - - -
see separate sheet.
Note: The State Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers/or all new projects. If a seH number already exists for a project (e.g. Notice of Preparation or
previous draft document) please fill in.
Revised 2010
)
Project Description
The project includes demolition of the existing building on the site and construction of a
new three-story building having approximately 27,000 s.f. gross floor area on a 13,509
s.f. project site. The "project site" is currently two parcels that are proposed to be merged
into one through a lot line adjustment. Office and ground floor retail uses are proposed
within the new building.
The proposal includes retail and parking at the ground floor with the second and third
floors to be used as office space. At the street level, the retail storefront would be
recessed back from the sidewalk with the upper floors protruding forward. A series of
columns would support the upper floors, forming it colonnade at the ground floor. This
would provide shade and weather protection at the retail entries. The office lobby would
be separated from the retail storefronts by an increased setback, creating a deep recessed
entry. A landscaped area is proposed in the recess in front of the lobby that would assist
to soften the large blank wall of the adjacent two story building. Exterior materials
would include cement plaster walls, stone, metal column cladding and shades. Clear,
dual-glazed windows with deep mullions for shading would fill the openings.
The project would provide a total of 97 vehicle parking spaces where 94 spaces are
required. There would be 41 new spaces provided on site and 56 spaces that are currently
provided through the assessment district. The 41 new spaces would consist of 13
covered spaces provided at grade and 28 spaces in the below grade garage. Vehicular
access to the site would come from the alley at the rear of the property, New Mayfield
Lane. Bicycle parking would be provided both at grade level in front of the building and
in the below grade garage.
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be 1.99:1 with 3,873 sq. ft. of retail space and
23,127 sq. ft. of office space. In the California Avenue District, structured parking, as an
accessory use, does not count against the allowable FAR. The project application would
include two Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) requests. The DEE requests would
allow the building to encroach 20 feet into the 20 foot required setback at the rear alley
way and the other is to allow the stair tower to exceed the 37 foot height limit by five feet
for a total height of 42 feet.
CITY OF
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
December 20, 2012
Architectural Review Board
Russ Reich, Senior Planner
· Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
260 California Avenue 12PLN-00352: Request by The Hayes Group, on
behalf of Tarob M&C Investors, LLC, for Architectural Review Board
review of a new three-story, 27,000 sq. ft. commercial/retail building.
Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared. Zone District: Community Commercial with Retail and
Pedestrian combining districts (CC2(R)(P)).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend approval of the proposed
project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director), based upon the
findings in Attachments A and B and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment C
BACKGROUND
The applicant has provided a letter describing the existing site conditions, context and the
proposed project with respect to development standards for the Community Commercial (CC)
Zone District (Attachment A).
Site Information
The project site is comprised of two parcels located on California Avenue within the California
A venue Business District. The site is located mid block on the north side of the street between
Birch Street and Park Boulevard. The combined lot area of the two parcels is approximately
13,509 square feet (sJ.) and the site is located within the Community Commercial Zone District
with Retail and Pedestrian Combining Districts (CC(2)(R)(P)). The Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Designation is Community Commercial. The site is currently occupied by an 11,290 s.f. one
story building, built in 1961 as a Purity Market. It has an outdoor patio adjacent to the California
Avenue sidewalk and five parking spaces located between the patio and the rear of the property,
accessible via the public access alley, New Mayfield Lane. The existing use is a restaurant and
nightclub known as Club Illusions (2005), formerly known as Icon Super Club (1998), The Edge
nightclub (1990), The Vortex (1986), Keystone (1977), and Zinzinnati Oom Pah Pah (1973).
12PLN-00352 Page I of5
) ')
Before that it was The New Age Natural Foods and Deli (1970) and in 1969 it was the G and A
Super Market. To the west of the property is a two story retail and office building and to the east
is a single stOlY dry cleaner. To the north of the site is a public access alleyway known as New
Mayfield Lane providing access to an adjacent two-story public parking garage.
Prior Review
The project received Preliminary Architectural review on June 21, 2012. The project is similar to
what was presented at the June 21 st meeting. There were four public speakers that raised concerns
related to the height and mass of the building, access, parking and use ofthe alley, and the limited
amount of retail space compared to the amount of proposed office space.
The ARB had comments about the use of the alley as well as the height of the building. Many
members felt that the proposed exception for height was not supportable. Others spoke of the
alternative design concept that had the third floor set back from the face of the building as relating
better to the adjacent buildings. The applicant was also asked about proposed landscaping for the
project. Since the initial review the building height has been reduced to comply with the zoning
limit of 37 feet, the sides of the building have been given greater articulation, and a landscaped
planter has been added to the area adjacent to the recessed entry.
Project Description
The project is a new three-story building having approximately 27,000 s.f. gross floor area on a
13,509 s.f. project site (after a lot line adjustment to merge the two parcels). The office and retail
use, proposed within this project are consistent with the California Avenue Concept Plan.
The proposal includes retail floor area and a parking facility at the ground floor, and office space
at the second and third floors. At the street level, the retail storefront would be recessed back
from the sidewalk with the upper floors protruding forward. A series of columns would support
the upper floors, forming a colonnade at the ground floor. This would provide shade and weather
protection for pedestrians at the retail entries. The office lobby would be separated from the retail
storefronts by an increased setback creating a deep recessed entty. A landscaped area is proposed
in the recess in front of the lobby that would assist to soften the large blank wall of the adjacent
two story building. Exterior materials would include cement plaster walls, stone, metal column
cladding and shades. Clear, dual-glazed windows with deep mullions for shading would fill the
openmgs.
The project would provide a total of 97 vehicle parking spaces where 94 spaces are required.
There would be 41 new spaces provided on site, and 56 spaces are currently provided through the
assessment district. The 41 new spaces would consist of 13 covered spaces provided at grade and
28 spaces in the below grade garage. Vehicular access to the site would come from the alley at
the rear of the property, New Mayfield Lane. Bicycle parking would be provided both at grade
level in front of the building and in the below grade garage.
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be 1.99:1 with 3,873 sq. ft. of retail space and 23,127 sq. ft.
of office space. In the California A venue District, structured parking, as an accessory use, does
not count against the allowable FAR. The project application would include two Design
Enhancement Exception (DEE) requests. One DEE request would be to exceed the 37 foot height
12PLN-00352 Page 2 of5
limit by five feet to align the stair tower with the adjacent elevator tower height. The second DEE
request would be to allow the building to encroach 20 feet into the 20 foot required setback at the
rear alley way. The existing structure on the site would be demolished. The two lots would be
merged together prior to building permit issuance.
In accordance with the City's Green Building Ordinance, the applicant states that the building
would comply with the City's locally amended California Green Building Code (Cal Green Tier 2
mandatory).
DISCUSSION
Building Height and Mass
The proposed height of the building relative to the existing California A venue context should be
carefully considered. The proposed building would be the tallest building on the north side of the
street for the entire length of the block. While the third floor would be recessed back with a
balcony facing the street, the solid wall face would rise up from the second floor to the third floor
roof with no setback from the second floor. The third floor would only be recessed at the window
openings. The roof, at the third floor, would then protrude forward, beyond the wall planes,
further accentuating the three story building mass. The third floor may feel somewhat lighter,
given that it would be recessed and have punctuations within the roof. However, with no recess at
the third floor wall plane, and the third floor roof projecting forward of the wall plane, the
massing may appear as a three story building at the street level, rather than two stories. There is a
three StOlY building diagonally across the street and taller buildings at the El Camino Real corner
and at the end of the street, so the height of the building within the California Avenue business
district is not unusual. However, the height relative to the immediately adjacent buildings would
be taller. The applicant has reduced the height of the building, to comply with the zoning limit,
but it will still be taller than the neighboring buildings on the block. The three story wall height
and the projecting overhang, are vety positive elements of the building's design, but they do
contribute to making the building's height noticeable at the street level and should be considered.
Stair Tower Height DEE
A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) has been proposed at the stair tower to be located at the
front left side of the building, which would exceed the allowable height of 37 feet by five feet.
The additional five feet in height is requested to align the height of the stair tower with the height
of the adjacent elevator tower and to provide some architectural interest and height differentiation
at the entry lobby. The total height of this element would be 42 feet tall.
Rear (alley) Setback DEE
The CC(2) zoning requires a 20 foot setback from an alley. The rear of the new building would be
on the property line, providing no setback from the alley, as is the existing condition with the
current building. This would result in a 20 foot encroachment into the 20 foot required setback.
The applicant has requested a DEE for this encroachment. There is no clear pattern set by the
other existing buildings following the 20 foot setback on the alley. The existing building on the
site is built up to the property line as are most of the other buildings on the alley. It would be
inconsistent with the existing development pattern for this new building to follow the 20 foot
setback. Such placement would force additional building mass closer to California Avenue,
reducing the pedestrian amenities provided in the current design.
12PLN-00352 Page 3 of5
) )
Alley Congestion
Concern over congestion within the alley has been noted by adjacent business owners. It is not
likely that the project would have a negative impact on the alley. Less than half of the parking
spaces for the project are actually located on site. Many occupants ofthe building will not be
driving into the alley to access the parking garage since many of them will be parking within the
public parking areas within the assessment district and walking to the building. The alley can
easily handle any small increase in traffic that may result from the project. The alley is easily
wide enough to allow for delivery trucks to park in the alley and allow other vehicles to pass, as is
the current operation within the alley.
Context-Based Design Criteria
According to Chapter 18.16.090 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code "compatibility is achieved when
apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian
oriented design and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design
linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained".
The proposal does achieve pedestrian oriented design with floor to ceiling store front glazing, a
recessed storefront, and columns that would create a colonnade. It would be difficult to say that
California A venue has a pattern of buildings such that a new building design could be found to
maintain that pattern and the subsequent visual unity of the street. The street's buildings have
created over time, a very random pattern of height, massing, and styles. The scale of the street is
generally pedestrian oriented, with some exceptions. One element that the proposed building
does have in common with some of the taller buildings in close proximity is a projecting roof
overhang.
Construction Logistics
Much of the concern over the project appears to be related to potential impacts to off-site
businesses during the construction of the project. This project, as with any project, will likely
have limited periods oftime when construction activity may cause some temporary inconvenience
to people/businesses in the vicinity of the project. The applicant has committed to working with
the neighbors to address these concerns. The City also requires that applicant work directly with
the City to establish a construction logistics plan to ensure that the construction impacts are as
limited as possible. This plan is typically created prior to building permit issuance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared and circulated, with a required 30-
day public review and comment period beginning December 14,2012 and ending on January 14,
2013. The environmental analysis provided in the Initial Study (Attachment I) found that the soil
and groundwater beneath portions of the project site have been contaminated by off-site sources:
the dry cleaner to the right, and the property to the left, which was once a gas station. To prevent
the migration of soil vapors into the project, a vapor barrier has been required as a mitigation
measure. Also included as mitigation measures are the requirements to screen and profile the
excavated soil to ensure that no contaminated soil is improperly disposed of and the requirement
to off-haul any contaminated soil to a Class 2 landfill for disposal. These are the only mitigations
measure required for the project and would reduce the potential impacts to a level of less than
significant.
12PLN-00352 Page 4 of5
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Attachment J:
Only)*
ARB Findings for Approval
Context-Based Design Findings
DEE Findings
Conditions of Approval (provided at places)
Site Location Map
Zoning Compliance Table
)
Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Policies (provided at places)
Applicants Project description letter*
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Development Plans Dated received December 13, 2011(Board Members
• Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff
COURTESY COPIES
Ken Hayes, the Hayes group, 2657 Spring Street, Redwood City, CA 94063
Tarob M&C Investors, LLC, 1390 Market Street, Suite 112, San Francisco, CA 94102
Prepared By: Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Reviewed By: Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official ff'
12PLN·00352 Page 5 of5
\ ) , )
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
California Avenue I File No. 12PLN-00352
The design and architectill'e of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings
for Architectill'al Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76.
(I) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project
incorporates quality design that recognizes the regional importance of the area as
described in the Comprehensive Plan and reinforces its pedestrian character.
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. This finding can
be made in the affirmative in that the project, proposed at three stories tall, fits into its
midblock location among an eclectic mix of commercial buildings of various heights
and massing. Other three story buildings are located across the street with even taller
buildings at the each end of the commercial district. The building has been designed to
encourage pedestrian activity.
(3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the design would accommodate the proposed residential office uses
and retail uses. The proposed building would have ample storefront glass, recesses, and
a colonnade to create an inviting pedestrian environment.
(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 is not applicable in that it is not an area of
different land uses. It is a commercial building proposed within a commercial district.
(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 new building is compatible with the
existing context of the California Avenue commercial area environment.
(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 building
has been designed to provide pedestrian amenities at the street level, outdoor balconies
for the office users, and parking off the alley for improved pedestrian safety on
California Avenue.
(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
)
building has provided an adequate amount of recesses as required in the zoning
requirements of the "P" overlay with the intent to add interest at the ground floor for
pedestrians as well as a number of balconies for the upper floor office tenants.
(9) Sufficient ancillary jUnctions 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 features such as trash enclosures, electrical meters, and
HV AC equipment have been designed to keep them out of public view.
(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 proj ect has
been designed to encourage pedestrian activity with recessed floor to ceiling storefront
and a covered colonnade for weather protection. Pedestrian access is provided at the
front and the rear of the project as well as the ability to pass through the building from
California Avenue to New Mayfield Lane behind.
(11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. This
finding can be made in the affirmative in that all three of the existing street trees will be
preserved.
(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 the proposed colors and materials will add detail and interest and are
compatible with the commercial environment.
(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
jUnctional environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that landscape
materials are used wherever possible to soften the building and create a more inviting
pedestrian experience at the entry.
(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;
• 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 incorporate many
features included in the LEED project checklist.
(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.
)
ATTACHMENT B
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS
260 California Avenue / File No. 12PLN-000352
Pursuant to PAMC 18.l6.090(b), in addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained
in PAMC 18.76.020(d), the following additional findings have been made in the affirmative:
(1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment. The design of new projects shall promote
pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design
elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the new building would
provide the ability for pedestrians to walk from the front of the property to the rear
through the building. the building can be accessed both from the front on California
Avenue or from the rear at New Mayfield Lane. The proposal also incorporates ample
floor to ceiling storefront glass that is recessed from the sidewalk with a covered
colonnade for weather protection at the retail entries. There are bike racks proposed at
the sidewalk in front of the building and in a designated area of the below grade parking
garage.
(2) Street building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong
relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s}, to create an environment that supports
and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. This finding can be made
in the affirmative in that the building has been designed to encourage pedestrian activity
by providing ample storefront glass, a large inviting covered entryway, and an
articulated building mass facing the street that differentiates the first floor pedestrian
level colonnade from the upper floors of the building. The building has multiple entries
with the upper floors having a prominent but recessed entry while the retail entries are
closer to the street with a more pedestrian scale. There is also a landscape feature at the
front entry that will help to soften the large blank wall of the adjacent building.
(3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform
to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building
would be designed with an articulated base body and roof. The ground floor is recessed
back from the second floor with a pedestrian colonnade and the projecting roof
overhang is a significant visual element capping the top of the building. The third floor
is setback from the second floor with a balcony at the front of the building with punched
recesses in the street facing wall and in the roof above to lighten the massing at the third
level.
(4) Low-Density Residential Transitions. Where new projects are built abutting existing
lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and
privacy of neighboring properties. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the building is not directly adjacent to existing residential development.
) )
(5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is
usable for residents, visitors, and/or employees of the site. This finding can be made in
the affirmative in that the project includes large balcony areas for the office tenants at
the second and third floors.
(6) Parking Design. Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to
overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that project meets the parking
requirements of the code. It has been placed at the rear of the site, accessed by a public
alley, and placed underneath the proposed building, to screen it from public views and
ensure that the parking area does not visually dominate the site.
) )
ATTACHMENT C
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
(DRAFT) DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION FINDINGS
260 California Avenue/ File No. 12PLN-00352
In the CC(2) zone district there is a 20 foot setback requirement from the alley way, New
Mayfield Lane. The applicant has proposed a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to
encroach 20 feet into the 20 foot setback, bringing the building to the rear property line.
The height limit for the zone district is 37 feet. The applicant has proposed a second
DEE to exceed the 37 foot limit by 5 feet for a total height of 42 feet for the stair tower.
The requested Design Enhancement Exceptions are consistent with the following findings
as stated in PAMC 18.76.050 (c).
(1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the
same zone district.
This finding can be made in the affirmative. The building is located mid-block where
most of the other buildings within the block, including the subject property, do not
setback from the alley. The buildings on each side of the proposed building are not as tall
as the proposed building and the upper floors of the building would be visible from off
site views.
(2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or
structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing
or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished
through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the
architectural review findings set forth in Section 18. 76.020(d).
This finding can be made in the affirmative. The 20 foot setback is not followed by the
other properties in the vicinity and it would be inconsistent with the existing development
pattern for the new building to follow it. It would also hinder the ability to provide the
recessed setbacks at the California A venue street frontage. The height exception would
allow the stair tower to be the same height as the adjacent elevator tower creating a
cohesive architectural tower element on the front elevation of the building.
(3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that
will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will
not be .detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed setback encroachment
would match the existing condition and not introduce a new impact to properties within
the vicinity. The height exception is for a small element and would improve the
appearance of the building.
1
The City of
Palo Alto
Attachment E
260 Califonia Avenue
Site = IfD
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
--• 121'
1 lo2012CUyofPoIoAilo
) )
ATTACHMENT F
ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE
260 California Avenue / File No. 12PLN-00352
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE DISTRICT PROPOSED
FOR CC(2)(R)(P) ZONE STANDARD PROJECT
DISTRICT
Minimum Building setback
Front Yard (El Camino Real.) 0-10' to create a 0'
12'sidewalk width
Rear Yard No Requirement for 0'
commercial
Interior Side Yard (right) No Requirement 0'
Interior Side Yard (left) No Requirement 0'
Build-To-Lines 50% of frontage 77%
built to setback
Minimum setback from alley 20' 0'
Maximum Site Coverage No requirement 12,057 Sq. ft.
Maximum Height 37' 37'
42" 42'
(for mech.
enclosure)
Stair tower 37' Stair tower 42'
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0:1 (27,024) sq ft 1.99:1 (27,000) sq ft
Parking Requirement Retail 56 spaces provided
1 per 240 = 16 through the
assessment district.
Office
1 per 310 = 75 41 additional spaces
provided on site.
Total reg.= 91 97 total spaces
provided
(6 spaces are
tandem) (3 extra spaces)
CONFORMANCE
conforms
conforms
conforms
conforms
conforms
DEE (20 feet)
conforms
conforms
conforms
DEE (5 feet)
conforms
conforms
ARCHITECTURE
& Il'TERIORS
September 4'd, 2012
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor
Palo Alto, CA 94303
)
Attachment H
II " Y 1· S I (, Il 0 lJ p
Re: 260 California Avenue ARB Major Review Project Description
To Planning Staff and ARB Members:
Attached is Hayes Group Architect's submittal package for 260 California Avenue for
ARB Major review. The project applicant is Hayes Group Architects on behalf of Tarob
M&C Investors, LLC. This package includes 14 sets of half size drawings and 16 sets of
full size drawings containing the site survey, contextual photos, the proposed site plan,
floor plans, elevations, and perspectives.
1. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site is located at mid-block on the northern side of California Avenue between Birch
Street and Park Boulevard, in the CC(2) zone with (R) & (P) overlay. The existing site is
occupied by a one-story (with mezzanine) restaurant and nightclub building (with a high
vaulted ceiling). The site abuts and extends partially behind a smaller lot to the east. On
the west is a two-story building with retail space on the ground floor and commercial
office space on the second floor. The rear of the property faces New Mayfield Lane,
which provides vehicular access to the property. The two-story city parking garage is on
the other side of New Mayfield Lane. The site is adjacent to or in the vicinity of two,
three, and four-story commercial and retail buildings along California Avenue.
2657 SPRING STREET, REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063. PHONE, 650·365·0600. FAX, 650.365.0670.
) )
2. PROPOSED PROJECT
The project proposes to demolish the existing building and construct a new, three-story,
commercial office and retail building. Gross floor area will be 27,000 SF after deduction
of covered parking space per PAMC 18.04.030(65)(8)(i), which states:
For all zoning districts other than the R-E, R-1, R-2 and RMD residence districts, 'Gross
Floor Area' means the total area of all floors of a building measured to the outside
surfaces of exterior walls. 'Gross Floor Area' shall not include parking facilities
accessory to a permitted or conditional use and located on the same site. '
An existing twelve-foot effective sidewalk width is provided along California Ave. There
are no side or front setback requirements for the site. Due to the retail and pedestrian
zone overlay, retail space is located on the ground floor, with commercial office space
occupying the upper floors. The building canopy tops off at 37' -0" above grade to comply
with the current CC2 zoning requirement for height. Elevator penthouse and roof top
mechanical equipment screen projects another 5'0" above the canopy as allowed by the
zoning code (this is a reduction in height from the preliminary design's equipment
screen, which was at 50'0", 8' higher than the current design). In addition to reducing the
proposed building's height to 37'0" (from the prior design's 42'6"), the proposed building
has been modified to address the following objectives: (1) to enhance the streetscape
and pedestrian experience by providing a setback on the ground level thereby providing
building relief and facilitating sidewalk dining and shopping; (2) to provide a strong
building presence on the street (similar to the three story building across the street); (3)
to provide for public space and building relief along California Ave at the office entry; and
(4) to provide for a comfortable pedestrian experience from the street by providing some
building relief at the third floor. The proposed building's design addresses all these
objectives by providing a 6' setback on the ground floor with the retail space; providing a
landscaped open area and building setback at the office entry; and stepping back the
third floor by 7' feet and locating a balcony on this level with a glass railing, thereby
providing transparency and relief. With the partial roof, open balcony on the third floor,
the street block face is reinforced and interest is introduced on the fa9ade with activity,
shadow and light.
The overall building massing utilizes the majority of the site to achieve the permitted
FAR. of 2:1. Portions of the elevations are recessed to create shadow and visual relief
while also providing opportunities for the landscaped pedestrian entry plaza, upper level
balconies, and the driveway at the rear.
Proposed materials include cut stone and cement plaster walls, integral colored pre-cast
concrete walls and columns, stainless steel and aluminum metal canopies, and clear
dual-glazed windows with mullion extensions to shade the openings.
Design Enhancement Exception Findings
Section 18.76.050 provides for a Design Enhancement Exception to permit a minor
exception to the zoning regulations. One minor Design Enhancement Exceptions Is
required for the proposed project related to the rear yard setback.
) )
A Design Enhancement Exception may be granted when doing so will "Enhance the
design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site, or its impact
on surrounding properties." The rear setback encroachment enhances the building
design by creating opportunities to provide (where not required) front yard setbacks
(which results in providing usable public open space) along California Ave and does not
impact any surrounding property since the rear yard setback to New Mayfield Lane is not
provided by the existing (60 year old) building on the property and is not provided by
nearly any of the other properties on the block.
18.76.050 provides that Design Enhancement Exceptions are available for minor
changes "to the setback" and other minor features.
The findings necessary for a Design Enhancement Exception are satisfied by the
application for 260 California Ave:
(1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
propertyotsite improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the
same zone district. 260 California Ave is a mid-block building which abuts a two story
public parking garage to the rear and only has access via New Mayfield Lane. There is
also an opportunity to create a much beUer pedestrian retail experience along California
Ave than currently exists (to include greater setbacks than required by code).
(2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure,
or improve the neighborhood character. The reduced setback will improve the
appearance of the structure by creating voluntary front yard setbacks along California
Ave to provide greater building relief and open space and improve the pedestrian
experience along California Ave by providing a wider sidewalk to facilitate sidewalk
dining. The proposed building design provides the opportunity to create a stronger retail
pedestrian experience thereby helping to extend the retail further down California Ave
than what currently exists.
(3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will
not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The requested
exception will not impact any neighboring property because the existing building (which
has been there for over 60 years) does not provide this setback and almost none of the
other properties on the same block of New Mayfield Lane provide this setback.
In the context of the proposed project, the requested Design Enhancement Exception is
minor.
3. PARKING & BICYCLE SPACES
The existing facility is being assessed by the parking district for 56 spaces. After
crediting the parking provided by this assessment, 38 parking spaces are required for
this project. A combination of ground floor and below grade parking provides 41 parking
stalls, some of which are tandem, to satisfy the parking requirement. Short-term bicycle
parking Is provided near the main entrance. Long-term bicycle parking is provided in a
secure area in the basement.
) )
4. TRASH/RECYCLING
A trash and recycling facility will be located at the back of the property accessible from
New Mayfield Lane. .
5. GREEN BUILDING STANDARD
In accordance with the city's Green Building Ordinance, this project will comply with
California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2) with Local Amendments.
We look forward to a staff review and scheduling of a Major ARB hearing so that we can
proceed with the development of this project.
Please cali me at (650) 365-0600 x15 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ken Hayes, AlA
Principal
cc: Mark Conroe, Tarob M&C investors, LLC
)
October :1.2nd, .2012
c;:)ty of Palo Alto
Department ofPl~nnl~g&tommUr11W Envl(onrn~llt
250 Hamilton Avenue,SI'floor
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Rei 26(fCalifornia Avenue,ARB MalorRevlew Proie~t Description:.
Supplemental Letter
To Planning Staffand ARB Members:
)
We3.re providing Ibis supplementa) letjer to QIJr appllcatioh in QrdertQ)"eqitest a D.esigfi
Enhancement Exception relating to oQrslalr tower'eJell161lt wOle!) e")(t<ln~sl:i¢YPndthel!7'
height by 5' tQ align with theadjacenteJevatortower·whlchisaliowed by code to exceed the 37'
height IIm/t.
The Palo AlloMuole/pal cO.de s.ection18.40,090HelghtExceptions states:
Except in OS, RE, R-l, and R-2 districts,Jlues, chimneys, eXh'Ptlst.{flns or air r;Q(ldftionif:lg
eqllipIl'iM.t, elevato! equipment,c(JollngJoWers,anteiJiias, and.Sifrliiararch(tectural,utillty, or
meG/lal)lcfJlf~aM"s mC/Y!tx:c««l/t/l~ hei(Jf1(lill'iltmobJi$n~d i(),qny,dlsttict/iynQt fIlo,iHhrm
!ifteeri!eet; provided, however, thor no such fea!wewstru~'tl!reln eXCes$oftlreheightliinlt
shOll M.used for hdQitablesj:Jdce, ot,!afonycoJirinerCidl o/advettlslnf[purposes,
The top olthe elevatortower fodhe propose~ b.' un~jng j~slt~atedat42'··O"ab()ve gra<je If
abolli! the 37' heightlirilit). Ba!fed on th:eilliovesta:t~dexceptian;'the,tower ispermitted.'lo
ex~ee<l'~hea7'"O" height limit,. Forellitiog)lUtP!)se, the egte,s$stliltJ;;; locpt:ed adjacEifltto the
elevatortowet. The egress stair contains a roof-hatch ""nieh provid\1sa~~ess{r9mtJie'topoflt\e
sta/r tower to the rooffQr servicing purpose. The proposedto.p.otstali't6werw.as.,designed 'to
align with the a~jacent elj;vatortowerfor architectvral coMislency,. AD.E.E. jsr~ql!ested,for:
the stair'towertoconform lnhelghtwlththe e/evatortower.
Resign Enhancement $xceptlon Ft'ndinlJj
)
If
Se,tion 18.76.0$0 proviCies/or a Design t;nhaMementE)(cePtion tojiermltd minor iiXception to
the zoning regulations. One minor Design Enhan~ementExceptionis require!:! (ortheprOposed
pfOjectreJated to the heightofthe stall tower.
ADesign Enhancement Exception may be granted whendolhg~() Will "£nhQri,e the design ofa
proposed project withdut a/terih!;! the/unction or lise afthe site, orlts Impact on surrounding
properties."
Theelevatortowerand the stair tower are adjacentt(l one anpther. Bolharevisible fr9nlth~
west,and alsofrom,CaHfomlaAve. Establlshihg a uniform helghtforthesetwoadjoining
ele/lientswiH improve the allslfletic ohM IWildlng. ThefuilCtioHofuseof tbesite, orlls
surrounding properties will remain the same.
Tf'i;lflndlngs necesgaty for ,a O()sign ~,nhaMement Exception are satisfied by the application for
260Callfornia Ave:
W There are exc¢ptiona/orextrqprdinary ~lfCum$tances()r conditiOns applicable to the property
or site improvements involved that do notapplygeflera/lyto property in Ih~sa/1)1i l.Q/1e
district. 260 California Isa mldctliockfhreestor\, Ilulldingabutting a two stories property, Any
Inconsistency iilhelght ~etWeen the elevator tower ar!d,st~lr towerwiJlbe highly visible from
the street.
12l The granting af the,applicatfon will elihaiWe theilPP¢l.Irance OJthe site or $tructvre,or
improve the neighborhood character. ~aotalifornla exercises a,n architectur~lll!nguage Ih,at
Is consistent With the neighboring building. The stair/elevator towerfronllng,California Avenue
is m,eaht to reinforcJlthebiJilding's street presenc~ in a simplewaythat iscOmplihlenWY to th~
overall bUilding design. Having ihestairj elevator tower at lh.e same height conforms to the
building's language and COntributes to the overallll.estheticofthebuilding.
(3) The exception is relatedtoa minor architecturolje(Jtvr~Qr siteimproveme(lt that.wiLI not be , ' .
detrimental ot injuriOUS to propertY or improvements. intheviclhlty andwll/ not be
detrimentol tl) thepul!/iC hlia;lth, ,a/ety, generq/welfare otconv(!nicnce. Therequested
exception is a minor architectural feature that wfilnofimpact MY oeighboring pr9pertybecause
it is a small change to the buildin/ilthat is located at therooflellel.
Inthe context of the proposed project, the requested Design Enhancement Exception is minor in
nattire.
please call me at (650) 365-0600 xiS if you have any questions.
SinCerely,
Ken Hayes,AIA
Principal
CC: Mark Gonroe
)
THE
GUZZARDO
PARTNERSHIP INC.
Landscape Architects· Land Planners
181 Greenwich Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T 415 433 4672
F 415 4335003
www.tgp·inc.com
260 CALIFORNIA AVENUE
LANDSCAPE STATEMENT OF DESIGN INTENT
September 4, 2012
)
'L
The landscape design for the new commercial office building on California Avenue provides a feature
planter at the building entrance to enhance the office entry and street pedestrian experience.
A raised planter at seating height provides a rich garden of colorful textured plantings, Including a
sculptural multi-trunk Mediterranean Fan Palm, flowering Yucca plants, colorful Agave shrubs, and
succulent groundcovers, all set on a bed of recycled glass mulch. The plants were selected based upon
their colorful foliage and flower characteristics, which will provide great interest In this small area. At
night, uplights below the glass mulch will glow and cast light on to the sculptural Palm tree,
highlighting the tree and casting Interesting patterns on the adjacent architectural walls.
Evergreen Creeping Fig vines are placed on the entry court and driveway entrance walls to create
softening and an Interesting tracery of foliage In these areas.
The seat wall will be cast concrete, and will have a smooth cap that will match the building stone. LED
strip lights with diffuse light plates will be set in the face of the wall to provide a soft glow of light for
the entry paving. Downlights are also included on the property line wall In recesses to add Interest to
the wall at night.
The existing new street trees on California Avenue will remain and be protected. Two Camphor trees In
an existing courtyard are proposed for removal. .
A new bicycle rack Is provided on the California Avenue sidewalk to provide convenient parking near
the building entrance.
The plant materials selected are drought tolerant, and will be watered with an efficient sub-surface
irrigation system to minimize water use.
The Guzzardo Partnership. Inc.
Gary D. La"me.n
Principal
California Registered Landscape Architect #2397
)
Attachment I
)
County of Santa Clara
Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
Business Division
Sanla Clara County Clerk -Recorder's Ollice
Slale of California
County Government Center
70 West Hedding Street, E. Wing, 1" Floor
San Jose, California 95110 (408) 299-5688
Document No.:
Number 01 Pages:
Filed and Posted On:
Through:
eRO Order Number:
Fee Total:
CEQA DOCUMENT DECLARATION
ENIilRONMENTAL FILING FEE RECEIPT
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
REGINA ALCOMENDRAS, County Clerk-Recg,r~er
by Eileen Bansil, Deputy Clerk-Recorder,J_Q'J __
1. LEAD AGENCY: City of Palo Alto ---
2. PROJECT TITLE: 260 California Avenue __ _
3. APPLICANT NAME: Jacob Kwan, Hayes Group Architects PHONE: 650-365-0600
4. APPLICANT ADDRESS: 2657 Spring Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 ------
5, PROJECT APPLICANT IS A: 0 Local Public Agency 0 School District D other Special District 0 State Agency IE) Private Entity
6. NOTICE TO BE POSTED FOR __ ...:3",0,---DAYS.
7. CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
a, PROJECTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO DFG FEES
o 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE §21152)
o 2. NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE §21060(C)
D 3. APPLICATION FEE WATER DIVERSION (STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ONLY)
o 4. PROJECTS SUBJECT TO CERTIFIED REGULATORY PROGRAMS
o 6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE (REQUIRED FOR a·1 THROUGH a·4 ABOVE)
Fish & Game Code §711.4{e)
b. PROJECTS THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM CFG FEES
o 1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION ($50.00 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE REQUIRED)
$ 2,919.00
$2,101.50
$ 850.00
$ 992.50
$ 50.00
$ 50.00
o 2. A COMPLETED "CEQA FILING FEE NO EFFECT DETERMINATION FORM" FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME, DOCUMENTING THE DFG'S DETERMINATION THATTHE PROJECT
WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON FISH, WILDLIFE AND HABITAT, OR AN OFFICIAL, DATED RECEIPT I
PROOF OF PAYMENT SHOWING PREVIOUS PAYMENT OF THE DFG FILING FEE FOR THE ·SAME
PROJECT IS ATTACHED ($50.00 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE REQUIRED)
DDCUMENTTYPE: D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION $ 50.00
c. NOTICES THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO DFG FEES OR COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
o NOTICE OF PREPARATION IBl NOTICE OF INTENT NO FEE
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ __ "'0.",00'----
$' __ -,0",.0",0,--
$ __ .....!lN",O",F",ESE
8. OTHER: FEE (IF APPLICABLE): $ ______ _
•. TOTAL RECEiVED .... ; ................................................................................................................................................... $ 0.00
"NOTE: "SAME PROJECr MEANS !:Ill. CHANGES. IF THE DOCUMENT SUBMITTED IS NOT THE SAME (OTHER THAN DATES), A -NO EFFECT
DETERMINATION' LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FOR THE SUBSEQUENT FILING OR THE APPROPRIATE FEES ARE
REQUIRED.
THiS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND ATfACHED TO THE FRONT OF ALL CEQA DOCUMENTS LISTED ABOVE (INCLUDING COPIES)
SUBMITfED FOR FILING. WE WILL NEED AN ORIGINAL (WET SIGNATURE) AND THREE COPIES. (YOUR ORIGINAL WILL BE RETURNED TO
YOU A T THE TIME OF FILING.)
CHECKS FOR ALL FEES SHOULD BE MADE PAYABLE TO: SANTA CLARA COUNTY CLERK·RECORDER
PLEASE NOTE: FEES ARE ANNUALLY ADJUSTED (Fish & Game Code §711.4(b): PLEASE CHECK WITH THIS OFFICE AND THE DEPARTMENT
OF FISH AND GAME FOR THE LATEST FEE INFORMATION .
. . NO PROJECT SHALL BE OPERATIVE. VESTED. OR FINAL, NOR SHALL LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERMITS FOR THE PROJECT BE VALID.
UNTIL THE FILING FEES REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION ARE PAID." Fish & Game Code 1711.4(c)(3)
1J.a)t2 (FEES EFFECTIVE 01-01-2012
620
5
12/07/2012
110612013
0.00
)
Ci ty of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2441 FAX (6S0) 329-2154
www.cityofpaloalto.org
620 12/07/2012
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
260 California Avenue
Tarob M&C Investors, LLC
central
east ofEl Camino Real and north of Page Mill Road.
The project includes demolition of the existing building on the site and construction of a new three-story building
having approximately 27,000 s.f. gross floor area on a 13,509 s.f. project site. The "project site" is currently two
parcels that are proposed to be merged into one through a lot line adjustment. Office and ground floor retail uses are
proposed within the new building.
The proposal includes retail and parking at the ground floor with the second and third floors to be used as office
space. At the street level, the retail storefront would be recessed back from the sidewalk with the upper floors
protruding forward. A series of columns would support the upper floors, forming a colonnade at the ground floor.
This would provide shade and weather protection at the retail entries. The office lobby would be separated from the
retail storefronts by an increased setback, creating a deep recessed entry. A landscaped area is proposed in the
recess in front of the lobby that would assist to soften the large blank wall of the adjacent two story bUilding.
Exterior materials would include cement plaster walls, stone, metal column cladding and shades. Clear, dual-glazed
windows with deep mullions for shading would fill the openings.
The project would provide a total of 97 vehicle parking spaces where 94 spaces are required. There would be 41
new spaces provided on site and 56 spaces that are currently provided through the assessment district. The 41 new
spaces would consist of 13 covered spaces provided at grade and 28 spaces in the below grade garage. Vehicular
access to the site would come from the alley at the rear of the property, New Mayfield Lane. Bicycle parking would
be provided both at grade level in front of the building and in the below grade garage.
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be 1.99: 1 with 3,873 sq. ft. of retail space and 23,127 sq. ft. of office space. In
the California Avenue District, structured parking, as an accessory use, does not count against the allowable FAR.
The project application would include two Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) requests. The DEE requests
would allow the building to encroach 20 feet into the 20 foot required setback at the rear alley way and the other is
to allow the stair tower to exceed the 37 foot height limit by five feet for a total height of 42 feet.
) )
The purpose of this notice is to inform you that the City of Palo Alto Staff has that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration be approved for this project. City Planning Staff has reviewed the Initial Study for
the project, and based upon substantial evidence in the record, finds that no significant environmental effects will
occur. It should be noted that the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration does not constitute approval of the
project under consideration. The decision to approve or deny the project will be made separately.
,'" ,:
Public Comments the correctness, completeness, or adequacy
invited and must be received on or before the decision on the application. Such comments should be based on
specific environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to the City of Palo Alto, Planning
Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Oral comments may be made at the hearing. A file
containing additional information on this project may be reviewed at the Planning Office under the file number
appearing at the top of this form. For additional information regarding this project and the Negative Declaration,
please contact Russ Reich, Senior Planner at (650) 617-3119
Mitigation Measure Haz I: A sub-slab vapor barrier shall be installed to prevent contaminated soil vapors from
migrating into the building. The vapor barrier shall be designed by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State
of California. The design shall be submitted to the RWQCB and the City of Palo Alto for review and approval.
Mitigation Measure Haz 2: Soil excavated from the northeast and southwest portions of the site shall be filed
screened, segregated, and profiled (sampled) to ensure it has not been contaminated.
Mitigation Measure Haz 3: Any impacted (contaminated) soil shall be off-hauled to a Class 2 landfill for disposal.
Prepared by:
'!20"7S 12'e ;C/~
Print Name
) )
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: December 06, 2012
Project Name:
Project Location:
Project Proponent:
City Contact:
Project Description:
260 California Avenue
The project site is located in the central portion of the City of Palo Alto, in the
northern part of Santa Clara County, east ofEI Camino Real and north of Page
Mill Road
Jacob Kwan, Hayes Group Architects
Russ Reich, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
The project includes demolition of the existing building on the site and construction of a new three-story
building having approximately 27,000 s.f. gross floor area on a 13,509 s.f. project site. The "project site"
is currently two parcels that are proposed to be merged into one through a lot line adjustment. Office and
ground floor retail uses are proposed within the new building.
The proposal includes retail and parking at the ground floor with the second and third floors to be used as
office space. At the street level, the retail storefront would be recessed back from the sidewalk with the
upper floors protruding forward. A series of columns would support the upper floors, forming a
colonnade at the ground floor. This would provide shade and weather protection at the retail entries. The
office lobby would be separated from the retail storefronts by an increased setback, creating a deep
recessed entry. A landscaped area is proposed in the recess in front of the lobby that would assist to
soften the large blank wall of the adjacent two story building. Exterior materials would include cement
plaster walls, stone, metal column cladding and shades. Clear, dual-glazed windows with deep mullions
for shading would fill the openings.
The project would provide a total of 97 vehicle parking spaces where 94 spaces are required. There
would be 41 new spaces provided on site and 56 spaces that are currently provided through the
assessment district. The 41 new spaces would consist of 13 covered spaces provided at grade and 28
spaces in the below grade garage. Vehicular access to the site would come from the alley at the rear of
the property, New Mayfield Lane. Bicycle parking would be provided both at grade level in front of the
building and in the below grade garage.
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be 1.99:1 with 3,873 sq. ft. of retail space and 23,127 sq. ft. of office
space. In the California Avenue District, structured parking, as an accessory use, does not count against
the allowable FAR. The project application would include two Design Enhancement Exception (DEE)
requests. The DEE requests would allow the building to encroach 20 feet into the 20 foot required
setback at the rear alley way and the other is to allow the stair tower to exceed the 37 foot height limit by
five feet for a total height of 42 feet.
) )
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 of that study, the City makes the following determination:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this
case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and,
therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
The-~;;j"'i~itial study :;;;;-rporates all relevant information regarding the p~te~tiJ
environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an ElR is not required
for the proj ect.
1~~~'.W~!l1·~·~~%_·WV~-"~~"" __ ~~~~~~~=-~~~ __ ~.w~ __ ~~~ -;:: =nrwJ
In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project:
Mitigation Measure Haz 1: A sub-slab vapor barrier shall be installed to prevent contaminated
soil vapors from migrating into the building. The vapor barrier shall be designed by a Registered
Professional Engineer in the State of California. The design shall be submitted to the RWQCB
and the City of Palo Alto for review and approval.
Mitigation Measure Haz 2: Soil excavated from the northeast and southwest portions of the site
shall be filed screened, segregated, and profiled (sampled) to ensure it has not been
contaminated.
Mitigation Measure Haz 3: Any impacted (contaminated) soil shall be off-hauled to a Class 2
landfill for disposal.
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 2 of2
)
260 California Avenue
Initial Study
Prepared by
City of Palo Alto
December 7,2012
)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
) )
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... '" ....... 3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ..................... 6
A. AESTHETICS .......................................................................................................... 6
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .......................................... 7
C. AIR QUALITY .... : .................................................................................................. 8
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 9
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 11
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY ............................................................. 12
G. GREENHOUSE G~S EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 13
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................. 13
1. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................... 15
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................ 17
K. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 18
L. NOISE ................................................................................................................... 18
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................... 19
N. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. 20
O. RECREATION ...................................................................................................... 20
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................ 21
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................. 22
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .............................................. 23
III. . SOURCE REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 24
IV. DETERMINATION ...................................................................................................... 24
260 California Avenue Ilage 2 Initial Study
J )
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
260 California Avenue
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
Jacob Kwan, Hayes Group Architects
2657 Spring Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
12PLN-00352
6. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the central portion of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of
Santa Clara County, east of El Camino Real and north of Page Mill Road, as shown on Figure 1,
Regional Map. The project site is 260 California Avenue, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map.
260 California Avenue Page 3 Initial Study
) )
Figure 1: Regional Map
Figure 2: Vicinity Map
260 California Avenue Page 4 Initial Study
) )
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The project area is designated as Regional Community Commercial in the Palo Alto 1998 -2010
Comprehensive Plan. This land use desiguation generally includes larger shopping centers and
districts that have wider variety goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They
rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores,
toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non-retail services such as offices and banks.
Non-residential floor area ratios range from 0.35 to 2.
8. ZONING
The project area is zoned Community Commercial with retail and Pedestrian combining districts
CC(2)(R)(P). 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 R and the P combining districts are intended to
ensure that the ground floor spaces are limited to those uses and treatments that preserve retail
uses and encourage pedestrian activity.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project includes demolition of the existing building on the site and construction of a new
three-story building having approximately 27,000 s.f. gross floor area on a. 13,509 s.f. project
site. The "project site" is currently two parcels that are proposed to be merged into one through
a lot line adjustment. Office and ground floor retail uses are proposed within the new building.
The proposal includes retail and parking at the ground floor with the second and third floors to
be used as office space. At the street level, the retail storefront would be recessed back from the
sidewalk with the upper floors protruding forward. A series of colunms would support the upper
floors, fonning a colonnade at the ground floor. This would provide shade and weather
protection at the retail entries. The office lobby would be separated from the retail storefronts by
an increased setback, creating a deep recessed entry. A landscaped area is proposed in the recess
in front of the lobby that would assist to soften the large blank wall of the adjacent two story
building. Exterior materials would include cement plaster walls, stone, metal colunm cladding
and shades. Clear, dual-glazed windows with deep mullions for shading would fill the openings.
The project would provide a total of 97 vehicle parking spaces where 94 spaces are required.
There would be 41 new spaces provided on site and 56 spaces that are currently provided
through the assessment district. The 41 new spaces would consist of 13 covered spaces
provided at grade and 28 spaces in the below grade garage. Vehicular access to the site would
come from the alley at the rear of the property, New Mayfield Lane. Bicycle parking would be
provided both at grade level in front of the building and in the below grade garage.
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be 1.99:1 with 3,873 sq. ft. of retail space and 23,127 sq. ft.
of office space. In the California Avenue District, structured parking, as an accessory use, does
not count against the allowable FAR. The project application would include two Design
Enhancement Exception (DEE) requests. The DEE requests would allow the building to
260 California Avenue Page 5 Initial StUdy
."'--
) )
encroach 20 feet into the 20 foot required setback at the rear alley way and the other is to allow
the stair tower to exceed the 37 foot height limit by five feet for a total height of 42 feet.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The project site is comprised of two parcels located on California Avenue within the California
Avenue Business District. The site is located mid-block on the north side of the street between
Birch Street and Park Boulevard. The combined lot area of the two parcels is approximately
13,509 square feet (sJ.) and are located within the Community Commercial Zone District with
Retail and Pedestrian Combining Districts (CC(2)(R)(P». The site is currently occupied by an
11,290 s.f. one story building, built in 1961, with an outdoor patio that runs from the front of the
site through to the public access alley at the rear. The existing use is a restaurant and nightclub
known as Illusions Supper Club (2005), formerly known as Icon Super Club (1998), and The
Edge nightclub (1990), The Vortex (1986), Keystone (1977), and Zinzinnati Oom Pah Pah
(1973). Before that is was The New Age Natural Foods and Deli (1970) and in 1969 it was the
G and A Super Market. To the west of the property is a two story retail and office building and
to the east is a single story dry cleaner. To the north of the site is a public access alleyway
known as New Mayfield Lane accessing an adjacent two-story public parking garage.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
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 Iuformation Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1, 2-Map L4, X
scenic vista? 5
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?
260 California Avenue Page 6 Initial Study
) )
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incornorated
d) Create a new source of substantial light or 1,5 X
glare which would adversely affect day or ~igJ,ttime views in the area?
DISCUSSION:
The subject site is not located on a scenic route, and would not interfere with an existing scenic vista as shown in
the Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010. The re-development of the property would not have a negative impact on the
visual character of the area. The proposal will receive Architectural Review by the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) and will not be approved until the project is compliant with the ARB's findings of approval which ensure
aesthetic quality and contextual compatibility. At three stories tall, the building is similar in height to other
buildings in the district and has been designed with quality details and materials.
Mitigation Measures: None reqnired
B AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) 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 of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
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 defmed in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g» or
timberland (as defmed in Public Resources
Code section 4526) or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as def~~:)~~
Government Code section 51104 ?
d) Result in the loss afforest land or conversion 1 X of forest 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 afforest 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 2011 by the
260 California Avenue Page? Initial Study
) )
California Department of Conservation. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the
Williamson Act. The project area is within an urban area and has no impacts on forest or timberland. The site is
currently developed with an existing building and is not forest or timberland.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
C AIR QUALITY .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation 1,5 X
ofthe 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?
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
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels 1,5 X
e)
of pollutant concentrations?
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 27,000 square feet, no air quality report was prepared.
In the case of any future development of the site, to further reduce 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 and/or 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.
260 California Avenue PageS Initial Study
) )
• 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 shan
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.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
D BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1,2-MapNI, X directly or through habitat modifications, on 5,
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
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?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 1,2-MapNI, X
c)
d)
e)
f)
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 5
connnunity identified in local or regional plans,
policies,regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or us Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 1,2-MapNI, X
protected wetlands as defmed by Section 404 of 5
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
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
ofnative wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2,3,4,5,6, X
protecting biological resources, such as a tree IS
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted 1,5 X
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
The site is currently developed with no natural areas occurring on the site. No endangered, threatened, or rare
animals, insects and plant species have been identified at the project site.
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
260 California Avenue Page 9 Initial StUdy
) )
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 agrifoJia) 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, and/or 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)(J 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 existing site, neighborhood or community, and that have a rating of "High" Suitability for
. Preservation as reflected in Table 3.6· I would constitute a typical designated tree.
Palo Alto Tree Preservation Gnidelines
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 verity 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 drip line 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.
Site Tree Resources Impact Assessment
An Initial Tree Impact Analysis (prepared by Arbor Resources) identified 5 trees of various species on or
adjacent to the subject property. The following breakdown was ascertained by staff:
• Street Trees: There are three City street trees that are located in front of the subject property, planted
in tree wells in the public sidewalk. These three trees are identified in the arborist report as trees # I,
#2, and #3. Trees one and two are Silver Lindens and tree number three is a Southern Live Oak. The
trees are young and have been recently planted. The arborist has found them all to be in good
condition and to have a high suitability for preservation. These trees are protected by City ordinance.
The project proposal does not intend to impact these trees and they will be protected from
construction impacts throughout the duration of the construction. The recommended tree protection
260 California Avenue Page 10 Initial Study
) )
measures identified within the arborist report shall be incorporated as conditions of approval and no
special mitigation is required.
• On site private property trees: There are two Camphor trees within a courtyard on the subject
property. These two trees are not protected by ordinance and are proposed to be removed as part of
the project
Mitigation Measures: None Required
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
IncorDorated
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-MapL7, X significance of a historical resource as defmed 8 in 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-MapL8 X
significance of an archaeological resource
Dursuant to 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2-MapL8 X paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-MapL8 X
interred outside offormal cemeteries?
DISCUSSION:
The project is located on land designated as "Moderate Sensitivity" for archeological resources. The proposed
development of the site includes one level of below grade parking that would involve excavation to a depth of
approximately 12 feet at the site. Excavation of the soil has the potential of disturbing archeological resources
that may be in the ground so the following standard conditions will be applied to the project.
The following standard project conditions, consistent with State and County regulations, would be required for
any future development.
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 Planning 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 ofIndian Affairs. No further disturbance Oflhe site may
260 California Avenue Page 11 Initial Study
) )
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: None Required
F. GEOLOGY SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues
Would the project:
people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
Rupture 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
42.
2-MapN5
substantial soil erosion or the of 1,15
d) on a
unstable, or that become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
Be located on expansive soil, as defmed
Table IS-I-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
Have soils
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
DISCUSSION:
2-MapN5
Significant
Issues
Significant
Unless
No
Impact
x
x
The site is uot 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 ofthe 2010 California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. 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
260 California Avenue Page\2 Initial Study
) )
G GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
a)
b)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either 1,5,7 X
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
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 nOnattaimnent
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 nonattainment of ambient air
quality standards. Instead, a project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse
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. Under the project screening criteria for a general office building, 53,000
square feet is the trigger to require that the lead agency perform a detailed air quality assessment. The proposed
project only proposes 27,000 square feet of commercial square footage and is far below the BAAQMD screening
criteria level. The project, would not 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 1,5,6,16 X
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5,6,16 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 MapCl,5,6
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
260 California Avenue Page 13 Initial Study
) )
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, withfu two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private I X airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically 1,2-X interfere with an adopted emergency response MapN7,6
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structUres to a significant risk 1,2-X of loss, injury, or death involving wildland MapN7,6 .
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
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 in
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 storage per the
Palo Alto Municipal Code, California Fire Code and Health and Safety Code. .
The current proposal would not result in the exposure of humans to hazardous materials, therefore, the project will
have a no impact as it relates to hazards and hazardous materials.
The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment conducted by Tetra Tech OEO did find the dry cleaning
solvent tetrachloroethene ("PCE", or "perc") in the soil vapor beneath the northeast portion of the
property. Due to the presence of PCE in the soil, a sub-slab vapor barrier has been recommended as a
mitigation measure to prevent vapor migration into the proposed below grade parking garage and
building. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment also found soil and groundwater in the southern
portion of the site to be impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons at a depth of 14.5 feet to 26 feet. The
proposed excavation for the below grade parking garage is anticipated to be at a depth of only 12 feet
and is not anticipated to disturb the hydrocarbons in the soil or groundwater. However, to ensure that
any tainted soil be properly handled, the soil excavated from the southwest and the northeast portions of
260 California Avenue Page 14 Initial StUdy
) )
the site shall be field screened and profiled (sampled) during excavation. Any impacted soil shall be off
hauled toa Class 2 landfill for disposal.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure Haz I: A sub-slab vapor barrier shall be installed to prevent contaminated soil
vapors from migrating into the building. The vapor barrier shall be designed by a Registered
Professional Engineer in the State of California. The design shall be submitted to the RWQCB and the
City of Palo Alto for review and approval.
Mitigation Measure Haz 2: Soil excavated from the northeast and southwest portions of the site shall be
filed screened, segregated, and profiled (sampled) to ensure it has not been contaminated.
Mitigation Measure Haz 3: Any impacted (contaminated) soil shall be off-hauled to a Class 2 landfill
for disposal.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would tbe project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,2,5 X
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 2-X
interfere SUbstantially with groundwater MapN2,
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been gr-"nted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,5,6 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 1,5,6 X
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course ofa stream or river, or
SUbstantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,5,6 X
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
260 California Avenue Page 15 Initial Study
)
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,5 X
g) Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard 2-MapN6 X area as mapped ona federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a I OO-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-MapNS 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?
Inundation 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 potentially 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 Risk 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-Construction
The 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 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
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 (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 runoff from 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 following standard measures, consistent with NPDES Permit and City Ordinance
requirements, would reduce potential construction impacts to surface water quality to less than significant levels:
I. Prior to issuance of a Use & Occupancy permit, an Elevation Certificate based on finished construction is
required for each built structure.
260 California Avenue Page 16 Initial Study
) )
2. Prior to issuance of a Building permit, the project applicant shall submit a certification by a qualified third
party reviewer that the design of the project complies with the requirements ofPAMC Chapter 16.11.
3. Prior to issuance of a Use & Occupancy permit, the project applicant shall submit a certification by a qualified
third-party reviewer that the project's permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were constructed
or installed in accordance with the approved plans.
4. Before submittal of plans for a building permit, 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 Less 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 plan 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 for the property. The project includes two Design
Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs). The first exception would allow the building to encroach 20 feet into the 20
foot rear yard setback. This is not a typical rear yard setback but rather a 20 foot setback from the service
alleyway at the rear of the property. The existing building, as well as most of the other buildings on the block, do
not meet this setback. To follow the setback would be inconsistent with the existing neighborhood context. By
allowing the encroachment into the setback, it affords the applicant the opportunity to create a richer pedestrian
experience at the front of the building along California Avenue with greater setbacks than required. The second
exception would allow the stair tower to exceed the 37 foot height limit by five feet for a total height of 42 feet.
This exception allows the stair tower to stand apart from the roof and to align with the height of the elevator tower
for architectural consistency.
The requested exceptions to the code are minor exceptions and would not hilve a negative impact on adjacent
properties.
260 California Avenue Page 17 Initial Study
) )
Mitigation Measures: None Required
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
a)
b)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Result in 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?
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 1 (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 No Impact 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?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 1,2,10,14 X
excessive gronnd borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1,2,10,14 X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2,10,14 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
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 public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1 X airstrip, would the project expose people
260 California Avenue Page 18 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
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 Charles M. Salter
Associates Inc. found that any potential sources of project noise, such as proposed condenser equipment noise,
would not violate the City of Palo Alto's noise ordinance and would be less than the eight dB abouve local
ambient.
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 Municipal
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 of the project shall not exceed 90 dBA.
• Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction activities"and limitations identified in this permit, 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 Required
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
Incornorated
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 uumbers of existing I X housing, necessitating the construction of
renlacement housine elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, I X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
260 California Avenue Page 19 Initial Study
) )
DISCUSSION:
The project does not displace existing housing nor would it induce substantial population growth.
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
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other perfonnance objectives for any of the
public services:
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 of the 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
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 No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of 1 X
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
260 California Avenue Page 20 Initial Study
) )
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incoroorated
b) Does the project include recreational 1 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 include office and retail uses. People that would be working within the project may
use local parks during the workday, to eat lunch for example, or after work for recreation activity, but the amount
of use is anticipated to be small such that it would not create impacts to existing City recreational facilities.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
P TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incoroorated
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance 1,5,11 X
or policy established measures of
effectiveness for the performjance 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 bicvcle naths, 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
hiehwavs?
c) Result in change in air traffic pattems, 1,5,11 X
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safetv risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 1,5,11 X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
use; (e.e., farm eallinmenll?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,5,11 X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1,2,5,11 X
urograms regarding Dublic transit, bicvcle, or
260 California Avenue Page 21 Initial StUdy
)
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease
the erformance or safety of such facilities?
DISCUSSION:
)
TJKM Transportation Consultants perfonned a trip generation analysis which concluded that a detailed traffic
study would not be required, They also detennined that the Level of Service of the study intersections would
continue to operate at acceptable levels.
Mitigation: None Required
Q UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incornorated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of \,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
enviromnental 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 enviromnental
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
project'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 project would not require construction of new facilities for wastewater treatment, stonn 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.
260 California Avenue Page 22 Initial Study
) )
Mitigation Measures: None Required
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
Incorporated
Does the project have the potential to 1,2,3,5,8 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 elbuinate a plant or anbual
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or elbuinate buportant examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? -"-Does the project have bupacts that are 1,5 X
individually lbuited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable futurey!oiects)?
Does the project have environmental effects 1,5 X
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
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 Phase II Environmental
Site Assessment' did find the dry cleaning solvent tetrachloroethene ("PCE", or "perc") in the soil vapor beneath
the northeast portion of the property. Due to the presence of PCE in the soil, a sub-slab vapor barrier has been
recommended as a mitigation measure to prevent vapor migration into the proposed below grade parking garage
and bUilding. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment also found soil and groundwater in the southern
portion of the site to be impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons at a depth of 14.5 feet to 26 feet. The proposed
excavation for the below grade parking garage is anticipated to be at a depth of only 12 feet and is not anticipated
to disturb the hydrocarbons in the soil or groundwater. However, to ensure that any tainted soil be properly
handled, the soil excavated from the southwest and the northeast portions of the site shall be field screened and
profiled (sampled) during excavation. Any impacted soil shall be off-hauled to a Class 2 landfill for disposal.
Mitigation Measures:
260 California Avenue Page 23 Initial Study
)
Mitigation Measure Haz I: A sub-slab vapor barrier shall be installed to prevent contaminated soil vapors from
migrating into the building. The vapor barrier shall be designed by a Registered Professional Engineer in the
State of California. The design shall be submitted to the RWQCB and the City of Palo Alto for review and
approval.
Mitigation Measure Haz 2: Soil excavated from the northeast and southwest portions of the site shall be filed
screened, segregated, and profiled (sampled) to ensure it has not been contaminated.
Mitigation Measure Haz 3: Any impacted (contaminated) soil shall be off-hauled to a Class 2 landfill for
disposal.
SOURCE REFERENCES
I. 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 September 4, 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 20 II
8. Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory
9. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
10. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10-Noise Ordinance
II. Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants, October 10, 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 Charles M. Salter Associates Inc., September 4,2012
15. Arborist Report, prepared by Arbor Resources, August 24,2012
16. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Tetra Tech Geo, October 20,2011,
including supplemental Recommendations Letter, December 3,2012
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 although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the X euvironment, there will not be a significaut effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVmONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
260 California Avenue Page 24 Initial Study
) )
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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adeqnately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
/~! 7 /-uJi'2.
Russ Reich, Senior Plaoner Date
260 California Avenue Page 25 Initial Study
)
Appendixc
Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613
For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 SCH#
Project Title: 250 California Avenue
Lead Agency: City of Palo Alto
Mailing Address: 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor
City: Palo Alto
Contact Person: ;:R~US~S;;R;:e:::i:::ch.:..· -'-______ _
Phone: 650-617-3119
Zip: 94301 County: Santa Clara
--------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------Document Type:
CEQA: 0 Nap o Early Cons
o DraftEm o Supplement/Subsequent Em
o Joint Document o Final Document
NEPA: o NO! Other: o EA o NegDec 181 Mit Neg Dec
(Prior SCH No.) ____ _
Other: _______ _
o Other: _____ _ o DraftEIS o FONSI
-------------------------------------------Local Action Type:
D General Plan Update D General Plan Amendment
D General Plan Element D Community Plan
o Specific Plan o MasterPlan o Planned Unit Development o Site Plan
o Rezone o Prewne o Use Permit o Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) .
D Annexation
181 Redevelopment D Coastal Permit D Other: ____ -'-
--------------------------------------------Development Type:
D Residential: Units __ Acres
[RJ Office: Sq.ft. 23,127 Acres Employees ___ o Transportation: Type:::;-___________ _
[RJ Commercial:Sq.ft. 3,873 Acres Employees___ 0 Mining: Mineral ______
Mii
,, ___ _ D Industrial: Sq.ft. == Acres Employees___ 0 Power: Type ______ MW D Educational: 0 Waste Treatment:Type ______ MGD"----D Recreational:----------------0 Hazardous Waste:Type ___________ _
D Water Facilities:Type ______ MGD 0 Other: _________________ _
proj;,c'il;u-;s-Di;C~s;d-ln-D;c,;_m;nt - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
o AestheticlVisual o Agricultural Land o Air Quality o Ascheological/Historical o Biological Resources o Coastal Zone o Drainage/Absorption o Beonomic/Jobs
D Fiscal D RecreationlParks o Flood Plain/Flooding D SchoolslUniversities
D Forest LandlFire Hazard D Septic Systems o Geologic/Seismic D Sewer Capacity
.... bJ.Vegetation .... _ o Water Quality
181 Water Supply/Groundwater o WetJandlRiparian o Minerals 181 Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading o Growth Inducement o Noise 0 Solid Waste o Land Use D Cumulative Effects D Other: _____ _
o PopulationIHousing Balance 181 ToxiclHazardous o Public Services/Facilities D Traffic/Circulation
Pre;e; Land iis;lZ~nk.giG;n;rai ph.n-D;SI;n;tl;n~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Commercial/Community Commercial with Retali and Pedestrian combining districts (CC(2)(R)(P)) / Community Commercial
ProleciDescripli;;n;-(p/easeuseaseparatepageifiiecessa;yf - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---
see separate sheet.
Note: '[he State Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers/or all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. Notice of Preparation or
previous draft document) please fill in.
Revised 2010
Project Description
The project includes demolition of the existing building on the site and construction of a
new three-story building having approximately 27,000 s.f. gross floor area on a 13,509
s.f. project site. The "project site" is currently two parcels that are proposed to be merged
into one through a lot line adjustment. Office and ground floor retail uses are proposed
within the new building.
The proposal includes retail and parking at the ground floor with the second and third
floors to be used as office space. At the street level, the retail storefront would be
recessed back from the sidewalk with the upper floors protruding forward. A series of
columns would support the upper floors, forming iI colonnade at the ground floor. This
would provide shade and weather protection at the retail entries. The office lobby would
be separated from the retail storefronts by an increased setback, creating a deep recessed
entry. A landscaped area is proposed in the recess in front of the lobby that would assist
to soften the large blank wall of the adjacent two story building. Exterior materials
would include cement plaster walls, stone, metal column cladding and shades. Clear,
dual-glazed windows with deep mullions for shading would fill the openings.
The project would provide a total of 97 vehicle parking spaces where 94 spaces are
required. There would be 41 new spaces provided on site and 56 spaces that are currently
provided through the assessment district. The 41 new spaces would consist of 13
covered spaces provided at grade and 28 spaces in the below grade garage. Vehicular
access to the site would come from the alley at the rear of the property, New Mayfield
Lane. Bicycle parking would be provided both at grade level in front of the building and
in the below grade garage.
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be 1.99: 1 with 3,873 sq. ft. of retail space and
23,127 sq. ft. of office space. In the California Avenue District, structured parking, as an
accessory use, does not count against the allowable FAR. The project application would
include two Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) requests. The DEE requests would
allow the building to encroach 20 feet into the 20 foot required setback at the rear alley
way and the other is to allow the stair tower to exceed the 37 foot height limit by five feet
for a total height of 42 feet.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
=================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26======================
2
Thursday December 20, 2012 3
REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM 4
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 5
250 Hamilton Avenue 6
Palo Alto, CA 94301 7
ROLL CALL: 8
Board members: Staff Liaison: 9
Clare Malone Prichard (Chair) Russ Reich, Senior Planner 10
Lee Lippert (Vice Chair) 11
Alexander Lew Staff: 12
Randy Popp Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate 13
Naseem Alizadeh - absent Amy French, Chief Planning Official 14
15
16
MAJOR REVIEW ITEM 3 17
18
260 California Avenue [12PLN-00352]: Request by Hayes Group, on behalf of Tarob M&C Investors 19
LLC, for Architectural Review of the construction of a new three story, approximately 27,000 square 20
foot building. Environmental Assessment: An initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have 21
been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zone District: 22
CC (2) (R) (P). 23
24
Chair Malone Prichard: Item Number 3, 260 California Avenue. Request by Hayes Group, on behalf of 25
Tarob M&C Investors LLC, for Architectural Review of the construction of a new three story, 26
approximately 27,000 square foot building. An initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have 27
been prepared. Our Zone District is CC (2) (R) (P). We have a staff presentation. 28
29
Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Yes, good morning. Thank you, Chair Malone Prichard and Board 30
Members. The application before you this morning is for the construction of a new approximately 31
27,000 square foot building. The existing building on this site would be demolished and the two lots on 32
the site would be combined into a single lot. If you notice on the site plan there’s a small piece of 33
property at the back of the site, a separate parcel, which will be combined with this one. The proposal 34
is for both office and retail. The ground floor would be retail as well as some surface parking and the 35
upper two floors would be office. In terms of parking spaces there’s 41 parking spaces proposed onsite. 36
The former square footage of the existing building is assessed for 56 spaces within the parking 37
assessment district giving them a total number of parking spaces of 97. The required number is 38
actually 91 so there are 6 excess parking spaces. Consequently 6 of the spaces are actually tandem 39
spaces, which can be approved by the Director, but wouldn’t actually be needed. They do meet code 40
without that. 41
Attachment F
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES EXCERPT (DRAFT)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
At the prior review this application did go through preliminary review before you and there was a 2
number of issues that the Board talked about. I’ll kind of go through that. There were four public 3
speakers that raised concerns related to height and mass of the building, access and parking, and use of 4
the alley, and the limited amount of retail space compared to the amount of proposed office. The 5
Architectural Review Board (ARB) had comments about the use of the alley as well as the height of the 6
building. Many Members felt that the proposed exception for height was not supportable. Others 7
spoke of the alternative design concept that had the third floor setback from the face of the building as 8
relating better to adjacent buildings. The applicant has also, was also asked about the proposed 9
landscaping for the project. Since the initial review the building height has been reduced. So they’re 10
no longer asking for the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for height that they had been 11
previously asking for. So it is compliant with the 37 foot height limit for the district. And the sides of 12
the building have been greater articulated since you last saw it and landscaping has also been added at 13
the front entry. 14
15
There are two DEE’s associated with the current request. One of them is for the height of the stair 16
tower. So that is one element that is still exceeding the height limit. They wanted to get the stair tower 17
to meet the height of the elevator tower so they didn’t have the one element popping up. So now the 18
two are combined and it creates kind of a tower element at the front entry as well adding a little bit of 19
interest to the building at the front elevation. And that’s for a 5 feet above the 37 foot height limit. 20
And also included that you saw last time is still the 20 foot request encroachment into the rear yard 21
setback. There’s some special setback off the alley which we’re really not sure what the origin of that 22
is, but most of the buildings don’t meet it. The current building doesn’t meet it. Most of the buildings 23
are basically up against the alley as it is, so it wouldn’t be inconsistent for the new building to also meet 24
that current setback and encroach into the setback. 25
26
We haven’t really gotten any neighbor concerns, comments delivered to staff. The only, we did have a 27
letter which you have at places request for an interpreter and the translation of file documents into 28
Japanese. Unfortunately the City doesn’t provide those kinds of services. We tried to make 29
suggestions on some alternatives that they might consider, but I believe those folks are here. They own 30
the restaurant that’s adjacent. I think its Homma’s Brown Rice and they actually don’t have any street 31
frontage on Cal Ave or adjacent streets. Their frontage is on the alley and they are directly adjacent. 32
So that business as well as the dry cleaner have expressed concerns related to activities during 33
construction. Not really provided any comments on the proposed design of the building and they 34
haven’t really commented to staff directly on their concerns. They have been working with the 35
applicant. The applicant’s been trying really hard to find out what their concerns are and address them 36
as best they can. 37
38
In the environmental review there were really just a few things that were highlighted that did require 39
that we do a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The original assumption is that would be a 40
Negative Dec., but in the Phase One and Phase Two environmental analysis we discovered that there is 41
some groundwater contamination from adjacent sites that have contaminated this site. It’s probably 42
deeper than will be encountered in the excavation for the below grade parking, but just in case the 43
mitigations have been required as conditions of approval and those are the requirement for a vapor 44
barrier, the requirement to test the soil during excavation, and then if any contaminated soil is 45
discovered that that soil would be appropriately off hauled and taken to an appropriate location. With 46
that I will turn it over to the applicant to make a brief presentation and we are here to answer any 47
questions you may have. Thank you. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
Mark Conroe: Honorable Members of the ARB, my name is Mark Conroe. I’m here to represent the 2
property owner. Today is the culmination of a dream that I’ve had since moving to Palo Alto in 1978; 3
to design, build, and work in a beautiful, high quality building on Cal Avenue. Over the past year Ken 4
and I have worked to design a building that represents the, respects the existing context at Cal Avenue 5
that have been built, the buildings been built over the past 50 years defined by the 50 year old building 6
code and provides a bridge to what Cal Avenue could be over the next 50 years. This is a conservative 7
smart growth building. 8
9
We will be long term owners and want to be good neighbors to those others on Cal Avenue. Therefore 10
we’ve taken extraordinary efforts to conduct community outreach to understand and address the 11
concerns of our neighbors. This has included two community outreach meetings, which were widely 12
noticed. Dozens of e-mails, phone calls, and meetings with our neighbors, which really kind of 13
amounted to the ones who are immediately adjacent to us who you’ll I think will be hearing from this 14
morning. These meetings have resulted in several redesigns of the buildings that you see before you 15
this morning. I’d like to highlight a few important points concerning the project before I turn things 16
over to Ken. 17
18
Regarding parking over 60 percent of the new project occupants will park offsite thereby having no 19
impact or access to New Mayfield Lane. New Mayfield Lane is a 20 foot wide one way street. There 20
is adequate space for both deliveries and other traffic as has been occurring for years. I want to provide 21
a photo in a second showing this. Our project will actually improve the existing clearance along New 22
Mayfield Lane by removing existing obstacles such as light poles, electrical meters, and dumpsters that 23
are behind our building as well as stepping back the ground floor of the proposed building one foot 24
more than the existing building thereby improving clearance along New Mayfield Lane by about 30 25
percent. 26
27
Regarding the traffic analysis this project produces significant less than 50 PM peak trips; even zero 28
credit was given for the existing 12,500 square foot building. The PMP trips are still less than 50. 29
Nonetheless at the City’s request we looked at key intersections that they asked us to look and 30
demonstrate that we don’t negatively impact the level of service at those intersections. Regarding New 31
Mayfield Lane’s 20 foot setback effectively no buildings on our block meet that and few buildings 32
along the entire stretch of New Mayfield Lane comply with this requirement as Russ had noted. I’d 33
like to submit and aerial too which shows this. Red shows noncompliance, green compliance, and 34
yellow there’s no building or not applicable. 35
36
Finally on construction impacts that’s really where we’ve been spending our time with our neighbors. 37
We’ve met with them to try to understand their concerns and will continue to do so as we develop our 38
construction access plan. Our goal is to minimize any and all impacts that are possible related to our 39
construction. Again we want to be good neighbors. I will now turn things over to Ken who can talk 40
about the fun stuff. 41
42
Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Thank you Mark. Good morning members of the Board. My 43
name’s Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. Before I start I’d just like to thank Mr. Reich and 44
staff for assisting us in bringing the application before you this morning, also for your comments from 45
the preliminary hearing. I think all three of you were at the preliminary. 46
47
City of Palo Alto Page 4
We’re familiar with the site. It’s a midblock site on California Avenue, which is formally a nightclub 1
or currently a nightclub. Behind is a City parking garage about where the pointer has stalled and then 2
it’s surrounded by, it’s a CC (2) (R) (P) Zoning District and all those adjacent properties are in the same 3
zoning district and they are assorted heights; so one, two, and three story buildings. You can see them 4
here in the photographs. The building on the lower right hand corner is actually across the street on the 5
corner. There’s a two story building next to that and the rest of the block there. Immediately adjacent 6
to us is this corner building on the upper left hand photograph and that’s a two story building. To our 7
right is a one story cleaner’s that is the only one story building in our part of the block. The rest of the 8
buildings are two story. 9
10
The project statement is to create a new, modern 27,000 square foot basically two to one Floor Area 11
Ratio (FAR) office and retail building that responds to the site and respects the context, embraces 12
sustainable design practices, and enhances the working and shopping environment or experience along 13
California Avenue. And it’s, let’s see, hang on. So at the preliminary hearing we focused on, we 14
showed you these three options. We focused on the one in the center. The reason for that is we 15
believed it presented a stronger block face on California Avenue therefore reinforcing an otherwise not 16
nonexistent, but not strong kind of block face edge. We liked the fact that the balconies on the upper 17
floors were set back but the building form still kind of reached out and lined up three stories all the way 18
and that that entire building block was then lifted up to provide for abundant sort of window glazing on 19
the ground floor for a vibrant retail space. 20
21
We were asking at the time for a DEE for height. We’ve reduced the building from 42 and a half feet 22
to the compliant 37 feet. So we’ve come down five and a half feet. And we’ve also changed some of 23
the materials. We had metal railings sort of for the railing at the balcony and I’m sorry I can’t point 24
here, right there. We thought that that may have added too much to the bulk so we’ve made the railings 25
all glass and so that glass then descends from the top of the railing down to the top of the bottom of the 26
stone form. We were also asking for additional height on roof screens and stuff and so it’s all been 27
brought into compliance. I’m thinking that maybe the stair tower could be an architectural element that 28
exceeds the 37 foot height. 29
30
Here’s the context again. It shows the two story buildings. Essentially nearly all of them are at least 31
two stories and three stories across the street. This is the sort of vehicular circulation. The lane at the 32
back is a one way from left to right. We have a public garage with a node sort of a staircase that comes 33
down and we’re lining up our entrance at the back of the building with that public staircase. And this is 34
the sort of the pedestrian circulation diagram. This is the block face, which is really kind of has a lot of 35
gaps in it right now and so we’re trying to reinforce the block face. Again that’s part of bringing that 36
second and third floor element out and lifting it up and creating some good retail space below. And this 37
is the solar diagram, which is pretty typical for most of the Palo Alto grid. 38
39
Ground floor plan here. I’m just going to walk you through some of the features of the ground floor 40
plan. That’s that pedestrian access from the back alley, which would come along a sidewalk that comes 41
into the project and also the retail from the front and then an office entrance from the front off of the 42
sidewalk. We have service entrance at the back so our transformer, trash enclosure, grease interceptor 43
if we should need one are all located over here. And then all the access to the parking is also from the 44
alley so no curb cuts are needed. We have parking spaces on grade and you would also enter into the 45
parking garage at that location or from the alley as well. This kind of displays the retail frontage. So 46
we’re really trying to get a lot of the retail frontage and that is all the frameless glass. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 5
This is some of the imagery we’re pulling from. I think we’re all familiar with these buildings over at 1
Stanford. Nice, elegant materials, nice metal panel, beautiful punched openings, lots of deep window 2
recess frames for sun control and some strong rooflines. We also like the way that it refers to the past. 3
You know kind of with that terra cotta metal cap. Sort of refers to some of the historic architecture that 4
you might find in the Valley, but sort of giving you that modern feel. I also like the deep shadow lines 5
that are created by that. 6
7
This is the underground garage. The right hand side there’s 28 parking spaces there, 6 are tandem. 8
First floor plan is above that. We just kind of reviewed that. And then this is the second floor on the 9
lower left and then the third floor on the upper, the upper left. And pretty sensible plan. we’ve taken 10
the block goes full depth so you’ve got the same vocabulary front and back kind of all the way around 11
the building, which we felt was important. 12
13
This is the front elevation. I’m sorry I’m rushing, but I have to. The front elevation we have a blow up 14
of the area in the middle, but first this kind of gives you where the material are and I can cover that 15
during questions, but wonderful material palette that you should have in front of you. This is a blow up 16
of the front balcony. Everything above my cursor is actually way back, you know, like 30 feet back. 17
That’s the roof screen so I apologize for the poor graphic there, but more importantly the section shows 18
what we really want to show you and how this is the balcony above. It has cut outs in it so as you’re on 19
the sidewalk you kind of tended to look up and through. It’s not a dark space, lots of light comes down. 20
And then from the balcony railing down it’s a frameless piece of glass on the back of the railing, but the 21
window frames are like eight inches deep and they go all the way down to the second floor and at a 22
frequency to provide some shading on the windows. At the ground floor there’s a bit of an arcade and 23
why we like this direction. We can kind of pick that block up create ground floor retail arcade and still 24
provide lots of exposure for the retailer and then we have a canopy that helps kind of define that zone a 25
little bit better. 26
27
Here’s a graphic of the building from California Avenue and I am happy to answer any questions that 28
you might have. I do have other views that I can show you later. Thank you. 29
30
Chair Malone Prichard: I’m sure someone will ask for those. Are there any members of the public here 31
to speak about this project? Alright, let’s start with Alex. 32
33
Board Member Lew: So actually I have a question (interrupted) 34
35
Chair Malone Prichard: I’m sorry; there is a member of the public here to speak. Would you like to 36
come forward? 37
38
Momoyo Homma: Good morning. When I finished or right now? Yes. My name is Momoyo Homma. 39
I’m from Homma’s Brown Rice Sushi and yes I’m so small it’s hard to see me. Yeah first or the last 40
time when they held the meeting here I attend. First of all I would like to apologize, my English is very 41
limited and I’m not able to speak well so if you are able to bear with my heavy accent and English. 42
43
When I attend for the community meeting for this project which was held at the camera shop, we are 44
talking about a concern, our concern for the dust and the noise too. Because they told me that the most 45
likely they would like to have a construction from the summertime, but the summertime we have a 46
patio and the customers really enjoy to eat outside. And then also our front building earlier they said 47
that is a dry cleaner, but there is also the sandwich shop right now for the eating place. For the eating 48
City of Palo Alto Page 6
place the dust is really the big problem, also the noise. Because the last time at the nightclub when they 1
had to do remodeling at that time and only that time we saw the mice running around and then the other 2
business owner also when I talked to them they complained about the mice too. So when they wanted 3
to do the big remodeling this time they have to tear down the building so my main concern is of course 4
for the restaurant is cleanliness. And then I’d like to know also the pest control what they are able to do 5
that and not [unintelligible] the pest and then the rats not run around to the neighbors. 6
7
And then also if they have to use alley and if this big constructions keep going I said to Mark at the last 8
community meeting most likely we’ll have to close down because the entrance is a problem right now 9
[unintelligible] people too. the former when I apply for the City for the permission to have a restaurant 10
on the [unintelligible] street there is an entrance now but somehow right now the [unintelligible] people 11
is using it because City [timer sounded]. 12
13
Chair Malone Prichard: Can you finish up your sentence please? 14
15
Ms. Homma: Ok. The City said that is [unintelligible] owners and then the problem but we already 16
submit for the blueprint everything when we opened up the restaurant. If we are not able to use that 17
and we are not able to use the entrance that is really greatly affect our business too. So anyway if I am 18
able to think about more concern I don’t know when I’m able to speak next time? And also if they are 19
going to hold a community meeting I really appreciate if they are able to let us know in advance and 20
then I take time to think about and write it down the questions because (interrupted) 21
22
Chair Malone Prichard: I’m sorry I need to ask you to finish now. You are out of time. Thank you 23
very much for your comments. 24
25
Ms. Homma: Thank you. 26
27
Chair Malone Prichard: And we have one more commenter, Yuri Homma. 28
29
Yuri Homma: Hello Board Members. Thank you for hearing me today. Oh, excuse me. I’m speaking 30
on behalf of my mother and father. My father is very, even more limited in English than my mother so 31
it was difficult for them to convey their thoughts. But I did reach out about the translation because it 32
was very difficult for them to understand. 33
34
And even more this whole project I think it’s a lovely idea that compared to a nightclub it’s better to 35
have an office or retail, but we were never really notified of the project itself. We found out about the 36
community meetings through other neighbors. So we were never approached from the developers 37
about it and we also obtained this environmental assessment from also from not from the developer, but 38
from the neighbor. And here in Page 6 I believe there is something called the surrounding land uses 39
and settings and there is not a single mention of our restaurant at all. Although we are a very small 40
business we do exist and we’ve been there for over 25 plus years. And I myself I don’t live here in 41
Palo Alto, but I did grow up here, you know, Stanford students babysitting me. It’s been a second 42
home to me and I really, it would be a shame and this is the sole income, everything that my parents 43
own and have at this point and to see it lose, the fact that we may have to shut it down or to lose 44
business is a huge concern for us. Our family and I would love to do, on my part as the daughter, to do 45
whatever we can to help, but at the same time I myself am working full time and also a full time student 46
at this time and very difficult for me to keep up with this whole thing. And this notice of this hearing 47
City of Palo Alto Page 7
was posted on the 6th but only arrived to my parents on the 13th. And this is when I was really aware of 1
what was going on with the construction and it was, it’s been very difficult. 2
3
And I contacted the City because the lack of time and also my concern of translation and whatnot. And 4
I did get a response by Mr. Reich and he had said that I can tell you that the environment review did not 5
find there would be any significant impacts to the adjacent properties. There are some contaminants in 6
the soil that do require some mitigation, but the onsite actives do not pose a hazard to your parent’s 7
business. The construction activity is likely to cause some temporary inconvenience. So there is an 8
impact and the fact that my parent’s business wasn’t even mentioned in the report is very concerning 9
and I’m just very confused about what’s going at this point and [timer sounded] I’m sorry. I’m sorry 10
I’ll finish it. Although they say that it’s not a significant impact to us their operation time is going to be 11
8:00 to 6:00 and that’s when we do business and also in the nighttime as well. And a truck going back 12
and forth, the dust, and the noise it would be a huge impact for us it is doing business (interrupted) 13
14
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. 15
16
Miss Homma: Thank you. 17
18
Chair Malone Prichard: Did I see there was one other member of the public who wanted to speak? And 19
can you announce your name please? 20
21
Cathy Lee: Yes, my name’s Cathy Lee and I am a tenant next door to the proposed building at 240. 22
First I wanted to say Mr. Conroe has demonstrated his efforts in meeting with me as well as other 23
businesses and providing information as requested. He’s been generous with his time in helping me 24
understand the concerns that I have and although we are still in discussion in trying to find resolutions 25
before the January deadline regarding some of the parking issues near our property during and after 26
construction as well as some impacts to our equipment and building to name a few. Also there is still 27
an ongoing discussion of finding a real solution on placement of one of the open terrace on the second 28
floor, which we feel is too close to our HVAC and perhaps Mr. Hayes can propose some other options 29
in placement for that open terrace. 30
31
Otherwise, oh, one more thing, the property owner who was here had to leave and he wanted to make 32
sure that it’s on record that 260 is not an access for the public to go through because it’s a private lot 33
onto California Avenue. Otherwise Mr. Conroe has been very thoughtful and has been demonstrated 34
that he’s being a good neighbor in trying to address certain concerns. So I support in his project as long 35
as we continue to find resolutions to these concerns. Thank you. 36
37
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. Before we go to Board Member questions and 38
comments can staff make a statement as to how neighbors might get more information about this 39
project? 40
41
Mr. Reich: Certainly staff welcomes any comments, questions, concerns related to the project be sent to 42
my attention and they can send them to my e-mail address or my phone number, which is posted on the 43
notice. They could certainly get that information directly from me here or certainly inquire at the fifth 44
floor of City Hall as to how to best get ahold of me. There’s actually going to be quite a bit of time 45
before any decision is actually made on the application regardless of whether you recommend approval 46
today or continue the item due to the public comment period on the environmental document a decision 47
City of Palo Alto Page 8
can’t be made until after January 14th. So there will be definitely some time for neighbors to go ahead 1
and provide some comment. 2
3
Chair Malone Prichard: And I also heard concerns about construction activities. The City has an 4
ordinance that controls construction activities. Can you elaborate? 5
6
Mr. Reich: Certainly. In the environmental review there are actually a number of conditions, just 7
standard conditions that we would typically apply to construction projects. This project isn’t unusual in 8
terms of having a significant duration or being so large that it wouldn’t be subject to just normal 9
construction activity conditions: controlling dust, controlling noise, hours of operation. We do require 10
that they do a very detailed logistics plan. They have to do that prior to the issuance of the building 11
permit. They will be working with the Public Works department to determine specifically how trucks 12
will enter and exit the site and what activities will be taking place and when. We would certainly and I 13
know the owner is open to this, keeping the neighbors informed of what’s happening and when it’s 14
happening so they can adjust and be aware. I know that they’re working with the neighbors to 15
understand specifically what their concerns are and to try to deal with it. 16
17
I mean the most significant activity would be demolition and excavation, which is a much shorter 18
timeframe than the whole project. And they’re trying to work with them to limit the impacts from that 19
and that will all be part of the logistics plan in terms of how that takes place. I know one of the things 20
that the owner’s committed to doing is actually putting up a dust screen adjacent to the restaurant so 21
that even though they’re going to be watering and trying to keep the dust to a minimum they want to 22
provide a physical barrier to prevent dust from drifting offsite because the sites are right on top of each 23
other. It’s so very close. And so they are working to try to do what they can. 24
25
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. 26
27
Board Member Lew: I have a follow up. So Russ on some other recent projects that we’ve had where 28
the environmental review was still ongoing and the project came to the Board for comment, but we 29
weren’t directed to approve the project until after the review period. And so in this one, in this 30
particular report you’re actually asking for a recommendation today as opposed to in January and I was 31
wondering what the difference might be in that? 32
33
Mr. Reich: Basically as a matter of course we don’t like to generally hold the public hearing until the 34
environmental public comment has run its course. Technically because you are a recommendation 35
body and not a decision making body you’re not required, we’re not required to do that. So we’ve 36
pushed this item along due to internal issues, being so busy and didn’t want to delay the hearing any 37
further due to the environmental. So certainly we can’t make a decision and if there were outstanding 38
issues that needed to come back to public hearing we’re certainly prepared to do that, but we didn’t feel 39
that we needed to put off the public hearing to be able to receive and deal with any comments that 40
might, we might receive. We’ll certainly deal with them in advance of making any decision on the 41
application. 42
43
Board Member Lew: Great, thank you. And then just for the neighbors it’s in the staff report, but I just 44
wanted to clarify the dates. The review period, the public comment period begins December 14th and 45
ends on January 14th. So and that the Planning Staff have to respond to any questions that you might 46
have about the environmental review, right? 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Mr. Reich: Certainly we would respond and address any comments that we received. 1
2
Board Member Lew: Great. Thank you. 3
4
Chair Malone Prichard: Lee did you have a staff question? Lee did you have a staff question? 5
6
Vice-Chair Lippert: With regard to the street improvements for California Avenue the lane reduction 7
and the parking reconfiguration and all that. When is that happening timing wise? Is it happening in 8
the next six months? 9
10
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: The actual project construction? You know, I seriously doubt 11
within six months. There’s a follow up public hearing about that, but I don’t have any dates handy on 12
that. We can follow up with some information. 13
14
Vice-Chair Lippert: Let me tell you the reason why I’m asking the question. I know we’re supposed to 15
say our comments later, but there is a lane reduction being planned and it appears that it’s passed all of 16
its court obstacles so to speak so it’s been approved and it’s going to move ahead at some point. But 17
with regard, I’m concerned about the adjacent businesses and if that moves along at the same time as 18
the construction for this project it’s seriously going to impact those businesses. And this is what I’m 19
just sort of thinking out loud about is that because of the street narrowing a lot of the digging activities, 20
the access to the site could very well happen right off of California Avenue because eventually it’s 21
going to be reduced to two lanes and stay off of the backside of the building and the alleyway where the 22
Brown Rice Sushi, where the restaurants are located. And so from a logistics I’m trying to think of 23
how this could work and getting that into the conditions of approval and your environmental review so 24
that there is a window of opportunity here I think where we could actually impact that business less. 25
26
Ms. French: We can certainly take those comments as the Director considers the application. As well, 27
typically with a project we have to go through a logistics plan when it’s in an urban, busy area such as 28
the University Avenue/downtown or this part of town, to try to make sure that we minimize the impacts 29
with a logistics plan, with all departments attending and figuring that out. 30
31
Chair Malone Prichard: Ok. Alex, questions and comments? 32
33
Board Member Lew: So generally I think that this is a very handsome building Ken. When I was 34
looking at it I thought this was a project at the medical center. I had, I have a question for staff first on 35
the DEE’s. So on past projects it does come up here at the Board and then also Planning and 36
Transportation Commission (PTC) and Council about like when DEE’s are used and when variances 37
are used. And I was wondering here on this one typically DEE’s are supposed to be for minor things 38
like cornices and whatnot or like the stair tower. But here we’re using it for the 20 foot setback and I 39
just wanted to clarify a question for you is that the DEE isn’t supposed to be used to get floor area. 40
And so I was wondering if the calculation had been made that if the setback were put in place that the 41
same amount of floor area would be able to be configured on the property? 42
43
Mr. Reich: We haven’t made that calculation, but it, my understanding is that the policy about using 44
DEE’s before is they’re not getting floor area beyond what the code allows. So I mean that’s certainly 45
not the case here. It may limit the amount of floor area that they could fit on the site if the setback were 46
to be imposed, but I’d have to defer to the applicant to see if they even looked at that. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Ms. French: I would add to that that you have on the front elevation a recess there. There’s definitely 1
some need for recess at the ground floor for rain protection and that but there is a design aspect to 2
carving out elsewhere and putting it on the back. That it has a design quality to it (interrupted) 3
4
Board Member Lew: Yeah, I’m not, I don’t dispute that. I was just thinking technically about how we 5
do this. Because it’s, because I think like on the College Terrace Center project I mean there were 6
some people on the Council and Board on the PTC who didn’t like how we applied the DEE for setback 7
on that, on the street. So I just want to make sure that we’re on the same page with this because on the 8
College Terrace Center that project had a little corner open space and the applicant said “Well if you 9
apply the setback, the side street,” it has like a side street setback, right? “I will just fill in that corner 10
open space.” I mean it wasn’t really required. And he said, “Well we’ll just reconfigure the building 11
and then it’ll take up that whole space.” So I was wondering if that calculation had been, something 12
like that had been made. 13
14
Mr. Reich: I believe that was a special setback on the street which didn’t seem to make a whole lot of 15
sense. 16
17
Board Member Lew: I think it was like proximity to residential zoning across the street (interrupted) 18
19
Mr. Reich: Right, thank you for refreshing my memory. Yeah. So it architecturally it didn’t make a lot 20
of sense to have the building setback in that location. I mean the situation is quite a bit different than 21
that. We felt this was minor in that it isn’t a public street. It is the alley and it’s basically maintaining 22
an existing configuration so it didn’t seem to while 20 feet is a significant distance it seemed minor in 23
that it really doesn’t have a significant impact beyond the existing situation. So we felt that it would be 24
a minor request and it would fall into the DEE in that the reason for doing it is such that you do get the 25
building able to recess from the street and provide that pedestrian amenity having the deep recess for 26
the office and the recesses for the retail storefronts (interrupted) 27
28
Board Member Lew: We might require those elements in any case. 29
30
Mr. Reich: Right, but it, in their project design it does enable them to easily accommodate that and 31
make room for that. So we felt it was appropriate, but it’s certainly up to you if you think that a 32
variance is more appropriate to achieve that or if it’s not minor or if it’s not architectural then certainly 33
let us know. 34
35
Board Member Lew: And then in a similar kind of related question is if we really don’t, if the Planning 36
Staff doesn’t really feel strongly about the 20 foot setback then what are we doing to change what 37
might be doing to change that regulation? (Interrupted) 38
39
Mr. Reich: As you know zoning changes are cumbersome and difficult, and very time consuming, and 40
there’s a lot of little things in the code that we would love to tweak. There’s not a significant amount of 41
redevelopment going on here so I don’t know if there’s going to be a high demand of projects coming 42
through the pipeline that are going to be wanting to do this, but it’s definitely something we could put 43
on our list to take a look at. 44
45
Board Member Lew: I mean because wasn’t the PTC go through a whole master planning or something 46
not quite a specific plan, but something like that for the Comp Plan. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Ms. French: Actually it could be a specific plan. It’s called the Coordinated Area Plan study that’s 1
been going on for some time and is coming back in, I think January. That’s what I was thinking 2
originally about when you asked about Cal Ave. The actual Area Plan is going to be discussed in 3
January I believe with the City’s Planning and Transportation Commission. So you know this is one of 4
those things (interrupted) 5
6
Board Member Lew: I would like to get it folded into that. 7
8
Ms. French: We can look at that and how that would then go forward as a program related to that plan. 9
10
Board Member Lew: Because, I mean I think it’s an important issue because 20 feet is a lot actually. 11
It’s significant and it’s inconsistent in, on Cal Ave. Ok, so Ken. So thank you. I think the building is 12
very handsome. The material palette is really beautiful. I like that. 13
14
Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 15
16
Board Member Lew: I had a couple, some detail questions for you and some questions about the 17
landscaping. Really the only main issue that I see in the project is that if it is restaurant use that the 18
trash area is not directly connected to the retail space. And so I was wondering what, if there was any 19
way of addressing that. Because I know from the last meeting that a restaurant tenant was one of the 20
possibilities being considered. 21
22
Mr. Hayes: And that’s why we are showing a location for a potential grease interceptor. We don’t want 23
to preclude a restaurant from coming in. I don’t think it’s a top potential candidate for a tenant, but we 24
do want to have a place for a grease interceptor. No the trash would be taken out the back, just out the 25
back of the building to the alley and then down the alley to the trash enclosure. So you’d say you’d be 26
in the parking area of the ground floor. 27
28
Board Member Lew: Right. Would there be, so you’re showing a door, like double doors between the 29
retail space and the parking area? 30
31
Mr. Hayes: Yeah (interrupted) 32
33
Board Member Lew: But that’s not, I mean I was thinking that that was like a customer entrance, but 34
there isn’t necessarily say a service, there isn’t like a separate service (interrupted) 35
36
Mr. Hayes: Aisle. 37
38
Board Member Lew: Aisle or some, yeah. 39
40
Mr. Hayes: So I think the doors are a placeholder. I could imagine there might be three sets of double 41
doors depending on how many tenants we have and so that’s not, I don’t consider that necessarily 42
something that impacts the look of the building. It’s more of a functional thing. And so I could see 43
where that might have to move down one way or the other or we’d have multiple sets of doors if we 44
had more than one tenant on that back Alex, so. 45
46
Board Member Lew: Ok, yeah and you were talking (interrupted) 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Mr. Hayes: Because that is a walkway there along the entire back. 1
2
Board Member Lew: Great. Got it. And then so like bathrooms for the retail space that would be put in 3
by the retail tenant and so those aren’t, would not be shared with the main? 4
5
Mr. Hayes: That’s correct. 6
7
Board Member Lew: Got it. Ok so there’s a whole back of house that will have to be (interrupted) 8
9
Mr. Hayes: Once we know who the retailer or retailers are yes. 10
11
Board Member Lew: Ok, thank you. So I’m in support of the DEE for the stairs and the stair tower. I 12
think the staff report is, wanted us to weigh in on the massing. And the building height and the mass 13
does, it’s compatible with the building kitty-corner, right on the corner. And I think that the massing of 14
the building is fine given the width of the street. It is taller than all the neighbors (interrupted) 15
16
Mr. Hayes: The immediate, yeah. 17
18
Board Member Lew: And I’m not crazy about it, but I do like that the cornice that you’re showing is 19
sort of in the language of the neighboring buildings and so I think that that’s fine. And I think we’ve 20
seen here like on University Avenue that you can have three story buildings and one story buildings and 21
they can all sort of work together (interrupted) 22
23
Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible—talking over each other] syncopation of the street I think. 24
25
Board Member Lew: Yeah, when the, yeah. And so that’s and I think that part of that is like on 26
University Avenue it’s partly the rhythm of the street and it’s partly landscaping, consistent landscaping 27
and those things are missing on Cal Ave. at the moment or their not as strong as University Avenue. 28
But I think the City is working to make them more like, to make them more consistent and more 29
rhythmatic. And so I think going, if you’re looking forward I think that the building fits in with what, 30
with the plan for downtown. 31
32
Mr. Hayes: Gary Laymon, I apologize I didn’t say that he was here. He’s here. So if you have 33
questions on the landscaping you might want to ask him. 34
35
Board Member Lew: Yeah some questions about the glass mulch. 36
37
Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 38
39
Board Member Lew: Ok, and then last time we talked about there were some issues about site lines and 40
stuff in the alley and that the alley was narrow and I was just wondering if that had been sort of 41
resolved with the neighbors and (interrupted) 42
43
Mr. Hayes: It was just coincidental that I stopped here. So there are a few more slides that aren’t 44
rendered nicely like this, but this is on the balcony. But so this is at the rear alley. I’m sorry; this is the 45
California Avenue I apologize. It shows it from the train station side looking down with our building 46
on the right. And this is the rear alley. And so our setback, I mean the top block is at the property line. 47
The lower block is a foot back and then the rest of it is between one foot and 35 feet back depending 48
City of Palo Alto Page 13
upon where you are in the building façade. We’ve carried the same vocabulary around the back of the 1
building and your question was regarding the width of the alley? From the terms of? 2
3
Board Member Lew: Well it’s just, no, I was actually just getting, maneuvering in and out of the garage 4
without, with being able to see oncoming cars and then I think also if I recall correctly maybe it was 5
Keeble and Shuchat were concerned about double parking and deliveries and all of that and I was 6
wondering (interrupted) 7
8
Mr. Hayes: Some of the outreach meetings were about that and we have photographs of how the 9
delivery trucks use the alley. Typically they park on one side and cars go by on the other side of the 10
truck. Sometimes there are issues where two delivery trucks decide to park next to each other. So it’s 11
really kind of an enforcement thing where nobody can get by because they’re being selfish about the 12
alley. But if they were to park on in front of the other then Mark do you want to talk more specifically? 13
Then there’s no issue getting by. I have a somewhere here if you, oh no. 14
15
Mr. Conroe: I’ll just add that we looked at, we submitted the photographs in terms of the width of the 16
New Mayfield Lane. We did look at line of access when you’re pulling out of the garage and sort of 17
can you see. It’s a one way street as you know so you come up, it’s the same, the exit’s the same place 18
where the existing parking is. There will be more cars, but actually maybe they won’t be backing into 19
the alley which they’re currently doing; so you’ll come up, you do have a line of sight. We are going to 20
trim back the fence that’s there a little bit so you’ll have a little better line of sight, but we think and 21
we’ll have maybe a blinking red light or something to just remind people to look to your left before you 22
pull to your right. So it’s and of course coming out of the at grade parking there’s even more line of 23
sight and so we in consultation with, we met with Terry Shuchat and marked the site and I think he’s 24
comfortable that there’s, it’s a safe situation as we are and I think as the staff is. 25
26
Board Member Lew: Are you going to have gates at either of the driveway entrances? 27
28
Mr. Conroe: Not currently unless people park there a lot that aren’t supposed to then there might. 29
30
Board Member Lew: Ok, thank you. And then second I have some questions on the details. The 31
window façade on the front, like on the second and third floor that you’re showing some extensions to 32
the mullions and I think there was one note that said that they were wood and I was just wondering... 33
Yeah, I know that was my reaction too. So I was wondering what the (interrupted) 34
35
Mr. Hayes: You’re talking about the windows that sort of start or the frames that start at the railing and 36
go (interrupted) 37
38
Board Member Lew: Down. 39
40
Mr. Hayes: I believe they are, yeah it’s an eight inch extension onto it and no it’s not wood. It’s 41
aluminum. 42
43
Board Member Lew: Ok. 44
45
Mr. Hayes: Metal frame. That’s what I, on A81, on Section 1, the wall section I see where it says 46
metal. Metal frame. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Board Member Lew: Ok. 1
2
Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 3
4
Board Member Lew: Great. 5
6
Mr. Hayes: And that’s the darker, we have, that’s this the darker metal. And then the lighter metal is on 7
the upper floors set back at the balcony. 8
9
Board Member Lew: And then also on the materials so on like the side facades you’ve got the stone 10
veneer and the stucco coplanar. I’m just wondering what? 11
12
Mr. Hayes: Yeah we would have a review at that, between the two. 13
14
Board Member Lew: Ok. And then also at the, I guess you would call it you have like a recess or like a 15
niche on… 16
17
Mr. Hayes: On that eastern side that looks over the (interrupted) 18
19
Board Member Lew: Yeah the east side and then you’ve got like a little bands of stone. 20
21
Mr. Hayes: Those actually are planes of stone that go back the full depth of the balcony. 22
23
Board Member Lew: I see. You’re trying to make it look like a great [unintelligible]. That’s what it 24
was missing. Thank you. And then also on the materials is the concrete, I like the dark color on the 25
sample board and I was just wondering about since those are on the back façade right? 26
27
Mr. Hayes: Front too. 28
29
Board Member Lew: And the front. Like the columns? Is that the same, like the columns? 30
31
Mr. Hayes: Yeah the columns would be that. Yeah, exactly. 32
33
Board Member Lew: I was just wondering about like the graffiti, graffiti coatings and like would you 34
repaint them off if they get (interrupted) 35
36
Mr. Hayes: They’re going to be sandblasted so (interrupted) 37
38
Board Member Lew: That’s why I’m worried about them, yeah. 39
40
Mr. Hayes: There’s not a whole lot you can do unless you wanted to put a paint on it if it gets tagged. 41
42
Board Member Lew: Right and then the coatings are kind of shiny, which I don’t, yeah. 43
44
Mr. Hayes: I think if it got tagged I mean knowing Mark he would want to have it sandblasted I’d think 45
and maybe he’d seal it hoping the next time it wouldn’t be as hard to get something off, but there’s no 46
special plan to prevent that. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Board Member Lew: I wish you luck there. And the, and then on landscaping I was wondering if Gary 1
if you’d show us the landscaping. 2
3
Mr. Hayes: Your slides aren’t in here… 4
5
Board Member Lew: We have all the, we have your beautiful drawings. 6
7
Gary Laymon: Good morning. So you want me just to kind of walk you through the landscape design? 8
9
Board Member Lew: Yeah, I just like the idea. Yeah, just like the big idea of that. 10
11
Mr. Laymon: Sure. Well we saw this opportunity at the main entrance to create a really nice, elegant 12
feature there that would have a very rich quality to it and started drawing from the material palette of 13
the building. There’s a raised planter. That planter wall, the vertical portion of that wall would match 14
that dark concrete pillar that adobe color and it would have a cap to it that would act as a seat wall and 15
that would also be made out of the building stone that you’re seeing here. So sort of bring that material 16
palette over into the planter. And then once you get into the planter we’re looking for doing something 17
that was really fun and interesting and we think we’ve hit upon that. We have a multi-trunk specimen 18
palm tree that we’re incorporating there, which will tend to stay fairly small. It’s a Mediterranean fan 19
palm. We’ll put it in as a good size initially, a 48 inch box so it’ll have some substance when it goes in. 20
It is very slow growing so it’ll kind of stay in that sort of smaller scale over time. 21
22
We have a series of up lights that are underneath that that’ll be shining up into that and one of the 23
things we saw as an opportunity here with the walls around us is to kind of cast the shadow patterns of 24
that palm tree onto those building walls to give it a little bit of a fun point of interest. And in the 25
ground plane as you mentioned we’re using the recycled glass product, which I brought some here if 26
you’d like to see it. 27
28
Board Member Lew: Is that similar to the fountain that you, the Lytton Plaza fountain? Have you been 29
looking at all the blue fountain at the end of California Avenue? Is that what you’re trying to carry that 30
over here? 31
32
Mr. Laymon: It would be in this sort of color range, but it would be larger and the intent though is that 33
the lights will, it’ll be beautiful during the daytime. It will provide the water conservation aspect that 34
you’d usually have a wood mulch, but in reducing the evapotranspiration, but it would be about a three 35
inch layer of the material and it would be slightly larger than this and kind of pick up on the coloration 36
of the glass in the building and such. And most importantly at night the lights will be shining through 37
it, so I think that will be a real festive, festive quality to it. 38
39
Board Member Lew: And somehow you managed Ken not to pick out a beige colored glass huh? And 40
Gary I guess the question I had on that is there’s like an accent wall shown and I didn’t really see the 41
details for that and I wasn’t sure it seems like it was referring to the architectural drawings, but I’m not 42
sure. I think I missed, if they’re there I missed it. But I was just wondering about the materials and 43
then the looks of the wall itself and then also it looks like your covering the whole wall with ficus. And 44
so I just was looking for the big idea there and how the height of that wall coordinates with the 45
neighboring building. 46
47
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Mr. Laymon: Alright so there’s the intent with the ficus vine is that we’re looking to do more of a 1
tracery more than 100 percent coverage of it so you kind of see the qualities of the plant mass, so that’s 2
why we use that one photo that’s shown there. Just so that it has some interest to it and more of a 3
tracery. This wall is shorter in scale compared to the neighboring wall there and the intent there is it 4
sort of layers up against that other wall. In terms of the materials of the wall that’s probably something 5
Ken should probably speak to if you’re referring to the architectural wall on the left hand side there. 6
7
Board Member Lew: Yeah. I think it shows on sheet, I see it’s a little bit on (interrupted) 8
9
Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible-talking over each other] for the sake of time look at your drawing section. 10
So that wall is a concrete wall. So it’s the same color and it actually is alongside if you look at the 11
ramp, look at A3.2. 12
13
Board Member Lew: Yeah, I’m looking at that. 14
15
Mr. Hayes: It’s actually pretty nice. So that’s the property line wall essentially and so it starts at the 16
back of the building, descends into the garage. We have these vertical slots in it that provide some 17
lighting there as you go down the ramp. There’s an LED light at the top horizontal surface of the slot, 18
ok? So that’s a concrete, exposed concrete slot that’s lit up and then you see it again at the front of the 19
building. 20
21
Board Member Lew: I see. I get it. 22
23
Mr. Hayes: And it all relates to the height of the big stone block. 24
25
Board Member Lew: Got it. 26
27
Mr. Hayes: Ok. 28
29
Board Member Lew: Ok, I get it. I didn’t see that in the drawings, but now that you explained it I see. 30
31
Mr. Hayes: Ok, great. 32
33
Board Member Lew: Ok. 34
35
Mr. Hayes: I probably should have had that in the presentation because it’s a nice little detail. 36
37
Board Member Lew: Yeah, no I like that. You have the nice, I think the weakness on like Cal Avenue 38
and you see like Castro Street and stuff is going from the street side back to those back alleys. It’s 39
usually really awful. I mean really not very many, I don’t think I’ve seen a single good idea that’s 40
really worked beautifully but I see what you’re doing here and that’s (interrupted) 41
42
Mr. Hayes: And then on the other side of the ramp as you come down so just above that on Section 2 43
the concrete returns there as well and there’s a big horizontal cut out in the concrete and that’s actually 44
if you look at the material board there’s the acrylic Lucite translucent panel. That’s what’s there. So 45
when you’re in the parking garage at grade you’ve got a lit, that whole wall is lit with natural light. 46
47
Board Member Lew: Ok. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
Mr. Hayes: So you’re not in a dark garage area. 2
3
Board Member Lew: Great. Thank you. Ok, so I think that’s all that I have. Thank you. 4
5
Chair Malone Prichard: Lee. 6
7
Vice-Chair Lee: Ken thank you, first of all thank you very much for coming forward on the 8
preliminary. I think it’s really helped a lot in terms of you finalizing your design. I think you made a 9
really wise choice by going with Scheme 2. 10
11
Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 12
13
Vice-Chair Lee: That really is, it was the right choice and it shows in the net results of the building. I 14
had a couple of questions sort of following up my line of questioning the last time. We talked a little 15
about the setback, the rear setback and I think I had mentioned something about looking about bringing 16
those rear walls at the ground level in, inboard of the (interrupted) 17
18
Mr. Hayes: Right and creating those two parking spaces might be outside of the building walls but 19
under the roof above (interrupted) 20
21
Vice-Chair Lee: Correct. 22
23
Mr. Hayes: So if we were to [unintelligible]. We did look at that. 24
25
Vice-Chair Lee: Yeah what happened with that? 26
27
Mr. Hayes: We looked at that and then we talked to, we went out to the site and saw the behavior of the 28
trucks and also realized that because we were reducing the height of the building to get below, to get 29
within the 37 feet we had to take 5 and a half feet out of the building so the delivery trucks no long 30
would fit easily under the second floor if you will. So that sort of ruled that out. And then we noticed 31
the delivery trucks really there’s not an issue with people passing them unless the delivery trucks park 32
side by side. If they park in the alley like this then cars can travel through. But sometimes they just 33
come in and park like this and block traffic. 34
35
Mr. Conroe: We also had conversations with people who had been out there a long time like Terry 36
Shuchat and he felt that even if we did sort of put a pull in/out area people wouldn’t use it. They’re just 37
going to expeditiously pull up like they do, like the FedEx truck photo that I handed you shows. They 38
pull up, do their thing and then take off. So doing a pull out didn’t also not only was it difficult because 39
of shortening the building but also functionally wasn’t probably going to be used. So we felt there was 40
adequate clearance especially since we’re adding about five feet of clearance in the alley by removing a 41
bunch of stuff that’s there today and has been for decades. There’s 21 feet and the truck’s about 8 feet 42
so they’ll be 13 feet for cars to pass even if FedEx is there doing deliveries. 43
44
Vice-Chair Lee: Yeah, what I think you lose there Ken, you know I understand the mechanics of the 45
trucks and everything how they work there, but I think what you lose is the front of the building has 46
been designed with a lot of depth to it and the backside of the building doesn’t happen as successfully. 47
And I’m just looking at the rear of the building in terms of that and in some ways I guess what happens 48
City of Palo Alto Page 18
is because it’s an alleyway and the height of the building and the parking structure there creates sort of 1
a canyon back there and so I’m a little concerned from that point of view. 2
3
You know I notice that you have the bike parking spaces in the basement. 4
5
Mr. Hayes: There’s some on grade too. 6
7
Vice-Chair Lee: I think that they’re a little bit problematic for most cyclists. We don’t, personally I 8
don’t like to take my bicycle below grade. I prefer chaining it up outside on the street or in other areas 9
where it’s more visible. 10
11
Mr. Hayes: Right. These are the long term (interrupted) 12
13
Vice-Chair Lee: Yeah I know. Yeah, I understand that. Is there any way to get those into the pieces of 14
salvage space that you have internally in the building on the ground floor and what I’m thinking of is 15
just beyond the lobby of that little area right between the elevator equipment room and then the exempt 16
area where the ramp is? 17
18
Mr. Hayes: Oh and then sort of on that back balcony? 19
20
Vice-Chair Lee: Yeah I was thinking of that. 21
22
Mr. Hayes: There or you could put them around the corner right there in the garage. 23
24
Vice-Chair Lee: That’s what I’m also thinking is that you’ve got the zone across from (interrupted) 25
26
Mr. Hayes: Yeah I have no, that’s a good place. 27
28
Vice-Chair Lee: Yeah. Just simply that it’s more convenient and trying to keep them from having to 29
lug it into a bicycle, into an elevator and take it downstairs. 30
31
Mr. Hayes: We would still keep those downstairs though I think as additional ones here. 32
33
Vice-Chair Lee: You know I don’t have a problem with that. I’m just, I’m looking for other 34
opportunities to have bicycle parking on grade. We want to encourage people to use bicycles and if 35
they see the spaces and they’re in a place where they’re visible it, and there’s enough of them it makes 36
it a good opportunity. The other thought I had was you’ve got that trash enclosure and that electrical 37
closet. And I was wondering if one of those two might be able to go into that little area internally to the 38
building. 39
40
Mr. Hayes: I didn’t follow you on that. 41
42
Vice-Chair Lee: Ok. You see you’ve got the trash enclosure and the electrical closet in that little 43
appendage off to the right hand, upper right hand side. If that was able to be a little, one of those two 44
could be a little more centrally located in the building on the ground floor; because those are sort of 45
wasted internal areas. 46
47
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Mr. Hayes: Oh I see what you’re saying. So in the two areas that are because of the perpendicular 1
parking stalls we’ve got the dead zones in the garage if one had the bike parking there’s still the other. 2
I think that those are probably going to end up being how people maybe go from the ground floor retail 3
if they’re taking garbage out or whatever get into the parking aisle. So we probably don’t want to 4
encumber it too much. I probably wouldn’t’ want to put the trash in there. I mean so if anything went 5
in there you’d probably do the electrical, but then we’re getting further away from the transformer in 6
the alley (interrupted) 7
8
Vice-Chair Lee: I understand that. 9
10
Mr. Hayes: Those issues. We felt like this is kind of a dead zone over here anyway and it was a likely 11
candidate for that kind of utility. The building is, there is building right above that. I think there’s a 12
terrace actually right above that. So I would elect to maybe see if that space could be used for an 13
amenity like the bikes or something. 14
15
Vice-Chair Lee: Well what I was thinking of is that if that space was enlarged it would create an onsite 16
loading zone for the building. You know it could be parking but it could also be some sort of loading 17
zone in that area. 18
19
Mr. Hayes: We do have the transformer located there as well. 20
21
Vice-Chair Lee: Right. 22
23
Mr. Hayes: there’s some space, but we still have the same issue. We’re trying to keep the stone comes 24
down to the top of that concrete wall and that’s a line that we sort of take all the way around the 25
building. And if a truck tries to pull, if we encourage a truck to try to pull under it it’s going to hit the 26
building unless that whole building sort of being soffited down was raised up. 27
28
Vice-Chair Lee: It’s not going to be any more than a panel truck or something like that, but at least it 29
creates an opportunity to have something there for deliveries or just a thought. 30
31
I wanted to talk about the stair tower a little bit. First of all I want to say something about the massing 32
of the building on the stair tower. First of all with regard to the height, I don’t have a problem with the 33
height of the building and the massing of the building. If anything this is a forerunner. I think that with 34
the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) zone coming in we’re going to see a lot 35
more buildings that are going to be taller or bigger or bulkier than this. So this is I think it really 36
doesn’t concern me from that point of view. I think the Clarium Building over on Cambridge Street 37
convinced me that higher density and massing (interrupted) 38
39
Mr. Hayes: Is that the mixed use? 40
41
Vice-Chair Lee: It is the mixed use building. And I think they did a really nice job with it and I was 42
very skeptical because it was the first PTOD project and I think that it’s, it was successful and I think 43
that this building will be a welcome addition with regard to the massing. 44
45
I have a small concern with regard to the stair tower and I feel as though it needs, it really should be 46
punctuated with some natural light if at all possible. And the reason being that I feel that way is that if 47
it was more people would take the stairs rather than the elevator specifically for coming down; that 48
City of Palo Alto Page 20
there is an opportunity there. I know it’s very close to the property line. Is there a way to do that, to 1
punctuate it with some? 2
3
Mr. Hayes: I’m not excited about doing that on the face that faces, on the face that you see there that 4
faces California Avenue. I think we need to have a place where your eye can kind of rest and have the 5
accent of that. I could see some windows on the return, on the return side or we could do a slot that sort 6
of washes the back wall, not the back wall but inside of this front wall with light on that edge. And that 7
might be a nice element to add there. You don’t see that in the drawing, but you’d see it, let’s look at 8
the Section A3.2. So the bottom section there Lee as you come in the lobby is that two story space and 9
you can see there’s about six feet above the stairwell that’s prowed of the lobby wall. We could do 10
some kind of a window element there that would bring light in and wash, should be sufficient to wash 11
light into that stairwell. 12
13
Vice-Chair Lee: And you’re not going to get in trouble with regard to the separation, the fire separation 14
for that? 15
16
Mr. Hayes: It may need to be fire light or something because it is a perpendicular wall to the lobby wall 17
and it’s a one hour enclosure. 18
19
Vice-Chair Lee: Well that would be, that would definitely be a welcome addition to that to try to get 20
again as I said more people to use the staircase as opposed to the elevator. In fact during the I guess 21
what was it? The hurricane that happened in New York people they lost their building electricity with 22
that they also lost their building elevator and people would walk up the stairs and they would actually 23
get to know the people in the building and from that point of view I think that’s a welcome addition. 24
25
And then one last question I have and this happens internally, but it affects the retail space. I’m looking 26
at your ground floor plan there and you’ve got the lobby and there’s a separation between the retail 27
space and the lobby, the elevator lobby space. Is there any way to get some punctuations, or some 28
windows in that area? And the reason, what I’m looking at here is that you’ve created this glass façade 29
on the ground floor. 30
31
Mr. Hayes: You’re talking about? 32
33
Vice-Chair Lee: Internally. 34
35
Mr. Hayes: So adjacent to the parking? 36
37
Vice-Chair Lee: No, adjacent to the lobby space. You have a solid wall between the lobby (interrupted) 38
39
Mr. Hayes: Oh, and the retail ground floor. 40
41
Vice-Chair Lee: And the retail ground floor. 42
43
Mr. Hayes: Right. 44
45
Vice-Chair Lee: And what you’ve done here which is I think very interesting, I think it’s really great is 46
that off of the back side of the building where New Mayfield Lane is you’ve created this walkway that 47
takes you through the building out to California Avenue. And because the parking garage butts up 48
City of Palo Alto Page 21
against to it, the City parking garage butts up against it on the other side there creating these pedestrian 1
thoroughfares, whether it’s, even though it’s private land people do walk through the buildings. And to 2
have a lobby area punctuated with some windows there because of the retail tenant it creates some 3
interest in terms of who that retail tenant is and ultimately what it does is it plays into the whole 4
reinforcing of pedestrian friendly circulation at the ground level. 5
6
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, those are all great ideas. Without knowing who the tenant is on the ground floor, but 7
once we know I would, that would be a great thing to encourage. Because they’d, from a business 8
standpoint it would work for them. You could even have doors. I mean it could be, there’s no fire 9
separation, there’s no (interrupted) 10
11
Vice-Chair Lee: Correct. 12
13
Mr. Hayes: So that would be a good place to when the interior improvements get underway. 14
15
Vice-Chair Lee: What I was looking for initially was that because of the glass façade even though you 16
have that enclosure around the first column of the building, creating sort of a glass enclosure that would 17
necessarily go along Cal Ave. and then return into the building, but I don’t think it needs to be 18
continuous. Even if it was just a couple of the openings in there that would suffice. Those are my 19
questions. I love it. I think you did a really great job Ken. 20
21
Mr. Hayes: Thanks Lee. 22
23
Chair Malone Prichard: I’m also in support of the project. I think you did make the right decision on 24
the scheme. And I was initially concerned about the upper floor balconies and having the building well 25
go past it, but somehow it seems to work now. I don’t know what you tweaked. Maybe it was just the 26
height. It doesn’t seem as massive as it used to so I’m liking that. I’m in support of the DEE for the 27
stair tower extension. It’s definitely better with the stair matching the elevator than without and the 28
findings can be made. 29
30
The overhang over the entry area in this particular view that’s on the cover sheet seems a little bit 31
heavy. Do you have other angles on this at all? It just seems a little bit lopsided. 32
33
Mr. Hayes: Let’s see. I think it’s 10 inches total. You’re talking about? 34
35
Chair Malone Prichard: Well the fact that it goes across the entire upper floor but then there’s the big 36
recess at the entry and that roof continues across so you’ve got a sort of lopsided roof going on. 37
38
Mr. Hayes: Yes. 39
40
Chair Malone Prichard: It doesn’t look very engaged in the stair tower in this particular view. 41
42
Mr. Hayes: Oh. Ok, so well you’re definitely going to see the edge of it. This is the only other view I 43
think I have that shows it. 44
45
Chair Malone Prichard: It looks more engaged in this view. There’s just something about the angle on 46
the cover sheet. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Mr. Hayes: This is a similar angle. Yeah, I don’t have it. I can go back to the images here. Let’s see. 1
Can I bring my own computer next time? There. So we, it’s certainly not going to be to that degree, 2
right? I think that it’s probably, you know, part of its hidden by the building the Shuchat Photography 3
building next door. That’s the drama of the building that I really like. How that comes out and sort of 4
defines that but continues instead of the façade giving away at the recess to that entrance carrying that 5
cornice, that metal plane through I think sort of helps to reinforce the edge of the street and just kind of 6
carved out for the entrance. That was one of the things I really liked about it. 7
8
Chair Malone Prichard: I can go with that. Lighting levels; I was looking at the photometric plan and it 9
looks as if your lighting has some pretty significant spill out into the alley and also into California 10
Avenue. Can you talk about what’s going on there? 11
12
Mr. Hayes: Yeah I can tell you I just looked at that this morning before the hearing and I had the same 13
concern. So we’ll make sure that we comply. So we’re going to have to either make sure that that 14
count was done correctly or cut back on the soffit lighting that we have. 15
16
Chair Malone Prichard: Great. And there was a comment on one of the lights had a name, it was an 17
LED strip and it’s called a “red flasher.” Can you tell us what’s going on there? 18
19
Board Member Lew: That’s the Fixture B, right? 20
21
Chair Malone Prichard: Yes, it was B. 22
23
Mr. Hayes: So that is a actually underneath the canopy, so at the roofline. Oops. Wow, how did that 24
happen? Alright, well underneath the roofline there’s a recess here that has the dark metal and that has 25
a light in there that sort of lights and provides separation between the metal, the red metal canopy and 26
the block below. So it’s just an accent light right there. 27
28
Chair Malone Prichard: And it doesn’t flash? 29
30
Mr. Hayes: No. 31
32
Chair Malone Prichard: Ok. 33
34
Mr. Hayes: Yes, I mean. 35
36
Chair Malone Prichard: (laughs) Ok, so I am absolutely in support of the project. I need to see the 37
lighting levels changed, but that could certainly be handled by staff. Ok, so would anybody feel like 38
making a Motion? 39
40
Board Member Lew: No, but I was just asking clarification questions. 41
42
Mr. Hayes: So what I had written down was we could add some more bikes in the garage, look at a new 43
window in that stairwell on that one side, and then when we come to looking at the ground floor 44
interior layout to add some windows along the lobby between the lobby and the retail area. As, and 45
then the light level. 46
47
MOTION 48
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok, I’ll make a Motion to approve the project and the DEE with regard and then 2
also to have I guess the following changes: that additional bike parking be added at the ground level in 3
the parking areas, near the parking areas at the ground level; that some vertical strip windows be added 4
to the tower and that would happen internally; and they look at adding some windows between the 5
lobby space and the retail space to try to enhance the retail experience at the ground level and make the 6
connection between the alleyway and the front of the building; and then lastly that the lighting levels 7
return to staff. 8
9
Chair Malone Prichard: And the other modifications for those go to staff or subcommittee? 10
11
Vice-Chair Lippert: You know actually I think they can be handled by staff. 12
13
Board Member Lew: I’m thinking of not, I think I’m not in support of the adding windows in between 14
the lobby and the retail just because we don’t what the tenant is and the timing isn’t necessarily 15
connected. 16
17
Chair Malone Prichard: We could make that be a consider windows. 18
19
Board Member Lew: Yeah I would say consider. And there are code issues between if the lobby is 20
used as an exit there are some code issues with windows and exit enclosures and stuff so I don’t want to 21
require it. I think it’s a great idea. 22
23
Mr. Hayes: We’ll certainly consider it once we know who the tenant is. I mean it’s a great idea. 24
25
Vice-Chair Lippert: That’s fine my, you know, the intent here is just simply to create some connection 26
at the ground level. That’s all. 27
28
Mr. Hayes: Yeah. So consider for the Tenant Improvement. 29
30
Mr. Reich: Lee can you please repeat that very first item? 31
32
Vice-Chair Lippert: The first was that the tower element that they would have some vertical strip 33
windows. 34
35
Mr. Reich: There was something before that about light? 36
37
Chair Malone Prichard: Bicycles. 38
39
Vice-Chair Lippert: Oh the bicycles. The bicycles. They would have bike parking, more bike parking 40
in the parking structure or near the parking structure at the ground level. Visible bike parking. 41
42
Board Member Lew: And then I was also wondering, I have a question for staff about the construction 43
management plan? 44
45
Vice-Chair Lippert: I don’t have a second on that. 46
47
SECOND 48
City of Palo Alto Page 24
1
Chair Malone Prichard: Second. 2
3
Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok. There I go. 4
5
Board Member Lew: So a question for staff. So the applicant mentioned that they were willing to 6
coordinate the construction management plan with the neighbors and I was wondering if it made sense 7
to put that in as a condition of approval. To the standard language of (interrupted) 8
9
Mr. Reich: Right. There’s already a condition of approval that they do a logistics plan. Whether they 10
are required to do it in coordination or conjunction with the neighbors you could certainly add that. I 11
know that the applicant is open to working with the neighbors as they’ve already begun that dialogue. 12
But it wouldn’t, I don’t think it would affect them. I mean I defer to them to respond if they have any 13
concerns about that, but I don’t think it would be problematic to request that they work with the 14
neighbors in providing that plan. 15
16
Board Member Lew: Thank you. 17
18
VOTE 19
20
Chair Malone Prichard: Alright do you have all of those conditions recorded? Alright so all in favor? 21
Aye. Opposed? None. Thank you. 22
23
MOTION PASSED (3-0-1-1, Board Member Alizadeh absent and Board Member Popp recused) 24
25
Vice-Chair Lippert: And I just want to make one other comment. This isn’t really, it’s not a condition 26
or anything like that, but I think it’s really in the City’s interest to sort of follow up with the neighbors 27
there. The last thing we want them to do is to feel as though they’ve been marginalized or not, their 28
comments have not been taken seriously so. 29
30
Ms. French: Thank you for that and I’d like to add when we do have our logistics meeting it’s kind of 31
like the Development Review Committee meeting that happens before architectural review. We could 32
invite the neighbors to attend that meeting. Hear from the various City staff departments on how that 33
process could be take into account their concerns. 34
35
Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you. 36
37
Chair Malone Prichard: Ok, we’ll take a brief break while somebody goes and finds, it looks as though 38
Randy’s here. 39
40
Architectural Review Board Action: Board Member Lippert moved seconded by Board Member 41
Malone Prichard to approve the project with the condition that the following items to return for staff 42
review: 43
44
1. Additional bike parking be added at the ground level in/near the parking area 45
2. Some vertical strip windows be added to the stair tower on the inside facing the main entry not 46
the front facade 47
3. Consider adding windows between the lobby space and the retail space 48
City of Palo Alto Page 25
4. Lighting levels reduced on the alley 1
5. Work with the neighbors in the creation of the construction logistics plan 2
3
Vote: 3-0-1-1 (Alizadeh absent and Popp recused) 4
5
') )
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Office oftheCl1y Clerk "<IT' H',F" I r' 'IJB('I\
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR 5~I!rtA~I~I~9\"s !~'Ff iOF:. AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT1, [" " -
L''U<WI -F, 1Il1 ~I 16 For appeals of final decisions on Architectural Review Board and Home Improvement \:)(C!lptldn aJllllicafions (rendered after public
hearing), Ihis appeal form shall be completed and submitted by appellant within fourteen days from date of the Director's decision,
Appeals oJ final decisions on Individual Review applications (rendered after public heanng) must be submitted within ten days of the
Directo~s decision, Complete form, the currentfee and a letter stating reasons for the appeal shall be submitted to front desk staff
of the Planning Division, 5lli floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, except for 980 Fridays when City Hall Is closed, when these
Items shall be submitted to Planning staff at the Development Center, 265 Hamillon Avenue (glass storefront across from City
Hall on the corner of Bryant and Hamilton),
• Director of Planning Includes his designees, which are Planning Managers or the Chief Planning Official
Appeal Application No, 16' PIp -0'3 Receipt No, ________ _
Name of Appellant ;p A "" '::p JL e ......... rp
Address 1> -a. (P L <It.<-,, , .. dO A. v<!¥.
Street
. LOCATION OF PROPERlY SUBJECT TO APPEAL:
Phone (
Skeet Address 'c..Go 0 %, c::. ..... w. "'''''''-t-u''' "-" .....
Name of Property OWner (if other than appellant) __ --'--_________________ _
Property Owners Address ________________ -,-_________ _
Street City ZIP
The deCision of the Dlrecior of Planning and Community Environment dated A«>1!U '-'t:~ , 20 \'A
wherebytheappllcalion \.O'~'-.... -"'''''~'5%y_~-:-:--:---c''_:___::___c:------------
(file number) (original project applicant)
was A f>t> n.>v IE.oD ,is hereby appealed for the reasons stated in the attached letter (in duplicate)
(approved/denied)
Date: % \Ic \ \'3 Signature of APpellant_~~' ~~ ______________ _
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCiL (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF):
Oate _______ _ Approved Denled __ _
Remarks and/or CondWons:
CITY COUNCIL DECISION (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF):
Oate _______ _ Approved Denied __ _
Remarks and/or CondWons:
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1,
2,
'Letter stating reasons for aeee",a"..' ___ ~_R""e.cgi~e!jt>y:, _____________ _
Fee (currenUy$129,00) Received by: _____________ _
)
The City Clerk and the City
Director of Planning and Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94303
)
Re: Appeal of Director's April 22, 2013 Approval of Project at 260 S. California
To Whom It May Concern:
As a resident and taxpayer in the City of Palo Alto I appeal the April 22, 2013
approval by the Director of Planning and Environment of the Architectural
Review Board recommended approval of the Office Building Project at 260 S.
California, Case No. 12PLN-00352.
The appeal is based on what follows and I reserve the right to add to the basis
for this appeal.
1. The entire City review and decision on this Project was not adequately
noticed. My residence is about 1000 feet from this Project (a residential area
that is already impacted by inadequate parking for uses on California Avenue,
Cambridge Avenue and cross streets) and I only learned of the Project by
chance online.
2. The City Staff, including the ARB have not considered several aspects of
the Project whether required by City Planning documents or as a part of the
City environmental review of the Project.
3. The Traffic Study that was used for the environmental document, a
Negative Declaration is inadequate because it does not acknowledge an
existing problem with respect to parking and traffic that already exists on
California Avenue and adjacent streets AND the overflow traffic into
residential neighborhoods, such as our neighborhood. This congestion and
lack of parking can be observed daily on College Avenue, Oxford Avenue
Park Blvd, Birch Street and Ash Street, including on Saturday.
4. This existing lack of analyziAg what exists right now is made worse by the
traffic study's (and the resulting lack of analysis in the Negative Declaration) of
the traffic and parking demands of other Projects that are either being built
right now are have been approved. Examples would include the Office
)
Building being built on Park Blvd, the Hobach Project, the residential Project
011 Birch by the Oregon Expressway, the Jay Paul Project on Sherman and
the planned (and completely illogical from my point of view--the lane reduction
on California Avenue). I am sure there are other projects which I could find if I
had time.
5. This lack of the consideration of the additional effect that this office
structure will have on parking and traffic is made worse because we don't .
know anything about HOW the construction traffic will affect the traffic that
must get through now.
S. This lack of a cumulative analysis of traffic and parking is even more
questionable when the access to this Building, an Office Building is to take
place from the narrow alley at its rear. How? How are people to access the
building and presumably park--it seems there should be more parking on site
from an Alley? If there is a line of cars waiting to get into the building HOW
does emergency access take place? The Negative Declaration doesn't deal
with that situation. I have observed cars and trucks getting jammed up there
right now--without an entrance to a three story Office Building. .
7. What is described so far needs to be analyzed further. If done properly any
one with common sense would assume that more parking and better access
would be required. The claim that it can be provided in the Cambridge Parking
Structure is questionable. Again, on most days it is full right now. With
additional parking and better access I also logically assume that the design of
the Building will have to change. One of the Exceptions granted for the Project
right now for not requiring the setback in the Alley is nonsensical--the Alley
isn't wide enough right now, and you permit the Building to be right up against
the edge of the right-of-way? In my common sense world that is not an
"extraordinary circumstance."
8. I was under the impression that the existing Comprehensive Plan was
supposed to preserve the residential character of the City's neighborhoods of
which where I live is one. What the Approval has done is directly contrary to
that policy of the City. I expect a rigorous and complete analysis of ANY
proposed project, including this one. That hasn't taken place either with
respect to the environmental review or the land and design considerations of
this Project.
Please ensure adequate notice of this appeal to our neighborhood and an
adequate analysis of the parking and traffic impacts.
.... ';. -.. <:~.::: .. y ...
-', ... c'
.~ ..
··,-'t'·
....
Sincerely,
Dan DeCamp
326 Leland Ave.
Palo Alto, CA
)
r .. '.
! "l,.
I ;
The CIIY of
Palo Alto
260 Califonia Avenue
Site = IfD
m._.ntlt
-• If
lb, CUtofPlII.Allo ........... lIOlO.JlOI1Ilbllllyfor
121"
8061
Council Members and Libraries only
Page 1