HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4020
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4020)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/9/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Appeal of 240 Hamilton Avenue ARB Approval
Title: Council Review of an Appeal of the Director's Architectural Review
Approval of a 15,000 square foot, Four-story, 50 foot, Mixed Use Building in
the CD-C-GF-P Zone District located at 240 Hamilton Avenue and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends a Council MOTION to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (contained
within Attachment G) and the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment A) for
Architectural Review Approval of a new four-story, 50 foot tall mixed use building at 240-248
Hamilton Avenue.
Executive Summary
The Council is requested to review the appeal of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment’s (Director’s) approval decision, which is consistent with the 3-0-1
recommendation of the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and consider whether or not to pull
the item off the Consent Calendar. If removed from the Consent Calendar by a vote of three or
more Council members, the Council may discuss the appeal and on the same night, decide on
whether to uphold or overturn the Director’s decision, based upon evidence presented at the
ARB hearing. Alternatively, the Council may decide to hear the project “de novo” at a new
public hearing set for a future date, to fully consider the project and adopt findings for Council
action at that hearing. If this option (“de novo” hearing) is selected, the Council may wish to
schedule the project for a date certain to consider more than just the evidence presented at the
ARB hearing(s).
The Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment A) reflects the two components of the
application, the ARB and Variance requests (file #13PLN-6), for a new four-story, 50 foot tall
mixed use building containing 4,527 square feet of new commercial floor area and 3,473 square
City of Palo Alto Page 2
feet of new residential space. The RLUA allows Council the ability to approve the Architectural
Review application with the Architectural Review approval findings recommended by the ARB
and approved by the Director, as well as to view the Variance findings that have not been
challenged in this appeal. Staff has also included in the RLUA six Context-Based Design Findings
(followed by written evaluation of the project with respect to the Context Based Design Criteria
and Downtown Urban Design Guide considered by the ARB in the June 6, 2013 staff report) for
Council consideration.
The objections of the appellant, Douglas Smith (whose letter includes 23 co-signers), relate to
three main topics: 1) The aesthetic quality of the approved design and its impact on the
surrounding heritage buildings, 2) staff’s analysis of the parking requirement and exacerbation
of the parking deficiency downtown, and 3) the Architectural Review process. The appeal letter
is provided as Attachment B. The appellant had submitted similar objections in a written letter
(including two other co-signers) emailed to staff and provided to ARB the day prior to the
second public hearing. The appellant did not speak to the ARB at the second hearing, so the
appellant’s “evidence” presented at the hearing was only done so in writing. The Council
should nevertheless consider the written submittal (Attachment C), which was also provided at
places, as evidence, along with the ARB staff reports and attachments thereto.
The project includes a Variance approval to allow the building to encroach into the required
seven foot special setback along Hamilton Avenue and the required six foot special setback
along Ramona Street. This Variance approval has not been challenged in the appeal and is
reflected in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
Background
Council Review Authority
This item initially appeared on the August 19, 2013 Council Agenda, as required within the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.77 and was continued to the September 9, 2013 Council
meeting. The Municipal Code states that Council may:
1. Adopt the findings and the decision of the Director; or
2. Remove the appeal from the consent calendar, which shall require three votes, and:
a) Discuss the appeal and adopt findings and take action on the appeal based upon the
evidence presented at the ARB hearing; or
b) Direct that the appeal be set for a new hearing before the City Council, following which
the City Council shall adopt findings and take action on the application.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
As noted, the evidence includes the project plans, the appellant’s first letter (Attachment C),
ARB meeting minutes (Attachments E and F) and the ARB staff reports (Attachments G and H).
Included to Attachment G (June 6 ARB staff report) is the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Appeal Filing
The appeal was filed in a timely manner, within 14 days following the ARB recommendation and
Director’s decision, as per code requirement. Appellant Douglas Smith, resident of 345 Forest
Avenue (Lanning Chateau) located approximately two blocks east of the project site, was
mailed a notice of the of the Director’s Decision on July 23, 2013. On August 5, 2013 the appeal
(Attachment B) was filed. The letter of appeal includes 23 co-signers. The appellant’s objection
is directly related to three main topics: 1) The aesthetic quality of the approved design and its
impact on the surrounding heritage buildings, 2) staff’s analysis of the parking requirement, and
the project’s contribution to the parking deficiency downtown, and 3) the review process itself.
There are no objections to the Variance request and approval.
The appellant spoke to the ARB on June 6, 2013, noting his opinion that the proposed building
character would not be compatible with the character of the area.
On July 15, 2013, the appellant emailed a letter (Attachment C) to staff, who forwarded the
letter to the ARB the day prior to the July 18, 2013 hearing. In the email accompanying the
letter, the appellant stated:
“The review process has been inadequate. I explain in detail how the design
does not comply with the Municipal Code nor the Comprehensive Plan, and
must be rejected. I currently have the support of two other local citizens
concerned about the aesthetics issue, who have approved and co-signed the
letter. There will be much more support should we have to appeal an ARB
approval of this project. Please distribute this letter to parties whom you
consider need to be aware of this objection.”
The appellant did not speak to the ARB at the second ARB meeting.
Project Description
The Architectural Review (AR) application, submitted on January 1, 2013, was accompanied by a
Variance request for encroachments into the special setbacks of Bryant Street and Hamilton
Avenue. The project is a new four-story, 50 foot, mixed-use building comprised of 15,000
City of Palo Alto Page 4
square feet (sq. ft.) of floor area. The building will replace a 7,000 sq.ft. one-story building.
Further description is provided in the attached ARB reports. The July 23, 2013 Director’s
approval (Attachment D) includes both the Architectural Review approval, which follows the
ARB’s 3-0-1 approval recommendation, and the Variance approval. The appeal did not
reference the Variance and therefore the Variance request was not reviewed by the Planning
and Transportation Commission.
ARB Review and Recommendation
The first ARB hearing of June 6, 2013 was attended by four of the five members on the ARB
(one member recused himself due to conflict of interest). June 6, 2013 verbatim meeting
minutes are provided as Attachment E. At the June 6, 2013 ARB hearing, the ARB received the
staff report, which included references to context based design criteria, ARB approval findings
contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020 (d), and the Downtown Urban Design
Guidelines, heard from the applicant and reviewed the project plans, and listened to public
testimony by the appellant. The ARB’s recommendation included conditions that the following
items return for additional ARB review:
1. Provide pedestrian friendly amenities at the ground floor level;
2. More articulation is needed on the back walls, specifically, on the southwest elevation
between floors two and four; and
3. Consider incorporating more cedar siding at another location on the building.
On July 18, 2013, three ARB members (one member recused and one absent) conducted the
hearing and listened to public testimony from two speakers. The ARB had also received letters
via email prior to the hearing (these are attached to this report as Attachment I). Verbatim
meeting minutes are provided as Attachment F. The first speaker expressed concerns about the
downtown parking deficit and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and his opinion about
benefits to developers providing additional parking spaces while also helping the
neighborhoods. The second speaker discussed how the intrusion of parking from the downtown
area to the neighborhood is very unfair to the residents. She stated that the proposal violates
the ARB charter. After careful consideration, the ARB recommended approval of the project,
with a condition to return to subcommittee with an improved relationship of tile banding to
cedar siding. The Director’s Designee approved the project on July 23, 2013 as recommended
by the ARB. The ARB recommendation also included modification to ARB approval findings #4,
13, and 14.
Finding #4 specifically states:
City of Palo Alto Page 5
“In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character.”
Staff’s draft finding #4 was made in the affirmative in that the overall design is consistent with
the Downtown Urban Design Guide guidelines in the following ways:
1. The project creates enhanced vehicular and pedestrian entries;
2. The project provides varied building mass and height;
3. The project maintains Hamilton Avenue as pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian environment
with complimentary outdoor amenities.
At the July 18, 2013 ARB hearing, the ARB recommended that finding #4 be revised as not
applicable. The reason for this as stated by the ARB was because the area does not have a
unified design character, but contains a diverse mix of historic and modern buildings. Findings
#13 and #14 were revised to account for the addition of landscaping to the project. The
approval letter, which referenced the ARB findings and approval conditions as being attached,
is provided as Attachment D to this report. The ARB findings and approval conditions, as well as
Variance findings, have been carried forward into the draft RLUA (Attachment A). The condition
to return to subcommittee has been placed as the final approval condition (condition #89) in
the RLUA.
The ARB staff reports are provided as Attachments G and H to this report. The attachments to
these reports include zoning compliance table and comprehensive plan policy conformance
table. Project plans are provided to Council members only. The reports and plans were
provided to the libraries and available in City Hall Planning office and on the City’s website prior
to the ARB public hearings.
Discussion
The appellant’s appeal letter focuses on aesthetics, parking impact, and review process,
discussed below:
Aesthetics
As described in both of the appellant’s letters, one of the purposes of architectural review is to
“promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the
same time are considerate of each other.” The ARB reviewed the project at two separate
meetings (June 6 and July 18, 2013) and approved the project on a 3-0-1 vote based on the
project’s consistency with the ARB findings, the Context-Based Design Criteria, and the
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Downtown Urban Design Guide. In addition, the project demonstrated consistency with
Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs and was zoning compliant, given the allowances in
the zoning code with respect to parking and the Variance requested for special setback
encroachments.
The appellant makes the point that the design is incompatible with the historic buildings in the
immediate environment and that the design is neither high quality nor considerate of its
surroundings. In the appeal letter, the appellant provides the addresses of the historic
buildings and ratio of historic buildings to newer buildings in a one block radius. In the
appellant’s earlier letter (Attachment C), he provides examples of other buildings which he
believes blend harmoniously with heritage architecture in the vicinity (page 5 of the appellant’s
first letter).
The project site is located across the street from, and therefore outside of, the historic Ramona
District (the 500 block of Ramona Street, between Hamilton and University Avenues excluding
buildings fronting University). The existing building, constructed in 1938 but since modified, has
no historical significance. As for compatibility with the adjacent Ramona Avenue historic
district, in general, the Secretary of Interior standards prescribe a visual distinction between
new and historic buildings. The contrast between a modern building and a historic building
allows for the average person to tell what is historic and what is new.
The project was recommended for approval by the ARB because the project showed
consistency with goals of the Context-Based Design Criteria and the Downtown Urban Design
Guide, and because the ARB determined that the ARB approval findings, which include findings
addressing aesthetic concerns, could be met given recommended revisions that were
incorporated into findings attached to the approval letter. The draft RLUA contains ARB findings
presented to and then modified by the ARB on July 18, 2013. The ARB was not presented
specific Context Based Design Criteria findings as a single attachment. The RLUA contains the
standard, applicable Context Based Design Findings (six of the eight findings are applicable to
the project, findings 1-3, 5, 6, and 8). An excerpt of the first staff report (Attachment H)
discussing the project in reference to the Context Based Design Criteria and Downtown Urban
Design Guide is provided below (in italics). These have been placed in the RLUA to support the
generic Context Based Design Findings.
Context Based Design Criteria
The proposed building design appears to be consistent with many of the
requirements of the Context-Based Design Criteria as outlined in Section 18.18.110
of the Zoning Code. In summary, the project would provide pedestrian walk-ability,
a bicycle-friendly environment, connectivity through design elements, and street
facades having a strong relationship with the sidewalks and the street to support
City of Palo Alto Page 7
and encourage pedestrian activity. Bicycle storage is to be provided in the below
grade parking garage as well as at grade along both Hamilton Avenue and
Ramona Street. The ground floor design is intended to be an attractive streetscape
design with a combination of clear frameless glass, porcelain tile and stainless steel
canopies above each entrance along Ramona and Hamilton. Separate entrances
would also be provided for each use along the first floor including the main lobby
area.
The building would minimize massing with increased setbacks at the first floor in
addition to other design elements, such as a recessed entry and canopies that
would be located above the primary entry points. The first floor design employs
different materials and colors, including porcelain tile, clear frameless glass and
cedar cladded garage door. Floors two through three are designed to function as
the “architectural block” that distinguishes the commercial office portion of the
building from the rest of the building. This area would primarily consist of a
structural glazed curtain wall with a combination of clear dual glazed glass and
translucent laminate glass. The area would be outlined by a cream colored
limestone wall. The residential units on the fourth floor would be set back from the
block face below. The units would be capped with a hip roof composed of metal
and outlined by a composite metal panel. The elevator shaft and stairwells would
be white cement plaster.
The parking design is consistent with the design criteria in that the parking spaces
would be located below grade and is concealed from public view by a recessed
garage door.
Downtown Urban Design Guide
The Downtown Urban Design Guide is meant to advise the applicant, staff and the
ARB regarding development and design in the downtown area. The Downtown
Urban Design Guide divides the downtown area into districts, each having a unique
identity and design characteristics. The site is located within the Hamilton Avenue
District according to the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The Hamilton Avenue
District is a mixed office/commercial/retail district with some residential uses. The
primary goal of the Hamilton Avenue District is to promote Hamilton Avenue as an
active mixed use district with a pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian experience. The
development of three or more story buildings surrounding Civic Center Plaza are
encouraged to help create a stronger urban edge within this area.
The proposed project is consistent with the recommendations for this district. Staff
finds that this project, with its extensive use of storefront glazing, first floor
City of Palo Alto Page 8
recesses and canopies, and pedestrian friendly amenities such as sunshades, street
trees and ample sidewalk widths, would contribute significantly to the goal of
creating an exciting pedestrian environment. The guidelines also encourage
additional height for buildings at corners. The proposed building of 50 feet is
consistent with both the Zoning Code and the Downtown Urban Design Guide.
Parking
Existing zoning code provisions in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) stated that the
proposed project is required to provide three parking spaces for the two residential units
located on the fourth floor. The project is providing four parking spaces on site, but
introduction of a curb cut to reach those spaces would result in the loss of two street spaces.
The three floors of non-residential floor area, 11,527 square feet, are not associated with a
requirement for provision of off-site parking spaces for the following reasons:
1. The existing 7,000 square feet of commercial floor area (5,000 sq.ft building + 2,000
sq.ft. mezzanine) is “grandfathered” within the Commercial Downtown zone district and
Downtown Assessment District (site assessed previously for 20 parking spaces). As such,
the project is not required to provide parking spaces on site for the existing amount of
floor area, since grandfathered floor area may be replaced. The existing, permitted
2,000 square foot mezzanine is exempt from the parking requirement per PAMC
18.52.070(a)(3). The mezzanine was not assessed as floor area for the parking
assessment when originally constructed, because it was considered as “incidental
office” to the previously permitted retail use or vacant at the time of the engineer’s
report as described in this code section. A building permit confirms it as in existence in
1986.
2. A total of 4,327 square feet of commercial floor area would be transferred to the site,
via the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. The floor area is coming from a
valid sender site to this site, deemed to be an eligible receiver site. These are valid,
recorded Transferable Development Rights (TDR). The first 5,000 square feet of floor
area transferred to a receiver site is exempt from the otherwise applicable on-site
parking requirements for new floor area.
3. The remaining 200 square feet of commercial floor area (7,000 sq.ft. + 4,327 sq.ft. + 200
sq.ft. = 11,527sf) is considered exempt from parking requirements due to a one time
allowable 200 square foot bonus, per PAMC 18.18.070 item (a)(1).
There will be a net reduction in the number of street parking spaces directly adjacent to the
site, due to the proposed curb cut along Ramona Street. This curb cut and driveway allow for
access to the onsite parking garage. The loss of the two off-site parking spaces will be offset by
the applicant’s provision of in-lieu payments for two parking spaces. The in-lieu payments will
be applied toward the construction of a public parking garage.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Review Process
The ARB is charged with design review of all new construction, and changes and additions to
commercial, industrial and multiple-family projects. The ARB’s goals and purposes are to:
Promote orderly and harmonious development of the City.
Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the City.
Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements.
Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent
areas.
Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which,
at the same time, are considerate of each other.
Projects reviewed by the ARB that are located in commercial zone districts, such as the CD
(Downtown Commercial) zone district, are subject to the requirements of the Context-Based
Design Criteria. Development in commerical districts are responsible for establishing context
and showing compatibilty with adjacent development and are to be pedestrian-oriented.
Additionally, for projects located in downtown Palo Alto, both staff and the ARB rely on the
Downtown Urban Design Guide which is a document meant to advise the applicant, staff and
the ARB regarding development and design in the downtown area. The Downtown Urban
Design Guide divides the downtown area into districts, each having a unique identity and design
characteristics.
The Director’s approval letter (Attachment D) sets forth the applicable PAMC sections and
notes that the project on the subject property met all of the the Architectural Review findings,
Variance findings, and was consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies.
Policy Implications
The appeal is based on issues related to the ARB findings and the parking requirements of
PAMC Ch.18.52. The Director’s decision to approve the application is consistent with both
staff’s and ARB’s recommendation to approve the project based upon the ARB and Variance
findings and subject to the conditions of approval.
Resource Impacts
The project will add 4,527 square feet of new commercial floor area and 3,473 square feet of
City of Palo Alto Page 10
new residential space. One time revenues would include development impact fees of
approximately $207,135 and the payment of two in-lieu parking spaces in the amount of
$121,500. Documentary transfer tax is not applicable , 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
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
were prepared and circulated, with a required 20-day public review and comment period
beginning on May 10, 2013 and ending on May 30, 2013. No comments were received. The
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is located in Attachment G (June 6, 2013 staff
report).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOC)
Attachment B: Appeal Letter (PDF)
Attachment C: Appellant's First Letter dated July 15, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment D: Director Approval letter dated July 23, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment E: June 6, 2013 Architectural Review Board Verbatim Excerpt Minutes
(PDF)
Attachment F: July 18, 2013 Architectural Review Board Verbatim Excerpt Minutes
(PDF)
Attachment G: June 6, 2013 ARB Staff Report (with attachments) (PDF)
Attachment H: July 18, 2013 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (with attachments)
(PDF)
Attachment I: Public Correspondence (PDF)
Attachment J: Project Plans (Councilmembers and Libraries only) (TXT)
240 Hamilton Ave Page 1
DRAFT
ACTION NO. 2013-0X
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 240 HAMILTON AVENUE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 13PLN-00006
(HAYES GROUP, APPLICANT)
On September 9, 2013, the Council upheld the Director of
Planning and Community Environment’s July 23, 2013 decision to
approve the Architectural Review of a new four story, approximately
15,000 square foot retail/office/residential building at 240
Hamilton 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 July 18, 2013, in a public hearing continued from
June 6, 2013 to allow the applicant to make project modifications,
and following staff review of a Variance request and public review
of an Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of a new four
story, approximately 15,000 square foot retail/office/residential
building at 240 Hamilton Avenue.
B. On July 23, 2013, following the ARB’s recommendation
for approval, the Director of Planning and Community Environment
(Director) approved the project for a new four story, approximately
15,000 square foot retail/office/residential building at 240
Hamilton 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 Smith.
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 May 10,
2013 and concluded on May 30, 2013.
Attachment A
240 Hamilton Ave Page 2
SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. 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 and
historical importance of the area as described in the
Comprehensive Plan and reinforces its pedestrian character.
The proposed project for a new mixed use building is
consistent with the land use designation. The project is
also consistent with The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
policies related to business and economics. The Comprehensive
Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace existing
commercial properties so that these commercial areas are more
competitive and better serve the community. The commercial
properties could be redesigned to be more attractive and
inviting for pedestrians;
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of
the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the project is located at a prominent corner of the
commercial downtown in an environment with other large
retail/office buildings. The project is designed as a four-
story, 50 foot building that is adjacent to similarly sized
buildings. 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 retail, office and
residential uses. The proposed building would have ample
storefront glass, recesses, and awnings to create an inviting
retail and pedestrian environment. The design is also
consistent with the requirements and recommendations of both
the Context Based Design Criteria and the Downtown Urban
Design Guide;
(4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design
character or historical character, the design is compatible
with such character. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the overall design is consistent with the
Downtown Urban Design Guide guidelines in the following ways:
240 Hamilton Ave Page 3
a. The project creates enhanced vehicular and pedestrian
entries;
b. The project provides varied building mass and height;
c. The project maintains Hamilton Ave. as pleasing, tree-
lined pedestrian environment with complimentary outdoor
amenities.
(5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and
character in areas between different designated land uses.
This finding is not applicable in that this project is not
situated in a transition area between different designated
land uses;
(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 retail/commercial downtown
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 location is shifted three
feet away from the Ramona St. curb and four feet away from
Hamilton Ave. to provide wider sidewalks to encourage
pedestrian activity down Hamilton Ave;
(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 or recesses to the zoning
requirements of the “P” overlay and the intent to add
interest at the ground floor for pedestrians. Additionally,
the project provides sufficient open space for the
residential component in the form of four rooftop terraces;
(9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the
main functions of the project and the same are compatible
with the project’s design concept. This finding can be made
in the affirmative in that project includes sufficient
automobile and bicycle parking, and common open space areas.
The project includes widening the walkable area for the
sidewalks on both Ramona St. and Hamilton Ave. to enhance
vehicular and pedestrian safety;
240 Hamilton Ave Page 4
(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 its
greater setback on Ramona St. and Hamilton Ave. The project
also creates an effective and safe automobile ingress/egress
point for the residential occupants;
(11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated
with the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative
in that the existing city street trees adjacent to the
proposed building will be removed and replaced with new
street trees that are consistent with other street trees in
the direct vicinity;
(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 are will add detail
and interest and are compatible with the commercial retail
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 the proposed landscaping helps
achieves the goals of the Pedestrian Combining district by
providing five large planter boxes along the Ramona Street
and Hamilton Avenue sides of the building. Additionally,
closer sidewalk paving score lines have been added to help
support smaller tree wells and better tree spacing;
(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 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 and to reduce
consumption of water in its installation and maintenance in
that appropriate plant materials are proposed;
240 Hamilton Ave Page 5
(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.
Green building features will be incorporated to achieve
CalGreen Tier 2 standards for the commercial portion and
Green Point Rated standards for the residential portion.
(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
NOTE – THE BELOW GENERIC FINDINGS ARE PROVIDED FOR COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION; THE JUNE 6, 2013 ARB REPORT
INCLUDED THE SECTION ON CONTEXT BASED
CRITERIA PROVIDED IN ITALICS BELOW.
(1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment. The design of new
projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly
environment, and connectivity through design elements.
(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.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 6
(3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to
minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks.
(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.
(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.
(8) Sustainability and Green Building Design. Project design
and materials achieve sustainability and green building design is
incorporated into the project.
Context Based Design Criteria (From June 6, 2013 ARB Report)
The proposed building design appears to be consistent with many
of the requirements of the Context-Based Design Criteria as
outlined in Section 18.18.110 of the Zoning Code. In summary,
the project would provide pedestrian walk-ability, a bicycle-
friendly environment, connectivity through design elements, and
street facades having a strong relationship with the sidewalks
and the street to support and encourage pedestrian activity.
Bicycle storage is to be provided in the below grade parking
garage as well as at grade along both Hamilton Avenue and Ramona
Street. The ground floor design is intended to be an attractive
streetscape design with a combination of clear frameless glass,
porcelain tile and stainless steel canopies above each entrance
along Ramona and Hamilton. Separate entrances would also be
provided for each use along the first floor including the main
lobby area.
The building would minimize massing with increased setbacks at
the first floor in addition to other design elements, such as a
recessed entry and canopies that would be located above the
primary entry points. The first floor design employs different
materials and colors, including porcelain tile, clear frameless
glass and cedar cladded garage door. Floors two through three are
designed to function as the “architectural block” that
distinguishes the commercial office portion of the building from
the rest of the building. This area would primarily consist of a
structural glazed curtain wall with a combination of clear dual
glazed glass and translucent laminate glass. The area would be
outlined by a cream colored limestone wall. The residential units
on the fourth floor would be set back from the block face below.
The units would be capped with a hip roof composed of metal and
outlined by a composite metal panel. The elevator shaft and
240 Hamilton Ave Page 7
stairwells would be white cement plaster.
The parking design is consistent with the design criteria in that
the parking spaces would be located below grade and is concealed
from public view by a recessed garage door.
Downtown Urban Design Guide (from June 6, 2013 ARB Report)
The Downtown Urban Design Guide is meant to advise the applicant,
staff and the ARB regarding development and design in the downtown
area. The Downtown Urban Design Guide divides the downtown area
into districts, each having a unique identity and design
characteristics. The site is located within the Hamilton Avenue
District according to the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The Hamilton
Avenue District is a mixed office/commercial/retail district with
some residential uses. The primary goal of the Hamilton Avenue
District is to promote Hamilton Avenue as an active mixed use
district with a pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian experience. The
development of three or more story buildings surrounding Civic
Center Plaza are encouraged to help create a stronger urban edge
within this area.
The proposed project is consistent with the recommendations for
this district. Staff finds that this project, with its extensive
use of storefront glazing, first floor recesses and canopies, and
pedestrian friendly amenities such as sunshades, street trees and
ample sidewalk widths, would contribute significantly to the goal
of creating an exciting pedestrian environment. The guidelines
also encourage additional height for buildings at corners. The
proposed building of 50 feet is consistent with both the Zoning
Code and the Downtown Urban Design Guide.
Section 5. Variance Findings. Variance approval is
based on the findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.030 (C).
The Variance approval has not been appealed.
Variance Request: Three foot encroachment into the six foot
special setback along Ramona St. and seven foot encroachment into
the seven foot special setback along Hamilton Ave.
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including (but not limited to) size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings, the strict
application of the requirements and regulations prescribed
in this title substantially deprives such property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in
the same zoning district as the subject property.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 8
Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from
consideration are: (A) The personal circumstances of the
property owner, and (B) Any changes in the size or shape of
the subject property made by the property owner or his
predecessors in interest while the property was subject to
the same zoning designation.
The existing building is built to the property line as are
many buildings within the commercial downtown district. The
special setback of six and seven feet respectively, imposed
upon this property, only occurs in one other location within
the downtown. Most properties within the commercial
downtown have no setback requirement. This corner parcel,
at only 50 feet wide, is narrower than the other parcels at
this corner. The other parcels range from 75 feet to 100
feet wide.
2. The granting of the application shall not affect substantial
compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations placed
upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning
district as the subject property.
The granting of the exception would result in a three foot
encroachment into the required 6 foot special setback along
Ramona St. and a seven foot encroachment into the required
seven foot special setback along Hamilton Ave. It should be
noted that only nine feet of the 45 foot wide building wall
along Hamilton Ave. would encroach seven feet into the
special setback (for the purposes of accommodating an
enclosed stairwell). The remaining 36 feet of building wall
would encroach approximately five inches into the special
setback resulting in setback of 6.5 feet. Even with the
granting of the Variance the project would still provide a
sidewalk width of approximately 11 feet along Hamilton Ave.
and 10 feet along Ramona St. both of which meet or exceed
the sidewalk width requirements in the Downtown Urban Design
Guide. The wider sidewalk and more importantly the shift of
the building mass would improve the pedestrian experience
and enhance the opportunity for retail activity along
Hamilton Ave.
3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title
(Zoning).
240 Hamilton Ave Page 9
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
(Policies, Programs and Goals) as outlined in Attachment E
of the Staff Report.
4. The granting of the application will not be injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, and general
welfare, or convenience.
The proposed setbacks of three feet along Ramona St. and no
setback to 6.5 feet along Hamilton Ave. will improve the
existing sidewalk width by adding four additional feet in
width to the sidewalk to Ramona St. and three feet additional
sidewalk width to Hamilton Ave. The increased sidewalk widths
will provide for a better overall pedestrian friendly
experience with the Hamilton Ave. District of Downtown. The
requested encroachments into the special setback would not
result in a detrimental impact as it is an improvement over
the existing situation which is a zero setback in this
location.
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
titled 240 Hamilton Avenue, consisting of 21 pages, and received
June 27, 2013, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of
approval in Section 8. A copy of these plans is on file in the
Department of Planning and Community Development.
SECTION 8. Conditions of Approval.
Planning
1. The cover sheet lists the assessor’s parcel as 139-96-797. Our
records indicate the assessor’s parcel number is 120-27-010.
2. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the
approved plans and related documents received June 27, 2013
except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 10
3. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all
plans submitted for building permits related to this project.
5. The current project is approved to use the one-time 200 square
foot FAR bonus, as permitted per PAMC 18.18.070(a)(1), and
cannot utilize this bonus again for any future development.
6. New construction and alterations in the CD-C zoning district
shall be required to design ground floor space to accommodate
retail use and shall comply with the provisions of the
Pedestrian (P) combining district.
7. The proposed project requires 5,000 square feet of Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR). Prior to building permit submittal,
the applicant shall provide sufficient information so that the
Director of Planning and Community Environment can issue written
confirmation of the transfer, which identifies both the sender
and receiver sites and the amount of TDRs which have been
transferred. This confirmation shall be recorded in the office
of the county recorder prior to the issuance of building permits
and shall include the written consent or assignment by the
owner(s) of the TDRs where such owner(s) are other than the
applicant
8. Development Impact Fees, estimated at $207,135.11 shall be paid
prior to the issuance of the project’s building permit. These
fees are adjusted annually in August. Fees shall be calculated
at the rate in effect at the time of permit issuance.
9. For any on-street parking spaces that are removed to accommodate
the project’s driveway curb-cut, the applicant shall be required
to pay parking in-lieu fees for the number of spaces lost. This
fee shall be due to the City prior to the issuance of the
project’s building permit.
10.All future signage for this site shall be submitted for
Architectural Review.
11. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year
from the original date of approval. In the event a building
permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within
the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire
and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension
of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year
expiration.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 11
12. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant
who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or
other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate
the protest at the time the development project is approved or
conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the 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 TO FOLLOW
THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR
REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND
EXACTIONS.
13. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP)
Section 1094.5, and the time by which judicial review must be
sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
14. 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.
Transportation
15. Car stacker system should provide enough width and depth
for full size SUV. Provide details, etc. of the system for
further review.
16. Long term bike parking for office use is not apparent.
Please identify. Long term bike parking for office cannot
be shared with residential unless separate lockers.
17. Parking reductions assumed. Significant
credits/reductions assumed could be opposed. Consider
providing underground parking, possibly with a vehicle
elevator (instead of ramp) to achieve additional parking.
18. Include loss of on-street parking due to new garage.
Public Works Urban Forestry
240 Hamilton Ave Page 12
19. Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of
public trees #1-6.
20. Six publicly owned trees are growing in the right-of-
way along the Hamilton and Ramona streets. Parking garage
ramp and other in-ground elements that will limit new tree
growth potential shall be identified. As mitigation to
offset the net loss for years of public resource
investments and minimize the future years to parity with
infrastructure benefits (Co2 reduction, extended asphalt
life, water mgmt., etc.) currently provided by the trees,
the new frontage should be provided maximum streetscape
design and materials to include the following elements:
• Consistency with the Public Works Department Tree
Management Program. Provide adequate room for tree
canopy growth and root growing volume resources.
• Utilize city-approved best management practices for
sustainability products, such as permeable ADA
sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix
base, and services due to being situated within the
public right-of-way.
Public Works Engineering
21. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the
applicant must replace those portions of the existing
sidewalks, curbs, gutters, curb ramps or driveway
approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s)
of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced,
or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement
in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at
650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can
determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan
submitted with the building permit plan set must show the
extent of the replacement work or include a note that
Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required.
The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must
be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed
contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from
Public Works at the Development Center.
22. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace
existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-
way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’
arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can
determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for
240 Hamilton Ave Page 13
this project. The site plan submitted with the building
permit plan set must show the street tree work that the
arborist has determined, including the tree species, size,
location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a
note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree
work is required. The plan must note that in order to do
street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for
Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’
arborist (650-496-5953).
23. SUBDIVISION: A parcel/condo map will be required if there are
any units that are proposed “for sale”. The developer will be
required to provide a preliminary parcel map and a parcel map
for city review and approval. The Grading/Excavation and
Building permits will not be issued until the parcel map is
recorded.
24. STEET RESURFACING: The developer will be required to
resurface the entire frontage of each street adjacent to the
property out to the centerline of the street upon completion
of onsite construction. The resurfacing will consist of a
slurry seal or grinding 2” of the existing asphalt and
overlaying 2” asphalt pavement per Public Works’ standards.
Public Works will make the determination between slurry seal
and grind/overlay by inspecting the condition of the road and
estimating the construction impacts. Thermoplastic striping
of the street(s) will be required after resurfacing.
The following comments are provided to assist the applicant at
the building permit phase. You can obtain various plan set
details, forms and guidelines from Public Works at the City's
Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on Public Works’
website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms_permits.
Include in plans submitted for a building permit:
25. 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
240 Hamilton Ave Page 14
flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant
water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the
plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at
least 7-3/4” 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.
26. GARAGE/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.
27. DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during
construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown
well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is
disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through
October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system.
The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest
anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to
be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must
determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to
excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an
exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3
feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If
groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation,
a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or
alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement
and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must
immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system
before he continues to excavate. Public Works may require the
water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge
and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required,
the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test
the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works
specifies and submit the results to Public Works.
28. 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
240 Hamilton Ave Page 15
and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center
and on our website.
29. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading
& drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that
includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage
flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site.
Adjacent grades must slope away from the structure a minimum
of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this
plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales.
Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or
blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public
Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and
discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the
developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by
directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the
site.
30. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading &
excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when
applying for a building permit if the total cubic yardage of
dirt being cut for the garage lift and elevator pit is more
than 100 cubic yards. The application and guidelines are
available at the Development Center and on our website.
31. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized
"Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be
included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public
Works at the Development Center or on our website.
32. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public
right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street
trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of
street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist
(phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the
plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City
requirements.
33. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any
work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as
sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals.
The plans must include notes that the work must be done per
City standards and that the contractor performing this work
must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at
the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different
location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk
associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a
240 Hamilton Ave Page 16
thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section.
Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned
driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter
strip.
34. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or
replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface.
Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the
existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the
building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet
for Land Developments form and instructions are available at
the Development Center or on our website.
35. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says,
“The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent
private building must do so in a manner that is safe for
pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be
provided per the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 33
requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or
less, the contractor must place construction railings
sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas.
If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the
contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public
Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier
and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk.”
36. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan
to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that
addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including,
but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck
routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete
pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control,
storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact,
noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The
plan will be attached to a street work permit.
Public Works Environmental Services
37.Please note the following issues must be addressed in building
plans prior to final approval by this department:
General Comments:
Consider providing separate service for residential and
commercial units
Trash rooms located in garage will require bins to be placed
curbside on collection day or pull-out service at an
240 Hamilton Ave Page 17
additional charge.
38. PAMC 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
(A) Assure that development provides adequate and accessible
interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash
and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that
trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from
abutting residences as is reasonably possible. (B) Requirements:
(i) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to
all residents or users of the property. (ii) Recycling
facilities shall be located, sized, and designed to encourage
and facilitate convenient use. (iii) Trash disposal and
recyclable areas shall be screened from public view by masonry
or other opaque and durable material, and shall be enclosed and
covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided
where feasible. Chain link enclosures are strongly discouraged.
(iv) Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be
architecturally compatible with the design of the project. (v)
The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas
and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural
review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by
that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section
18.76.020.
39. PAMC 5.20.120 Recycling storage design requirements
The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or expanded
building or other facility shall provide for proper storage,
handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the solid
waste and recyclable materials loading anticipated and which
will allow for the efficient and safe collection. The design
shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections
18.22.100, 18.24.100, 18.26.100, 18.32.080, 18.37.080,
18.41.080, 18.43.080, 18.45.080, 18.49.140, 18.55.080,
18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code.
All Services:
a) Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance,
street width and turnaround space) and street parking
are common issues pertaining to new developments.
Adequate space must be provided for vehicle access.
b) Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed
by the solid waste vehicles (roads, driveways, pads)
240 Hamilton Ave Page 18
must be rated to 60,000 lbs. This includes areas where
permeable pavement is used.
c) Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or
charges will apply.
d) Carts and bins must be able to roll without
obstacles or curbs to reach service areas "no jumping
curbs"
40. Garbage, Recycling, and Yard Waste/Compostables cart/bin
location and sizing
Office Building
The proposed commercial development must follow the
requirements for recycling container space1. Project plans
must show the placement of recycling containers, for example,
within the details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection
space should be provided for built-in recycling
containers/storage on each floor/office or alcoves for the
placement of recycling containers.
Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access
to all three waste streams – garbage, recycling, and
compostables.
Collection cannot be performed in underground.
Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77” of
vertical clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In
instances where push services are not available (e.g., hauler
driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the property
owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers
in an accessible location for collection.
All service areas must have a clearance height of 20’ for
bin service.
New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce
ware and tear on walls.
For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables
collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650)
493-4894.
41. PAMC 5.24.030 Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD)
1 In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 2
240 Hamilton Ave Page 19
Covered projects shall comply with construction and
demolition debris diversion rates and other requirements
established in Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building
Code). In addition, all debris generated by a covered
project must haul 100 percent of the debris not salvaged for
reuse to an approved facility as set forth in this chapter.
Contact the City of Palo Alto’s Green Building Coordinator
for assistance on how to recycle construction and demolition
debris from the project, including information on where to
conveniently recycle the material.
Utilities Electrical Engineering
42. The Utilities will require space on the private
property for installing a pad mounted transformer to serve
the proposed building at the above location.
43. Pad mounted transformer location must be shown on the
plans. Utilities will require a minimum clearance of 8’ in
the front and 3’ around the transformer.
44. Public Utility Easements shall be granted as required
by the City.
45. Any extension of the power distribution
lines/relocation of existing utilities or offsite
modification that needs to be done for providing electric
service to the building will be at applicant’s expense. Any
non-standard installation requested by the applicant shall
be treated as a “Special Facilities” and in that case
special facility charges will become applicable.
46. Applicant shall provide preliminary electric load
calculations for sizing the transformer. Transformer
procurement lead time is 6-8 months.
47. Utilities will provide detailed comments and cost
estimates when plans are submitted to the Building
Department for review and approval
Utilities Water Gas Wastewater
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT
48. Prior to demolition, the applicant
shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit
loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing
240 Hamilton Ave Page 20
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.
49. 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
50. The applicant shall submit a
completed water-gas-wastewater service connection
application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities.
The applicant must provide all the information requested
for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m.,
gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The
applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new
loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any
existing loads to remain).
51. 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.
52. 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). 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.
53. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations
and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-
site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will
provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and
240 Hamilton Ave Page 21
wastewater capacity needed to service the development and
adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands.
Field testing may be required to determined current flows
and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations
must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer.
The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a
flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to
determine the remaining capacity. The report must include
existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum
monitoring period of thirty continuous days or as
determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study
shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW
engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing
sewer main will be permitted.
54. 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.
55. 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
240 Hamilton Ave Page 22
the RPPA on the plans.
56. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is
required for the existing or new water connection for the
fire system to comply with requirements of California
administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for
existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval).
reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on
the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within
5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced
pressure detector assembly on the plans.
57. 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. Inspection by the
utilities cross connection inspector is required for the
supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.
58. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS,
PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense.
59. Existing water services that are not a currently
standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s
expense.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is
required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the
location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter
shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other
water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation
and landscape plans submitted with the application for a
grading or building permit shall conform to the City of
Palo Alto water efficiency standards.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 23
63. A new water service line installation for domestic
usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch
through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must
provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid
covers for water meter and other required control equipment
in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the
location of the new water service and meter on the plans.
64. A new water service line installation for irrigation
usage is required. Show the location of the new water
service and meter on the plans.
65. A new water service line installation for fire system
usage is required if existing service is not meeting
current standards. Show the location of the new water
service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the
engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system
including all fire department's requirements.
66. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new
gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must
conform with utilities standard details.
67. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the
location of the new sewer lateral on the plans
68. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for
facilities installed in private property. The applicant's
engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa
Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies
of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as
is necessary to serve the development.
69. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for
condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall
include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s
reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown
as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area,
then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not
of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common
Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written
consent of the City”. All existing water and wastewater services
that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW
utilties procedures.
70. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases,
24
or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or
wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear
separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing
utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with
existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from
the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may
not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or
wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or
wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or
existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water,
gas and wastewater services/mains/meters.
71. 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.
72. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of
Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater.
73. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services,
the applicant shall prepare and submit to the WGW engineering
section of the Utilities Department as-built drawings at the
completion of construction of the installation of water and
wastewater utilities to be owned and maintained by the City in
accordance with:
1. Two sets of as-built drawings (hard copies).
2. As-built drawings in 2008 or 2010 AutoCAD format.
3. As-built drawings in .tiff format.
4. Survey points in .csv format for all new utility features.
Note: All survey data shall be collected by a California Licensed
Land Surveyor. The surveyor is responsible to setup all control
points needed to perform the survey work. The accuracy for all
survey data shall be +/- 1cm.
Survey data to be collected (what's applicable):
I. Collect horizontal and vertical data for:
1. Sanitary sewer manholes (rim and invert elevations and
depth)
2. Storm drain manholes and catch basins (rim and invert
elevations and depth)
3. Water valves (cover and stem elevations)
Fire Department
25
74. Provide a Fire Apparatus Access Plan. Show elevations
and how PAFD Ladder Truck will be utilized.
75. Provide an egress plan.
Public Work Water Quality
We have reviewed the site floor plans for this project. Please
note the following issues must be addressed in building plans prior
to final approval by this department:
76.PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee
to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm
drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling
and filtration upon a determination that either or both would
improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground
water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for
discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm
drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the
discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code
(16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the
superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be
compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge,
at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule.
77. 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
78. 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.
79.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
26
"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.
80. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to
the storm drain system.
81. 16.09.215 Silver Processing
Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray
films) shall either submit a treatment application or waste hauler
certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-329-2421.
82. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall
not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact
with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths
of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not
practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be
used for wastewater plumbing.
83. PAMC 16.09.220(c)(1) Dental Facilities That Remove or Place Amalgam
Fillings
An ISO 11143 certified amalgam separator device shall be installed
for each dental vacuum suction system. The installed device must be
ISO 11143 certified as capable of removing a minimum of 95 percent
of amalgam. The amalgam separator system shall be certified at flow
rates comparable to the flow rate of the actual vacuum suction
system operation. Neither the separator device nor the related
plumbing shall include an automatic flow bypass. For facilities
that require an amalgam separator that exceeds the practical
capacity of ISO 11143 test methodology, a non-certified separator
will be accepted, provided that smaller units from the same
manufacturer and of the same technology are ISO-certified.
84. 16.09.215 Silver Processing
Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray
films) shall either submit a treatment application or waste hauler
certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-329-2598.
85. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain
sumps.
86. 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.
27
87. 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:
88. 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)
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)
1. GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and
indicated on plans.
28
B. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited
Bldg/Plumbing Codes
2. 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.
3. A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall
be included on the plans. This can be incorporated into the
sizing calculation.
4. 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
5. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and
non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is
prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a GCD:
a. Dishwashers
b. Steamers
c. Pasta cookers
d. Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens
e. Hand sinks
f. Ice machine drip lines
g. Soda machine drip lines
h. Drainage lines in bar areas
6. No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a FSE.
(PAMC 16.09.075(d)).
7. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food
preparation and storage areas.
8. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be
individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5)
29
C. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC,
16.09.075(q)(2)
9. 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.
10. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent
water run-on to the area and runoff from the area.
11. 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.
12. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately
sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in
the covered area.
13. 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)
14. 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
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.
89. ARB Condition: Prior to submittal of building permit
application, the applicant shall submit to ARB subcommittee
revised project drawings indicating blending of the tile to
relate better to the wood siding pattern.
90. Except as expressly specified herein, the site plan,
floor plans, building elevations and any additional
information or representations, submitted by the Applicant
during the Staff review and public hearing process leading to
the approval of this entitlement, whether oral or written,
which indicated the proposed structure or manner of
operation, are deemed conditions of approval.
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
31
91. The approved use and/or construction are subject to, and
shall comply with, all applicable City ordinances and laws
and regulations of other governmental agencies.
92. 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. If these requirements
constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government
Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide
notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day
period has begun in which you may protest these requirements.
93. 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.
32
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 Hayes Group Architects entitled 240
Hamilton Avenue, consisting of 21 pages, and received June 27,
2013.
If
, I I; : :"'\..~) i\ LTD, C:\
RE: Appeal of Proposal by Ken Hayes and Forest Casa 1fJMflSci;'S Of'FIC[
to develop the site at 240-248 Hamilton Avenue 13 AUG --~) Lf'l g: ll2
To Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
Introduction
With respect to issues of aesthetic quality and compatibility with neighboring buildings, the Architectural
Review Board and Department of Planning and Community Environment have violated their governing
ordinances and the ARB standards of review by approving this application,
The site is in the middle of an area densely populated with heritage buildings, but the Staff RepOlt barely
mentions the word heritage and completely ignores the historic aspects of review. The ARB, too, avoided
compliance with Code on the heritage topic. The Board appears committed to foisting modernist
buildings on Palo Alto, taking its cue not from the PAMC or the Comprehensive Plan, but from modernist
ideology that the ARB members learned in architecture school, which runs counter to many local statutes.
A further objection from the appellant and co-signers is that the project will exacerbate an already dire
parking shOltage downtown and push dozens more workers' cars into nearby residential neighborhoOds.
Finally, the review process itself, which permits these excesses time after time, is seriously flawed.
Regarding the aesthetic aspect, the most peltinent passages are as follows (our italics):
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020, Architectural Review
(a) "The purpose of architectural review is to: .,. (5) Promote visual environments which are of
high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other."
"d) Findings: Neither the director, nor the city counr,il on appeal, shall grant architectural review
approval, unless it is found. that: (I) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the
site;, .. and (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character;","
The most applicable passages ofthe Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan are:
"Program L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces.".
"Program L-49: In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, design new
development to maintain and support the existing character,"
The proposed Ken Hayes design is absolutely incompatible with the most valued, h.istoric buildings in the
immediate envirOlunent. The proposed design is neither high quality nor considerate of its surroundings.
It is a modernist glass box which would. be entirely out of place at Ramona and Hamilton, surrounded on
three sides by heritage structures. We justify these accusations below.
Context
The site lies next door to Reposado Restaurant (a building eligible for the California Register of Historical
Resources). Across Hamilton it faces obliquely the old classically-inspired former Post Office at 205
Hamilton, and directly faces the Cardinal Hotel. Both use pilasters, among other features, as a decorative
motif. The proposed design substitutes a few cylindrical posts, a poor, abstract imitation of COlmlTIls.
The 240-248 c~rner also lies directly across Hamilton from the 500 block of Ramona, a designated
district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In the opposite direction, along the same block
of Ramona as the proposed strllcture, lie three mOre heritage buildings, numbers 668 (Pacific Art League,
a building eligible for the N~tional Register), 642 (now Coconuts Restaurant), and 630, a Birge Clark
design). Number 630's design is sufficiently exemplary tlmt it is depicted in the Palo Alto Comprehensive
PIau, between paragraphs LAS and L-49 which mandate high-quality design and support of historic
character.
In short, the immediate area is saturated with more than a dozen historic structures that exemplify
harmonious style and are officially recognized as deserving preservation and compatibility. At the ratio of
13 (historic) to 7 (newer) buildingsin a J -block radius along Ramona and Hamilton, this is the most
densely historic spot in any commercial area in Palo Alto.
The historic buildings to which We refer are: on Ramona numbers 520-526, 528-530, 532-536, 533-539,
538-542,541-545,628-630,642, and 668. On Hamilton nmnbers 201-215,235,236, and 261-267. The
Plaza Ramona building at 250 University, but bordering on balf of the 500 Ramona block, is a recent
structure but'exemplary in its compatibility Witll its environment
Staff Report is Incomplete
'Therefore it is a great surprise to find no mention of heritage charactar in the project's Staff Report, nor is
the Ramona Street Historic District cited, nor are the three heritage buildings in the 600 block of Ramona
mentioned at all. On page 6 of the report (Staff RepOlt of June 6), tile staff planner Mr. Nortz points out
that the site lies within the Hamilton Avenue District, but mils to refer to the adjacent extension of
Ramona Street that is one of the two designated National Register areas in the city. Mr. NOltz has
completely failed to consider the area's architectural heritage as required by the Municipal Code and
Comprehensive Plan.
When we read wlder his Findings, Paragraph (I) [The design is consistent and compatible with applicable
elements a/the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan], we.!lfe amazed that Mr. Nurtz states, "This finding can
be made in the aflinnative in that tlle project incorporates quality design that recognizes the regional and
historical importance of the area as described in the Comprehensive Plan ... "
This is false. The design makes no hint of a gesture to recognize "the regional and historical importance
of the area." The whole reason for ultra-simplistic modernist designs like this one is that modernism, from
the outset (starting about 19 J 0), wasta erase all memory of past design and omit references to traditional
architectUre. See the writings of Le Corbusier, Loos, Gropius, and other modernist theorist-architects
who abhorred ornament and promoted use of flat roofs and large expanses of blank wall or glass, among
other elements.
If
As for quality, the review process has nowhere produced any rationale to SUppOlt the above alleged
finding that this is a high'quality design. Mr. NOltz's criteria for a quality design are unstated, and thus
probably constitute not objective Findings but rather subjective opinion. Moreover, in the ARB meeting
on this project held on June6, Ms. Alizadeh answered the oral objections of Appellant Smith saying, "In
terms of your comment that it's characterless, I agree with you partially, that there is a bit of a lack of
general interest, I think, overall."
Thus Mr. NOltz has not even attempted to prove that this is a high-quality design mandated by the PAMC
and Comprehensive Plan, and an ARB member cautiously admits that it's not a great design.
Let us cite a few objective criteria for a good design. First: A good design must have life to it. But the
proposed building has no oblique lines (except a slight slant in the roof, invisible from the street), no
curvilinear lines, and virtually no color. According to Rudolf Arnheim's celebrated book The Dynamics of
Architectural Form, entirely rectilinear buildings are usually aesthetically dead, for lack of lifelike motion
created by these elements. We agree.
Second: There's scarcely anything to look at in this design except large expanses of glass, a thin, brittle
building material which has a sterile character and no innate aesthetic appeal for the viewer. A few
planters 'at street level suggested by the Board constitute lipstick on a pig and do not change its
fundanlental character.
Third, a large building requires several levels offormal subdivision or hierarchy in order to create
a<fSthetic complexity and retain viewer interest. But the proposed simple design appears to consist of
approximately 80 percent glass walls in large expanses. The structure wiJi have nearly no modular
hierarchy and very little visual variety to it, which are also severe flaws in the unloved City Hall building
across the street. They are both far too formally simple for their size and thus monotonous to lo()k at.
Senior Planner Mr. NOltz, Chief Planner Amy French and Acting Director Aknin have certified that the
Findings in this Staff Report show that the building design is high quality when in fact it is not, and their
Findings offer no proof whatsoever.
As for "considerate of its immediate environment" mandated by the Comprehensive Plan and the
Municipal Code, the design is emphatically not aesthetically considerate because most of the buildings
within one block are heritage buildings, while this design is in a completely antithetical style which is
deliberately hostile to historical design.
Yet in Findings Paragraph (2), Mr. Nortz states that the design is compatible with the immediate
environment of the site. He cities as proof only the size and commercial nature of the design. He omits
any mention of the area's aesthetic, heritage'character.
For a defmition of compatibility, see the city's South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, which states:
"Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with that
existing in the neighborhood, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes
design linkages with surrounding existing buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained."
(Our emphasis.) .
But the general design characteristics ofthis proposed new building are totally different from all of the
surrounding buildings, excluding only mediocre or bad ones (285 and 300 Hamilton), and there are no
design linkages whatsoever with the many classical and Spanish Colonial Revival structures nearby.
Therefore the Ha)'cs glass-cUltain design is absolutelyjncompatible with the buildings surrounding the
240-248 Hamilton location and does not comply with Municipal Code regulations or the Comprehensive
Plan.
As for Findings Paragraph (4), the PAMC, Ch. 18.76 requires that, "In areas considered by the board as
having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character."
Yet Mr. Nortz avoids mention of historical or unified design of the neighboring buildings by citing only
technical aspects of mass and height, enhanced vehicular and pedestrian entries, and a bland description
. of Hamilton A venue. Here again he has left ollt the critical issue.
June 6 ARB Meeting
At the public ARB meeting on June 6, Appellant Smith addressed the Board and ruticulated many of the
concepts .explained in this letter.
ARB member Lippelt responded to Smith and architect Hayes that, "the design ... is really wonderful."
On the other hand, he admitted that, "With regard to Mr. Smith's comments witb regard to the austerity of
the building, I appreciate that it doesn't fit in with the other historic buildings in the neighborhood."
Addressing Mr. Hayes, he argued that "because of the nature of the architectural approach that you've
taken here, it actually contrasts the other historic structures. And doesn't impose itself upon them from a
false [perspective]:"
But if it doesn't fit into thc neighborhood, and contrasts starkly rather than sharing compatible elements,
then the Municipal Code expressly forbids approval.
One cannot consider the site solely as part of the Hamilton Avenue District, as the ARB and Mr. NOltz
appear to do. The proposed building is twice as long on its Ramona Street side (100 feet On Ramona, 50
on Hamilton), on a block containing three recognized historic buildings, and the Ramona Street National
Register District is only 50 feet away. That historic district falls easily within the "immediate
environment" and within tbe "surrounding development" mentioned in the Municipal Code arid
Comprehensive Plan. A new design at 240 Hamilton must be compatible with these buildings.
Why Does the ARB Ignore the Municipal Code?
On the quality issue, when ARB member Alizadeb stated that she agreed ("partially") with the
Appellant's conclusion that the building had no character, she defended her defense of the design by
referring to her training in architecture school where she was taught not "to create false history." This
appears to mean creating a new building in a more traditional and compatible style such as can be
demonstrated at many fairly recent sites such as 245 and 265 Lytton; 499 and 505 Hamilton; 101,250 and
499 University; and 520 Cowper (the Garden Court Hotel). The public likes these buildings but the ARB
apparently does not.
Ms. Alizadeh and the other ARB members are not bound to uphold the ideology taught by their
architecture professors, though they appear to follow il. They are instead bound by law to administer the
letter and spirit of the PAMC and the Comprehensive Plan, which state clearly that a site like this one
shall be of high quality and compatible with its historic surroundings. The Municipal Code and
Comprehensive Plan do not mention or require "contrast" or "separate and distinct" (Mr. Lippert's ternis),
nor do they mandate that historic buildings to stand out because the new building is starkly different as a
"corporate effect" (the term used by Ms. Alizadeh). We appellants interpret ARB approval of this
proposal as following the members' architecture training and personal style preferences instead of
adhering to the ARB's own Code statutes, which are binding on the Board's review process.
Board member Lew expressed some limited support for Appellant Smith's objections regarding the
Ramona Street heritage buildings. He stated to Mr. Hayes, "For the people who don't like abstract
[design], I would hope that they would see something else in your building." He suggested adding limited
amounts of filigree, planters and awnings. Only planters appear to have been added -which will have too
little effect on the vast expanses of sterile glass wall incompatibly contrasting with the nearby heritage
buildings.
Finally, ARB member Pritchard stated on June 6, "it is a really handsome building," offering no
justification or finding for her opinion, and expressed no reservations regarding the site's historical
context. At the final meeting of July 18, she violated by sleight of hand the letter and spirit of Municipal
Code 18.76.20 (d)( 4) cited above. She referred only to the "unified design character" of the statute,
omitting consideration of the palt addressing "historical character" despite the great preponderance of
historic buildings around the site. She decided that the area did not have a unified design character and
then proceeded to recommend approval.
The refusal of the ARB members to follow their statutes likely has at least two reasons. First, their
ideological training, whereby modern architects are taught at university to defy clear public preference for
traditional design and instead to create minimalist buildings even in historic neighborhoods like this one.
Secondly, the Board members have an innate conflict of interest. Mr. Popp acknowledged a conflict by
. recusing himself from the 240 Hamilton review because he had a prior working relationship with the
applicant architect, Mr. Hayes. We can assume that in a field like architecture where big contracts are
difficult to get, all Board members will be velY reluctant to vote against a project for fear that they will
antagonize the developer and architect and never get any future business from them. Their very reason to
serve on the Board may be at least in PaJt to cultivate such business relationships. Therefore in cases such
as 240 Hamilton, they appear to the public to be serving their own individual interests rather than the
public's. The City Council is aware that many recently built structures have met loud disapproval of their
appearance from the local population, which wondel:s how such ugly buildings as .801 Alma, for instance,
could possibly be approved. 240-248 Hamilton will be another if it is built.
The City Council should seriously consider abolishing and restructuring the Architectural Review Board
to eliminate these prejudices and potential conflicts. The problem of poor designs being approved is of
velY long standing. Three of the five members are currently required'to be architects or designers, and all
of the current members appear to be architects. The citizen point of view should dominate the Board, not
an alien ideology or potential cronyism.
Serious Parking Deficit
The issue of parking is also seriously neglected in this application. No independent CEQA study was
performed to quantify impact on the adjacent neighborhoods, where a severe parking shortage is already
well known.
By our projections, the new facility will push about 50 cars into the residential neighborhoods, about five
times as many as the current worker usage on the site. This is the equivalent to filling 3-4 residential
blocks with downtown worker cars every weekday.
The proposed building will eliminate two on-street parking spots by its vehicle entrance, and create only
four spaces inside, for a net of two. Projected parking use for the proposed commercial square footage of
11,527 is 46 cars at I per 250 sq. ft., plus four more for the penthouses.
The developer is granted grand fathered exemptions for 7,000 square feet of commercial floor area. In
addition, 4500 square feet are exempted via TDRs. It is a cruel irony that TDRs from developer
Giovanotto's renovation of a couple small historic buildings on Homer Street propose to bring dozens of
downtown office worker cars right back into the same quiet Homer neighborhood and adjacent ones' every
day, a negative impact far greater than the little historic buildings ever made. .
The time is overdue to abolish or restructure TDRs because they are being used time and again by
developers to save money at the expense of residential neighborhoods by providing grossly insufficient
parking or none at a11--for the large office spaces they are building.
Here again the Planning Department is asleep at the wheel for allowing this development and many others
to proceed despite new Oil-site parking that will accommodate only a fraction of the worker cars that the
buildings will attract.
SUMMARY
AESTJ.IETICS: The staff planners and their director have ignored requirements of the Municipal Code
pertaining to aesthetic quality of the proposed design and its incompatible impact on the high
concentration of sUfl'ot11lding heritage buildings. The ARB has done the same. All are violating the Code
and are approving this proposal contrary to the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan.
PARKING IMP ACT: The planning Department staff and interim director propose to permit the
developer to add approximately 50 worker ears to tile already overloaded nearby residential streets.
REVIEW PROCESS: The process whereby tliese decisions were made seems to be circular within City
Hall. It seems to us that once the developer and architect have negotiated these and other aspects with the
staff planner, the project roars ahead with no independent review of any elements. ARB appears to
rubber-stamp the planner's repo,rt findings and the planning director appears to rubber-stamp the approval
giving this developer, and pro,bably almost all others, virtually everything he wants.
This process does grievous disservice to the people of Palo Alto by selectively bypassing parts of the
Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan, which were drawn up specifically to protect the people's
interests in present and future. Is this intentional? In an editorial in the Palo Alto Weekly of July 19,2013,
I:
the editors were amazed at "the staltling admission [by City Manager James Keene 1 that staff repOlts on
proposed PC projects are not intended to identify conflicts between Comprehensive Plan policies, but are
meant to provide the findings needed for the council to adopt the staffs recommendation."
The review process on 240-248 Hamilton appears to us to have operated precisely in this manner because
both Planning staff and ARB avoided mention of statutes that would have gotten in the developer's way,
or interpreted them to the developer's benefit. Any rational citIzen who reads the statutes cited above will
surely interpret them as we appellants have.
CITIZEN REQUEST
In the case of 240·248 Hamilton, the Planning Department staff and the Architectural Review Board
members cannot be allowed to ignore the very clear aesthetic requirements of the city's Comprehensive
Plan and Municipal Code. The proposed design does not conform to the ordinance citations presented at
the beginning of this letter. The design also grossly exacerbates existing parking deficiencies.
We the residents of Palo Alto therefore ask the City Council to overturn this approval and require the
architect to design a building appropriately compatible with its heritage neighborhood per the statutes,
and require the developer to provide adequate parking, or leave the site as is.
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Smith, Forest Aven Ie '--"""
Co-signers:
I Neilson Buchanan, Bryant Street
, Michael Hodos, Bryant Street
: Ruth Hodos, Bryant Street
I Ken Alsman, Ramona Street
, Linda Scott, Ramona Street
Karen White, Ramona Street
Margaret Kim, High Street
Chris Pickett
Gwen Havel'll
Michael Havern
i Rebecca Geraldi
I
Kristine S. Erving
Robert Gamburd
Richard Charles Brand
Harold S. Luft
Lori Luft
Adrian Arima
. Jeanne Moulton
Howard Gopen
Peter Skinner
Irene Deitsch
Linda Smith
Joe Barta
",
RE: Proposal by Ken Hayes and Forest Casa Real LLC
to develop the site at 240-248 Hamilton Avenue
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Aaron Aknin, Acting Director of Planning
Palo Alto City Hall
Dear Ms. French, Planning Staff, and ARB members,
Introduction
If the Architectural Review Board should approve this design, the Board would be violating its own
ordinance and the ARB standards of review. The pertinent passages are as follows (my italics):
PAMC Section 18.76.020, Architectural Review
(a) “The purpose of architectural review is to: … (5) Promote visual environments which are of
high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other.”
“d) Findings: Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review
approval, unless it is found that: (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the
site;…and (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character;…”
The applicable passages of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan are:
“Program L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces….
“Program L-49: In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, design new
development to maintain and support the existing character.”
The proposed Ken Hayes design is absolutely incompatible with the most valued, historic buildings in the
immediate environment. The proposed design is neither high quality nor considerate of its surroundings.
It is a modernist glass box which would be entirely out of place at Ramona and Hamilton, surrounded on
three sides by heritage structures. Inexplicably, even the Staff Report on this project fails altogether to
consider the aesthetic aspects and must be considered null concerning the aesthetics issue.
Context
The site lies next door to Reposado Restaurant (a building eligible for the California Register of Historical
Resources). Across Hamilton it faces obliquely the old classically-inspired former Post Office at 205
Hamilton, and directly faces the Cardinal Hotel. Both use pilasters, among other features, as a decorative
motif. The proposed design merely substitutes a few cylindrical posts, a poor, abstract imitation of
columns.
The 240-248 corner also lies directly across Hamilton from the 500 block of Ramona, a designated
district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In the opposite direction, along the same block
of Ramona as the proposed structure, lie three more heritage buildings, numbers 668 (Pacific Art League,
building eligible for the National Register), 642 (now Coconuts Restaurant), and 630, a Birge Clark
design). Number 630’s design is sufficiently exemplary that it is depicted in the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, between paragraphs L-48 and L-49 which mandate high-quality design and support of historic
character.
In short, the immediate area within one block is saturated with a dozen historic structures that exemplify
harmonious style and are officially recognized as deserving preservation and compatibility. There are
more historic buildings than newer ones around this site.
Staff Report is Incomplete
Therefore it is a great surprise to find no mention in the project’s Staff Report on this proposal that any of
these buildings has heritage character, nor is the Ramona Street Historic District cited, nor are the three
above-mentioned heritage buildings in the 600 block of Ramona mentioned at all. On page 6 of the
report, the staff planner points out that the site lies within the Hamilton Avenue District, but excludes any
reference to the adjacent extension of Ramona Street that is one of the two designated National Register
areas in the city.
When I read under staff Findings, Paragraph (1) [The design is consistent and compatible with applicable
elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan], I am amazed that the staff planner states, “This finding
can be made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates quality design that recognizes the regional
and historical importance of the area as described in the Comprehensive Plan…”
In fact the design fails to make any hint of a gesture whatsoever in recognizing “the regional and
historical importance of the area.”
The whole reason for ultra-simplistic modernist designs like this one is that modernism, from the outset
(starting about 1910), was to erase all memory of past design and omit references to traditional
architecture. See the writings of Le Corbusier, Loos, Gropius, and other modernist theorist-architects
who abhorred ornament and promoted use of flat roofs and large expanses of blank wall or glass, among
other elements. Therefore there is no way to improve this design to make it compatible with nearby
classical and Spanish Colonial Revival buildings without making the Hayes design look internally
inconsistent and ridiculous.
As for quality, the review process thus far includes no rationale to support the above finding that this is a
high-quality design. The staff planner’s criteria for a quality design are unstated. I deduce that they
constitute subjective opinion. But there do exist objective criteria for a good design.
First: A good design must have life to it. But the proposed building has no oblique lines (except a slight
slant in the roof, invisible from the street), no curvilinear lines, and virtually no color. According to
Rudolf Arnheim’s celebrated book The Dynamics of Architectural Form, entirely rectilinear buildings are
usually aesthetically dead, for lack of lifelike motion created by these elements. I agree.
Second: There’s scarcely anything to look at in this design except large expanses of glass, a thin, brittle
building material which has a sterile character and no innate aesthetic appeal for the viewer.
Third, a large building requires several levels of formal subdivision or hierarchy in order to create
aesthetic complexity and retain viewer interest. But the proposed simple design appears to consist of
approximately 80 percent glass walls in large expanses. The structure will have nearly no hierarchy and
very little visual variety to it, which are also severe flaws in the unloved City Hall building across the
street. They are both far too formally simple for their size and thus monotonous, hence the public’s
indifference to or dislike of this kind of design.
As for “considerate of its immediate environment” mandated by the Comprehensive Plan and the
Municipal Code, the design is emphatically not aesthetically considerate because most of the buildings
within one block are heritage buildings, while this design is in a completely antithetical style.
In Findings Paragraph (2), the staff planner states that the design is compatible with the immediate
environment of the site, but cites as proof only the size and commercial nature of the design. The staff
planner omits any mention of the area’s aesthetic, heritage character.
For a definition of compatibility, see the city’s South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, which states:
“Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with that
existing in the neighborhood, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes
design linkages with surrounding existing buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained.”
(My emphasis.) But the general design characteristics of this proposed new building are totally different
from all of the surrounding buildings, excluding only the mediocre ones (285 and 300 Hamilton), and
there are no design linkages whatsoever with the many classical and Spanish Colonial Revival structures
nearby. Therefore the Hayes glass-curtain design is incompatible with the buildings surrounding the 240-
248 Hamilton location and does not comply with Municipal Code regulations.
As for Findings Paragraph (4), the PAMC, Ch. 18.76 requires that, “In areas considered by the board as
having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character.”
Yet the staff planner inexplicably sidesteps mention of historical or unified design of the neighboring
buildings by citing only technical aspects of mass and height, enhanced vehicular and pedestrian entries,
and a bland description of Hamilton Avenue. He refers to the Downtown Urban Design Guide for
guidelines. But the Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan are the ultimate arbiting documents, and the
design does not conform to their aesthetic requirements for Architectural Review.
June 6 ARB Meeting
At the public ARB meeting on June 6, I addressed the Board and articulated many of the concepts
explained in this letter.
ARB member Lippert responded that, “the design… is really wonderful.” On the other hand, he admitted
that it does not fit in with the neighborhood. Here is his relevant statement, addressing Mr. Hayes:
“With regard to Mr. Smith’s comments with regard to the austerity of the building, I appreciate that it
doesn’t fit in with the other historic buildings in the neighborhood. If this was in fact in the Ramona
District, I think it would be far more problematic. But in fact if you were to follow the Secretary of
Interior standards, the underlying rule there is “Thou shalt not create false history.” And so because of the
nature of the architectural approach that you’ve taken here, it actually contrasts the other historic
structures. And doesn’t impose itself upon them from a false [perspective], ‘Thou shalt not create false
history.’ You’re not creating a false historical structure by going with either a Mission or Spanish Revival
style building. So I think from the Secretary of Interior standards point of view, you’ve done exactly what
it says – ‘Thou Shalt Not Create False History.’ You’ve created here something that is separate and
distinct, and will never ever be confused with a Birge Clark building. It’s a Ken Hayes building.”
If it doesn’t fit into the neighborhood, then the Municipal Code expressly forbids approval.
One cannot consider the site solely as part of the Hamilton Avenue District, when the proposed building
is twice as long on its Ramona Street side, on a block with three historic buildings, and when the Ramona
Street National Register District is only 50 feet away. That historic district is easily within the “immediate
environment” and within the “surrounding development” mentioned in the Municipal Code and
Comprehensive Plan.
On the quality issue, ARB member Alizadeh* stated that she agreed (“partially”) with my conclusion that
the building had no character, saying it had “a lack of general interest … overall.” Thus at least one ARB
member concedes that the design does not have the high quality mandated by the Code and the Plan. She
defended her defense of the design by referring to her training in architecture school where she was taught
not “to create false history,” presumably meaning creating a new building in a more traditional style.
(*The full paragraph of Ms. Alizadeh’s statement appears at the end of this letter.)
But the ARB members are not beholden to their architecture professors. They are bound by law to
administer the letter and spirit of the PAMC and the Comprehensive Plan, which state clearly that a site
like this one shall be of high quality and compatible with its historic surroundings. The Municipal Code
and Comprehensive Plan do not mention or require “contrast,” “separate and distinct,” nor do they
mandate that historic buildings to stand out because the new building is starkly different as a “corporate
effect” (the term used by Ms. Alizadeh). Therefore, I am surprised by Mr. Lippert’s apparent inclination
to approve the proposal, while admitting that the design “doesn’t fit in with the other historic buildings in
the neighborhood.” I interpret Board approval of this proposal as a violation of the ARB’s own Code
statutes, which are binding on the Board’s review process.
Board member Lew expressed some limited support for my objections regarding the Ramona Street
heritage buildings. He stated to Mr. Hayes, “For the people who don’t like abstract [design], I would hope
that they would see something else in your building.” He suggested adding limited amounts of filigree,
planters and awnings. Yet these little additions would not alter the fundamental character of vast expanses
of sterile glass wall incompatibly contrasting with the nearby heritage buildings.
Finally, ARB member Pritchard stated, “it is a really handsome building,” offering no justification or
adequate findings for her opinion, and expressed no reservations regarding the context. The fifth ARB
member had recused himself from review of this project.
Regarding so-called “false history,” the Board misunderstands the phrase. False history means building
indistinguishably from an old structure in a manner that could deceive a viewer. There is abundant local
precedent for creating attractive buildings in a style that is clearly new but similar enough to blend
harmoniously with Palo Alto’s heritage architecture. Some such relatively recent commercial buildings
within four blocks of 240 Hamilton are:
499 Hamilton Avenue
505 Hamilton Avenue
520 Cowper Street, the Garden Court Hotel
101 University Avenue
499 University Avenue, currently the Sprint building
245 Lytton Avenue, a financial center housing Morgan Stanley and Cornish & Carey
265 Lytton Avenue
250 University, the Plaza Ramona complex
Conclusion
I cannot conceive how both the Planning Department staff and the Architectural Review Board members
can ignore the very clear aesthetic requirements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code
with respect to this proposal. The design does not conform to the ordinance citations presented at the
beginning of this letter.
The proposal needs to be carefully redesigned for historical compatibility with the immediate
environment of the site. If the Board approves the proposal as is or only lightly modified, there will
necessarily be an appeal by those of us who are concerned that the City’s approved ordinances and
policies be honored.
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Smith, Forest Avenue
Co-signers:
Neilson Buchanan, Bryant Street
Michael Hodos, Bryant Street
*Ms. Alizadeh addressing Mr. Smith: “I think in general, the way that we’re taught in architecture school
is that you don’t want to create false history, like Board member Lippert said. And this also allows those
authentic old buildings to stand out, and to really be seen. And so not everything just gets kind of the
wash of an age. So this is the approach that we’re taught, and I respect that. In terms of your comment
that it’s characterless, I agree with you partially, that there is a bit of a lack of general interest, I think,
overall. I guess I would call it the corporate effect, as opposed to character. But I still think that this is the
approach that we as architects are trained to take.”
July 23, 2013
Ken Hayes
Hayes Group Architects
2657 Spring St.
Redwood City, CA 94063
Subject: 240-248 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00006]: Architectural Review
Dear Mr. Hayes:
On July 18, 2013 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of the
application referenced above and as described further below, and the Director of Planning
and Community Environment (Director) subsequently approved the project on July 23,
2013. The ARB’s recommendation included conditions that the following items return to the
ARB Subcommittee for further review:
1. Make the banding of porcelain tile relate better to the cedar siding.
The Director’s approval will become effective 14 days from the postmark date of this letter,
unless an appeal is filed in accordance with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
The approval was based on the Architectural Review findings in Attachment A and is subject
to staff recommended conditions of approval and additional conditions as noted in
Attachment B. In accordance with California Government Code Section 66020, this letter
includes notice of the amount of development fees and a description of the dedications,
reservations, or other exactions imposed by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the
project, described as follows:
240-248 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00006]: Request by Ken Hayes of Hayes Group
Architects on behalf of Forest Casa Real LLC. for Major Architectural Review Board
review for the demolition of an existing 7,000 square foot, two–story commercial
building and the construction of a four-story, 50 foot, mixed-use building with a new
floor area of 15,000 square feet on a site located at 240-248 Hamilton Avenue. The
project includes a Variance to encroach into the required seven foot special setback along
Hamilton Avenue and to encroach into the required six foot special setback along
Ramona Street. Environmental Assessment: an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration have been prepared. Zone District: Downtown Community Commercial (CD-
C)(P)(GF) with Pedestrian Shopping and Ground Floor combining districts.
The fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions imposed by the City in connection with
your development project are described in your conditions of approval and previously agreed
upon mitigation measures attached to this letter, including by reference the approved
development plans. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who
desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a
development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved
or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications,
reservations or exactions are imposed on the project. Any protest regarding the amount of
the development fees or the nature of the dedications, reservations or exactions imposed in
connection with your project must be initiated not later than ninety (90) calendar days
following July 23, 2013. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these
development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code
Section 66020.
IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR TO
FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR
REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND
EXACTIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE.
If you have any questions regarding the amount of the development fees or the nature of the
dedications, reservations or exactions imposed in connection with your project, please call
me at (650) 329-2336.
Unless an appeal is filed, this project approval shall be effective for one year following the
effective approval date, within which time construction of the project shall have commenced.
An application for an extension may be made prior to the expiration date. The effective
approval date is fourteen (14) days from the postmark date of this letter. The time period for
a project may be extended once for an additional year by the Director of Planning and shall
be open to appeal at that time. In the event the building permit is not secured for the project
within the time limits specified above, the Architectural Review Board approval shall expire
and be of no further force or effect.
Should you have any questions regarding this ARB action, please do not hesitate to call me at
(650) 329-2336 or the project planner Jason Nortz at (650) 617-3137.
Sincerely,
Amy French, AICP
Chief Planning Official
Attachments:
A: ARB Findings
B: Conditions of Approval
C: Fee estimate (if not provided in approval condition)
Cc: Forest Casa Real LLC, P.O. Box 60177, Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
=================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26======================
2
Thursday June 6, 2013 3
REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM 4
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 5
250 Hamilton Avenue 6
Palo Alto, CA 94301 7
8
240 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00006]: Request by Ken Hayes of Hayes Group Architects on behalf 9
of Forest Casa Real LLC for Architectural Review of a new four-story, 50-foot, mixed-use building 10
with 15,000 sq. ft. of floor area, proposed to replace a 5,000 sq. ft., two-story commercial building. 11
Environmental Assessment: an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared. 12
Zone District: Downtown Community Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping 13
combining districts (CD-C) (GF) (P). 14
15
Chair Malone Prichard: Ok, are we ready? Item Number 5, 240 Hamilton Avenue, request by Ken 16
Hayes of Hayes Group Architects on behalf of Forest Casa Real, LLC for Architectural Review of a 17
new four-story, 50-foot, mixed-use building with 15,000 square feet of floor area, proposed to replace a 18
5,000 square foot, two-story commercial building. We have a staff presentation? 19
20
Jason Nortz, Senior Planner: Yes. Good morning. Excuse me, good afternoon Board Members. The 21
project at 240 through 248 Hamilton Avenue is the demolition of an existing 7,000 square foot, two-22
story commercial building and the construction of a four-story, 50 foot tall, mixed-use building with a 23
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 15,000 square feet, which is a 3:1 Floor Area Ratio. The reason this site is 24
able to achieve a 3:1 FAR is because of the use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR), which 25
when applied to a mixed-use development allow a higher Floor Area Ratio which otherwise would be a 26
2:1 Floor Area Ratio for other mixed-use projects that aren’t applying TDR’s. 27
28
The project site is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District and close to the southern 29
edge of the Commercial Downtown Zone District. The site is 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep and is 30
located at the southern corner of Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street intersection. Surrounding land 31
uses include office, restaurants, and retail. The ground floor would be retail with office space 32
occupying floors two and three. The 4th floor would be entirely residential consisting of two residential 33
units. Four onsite parking spaces would be provided for the 2 residential units. The parking spaces 34
would be provided in a garage located at grade with the below grade area to accommodate the car 35
stacker. The applicant has requested a variance to encroach into the required seven foot special setback 36
along Hamilton Avenue and to encroach onto the required six foot special setback along Ramona 37
Street. Staff is in support of the variance request as described in the staff report and confirmed in the 38
variance findings. 39
40
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
City of Palo Alto Page 2
As previously mentioned the applicant is providing four parking spaces for the residential portion of the 1
development. As discussed in the staff report the commercial portion of the project, which is 11,527 2
square feet is exempt from parking due to the use of TDR’s, one time exemptions, and replacement 3
square footage. Staff’s analysis of the parking requirement as originally described in the staff report 4
may be incorrect. My previous calculation as described on Page 4 and 5 of the staff report asserts that 5
7,000 square feet or twenty spaces was previously assessed for the downtown assessment. The 6
assessment rolls only show 5,000 square feet as assessed, which is consistent with twenty spaces. Staff 7
is currently working with the City Attorney’s Office to further analyze the situation in order to make a 8
determination. So we’ll be continuing that discussion after this meeting today with the City Attorney. 9
10
Finally, staff has provided at places light cut sheets. And with that the applicant Ken Hayes is here to 11
make a brief presentation. Thank you. 12
13
Chair Malone Prichard: Thanks. You have 10 minutes Ken. 14
15
Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: And I don’t think I’ve ever said this before, good afternoon 16
Members, it’s always been in the morning. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I’ll 17
be presenting the project on behalf of my client, Sal Giovannotto and Casa Real. Is this on? I’d like to 18
thank Jason for his help in bringing the application forward. It is a pretty complicated application and I 19
think we’ll be able to resolve the parking policy issue. 20
21
The site here is a corner site on Ramona. I think we’re all familiar with the old Radio Shack buildings; 22
the corner of Ramona and Hamilton. It’s a key parcel in that it’s one of the few one story buildings I 23
guess that face City Hall Plaza. The building is one story with a mezzanine inside. It will be 24
demolished. Here are some photographs of the existing building and then a streetscape photograph. 25
This is along Ramona Street, you can see the Cardinal Hotel here. Along Hamilton Avenue we have 26
the [Thoightes] building here, which are all tall, taller buildings and then the subject property is 27
indicated here. In terms of sort of a site analysis, this is the solar orientation here, which actually is 28
really favorable for being able to capitalize if you will on the City Hall Plaza canopy of magnolia trees, 29
which I find very exciting, but Hamilton Avenue, Ramona primary vehicle corridors. There is an alley 30
towards the rear of the block, but we are landlocked, separated from that alley. So we have no ability to 31
get services from the alley. So we are creating a service area most, proposed down at this end of the 32
building, which is where we’ll have trash, electrical room, and that’s where our parking will be as well 33
trying to preserve the corner. 34
35
Pedestrian flow again it’s pretty much on the grid. We see this corner as primary ground floor 36
commercial space, be ideal for a retailer or anyone that would want that. The blue areas indicate where 37
we have office entry. The main office entry however is on Ramona Street trying to preserve the 38
frontage on Hamilton as much as possible for exposure to Hamilton. And then the red arrows indicate 39
where we have entries for the ground floor commercial space. 40
41
This is a diagram that shows the buildings that are significant in terms of height along City Hall Plaza. 42
So we have 300 Hamilton, which is multi-story, easily over 50 feet. 285 Hamilton is five stories, 43
clearly over 50 feet. 261, which is the University Art building also over 50 feet. 235 Hamilton, which 44
is Cardinal Hotel, significantly taller than any of the other buildings around. So we feel like 240-248 45
Hamilton is an opportunity to kind of complete that, the definition of the City Hall Plaza and of course 46
there’s City Hall in the center. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Like I said what I find fascinating about this site other than being able to kind of complete this 1
enclosure at the edge of City Hall Plaza is the fact that we can look out across the canopy of trees and 2
the Plaza itself. So this diagram’s trying to show, we see that as a major opportunity for the building to 3
not only look across the Plaza with the trees, but also at the University Art building. And you’ll see 4
how the architecture responds to our desire to do that. This is a view from Google Earth; kind of the 5
site is obviously here, University Art building and then City Hall Plaza. I walked through there today. 6
The canopy is just enormous. I’m not sure when this picture was taken. 7
8
So the project statement, yes, I’m going to bore you again with project statements and read this to you. 9
Create a new modern 15,000 square foot office and residential condominium mixed-use building that 10
responds to the site and respects the context. We want to embrace sustainable design practices and 11
enhance the living and working experience in downtown Palo Alto. The goals are to increase the 12
height and mass at the corner to support the downtown Comp Plan of trying to get greater mass around 13
City Hall, create a clean, modern architectural statement that suits our time, minimize the visibility of 14
parking and trash and utilities and that sort of thing, and obviously create a vibrant ground floor 15
commercial frontage that enhances the pedestrian experience. 16
17
Some of the imagery we’re using, the side that faces Hamilton is sort of northwestern so we’d like to 18
employ some glass shading devices [unintelligible] similar to this here so we have translucent glass 19
shading devices that create a texture and also some sun shading along that façade, but as it wraps 20
around to Ramona Street it’s all structural, four sided structural glazed system. So very, a very kind of 21
a smooth and fleshy and clean. The block of the building itself is the office block and so we’ve kind of 22
elevated that block up similar to what you see here or perhaps here and then the roof terraces for the 23
residential units will just be wonderful I think up on top. So that’s the imagery that we’re using and the 24
ground floor plan shows you sort of the main circulation or I’m sorry, the retail/commercial area. 25
We’re putting the stair cores on the two sort of blank wall property lines. Obviously we’re landlocked 26
there so that’s a good place for that to happen. 27
28
We want to open up this entire corner. This is the seven foot special setback that Mr. Nortz talked 29
about and then the six foot special setback so that you can clearly see what that looks like. We’re 30
opening up the ground floor so there’s 15 feet of sidewalk here at the corner. That’s a very constrained 31
corner at the pedestrian level so we really want to open that up, but then as the building moves up in 32
height it will be more respective of the block face of the buildings that line both street frontages. 33
34
These are the commercial entries on Hamilton and then on Ramona we have a commercial entry there 35
as well as the main office entry and elevator here. This is office and residential entry to take you 36
above. What’s interesting about something that we’re employing is that although we have cars pulling 37
in forward here this is the garage they would come in. These are stackers that actually go down and up 38
so that you can, you don’t have to move another person’s car to get your car out. So very usable, but 39
when you back up you don’t back onto the street; we’re going to employ a turntable so you’ll back onto 40
the turntable, the turntable will turn the vehicle around so that you can drive out facing so it’s much 41
safer I think for pedestrians and the drivers. Trash enclosure, electrical room, ancillary emergency exit 42
all come out towards that end of the building. Long term bike parking for the residential and the 43
commercial is inside the garage. The commercial people will have access to that as well. 44
45
This is just a diagram that shows, it was in your packet back in the variance section, the special setback 46
as it applies to the whole block and this is our building here. You can see that nothing along the block, 47
even the [Thoightes] new building Reposado here the buildings further down they don’t respond to it. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 4
So we’re responding to it on the ground floor along Hamilton and about 50 percent of a response along 1
Ramona where we’re setting back three feet more on the ground floor. I think we have about an 11 foot 2
sidewalk now on Ramona and 15 like I said on Hamilton, but that kind of puts it in perspective. 3
4
I don’t know if I need to walk through this, but fairly open plans. This is the side of the building here 5
that would have the glass fins and so the glass is set back about two feet from the face of the building 6
block on both frontages, but on this frontage with the harsher sun exposure we have the glass finds and 7
then this is just nothing but structural glazed curtain wall there. The residential terrace here, our units 8
are here; two 2 bedroom units with ample exterior terrace space. 9
10
This is the block face along Hamilton and how we’re responding sort of with the cornice line of the 11
[Thoightes] building. I forget the address of that building, but this red line is to indicate how we’re 12
tying across there and then this is the Cardinal Hotel. In a similar fashion how we’re relating to that 13
and then the residential piece floats above. And just a more detailed view of that. This is the garage 14
door. 15
16
Section longitudinally through the building this is the commercial entry off of Hamilton, a nice 17
translucent glass canopy that would extend out over the property line over the sidewalk and then back 18
through the building. This is the garage it sort of displays how the stackers work for you there and then 19
the two levels of office space and the residential units above. And there’s a view of the building from 20
above. It shows the building block, the glass curtain wall as well as the frameless glass at the base of 21
the building. We’re trying to integrate the units, the housing with this metal panel that kind of comes 22
up and wraps down like that, which I think is a real interesting form. It sort of mimics the building 23
form, the block form in a subtle way and then a similar thing happening there. 24
25
This is all a void in the building so you come out of the elevator and you have an opportunity to have a 26
balcony at the commercial level, but then at the fourth floor residential level when you come out of the 27
elevator you’re outside essentially so you can look across the terrace. And the last picture of the 28
building here from eye level. And that’s my presentation. 29
30
Chair Malone Prichard: Well done. We have one member of the public to speak on this. Is Douglas 31
Smith still here? And you’ll have three minutes. Three. 32
33
Douglas Smith: Let’s see… how do I? Let’s see, whoops. I just got rid of my, can someone bring up 34
the desktop? 35
36
Good afternoon, I’m Douglas Smith a Palo Alto resident and a scholar of aesthetics. I wish to discuss 37
the aesthetic and heritage issue in this project. Let’s consider the context; the new building at 248 38
Hamilton will sit directly across the street from two of the most charming buildings in this City, the 39
Cardinal Hotel and the University Art building, both Birge Clark structures. Looking northwest up 40
Ramona the whole 500 block constitutes the Ramona Street Architectural District recognized as a 41
landmark by the City of Palo Alto. In the same 600 block of Ramona is the proposed design right 42
across the street here we find three more Birge Clark structures in Spanish or Colonial, California 43
Colonial styles each rated Category 2 a major building of local, regional significance. That is these 44
buildings. 45
46
In this context the proposed design, a mostly glass box with no particular stylistic character to my mind 47
is an alien, a dead, sterile design. I say dead for three reasons. First, it is entirely rectilinear. No 48
City of Palo Alto Page 5
oblique or curvilinear lines generate a sense of motion without which there is no life. The University 1
Art building in contrast, the gabled roof sweeps the eye up and down again. The top floor invites the 2
eye to sweep across the arcades and then back down to the ground floor where the awnings echo the 3
arches up above. The Cardinal Hotel features other classic principles which interest the eye including 4
[laurels] of detail. Let’s see… none of these lower levels of detail are found under the proposed design 5
which therefore is missing a critical element of aesthetic interest both at the street level and above 6
hence my description of “dead.” Thirdly, the walls of the new design constitute about 75 to 80 percent 7
glass, which is a colorless, brittle, artificial, extremely unappealing building material that has no life of 8
its own. 9
10
Now in the Palo Alto Municipal Code pages on architectural review I find that today’s review’s 11
purpose is partly to “promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic value, quality, and 12
variety and at the same time are considerate of each other. Further, in areas considered by the Board as 13
having a unified design character or historical character namely the Ramona area the design is 14
compatible with such character.” But I find this design totally incompatible with Ramona Street; 15
therefore, I am surprised to read the staff report for this review where I find no mention of the Ramona 16
Street Architectural District right across the street aside from mention of University Art and the 17
Cardinal Hotel nor of the three Spanish California Colonial Revival buildings in the 600 block. The 18
report finally concludes, at any rate I find the staff report does not meet my assessment of this building. 19
20
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. Alright, let’s start with Lee. 21
22
Mr. Smith: Let me figure out how to get the… do I hit escape? 23
24
Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you very much Ken for your presentation. First of all I want to say I think 25
your, the designing of this building is really wonderful. It’s really a different approach than you’ve 26
taken on other buildings and I like the openness of the building and the way it responds to the corner. I 27
think that it responds particularly well. I like the use of materials, how you’ve expressed that. In fact, 28
architecturally I think it completes that whole Hamilton Street block as well as responding directly 29
across the street to the Cardinal Hotel as well as the… well, it’s not the University Art Center building. 30
I think it’s called Plaza Ramona, no, it’s not part of Plaza Ramona, but it’s the Ramona Street building 31
across the street. 32
33
I think from a height and massing point of view it begins to do what a building of that, on that corner 34
needs to do. It’s a very constrained site and I appreciate that. I have no problem with you encroaching 35
into the setback and I like the way you’ve stepped back at the corner. The sidewalk is very tight there 36
right now and what you’ve proposed here begins to relieve some of that narrowness on the sidewalk 37
and I don’t think it needs to necessarily comply with the six foot setback or the seven foot setback. I 38
think what you’ve done here at the ground level in spirit does what that setback wants property owners 39
to do. 40
41
Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 42
43
Vice-Chair Lippert: With regard to Mr. Smith’s comments with regard to the austerity of the building I 44
appreciate that it doesn’t fit in with the other historic buildings in the neighborhood. If this was in fact 45
in the Ramona District I think it would be far more problematic, but in fact if you were to follow the 46
Secretary of the Interior’s standards the underlying rule there is thou shalt not create false history. And 47
so because of the nature of the architectural approach that you’ve taken here it actually contrasts the 48
City of Palo Alto Page 6
other historic structures and doesn’t impose itself on them from a false, thou shalt not create false 1
history, you’re not creating false historical structure by going with either a Mission or Spanish Revival 2
style building. So I think that it from the Secretary of the standards point of view you’ve done exactly 3
what it does, thou shalt not create false history. You’ve created something here that’s separate and 4
distinct and will never, ever be confused with a Birge Clark building. It’s a Ken Hayes building. 5
6
The only concerns that I have with the project and they are relatively minor is the Steve Jobs effect. 7
What do you do with the back side of the fence? You’ve done a great job of dealing with Hamilton 8
Street. You’ve done a great job dealing with Ramona Street, but then when I look at the backside of 9
the building what am I looking at? 10
11
Mr. Hayes: I think I have that slide in here so we can all look at it. 12
13
Vice-Chair Lippert: It’s actually, it’s in our packet. “City Elevations.” If you go to the exterior 14
(interrupted) 15
16
Mr. Hayes: On the Reposado side… Here you go. 17
18
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yep. 19
20
Mr. Hayes: So Reposado this is essentially the line of Reposado. 21
22
Vice-Chair Lippert: Correct. 23
24
Mr. Hayes: And so we are sort of respecting this idea of the block of stone and obviously we can’t have 25
openings on that side, but we are continuing the stone down that façade up to the railing line of, just so 26
it wraps around. This is the, this is where the roof screen for the, it’s a perforated metal that is set back 27
from that outside edge of the wall and that is where the mechanical condensing units are located. The 28
stair tower here and here is also set back so there’s relief from the face of the stone to the face of the 29
plaster stair tower and the same thing occurs there. So we’ve just taken that simple statement all the 30
way around it and so there’s, it’s probably 20 feet above the Reposado building and above the building 31
on Ramona, which is a two story building here. 32
33
Vice-Chair Lippert: You can have openings; they just can’t be on the property line. So you could in 34
fact create wells on that side of the building and incorporate windows. They’ve done it 200 Hamilton 35
building, which is directly across from (interrupted) 36
37
Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] yeah. 38
39
Vice-Chair Lippert: From Reposado. 40
41
Mr. Hayes: Five foot one back and then you can have protected openings. 42
43
Vice-Chair Lippert: Correct. And then also they’ve done that on University Avenue, the building 44
adjacent to the Union Bank also has wells… 45
46
Mr. Hayes: Yes. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Vice-Chair Lippert: In that area. Is there a way to incorporate some elements like that, not necessarily 1
on the second floor, but maybe on the third floor? 2
3
Mr. Hayes: Never, never even thought about studying that really just because the floor plate’s so small. 4
I don’t know if, it’s just a matter of give and take with the floor plate that we have. I think we were 5
trying to get the relief along the street frontages so the glass wall’s two feet back there from the face of 6
the building and we felt that continuation of the block was a pretty clean, clean statement. I don’t think 7
it will look oppressive certainly with a pattern of the stone on there it’ll have some relief in it, but to 8
answer your question, no we didn’t study windows because the floor plate’s so small and we were kind 9
of pushing it all the other way. 10
11
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah (interrupted) 12
13
Mr. Hayes: All the [view force]. 14
15
Vice-Chair Lippert: What I’m thinking of is if you look at your third floor plate the, maybe the area 16
that’s to the left of column line E, next to the staircase could in some way become some sort of outdoor 17
terrace area? You see the staircase there? Column line E to the left of that? 18
19
Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 20
21
Vice-Chair Lippert: Or perhaps if you look at the below the staircase along column line A between A 22
and B again on the backside of the building. 23
24
Mr. Hayes: Probably have more control if we were to do that more control over the gridline once at the 25
Reposado side because I believe that’s an historic building and so it’s more likely to be open space. If 26
you were to put something here that someone could enjoy as opposed to column line A, which don’t 27
know what could happen there with that. The building that’s there today could expand perhaps. 28
29
Vice-Chair Lippert: Right. 30
31
Mr. Hayes: So if, and that would be the long elevation. 32
33
Vice-Chair Lippert: And then the only other question I have is what would somebody use that area up 34
in the upper right hand corner of the building where it’s to the right of the staircase there’s sort of like a 35
little [unintelligible] it’s only about maybe nine feet wide. 36
37
Mr. Hayes: Right. The stair inside is, yeah, eight. So yeah it’s probably about the same size as the stair 38
so about eight feet wide this direction. So the gridline one is intended to be where the core is. At one 39
time we had layout of electrical rooms, toilet rooms and so on primarily between the two stairs and then 40
when you get up front there, I mean that would be most likely storage or something like that because 41
there’s no windows. 42
43
Vice-Chair Lippert: You know from an architectural point of view when I look at the façade of your 44
building I like the heaviness of the ends, but when I look at the plan of the building I want to put a 45
couple of, punctuate that with a couple of windows because it’s ideal to actually make those into maybe 46
a small, it could be a small office in there or it could be a break room, but if it was punctuated with 47
something it would be wind up to be usable. You have enough surface area along the back wall of the 48
City of Palo Alto Page 8
building that you could put those ancillary functions like supply rooms, closets, the telephone 1
(interrupted) 2
3
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, there’s certainly enough room between B and E, between the two stairs for that. I 4
think compositionally we have so much glass that it does need to have that mass kind of stopping it on 5
the sides. There’s always a need for rooms that don’t have lots of windows. This could be open office 6
and someone could have their sort of a this notion of caves and commons where you’ve got a place to 7
go kind of to get away from the big group and that could be one of those kinds of spots and then you’ve 8
got the windows out. So I can justify so how that space could be used depending upon who the tenant 9
is and the challenge with all these buildings is we don’t know who the tenant’s going to be so it makes 10
it particularly difficult sort of challenge for the architect to sort of impose a program on the building. 11
12
Vice-Chair Lippert: Well just to give you, thinking, again, I’m thinking out loud… it looks like that 13
ends of the building is punctuated by three, it’s a grid so it’s one, two, three at the ends of the building 14
there maybe it could be punctuated with a window in the middle? You know at the (interrupted) 15
16
Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] elevation? Right here? 17
18
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah. That middle row. Maybe punctuate it with (interrupted) 19
20
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, I think that’s certainly something that I could look at. 21
22
Vice-Chair Lippert: It just negates the usability of that space where it’s just a little bit bigger, it’s a little 23
too big to be a storage room and it’s a little too small to be… 24
25
Mr. Hayes: An office. 26
27
Vice-Chair Lippert: Neglected. 28
29
Mr. Hayes: A real office. 30
31
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah. But other than that I think you have a really handsome building. I like your 32
approach and other than what I’ve suggested with regard to wells I don’t have a problem with it. 33
34
Chair Malone Prichard: Naseem. 35
36
Board Member Alizadeh: Thanks. Thank you for this set. I will address as well the comments of the 37
public, Mr. Smith. I think in general the way that we’re taught in architecture school is that you don’t 38
want to create false history like Board Member Lippert said. And this also allows those authentic old 39
buildings to stand out and to really be seen and so not everything just gets kind of wash of an age. So 40
this is the approach that we’re taught and I respect that. In terms of your comment that it’s 41
characterless I can, I agree with you partially that there is a bit of a kind of lack of general interest I 42
think overall. I guess I would call it the corporate effect as opposed to characterless, but I still think 43
that this is the approach that we as architects are trained to take. 44
45
So in regard to the specifics the kind of capping thing, the [c channel] thing that you have it seems that 46
it’s as a result like Board Member Lippert was saying on the two back sides it’s very nice I like that 47
articulation, but it is creating problems where it needs to be bare it’s creating problems because it’s bare 48
City of Palo Alto Page 9
against open space. And so I think that might be problematic. So if you can do wells or something 1
which articulate a bit more of that opening and further your idea in that regard I think it would be well 2
worth pursuing. 3
4
At the same time I think it kind of ties into this issue of the setback. So that kind of two story element 5
because your ground floor, your stairwell is flush with it, it takes away from (interrupted) 6
7
Mr. Hayes: It’s not. 8
9
Board Member Alizadeh: It’s not flush? 10
11
Mr. Hayes: No, no. It’s setback plus it’s a different material on both ends. It changes to the dark grey 12
tile, porcelain tile. It gets (interrupted) 13
14
Board Member Alizadeh: So no and the, ok let’s say like (interrupted) 15
16
Mr. Hayes: You’re talking about that right there and that right there? 17
18
Board Member Alizadeh: I am talking about that right there, that right there. 19
20
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, that’s setback. 21
22
[Unidentified man at 32:27]: It’s not (interrupted) 23
24
Board Member Lew: Do we have the color board? 25
26
[Unidentified man at 32:27]: It’s setback on the ground level. 27
28
[Unidentified man at 32:27]: It’s setback (interrupted) 29
30
Vice-Chair Lippert: This is not setback, but this (interrupted) 31
32
Board Member Alizadeh: That’s what I’m saying. Yeah, I’m talking about the parts that aren’t setback. 33
There is a part that’s not setback, right? Which is where your core is, the solid bits. 34
35
Mr. Hayes: No, that’s supposed to be setback. It’s not just a stone to tile transition. 36
37
Board Member Alizadeh: How much is it setback? 38
39
[Unidentified man at 32:27]: I believe it’s six inches. 40
41
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. So alright. I would just suggest that I don’t think, ok… so it’s, I guess I 42
see six inches. It’s quite tight, but good, but also I think since you’re not really as Board Member 43
Lippert was saying, I’m not quite sure what that space is, what you’re gaining from there, so if, if you 44
could literally do the full setback to be flush with the glass or maybe six inches protruding from the 45
glass I think it would benefit your concept a bit more personally. 46
47
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Mr. Hayes: So let’s talk about that for a second, if I may? Ok. So if you were to take it all the way, 1
excuse me, all the way to the property line, if you, let’s say if you took that entire black, black, grey 2
box at the floor, at the first floor and pushed it back and eliminated it and extended the glass over to the 3
property line you would have to have a wall at the property line because what you’ve done is you’ve 4
essentially created an opening in the side of the building now because it’s cantilevering out and that’s 5
not allowed from a building code standpoint. So you’d have to have like a fin wall that would come 6
down at the end of the building that the glass would run into to prevent the overhang from being open 7
to the property line. 8
9
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. So you have to continue that in order to have your overhang above? In a 10
way. 11
12
Mr. Hayes: So we felt like we didn’t want a little fin wall there. 13
14
Board Member Alizadeh: Right. 15
16
Mr. Hayes: We wanted it to be (interrupted) 17
18
Board Member Alizadeh: Solid. Ok. 19
20
Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] yeah. And so we’ve done that at both ends. 21
22
Board Member Alizadeh: So it’s a six inch difference between that (interrupted) 23
24
Mr. Hayes: Street plane to street plane, yes. 25
26
Board Member Alizadeh: Six inches? 27
28
Mr. Hayes: Yes. 29
30
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. So basically on the entire ground floor I know that it’s a special setback 31
and it’s kind of a weird situation as to why this special setback exists, but so there’s no, at no point is it 32
being respected, is that right? Or is there points where it’s, at no point is it being respected? 33
34
Mr. Nortz: On the ground floor at no point is it being respected. 35
36
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. 37
38
Mr. Nortz: Basically the stairwell is what encroaches that 7 feet for about like 9 feet wide more or less 39
and the remainder of that wall 36 feet or so I believe is at 6 and a half feet roughly. 40
41
Board Member Alizadeh: But it corresponds to the neighboring buildings? 42
43
Mr. Hayes: Right, so we came back out to line with the block face. 44
45
Board Member Alizadeh: And so staff is ok with that as a kind of general policy to kind of? Ok. I just 46
want to make sure I got that, with a variance, of course. Ok. So then the other issue with, the kind of 47
last issue about this element here, which I think has positives and negatives is that there’s this 48
City of Palo Alto Page 11
suggestion that the neighboring, the immediate neighboring buildings in the future based on this design 1
will be, will go up. And I never have a problem with height, so I think height is fine, but in this case 2
there’s this feeling like the building where Reposado is and the other ones are eventually going to be 3
taken down and the height will match the rest of the block. So that is a bit, I don’t know if there’s a 4
way to kind of soften then that edge with those other buildings so that it doesn’t read so strongly to 5
have that kind of division between the two. You know what I mean, that kind of harsh edge where 6
Reposado is? Maybe it is some type of filtration along that back wall. 7
8
Mr. Hayes: Filtration meaning? 9
10
Board Member Alizadeh: Some type of wells or something which make it a bit more (interrupted) 11
12
Mr. Hayes: A different scale. 13
14
Board Member Alizadeh: Yeah, yeah. Exactly. 15
16
Mr. Hayes: So certainly that’s worth looking at. The height, the reason we stepped the whole fourth 17
floor back (interrupted) 18
19
Board Member Alizadeh: Sure. 20
21
Mr. Hayes: Because we don’t, we didn’t want to be that much higher than everything else. 22
23
Board Member Alizadeh: Sure. 24
25
Mr. Hayes: So I think when you look at the whole context it does make sense. Reposado is going to be 26
I think like that for a long, long time. 27
28
Board Member Alizadeh: Potentially, yeah. 29
30
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, because it is historic. As you go down Ramona don’t know what’s going to happen 31
there. 32
33
Board Member Alizadeh: So yeah, so then maybe addressing that fact I think would be important for 34
me because the capping is interesting so it’s just a question of maintaining the vocabulary but then also 35
dealing with the fact that on the back edges it needs some massaging potentially. 36
37
Other bits… I would like, oh, ok, so yeah, we talked about that. If you could explain your California 38
Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) measures please. 39
40
Mr. Hayes: So we will comply with Tier 2. 41
42
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. 43
44
Mr. Hayes: Essentially. We’re not going, we’re not pursuing a Leadership in Energy and 45
Environmental Design (LEED) or United States Green Building Council (USGBC) category, but we 46
will comply with LEED Tier 2. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Board Member Alizadeh: Can you discuss any in terms of materials or (interrupted) 1
2
Mr. Hayes: Well we’re using a lot, this is a concrete building number one, so certainly will have fly ash 3
and it’s a recyclable material. The glazing system is all high performance glazing systems. The 4
mechanical system, which obviously is very important is a VRV Mitsubishi system, which is a very 5
highly efficient system that we’re now using on all these little projects in the downtown because it can 6
get up 20 percent more efficient than Title 24 requirements. And so what it does is very small 7
compressors upon the roof like residential size kind of compressors and then a, goes through a, it’s 8
called a BC controller and so these compressors hook to the BC controller and then at each floor you 9
have one and these fan coils on each floor all hook, you can have like nine different zones per floor per 10
controller and what’s interesting is that if this zone over here is calling for heat and this one over here is 11
calling for cooling they can borrow energy or expel energy through this variable refrigerant volume 12
technology. That’s about as much as I can do. 13
14
Board Member Alizadeh: These windows aren’t operable, is that right? They’re not operable 15
(interrupted) 16
17
Mr. Hayes: No we’re actually [unintelligible] 18
19
Board Member Alizadeh: And there’s no landscaping, is also correct or is that going to be further down 20
the road? 21
22
Mr. Hayes: There’s no landscaping at the ground plane. I would imagine that the residential units 23
would probably have some landscaping. We are not proposing any at this point. 24
25
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. 26
27
Mr. Hayes: The residential units are operable windows. 28
29
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. I saw the materials board just arrived so I will look at that and then let 30
the other ones comment. Thank you. 31
32
Mr. Hayes: You bet. 33
34
Chair Malone Prichard: Alex. 35
36
Board Member Lew: So thank you Ken. 37
38
Mr. Hayes: You’re welcome. 39
40
Board Member Lew: You know I’m actually of two minds on this project. One is when I look at the 41
rendering I really like what I see and at the same time I actually had the same concerns in the back of 42
my mind as Mr. Smith really because it’s on Ramona Street. It seems like Ramona has a very distinct 43
character to it and it is even though all of those Pedro de Lemos and the Birge Clark buildings there are 44
sort of a faux historic aesthetic and they have a certain scale and detail that I think is missing in your 45
building and I think could be improved in your building to make it more compatible with Ramona 46
Street. And I think that these are like minor, small details not any major massing changes or arches or 47
anything like that. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
The, but I did want to talk a little bit about how your building is compatible with the neighboring 2
buildings and I don’t think you really talked about it that much, but the I think it’s shown pretty clearly 3
in your conceptual street elevations. So on sheet A.2 on the Ramona Street elevation as your, you have 4
a very strong vertical rhythm of your second and third floor windows that pick up on the vertical 5
proportions of the Cardinal Hotel and you’re kind of creating like a, at the top of your third floor it’s 6
sort of aligning with the cornice height of the Cardinal Hotel so that you’re, the massing is trying to 7
match that even though your building is taller and I think that those are all very good things to do. And 8
I think that your, that the continuous retail the glass on the first floor is very important and right now 9
it’s actually not that great in terms of pedestrian activity and I think you’re actually improving, you’re 10
improving it by and you’re also that the sidewalks on Ramona are pretty narrow and you’re actually 11
enhancing the sidewalk and I think all of the buildings on, most of the buildings on Ramona have this 12
really nice arcades and stuff that has that depth to the façade and you’re actually adding it where it 13
doesn’t exist now. And so I think those are all very positive things on your project. 14
15
I’m a little worried about the glass. I was wondering if you could walk us through the material board. 16
My main concern with the glass is that it’s not too dark and I don’t really see the actual sample of your 17
main glass. 18
19
Mr. Hayes: So we typically use either PPG Solarban 60 or 70 and we haven’t run the envelope [calcs] 20
yet, but it will be one of those two and it essentially is about as clear as you can get and still have a high 21
performance glass so there’s no deliberate reflectivity. It’ll have a green sort of cast to it. We’re not 22
going to use a low iron glass so it’ll have some kind of a just a light green cast to it which we thought 23
would work well with the palate of materials. Would you like me to walk through these, the board? 24
25
Board Member Lew: Yeah, if you could and then especially with the, if you… I think like you haven’t 26
talked about at all the perforated metal and then you mentioned the fins a little bit. 27
28
Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 29
30
Board Member Lew: I think the pictures that you showed were kind of a greenish tint glass and this is a 31
very white tint and so if you (interrupted) 32
33
Mr. Hayes: So that piece there is intended to be the not only the vertical fins, so essentially if we look 34
at the model here, so from this corner to this edge over here there will be the vertical fins that go full 35
height and they will be in that translucent glass. 36
37
Board Member Lew: That’s this one, right? 38
39
Mr. Hayes: Correct. 40
41
Board Member Lew: Right. 42
43
Mr. Hayes: [Pause in audio at 44:13] Then down the Ramona side it will just be the surface of the glass 44
itself alright with the joints. The mullions will be behind the glass. So it’s a, it will have a mullion it’s 45
probably going to be an eight inch deep mullion because of the span of the curtain wall. So you’ll see 46
that through the glass, which will be interesting I think, but there’s no mullion outboard of the glass 47
pane itself or glass plane. The translucent glass is also used on the two canopies. So there’s a canopy 48
City of Palo Alto Page 14
that defines the office entry that extends out right there and there’s one that defines the Hamilton entry, 1
alright, into the ground floor commercial space. And so that will have the stainless steel frame and then 2
the probably some standoffs and then the glass, translucent glass horizontal cover. 3
4
Board Member Lew: And you have some railings, I’m sorry. You have some railings at the elevator 5
landings. 6
7
Mr. Hayes: Right. So those will be glass railings, clear glass railings with the stainless steel just an 8
edge cap, little rectangular edge cap on the top of it. And so that occurs yeah, here and here. The slab 9
edge will be wrapped in the metal panel. This is the stone obviously. The metal panel that is the silver, 10
the metal composite [rayobond] panel would be all of this detail that comes down and intersects and 11
then exposes itself and then this whole side here essentially and then it runs around this opening it sort 12
of repeats that C shape and then it descends again to there and so that will all be that [rayobond] 13
material. The porcelain tile we talked about, but just to reiterate it’s essentially the block here and the 14
block located there and then running along the top of the stone and you won’t see this from the ground, 15
but you’ll see it from other buildings I suppose is a metal railing to sort of cap the top off so it’s not just 16
stone, it has a little detail on top and that is the M3 color, which is the lower right hand corner and so 17
it’s supposed to kind of, I could also see that as an accent as well, but we decided to sort of give it a, 18
just a light color as opposed to a darker color. 19
20
And then the roof is the [a standing seam] metal roof. All of the sloped pitched roof up here and then 21
on the backside between the two stair towers is where you find the metal panel. I’m sorry, the 22
perforated metal panel and that is just to sort of provide the screening of the mechanical units but allow 23
sort of air to kind of pass through that zone. And then all the window frames that really are on the 24
inside will be a either a clear, probably a clear anodized because they’re on the inside. 25
26
Board Member Lew: Great, thank you Ken. 27
28
Mr. Hayes: Oh, I’m sorry I didn’t mention the western red cedar. 29
30
Board Member Lew: Yeah, the door. Right. 31
32
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, so that’s the door. So we thought that that would be really nice as you walk by you 33
have this very, very beautiful door that’ll fold up and there’s also a man door that will be built into the 34
panel. 35
36
Board Member Lew: Great, so thank you. So I guess my thought was on like to add a little bit more 37
filigree to the building was maybe instead of like the glass railings at the landings if it was… 38
39
Mr. Hayes: Metal or something. 40
41
Board Member Lew: Metal. Also maybe if the, maybe to enhance the awnings that you do have there, I 42
mean I think the ones you have are nice. They are very minimalist, but I was wondering if there was a 43
way to have more of them or have them more expressive or like at the Walgreens there’s like a wood 44
soffit on them or something. I was just looking, I mean it’s or like the bank opposite your project, I call 45
it Great Western, but it’s the [Calps] building, the one that used to be pink. What is that (interrupted) 46
47
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, yeah, yeah… Wells Fargo. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
Board Member Lew: No, no. Wells Fargo is on Waverly. 2
3
Mr. Hayes: Oh right. 4
5
Board Member Lew: Chase. 6
7
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, sorry. 8
9
Board Member Lew: Has the big planters. I’m looking for something for the people who don’t like 10
abstract I think that they should see something, I would hope they would see something else in your 11
building. 12
13
Mr. Hayes: Ok. 14
15
Board Member Lew: I think, you know, like [Chop] brought us a project on Hamilton and it has 16
awnings, it’s the corner building on High and Hamilton and he has awnings on both sides. He has 17
planters on both sides of the sidewalk. 18
19
Mr. Hayes: Maybe it might be nice to have some really beautiful modern moveable but permitted pots. 20
21
Board Member Lew: Yeah and I think those are all things that are in our urban design for downtown 22
guidelines and I think with just small elements like that would go a long way to giving this a little bit 23
more character without going in the direction of Spanish Revival or something like that. 24
25
Mr. Hayes: Great. Those are all good comments, thank you. 26
27
Board Member Lew: But I would say really my most, my main comment though is the glass color. 28
The, I think given the solar orientation of the building I’m really concerned that it’s going to look too 29
dark and my hunch is that it’s not going to look like how you have it rendered in this. I mean the 30
rendering’s beautiful, but I’m looking at how your illustrator has like depicted the lighting inside of the 31
building [in a reflectivity] and I’m not sure that you’re actually going to get that. I have a hunch that 32
it’s just going to look, that it may look darker, flatter, and less luminous than what you’re showing and 33
so it’s a concern of mine. But generally I like the [party]; I can support the variance, and I think 34
generally you’re making all the right moves. 35
36
If there is, I think the other Board Members expressed a concern on the property line conditions. We 37
do have, there are buildings downtown that have windows on the property line wall, special glazing, 38
special (interrupted) 39
40
Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] the glass, yeah, (interrupted) 41
42
Board Member Lew: Yeah, special mullions and everything like that. 43
44
Mr. Hayes: But I think it’s (interrupted) 45
46
Board Member Lew: It’s been done. So I don’t feel that strongly about that particular wall. I’m really 47
more concerned about the, your Ramona Street elevation. Thank you Ken. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
Mr. Hayes: Thank you Alex. 2
3
Chair Malone Prichard: This is a really handsome building. 4
5
Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 6
7
Chair Malone Prichard: As far as the way it fits into the context I think it does relate very well in a 8
massing standpoint to the hotel across the street and it also speaks in a little way to the City Hall with 9
the verticality that you’re creating here with the glazing system. So I don’t have a problem with a 10
building of this type in this location. 11
12
The blank back wall jumped out at me. I would like to see something done with that to articulate it 13
better. If you do that I think bring it forwards over Reposado is the way to go because that’s where 14
you’re going to see it when you’re coming down Hamilton. I think the further back you put it towards 15
the rear stair the less it’s going to have an impact. 16
17
The cedar siding is a beautiful material, but it seems like kind of an anomaly. It’s just here in that one 18
spot where the doors are. I’m wondering if there’s any other place you could work it in, be that soffits 19
or something, something at pedestrian scale or something on the upper floor for the residential units 20
perhaps. 21
22
And then you are in the pedestrian district so you’re supposed to do something to provide pedestrian 23
amenities. I understand you’ve pulled the building back, that’s great, you’ve got the wider sidewalk 24
and you do have awnings at your entrances. Are you looking at anything on the ground surface, any 25
special paving or treatment? 26
27
Mr. Hayes: I, it just, I think we’re just looking at the lamp black standard sidewalk, but… and we 28
probably would want it to read all as one and not like say this is the City sidewalk between the property 29
and the street. 30
31
Chair Malone Prichard: That would be wonderful, yeah. 32
33
Mr. Hayes: But we could look at the paving pattern. I like Alex’s idea of some, maybe some nice 34
planters that could really enhance that frontage provided they don’t block views into the retail or 35
commercial space, but yeah. 36
37
Chair Malone Prichard: Yeah, it just something you could do to provide some more amenities to 38
respect the pedestrian district. And that’s really all I’ve got. I think it’s a very handsome building. 39
40
Mr. Hayes: Great, thank you very much. 41
42
Board Member Alizadeh: Can I add one thing? I was going to say something similar to what Board 43
Member Prichard said about the cedar. Alone it looks really awkward here, but yet now it’s an 44
opportunity. I think if you add more of that it would really impact, it would add warmth to this 45
building. So alone as a garage door it’s not, I think it’s not working, but if there’s more of it somehow 46
at locations of your choosing I think it would really add something. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 1
2
Chair Malone Prichard: So who would like to craft a Motion on this one? 3
4
Vice-Chair Lippert: I think that I’m inclined to continue the project. I think that the back wall, the back 5
walls really need to be resolved before we can move forward with this and look at the entire building. I 6
think there have been enough comments from each of us and we each see it differently, but there needs 7
to be some reconciliation on it. So Ken, I hate to do this, but I’m inclined to continue the project and 8
that you take some of our comments back and think about them and try to incorporate them into the 9
project. I think you’re moving in the right direction (interrupted) 10
11
Mr. Hayes: They seemed like fairly minor comments, but… 12
13
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah, but I don’t feel as though I can condition making you put windows on the 14
backside of the building and that needs to be addressed. 15
16
Mr. Hayes: Right. And this would be a consent? And so you pull it if there’s discussion or? 17
18
Vice-Chair Lippert: I think it’s a little more than consent. I think it needs to be continued to a either a 19
date certain or a date uncertain. And I just want to say I have one other thing, you know I was while 20
you were making your presentation I was looking at, on my smartphone a particular building, Rafael 21
Moneo, the Chace Center Rhode Island School of Design has done a really great job of dealing with 22
solid walls and punctuating them. Maybe you might want to take a look at that. Chace is spelled 23
Chace, but I’m sure there’s a lot of his projects that are similar and it might give you some inspiration 24
as to how to deal with the backside of the building. So I move to continue the project to a date certain. 25
26
Chair Malone Prichard: Well I guess (interrupted) 27
28
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: The 20th has already been flown, I think we’ve got a number of 29
items on that agenda, but yes, the 18th of July would be the meeting. It would give them plenty of time 30
to come up with something. 31
32
Vice-Chair Lippert: Is that agreeable for you? 33
34
Mr. Hayes: I think I’m here on the 18th of July already so. 35
36
MOTION 37
38
Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok, so let’s move, I move that we continue the item to the 18th of July. 39
40
SECOND 41
42
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok, I’ll second that. 43
44
Vice-Chair Lippert: Great, thank you. 45
46
VOTE 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Chair Malone Prichard: Naseem. All in favor? Aye. And none opposed. 1
2
MOTION PASSED (4-0, Board Member Popp absent) 3
4
Chair Malone Prichard: Brief break while we get the computer set up. That was brief, ok. 5
6
PRELIMINARY REVIEWS: 7
8
1. 2209-2215 El Camino Real [12PLN- 00404]: Request by Karen Kim on behalf Tai Ning 9
Trading & Innovations Co. for Preliminary Architectural Review of a new three-story, 9,780 10
square foot mixed use building proposed to replace a 3,239 sq. ft., one-story commercial 11
building on a 5,392 square foot lot. The proposal would include a request for a Design 12
Enhancement Exception (DEE), to allow the building to encroach into the 20-foot required 13
setback at the rear alley way. Zone District: Community Commercial (CC (2)) 14
15
2. 2500 El Camino Real [13PLN-00161]: Request by Stanford Real Estate for Preliminary 16
Architectural Review of a new four-story, mixed use building with 70 below market rental 17
housing units (one, two and three bedroom units) and approximately 7,300 sq. ft. of commercial 18
space within a 100,000 sq. ft. building, proposed to replace a 38,416 sq. ft. commercial 19
building. Zone District: Commercial Service/Alternative Standards Overlay (CS (AS1)). This 20
item is continued to the regular meeting of June 20, 2013. 21
22
BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 23
24
3. Recap of retreat discussion on Colleagues Memo. 25
26
4. Formation of subcommittees – nomination of special topics. 27
28
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. 29
30
Subcommittee Members: Naseem Alizadeh and Randy Popp 31
SUBCOMMITTEE: 32
33
5. 2080 Channing Avenue [10PLN-00198]: Request by John Tze for review of proposed shade 34
screen structures for the public park and other related items at the Edgewood Plaza mixed use 35
project. Zone: Planned Community (PC-5150) zoning district. Environmental Assessment: An 36
Environmental Impact Report was certified for the project in accordance with the California 37
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 38
39
STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: 40
41
Project Description: Installation of two illuminated wall signs & two projecting wall (blade) signs 42
Applicant: Kevin Grant 43
Address: 278 University Avenue [13PLN-00164] 44
Approval Date: 5/17/13 45
Request for hearing deadline: 5/30/13 46
47
Project Description: New fencing and gate at an existing fire station 48
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Applicant: Cecil Lectura, PWD Facilities 1
Address: 2675 Hanover Street [13PLN-00195] 2
Approval Date: 5/20/13 3
Request for hearing deadline: 6/3/13 4
5
Project Description: Installation of one internally illuminated channel letter wall sign 6
Applicant: Unju Lee 7
Address: 3375 El Camino Real [13PLN-00108] 8
Approval Date: 5/22/13 9
Request for hearing deadline: 6/4/13 10
11
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to 12
access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City’s compliance 13
with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice) 14
or by e-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. 15
16
Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 17
54956.Recordings. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 18
329-2571. 19
20
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Architectural Review Board after 21
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community 22
Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during normal 23
business hours. 24
25
26
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
=================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26======================
2
Thursday July 18, 2013 3
REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM 4
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 5
250 Hamilton Avenue 6
Palo Alto, CA 94301 7
8
240 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00006]: Request by Ken Hayes of Hayes Group Architects on behalf 9
of Forest Casa Real LLC for Architectural Review of a new four-story, 50-foot, mixed-use 10
building with 15,000 sq. ft. of floor area, proposed to replace a 5,000 sq. ft., two-story 11
commercial building. Environmental Assessment: an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative 12
Declaration have been prepared. Zone District: Downtown Community Commercial with 13
Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping combining districts (CD-C) (GF) (P). This item was 14
reviewed during a public hearing on June 6, 2013; the public hearing was continued to 15
July 18, 2013. 16
17
Chair Malone Prichard: Moving to our first item, 240 Hamilton Avenue. Request by Ken Hayes of 18
Hayes Group Architects on behalf of Forest Casa Real LLC for Architectural Review of a new four-19
story, 50 foot, mixed-use building with 15,000 square feet of floor area, proposed to replace a 5,000 20
square foot, two-story commercial building. Staff presentation please? 21
22
Jason Nortz, Senior Planner: Yes, thank you. Good morning Board Members (interrupted) 23
24
Chair Malone Prichard: Excuse me. 25
26
Board Member Popp: Sorry. Because of a prior working relationship with the applicant’s architect I’m 27
going to recuse myself from this item. 28
29
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. So hold a moment until he can clear the room. 30
31
Mr. Nortz: Thank you. The project that you previously mentioned was first reviewed by the 32
Architectural Review Board (ARB) at the June 6th ARB meeting. The ARB voted to continue the item. 33
The ARB’s recommendation included conditions that the following items return for additional ARB 34
review: Item Number 1) provide pedestrian friendly amenities at the ground floor level; 2) incorporate 35
more articulation on the back walls, specifically on the southwest elevation between floors two and 36
four; and 3) consider incorporating more cedar siding at another location on the building. As discussed 37
during the June 6th staff report the commercial portion of the project, which is 11,500 square feet is 38
exempt from parking due to the use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR), one time exemptions 39
and replacement square footage. Staff’s analysis of the parking requirement as originally described in 40
the June 6th staff report has been revised and is provided as Attachment D to today’s staff report. The 41
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
VERBATIM MINUTES
City of Palo Alto Page 2
applicant Ken Hayes is here to give you a brief presentation and answer any questions that you have. 1
Thank you. 2
3
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. You’ll have 10 minutes. 4
5
Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Good morning Members of the Board, my name’s Ken Hayes 6
with Hayes Group. Hopefully I won’t need all 10. So we were here at the June 6th ARB hearing and at 7
that point the comments that we heard, the project was favorably received, I appreciated the comments 8
that you made. We were asked to come back and address some of these items that Mr. Nortz just 9
mentioned: consider some pedestrian amenities along the streetscape, what can happen sort of on that 10
façade that’s above Reposado, possibly a, I think Alex you had suggested maybe a metal rail on the 11
balcony or something that faced Ramona Street? Maybe add a window at G1, which is facing 12
Hamilton or perhaps some more cedar siding. I think that was suggested by Chair Prichard. 13
14
So we’ve looked at all of those and the first one I’d like to show you would be that, this is the site plan 15
originally proposed, there’s no change in the building footprint. We had been keeping the existing tree 16
wells locations and so when we learned that that could sort of be freed up we’ve proposed what you 17
have in your packet today. We would propose that the concrete be an integrally colored, sort of the 18
City standard lamp black so it kind of blends with the sidewalk on either side of the property, but we’ve 19
relocated the trees to make sense with a new scoring pattern as well as so the tree wells are located here 20
on both sides and then incorporated plant, potted plants that would be located in front of the building 21
here, here, and then down the side there. And the potted plants are something like that, it’s a two foot 22
tall self-watering pot that would be planted there or it would be located in those spots. So we felt like 23
that addressed kind of the concerns that were brought up there just to try to create a little more 24
pedestrian friendly amenity at the streetscape. Obviously it, there’s all this frameless glass back behind 25
here so there will be lots of views into the building itself. 26
27
This was the proposed elevation above Reposado at the time and a number of things were discussed in 28
the meeting on do windows make sense? And I think it sort of boiled down to really try to break up 29
that façade in a way that we felt still worked with the architecture and we really see the architecture as 30
this block that’s been carved out. And so we’ve taken, and this is the, ok I thought it was going to go 31
back. This is the profile of Reposado next door. So what we’ve done is we’ve kept the same 32
vocabulary that we’re, of that block as it wraps the whole corner in line with the stair here, which is this 33
is Hamilton over here, in line with the stair there and in line with the stair there we essentially carve out 34
an area that would have the same metal panels that we’re proposing that you see on the front, the front 35
of the building and in fact have the same detail that comes up the edge and then forms an eyebrow here 36
and then sort of descends back down the façade and then that entire opening right behind there is all the 37
mechanical equipment. So that entire opening would be filled with that perforated metal that you have 38
on your color board. 39
40
And so we’ve, this is a view of the front before the planters and this is the planter locations there and 41
there. So there’s not a whole lot of change to the front. Now this is superimposed on a photograph that 42
has the existing trees, but the new trees with have a different spacing there. We didn’t change the tree, 43
but you can see the planters there and then the view from above before and then afterwards with the 44
plant material, the planters down on the sidewalk there. Around the corner we didn’t have this view 45
before, but we provided it for you today so that you can get an idea. This is across the street. You can 46
see Reposado there and so we’ve kind of matched that same vocabulary of the main limestone block 47
City of Palo Alto Page 3
and then the metal panel you just start to see it sneaking up there. Then at the top we have the metal 1
comes up and then this is the perforated metal there. 2
3
We looked at possibly exploring the opportunity for new penetrations in this front. I think Lee had 4
suggested maybe we study that. We did. I just really felt like it was just a cleaner, simpler solution 5
without adding openings in that area. There’s an abundance of glass as it wraps the building so it’s 6
certainly not a daylighting issue and we felt like this was an appropriate solution. Just to give you an 7
idea of the detail at that so this would be the detail here between the transition there. So we would have 8
the limestone tile then it returns back, and then this is the metal panel so you’ve got some surface relief 9
at that location. So that’s my presentation. Thank you. 10
11
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. I have a couple of members of the public who would like to speak 12
about this. The first person will be Jeff Levinski followed by Elena Meyer and you’ll each have three 13
minutes. 14
15
Jeff Levinski: Thank you. Good morning Commissioners [Note—Means Board Members] and staff. 16
I’m part of the large neighborhood effort to work on our downtown parking crisis and in regards to this 17
project first I’d like to note the agenda has an error that it says that this project will be replacing a 5,000 18
square foot building whereas the staff report says it’s 7,000 square feet. It’s going to add four parking 19
spaces for its new residential units, however, that will be at the expense of the public because it’s going 20
to apparently remove two other parking spaces from the street. It also fails to provide 18 additional 21
parking spaces needed for the new offices. In total it creates a deficit of 20 spaces and it’s going to 22
force that many cars to park deeper into our residential neighborhoods worsening our parking, safety, 23
and traffic problems. 24
25
I understand that the project hopes to avoid providing those 20 spaces by using TDR’s, in lieu fees, and 26
a one-time exception, but none of those create a single parking space anywhere. In fact, the in lieu 27
program is a total fiscal scandal being virtually bankrupt while our downtown parking deficit exceeds 28
900 parking spaces. That shortage of parking creates misery every workday in the downtown and 29
Crescent Park neighborhoods and it’s getting worse all the time. 30
31
I’m asking you to do two things today. First, look at the Comprehensive Plan’s requirement that the 32
residential neighborhoods not be impacted by commercial activity. This project does not provide 33
adequate parking and thus will harm the nearby residential neighborhoods. The TDR’s and in lieu fees 34
don’t provide any parking either. Thus this project fails to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. That 35
in turn raises the question whether it merits any variance whatsoever. 36
37
Second, you can help turn around our City’s parking crisis by showing developers how to provide 38
onsite parking. The City’s own analysis for 135 Hamilton just down the street from this project showed 39
that each dedicated parking space increases rent and thus adds approximately $75,000 to $94,000 in 40
value to a building. That’s each spot. Yet they often cost less than that to build. In other words, 41
developers could actually win by providing the onsite parking as well as helping our neighborhoods. 42
And by the way at 135 Hamilton those extra parking spots were going to be across the street, down a 43
ways, and then on the fourth and fifth floors of the garage. For here the added parking would be just a 44
few floors away and thus potentially worth even more. 45
46
City of Palo Alto Page 4
So we’re asking you to take the lead and show new projects how to include onsite parking helping them 1
both earn more money and alleviate our parking crisis. Please address this and the Comprehensive Plan 2
issue today. Thank you. 3
4
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments and Elena Meyer is next. 5
6
Elena Meyer: Good morning Commissioners [Note—Board Members]. As you know the intrusion of 7
cars from the downtown workers into the residential area streets has reached an intolerable level. It’s 8
time for the ARB to take its responsibility to the community more seriously by not continuing to allow 9
the construction of buildings that do not park its own resident, its own people. It’s unfair to design a 10
building that does not have enough parking spaces for its inhabitants knowing that the people in the 11
buildings will further overwhelm the downtown neighborhoods with their cars. It’s unfair to exploit 12
every loophole to avoid fulfilling a project’s responsibility to park its own inhabitants. Not only 13
doesn’t this building park its own cars, it takes away two spaces from the public street. This is 14
unconscionable. 15
16
The project violates both the ARB Charter and the Comprehensive Plan. The ARB Charter says among 17
other things “enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas” 18
and as you know the Comp Plan says on Page 3, “The Plan encourages commercial enterprise, but not 19
at the expense of the City’s residential neighborhoods.” Please stop making things worse. Thank you. 20
21
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. So I have a question for staff since there seems 22
to be a lot of neighborhood interest in parking in the downtown can you clarify for the record what the 23
rules are and what ARB’s purview is regarding parking. 24
25
Mr. Nortz: As far as the rules go with the parking I definitely understand where the public is coming 26
from, but technically our code only requires the site to provide the parking for the new residential uses 27
at 1.5 spaces per unit, which would be three spaces and they are actually providing 4. The rest of the 28
existing square footage 7,000 is exempt per code and the remainder, which I believe is in the 29
neighborhood of 4,000 and something, is also exempt per the use of the TDR transfers. Now as a 30
couple of the public speakers have mentioned, I think the overall concern is with a lot of the new 31
development that is occurring downtown and parking as a whole and I know that our new Interim 32
Director Mr. Aknin and the rest of the long range Planning and Transportation Staff is currently 33
reviewing ways to look at that and improve that, but as far as providing any answers for you today as to 34
how we can address them I am unable to do so. 35
36
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. So if the neighbors would like to follow up then perhaps Mr. 37
Aknin is the next logical step? 38
39
Mr. Nortz: Well I would probably start with Jaime Rodriguez our Chief Transportation Official and 40
then he can work with Aaron to address their concerns. And I would be happy to follow up with both 41
of the residents after today’s meeting to get their contact info. 42
43
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. Ok we’ll move to Board Member questions and comments. Let’s 44
start with Alex. 45
46
Board Member Lew: So I would like to follow up on the parking issue. And so I did review the Comp 47
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance last night just to refresh my memory about the TDR program. And so 48
City of Palo Alto Page 5
the issue just in big picture is the issue is that there’s in the Comp Plan and the Zoning Ordinance there 1
are, there’s a provision for Transfer Development Rights when projects do a systemic upgrade and/or a 2
historic rehab of existing properties and that square footage doesn’t have to be parked as I see it in the 3
Zoning Ordinance, but when I looked at the Comp Plan it didn’t really mention that the parking had to 4
be exempt from the floor area transfer. So it seems to me that there’s some, some wiggle room in there 5
if the residents really want to discuss it with the Planning Department, but it is clearly, it seems to me 6
clear that the intent is to help restore and preserve downtown. And that’s like a very important goal. 7
Downtown’s really, is great and it shouldn’t, the changes really shouldn’t impact the neighborhoods 8
although it is and so I would be curious to see what the parking solutions are. I know I’ve been to some 9
of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meetings and you know that there’s been a lot 10
of review and discussion about how to improve efficiency of the parking, of the existing parking 11
program to help alleviate the issues and so I’d kind of let you, maybe we should have like an update on 12
that somewhere for the ARB in the future. 13
14
Mr. Nortz: I think that would be a good idea. 15
16
Board Member Lew: Because I mean I think the neighborhood, the neighbors are bringing it up on this 17
one project, but there are actually multiple projects where this same situation is happening. Ok, so on 18
the building design [unintelligible] I don’t want to repeat everything from the last meeting, but [I mean 19
you] generally support of the [party]. I was hoping for more filigree on the building, but I know you 20
Ken, you’re fairly minimalist. The only question I have here today then is really the, your limestone 21
cladding and so I note that the drawings are calling out for limestone. My recollection was that you 22
mentioned it was like porcelain tile from the last meeting. I could be wrong about that, but I wanted to 23
just make sure I understand the… 24
25
Mr. Hayes: Did we bring the color board? The materials board back? I have a photograph of it. 26
27
Board Member Lew: I mean I don’t think you’ve changed it. It was (interrupted) 28
29
Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] it is limestone above the, if you look on your screen in front of you. 30
31
Board Member Lew: So on the first floor there’s some porcelain. 32
33
Mr. Hayes: That’s right, yeah. A darker porcelain’s on that ground floor. 34
35
Board Member Lew: Ok. Ok, so I think in my mind that the, I was hoping for more filigree. My take 36
on it though is that the fact that you’re cladding it in real stone and not some like stucco or some sort of 37
synthetic thing actually will give you more subtlety and it doesn’t really show in the drawings like, I 38
know that some of the, we had some of the neighbors that are complaining that the building is too 39
minimal, is too stark. It seems like the rendering isn’t really capturing the subtlety of the natural stones 40
(interrupted) 41
42
Mr. Hayes: Sort of the patina that you’ll have or the variation. 43
44
Board Member Lew: right, yeah. 45
46
Mr. Hayes: No, it’s a beautiful stone. I’m confused here. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Mr. Nortz: Apologies, I do have the color board up at my desk if you’d like (interrupted) 1
2
Board Member Lew: That’s fine, I think I, I mean I’ve seen enough limestone’s to, I think I understand. 3
I just wanted to make sure it wasn’t some sort of synthetic product. 4
5
Mr. Hayes: No. Jason, maybe Diana can run upstairs and grab it if it’s handy? 6
7
Board Member Lew: Ok and then I think, oh, and if I could go back [unintelligible] on the parking. So 8
I think Ms. Meyer mentioned or Mr. Levinski mentioned the street parking removal and I know that 9
the, we’ve had some discussions with Amy French, she’s not here today, the Planning Manager that 10
the, that on some projects they’re asking I think the Planning Department has been asking for a fee in 11
lieu for removal of street parking on some projects. So there is some mitigation for that. It’s not like 12
you can add a curb cut and just remove parking and then there’s no (interrupted) 13
14
Mr. Hayes: We are providing two in lieu. 15
16
Mr. Nortz: Right. We worked with Transportation staff and they were ok with that solution as far as 17
providing two in lieu payments and I also believe there’s been some additional discussion about how 18
and Ken can probably speak to this better, but possibly adding an additional off street spot where the 19
existing loading zone is. We had discussed that option and I know we’re still reviewing that with the 20
Transportation staff. So we might actually end up gaining a space at the end of the day, but we haven’t 21
figured that out yet. 22
23
Mr. Hayes: Yeah the loading zone comes around to about here and it’s really not, apparently not used 24
and so Jaime was willing to reduce that loading zone if we could pick up another space. I don’t think 25
we can pick that space up so it’s, the two, we’re, two spaces are going to be lost and then we’ll be 26
paying two in lieu spaces. 27
28
Board Member Lew: Ok. And thank you for adding the planters and I like the plan that you’ve picked, 29
which is called, what is it? Mother’s… Mother in Law’s Tongue. Somebody has a kind of a witty idea 30
for that plant. And but generally I support the project. It’s, I think the general, the massing is well 31
done to integrate it in with the neighboring buildings and yeah, and I really like the mixed-use 32
component of the building. And then on the improvements that you’ve made on the Reposado property 33
line side I think are fine. I didn’t really mind the other, your previous scheme on that mostly because 34
you’re cladding it in stone. 35
36
Mr. Hayes: We were cladding it in stone. 37
38
Board Member Lew: Right, I mean it seems like you were already making an upgrade. 39
40
Mr. Hayes: But we are, we’re doing this, we’re taking this same detail that rises here and around on 41
the… so that actually comes up and down here and then across the top. So it’ll be very consistent I 42
think. I like the change. 43
44
Board Member Lew: Ok, good. I don’t, I don’t object to it. And then on the, you mentioned the 45
window possibly the idea of having a window in the stair tower. Would you be open to having like a 46
skylight on the roof? 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Mr. Hayes: Oh absolutely. 1
2
Board Member Lew: Because I mean to me I like to do that on buildings. 3
4
Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 5
6
Board Member Lew: Basically those fire stair towers are usually pretty grim and like I think it’s better 7
for people to walk (interrupted) 8
9
Mr. Hayes: I have no problem with that (interrupted) 10
11
Board Member Lew: And having the skylight makes it so much more pleasant. I mean it’s like 12
dramatic change on something that doesn’t really affect the overall aesthetics with the building. And so 13
that’s all that I have. Thank you. 14
15
Mr. Hayes: Thank you Alex. 16
17
Chair Malone Prichard: Lee. 18
19
Vice-Chair Lippert: First of all I would like to address the parking issue. Within the ARB rules we’re 20
only looking at quality and character issues. We do not look at use and zoning and so when you run 21
into the parking for the building even though we review the parking when it’s surface parking we are 22
reviewing it for meeting the standards of quality and character, not the use. Is that correct? 23
24
Mr. Nortz: Yes. 25
26
Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok. So in this case the parking is internal to the building and it’s handled through 27
other provisions of the Municipal Code. Correct? 28
29
Mr. Nortz: Yes. 30
31
Vice-Chair Lippert: So we don’t have any authority over the parking. I appreciate the members of the 32
public raising this as an issue, but we in fact our following what the City’s rules are and if the rules 33
aren’t compatible with what the neighbors think is going on that’s something that they need to address 34
with the City Council and have changed. We can’t indiscriminately follow and change, change the 35
rules. Is that correct? 36
37
Mr. Nortz: Yes. 38
39
Vice-Chair Lippert: And with regard to the current parking moratorium does this fall into the parking 40
moratorium at all? 41
42
Mr. Nortz: That I am not aware of and I’d need to follow up with our Transportation staff to get you a 43
better answer on that. 44
45
Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok. So I sympathize with what the residents in the South of Forest Avenue 46
(SOFA) area and the area further south are dealing with, but frankly our job here is to review the 47
standards with regard to quality and character and seeing to that the building meets those standards. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 8
There is one thing that I do want to mention, which I think is a bit problematic, and again we don’t 1
have any authority over, which is that until the economy started picking up the parking ratio based on 2
square footage was really based on people having cubicles or offices. And today what we’re seeing a 3
lot of office is that they’re going to a different layout or configuration where they’re actually using 4
benches for people who are doing the work. And so what happens is that actually increases the density 5
or the number of bodies that are working in an office environment. Now that is a building code issue 6
because really what happens is that, that number is exceeding the number of bodies that would be 7
permitted and it’s actually going from a B occupancy, this is in the building code, to an A occupancy, 8
which is really an assembly. And it’s a very big difference in terms of the number of bodies. And so if 9
people are in fact doing this that would be a building code violation and the building could be red 10
tagged and shut down through a different vehicle, which is the Building Department or the Fire 11
Department depending on who wants to enforce it. 12
13
Other than that the standards here that we’re following are ones of, again, as I said quality and 14
character. So we’re looking at the envelope of the building. And so I’m going to talk about the 15
envelope of the building. Ken, first of all I want to thank you very much for taking our comments and 16
coming back to us. It’s really a handsome building. You listened to our feedback. The only concerns 17
that I have that are outstanding have to do with the I guess the southwest façade and the southeast 18
façade, which is the back of the building. Yeah, and a couple of things that I think the building could 19
improve on is that it’s still a little austere I think in terms of just being a blank wall. And so what I was 20
going to suggest and maybe my colleagues see it the same way, is that I like the little white element, the 21
little white box that’s on the top there. Yeah. I like the one that happens towards the back and if there 22
was some way to take that texture or that element and have it read vertically so what happens is that it 23
begins to create a little more complexity on that façade. I really like the use of the limestone and the 24
way it wraps around the building. I like the way it happens as a lintel above the metal panels. I think 25
that that’s really handsome, but as far as the module that you’ve got there I think that making it a little 26
bit more complex I think would help tremendously. 27
28
And then on the backside of the building the façade we don’t see that faces… 29
30
Mr. Hayes: Down Ramona. 31
32
Vice-Chair Lippert: Ramona. Can you talk a little bit about that? Because… 33
34
Mr. Hayes: It’s in the packet. 35
36
Vice-Chair Lippert: [Yeah, we know.] 37
38
Mr. Hayes: I have the old presentation here so it’s probably in here. 39
40
Vice-Chair Lippert: Well I’ve got it here. 41
42
Mr. Hayes: Oh. 43
44
Vice-Chair Lippert: It’s on page A3.1. It’s southeast elevation. And again my thought there is if you 45
were to take that little box element on the roof and just simply carry that down as well so that it read as 46
a plain, smooth finish that the module ties into I think that it’s going to achieve what needs to be 47
achieved in terms of some visual complexity to those views. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
Mr. Hayes: As you can see in that front view right here, this is probably 25 feet back from across the 2
street. 3
4
Vice-Chair Lippert: Right. 5
6
Mr. Hayes: Right. So you start to lose the ability to see beyond that. The same would be true for the 7
other side where the building next door is even a little bit taller. So I’m not sure how much mileage we 8
could get out of that. Here’s the building on the other side right here. So there’s more exposure 9
obviously on the Reposado side than there is here although you could go further down the street on 10
that. I like the block of the limestone. I’m not sure how the, we actually did look at before we arrived 11
at where we are [pause in audio at 30:52] the first thing I did was I took that stairwell down to sort of a 12
base and looked at that and really [unintelligible] having the sort of cornice of the limestone wrap the 13
building was a little bit stronger, but… 14
15
Board Member Lippert: We’ll see how my colleagues feel about it. 16
17
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, ok. But thank you for your comments. Did you get the finish board? You did? Ok, 18
because I found my photograph it was on the floor back here. 19
20
Chair Malone Prichard: We did. Yeah, we’ve got it. Thank you. So thank you for bringing this back. 21
I’m in support of all the changes that you’ve made; much happier about the view over the top of 22
Reposado now and glad to see the planters coming in for more pedestrian amenities. My comment on 23
the cedar siding wasn’t so much that I wanted more of it on the building, but I thought it was odd that it 24
showed up in one spot. 25
26
Mr. Hayes: Right. 27
28
Chair Malone Prichard: And so I’m thinking that maybe it should either show up in more spots or 29
maybe it shouldn’t be there. So I’m interested in hearing why you’ve got cedar there. 30
31
Mr. Hayes: So the cedar is essentially as you know located in the recess here, which if I go back to the 32
plan… one more. So it spans essentially this entire opening from sidewalk to soffit and felt like that 33
was a nice warm material, one that had a lot of texture to it, but felt like it could, just a beautiful door in 34
that one opening and it starts to connote a little bit of familiarity of material and also of residential use. 35
And that was the prime motivation there. When I think of it as a metal door or something like that I 36
hear it clanging and it just felt like a softer, warmer approach that worked well with the porcelain tile 37
and the materials. Didn’t see it anywhere else though, but that was our thinking. 38
39
Chair Malone Prichard: Ok. I respect that. It’s not my building to design. So then just a little bit of 40
housecleaning here on the findings; Findings 13 and 14 need to be modified because now we do have 41
planting material. So I believe the planting proposed does meet both of those findings. And then there 42
had been some correspondence from neighbors who did not, who weren’t able to make it to the meeting 43
regarding the character of the building and I read back through Finding Number 4. Finding Number 4 44
is specific to areas that are considered to have a unified design character and I would pose that this area 45
does not have a unified design character. It actually is very diverse; you have historic buildings, you 46
have modern buildings right up next to each other. This isn’t the only modern building, there’s another 47
one a couple of doors down and there’s City Hall across the street. So I would suggest that that finding 48
City of Palo Alto Page 10
be “not applicable” because it is not a unified design character or you could say the design character is 1
eclectic and this fits into the eclectic. 2
3
Mr. Nortz: I’m sorry, that was Finding Number 4? 4
5
Chair Malone Prichard: Number 4. So that’s all I’ve got. I’m in support of the project as presented. I 6
heard a couple of comments from my colleagues that they would like to have modified. Should we 7
discuss those? So you had the, a follow up. Ok. 8
9
Vice-Chair Lippert: I have one follow up. You know I appreciate Chair Malone Prichard’s comment 10
with regards to the wood siding. Is there any way to maybe carry that around to another ground floor 11
element? I’m thinking of maybe the base of a stair tower over on Hamilton? What do you think? 12
13
Mr. Hayes: Probably not a, and I know it doesn’t have to come to the ground, but probably maybe not 14
be as durable sort of in that exposure. We actually entertained the idea of making the ground floor 15
doors with that, with that same wood. We could do a door that has the same kind of grill pattern and it 16
would be like, are you looking at your screen? 17
18
Vice-Chair Lippert: I am. 19
20
Mr. Hayes: That door there. This door here and perhaps this door here so that at least you see that 21
again and it’s always on a door. It wouldn’t work for the retail door. So we did think about it there and 22
that probably would be something that we’d be open to. 23
24
Board Member Lew: Can I ask a question, follow up question about that? Is the garage door like 25
spaced cedar boards or just a solid, solid panel? 26
27
Mr. Hayes: No, no, no. it’ll be horizontal boards, probably an eighth inch between them and the whole 28
panel that you see there is not operable, so it’ll be sort of hidden, hidden doors. So you’ll have vertical 29
lines. 30
31
Vice-Chair Lippert: You know I’m not that convinced that wood can’t be a durable material. It’s, 32
there’s no automobile traffic there, it’s all pedestrian and it would require a little bit of maintenance, but 33
it’s not a high traffic area. 34
35
Mr. Hayes: Just people leaning against the building, putting their feet on it. I don’t know. I see it as an 36
infill Lee and not as two blocks that support this limestone building above. And so the porcelain seems 37
to have that sense of permanence and durability in mass that the wood would not, which is why I see it 38
as an infill. 39
40
Vice-Chair Lippert: What about using the wood, a one… a 6 inch by 24 tile that, they have tiles that 41
emulate or look like wood. They’re striped; they have some grain running up. 42
43
Mr. Hayes: I can’t believe that the Board is saying that. 44
45
Vice-Chair Lippert: Well it’s not wood. It’s not meant to replicate wood. 46
47
Mr. Hayes: You’re saying from a color standpoint then? 48
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah, I’m talking about a material and the ceramic would be highly durable and it 2
would have the same warmth that (interrupted) 3
4
Mr. Hayes: We could certainly look at the porcelain tile and see if we can get it in a, in a finer banding 5
so that instead of being 12 inches it relates to, pardon me, the horizontal striping of the wood siding so 6
that you even get sort of more compression on porcelain tile, but it has a subtle relationship as opposed 7
to trying to be the cedar. 8
9
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah, I think that that if you looked at that as opposed to the cedar I would feel a 10
lot more comfortable and it begins to approximate what Chair Malone Prichard was sort of looking for. 11
Do you have any thoughts about that? 12
13
Chair Malone Prichard: I think that’s a good approach because I am in agreement that at the ground 14
floor level there really aren’t any other good locations to put wood. So that would be a good way to get 15
a durable material that relates back to the wood, but certainly not something that tries to emulate wood, 16
but just relates to it in its banding and color tone. 17
18
Mr. Hayes: So I’m proposing that we maintain the porcelain tile we have, but we do a finer horizontal 19
band that relates to the wood in its banding. 20
21
Chair Malone Prichard: That would work for me. 22
23
Vice-Chair Lippert: I would certainly have that return to the subcommittee, to look at that material. 24
25
Chair Malone Prichard: That seems reasonable. And there was discussion of skylight at the stairs. Is 26
that something you feel should be a requirement or just a recommendation? 27
28
Board Member Lew: I think it’s just a suggestion. 29
30
Chair Malone Prichard: Ok and you had some comments about the southwest and southeast elevations? 31
32
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah, if my colleagues feel the same way I would get that, the white stucco boxes 33
to read more vertically down the southwest and southeast façade of the building instead of the 34
limestone and that would create a look, it would help break up those two blank sides a little bit better I 35
think. 36
37
Board Member Lew: You know I don’t think that I have a preference. I don’t object to what Ken is 38
showing on the drawings. I’m not sure I quite understand like which view, so if you’re, I understand 39
what you want, what you’re asking for, but I don’t understand like what does that, like was does that 40
achieve? Like from what viewpoint, like who, who would see this, that corner, that back corner view? 41
42
Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok, well… 43
44
Board Member Lew: You’re looking in the alley or something? 45
46
Vice-Chair Lippert: If you’re looking on Hamilton and you’re standing over near I guess it’s just past 47
the Cardinal Hotel 48
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
Mr. Hayes: That’s where this view is. 2
3
Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok. If you looked at the Cardinal Hotel this is the view from the Cardinal Hotel. 4
The idea is that the white box would just, it would just, the white would continue vertically down and 5
die into Reposado so it would read as a vertical element like it was a tower or it might be mechanical or 6
elevator shaft type element. And then the one that’s towards the rear that would also read the same 7
way. We would still keep the lintel above the metal panels, but then when you go, when you’re 8
walking up Ramona Street you would also see that white element on that southeast view of the 9
building. And the idea is to just simply figure out a way so that the building reads a little more, that 10
blank wall reads a little more complex. 11
12
Board Member Lew: Ok, I think I understand. I think I don’t, I don’t feel that strongly about it, but I 13
think when I look at the perspectives I think Ken’s idea of breaking the material at that line, where the 14
stucco and the stone meet is to bring this building down to scale to match the Cardinal Hotel and the, 15
because he’s trying to match like the cornice line of the Cardinal Hotel and the what is it? 200, 200 16
Hamilton? I forgot the name of it, the… 17
18
Mr. Nortz: The University Art Center. 19
20
Board Member Lew: No, no, no. The, (interrupted) 21
22
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, the AG for RE. Right, right here. 23
24
Board Member Lew: Yeah. 25
26
Vice-Chair Lippert: It doesn’t negate that. It, that still exists on the façade of the building and wrapped 27
around the corner of the building that’s not an issue. I think that that works great. It just, I’m talking 28
about when you go back, how many feet would that be? That would be about… 29
30
Mr. Hayes: 25, 30. Oh no, I’m sorry, no that’s the back (interrupted) 31
32
Vice-Chair Lippert: It’s just past Building Line F so… 33
34
Mr. Hayes: 15 feet. 35
36
Vice-Chair Lippert: And it would just become white cement plaster at that point and then would pick 37
up at Building Line E. You’d still have that stone lintel above where the panelized area is and then just 38
beyond Building Line B. 39
40
Mr. Hayes: So Lee’s suggesting that this edge here come down like that. 41
42
Vice-Chair Lippert: Right. 43
44
Mr. Hayes: And then this edge here come down, so this all would be one. 45
46
MOTION 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Chair Malone Prichard: So I’m going to jump in here. Looking at the uses on the upper floor I’m 1
actually more in support of what Ken is proposing. I understand what you’re trying to do to dress up 2
that façade, but the way the, that box frame works it’s really it’s surrounding the habitable area and this 3
white element here is around a mechanical area and the same thing on the other side. So I think it 4
makes more sense to have the box where it’s sitting and not to bring it out to the front and to draw more 5
attention to the mechanical area. So I’m actually, I was starting to agree with you until I started 6
looking at the uses of the building and I tend to think that the way Ken’s got it arranged is the way to 7
do it. 8
9
So I will try to craft a Motion that we would recommend approval of the project including the Findings 10
as modified, that would be Findings 4, 13, and 14 modified, that the banding of the porcelain tile be 11
modified to relate better to the wood siding pattern, and that that modification of the banding should 12
come back to subcommittee for review. 13
14
SECOND 15
16
Board Member Lew: I will second. 17
18
Chair Malone Prichard: All in favor? Aye. None opposed. 19
20
MOTION PASSED (3-0-1-1, Board Member Popp recused, Board Member Alizadeh absent) 21
22
Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 23
24
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. 25
26
Mr. Hayes: Have a great day. 27
28
NEW BUSINESS: 29
30
Major Items 31
32
2. 1875 Embarcadero Road [13PLN-00103]: Request by the City of Palo Alto Public Works 33
Department on behalf of the City of Palo Alto Community Services Division for Site and 34
Design Review of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course reconfiguration project. The meeting 35
will serve as a public hearing for the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 36
Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration and Baylands Athletic Center Expansion 37
Project. Zone District: PF(D). 38
39
3. 537 Hamilton Ave [13PLN-00087]: Request by Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects, on behalf of 40
Smith Equities III LLC, for Architectural Review of revised plans addressing conditions of 41
approval for a previously approved project to allow a new 14,557 square foot two-story 42
commercial office building. Zone: CD-C(P). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the 43
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 44
15332. 45
46
PRELIMINARY REVIEWS: 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 14
4. 1601 California Avenue [13PLN-00234]: Request by Chris Wuthman of Stanford Real Estate 1
on behalf of the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. University for preliminary 2
architectural review board review for the demolition of approximately 290,000 square feet of 3
existing R&D/office space to be replaced with 180 housing units which includes 68 detached 4
single family homes and 112 multi-family units as part of the 2005 Mayfield Development 5
Agreement. Zone: RP(AS2). 6
7
5. 1730 Embarcadero Road [13PLN-00245]: Request by Alan Cross on behalf of Carrera PRB 8
Company for Preliminary Architectural Review of additions to and renovation of the existing 9
Audi car dealership, including a new 7,380 sf showroom, 3,139 sf drop-off area, and a 1,036 sf 10
addition to the service area, along with associated site improvements and landscaping changes. 11
Zone District: Planned Community (PC-4846). 12
13
BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 14
15
6. Recap of retreat discussion on Colleagues Memo. 16
17
7. Formation of subcommittees – nomination of special topics. 18
19
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. 20
21
ADJOURNMENT OF FULL BOARD MEETING. 22
23
SUBCOMMITTEE (Currently ARB members Naseem Alizadeh and Randy Popp): 24
25
8. 2080 Channing Avenue [10PLN-00198]: Request by John Tze for review of proposed wood 26
fence and trash enclosure at the Edgewood Plaza mixed use project. Zone: Planned 27
Community (PC-5150) zoning district. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact 28
Report was certified for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality 29
Act (CEQA). 30
31
9. 3445 Alma Street [12PLN-00249: Request for feedback on proposed signs on commercial 32
building at Alma Village. Zone District Planned Community (PC-4956). Environmental 33
Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA, 15301 (Existing Facilities). 34
35
10. California Avenue Streetscape Improvements [13PLN-00211]: Request by the City of Palo 36
Alto Transportation Division for Architectural Review of streetscape improvements on 37
California Avenue, between El Camino Real and the CalTrain Station, including traffic calming 38
treatments, landscape elements with new street trees, street furniture, new street lighting, 39
parking enhancements, and a reduction from four vehicle travel lanes to two lanes. 40
Environmental Review: A Negative Declaration was adopted on November 28, 2011 for the 41
project. 42
43
STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: 44
45
Project Description: Landscape & parking modifications 46
Applicant: Richard Ying 47
Address: 200 San Antonio Avenue [13PLN-00067] 48
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Approval Date: 6/14/13 1
Request for hearing deadline: 6/27/13 2
3
Project Description: Removal of one regulated 30 inch to 40 inch diameter Redwood tree located 4
between the buildings 5
Applicant: Katie Krebs 6
Address: 2100-2400 Geng Road [13PLN-00183] 7
Approval Date: 6/17/13 8
Request for hearing deadline: 7/1/13 9
10
Project Description: Construction of new 2,753 square foot addition to the two story existing building 11
Applicant: John Suppes 12
Address: 412 Olive Avenue [13PLN-00134] 13
Approval Date: 6/20/13 14
Request for hearing deadline: 7/3/13 15
16
17
Project Description: Two new non-illuminated brushed aluminum signs to be installed on the non-18
historic fence posts located at the front of the property 19
Applicant: Dan Kitzmiller 20
Address: 421 Kipling Street [13PLN-00189] 21
Approval Date: 6/20/13 22
Request for hearing deadline: 7/3/13 23
24
Project Description: Replacement signage at the existing financial services business, Wells Fargo 25
Applicant: David Ford 26
Address: 400 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00209] 27
Approval Date: 6/24/13 28
Request for hearing deadline: 7/8/13 29
30
Project Description: The scope of the work includes only changing the existing sign color, all lettering 31
and numbering will remain the same 32
Applicant: Thomas Cacioppo 33
Address: 1601 S. California Avenue [13PLN-00241] 34
Approval Date: 6/24/13 35
Request for hearing deadline: 7/8/13 36
37
Project Description: Replacement of the existing deck surround with a code-compliant deck and railing 38
for an existing building at 1610 Sand Hill Road 39
Applicant: Janet Drake 40
Address: 1618 Sand Hill Road [13PLN-00244] 41
Approval Date: 6/26/13 42
Request for hearing deadline: 7/9/13 43
44
Project Description: Removal of five Monterey pine trees and the replacement of an existing six foot 45
high wood fence with a new high six foot concrete 46
Applicant: Paul J. Reed 47
Address: 535 Arastradero Road [13PLN-00180] 48
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Approval Date: 6/27/13 1
Request for hearing deadline: 7/10/13 2
3
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
Project Description: Two wall signs, new planters, and outdoor dining area for an existing building 2
Applicant: John Adams 3
Address: 401 Lytton Avenue [13PLN-0086] 4
Approval Date: 6/28/13 5
Request for hearing deadline: 7/11/13 6
7
Project Description: 8
Applicant: 9
Address: 10
Approval Date: 11
Request for hearing deadline: 12
13
Project Description: 14
Applicant: 15
Address: 16
Approval Date: 17
Request for hearing deadline: 18
19
20
21
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to 22
access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City’s compliance 23
with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice) 24
or by e-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. 25
26
Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 27
54956.Recordings. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 28
329-2571. 29
30
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Architectural Review Board after 31
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community 32
Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during normal 33
business hours. 34
35
36
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
June 6, 2013
Architectural Review Board
Jason M. Nortz, Senior Planner
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
240-248 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00006]: Request by Ken Hayes of
Hayes Group Architects on behalf of Forest Casa Real LLC. for Major
Architectural Review Board review for the demolition of an existing 7,000
square foot, two-story comn1ercial building and the construction of a four
story, 50 foot, mixed-use building with a new floor area of 15,000 square
feet on a site located at 240-248 Hamilton Avenue. Environmental
Assessment: an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been
prepared. Zone District: Downtown Community Commercial (CD
C)(P)(GF) with Pedestrian Shopping and Ground Floor combining districts.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) consider the project and findings
for Architectural Review approval and recommend approval of the proposed project to the
Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director), based upon the findings in
Attachment A and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment B.
BACKGROUND
Site Information
The proj ect site is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District and close to the
southen1 edge of the Commercial Downtown zone district as shown on the attached map
(Attachment C). The site is 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep and is located at the southern corner of
the Hamilton Avenue/Ramona Street intersection. Surrounding land uses include office,
restaurants and retail. Directly east of the project site on the eastern side of Ramona Street is the
eight-story Palo Alto City Hall. Directly adjacent to the project site along the western side of
Ramona Street is a two-story office building. On the southwestern side of Hamilton Avenue near
the subject property is a two-story building housing the restaurant, Reposado. Across the street on
the northern side of Hamilton Avenue is the Cardinal Hotel, a three-story commercial building
with ground floor uses that include ground floor retail, a restaurant and a hotel lobby. The hotel
occupies the remaining two floors. A four-story commercial building with ground floor retail
(University Art) and office uses on the uppers floors is located "kitty corner" to the project site.
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 1 of 8
The site is zoned Downtown Commercial with a GroWld Floor and "Pedestrian" combining
district CD-C (GF)(p). The CO-C (GF)(p) zone district is intended 10 be a comprehensive zoning
district for the downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of commercial uses serving
citywide and regional business and service needs, as well as providing for residential uses and
neighborhood service needs. The Pedestrian combining district is designed to help foster the
continuity of retail stores and display windows and to avoid monotonous pedestrian environment
in order to establish and maintain economic viability for a healthy retail district. The Ground
Floor combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in the CD district and sub districts
to allow only retail. eating and drinking and other service-oriented commercial development uses
on the ground floor.
The mixed use project includes pemitted uses: ground floor retail use with two floors of offices
and one floor of residential.
Project Description
The project is the demolition of an existing 7,000 square foot, two-story commercial building and
the construction of a four-story, 50-foot tall, mixed-use building with a floor area of 15,000 square
feet, via "bonus" floor area including the use of Transferrable Development Rights (TDRs). The
ground floor would be retail with office space occupying floors two and three. The fourth floor
would be entirely residential consisting of two residential W1its. Four on-site parking spaces would
be provided for the two residential units. The parking spaces would be provided in a garage
located one level below grade.
The total floor area in the completed project would be 15,000 sq. ft. This includes t 1,527 sq. ft.
for conunercial uses on the first, second and third floors and 3,473 sq. ft. within two residential
units on the fowth floor. The total floor area breakdown for the project site is as follows:
Office Retail Residential
First Floor: 400 sf 2,337 sf 201 sf
Second Floor: 4,395 sf 134 sf
Third Floor: 4,395 sf t34 sf
FOW1b Floor: 3,004 sf
Total: 9,190 sf 2,337 sf 3,473 sf
Building Total: 15,000 sf
The building would have a one story retail base set bock from the second nnd third floors by
approximately seven feet along Hamilton Avenue and three feet along Ramona Street. The ground
iloor would provide a rhytlun of clear storefront glass, recesses and awnings to reinforce the
pedestrian experience. The second and third floors would function as the "architectural block"
that defmes the commercial office portion of the building. The fourth floor, would be
predominantly clad in windows and would be smaller and set back from the second and third
floors. to reduce the apparent height and mass of the building.
13P LN-OOOOO-00006 Page 2 ors
The applicant has requested a variance to encroach into the required seven foot special setback
along Hamilton Avenue, and to encroach into the required six foot special setback along Ramona
Street. Further discussion on the variance request is provided below.
Additional project details are included in the applicant's project description included as
Attachment G and H.
Sustainable Design
The proj ect would incorporate a variety of sustainable design and transportation friendly concepts
that would help the development achieve both Cal Green Tier II requirements for the commercial
portion of the project and meet Build it Green, Green Point Rated requirements for the residential
portion of the project. In addition, in an effort to reduce overall energy consumption all spaces
will be designed around maximizing daylight through the use of various transparent elements.
DISCUSSION
Floor Area Ratio/Transferred Developnlent Rights
The project includes a request to utilize floor area bonuses in the form of "Transferable
Development Rights" (TDRs), to be transferred from an off-site historical rehabilitation project.
A total of 5,000 square feet ofTDRs would be purchased and transferred to the site, from 230-232
Homer Avenue, where the TDRs were acquired through both a seismic and historic rehabilitation
of the building. The proposal would also utilize a one-time, 200 square foot bonus, as provided in
PAMC Section 18.18.070. The bonus floor area is considered "exempt" from having to provide
the parking spaces otherwise associated with an expansion of conmlercial floor area. The parking
provisions for the project are discussed later in this report section.
Setback Variance
The zoning map shows a seven foot special setback and a six foot special setback along certain
streets in the core of the Downtown, as imposed by the special setback map. A seven foot special
setback is applied along the Hamilton Avenue side of the subject property, and a six foot special
setback is applied along the Ranl0na Street side of the project site. The seven foot special setback
exists on both sides of Hamilton Avenue, extending from Waverley Street to Alma Street. The six
foot special setback only exists at two locations in the core of Downtown; 1) along eastern edge of
Bryant Street between Hamilton and Channing Avenues, and 2) along Ramona Street between
Hamilton and Forest Avenues. Furthermore, there are only two corners in all of Downtown where
both a seven foot and six foot special setback are applied; 1) at the northeastenl comer of
Hamilton A venue and Bryant Street (Washington Mutual building), and 2) at the northwestern
corner of Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street (project site). The applicant has requested a
Variance for: 1) a three foot encroachment into the required six foot special setback along
Ramona Street, and 2) a seven foot encroachment into the required seven foot special setback
along Hamilton Avenue. It should be noted that only nine feet of the 45 foot wide building wall
along Hamilton Avenue would encroach seven feet into the special setback (for the purposes of
accommodating an enclosed stairwell). The remaining 36 feet of building wall would encroach
approximately five inches into the special setback. The current sidewalk between the existing
building and Ramona Street is six feet wide, which is consistent with the sidewalk adjacent to
existing buildings on Ramona Street between Forest and Hanlilton A venues. The current sidewalk
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 3 of 8
width between the existing building and Hanlilton Avenue is eight feet, which is consistent with
the width of sidewalk adjacent to existing buildings on Hamilton Avenue between Ranl0na and
Enlerson Streets.
F or purposes of determining the setback, the measurement is taken at the property line and not the
face of curb. As it is currently situated, the existing building is on the property line on both the
Ramona Street and Hamilton Avenue sides of the project. If the special setbacks were applied to
the development, the result would be a 15 foot wide sidewalk along Hamilton Avenue and a 12
foot wide sidewalk along Ramona Street, both of which would result in significantly increased
sidewalk widths that would be inconsistent with the sidewalks imnlediately adjacent to the project
site.
The requested Variance would allow the project to provide a sidewalk width of approximately 11
feet along Hamilton Avenue, and 10 feet along Ranl0na Street, both of which meet or exceed the
sidewalk width requirements in the Downtown. The wider sidewalk and more importantly, the
shift of the building mass, would improve the pedestrian experience and enhance the opportunity
for retail activity along Hamilton Avenue.
Approval and implementation of the Variance request would result in the new building not being
as deeply set back from the adjacent buildings on the same side of the block. This would help
maintain the existing continuity. The applicant has requested the special setback encroachments to
reduce the loss of valuable ground floor retail square footage and to reduce the gap between the
other commercial buildings on Hamilton A venue and Bryant Street.
Parking/Circulation
As noted, the site is within the Downtown Assessment District. Currently, the project site
provides no on-site parking spaces. There are six off-site parking spaces directly adjacent to the
site. Three of the six spaces are located along Hamilton Avenue. The renlaining three spaces are
located along Ramona Street. There will be a net deficiency in the nurnber of off-site parking
spaces directly adjacent to the site, due to the proposed curb cut along Ramona Street for the
purpose of creating a new driveway for the underground parking lot. The loss of two curbside
parking spaces may incrementally add to parking concerns in the downtown and surrounding
neighborhoods. Those impacts, however, will not cause significant increases in congestion or
deterioration in air quality. The loss of the two off-site parking spaces will be offset by the
applicant's provision of in-lieu payments for two parking spaces. Staff is currently working with
the applicant to further study the possibility of reducing the size of the loading zone in front of the
project site along Ramona Street for the purpose of providing one additional off-site parking
space.
The proposed project is only required to provide three parking spaces for the two residential units
located on the fourth floor. The project is providing four spaces. The renlaining three floors of
non-residential floor area, consisting of 11,527 square feet of floor area, is not associated with a
requirement for provision of off-site parking spaces for the following reasons:
1. The existing 7,000 square feet of commercial floor area is grandfathered in the Downtown
Assessment District (assessed previously for 20 parking spaces. See Attachment H,
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 4 of 8
Exhibit 2) and as such is not required to provide parking spaces on site for the existing
amount of floor area;
2. 4,327 square feet of commercial floor area would be transferred to the site, via a Transfer
of Development Rights (TDR) from a valid sender site to an eligible receiver site. These
are valid, recorded Transferable Development Rights (TDR). The first 5,000 square feet
of floor area transferred to a receiver site is exempt from the otherwise applicable on-site
parking requirements for new floor area.
3. The remaining 200 square feet of commercial floor area (7,000 sf + 4,327 sf + 200 sf =
11,527st) is exempt from parking due to a one time allowable 200 square foot bonus, per
PAMC 18.18.070.
Due to limited space, the four residential parking spaces would be two, tandem "stacking" parking
spaces. The proposed parking configuration would also eliminate the need for shared or attendant
parking between the two units. The stacking systenl would have a below grade space as well as
two above grade spaces so that there are three locations for two vehicles. This nleans a single
operator can raise or lower a car out of the way of his or her vehicle thereby eliminating the need
for an attendant or for coordination between roommates. Rather than entering the covered garage
parking spaces facing into the building and then backing onto Ramona Street and crossing the
sidewalk in reverse and with dangerous, unclear vision, drivers would enjoy a vehicle rotating
turntable (Attachment I Sheet A2.1). The turntable would allow any car exiting the project site to
be spun around so that it exits facing onto Ramona Street, therefore providing better visibility of
the Ramona Street sidewalk and pedestrians.
Downtown Floor Area Cap
An annual monitoring report on the Comnlercial Downtown zoning area is mandated by the
Conlprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9 that require reporting of non-residential development
activity and trends within the CD zone district. These reports are also required as a result of final
action on the Downtown Study adopted by the City Council in 1986. The Downtown Study
incorporated a growth limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area over the total floor area
existing in 1986, and provided for a re-evaluation of the CD regulations when new development
reaches 235,000 square feet.
Since 1986, a total of 223 ,210 square feet of non-residential floor area has been added in the
Downtown CD-C zoned area. In the past two monitoring cycles from 2009-2011, approximately
34,650 square feet of net new commercial floor area was added with a few major contributing
projects such as 524 Hamilton Avenue and 265 Lytton Avenue. In this current cycle, 2011-2012,
approximately 49,860 square feet of net new commercial floor area has been added through one
major project, 335-355 Alnla st. (aka; 101 Lytton Ave.). Based on this recent nlonitoring, an
additional 11,790 square feet of new non-residential development remains for development before
the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached.
The existing building consists of 7,000 square feet of non-residential floor area. The proposed
project would add an additional 4,527 square feet of non-residential floor area, which would
minimally contribute towards the limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area.
Context Based Design Criteria
The proposed building design appears to be consistent with many of the requirements of the
Context-Based Design Criteria as outlined in Section 18.18.110 of the Zoning Code. In summary,
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 5 of 8
the project would provide pedestrian walk-ability, a bicycle-friendly environment, connectivity
through design elements, and street facades having a strong relationship with the sidewalks and
the street to support and encourage pedestrian activity. Bicycle storage is to be provided in the
below grade parking garage as well as at grade along both Hanlilton Avenue and Ramona Street.
The ground floor design is intended to be an attractive streetscape design with a cOITlbination of
clear frameless glass, porcelain tile and stainless steel canopies above each entrance along
Ramona and Hamilton. Separate entrances would also be provided for each use along the first
floor including the main lobby area.
The building would minimize massing with increased setbacks at the first floor in addition to
other design elements, such as a recessed entry and canopies that would be located above the
prinlary entry points. The first floor design employs different materials and colors, including
porcelain tile, clear frameless glass and cedar cladded garage door. Floors two through three are
designed to function as the "architectural block" that distinguishes the commercial office portion
of the building from the rest of the building. This area would primarily consist of a structural
glazed curtain wall with a combination of clear dual glazed glass and translucent lanlinate glass.
The area would be outlined by a cream colored limestone wall. The residential units on the fourth
floor would be set back from the block face below. The units would be capped with a hip roof
composed of nletal and outlined by a composite metal panel. The elevator shaft and stairwells
would be white cement plaster.
The parking design is consistent with the design criteria in that the parking spaces would be
located below grade and is concealed from public view by a recessed garage door.
Downtown Urban Design Guide
The Downtown Urban Design Guide is meant to advise the applicant, staff and the ARB regarding
development and design in the downtown area. The Downtown Urban Design Guide divides the
dowiltown area into districts, each having a unique identity and design characteristics. The site is
located within the Hamilton Avenue District according to the Downtown Urban Design Guide.
The Hanlilton Avenue District is a nlixed office/commercial/retail district with sonle residential
uses. The prinlary goal of the Hamilton Avenue District is to promote Hanlilton Avenue as an
active mixed use district with a pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian experience. The development of
three or more story buildings surrounding Civic Center Plaza are encouraged to help create a
stronger urban edge within this area.
The proposed project is consistent with the recommendations for this district. Staff finds that this
project, with its extensive use of storefront glazing, first floor recesses and canopies, and
pedestrian friendly amenities such as sunshades, street trees and anlple sidewalk widths, would
contribute significantly to the goal of creating an exciting pedestrian environment. The guidelines
also encourage additional height for buildings at comers. The proposed building of 50 feet is
consistent with both the Zoning Code and the Downtown Urban Design Guide.
Trees/Landscape Plan
The existing project site is a completely built out site that contains no open space or any
significant landscaping. There are six regulated street trees located around the perimeter of the
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 6 of 8
subject property. Two Flowering Pear trees are located in the public right-of-way along Hamilton
Avenue. The remaining four trees are located along Ramona Street and include· three Japanese
Pagoda trees and two London Plane trees. The City Arborist has recommended removal of all six
trees. The existing trees would be replaced with five new street trees. The City Arborist is
currently working with the applicant to determine the appropriate species type and location.
Open space for the developn1ent would be provided as a combination of six terraces and ground
floor recessed areas. On the fourth floor, four terraces (two for each residential unit) totaling 1,114
square feet would be provided, where the minimum requirement is 200 square feet of usable open
space for each residential unit. There would also be two identically sized terraces on each of the
second and third floors, totaling 71 square feet each. Additional open space is provided along the
ground floor in the forn1 of recessed areas beyond the 10 feet of sidewalk along both Hamilton
A venue and Ramona Street. Additional information pertaining to open space requirements can be
found in the zoning comparison table provided as Attachn1ent D.
Signage
Signs are not included in this ARB application. The proposal for signage would be a separate
architectural review application and depending on the level of detail, would be reviewed by the
ARB or staff on behalf of the ARB. The applicant has been requested to indicate potential
locations on the building for signage. Currently, blade signs are not allowed unless they are
placed underneath a canopy or a Sign Exception is requested and approved for such signage.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 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 20-day public review and comment period
beginning on May 10, 2013 and ending on May 30, 2013. Mitigation measures are proposed to
address biological resources, seismicity and noise. To date, no comments have been received on
the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project would not have an impact on fish or
wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources. The use is appropriate for the
site and the development would not result in an adverse visual impact.
ATTACHMENTS
A. ARBN ariance Findings
B. Conditions of Approval
C. Location Map
D. Zoning Compliance Table
E. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Policies
F. Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration
G. Applicant's Project Description
H. Applicant's Submittal Packet (Board Members only)
I. Plan Set received January 7, 2013 (Board Members only)
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 7 of 8
COURTESY COPIES
Sal Giovanotto, Owner
Ken Hayes, ArchitectJ Applicant ... h
Prepared By: Jason M. Nortz, Senior Pianntr I
Manager Review: Amy French, ChiefPianning OffiCi~
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT A
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND VARIANCE
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
240-248 Hamilton Ave. / File No. 13PLN-00000-00006
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 and historical importance of the
area as described in the Comprehensive Plan and reinforces its pedestrian character. The
proposed project for a new mixed use building is consistent with the land use
designation. The project is also consistent with The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
policies related to business and economics. The Comprehensive Plan encourages
owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that these commercial
areas are more competitive and better serve the conununity. The commercial properties
could be redesigned to be more attractive and inviting for pedestrians;
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. This finding can
be made in the affirmative in that the project is located at a prominent comer of the
commercial downtown in an environment with other large retail/office buildings. The
project is designed as a four-story, 50 foot building that is adjacent to similarly sized
buildings. The building has been designed to encourage pedestrian activity;
(3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project. This finding c'an be made in the
affirmative in that the design would accommodate the proposed retail, office and
residential uses. The proposed building would have ample storefront glass, recesses, and
awnings to create an inviting retail and pedestrian environment. The design is also
consistent with the requirements and recommendations of both the Context Based
Design Criteria and the Downtown Urban Design Guide;
(4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character. This finding can be made in
the affirmative in that the overall design is consistent with the Downtown Urban Design
Guide guidelines in the following ways:
a. The project creates enhanced vehicular and pedestrian entries;
b. The project provides varied building mass and height;
c. The project maintains Hamilton Ave. as pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian
environment with complimentary outdoor amenities.
(5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between
different designated land uses. This finding is not applicable in that this project is not
, situated in a transition area between different designated land uses;
240 Hamilton Ave 13PLN-00006 Page 1
(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 retail/commercial downtown 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
location is shifted three feet away from the Ramona St. curb and four feet away from
Hamilton Ave. to provide wider sidewalks to encourage pedestrian activity ,down
Hamilton Ave;
(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 or recesses to the zoning requirements of the
"P" overlay and the intent to add interest at the ground floor for pedestrians.
Additionally, the project provides sufficient open space for the residential component in
the form of four rooftop terraces;
(9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project
. and the same are compatible with the project's design concept. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that project includes sufficient automobile and. bicycle
parking, and common open space areas. The project includes widening the walkable
area for the sidewalks on both Ramona St. and Hamilton A ve. to enhance vehicular and
pedestrian safety;
(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 its greater setback on Ramona St.
and Hamilton Ave. The project also creates an effective and safe automobile
ingress/egress point for the residential occupants;
(11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. This
finding can be made in the affirmative in that the existing city street trees adjacent to the
proposed building will be removed and replaced with new street trees that are consistent
with other street trees in the direct vicinity;
(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 are will add detail and interest and
are compatible with the commercial retail environment.
(13) The landscape design conceptfor 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 is not applicable in that there is no proposed
landscaping.
240 Hamilton Ave 13PLN-00006 Page 2
)
'1
!i
3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
the purposes of this title (Zoning).
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Policies, Programs and Goals)
as outlined in Attachment E of the Staff Report.
4. The granting of the application will not be injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or
convenience.
The proposed setbacks of three feet along Ramona S1. and no setback to 6.5 feet along
Hamilton Ave. will improve the existing sidewalk width by adding four additional feet in
width to the sidewalk to Ramona S1. and three feet additional sidewalk width to Hamilton
Ave. The increased sidewalk widths will provide for a better overall pedestrian friendly
experience with the Hamilton Ave. District of Downtown. The requested encroachments
into the special setback would not result in a detrimental impact as it is an improvement
over the existing situation which is a zero setback in this location.
240 Hamilton Ave 13PLN-00006 Page 5
Planning
Attachment B
Conditions of Approval
240-248 Hamilton Avenue/ 13PLN-00006
1. The cover sheet lists the assessor's parcel as 139-96-797. Our records indicate the assessor's
parcel number is 120-27-010.
2. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans and related documents
received January 7, 2013 except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.
3. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building
permits related to this project.
5. The current project is approved to use the one-time 200 square foot FAR bonus, as permitted per
PAMC 18.18.070(a)(1), and cannot utilize this bonus again for any future development.
6. New construction and alterations in the CD-C zoning district shall be required to design ground
floor space to accommodate retail use and shall comply with the provisions of the Pedestrian (P)
combining district.
7. The proposed project requires 5,000 square feet of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). Prior
to building permit submittal, the applicant shall provide sufficient information so that the
Director of PI am ling and Comnlunity Environment can issue written confirmation of the transfer,
which identifies both the sender and receiver sites and the anlount of TDRs which have been
transferred. This confirmation shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder prior to the
issuance of building permits and shall include the written consent or assignment by the owner( s)
of the TDRs where such owner(s) are other than the applicant
8. Development Impact Fees, estimated at $262,671.82 shall be paid prior to the issuance of the
project's building permit.
9. F or anyon-street parking spaces that are renl0ved to accommodate the project's driveway curb
cut, the applicant shall be required to pay parking in-lieu fees for the nurrlber of spaces lost. This
fee shall be due to the City prior to the issuance of the project's building permit.
10. All future signage for this site shall be submitted for Architectural Review.
11. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In
the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit
240 Hamilton Ave Page 1
specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application
for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration.
12. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who desires to protest the fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the
protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within
ninety (90) days after the 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 fOlih in Government Code Section 66020. IF
YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DA Y PERIOD OR TO FOLLOW
THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020,
YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE V ALIDITY OR
REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND
EXACTIONS.
13. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the time by
which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
14. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold hamlless 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.
Transportation
1. Car stacker system should provide enough width and depth for full size SUV. Provide
details, etc. of the system for further review.
2. Long term bike parking for office use is not apparent. Please identify. Long ternl bike
parking for office cannot be shared with residential unless separate lockers.
3. Parking reductions assumed. Significant credits/reductions assumed could be opposed.
Consider providing underground parking, possibly with a vehicle elevator (instead of ranlp)
to achieve additional parking.
4. Include loss of on-street parking due to new garage.
Public Works Urban Forestry
1. Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of public trees # 1-6.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 2
2. Six publicly owned trees are growing in the right-of-way along the Han1ilton and Ramona
streets. Parking garage ramp and other in-ground elements that will limit new tree growth
potential shall be identified. As mitigation to offset the net loss for years of public resource
investments and minimize the future years to parity with infrastructure benefits (Co2
reduction, extended asphalt life, water mgmt., etc.) currently provided by the trees, the new
frontage should be provided maximum streets cape design and n1aterials to include the
following elements:
• Consistency with the Public Works Departn1ent Tree Management Program.
Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume
resources.
• Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such
as permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base, and
services due to being situated within the public right-of-way.
Public Works Engineering
1. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those
portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters, curb ramps or driveway approaches in the
public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked,
displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpem1itted pavement in the planter strip.
Contact Public Works' inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can
determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit
plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works'
inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right
of-way must be done per Public Works' standards by a licensed contractor who must first
obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center.
2. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street
trees in the public right-of-way along the property's frontage(s). Call the Public Works'
arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can detem1ine what street tree work, if
any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan
set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species,
size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works'
arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do
street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public
Right-oi-Way from Public Works' arborist (650-496-5953).
3. SUBDIVISION: A parcel/condo map will be required if there are any units that are proposed
"for sale". The developer will be required to provide a preliminary parcel map and a parcel
map for city review and approval. The Grading/Excavation and Building permits will not be
issued until the parcel map is recorded.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 3
4. STEET RESURFACING: The developer will be required to resurface the entire frontage of
each street adjacent to the property out to the centerline of the street upon completion of
onsite construction. The resurfacing will consist of a slurry seal or grinding 2" of the existing
asphalt and overlaying 2" asphalt pavement per Public Works' standards. Public Works will
make the determination between slurry seal and grind/overlay by inspecting the condition of
the road and estimating the construction impacts. Thermoplastic striping of the street(s) will
be required after resurfacing.
The following comments are provided to assist the applicant at the building permit phase. You
can obtain various plan set details, forms and guidelines from Public Works at the City's
Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on Public Works' website:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms~ermits.
Include in plans submitted for a building permit:
5. 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 stagnant water that
could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement
level spaces are at least 7-3/4" 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.
6. GARAGEIBASEMENT 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.
7. DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public
Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater
dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed fronl April through October due to
inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list
the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the
soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to
excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest
excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater
is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be
240 Hamilton Ave Page 4
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.
8. 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.
9. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan
prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and propos~d spot elevations and
drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope
away from the structure a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown
on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed
that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public
Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street
gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater on site as much as feasible by directing
runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site.
10. GRADING & EXCA V ATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit
must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit if the total cubic
yardage of dirt being cut for the garage lift and elevator pit is more than 100 cubic yards. The
application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website.
11. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention
-It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from
Public Works at the Development Center or on our website.
12. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal,
relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of
street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This
approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City
requirements.
13. WORK IN THE RIGHT-Of-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is
proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or
utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards
240 Hamilton Ave Page 5
and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from
Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than
the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway n1ust be replaced
with a thickened (6" thick instead of the standard 4" thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts
and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter
and planter strip.
14. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet
or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the
existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The
Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the
Development Center or on our website.
15. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, "The contractor
using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is
safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007
California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or
less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around
construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must
obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to
provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk."
16. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works
Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City's right-of-way,
including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material
deliveries, contractor's parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust
control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor's contact, noticing of affected
businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work permit.
Public Works Environmental Services
Please note the following issues must be addressed in building plans prior to final approval by this
department:
General Comments:
• Consider providing separate service for residential and commercial units
• Trash rooms located in garage will require bins to be placed curbside on collection day or
pull-out service at an additional charge.
1. P AMC 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
(A) Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior
enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable n1aterials in appropriate containers, and that
trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably
240 Hamilton Ave Page 6
possible. (B) Requirements: (i) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all
residents or users of the property. (ii) Recycling facilities shall be located, sized, and designed to
encourage and facilitate convenient use. (iii) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be
screened from public view by masonry or other opaque and durable material, and shall be
enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided where feasible. Chain
link enclosures are strongly discouraged. (iv) Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be
architecturally compatible with the design of the project. (v) The design, construction and
accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural
review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the
city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
2. P AMC 5.20.120 Recycling storage design requirements
The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or expanded building or other facility shall
provide for proper storage, handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the solid waste
and recyclable materials loading anticipated and which will allow for the efficient and safe
collection. The design shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 18.22.100,
18.24.100, 18.26.100, 18.32.080, 18.37.080, 18.41.080, 18.43.080, 18.45.080,,18.49.140,
18.55.080,18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code.
All Services:
a) Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance, street width and turnaround space) and
street parking are common issues pertaining to new developments. Adequate space
must be provided for vehicle access.
b) Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed by the solid waste vehicles (roads,
driveways, pads) must be rated to 60,000 lbs. This includes areas where permeable
pavement is used.
c) Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or charges will apply.
d) Carts and bins nlust be able to roll without obstacles or curbs to reach service areas
"no jumping curbs"
3. Garbage, Recycling, and Yard Waste/Compostables cartlbin location and sizing
Office Building
The proposed commercial development must follow the requirements for recycling
container spacel . Project plans must show the placement of recycling containers, for
example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection space should be
provided for built-in recycling containers/storage on each floor/office or alcoves for the
placement of recycling containers.
• Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams-
1 In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles I and 2
240 Hamilton Ave Page 7
garbage, recycling, and compostables.
• Collection cannot be performed in underground. Underground bins locations require a
minimum of77" of vertical clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push
services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the
property owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible·
location for collection.
• All service areas must have a clearance height of 20' for bin service.
• New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce ware and tear on walls.
For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables collection issues, contact
Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894.
4. PAMC 5.24.030 Construction and Demolition Debris (eDD)
. Covered projects shall comply with construction and demolition debris diversion rates and
other requirements established in Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building Code). In
I. addition, all debris generated bya covered project must Qaul1 00 percent of the debris not
salvaged for reuse to an approved facility as set forth in this chapter.
Contact the City of Palo Alto's Green Building Coordinator for assistance on how to
recycle construction and demolition debris from the project, including information on
where to conveniently recycle the material.
Utilities Electrical Engineering
1. The Utilities will require space on the private property for installing a pad mounted
transformer to serve the proposed building at the above location.
2. Pad mounted transformer location must be shown on the plans. Utilities will require a
minimum clearance of 8' in the front and 3' around the transformer.
3. Public Utility Easements shall be granted as required by the City.
4. Any extension of the power distribution lines/relocation of existing utilities or offsite
modification that needs to be done for providing electric service to the building will be at
applicant's expense. Any non-standard installation requested by the applicant shall be
treated as a "Special Facilities" and in that case special facility charges will become
applicable.
5. Applicant shall provide preliminary electric load calculations for sizing the transformer.
Transformer procurement lead time is 6-8 months.
6. Utilities will provide detailed comments and cost estimates when plans are submitted to
240 Hamilton Ave Page 8
the Building Department for review and approval
Utilities Water Gas Wastewater
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT
1. 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.
2. 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
3. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection
application -load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the
information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in
b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing
(prior) loads, the new loads, and the combinedltotalloads (the new loads plus any
existing loads to remain).
4. 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.
5. 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). The
applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains
andlor 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 andlor services.
6. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study
showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will
provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the
development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing
may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 9
Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is
required to perform, at hislher expense, a flow n10nitoring study of the existing sewer
main to determine the remaining capacity. The report nlust include existing peak flows or
depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of thirty continuous days or as
determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and
the approval of the WOW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing
sewer main will be permitted.
7. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall
submit to the WOW 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 departnlent 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.
8. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPP A 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 RPP A on the plans.
9. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water
connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative
code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be
allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU's approval). reduced pressure
detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property
line, within 5' of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector
assembly on the plans.
10. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WO W engineering division.
Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe
between the meter and the assembly. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector
is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 10
11. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at
the applicant's expense.
12. Existing water services that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the
applicant's expense.
13. 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.
14. 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 .
. 15. A separate water meter and packflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved
landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall
be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the
account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading
or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards.
16. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service
connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and
install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required
control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of
the new water service and meter on the plans.
17. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the location
of the new water service and meter on the plans.
18. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required if existing service is
not nleeting current standards. Show the location of the new water service on the plans.
The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire
system including all fire department's requirements.
19. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas nleter location on the
plans. The gas meter lo.cation must conform with utilities standard details.
20. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer
lateral on the plans
21. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private
240 Hamilton Ave Page 11
property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa
Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities
easement across the adj acent parcels as is necessary to serve the development.
22. Where public mains are installed in private streetslPlTEs for condominium and town
home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement~ "Public Utility
Easements: If the City's reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown
as P. UE on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the
responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of
the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of
the City". All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be
abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures.
23. lTtility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be
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.
24. 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.
25. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards
for water, gas & wastewater.
26. For contractor installed water and wastewater n1ains or services, the applicant shall
prepare and subn1it to the WGW engineering section of the lTtilities Department as-built
drawings at the completion of construction of the installation of water and wastewater
utilities to be owned and maintained by the City in accordance with:
1. Two sets of as-built drawings (hard copies).
2. As-built drawings in 2008 or 2010 AutoCAD fonnat.
3. As-built drawings in .tiff fonnat.
4. Survey points in .csv fonnat for all new utility features.
Note: All survey data shall be collected by a California Licensed Land Surveyor. The
surveyor is responsible to setup all control points needed to perfonn the survey work.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 12
The accuracy for all survey data shall be +/ -1 cm.
Survey data to be collected (what's applicable):
1. Collect horizontal and vertical data for:
1. Sanitary sewer manholes (rinl and invert elevations and depth)
2. Storm drain manholes and catch basins (rim and invert elevations and depth)
3. Water valves (cove~ and stem elevations)
Fire Department
1. Provide a Fire Apparatus Access Plan. Show elevations and how P AFD Ladder Truck
will be utilized.
2. Provide an egress plan.
Public Work Water Quality
We have reviewed the site floor plans for this project. Please note the following issues
must be addressed in building plans prior to final approval by this department:
1. PAMe 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water
pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require
gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the
water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or
federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm
drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits
contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09 .040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of
the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs
it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule.
2. P AMC 16.09.180(b )(9) Covered Parking
Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be comlected to an oil/water separator
with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system
3. PAMe 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities
New buildings and residential developnlents providing centralized soiid 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 strean1s and designed with grading or a berm
system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area.
4. PAMe 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down
240 Hamilton Ave Page 13
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.
5. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system.
6. 16.09.215 Silver Processing
Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray films) shall either submit a
treatment application or waste hauler certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-
329-2421.
7. PAMC 16.09.180(b )(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines,
connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and
short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The
plans nlust specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater pluITlbing.
8. PAMC 16.09.220(c)(1) Dental Facilities That Remove or Place Amalgam Fillings
An ISO 11143 certified anlalgam separator device shall be installed for each dental vacuum
suction system. The installed device must be ISO 11143 certified as capable of removing a
minimum of95 percent of amalgam. The amalgam separator system shall be certified at flow
rates comparable to the flow rate of the actual vacuum suction system operation. Neither the
separator device nor the related plumbing shall include an automatic flow bypass. For
facilities that require an amalgam separator that exceeds the practical capacity of ISO 11143
test methodology, a non-certified separator will be accepted, provided that smaller units from
the same manufacturer and of the same technology are ISO-certified.
9. 16.09.215 Silver Processing
Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray films) shall either submit a
treatment application or waste hauler certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-
329-2598.
10. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps.
11. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat
Exchangers
240 Hamilton Ave Page 14
It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers
and heat exchangers to the storm drain system.
12. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Stornl Drain Labeling
Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping -Flows to Bay," or
equivalent.
Undesignated Retail Space:
13. 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)
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 nunlber of proposed manholes on the GCD. The
Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department nlay 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)
1. GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and indicated on plans.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 15
ExampleGCD
Sizing Calculation:
Note:
Quantity
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
Drainage Fixture & Item Number
Pre-rinse sink, Item 1
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
Floor 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 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 GeD 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, GeD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 18
The City of
Palo Alto
ATIACHMENT C
Location Map
240-248 Hamilton Ave.
This map is a pnxluct of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-.
~'
ATTACHMENT D
ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE
240-248 Hamilton Avenue / File No. 13PLN-00006
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE PROPOSED
FOR CD-C(GF)(P) ZONE DISTRICT DISTRICT PROJECT
STANDARD
Site coverage (building footprint) None required 5,000 sq.ft
Floor area (gross floor area) 1.0:1 15,000 sq. ft.
3: 1w/ allowed
floor area
bonuses for
mixed use=
15,000 sq.ft.
Building setback
Front (Hamilton Ave.) 7' 0' -6.5'
Special setback requirement special setback
Rear 0' -commercial 0'
10' -residential 10'
Interior Side 0' 0' i
Street side (Ramon St.) 6' 3'
Special setback requirement special setback
Building height
50' 50'
Landscape Open Space Coverage 20% or 1,000 sf 35% or 1,789
Usable Open Space 200 sf/unit or 1,114 sf
400 sf
CONFORMANCE
N/A
conforms
Variance requested
for 7 foot to 5 inch
encroachment
conforms
conforms
Variance requested
for 3 foot special
setback
encroachment
conforms
conforms
conforms
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE PROPOSED CONFORMANCE
FOR CD-C(GF)(P) ZONE DISTRICT DISTRICT PROJECT
I STANDARD
Parking:
Commercial 11250 sf N one required -conforms
a) additional
floor area
fron1 TDR
(5,000 sf)
and seismic
bonus are
exempt from
parking
requirements
b) 7,000 sf of
existing floor
area that is
not parked is
grandfathered
In
Residential 1.5 spaces/unit
or 3 spaces 4 spaces conforms
Bicycle 2 long term 2 long term conforms
3 short term 4 short term
ATTACHMENT E
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE
240-248 Hamilton Avenue / File No. 13PLN-00000-00006
Program L-19: Support implementation of
the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The
Downtown Urban Design Guide is not
mandatory but provides useful ideas and
direction for private developn1ent and public
improvement in the Downtown area.
Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the
University A venuelDowntown area as the
central business district of the City, with a
mIX of commercial, civic, cultural,
recreational and residential uses. Promote
quality design that recognizes the regional
and historical importance· of the area and
reinforces its pedestrian character.
Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative
design and site planning that is compatible
with surrounding development and . public
spaces.
The project incorporates many of the goals of
the Downtown Urban Design Guide including:
(1) Promote Hamilton A ve. as an active
mixed use district which comfortably
accommodates larger scale commercial
office, civic, and institutional buildings.
(2) Maintain Hamilton Ave. as a pleasing,
tree-lined pedestrian environment.
The project incorporates several design
considerations contained In the Downtown
Urban Design Guide in that the project design
would: (1) complement the design of
surrounding buildings In scale, proportion,
materials (2) maintains a human scale to its
street fayade, 3) provides pedestrian friendly
amenities such as recessed entries, canopies, and
new street trees.
The design of the new building fits well with the
retail pedestrian environment of the downtown
commercial district.
Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize The project is consistent with this policy in that
streets and public spaces and to enhance a the proposed building would incorporate a
sense of community and personal safety. rhythm of clear glass windows, recessed
Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, entryway, and metal canopIes on both the
windows, bays and balconies along public Hamilton Avenue and the Ramona Street
ways where it IS consistent with frontages.
neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid
walls at street level; and include human-scale
details and massing.
Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as The proposed mixed use project provides two
a means of increasing the housing supply housing units.
while promoting diversity and neighborhood
vitality.
ATIACHMENT F
240-248 Hamilton Avenue,
240-248 Hamilton Avenue
Initial Study
Prepared by
City of Palo Alto
May 10, 2013
Page 1 Negative Declaration
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request by Ken Hayes of Hayes Group Architects on behalf of
Forest Casa Real LLC. for Major Architectural Review Board review for the demolition of an existing
5,000 square foot, two -story cornnlercial building and the construction of a four-story, 50 foot, mixed
use building with a new floor area of 15,000 square feet on a site located at 240-248 Hamilton Avenue.
Environmental Assessment: an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared.
Zone District: Downtown Community Commercial (CD-C)(P)(GF) with Pedestrian Shopping and
Ground Floor combining districts.
1. PROJECT TITLE
240-248 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
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
Jason Nortz, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
650-617-3137
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
Ken Hayes
2657 Spring StreetRedwood City, CA 94063
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
13PLN-00006
6. PROJECT LOCATION
240-248 Hamilton Avenue
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 2 Negative Declaration
Palo Alto
Parcel Numbers: 120-27-010
The project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa
Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of State Route 82 (El Camino Real), as shown on
Figure 1, Regional Map. The parcel is contained within the city block bounded by Hamilton Avenue to
the northwest Ramona Street the northeast, Emerson Street to the southwest and Forest Avenue to the
southeast, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map.
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
240-248 Hamilton Avenue is designated as Regional Community Commercial in the Palo Alto 1998 -
2010 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation includes office, retail, and residential land uses.
Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village, and University
A venuelDowntown district.
8. ZONING
The site is zoned Downtown Commercial with a Ground Floor and "Pedestrian" combining district CD-C
(GF)(P). The CD-C (GF)(P) zone district is intended to be a comprehensive zoning district for the
downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of commercial uses serving citywide and regional
business and service needs, as well as providing for residential uses and neighborhood service needs.
The Pedestrian combining district is designed to help foster the continuity of retail stores and display
windows and to avoid monotonous pedestrian environment in order to establish and maintain economic
viability for a healthy retail district.
The Ground Floor combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in the CD district and
subdistricts to allow only retail, eating and drinking and other service-oriented commercial development
uses on the ground floor.
The mixed use project is a permitted use in this zone district in that it proposes to provide a ground floor
retail use with two floors of office and one floor of residential.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of an application for Major Architectural Review Board review for the demolition of
an existing 7,000 square foot, two -story commercial building and the construction of a four-story, 50
foot, mixed-use, building with a floor area of 15,000 square feet. The ground floor would be retail with
office space occupying floors two and three. The fourth floor would be entirely residential consisting of
two residential units. Four on-site parking spaces would be provided for the two residential units. The
parking would be provided in a one level below grade parking garage. The project proposes to utilize
floor area bonuses in the form of "Transferable Development Rights" (TDRs) from an off-site historical
rehabilitation project. A total of 5,000 square feet ofTDR would be purchased and transferred from 230-
232 Homer Avenue where the TDR was acquired through both a seismic and historic rehabilitation of the
building. The proposal would also utilize the one-time 200 square feet bonus as provided in P AMC
Section 18.18.070. The total 1100r area in the completed project would be 15,000 sq. ft. This includes
11,527 sq. ft. for commercial uses on the first, second and third floors and 3,473 sq" ft within two
residential units on the fourth floor.
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 3 Negative Declaration
A variance is requested to encroach into the required seven foot special setback along Hamilton
Avenue and to encroach into the required six foot special setback along Ramona Street.
10. SURROlTNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
240-248 Hamilton Avenue is located close to the southern edge of the Commercial Downtown zone
district (see Figure 2, Vicinity Map). The site is 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep and is located at the
southern comer of the Hamilton A venuelRamona Street intersection. Surrounding land uses include
office, restaurants, and retail. Directly east of the project site on the eastern side of Ramona St. is the eight
story Palo Alto City Hall building. Directly adjacent to the project site along the western side of Ramona
st. is a two-story office building. Also directly adjacent to the project site along the southwestern side of
Hamilton Ave. is a two-story restaurant. Across the street on the northern side of Hamilton Ave. is three
story commercial building occupied by ground floor retail, a restaurant and a hotel lobby. The hotel
occupies the remaining two floors. A four-story commercial building with ground floor retail and office
uses on the uppers floors in located kitty comer to the project site.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
• County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the infonnation sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has detennined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the detennination is made,
an EIR is required.
4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 4 Negative Declaration
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
240-248 Hamilton Avenue
...
® N""" Felr O.1ks
.......... -.~ ~ @)
s I EBS! Polo/ilia
-""" Athf"rton
Me:110 Par1(
--""". ,
•
PaloAllo 1
of"
l ,~
losAJlo~
HJls
"
Figure One: Regional Map
Page 6 Negative Declaration
.. '" ' .. " .... ."
a
'._ '''k c_.~ .. ~),?,. . . ...
• ...... 1:.-
•
240·248 Hamilton Avenue
c_ , .. " •
" ..... :-.1,"" "'s, -....... .
,-" ~D
."1"'11. --,
, ~ .
/
Figure Two: Vicinity Map
Page 7
" -• •.
.' . ,", "
/
" r'
_·u
Negative Declaration
-. H::.....r ~_
.'
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 UnJess Impact
Wou1d the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual X
character or quality of the site and its 1,6
surroundings?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
public view or view corridor? 1,2,6 X
MapL4
c) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock X
outcroppings, and historic buildings within 1,2,5
a state scenic highway? MapL4
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,2,6
policies regarding visual resources? X
e) Create a new source of substantial light or X
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1, 6
f) Substantially shadow public open space 1,6 X
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21 ?
DISCUSSION:
The subject site is located one block over from a view corridor (University Avenue) as identified in the
Comprehensive Plan 1998 -2010. The project is not large enough or close enough to impede the view
through the corridor. The project is subject to final review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB),
which will ensure a design that is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its surroundings. The
project has been designed to be compatible with the scale of the surrounding development in the
downtown area and is compatible with zoning requirements for height and daylight plane
Mitigation Measures: None
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 8 Negative Declaration
Significance after Mitigation: NA
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOlTRCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
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,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 1 Monitoring Program of the California X Resources AKency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2,
use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9, X
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of 1 X Farm]ana. to ... ,.. ... .1 _1 use? I
DISCUSSION:
The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area,
as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency_ The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentia lIy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would tbe project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation X
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X
substantially to an existing or projected air 1
I quality violation indicated by the following: I
i. Direct and/or indirect operational 1 I
I X
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air I
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 9 Negative Declaration
I
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources PotentiaHy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PMIO);
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1, 10 X
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more )?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an X applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which 1
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors )?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels
e)
f)
of toxic air contaminants? 1 X
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1 X
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl)
exceeds 10 in one million
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-1 X
carcinogenic T ACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the
MEl
Create objectionable odors affecting a X
substantial number of people? 1
Not implement all applicable construction 1 X
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area A ir Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:
The subject site is in an area of mixed uses including commercial retail, office and residential uses in
Downtown Palo Alto. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the property is not located in an area that
contains uses or activities that are major pollutant emitters. The project is not expected to result in a
significant impact on air quality.
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 10 Negative Declaration
The project will result in temporary dust emISSIons during demolition, grading and construction
activities. The impacts are expected to be greatest during demolition. Therefore, the following
conditions of approval will be incorporated as part of an approved demolition and construction
management plan secured before building permit issuance.
• Demolition activities shall be conducted in such a manner that will minimize dust and another
airborne particulate matter. The contractor or builder shall water debris during demolition and before
transport to an off-site facility.
• Areas of exposed earth surfaces during demolition, grading and construction shall be watered in the
early morning and early evening.
• Avoid overloading of trucks so· that potential spillage in the public right-of-way is minimized. The
contractor shall be required to clean up all spillage in the public right of-way.
• Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a
demolition permit.
The standard conditions would result in impacts that are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOlTRCES
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
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional 1,2, plans, policies, or regulations, or by the MapN1 X California Department of Fish and Game or u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, 1,2, X policies, regulations, including federally MapN1 protected wetlands as defmed by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or 1,2 X
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use MapN1 of native wildlife nursery sites?
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 11 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by the City of 1,2, 5,13
Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.1 O)?
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat 1, 2, 13 X
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
There are six regulated street trees located around the perimeter of the subj ect property. Two Flowering
Pear trees are located in the public right-of-way along Hamilton Avenue. The remaining four trees are
located along Ramona Street and include: three Japanese Pagoda trees and two London Plane trees. The
City Arborist has recommended removal of all six trees. The existing trees would be replaced with five
new street trees.
The trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and Public Works Department
Arborists, based upon the requiren1ents of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual. Any damage
to the trees would be treated in accordance with the Tree Technical Manual.
Mitigation Measures: Bl: provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of public trees #1-6.
Six publicly owned trees are growing in the right-of-way along the Hamilton and Ramona streets.
Parking garage ran1p and other in-ground elements that willlin1it new tree growth potential shall be
identified. As mitigation to offset the net loss for years of public resource investments and minimize the
future years to parity with infrastructure benefits (Co2 reduction, extended asphalt life, water mgmt.,
etc.) currently provided by the trees, the new frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design
and materials to include the following elements:
• Consistency with the Public Works Department Tree Management Program. Provide
adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume resources.
• Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such as
permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base, and services due
to being situated within the public right-of-way along El Camino Real and Monroe Drive.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the loss of public trees impacts to a less than
significant level.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
E. CLTL TLTRAL RESOURCES
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 12 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural X
resource that is recognized by City Council 1,2,6
resolution? L7
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource 1,2 X
pursuant to 15064.5? MapLS
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique 1,2 X
geologic feature? MapLS
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2
interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapLS X
e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or X
eligible for listing on the National and/or
California Register~ or listed on the City's 1,2,6
Historic Inventory? MapL7
f) Eliminate important examples of major periods 1,6 X
of California history or prehistory?
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located in an area of moderate to high sensitivity in terms of archaeological resource
areas, as indicated in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010.Based on existing
conditions and the extent of the proposed project, no significant impacts are expected. If approved, the
project would contain conditions in the fonn of instructions in the case of the discovery of any cultural
resources during demolition or construction. The standard conditions would result in impacts that are
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially PotentiaJly Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the See
risk of loss; injury, or death involving: below
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X
as delineated on the most recent
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 13 Negative Declaration
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on 7
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2,
MapN10 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? 2 X
MapN5
iv) Landslides? 2 X
MapN5
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss X
of topsoil? 1, 6
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,6 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
. a result of the project, and potentially ·X
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral 2,
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or MapN5
collapse?
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Unifonn Building X
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to MapN5
life or property? n f) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
altemativewaste water disposal systems 1
where sewers are not available for the X
disposal of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major 4 X
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques?
DISCUSSION:
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site located in a strong seismic risk
area, subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction and subsidence of the land are possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the
project site; therefore fault rupture at the site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. The site is
located in an area of expansive soils. All new construction will be subject to the provisions of the most
current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and
preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake.
The City'S required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will
not be significant. Project conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a final grading and
drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and
building permits.
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 14 Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measures: F-l: Prior to final approval of any development plan and prior to building permit
issuance the applicant will be required to retain a geotechnical engineer to 1) perfonn a final
geotechnical investigation once site development plans are complete, 2) review the final construction
plans and specifications, and 3) observe the earthwork and foundation installation
Significance after Mitigation: NA
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 I
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or 1,5,7 X
regulation of an agency 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 non attainment 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) approach to developing a Threshold of
Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project
would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce
statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate
GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a
cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.
The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are:
• For land use developnlent projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction
Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of C02e; or 4.6 MT
C02e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial,
industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
• For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of C02e.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit
GHG enlissions· and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual enlissions of operational-
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 15 Negative Declaration
related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution of GHG enlissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change.
The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If a
project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the screening
criteria, then the project's air quality impacts may be considered less than, significant. For a "General
Office building" land use, the facility would need to be 53,000 square feet or larger to have a significant
impact for Green House Gases (BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010; Table 3-1,
Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes). For a "Single-family"
dwelling unit would need to exceed 56 dwelling units to have a significant impact for Green House
Gases. The proposed project does not exceed the significance thresholds established by the BAAQMD;
the proposed project is 15,000 square feet, of which 11,527 square feet is commercial space and two,
residential dwelling units totaling 3,473 square feet.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the
primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use.
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 X
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,6,12
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the X
release of hazardous materials into the 1,6,12 environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or X
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 1,6, 12
proposed school?
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject X
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 1,2,6 X result, would it create a significant hazard to MapN9 the public or the environment?
t) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or X
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 16 Negative Declaration
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in 1
the project area?
g) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the 1 X project area?
h) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response 1, 2, 12 X
plan or emergency evacuation plan? MapN7
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to X urbanized areas or where residences are 2 intermixed with wildlands? MapN7
j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1 X
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed '"
for the site?
DISCUSSION:
No known conditions exist on the site regarding existing materials that may be deemed harmful or
.hazardous. The site is not located near any known hazardous materials facilities.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
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
discharge requirements? 1, X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or X
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production 2 rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to MapN2 . a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 17 Negative Declaration
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial X erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,6
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result 1,6, 10 X in flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide X substantial additional sources of polluted 1, 10 runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,5, X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? 1,6,2 X
MapN6
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect 2 X flood flows? MapN6
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as ares ult of the failure of a 2, 7
levee or dam or being located within a 100-year MapN6 X flood hazard area? N8
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2, 7 X
MapN6
N8
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,6 X
DISCUSSION:
The site is in Flood Zone X, which is not a special flood hazard zone. During demolition, grading and
construction, storm water pollution could result. Runoff from the project site flows to the San Francisco
Bay without treatment. Nonpoint source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife dependant on the
waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or baylands. Therefore, conditions of approval,
incorporated as part of an approved demolition and construction management plan (secured before
building permit issuance) would include the following:
• Before submittal of plans for a building permit, the applicant shall subn1it a drainage plan which
includes drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties.
• 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.
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 18 Negative Declaration
The standard conditions would result in inlpacts that are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,6 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not X
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an 1, 3, 6 environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community 1,2 X conservation plan? MapN1
d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1, 2, 3, 6 X
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1, 6 X
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
f) Conflict with established residential, 1, 6 X
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1 X
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The site is designated for Regional/Community Commercial use in the City of Palo Alto's
Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. This land use provides a variety and depth of goods, services and uses
usually not available in the neighborhood shopping areas. The replacement of an office/retail building
with a mixed use building with ground floor retail is consistent with this land use and the surrounding
area. The site is located within the Hamilton A venue District according to the Downtown Urban Design
Guide. The Hamilton Avenue District is a mixed office/commercial/retail district with some residential
uses. The primary goal of the Hamilton Avenue District is to promote Hamilton Avenue as an active
mixed use district with a pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian experience. The development of three or more
story buildings surrounding Civic Center Plaza are encouraged to help create a stronger urban edge
within this area. The proposed project is consistent with the recomnlendations for this district. The
project is subject to final review by the Architectural Review Board, which will ensure a design that is
aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its surroundings.
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 19 Negative Declaration
A variance is requested to encroach into the required seven foot special setback along Hamilton A venue
and to encroach into the required six foot special setback along Ramona Street. The exception is being
requested in order to maintain the existing streetscape and setbacks that the other properties adjacent to
the subject site follow. Findings for Variance requests will need to be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Planning as part of the overall project approval
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? 1, X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan 1, X or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION:
The project will not impact known mineral or locally important mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
L. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources PotentialJy 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 X
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or 1,2,6
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground 1,2,6
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 1, 5,9 X
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 20 . Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? 1
e) For a project located within an airport land use X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? 1
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private X
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to 1
excessive noise levels?
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 6 X
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 6 X· ..
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 6 X
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 6,9 X
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 6,9 X
1)
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
Generate construction noise exceeding the 6 X
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located in an area with an existing noise level ranging between 65-70dBA. This noise
level is typical for commercial districts and residential areas located in close proximity to commercial
districts. Sources of environmental noise at the site include sirens from fire trucks associated with the
Alma Fire Station, vehicles on local roadways, nearby CalTrain station and associated noise from
adjacent eating and drinking establishments.
Noise from the proposed mixed use would primarily be generated by roof top mechanical equipment.
This will consist of HVAC equipment on top of the fourth floor only. All mechanical equipment is
required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10).
Grading and construction activities will result in tenlporary increases in local ambient noise levels.
Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation, grading and
construction, which will be short term in duration. Standard approval conditions would require the
project to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 21 Negative Declaration
overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term construction that complies with the
Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant.
Demolition and Construction Activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels.
In addition, there may be increases in ground-borne vibrations resulting from demolition and
construction. Therefore, conditions of approval, incorporated as part of an approved demolition and
construction management plan (secured before building permit issuance) would include the following:
• Require implementation of and compliance with the City of Palo Alto's Noise Ordinance (P AMC
9.10). In addition, construction hours shall be established as per the construction management plan
to minimize disturbance to surrounding residents, visitors, and businesses.
Mitigation Measures N-l: In order to meet the indoor noise level criteria, sound rated exterior facades and
windows shall be required. The windows and facades shall meet the STC rated recommendations as provided in
. the Noise Assessment by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc.
Mitigation Measures N-2: In order to mitigate noise impacts associated with outdoor mechanical equipment
mitigation .. measures will be ·required. These may include a combination of selecting quiet units; maintain,
minimum distances to property lines, and physical barriers and/or enclosures. The applicant shall work with staff
during the design phase to determine to specific requirements.
Significance after Mitigation: NA
M. POPITLATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potential1y Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Induce substantial population growth in an X
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for 1,6 example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure) ?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing X
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? 1
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? 1
d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1 X
employed residents and jobs?
e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1 X
population projections?
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 22 Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
The project is for a new four-story mixed use building. The fourth floor would consist of two, two
bedroom residential units.
Population in Palo Alto's sphere of influence in 1996, according to Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan was
58,000 people. This is projected by the City's Comprehensive Plan to increase to 62,880 by 2010. The
project, by adding to the housing stock by 2 units, would cumulatively contribute to population in the
area. The average household size in Palo Alto is 2.24 persons, which would mean the project could
generate a total of 4.5 people. The projects cumulative impacts for the purposes of CEQA are also
considered to be less than significant, as the impact from the project alone is not "considerable", and is
di minimus, as environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the project is
implemented (as per CEQA Guidelines §15355 and §15064). This incremental increase in population
generated by the proposed project would not be considered a significant impact. City development
standards, development fees (including impact fees) and standard conditions of project approval reduce
potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
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
I Incorporated
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered govel1llhental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? 12 X
Police protection? X 1
Schools? X 1
Parks? X 1
Other public facilities? X 1
DISCUSSION:
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 23 Negative Declaration
There would not be any substantial change in required services, including Fire, Police, Schools, Parks
and other public facilities as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
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
existing neighborhood and regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the 1,5 facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the 1, 5 environment?
DISCUSSION:
The development project would be subject to paynlent of impact fees for parks, libraries and community
facilities. The project in total would therefore not have any significant impact on existing parks, nor
include or require construction of recreational facilities. No mitigation is required.
There would not be a significant change to the demand of recreation services as a result of the proposed
project. The development project includes a proposal for separate common areas for both the residential
and the commercial portions of the project.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
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) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., 1, 11
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 24 Negative Declaration
result in a substantial increase in either the X
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections )?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for 1, 11 X
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, X
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in 1
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible 1,6
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,11 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1, 11
X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or X
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & 1,
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1, 11 X
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V /C) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at 1, 11 X
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1, 11 X
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F 1, 11 X
or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of
segment capacity to a freeway segment I
already operating at LOS F?
1) Cause any change in traffic that would 1, 11 X
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1, 11 X
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available que~e storage
capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at proj ect
access locations; queues at tum lanes at
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 25 Negative Declaration
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.
n) Impede the development or function of 1, 11 X
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1, 11 X
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1, 11 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is anticipated to generate less than 50 net new peak hour vehicle trips, which is
below the City's threshold for requiring a focused traffic analysis, and less that than the local congestion
management agency's (CMA) threshold for a detailed traffic impact analysis (100 trips). Based on the
relatively low traffic generation estimates, the project is not anticipated to result in significant peak hour
or daily traffic impacts.
Parking in and of itself is not· considered an environmental impact, but rather the related vehicle
emissions that are generated by the project's patrons, who have to drive around looking for parking. The
proposed project is only required to provide three parking spaces for the two residential units located on
the fourth floor. The project is however providing four spaces. The remaining three floors of non
residential floor area consisting of 11,527 square feet of floor area is not required to provide parking for
the following reasons:
1. The existing 7,000 square feet of conunercial floor area is grandfathered in and as such is not
required to provide parking;
2. 4,327 square feet of commercial floor area has been transferred via a Transfer of Development
Rights from a valid sender site to an eligible receiver site from a valid, recorded Transferable
Development Right( (TDR). The first 5,000 square feet of floor area transferred to a receiver site
is exempt from the otherwise applicable on-site parking requirements.
3. The remaining 200 square feet of commercial floor area (7,000 sf+4,327 sf+200 sf= 11,527st) is
exempt from parking due to a one time allowable 200 square foot bonus.
There will, however, be a net deficiency in the amount of off-site parking spaces directly adjacent to the
site due to a new curb cut along Ramona Street for the purposes of creating a new driveway for the
underground parking lot. The loss of those parking spaces may incrementally add to parking concerns
in the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. Those impacts, however, will not cause significant
increases in congestion or deterioration in air quality. The loss of the two off-site parking spaces will be
offset by providing an in-lieu payment for two parking spaces.
An annual monitoring report on the Commercial Downtown zoning area is mandated by the
Comprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9 that require reporting of non-residential developn1ent
activity and trends within the CD zone district. These reports are also required as a result of final action
on the Downtown Study adopted by the City Council in 1986. The Downtown Study incorporated a
growth limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area over the total floor area existing in 1986, and
provided for are-evaluation of the CD regulations when new development reaches 235,000 square feet.
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 26 Negative Declaration
Since 1986, a total of 223,21 0 square feet of non-residential floor area has been added in the Downtown
CD-C zoned area. In the past two monitoring cycles from 2009-2011, approximately 34,650 square feet
of net new comnlercial floor area was added with a few major contributing projects such as 524
Hamilton Avenue and 265 Lytton Avenue. In this current cycle, 2011-2012, approximately 49,860
square feet of net new commercial floor area has been added through one major project, 335-355 Alma
Street. Based on this recent monitoring, an additional 11,790 square feet of new non-residential
development remains for development before the re-evaluation limit of235,000 square feet growth limit
is reached.
The existing building consists of 7,000 square feet of floor area. The proposed project would add an
additional 4,527 square feet of non-residential floor area which would minimally contribute towards the
limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area.
Temporary impacts to transportation, traffic and pedestrian circulation will result from demolition and
construction activities. Therefore, conditions of approval, incorporated as part of an approved
demolition and construction management plan (secured before building permit issuance) would include
the following:
• Traffic control measures during demolition and construction
• Removal of demolition debris
• Delivery of construction materials
• Retention of parking spaces for construction workers and on.:.site staff.
Mitigation: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
Q. lTTILITIES 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
Incor)!orated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality X
Control Board? 1,6,114
b) Require or result in the construction of new X
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant 1,6,14
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new X
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental 1,6,14
effects?
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 27 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources PotentialJy PotentiaHy Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to X
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded 1,6,14
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater X
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing 1,6,14
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? 1
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes X
I and regulations related to solid waste? 1
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1 X
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the proiect?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service
systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. As standard conditions of ARB approval,
the applicant shall be required to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on
site and off site water, sewer and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and
adjacent properties during peak flow demands. Trash and recycling facilities are proposed in the project
to accommodate the expected waste and recycling streams that would be generated by the expected uses
within the building. The development project would be subject to all conditions of approval that would
be provided by all applicable city departments including but not limited to Utilities Electrical
Engineering and Utilities Water, Gas, Wastewater,.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 28 Negative Declaration
I
I
Sources - -c:---Potentially Less Than ! Issues and Supporting Information Resources Poten tlally No Impaci
Significant Significant Significant
I
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Miligation
Incorporated
a) Does the project 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 X
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range ora rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major 1,2
periods of Cali fomi a history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limjted, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects 0 f a X
project are considerable when viewed in
cOnQoction with the effects of past projects, 1,2
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project bave environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects X
on human beings, either directly or 1.2
indirect I y? I
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 and important example of
California history.
The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cwnulatively 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 the City's commercial downtown area where
there are other projects that are under review and planned for the future. These projects are
redevelopment projects where existing hui ldings are either rehabilitated or demolished and replaced.
This infill development does not result in considerable effects to the environment.
240w248 Hamilton Avenue Page 29 Negative Declaration
I
I
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
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the X
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. . ,
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adeq uately
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.
Project Planner
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
240-248 Hamilton Avenue
Date
Date
Page 31 Negative Declaration
ATTACHMENT G
',.1" ..
-..
CIT Y O F
AL
ALTO
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
July 18, 2013
Architectural Review Board
Jason Nortz, Sr. Planner
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
240-248 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-000061: Request by Ken Hayes of Hayes
Group Architects on behalf of Forest Casa Real LLC. for Major Architectural
Review Boatd review for the demoUtion of an existing 7,000 square foot, two
story commercial building and the construction of a four-story, SO foot,
mixed-use building with a new floor area of 15,000 square feet On a site
located at 240-248 Hamilton A venUe. Environmental Assessment: an Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared. Zone District:
Downtown Community Commercial (CD-C)(P)(GF) willi Pedestrian
Shopping and Ground Floor combining districts.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) consider the project and findings for
Architectural Review approval and recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of
Planning and Conununity Environment (Director), based upon the findings in Attachment A and
subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment B.
BACKGROUND
On June 6, 2013 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the application referenced
above and as described further below, and voted to continue the item to a date certain. The ARB's
recommendation included conditions that the foHowing items return for additional ARB review:
1. Provide pedestrian friendly amenities at the ground floor level;
2. More articulation is needed on the back walls, specificallY, on the southwest elevation
between floors two and four;
3. Consider incorporating more cedar siding at another location on the building.
Additional background infonnation :is provided in the June 6, 2013 staff report, provided as
Attachment C. A revised zoning code compliance table is provided as Attachment D.
1
DISCUSSION
Pedestrian Amenities
The site is zoned Downtown Commercial with a Ground Floor and "Pedestrian" combining district
CD-C (GF)(p). The Pedestrian combining district is designed to help foster the continuity of retail
stores and display windows and to avoid monotonous pedestrian environment in order to establish and
maintain economic viability for a healthy retail district. To help compliment the retail component, five
large planter boxes have been provided along the Ramona Street and Hamilton Avenue sides of the
building. Additionally, closer sidewalk paving score lines have been added to help support smaller
tree wells and better tree spacing.
Building Elevations
The southwestern building elevation facing Reposado has been revised to include a recessed metal
panel at floors two and three. The metal panel extends approximately 60 feet between column
lines B and E. Banding similar to the banding along the Hamilton A venue and Ramona Street
frontages rises above the stone body of the building and helps define the roof screen. The infill
material at the roof screen remains the same perforated metal sheet.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the requirements of the Califon1ia Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared
and circulated, with a required 20-day public review and comment period beginning on May 10,2013
and ending on May 30, 2013. Mitigation measures are proposed to address biological resources,
seismicity and noise. No comments have been received on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or
historic resources. The use is appropriate for the site and the development would not result in an
adverse visual impact.
ATTACHMENTS
A. ARBN ariance Findings
B. Conditions of Approval
C. ARB Staff Report-June 6, 2013
D. Revised Zoning Code Compliance Table
E. Proj ect Plans *
* Submitted by applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Sal Giovanotto, Owner
Ken Hayes, Architect! Applicant
Prepared By: Jason Nortz, Senior Planner
Reviewed By: Amy French, Chief Planning
13PLN-00006 Page 2
ATTACHMENT A
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND VARIANCE
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
240-248 Hamilton Ave. / File No. 13PLN-00000-00006
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)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. This fmding can be made in the affirmative in that the project
incorporates quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the
area as described in the Comprehensive Plan and reinforces its pedestrian character. The
proposed proj ect for a new mixed use building is consistent with the land use
designation. The project is also consistent with The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
policies related to business and economics. The Comprehensive Plan encourages
owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that these commercial
areas are more competitive and better serve the community. The commercial properties
could be redesigned to be more attractive and inviting for pedestrians;
The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. This finding can
be made in the affrrmative in that the project is located at a prominent comer of the
commercial downtown in an environment with other large retail/office buildings. The
project is designed as a four-story, 50 foot building that is adjacent to similarly sized
buildings. The building has been designed to encourage pedestrian activity;
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 retail, office and
residential uses. The proposed building would have ample storefront glass, recesses, and
awnings to create an inviting retail and pedestrian environment. The design is also
consistent with the requirements and reconunendations of both the Context Based
Design Criteria and the Downtown Urban Design Guide;
In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character. This finding can be made in
the affirmative in that the overall design is consistent with the Downtown Urban Design
Guide guidelines in the following ways:
a. The project creates enhanced vehicular and pedestrian entries;
b. The project provides varied building mass and height;
c. The project maintains Hamilton Ave. as pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian
environment with complimentary outdoor amenities.
(5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between
different designated land uses. This finding is not applicable in that this project is not
situated in a transition area between different designated land uses;
240 Hamilton Ave 13PLN-00006 Page 1
(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 retail/commercial downtown 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
location is shifted three feet away from the Ramona S1. curb and four feet away from
Hamilton Ave. to provide wider sidewalks to encourage pedestrian activity down
Hamilton Ave;
(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 or recesses to the zoning requirements of the
"P" overlay and the intent to add interest at the ground floor for pedestrians.
Additionally, the project provides sufficient open space for the residential component in
the form of four rooftop terraces;
(9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project
and the same are compatible with the project's design concept. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that project includes sufficient automobile and bicycle
parking, and common open space areas. The project includes widening the walkable
area for the sidewalks on both Ramona S1. and Hamilton Ave. to enhance vehicular and
pedestrian safety;
(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 its greater setback on Ramona St.
and Hamilton Ave. The project also creates an effective and safe automobile
ingress/egress point for the residential occupants;
(11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. This
finding can be made in the affirmative in that the existing city street trees adjacent to the
proposed building will be removed and replaced with new street trees that are consistent
with other street trees in the direct vicinity;
(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 are will add detail and interest and
are compatible with the commercial retail environment.
(13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship ofplant masses,
open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and
functional environment. This finding is not applicable in that there is no proposed
landscaping.
240 Hamilton Ave 13PLN-00006 Page 2
(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 is not
applicable in that there is no landscaping proposed.
(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 mat.erials. 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 storm water 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.
Green building features will be incorporated to achieve Cal Green Tier 2 standards for
the commercial portion and Green Point Rated standards for the residential portion.
(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.
240 Hamilton Ave 13PLN-00006 Page 3
VARIANCE FINDINGS
Variance approval is based on the findings indicated under PAMe Section 18.76.030 (C)
Variance Request: Three foot encroachment into the six foot special setback along
Ramona St. and seven foot encroachment into the seven foot
special setback along Hamilton Ave.
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not
limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the
requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property
of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as
the subject property.
Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are: (A) The
personal circumstances of the property owner, and (B) Any changes in the size or shape
of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while
the property was subject to the same zoning designation.
The existing building is built to the property line as are many buildings within the
commercial downtown district. The special setback of six and seven feet respectively,
imposed upon this property, only occurs in one other location within the downtown.
Most properties within the commercial downtown have no setback requirement This
comer parcel, at only 50 feet wide, is narrower than the other parcels at this comer. The
other parcels range from 75 feet to 100 feet wide.
2. The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the
regulations or constitute a grant .of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
placed upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject
property.
The granting of the exception would result in a three foot encroachment into the required
6 foot special setback along Ramona St. and a seven foot encroachment into the required
seven foot special setback along Hamilton Ave. It should be noted that only nine feet of
the 45 foot wide building wall along Hamilton Ave. would encroach seven feet into the
special setback (for the purposes of accommodating an enclosed stairwell). The
remaining 36 feet of building wall would encroach approximately five inches into the
special setback resulting in setback of 6.5 feet. Even with the granting of the Variance
the project would still provide a sidewalk width of approximately 11 feet along Hamilton
Ave. and 10 feet along Ramona St. both of which meet or exceed the sidewalk width
requirements in the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The wider sidewalk and more
importantly the shift of the building mass would improve the pedestrian experience and
enhance the opportunity for retail activity along Hamilton Ave.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 4
3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
the purposes of this title (Zoning).
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Policies, Programs and Goals)
as outlined in Attachment E of the Staff Report.
4. The granting of the application will not be injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfar.e, or
convenience.
The proposed setbacks of three feet along Ramona S1. and no setback to 6.5 feet along
Hamilton Ave. will improve the existing sidewalk width by adding four additional feet in
width to the sidewalk to Ramona S1. and three feet additional sidewalk width to Hamilton
Ave. The increased sidewalk widths will provide for a better overall pedestrian friendly
experience with the Hamilton Ave. District of Downtown. The requested encroachments
into the special setback would not result in a detrimental impact as it is an improvement
over the existing situation which is a zero setback in this location.
240 Hamilton Ave 13PLN-00006 Page 5
Planning
Attachment B
Conditions of Approval
240-248 Hamilton Avenue/ 13PLN-00006
1. The cover sheet lists the assessor's parcel as 139-96-797. Our records indicate the assessor's
parcel number is 120-27-01 O.
2. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans and related documents
recei ved January 7, 20 13 ~xcept as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.
3. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building
permits related to this project.
5. The current project is approved to use the one-time 200 square foot FARbontis, as permitted per
PAMC 18.18.070(a)(1), and cannot utilize this bonus again for any future development.
6. New construction and alterations in the CD-C zoning district shall be required to design ground
floor space to accommodate retail use and shall comply with the provisions of the Pedestrian (P)
combining district.
7. The proposed project requires 5,000 square feet of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). Prior
to building permit submittal, the applicant shall provide sufficient infonnation so that the
Director of Planning and Community Environment can issue written confirmation of the transfer,
which identifies both the sender and receiver sites and the anlount of TDRs which have been
transferred. This confirmation shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder prior to the
issuance ofbuilding permits and shall include the written consent or assignment by the owner(s)
of the TDRs where such owner(s) are other than the applicant
8. Development Impact Fees, estimated at $262,671.82 shall be paid prior to the issuance of the
project's building permit. These fees are adjusted annually in August. Fees shall be calculated at
the rate in effect at the time of permit issuance.
9. For anyon-street parking spaces that are removed to accommodate the project's driveway curb
cut, the applicant shall be required to pay parking in-lieu fees for the number of spaces lost. This
fee shall be due to the City prior to the issuance' of the project's building permit. .
10. All future signage for this site shall be submitted for Architectural Review.
11. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In
240 Hamilton Ave Page 1
specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application
for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration.
12. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who desires to protest the fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development proj ect must initiate the
protest at the time the development proj ect 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 !NITIA TE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DA Y PERIOD OR TO FOLLOW
THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020,
YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGIN.G THE VALIDITY OR
REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND
EXACTIONS.
13. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the time by
which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
14. 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.
Transportation
1. Car stacker system should provide enough width and depth for full size SUV. Provide
details, etc. of the system for further review.
2. Long term bike parking for office use is not apparent. Please identify. Long term bike
parking for office cannot be shared with residential unless separate lockers.
3. Parking reductions assumed. Significant credits/reductions assumed could be opposed.
Consider providing underground parking, possibly with a vehicle elevator (instead of ramp)
to achieve additional parking.
4. Include loss of on-street parking due to new garage.
Public Works Urban Forestry
1. Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of public trees #1-6.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 2
2. Six publicly owned trees are growing in the right-of-way along the Hamilton and Ramona
streets. Parking garage ramp and other in-ground elements that will limit new tree growth
potential shall be identified. As mitigation to offset the net loss for years of public resource
investments and minimize the future years to parity with infrastructure benefits (Co2
reduction, extended asphalt life, water mgmt., etc.) currently provided by the trees, the new
frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design and materials to include the
following elements :
• Consistency with the Public Works Department Tree Management Program.
Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume
resources.
• Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such
as permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base, and
services due to being situated within the public right-of-way.
Public Works Engineering
1. SIDEWALK, ClTRB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those
portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters, curb ramps or driveway approaches in the
public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked,
displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip.
Contact Public Works' inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can
determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit
plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works'
inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right
of-way must be done per Public Works' standards by a licensed contractor who must first
obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center.
2. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing andlor add new street
trees in the public right-of-way along the property's frontage(s). Call the Public Works'
arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if
any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan
set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species,
size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works'
arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do
street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public
Right-ol-Way from Public Works' arborist (650-496-5953).
3. SUBDIVISION: A parcel/condo map will be required if there are any units that are proposed
"for sale". The developer will be required to provide a preliminary parcel map and a parcel
map for city review and approval. The GradinglExcavation and Building permits will not be
issued until the parcel map is recorded.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 3
4. STEET RESURFACING: The developer will be required to resurface the entire frontage of
each street adjacent to the property out to the centerline of the street upon completion of
on site construction. The resurfacing will consist of a slurry seal or grinding 2" of the existing
asphalt and overlaying 2" asphalt pavement per Public Works' standards. Public Works will
make the determination between slurry seal and grind/overlay by inspecting the condition of
the road and estimating the construction impacts. Thermoplastic striping of the street(s) will
be required after resurfacing.
The following comments are provided to assist the applicant at the building permit phase. You
can obtain various plan set details, forms and guidelines from Public Works at the City's
Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on Public Works' website:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms--'permits.
Include in plans submitted for a building permit:
5. 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 stagnant water that
could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement
level spaces are at least 7-3/4" 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.
6. GARAGEIBASEMENT 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.
7 . DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public
Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater
dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to
inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list
the highest anticipated groundwater level.W e 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 systen1 must be
240 Hamilton Ave Page 4
used, or alternatively, 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.
8. 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.
9. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must incll.lde a grading & drainage plan
prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and propo$ed spot elevations and
drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope
away from the structure a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown
on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed
that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public
Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street
gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing
runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site.
10. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit
must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit if the total cubic
yardage of dirt being cut for the garage lift and elevator pit is more than 100 cubic yards. The
application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website.
11. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention
-It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from
Public Works at the Development Center or on our website.
12. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal,
relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of
street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This
approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City
requirements.
13. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is
proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or
utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be·done per City standards
240 Hamilton Ave Page 5
and that the contractor performing this work.must first obtain a Street Work Permit from
Public Works at the Development Center. If -a new driveway is in a different location than
the existing driveway, then the sidewaJk associated with the new driveway must be replaced
with a thickened (6" thick instead of the standard 4" thick) section. Additionally, c1ITb cuts
and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be repJaced with new curb, gutter
and planter strip.
14. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet
or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shaJl provide calculations of the
existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The
Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments fonn and instructions are available at the
Development Center or on our website.
IS. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, "The contractor
using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is
safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007
California Building Code Chapter 33 reqUirements. If the height of construction is,8 feet 01"
less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around
construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must
obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to
provide a banier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk."
16. LOGIST[CS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works
Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City'S right-of-way,
including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material
deliveries, contractor's parking, concrete pours, crane ljfts, work hours, noise control, dust
control, stonn water pollution prevention, contractor's contact, noticing of affected
businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work permit.
Public Works Environmentsl Services
Please oote the following issues must be addressed in building plans prior to final approval by this
department:
General Comments:
• Consider providing separate service for residential and commercial units
• Trash rooms located in garage will require bins to be placed curbside on collection day or
pull-out service at an additional charge.
1. P AMC 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
(A) Assure that development _provides adequate and accessible interior areas or e:<terior
enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that
trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably
240 Hamilton Ave Page 6
possible. (B) Requirements: (i) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all
residents or users of the property. (ii) Recycling facilities shall be located, sized, and designed to
encourage and facilitate convenient use. (iii) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be
screened from public view by masonry or other opaque and durable material, and shall be
enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided where feasible. Chain
link enclosures are strongly discouraged. (iv) Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be
architecturally compatible with the design of the project. (v) The design, construction and
accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural
review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the
city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
2. PAMe 5.20.120 Recycling storage design requirements
The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or expanded building or other facility shall
provide for proper storage, handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the solid waste
and recyclable materials loading anticipated and which will allow for the efficient and safe
collection. The design shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 18.22.100,
18.24.100, 18.26.1 00, 18.32.080, 18.37.080, 1.8.41.080, 18.43.080, 18.45.Q80, 18.49.140.
18.55.080, 18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code.
All Services:
a) Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance, street width and turnaround space) and
street parking are common issues pertaining to new developments. Adequate space
must be provided for vehicle access.
b) Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed by the solid waste vehicles (roads,
driveways, pads) must be rated to 60,000 1bs. nus includes areas where permeable
pavement is used.
c) Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or charges will apply.
d) Carts and bins must be able to roll without obstacles or curbs to reach service areas
"no jumping curbs"
3. Garbage, Recycling, and Yard WastelCompostablcs cartlbin location and sizing
Office Building
The proposed commercial development must follow the requirements for recycling
container space1. Project plans must show the placement of recycling containers, for
example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection space should be
provided for built~in recycling containers/storage on each floor/office or alcoves for the
placement ofrecycling containers.
• Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams-
J In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 2
240 Hamilton Ave Page 7
garbage, recycling, and compostables.
• Collection crumot be performed in underground. Underground bins locations require a
minimum of77" of vertical clearance. 'Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push
services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the
property owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible
location for collection.
• All service areas must have a clearance height of 20' for bin service.
• New enclosures should consider ITLbber bumpers to reduce ware and tear on walls.
For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables collection issues, contact
Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894.
4. PAMC 5.24.030 Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD)
Covered projects shall comply with construction and demolition debris diversion rates and
other requirements established in Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building Code). In
addition, all debris generated bya covered project must haul.IOO percent of the debris not
salvaged for reuse to an approved facility as set forth in this chapter.
Contact the City of Palo Alto's Green Building Coordinator for assistance on how to
recycle construction and demolition debris from the project, including information on
where to conveniently recycle the material.
Utilities Electrical Engineering
1. The Utilities will require space on the private property for installing a pad mounted
transformer to serve the proposed building at the above location.
2. Pad mounted transfonner location must be shown on the plans. Utilities will require a
nlinimum clearance of 8' in the front and 3' around the transfonner.
3. Public Utility Easements shall be granted as required by the City.
4. Any extension of the power distribution lines/relocation of existing utilities or offsite
modification that needs to be done for providing electric service to the building will be at
applicant's expense. Any non-standard installation requested by the applicant shall be
treated as a "Special Facilities" and in that case special facility charges will become
applicable.
5. Applicant shall provide preliminary electric load calculations for sizing the transformer.
Transfonner procurement lead time is 6-8 months.
6. Utilities will provide detailed comments and cost estimates when plans are submitted to
240 Hamilton Ave Page 8
the Building Department for review and approval
Utilities Water Gas Wastewater
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT
1. 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.
2. 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
3. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection
application -load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the
information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in
b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing
(prior) loads, the new loads, and the cOlubined/totalloads (the new loads plus any
existing loads to remain).
4. 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.
5. 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). 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.
6. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study
showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will
provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the
development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing
may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 9
Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is
required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer
main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or
depth of flow based on a mininlum monitoring period of thirty continuous days or as
determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and
the approval of the wow engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing
sewer main will be permitted.
7. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall
submit to the WOW 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.
8. 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 RPP A on the plans.
9. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water
connection for the fire system to comply with requirenlents ofCalifomia administrative
code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector asselnbly may be
allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CP AU' s appro~al). 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.
10. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WOW eng~neering division.
Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe·
between the meter and the assembly. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector
is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 10
11. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at
the applicant's expense.
12. Existing water services that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the
applicant's expense.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. A separate water meter and bacJdlow pre venter is required to irrigate the approved .
landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall
be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the
account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading
or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards.
16. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service
connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and
install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required
control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of
the new water service and meter on the plans.
17. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the location
of the new water service and meter on the plans.
18. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required if existing service is
not meeting current standards. Show the location of the new water service on the plans.
The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire
system including all fire department's requirements.
19. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the
plans. The gas meter location must conform with utilities standard details.
20. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer
lateral on the plans
21. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private
240 Hamilton Ave Page 11·
property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa
Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities
easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development.
22. Where public mains are installed in private streetslPUEs for condominium and town
home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement..;. ttpublic Utility,
Easements: If the City's reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown
as P. U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the
responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of
the Common Area. This Section may not be amended with(Jut the prior written consent of
the City". All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be
abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures.
23. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be
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 nleters. 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
servi ces/mains/meters.
24. 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.·
25. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards
for water, gas & wastewater.
26. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall
prepare and submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department as-built
drawings at the completion of construction of the installation of water and wastewater
utilities to be owned and maintained by the City in accordance with:
1. Two sets of as-built drawings (hard copies).
2. As-built drawings in 2008 or 2010 AutoCAD format.
3. As-built drawings in .tiff format.
4. Survey points in .csv format for all new utility features.
Note: All survey data shall be collected by a California Licensed Land Surveyor. The
surveyor is responsible to setup all control points needed to perform the survey work.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 12
The accuracy for all survey data shall be +/-1cm.
Survey data to be collected (what's applicable):
I. Collect horizontal and vertical data for:
1. Sanitary sewer manholes (rim and invert elevations and depth)
2. Storm drain manholes and catch basins (rim and invert elevations and depth)
3. Water valves (cover and stem elevations)
Fire Department
1. Provide a Fire Apparatus Access Plan. Show elevations and how P AFD Ladder Truck
will be utilized.
2. Provide an egress plan.
Public Work Wat.er Quality
We have reviewed the site floor plans for this project. Please note the following issues
must be addressed in building plans prior to final approval by this department:
1. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water
pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require
gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the
water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or
federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm
drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits
contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of
the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs
it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule.
2. 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
. 3. 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 benn
system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area.
4. PAMC 16.09.180(b )(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down
240 Hamilton Ave Page 13
spouts, and copper granule containing asp hal t 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.
5. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storin drain system.
6. 16.09.215 Silver Processing
Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray films) shall either submit a
treatment application or waste hauler certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-
329-2421.
7. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not b~ 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.
8. PAMC 16.09.220(c)(1) Dental Facilities That Remove or Place Amalgam Fillings
An ISO 11143 certified amalgam separator device shall be installed for each dental vacuum
suction system. The installed device must be ISO 11143 certified as capable of removing a
minimum of95 percent of amalgam. The amalgam separator system shall be certified at flow
rates comparable to the flow rate of the actual vacuum suction system operation. Neither the
separator device nor the related plumbing shall include an automatic flow bypass. For
facilities that require an amalgam separator that exceeds the practical capacity of ISO 11143
test methodology, a non-certified separator will be accepted, provided that smaller units from
the same manufacturer and of the same technology are ISO-certified.
9. 16.09.215 Silver Processing
Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray films) shall either submit a
treatment application or waste hauler certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-
329-2598.
10. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps.
11. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat
Exchangers
240 Hamilton Ave Page 14
It shall be unlawful to discharge water fron1 cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers
and heat exchangers to the storm drain system.
12. 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.
Un designated Retail Space:
13. PAMC 16.09
Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with lmdesignated
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
BldgIPlumbing 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 of500 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 (1 00 pounds) shall not be installed in food preparation
and storage areas. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health prefers
GCDs to be installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access points or
manholes are readily accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents.
GCDs located outdoors shall be installed in such a manner so as to exclude the
entrance of surface and stormwater.(CPC 1009.5)
7. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow
visibility of each inlet piping, baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping.
The plans shall clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes on the GeD. 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)
1. GCD( s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and indicated on plans.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 15
B. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited BldgIPlumbing Codes
2. 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.
3. A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall be included on the
plans. This can be incorporated into the sizing calculation.
4. 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.
1. Drains in trash/recycling enclosures
J . Wok stoves, rotisserie ovenslbroilers or other grease generating cooking
equipment with drip lines
k. Kettles and tiltlbraising pans and associated floor drains/sinks
5. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and non-grease generating
drainage fixtures to a GCD is prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a
GCD:
a. Dishwashers
b. Steamers
c. Pasta cookers
d. Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens
e. Hand sinks
f. Ice machine drip lines
g. Soda machine drip lines
h. Drainage lines in bar areas
6. No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in aFSE. (PAMC 16.09.075(d)).
7. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food preparation and storage
areas.
8. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be individually trapped and
vented. (CPC 1014.5)
C. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas P AMC, 16.09.075( q)(2)
240 Hamilton Ave Page 16
9. 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.
10. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area
and runoff from the area.
11. 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 aGeD.
12. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a
tallow bin shall be included in the covered area.
13. 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)
14. 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:
Drain Fixtures
(gallons)
Pre-rinse sink
3 compartment sink
2 compartment sink
Prep sink
Mop/Janitorial sink
Floor drain
Floor sink
240 Hamilton Ave
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
DFUs
GCD Sizing:
TotalDFUs GCD Volume
8 500
21 750
35 1,000
90 1,250
172 1,500
216 2,000
Page 17
ExampleGCD
Sizing Calculation:
Note:
Quantity
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
Drainage Fixture & Item Number
Pre-rinse sink, Item 1
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
Floor 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 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
andstonn 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.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 18
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
June 6,2013
Architectural Review Board
Jason M. Nortz, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT C
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Deparlment: Planning and
Community Environment
240-248 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00006): Request by Ken Hayes of
Hayes Group Architects on behalf of Forest Casa Real LLC. for Maj or
Architectural Review Board review for the demolition of an existing 7,000
square foot, two-story commercial building and the construction of a four
story, 50 foot, mixed-use building with a new floor area of 15,000 square
feet on a site located at 240-248 Hamilton Avenue. Environmental
Assessment: an Initial Study and Mitigated Negstlve Declaration have been
prepared. Zone District: Downtown Community Commercial (CD
C)(P)(GF) with Pedestrian Shopping and Ground Floor combining districts.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) consider the project and findings
for Architectural Review approval and recommend approval of the proposed. project to the
Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director), based upon the fmdings in
Attachment A and subject to the conctitions of approval in Attachment B.
BACKGROUND
Site Information
The project site is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District and close to the
southern edge of the Commercial Downtown zone district as shown on the attached map
(Attachment C). The site is 50 feet wide by" 1 00 feet deep and is located at the southern corner of
the Hamilton AvenueiRamona Street intersection. Surrounding land uses include office,
restaurants and retail. Directly east of the project site on the eastern side of Rarnona Street is the
eight-story Palo Alto City Hall. Directly adjacent to the project site along the western side of
Ramona Street is a two-story office building. On the southwestern side of Hamilton Avenue near
the subjeCt property is a two-story building housing the restaurant, Reposado. Across the street on
the northern side of Hamilton Avenue is the Cardinal Hotel, a three-story commercial building
with ground floor uses that include ground floor retail, a restaurant and a hotel lobby. The hotel
13PLN-OOOOO-OO006 Page 1 ofB
occupies the remaining two floors. A four-story commercial building with ground floor retail
(University Art) and office uses on the uppers floors is located "kitty corner" to the project site.
The site is zoned Downtown Commercial with a Ground Floor and "Pedestrian" combining
district CD-C (GF)(P). The CD-C (GF)(P) zone district is intended to be a comprehensive zoning
district for the downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of commercial uses serving
citywide and regional business and service needs, as well as providing for residential uses and
neighborhood service needs. The Pedestrian combining district is designed to help foster the
continuity of retail stores and display windows and to avoid monotonous pedestrian environment
in order to establish and maintain economic viability for a healthy retail district. The Ground
Floor combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in the CD district and sub districts
to allow only retail, eating and drinking and other service-oriented commercial development uses
on the ground floor.
The mixed use project includes permitted uses: ground floor retail use with two floors of offices
and one floor of residential.
Proj ect Description
The project is the demolition of an existing 7,000 square foot, two-story commercial building and
the construction of a four-story, 50-foot tall, mixed-use building with a floor area of 15,000 square
feet, via "bonus" floor area including the use of Transferrable Development Rights (TDRs). The
ground floor would be retail with office space occupying floors two and three. The fourth floor
would be entirely residential consisting of two residential units. Four on-site parking spaces would
be provided for the two residential units. The parking spaces would be provided in a garage
located one level below grade.
The total floor area in the completed project would be 15,000 sq. ft. This includes 11,527 sq. ft.
for commercial uses on the first, second and third floors and 3,473 sq. ft. within two residential
units on the fourth floor. The total floor area breakdown for the project site is as follows:
Office
First Floor: 400 sf
Second Floor: 4,395 sf
Third Floor: 4,395 sf
Fourth Floor:
Total: 9,190 sf
Building Total: 15,000 sf
Retail
2,337 sf
2,337 sf
Residential
201 sf
134 sf
134 sf
3,004 sf
3,473 sf
The building would have a one story retail base set back from the second and third floors by
approximately seven feet along Hamilton Avenue and three feet along Ramona Street. The ground
floor would provide a rhythm of clear storefront glass, recesses and awnings to reinforce the
pedestrian experience. The second and third floors would function as the "architectural block"
that defines the commercial office portion of the building. The fourth floor, would be
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 2 of 8
predominantly clad in windows and would be smaller and set back from the second and third
floors, to reduce the apparent height and mass of the building.
The applicant has requested a variance to encroach into the required seven foot special setback
along Hamilton Avenue, and to encroach into the required six foot special setback along Ramona
Street. Further discussion on the variance request is provided below.
Additional project details are included in the applicant's proj ect description included as
Attachment G and H.
Sustainable Design
The project would incorporate a variety of sustai~able design and transportation friendly concepts
that would help the development achieve both Cal Green Tier II requirements for the commercial
portion of the project and meet Build it Green, Green Point Rated requirements for the residential
portion of the project. In addition, in an effort to reduce overall energy consumption all spaces
will be designed around maximizing daylight through the use of various transparent elements.
DISCUSSION
Floor Area Ratio/Transferred Development Rights
The project includes a request to utilize floor area bonuses in the form of "Transferable
Development Rights" (TDRs), to be transferred from an off-site historical rehabilitation project.
A total of 5,000 square feet of TDRs would be purchased and transferred to the site, from 230-232
Homer Avenue, where the TDRs were acquired through both a seismic and historic rehabilitation
of the building. The proposal would also utilize a one-time, 200 square foot bonus, as provided in
P AMC Section 18.18.070. The bonus ±loor area is considered "exempt" from having to provide
the parking spaces otherwise associated with an expansion of commercial floor area. The parking
provisions for the project are discussed later in this report section.
Setback Variance
The zoning map shows a seven foot special setback and a six foot special setback along certain
streets in the core of the Downtown, as imposed by the speciaL setback map. A seven foot special
setback is applied along the Hamilton Avenue side of the subj ect property, and a six foot special
setback is applied along the Ramona Street side of the project site. The seven foot special setback
exists on both sides of Hamilton Avenue, extending from Waverley Street to Alma Street. The six
foot special setback only exists at two locations in the core of Downtown; 1) along eastern edge of
Bryant Street between Hamilton and Channing Avenues, and 2) along Ramona Street between
Hamilton and Forest Avenues. Furthermore, there are only two comers in all of Downtown where
both a seven foot and six foot special setback are applied; 1) at the northeastern comer of
Hamilton Avenue and Bryant Street (Washington Mutual building), and 2) at the northwestern
comer of Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street (project site). The applicant has requested a
Variance for: 1) a three foot encroachment into the required six foot special setback along
Ramona Street, and 2) a seven foot encroachment into the required seven foot special setback
along Hamilton Avenue. It should be noted that only nine feet of the 45 foot wide building wall
along Hamilton Avenue would encroach seven feet into the special setback (for the purposes of
accommodating an enclosed stairwell). The remaining 36 feet of building wall would encroach
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 3 of 8
approximately five inches into the special setback. The current sidewalk between the existing
building and Ramona Street is six feet wide, which is consistent with the sidewalk adj acent to
existing buildings on Ramona Street between Forest and Hamilton Avenues. The current sidewalk
width between the existing building and Hamilton Avenue is eight feet, which is consistent with
the width of sidewalk adjacent to existing buildings on Hamilton Avenue between Ramona and
Emerson Streets.
For purposes of determining the setback, the measurement is taken at the property line and not the
face of curb. As it is currently situated, the existing building is on the property line on both the
Ramona Street and Hamilton Avenue sides of the project. If the special setbacks were applied to
the development, the result would be a 15 foot wide sidewalk along Hamilton Avenue and a 12
foot wide sidewalk along Ramona Street, both of which would result in significantly increased
sidewalk widths that would be inconsistent with the sidewalks immediately adjacent to the project
site.
The requested Variance would allow the project to provide a sidewalk width of approximately 11
fe~t along Hamilton Avenue, and 10 feet along Ramona Street, both of which meet or exceed the
sidewalk width requirements in the Downtown. The wider sidewalk and more importantly, the
shift of the building mass, would improve the pedestrian experience and enhance the opportunity
for retail activity along Hamilton Avenue.
Approval and implementation of the Variance request would result in the new building not being
as deeply set back from the adjacent buildings on the same side of the block. This would help
maintain the existing continuity. The applicant has requested the special setback encroachments to
reduce the loss of valuable ground floor retail square footage and to reduce the gap between the
other commercial buildings on Hamilton Avenue and Bryant Street.
Parking/Circulation
As noted, the site is within the Downtown Assessment District. Currently, the project site
provides no on-site parking spaces. There are six off-site parking spaces directly adjacent to the
site. Three of the six spaces are located along Hamilton Avenue. The remaining three spaces are
located along Ramona Street. There will be a net deficiency in the number of off-site parking
spaces directly adjacent to the site, due to the proposed curb cut along Ramona Street for the
purpose'of creating a new driveway for the underground parking lot. The loss of two curbside
parking spaces may incrementally add to parking concerns in the downtown and surrounding
neighborhoods. Those impacts, however, will not cause significant increases in congestionor
deterioration in air quality. The loss of the two off-site parking spaces will be offset by the
applicant's provision of in-lieu payments for two parking spaces. Staff is currently working with
the applicant to further study the possibility of reducing the size of the loading zone in front of the
proj ect site along Ramona Street for the purpose of providing one additional off-site parking
space.
The proposed project is only required to provide three parking spaces for the two residential units
located on the fourth floor. The project is providing four spaces. The remaining three floors of
non-residential floor area, consisting of 11,527 square feet of floor area, is not associated with a
requirement for provision of off-site parking spaces for the following reasons:
13 PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 4 of 8
1. The existing 7,000 square feet of commercial floor area is grandfathered in the Downtown
Assessment District (assessed previously for 20 parking spaces! See Attachment H,
Exhibit 2) and as such is not required to provide parking' spaces on site for the existing
amount of floor area;
2. 4,327 square feet of commercial floor area would be transferred to the site, via a Transfer
of Development Rights (TDR) from a valid sender site to an eligible receiver site. These
are valid, recorded Transferable Development Rights (TDR). The first 5,000 square feet
of floor area transferred to a receiver site is ~xempt from the otherwise applicable on-site
parking requirements for new floor area.
3. The remaining 200 square feet of commercial floor area (7,000 sf + 4,327 sf + 200 sf =
11,527sf) is exempt from parking due to a one time allowable 200 square foot bonus, per
P AMC 18.18.070.
Due to limited space, the four residential parking spaces would be two, tandem "stacking" parking
spaces. The proposed parking configuration would also eliminate the need for shared or attendant
parking between the two units. The stacking system would have a below grade space as well as
two above grade spaces so that there are three locations for two vehicles. This means a single
operator can raise or lower a car out of the way of his or her vehicle thereby eliminating the need
for an attendant or for coordination between roommates. Rather than entering the covered garage
parking spaces facing into the building and then backing onto Ramona Street and crossing the
sidewalk in reverse and with dangerous, unclear vision, drivers would enjoy a vehicle rotating
turntable (Attachment I Sheet A2.1). The turntable would allow any car exiting the project site to
be spun around so that it exits facing onto Ramona Street, therefore providing better visibility of
the Ramona Street sidewalk and pedestrians.
Downtown Floor Area Cap
An annual monitoring report on the Commercial Downtown zoning area is mandated by the
Comprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9 that require reporting of non-residential development
activity and trends within the CD zone district. These reports are also required as a result of final
action on the Downtown Study adopted by the City Council in 1986. The Downtowri Study
incorporated a growth limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area over the total floor area
existing in 1986, and provided for a re-evaluation of the CD regulations when new development
reaches 235,000 square feet.
Since 1986, a total of 223,210 square feet of non-residential floor area has been added in the
Downtown CD-C zoned area. In the past two monitoring cycles from 2009-2011, approximately
34,650 square feet of net new commercial floor area was added with a few major contributing
projects such as 524 Hamilton Avenue and 265 Lytton Avenue. In this current cycle, 2011-2012,
approximately 49,860 square feet of net new commercial floor area has been added through one
major project, 335-355 Alma St. (aka; 101 Lytton Ave.). Based on this recent monitoring, an .
additional 11,790 square feet of new non-residential development remains for development before
the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached.
The existing building consists of 7,000 square feet of non-residential floor area. The proposed
project would add an additional 4,527 square feet of non-residential floor area, which would
minimally contribute towards the limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area.
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 5 of8
Context Based Design Criteria
The proposed building design appears to be consistent with many of the requirements of the
Context-Based Design Criteria as outlined in Section 18.18.110 of the Zoning Code. In summary,
the project would provide pedestrian walk-ability, a bicycle-friendly environment, connectivity
through design elements, and street facades having a strong relationship with the sidewalks and
the street to support and encourage pedestrian activity. Bicycle storage is to be provided in the
below grade parking garage as well as at grade along both Hamilton A venue and Ramona Street.
The ground floor design is intended to be an attractive streetscape design with a combination of
clear frameless glass, porcelain tile and stainless steel canopies above each entrance along
Ramona and Hamilton. Separate entrances would also be provided for each use along the first
floor including the main lobby area.
The building would minimize massing with increased setbacks at the first floor in addition to
other design elements, such as a recessed entry and canopies that would be located above the
primary entry points. The first floor design employs different materials and colors, including
porcelain tile, clear frameless glass and cedar cladded garage door. Floors two through three are
designed to function as the "architectural block" that distinguishes the commercial office portion
of the building from the rest of the building. This' area would primarily consist of a structural
glazed curtain wall with a combination of clear dual glazed glass and translucent lanlinate glass.
The area would be outlined by a cream colored limestone wall. The residential units on the fourth
floor would be set back from the block face below. The units would be capped with a hip roof
composed of metal and outlined by a composite metal panel. The elevator shaft and stairwells
would be white cement plaster.
The parking design is consistent with the design criteria in that the parking spaces would be
located below grade and is concealed from public view by a recessed garage door.
Downtown Urban Design Guide
The Downtown Urban Design Guide is meant to advise the applicant, staff and the ARB regarding
development and design in the downtown area. The Downtown Urban Design Guide divides the
downtown area into districts, each having a unique identity and design characteristics. The site is
located within the Hamilton A venue District according to the Downtown Urban Design Guide.
The Hamilton Avenue District is a mixed office/commercial/retail district with some residential
uses. The primary goal of the Hamilton Avenue District is to promote Hamilton Avenue as an
active mixed use district with a pleasing, tree .. lined pedestrian experience. The development of
three or more story buildings surrounding Civic Center Plaza are encouraged to help create a
stronger urban edge within this area.
The proposed project is consistent with the recommendations for this district. Staff finds that this
project, with its extensive use of storefront glazing, first floor recesses and canopies, and
pedestrian friendly amenities such as sunshades, street trees and ample sidewalk widths, would
contribute significantly to the goal of creating an exciting pedestrian environment. The guidelines
also encourage additional height for buildings at comers. The proposed building of 50 feet is
consistent with both the Zoning Code and the Downtown Urban Design Guide.
13P LN-OOOOO-00006 Page 6 of 8
Trees/Landscape Plan
The existing project site is a completely built out site that contains no open space or any
significant landscaping. There are six regulated street trees located around the perimeter of the
subject property. Two Flowering Pear trees are located in the public right-of-way along Hamilton
Avenue. The renlaining four trees are located along Ramona Street and include· three Japanese
Pagoda trees and two London Plane trees. The City Arborist has recommended removal of all six
trees. The· existing trees would be replaced with five new street trees. The City Arborist is
currently working with the applicant to determine the appropriate species type and location.
Open space for the development would be provided as a combination of six terraces and ground
floor recessed areas. On the fourth floor, four terraces (two for each residential unit) totaling 1,114
square feet would be provided, where the minimum requirement is 200 square feet of usable open
space for each residential unit. There would also be two identically sized terraces on each of the
second and third floors, totaling 71 square feet each. Additional open space is provided along the
ground floor in the form of recessed areas beyond the 10 feet of sidewalk along both Hamil ton
A venue and Ramona Street. Additional information pertaining to open space requirements can be
found in the zoning comparison table provided as Attachment D.
Signage
Signs are not included in this ARB application. The proposal for signage would· be a separate
architectural review application and depending on the level of detail, would be reviewed by the
ARB or staff on behalf of the ARB. The applicant has been requested to indicate potential
locations on the· building for signage. Currently, blade signs are not allowed unless they are
placed underneath a canopy or a Sign Exception is requested and approved for such signage.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environnlental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
have been prepared and circulated, with a required 20-day public review and comment period
beginning on May 10, 2013 and ending on May 30, 2013. Mitigation measures are proposed to
address biological resources, seismicity and noise. To date, no comments have been received on
the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project would not have an impact on fish or
wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources. The use is appropriate for the
site and the development would not result in an adverse visual impact.
ATTACHMENTS
A. ARBN ariance Findings
B. Conditions of Approval
C. Location Map
D. Zoning Compliance Table
E. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Policies
F. Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration
G. Applicant's Project Description
H. Applicant's Submittal Packet (Board Members only)
1. . Plan Set received January 7, 2013 (Board Members only)
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 7 of 8
COURTESY COPIES
Sal Giovanotto, Owner
Ken Hayes, Architect/Applicant
Prepared By: Jason M. Nortz, Senior Planner
Manager Review: Amy French, Chief Planning Official
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT D
ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE
240-248 Hamilton Avenue / File No. 13PLN-00006
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE PROPOSED
FOR CD-C(GF)(P) ZONE DISTRICT DISTRICT PROJECT
STANDARD
Site coverage (building footprint) N one required 5,000 sq.ft
Floor area (gross floor area) 1.0:1 15,000 sq. ft.
3: 1 wi allowed
floor area
bonuses for
mixed use=
15,000 sq.ft.
Building setback
Front (Hamilton Ave.) 7' 0' -6.5'
Special setback requirement special setback
Rear 0' -commercial 0'
10' -residential 10'
Interior Side 0' 0'
Street side (Ramon St.) 6' 3'
Special setback requirement special setback
Building height
50' 50'
Landscape Open Space Coverage 20% or 1,000 sf 35% or 1,789
Usable Open Space 200 sf/unit or 1,114 sf
400 sf
CONFORMANCE
N/A
conforms
Variance requested
for 7 foot to 5 inch
encroachment
conforms
conforms
Variance requested
for3 foot special
setback
encroachment
confonns
confonns
confonns
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE PROPOSED CONFORMANCE
FOR CD-C(GF)(P) ZONE DISTRICT DISTRICT PROJECT
STANDARD
Parking:
Commercial 11250 sf N one required -conforms
a) additional
floor area
from TDR
(5,000 sf)
and seisnlic
bonus are
exempt from
parking
requirements
b) 7,000 sf of *Conforms per
existing PAMC section
floor area 18.52.070(E)(3)
that is not
parked is
grandfather
Residential 1.5 spaces/unit ed in
or 3 spaces
4 spaces
Bicycle 2 long term conforms
3 short term 2 long term
4 short term conforms
* 18.52.070(a) on site parking: Any new development, any addition or enlargement of existing development, or
any use of any floor area that has never been assessed under any Bond Plan G fmancing pursuant to Title 13, shall
provide one parking space for each two hundred fifty gross square feet offloor area, with the following exceptions:
(3) No new parking spaces will be required for a site in conjunction with the development or replacement
of the amount offloor area used for nonresidential use equal to the amount of adjusted square footage for the site
shown on the engineer's report for fiscal year 1986-87 for the latest Bond Plan G fmancing for parking acquisition or
improvements in that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the University Avenue parking assessment
district, entitled Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off-Street Parking Project #75-63 Assessment District,
City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk.
However, square footage which was developed for nonresidential purposes or which has been used for
nonresidential purposes but which is not used for such purposes due to vacancy at the time of the engineer's
report shall be included in the amount of floor area qualifying for this exemption. No exemption parking
requirements shall be available where a residential use changes to a nonresidential use, except pursuant to
subdivision (l)(C) of this subsection.
Spotwood, Alicia
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Objection to Proposal to develop 240-248 Hamilton
RE -Proposal for 240 Hamilton.pdf
-----Forwarded· Message -----
From: DOUGLAS SM ITH <sm ithwriter1 @sbcglobal.net>
To: "amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org" <amy.french@Cityofpaloalto.org>; "aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org"
<aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1 :08 PM
Subject: Objection to Proposal to develop 240-248 Hamilton
Dear Ms. French,
I attach a letter of objection to the proposal on 240-248 Hamilton that is currently before the Architectural
Review Board (at the July 18 meeting). The review process has been inadequate. I explain in detail how the
design does not comply with the Municipal Code nor the Comprehensive Plan, and must be rejected.
I currently have the support of two other local citizens concerned about the aesthetics issue, who have approved
·and co-signed the letter. There will be muth more support should we have to appeal an ARB approval of this
project.
Please distribute this letter to parties whom you consider need to be aware 6fthis objection. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Douglas Smith
Forest Avenue resident
1
RE: Proposal by Ken Hayes and Forest Casa Real· LLC
to develop the site at 240-248 Hamilton Avenue
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Aaron Aknin, Acting Director of Planning
Palo Alto City Hall
Dear Ms. French, Planning Staff, and ARB members,
Introduction
If the Architectural Review Board should approve this design, the Board would be violating its own
ordinance and the ARB standards of review. The pertinent passages are as follows (my italics):
PAMC Section 18.76.020, Architectural Review
(a) "The purpose of architectural review is to: ... (5) Promote visual environments which are of
high aesthetic quality and variety and which, atthe same time, are considerate of each other."
"d) Findings: Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review
approval, unless it is found that: (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the
site; ... and (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character; ... "
The applicable passages of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan are:
"Program L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces ....
"Program L-49: In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, design new
development to maintain and support the existing character."
The proposed Ken Hayes design is absolutely incompatible with the most valued, historic buildings in the
immediate environment. The proposed design is neither high quality nor considerate of its surroundings.
It is a modernist glass box which would be entirely out of place at Ramona and Hamilton, surrounded on
three sides by heritage structures. Inexplicably, even the Staff Report on this project fails altogether to
consider the aesthetic aspects and must be considered null concerning the aesthetics issue.
Context
The site lies next door to Reposado Restaurant (a building eligible for the California Register of Historical
Resources). Across Hamilton it faces obliquely the old classically-inspired former Post Office at 205
Hamilton, and directly faces the Cardinal Hotel. Both use pilasters, among other features, as a decorative
motif. The proposed design merely substitutes a few cylindrical posts, a poor, abstract imitation of
columns.
The 240 ... 248 comer also lies directly across Hamilton from the 500 block of Ramona, a designated
district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In the opposite direction, along the same block
of Ramona as the proposed structure, lie three more heritage buildings, numbers 668 (Pacific Art League,
building eligible for the National Register), 642 (now Coconuts Restaurant), and 630, a Birge Clark
design). Number 630's design is sufficiently exemplary that it is depicted in the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, between paragraphs L-48 and L-49 which mandate high-quality design and support of historic
character.
In short, the immediate area within one block is saturated with a dozen historic structures that exemplify
harmonious style and are officially recognized as deserving preservation and compatibility. There are
more historic buildings than newer ones around this site.
Staff Report is Incomplete
Therefore it is a great surprise to find no mention in the project's Staff Report on this proposal that any of
these buildings has heritage character, nor is the Ramona Street Historic District cited, nor are the three
above-mentioned heritage buildings in the 600 block of Ramona mentioned at all. On page 6 of the
report, the staff planner points out that the site lies within the Hamilton Avenue District, but excludes any
reference to the adjacent extension of Ramona Street that is one of the two designated National Register
areas in the city.
When I read under staff Findings, Paragraph (1) [The design is consistent and compatible with applicable
elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan], I am amazed that the staffplanner states, "This finding
can be made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates quality design that recognizes the regional
and historical importance of the area as described in the Comprehensive Plan ... "
In fact the design fails to make any hint of a gesture whatsoever in recognizing ''the regional and
historical importance of the area."
The whole reason for ultra-simplistic modernist designs like this one is that modernism, from the outset
(starting about 1910), was to erase all memory of past design and omit references to traditional
architecture. See the writings of Le Corbusier, Loos, Gropius, and other modernist theorist-architects
who abhorred ornament and promoted use of flat roofs and large expanses of blank wall or glass, among
other elements. Therefore there is no way to improve this design to make it compatible with nearby
classical and Spanish Colonial Revival buildings without making the Hayes design look internally
inconsistent and ridiculous.
As for quality, the review process thus far includes no rationale to support the above finding that this is a
high-quality design. The staff planner's criteria for a quality design are unstated. I deduce that they
constitute subjective opinion. But there do exist objective criteria for a good design.
First: A good design must have life to it. But the proposed building has no oblique lines (except a slight
slant in the roof, invisible from the street), no curvilinear lines, and virtually no color. According to
Rudolf Arnheim's celebrated book The Dynamics of Architectural Form, entirely rectilinear buildings are
usually aesthetically dead, for lack of lifelike motion created by these elements. I agree.
Second: There's scarcely anything to look at in this design except large expanses of glass, a thin, brittle
building material which has a sterile character and no innate aesthetic appeal for the viewer.
Third, a large building requires several levels of formal subdivision or hierarchy in order to create
aesthetic complexity and retain viewer interest. But the proposed simple design appears to consist of
approximately 80 percent glass walls in large expanses. The structure will have nearly no hierarchy and
very little visual variety to it, which are a~so severe flaws in the unloved City Hall building across the
street. They are both far too formally simple for their size and thus monotonous, hence the public's
indifference to or dislike of this kind of design.
As for "considerate of its immediate environment" mandated by the Comprehensive Plan and the
Municipal Code, the design is emphatically not aesthetically considerate because most of the buildings
within one block are heritage buildings, while this design is in a completely antithetical style.
In Findings Paragraph (2), the staff planner states that the design is compatible with the immediate
environment of the site, but cites as proof only the size and commercial nature of the design. The staff
planner omits any mention of the area's aesthetic, heritage character .
. For a definition of compatibility, see the city's South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, which states:
"Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with that
existing in the neighborhood, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes
design linkages with surrounding existing buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained."
(My emphasis.) But the general design characteristics of this proposed new building are totally different
from all of the surrounding buildings, excluding only the mediocre ones (285 and 300 Hamilton), and
there are no design linkages whatsoever with the many classical and Spanish Colonial Revival structures
nearby. Therefore the Hayes glass-curtain design is incompatible with the buildings surrounding the 240-
248 Hamilton location and does not comply with Municipal Code regulations.
As for Findings Paragraph (4), the PAMC, Ch. 18.76 requires that, "In areas considered by the board as
having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character."
Yet the staff planner inexplicably sidesteps mention of historical or unified design of the neighboring
buildings by citing only technical aspects of mass and height, enhanced vehicular and pedestrian entries,
and a bland description of Hamilton Avenue. He refers to the Downtown Urban Design Guide for
guidelines. But the Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan are the ultimate arbiting documents, and the
design does not conform to their aesthetic requirements for Architectural Review.
June 6 ARB Meeting
At the public ARB meeting on June 6, I addressed the Board and articulated many of the concepts .
explained in this letter.
ARB member Lippert responded that, "the design ... is really wonderful." On the other hand, he admitted
that it does not fit in with the neighborhood. Here is his relevant statement, addressing Mr. Hayes:
"With regard to Mr. Smith's comments with regard to the austerity of the building, I appreciate that it
doesn'~ fit in with the other historic buildings in the neighborhood. If this was in fact in the Ramona
District, I think it would be far more problematic. But in fact if you were to follow the Secretary of
Interior standards, the underlying rule there is "Thou shalt not create false history." And so because of the
nature of the architectural approach that you've taken here, it actually contrasts the other historic
structures. And doesn't impose itself upon them from a false [perspective], 'Thou shalt not create false
history. 'You're not creating a false historical structure by going with either a Mission or Spanish Revival
style building. So I thinkJrom the Secretary of Interior standards point of view, you've done exactly what
it says -'Thou Shalt Not Create False History;' You've created here something that is separate and
distinct, and will never ever be confused with a Birge Clark building. It's a Ken Hayes building."
If it doesn't fit into the neighborhood, then the Municipal Code expressly forbids approval.
One cannot consider the site solely as part of the Hamilton A venue District, when the proposed building
is twice as long on its Ramona Street side, on a block with three historic buildings, and when the Ramona
Street National Register District is only 50 feet away. That historic district is easily within the "immediate
environment" and within the "surrounding development" mentioned in the Municipal Code and
Comprehensive Plan.
On the quality issue, ARB member Alizadeh* stated that she agreed ("partially") with my conclusion that
the building had no character, saying it had "a lack of general interest ... overall." Thus at least one ARB
member concedes that the design does not have the high quality mandated by the Code and the Plan. She
defended'her defense of the design by referring to her training in architecture school where she was taught
not "to create false history," presumably meaning creating a new building in a more traditional style.
(*The full paragraph of Ms. Alizadeh's statement appears at the end of this letter.)
But the ARB members are not beholden to their architecture professors. They are bound by law to
administer the letter and spirit of the PAMC and the Comprehensive Plan, which state clearly that a site
like this one shall be of high quality and compatible with its historic surroundings. The Municipal Code
and Comprehensive Plan do not mention or require "contrast," "separate and distinct," nor do they
,mandate that historic buildings to stand out because the new building is starkly different as a "corporate
effect" (the term used by Ms. Alizadeh). Therefore, I am surprised by Mr. Lippert's apparent inclination
to approve the proposal, while admitting that the design "doesn't fit in with the other historic buildings in
the neighborhood." I interpret Board approval of this proposal as a violation of the ARB's own Code
statutes, which are binding on the Board's review process.
Board member Lew expressed some limited support for my objections regarding the Ramona Street I
heritage buildings. He stated to Mr. Hayes, "For the people who don't like abstract [design], I would hope
that they would see something else in your building." He suggested adding limited amounts of filigree,
planters and awnings. Yet these little additions would not alter the fundamental character of vast expanses
of sterile glass wall incompatibly contrasting with the nearby heritage bUildings.
Finally, ARB member Pritchard stated, "it is a really handsome building," offering no justification or
adequate findings for her opinion, and expressed no reservations regarding the context. The fifthARB
member had recused himself from review of this project.
Regardingso-called "false history," the Board misunderstands the phrase. False history means building
indistinguishably from an old structure in a manner that could deceive a viewer. There is abundant local
precedent for creating attractiVe buildings in a style that is clearly new but similar enough to blend
harmoniously with Palo Alto's heritage architecture. Some such relatively recent commercial buildings
within four blocks of 240 Hamilton are:
499 Hamilton Avenue
505 Hamilton Avenue
520 Cowper Street, the Garden Court Hotel
101 University A venue
499 University A venue, currently the Sprint building
245 Lytton Avenue, a financial center housing Morgan Stanl,ey and Cornish -& Carey
265 Lytton Avenue
250 University, the Plaza Ramona complex
Conclusion
I cannot conceive how both the Planning Department staff and the Architectural Review Board members
can ignore the very clear aesthetic requirements of the city's Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code
with respect to this proposal. The design does not conform to the ordinance citations presented at the
beginning of this letter.
Tl1e. proposal needs to be carefully redesigned for historical compatibility with the immediate
environment of the site. If the Board approves the proposal as is or only lightly modified, there will
necessarily be an appeal by those of us who are concerned that the City's approved ordinances and
policies be honored.
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Sniith, Forest A venue
Co-signers:
Neilson Buchanan, Bryant Street
Michael Hodos, Bryant Street
*Ms. Alizadeh addressing Mr. Smith: "I think in general, the way that we're taught in architecture school
is that you don't want to create false history, like Board member Lippert said. And this also allows those
authentic old buildings to stand out, and to really be seen. And so not everything just gets kind of the
wash of an age. So this is the approach that we're taught, and I respect that. In terms of your comment
that it's characterless, I agree with you partially, that there is a bit of a lack of general interest, I think,
overall. I guess I would call it the corporate effect, as opposed to character. But I still think that this is the
approach that we as architects· are trained to take."
PALO ALTO. DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS
AN OPEN SOURCE PLANNING TOOL
July 8, 2013 discussion draft
by
Downtown North and University South Residents
Contact: N. Buchanan cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan states" The Plan establishes the physical boundaries of residential and
commercial areas and sets limits where necessary to ensure that business and housing remain compatible. It
encourages commercial enterprise, but not at the expense of the City's residential neighborhoods. "
On March 18, 2013, the City Council accepted a staff report which documented massive parked vehicle
intrusion lintc;> residential neighborhoods. The Council acknowledged the need to improve the quality of
neighborhoods with six "near term" 1-6 month improvements. See Appendix A. The report also documented
two issues of great importance to residents who have been appealing for relief for over 5 years .
./ The City Council officially acknowledged on March 18 the current downtown parking deficit of 901
spaces. This deficit had accumulated since the mid;..1980s and clearly understated the accumulated
deficit.
. ./ The Council also acknowledged that the parking deficit would increase by an additional 665 spaces to a
total deficit of 1566 spaces. A timeline for this increase was unfortunately' omitted from the report;
nevertheless, the Council quickly authorized city staff to work on 6 "near-term fixes." Furthermore, city's
methodology omitted important demand factors such as increased density of office workers and growing
success of downtown restaurant ~nd retail businesses .
. The intent of this planning tool is to improve the static data presented to City Council on March 18. A team of
neighborhood activists compiled data and projected the current deficit to a minimum of __ by January
2017. Data and next steps are presented in six sections and will be updated at tl1e end of each month.
Everyone in Palo Alto is invited to use this tool.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
1
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Section 1 is a comprehensive study of 28 factors driving commercial area parking intrusion into 2
residential neighborhoods adjacentto University Avenue.
Section 2 describes 7 actions which could reduce intrusion onto residential streets. 3-5
Section 3 describes parked vehicle intrusion into neighborhoods near California Avenue. 5-7
Section 4 identifies popular concepts needing further clarification. 11-12
Section 5 outlines neXt proposals to improve the quality of neighborhoods. 13-23
Section 6 will highlight success stories and efforts to improve process. 23-23
Appendix A Abstracts from March 18 City Council Report (Cumulative and Future
Parking Deficits in University Avenue Area) 23-23
Appendix.B Supply/Demand Worksheets for University Avenue area 2013-2016 23-23
Appendix C Summary of Downtown Property Use and Square Footage 23-23
Appendix 0 Methodology Used in this Report 23-30
City staff has been asked to comment on this draft as it is refined each month. By early fall 2013
the Planning Department will dedicate one staff member to focus solely on parking issues
throughout Palo Alto. The Planning Department may modify Phase 1 of their. Downtown
Development Capacity Study to address some or all of the demand and supply factors in this
report. By January 2014 the Planning Department, City Council and residents should be able to
collaborate and reconcile this forecast for parking space supply and demand for commercial and 3
residential neighborhoods adjacent to University Avenue. Discussions are underway to include
neighborhoods around California Avenue.
All other neighborhoods in Palo Alto are invited to use this planning
tool to protect the quality of their neighborhoods.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
2~
3
Executive Summary
1. Major intrusion of all day parked vehicles is anticipated through 2017.
Neighborhoods adjacent to University and California Avenues are profoundly impacted by commercial
development. The City Council acknowledged a parking space deficit of 901 on March 18 and
forecast an additional deficit of 665 in the near future. Residents in neighborhoods adjacent to
. Univerisity Avenue predict the deficit to grow to by Janaury 1, 2017. This forecasts assumes 2
new city parking garages despite major difficulties in building and financing efficient garages in the
next 3 years. See Section One and Appendix B.
2. Multiple neighborhoods will be further impacted.
At least 4 Palo Alto neighborhoods are being harmed from profound spillover of commercial vehicles
unable to park in the commercial parking areas. 'It is a clear finding of fact that commercial enterprise
is being promoted by outdated 1980 City policy and planning practices to the detriment of at 4+
residential neighborhoods for the next 3+ years. In an effort to improve the quality of all Palo Alto
neighborhoods, this open source planning model is presented to the cOrTlmunity for further
refinement. The declining quality of the following neighborhoods warrants improved .stewardship from
the City Council:
-/ Everg reen
-/ Crescent Park
-/ Downtown North
-/ University' South
-/ Pending Neighborhoods such as Barron Park
3. The following factors promote parking intrusion into neighborhoods:
-/ Failure to enforce clearly stated provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan
./ Misuse and Abuse of Planned Community Concepts by City Staff, Council and Developers
./ Over-use and Under-management of Public Benefits
./ Overuse of Outdated Transfer Development Rights
./ Chronic Declarations of Negative Impact by Planning Department Director and City Council
./ Uninformed and Unaware Citizens within the Affected Neighborhoods
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
3. Improved stewardship is needed from Commissions, City Council and Staff
Development expertise can be rebalanced with neighborhood expertise at the Architectural Review
Board, Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council. Appointment individuals with
broader skill sets t is needed in 2013 and·201-4 for the ARB and·PTC. The City Council must focus
4
on the policies which are clearly lowering the quality of neighborhoods and must enforce development
moratoria when warranted. Negative impacts include the following issues:
V" Intrusion of parked vehicles from commercial areas into residential neighborhoods
V" Traffic spillover onto purely neighborhood streets such as Channing, Maybell, Bryant, Everett
and Hawthorne .
V" Pedestrian and bicycle safety at key intersections such as Bryant and Everett.
V" The City Council and Staff must complete a professional analysis
of parking intrusion into downtown neighborhoods not later than
January 1, 2014. Without a common understanding of the all-day
parked vehicle tidal wave impacting residential neighborhoods, it
is impossible to address the sy~temic planning failures driving
commercial.parking demand onto residential streets .
../' A moratorium on 'further devel·opment should be imposed
immediately to stop·the massive intrusion of parked vehicles into
the three neighborhoods.
4. Over-reliance of quick fixes
All of the six near-term downtown parking improvements approved by the City Council on March 18
are not actively pursued by City Staff due to resource limitations. Furthermore, even if fully
implemented, they have minor impact of the tidal· wave of parked vehicles flowing monthly into each
neighborhood. Reliance on the long-term downtown development study
(inadequately funded for completion circa 2016) is a totally inadequate·
response to need for parking space supply and demand imbalance.
5. High Cost of Free Parking
The increase of all day commercial parking into neighborhoods cannot be resolved without the
Council's full embrace of free parking policies in downtown Palo Alto.
6. Neighborhood Leaders and Residents
Downtown and other neighborhood leaders have both a responsibility
and an opportunity to respond to parking and other development
issues with fact-based persuasion and responsible forcing actions.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Section One
28 Factors Creating Dema"nd for Parking Spaces,
2013 Q3 278 "Universi
Impact on Residential Streets
200/0 Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Office/Retail1 "8,206sf
Estimated impact on
73 VEHICLES*
-14
+59
20 vehicles
30
9
Approval Status: Final Construction Stage
*Source of vehicle impact: Www;cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not ~ity sources.
5
6
Occupancy Date: July 2013 (Partial Occupancy)
For further information contact:
1. Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x~ssss, Aaron.aknin@citybfpaloalto.org
2. Developer:
2013 Q3 801-841 Alma Housing 2013
Project impact is difficult to forecast. Impact, if any, will be primarily upon Downtown South
neighborhoods. Impact should be studied by Planning Department 100 days after opening-. It is not .
clear if the Pla,nningDepartment has the . to follow u on arki im from this project.
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation -
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
. For further information contact
Estimated impact on
? VEHICLES?**
1
?
? vehicles
?
?
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin,32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer:
2013 Q4 101 lytton Office/Retail 49,863sf
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
t
.f l'f t.
-~, --_.J
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status: Under construction
Occupancy Date: Late 2013
For further information contact
II .. J.,
~._.", ___ .. ' rr. ., . ~.
, ,'\;
I .. ~ ..
'~c:)'~., :
~ ... --..I~-----
I • __ ..... -., "-' .....
·!C.L 11 .. -1:_ •
(:,;,::,--.,... ~."
.1 ..........
j h~· ... . _.. . -" [)
+22 VEHICLES?*
-4
+18
9 vehicles
7
2
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer Boyd Smith .
2014 Q1 668 Ramona Office/Retail 12,546sf
7
Impact on Residential Streets
of Public Transportation
+50 VEHICLES!* 200/0 Use
-10
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further informa,tion contact
Estimated impact on
+40
15 vehicles
15
10
1. Acting Planning Director Aaron·Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@citvofpaloalto.org
2. Developer
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
".
2014 Q1850Webster Channing House 32,185sf
The expansion includes 27 skilled nursin"g.beds, 27 assisted living units, common areas and offices.
At least 50 daytime employees are estimated to provide basic and clinical services.
Impact on Residential Streets
20%Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status: Under Construction
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
+50 VEHICLES**
-10
+40
15vehicles
15
10
1. Acting Plannirig Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
2. Channing House Facilities Director Bruce Collins 327-0950
2014 Q1 180 Hamilton Avenue Epiphany Hotel(old Casa Olga
Nursing Home) 86 room hotel + restaurant
8
Developer is supposed to present plan to City Planning Department for valet parking. No plan has
been made public as of June 2013. Downtown residents have contacted the JDC and asked for their "
plans to provide parking for hotel guests and staff.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park.
Estimated impact on
Approval Status: Under Construction, Completion Date 2014 01
Occupancy Date: Pending Parking Plan Approval??
For further information contact
+91 VEHICLES*
-18
+73
20 vehicles
50
3
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
JDV Hotel Manager, Lorenz Maurer Imaurer@jdvhotels.com
2014 Q2 Construction of Parking Lot P Garage
A 12 month construction period pushes.60+ vehicles onto residential streets for 12+ months. The
initial proposal by Developer Chop Keenan has been referred to city staff for further analysis in order
to clarify issues such as actual calculation of public benefit, responsibility for private/public project
property taxes, design elements and costs.
Impact on Residential Streets,
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Estimated impact on
Approval Status: Referred back to Staff by City Council
+60 VEHICLES*
-12
+48
20 vehicles
20
5
Occupancy Date: Unknown, 12-month fast track construction period proposed by Mr. Keenan
For further information .contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloaltQ.org
Developer Chop Keenan
2014 Q1 564 University Office/Retail 7,917sf
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
9
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
•. Downtown South
• . Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
+32 VEHICLES!*
-6
+26 Estimated impact on
6 vehicles
10
10
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: ?
2014 Q1
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
+25 VEHICLES?**
-5
+20
8 vehicles
8
4
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@citvofpaloalto.org
Developer: ? .
2014 Q2 456 University: Offices 2016 24,961sf
A 25,000 sf building requires parking for 100 vehicles. As presented by the City Planning
Department, this building provides no new parking spaces on-site.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
10
Impact on Residential Streets
200/0 Use of Public Transportation
NETIMPACT·
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact:
Estimated impact on
+100 VEHICLES!*
-20
+80
30 vehicles
35
15
1.Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
2. Develqper
2014 Q2 456 Universi Retail Fall 14,140sf
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park.
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
City Website Link:
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
+57 VEHICLES!*
:11
+46
15 vehicles
25
6
1. Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
2. Developer
2015 Q4 Housing/Retail 636 Waverley 5,270sf
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
11
12
The developeor of this project is reconsidering building design and may provide all required parking on
site instead of paying in lieu fees. Also the developer has shown willingness to work with his tenants
and residents to implement various traffic demand management concepts which could improve
downtown parking and traffic conditions.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occu pancy Date:
For further information contact
? V~HICLES!*
? vehicles
?
...1
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: David Kleiman, 327-2750, dkleiman@d2realty.com
2015 Q2? 500 University qffice/Retaii 21,0005f °
This development has expanded since March 18 from 10,709 SF to 21,000+sf. It will have 24 on-site
parking spaces but 83 additional parking spaces are needed. Proj~ctions assume 21 office workers
will use public transportation and reduce arkin im actto 62 vehicles.
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
Net Impact
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
+83VEHICLES*
-17
+66
20 vehicles
30
16
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: Thoif Brothers? . .
*Sou rce of veh icle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebank/documents/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
2015 Q2 240-248 Hamilton Office/Retail 11 ,5275f
Impact on Residential Streets
250/0 Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Qowntown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
46 VEHICLES!*
:J!
+37
10 vehicles
25
2
1. Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
2. Developer
3. Website Link:
2015 Q2 261 Hamiltc;>n Office/Retail 10,0005f
.
. -
" ~ " l
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transpor,tation
NET IMPACT
Downtown North
Downtown South
Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
• , ; r '~~ ' .. ",. "' -~
y
~"
1 ·-0 .. ,.
~--1.···
Estimated impact on
33 VEHICLES!*
-7
+26
10 vehicles
10
6
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: ?
2015 Q2 135 'Hamilton Office/Retail 19,960sf
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources .
13
14
Currently this property is a 23~car parking lot in active use byPalatir, one of the largest employers in
downtown Palo Alto. Developer Chop Keenan has 'proposed elimination of the private parking lot with
a building with __ on-site parki.ng places. This building according to the March 18 City Manager's
report to City Council requires an addition 61 parking spaces. Discussions are underway between
the City Staff and Developer to resolve parking space issues. Mr. Keenan later presented a proposal
to provide. parking spaces in a private/public venture on city land; however, the City Council sent the
proposal back to staff for further study on. See Attachment Band the Keenan/Parking Lot P Parking
Garage on page
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
+61 VEHICLES*
-12
+49
10 vehicles
35
4
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer Chop Keenan, 326-2920,326-2244, chopkeenan@yahoo.com
2015 Q3 . Menlo Park Stanford/Arriliaga Office Towers
This massive complex is in its final stages of approval by Menlo Park City Council. Citizen leaders in
Menlo Park provide the following information: .
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates. by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
./' 4 building complex on EI Camino, stretching 3 blocks from the Tesla dealership to Middle Ave .
./' 5 stories tall
./' 440,000+ sq feet -the size of 6 Menlo Park Safeways!
./' Office and parking structure dominate the site with smaller portion of housing and retail
15
There are no parking restrictions in Palo Alto to prevent customers and office workers from parking,
for example, on Palo Alto Avenue, Emerson or Alma. On the other hand, Menlo Park has very
effective parking restrictions on its residential streets. See www.savemenlo.org for more information.
This is an extremely low estimate if parking restrictions are not implemented in DTN. Impact on DTN .
streets could be profound during the 2013-15 construction period. This major project avoided
California Environmental Quality" Act requirements.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status: Pending City Council?
Occupancy Date: Unknown
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
10 VEHICLES?**
10 vehicles
o
o
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss,Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Menlo Park Mayor PeterOhtaki city.council@menlopark.org 339-6630
Developer: John Arrillaga
Stanford University: ?
Menlo Park Citizens www.savemenlo.org
TRAFFIC IMPACT WILL BE MUCH MORE SEVERE THAN PARKING INTRUSION. NO PALO
ALTO TRAFFIC STUDIES ARE BEING DONE TO ANTICIPATE MENLO PARK SPILLOVER
TRAFFIC ON KEY RESIDENTIAL STREETS SUCH AS HAWTHORNE/EVERETT/PALOALTO
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
AVENUES AND BRYANT STREET. L YTION, UNIVERSITY AND HAMILTON AVENUES ARE
ALREADY SATURATED AT PEAK COMMUTE PERIODS AND REQUIRE IMMEDIATE ANALYSIS
FOR THEIR CAPACITY TO ACCEPT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC WITHOUT DETRIMENT TO
DOWNTOWN NORTH STREET SAFETY.
2015 Q3
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown -South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
+60 VEHICLES!*
-12
+48
16 vehicles
16
16
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer
2015 Q3 380 Hamilton Historic Post Office
16
Palo Alto proposes to buy this historical building and convert to city staff offices. The USPS will
probably lease a small portion. Limited parking is on this property. If converted to City or private
offices, an unknown number of employees will seek parking on residential streets or permit parking in
city parking lots.
.Impact on Residential Streets
200/0 Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
+20 VEHICLES?**
-4
+16
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For fu rther information contact
Estimated impact on
7 vehicles
7
2
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: ?
2015 Q4 537 Hamilton Office/Retail 9,9795f
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date.:
For fu rther information contact
+20 VEHICLES*
-4
+16 ·
5
7
4
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: ?
2016 Q2 300 Homer History Museum/Roth Building
17
There is a reasonable possibility that this building will be converted to a civic museum with no on-site
parking. It is possible current street parking adjacent to the Museum would be changed from all day
parking to 2-hour parking. 10-20+ cars will eventually park on residential streets all day. To
accommodate museum visitors 2-hr restricted parking is likely to be implemented, thus displacing all-.
day parked vehicles further into residential neighborhoods.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
+15 VEHICLE:S?**
-3
+12
2 vehicles
10 .
o
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: ?
20164Q 27 University Stanford/Arriliaga Office
TowerslTheater
18
As currently proposed this project should have adequate parking for day time workers, assuming
there is sufficient CalTrain capacity. See page? which raises questions for CalTrain to accommodate
expanded passenger service at rush hours. However, it is reasonable to assume that 800 workers in
the office towers will generate 25 visitors for lunch each day who park in downtown. If the proposed
Performing Arts Center is kept in the proposal, then Downtown North and South will have additional
night time parking from patrons who have an aversion to underground parking. Also-there will be
unknown impact from pre-theater patrons who dine downtown and walk to the theater. Some' patrons
may park.in the CalTrain parking lots, but parking is not free in those station parking lots. The
following streets wit! experience nighttime parking from non-residents:
• High
• Ramona
• Emerson
• Everett
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Estimated impact on
+25 VEHICLES?**
-5
+20
10
10
o
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Inlpact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
TRAFFIC IMPACT WILL BE MUCH MORE SEVERE THAN PARKING INTRUSION. NO TRAFFIC
STUDIES ARE BEING DONE TO ANTICIPATE SPILLOVER TRAFFIC ON KEY RESIDENTIAL
STREETS SUCH AS HAWTHORNE/EVERETT/PALO ALTO AVENUES AND BRYANT STREET.
LYTTON, UNIVERSITY AND HAMILTON ·AVENUES ARE ALREADY SATURATED AT PEAK
COMMUTE PERIODS AND REQUIRE IMMEDIATE ANALYSIS FOR THEIR CAPACITY TO
ACCEPT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC WITHOUT DETRIMENT TO SAFETY AND COMMERCIAL
INTERESTS.
Approval Statys:
. Occupancy Date: .
For fu rther information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: John Arrillaga
Stanford University: ?
2013·2017 Incremental OutboundCalTrain Passengers
This forecast of only 25 incremental outbound passenger per year is extremely low.
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Status: Research needed to validate assumptions
For further information contact
+25 PASSENGERS**
-5
+20
8 vehicles
8
4
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Volunteers are needed to research 2015-2017 passenger capacity information from Joint Powers
Authority
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
19
20
#26 New Development Cap 2016 Q4
It is highly probable the City Council will establish a new development cap in 2014. For every
1 OO,OOOsf of new development, there will be an impact of at least 320 additional parking vehicles in
2015 and 20'16. Currently here is no plausible plan to provide parking garages or sufficient on-site
parking for expansion of the development cap. Would the City Council actually increase the
Development Cap without first providing parking capacity? Would a 1 OOO-car garage be built north of
Highway 101? Would paid parking be implemented to reduce demand parked vehicles? Please note
that. this forecast assumes that Downtown North is fully saturated with all-day parked vehicles by mid-
2014. , See Attachment B. Will the City Council and City Manager exert greater stewardship for Palo
Alto and insist on comprehensive parking and traffic analysis before any expansion beyond'the
currentdevelopment cap? See Executive Summary.
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
, • Crescent Park
Estimated impact on
+400 VEHICLES**
-80
+320
o vehicles
200
120
Status: RFP Issued for Phase 1. Phase 1 to be completed in early 2013
Completion Date:
For further information contact
Acting' Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
'2013·2017 Accelerating Worker Density in Existing Buildings
High cost and shortage of office space in Palo Alto is an accepted fact. It is reasonable to assume
that downtown tenants will increase the density of workers in existing office bui1dings. This report
assumes 150 additional people will be working within existing downtown office spaces during 2013.-
2016. This is a extremely modest projection considering that there is 3.5 million square feet of office
and retail space downtown. See Attachment C for detail. Palo Alto planning processes are severely
limited by the lack of information about the number, commute patterns and trends for workers
throughout the city. Many cities of Palo Alto's size and importancecol/ect and analyze this data
routinely.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebank/documents/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Status: Ongoing
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
+150 VEHICLES!**
-30
+120?
40 vehicles?
50
30
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
JDV Hotels,
2013·2017 Additional Retail/Restaurant Employees Per Year
21
Forecast assumes only 5.0 additional people will be working mid-day in existing downtown r~staurants
and retail establishments each r for the foreseeable future. This is extremely low estimate.
Irnpact on Residential Streets
200/0 U'se of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Estimated impact on
Status: Collaboration with Downtown Merchants is needed.
For further information contact
+50 VEHICLES?**
-10
+40
15 vehicles
15
10
Economic Development Director Thomas Fehrenbach, 32x-ssss, @cityofpaloalto.org
Rujss Cohen, Executive Director, Downtown Merchants Association
2013-2017 Additional Retail/Restaurant Customers Per Year
This is an extremely low estimate and assumes that retail and restaurant growth 'in existing
businesses increases less than 2 incremental customers per month during the boom cycle. These
are customers who do not work downtown but drive to downto~n mid-day.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Impact on Residential Streets
200/0 Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• . Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Status: Collaboration with Downtown Merchants is needed.
For further information contact
+25 VEHICLES?**
-5
+20
8 vehicles
8
4
Economic Development Director Thomas Fehrenbach, 32x-ssss, @cityofpaloalto.org
Rujss Cohen, Executive Director, Downtown Merchants Association
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce,
2013·2017 Vacant Retail Space
22
In June 2013 there were 4 known vacant retail properties near University Avenue. The following
properties could be leased in the relatively near future. A commercial area seldom is 100010 leased so
it is reasonable to assume that when these properties are reopened for retail use, there will be other
retail properties vacant and awaiting tenants. Therefore, there may be no net intrusion since
occupancy rates for retail space is near maxirnum capacity.
,355 University
429 University
435 University
440 University
1750sf?
750sf?
, 750sf?
750sf?
However, if these properties representing approximately 4000 sf were to ,be fully leased, then it is
reasonable to assume 16 more vehicles would be parked somewhere in the commercial or residential
areas. Each September, the City Planning Department surveys occupancy of retail spaces, the data
below suggests that vacancies have steadily fallen, thus legitimizing the theorythatparkihg demand
has increased with impact into residential neighborhoods. This is compounded by the tendency of
. lower paid retail and restaurant employees to decline the opportunity to pay for parking permits.
Retail and restaurant businesses in Palo Alto historically have shown little willingness to pay for
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
23
parking perrriits for their errlployees. Ideally the incentives to be offered by the City to its employees
will engage downtown businesses to aggressively reduce parking demand from their employees.
Retail Space Vacancy by Year
2009
2010
. 2011
2012
2013
9.0%
6.9%
4.8%
2.8%
available May 2014
Status: Collaboration with Downtown Merchants is needed.
For fu rther information contact
Economic Development Director Thomas Fehrenbach, 32x-ssss, @cityofpaloalto.org
Rujss Cohen, Executive Director, Downtown Merchants Association
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce,
Impact on Residential Streets
200/0 Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Est~,mated impact on
Status: Collaboration with Downtown Merchants is needed.
For further information contact
+16 VEHICLES**
~
+13
o vehicles
o
o
Economic Development Director Thomas Fehrenbach, 32x-ssss, @citvofpaloalto.org
Rujss Cohen, ~xecutive Director, Downtown Merchants Association
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce,
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates.by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
SECTION 2
WAYS TO REDUCE PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS
2014 Q1 Novel Use of Expanded Go Passes
24
Stanford University has offered extraordinary incentives to employees to use alternate modes of
commuting to work. There is good potential for downtown businesses and employers to find way to
emulate the best practices by Stanford and other large employers. For every 100 downtown workers
who would avail themselves of these incentives, there could be relief for neighborhoods saturated
with worker parking.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
-Downtown South
-Crescent Park
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Status: Unknown
For further information contact
45 vehicles
45
jQ
-100 spaces**
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@citvofpaloalto.org
GPA
2013 Q3 Attendant Parking Services in Parking Garages
Attendant parking in all four downtown garages is an interesting, but untested solution for Palo Alto.
25
If 100% successful in four garages, there would be increased parking capac~ty of 200 spaces. A one
year trial program may be implemented early fall 2013 and could create new capacity of 42 additional
parking spaces in the downtown commercial area. This assumes projects such as Epiphany Hotel,
500 University and other pipeline projects will utilize most if not all of this theoretical capacity. Cost
for the trial experiment is funded from fees collected from a few developers. If successful, the
responsibility for ongoing costs of valet parking needs clarification. There is also shaky assumption
that downtown workers will prefer paid parking permits instead of free parking on residential
streets even if downtown employers assume permit costs for their employees.
Estimated impact on
.• Downtown North
-Downtown South
-Crescent Park
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Status: Unknown
For further information contact
15 vehicles
25
-42 spaces**
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
GPA
Downtown Parking Assessment District:
2013Q3 Increased Issue of Downtown Parking Permits
Palo Alto has artificially restricted issuance of parking permits. The top floors of the Bryant and
Cowper garages have chronic unused capacity of at least 55 and 35 parking spaces respectively. If
the Planning Department aggressively issues additional parking permits for 80 unused spaces, then
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knoWledgea~le residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
26
there might be some reduction in parked vehicles on residential streets. City planning staff needs to
establish how better use of parking permits would actually impact residential streets. The City
Council has been silent on its position relative to "the high cost of free parking".
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Status: Unknown
For further information contact
20 vehicles
20
~
-40 spaces**
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
GPA
Downtown Parking Assessment District:
2015·2017 Two New Parking Garage(s)
A feasibility study identified 6 other sites for future parking garages but there is no realistic plan for
city funding at this time, except implementation of market cost paid parking. See page for City web
link to parking garage study. If the sites should be feasible, the most optimistic impact for these six
projects would be 1000-1350 downtown parking spaces over a 5-7 year period. During the next 7-10
years, the demand for new office and retail space will probably require much more than 1000-1350
new spaces, especially considering the deficit in parking spaces in 2013. Even if funding were
immediately available for 6 new garages, construction would have to be spread over a 10-15 year
period to minimize impact upon downtown businesses. See Summary on page xx. Nevertheless,
this planning model calls for two new garages to be finished by mid-2016 and a construction of a third
garage to start jn 2016 with completion date in 2017.
Lot 1 (Keenan-Lot P) Proposal
Chop Keenan has proposed to buy or acquire partial development rights to city surface parking lot P
. and build a new garage as a publ.ic/private partnership. The current capacity of surface lot P is 51
spaces. The capacity of this garage (City estimates) is 140 spaces, or 182 with daytime valet
services. The developer would have sole use of 63 spaces (93 spaces with valet parking). The city
would get the benefit of increased public parking from 51 to 77 spaces. The net gain of 26 spaces is
a relatively minor increase given the demand for parking over the next 5-10 years.
Estimated impact of the Keenan Parking Lot (aka Lot P) on
• Downtown North
• . Downtown South
10 vehicles
10
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
• Crescent Park ---.2
KEENAN IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS -26 spaces*
Note: During construction of this garage therewQuld be a loss of at least 60-70 parking spaces.
There is no proof that additional parking garage space would reduce parked vehicles on residential
streets~ Given height restrictions and costs of underground parking, the recent study of parking
garages shows thatthe conversion of surface parking spaces to garage parking spaces is relatively
inefficient. The conversion rate is roughly 3 new garage spaces for the loss of 1 surface lot space.
Valet parking would allow conversion rates of roughly 4 new space for loss of 1 surface lot space.
City Council has raised questions about ownership, tax structure and public benefits cited by Mr.
Keenan.
Lot 1 (Keenan-P) Status: Pending staff review before further Council, ARB and PTC action
Completion date: uncertain, depends on whether city or developer assumes responsibility for
construction
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
GPA
Downtown Parking Assessment District
Developer Chop Keenan
Downtown Business Association, Russ Cohen Director ; Anne Senti-Willis, Board Chair 330-4715
asenti-willis@thoits.com
Parking Lot #2 Combined Gilman Street Garages
27
These two surface parking lots current provide 140 parking spaces and a 268-space parking lot could
be feasible. This new lot could be expanded by 88 additional spaces with valet parking.
Estimated impact of the 2017 new lot on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
NEW LOT 2 IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
xx vehicles
xx
~
-xx spaces**
Note: During 12-24 month construction for this garage there would be a loss of at least 160 parking
spaces. There is no proof that additional parking garage space would reduce parked vehicles on
residential streets.
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin,32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
GPA
Downtown Parking Assessment District:
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.orglcivicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
28
Urban Lane
This site has the greatest potential for new parking spaces. The new structure could provide a total of
478 parking places offset by the loss of 164 spaces at the current surface lot. This project would
require significant coordination between the City, Samtrans and Stanford. Therefore, it probably
would not be built within the next five years. Also the parking structure is not located conventiently to
downtown businesses and office. The benefit would accrue mainly to the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation, Town and Country Shopping Center and CalTrain outbound passengers.
Status: Pending staff review
Completion date:
For fu rther information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Estimated impact of the 2016 "second" new lot on
• . Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
URBAN LANE IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
xx vehicles
xx
xx
-xx spaces**
2013 Q3 Public Transportation Incentives: City Employees
The City will initiate a trial program at unknown date to encourage City employees to take public
transportation. Underground city hall parking spaces currently l.jsE!dby these City employees would.
be opened up to the general public for presumably for permit parking.
Esti.mated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
10 vehicles
10
~
-25? spaces**
Note: Depending on the success of incentives given to City employees in 2013 it is possible that up to
100 additional parking spaces could be opened up in 201.4 and 2015.
Approval Status: Unknown
Implementation Date: Pending staff resources
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
GPA and/or another leadership organization: ?
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
29
2013 Q3 Improved Use of Private Parking Space
It is possible that developers can use an unknown amount of under-utilized private parking space
beneath current office buildings. For example, the Epiphany Hotel, according to City documents,
requiring 91 parking spaces and there are no known plans to provide parking or valet parking when
the hotel opens in late 2013. Also the conversion of the former retail spaces at old movie
theater/Borders Book store site to Samsung's high-tech center requires 157 addition parking spaces
for office workers and visitors. Yet there is no requirement of the building owner or Samsung to add
any parking capacity. Impact on residential streets from just these two projects may have a profound
effect upon University South and Crescent Park neighborhoods. Ironically impact of these 248
vehicles on Downtown North neighborhood will be minimal because this neighborhood could be
100% saturated each working day by late 2014. See Attachment B. Casual inspection of one
privately owned building parking space revealed almost 100 unused parking spaces. This concept
would-be extremely difficult to implement without extraordinary cooperation from the development
community.
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
-. Downtown South
• Crescent Park
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Approval Status: Unknown
Impl~mentation Date:
For further information contact
40 vehicles
-40
-10
-100 spaces**
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Building Owners: ?
Downtown Parking Assessment District Leader: ?
2-014 Q3 Park and Ride with Downtown Shuttle Service
This solution has been discussed for years but is a relatively inactive project for the Planning
Department. This is another example of City Planning Department resource shortage to initiate and
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
30
implement "lower hanging fruit" type of solutions such as more efficient issuance of parking permits,
attendant parking, parking lot technology and restrictions on transfer development rights. Downtown
property owners, tenants and business owners should form an organization, perhaps in cooperation
with Stanford University, to duplicate the highly successful Marguerite transportation system
operating since 1973.
• Annual ridership (6/1/2011 -5131/2012): 1.8 million riders
• Number of shuttle stops in service: 175
• Maximum number of shuttle buses running atone time: 37
• Hours of service per year:85,OOO
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
. For further information . contact
? vehicles
?
-.1.
-? spaces**
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
GPA
*Sou rce of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates frorrl knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
SECTION 3
CALIFORNIA AVENUE NEIGHBORHOODS
260 S. California Ave Office/Retail 27,000sf
. , 1 .. ~ ~ ~-'1~"'~I' -v .•. I
.. • . 1 . ._, ~,"'.I; , .1
Impact on Residential Streets
200/0 Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
Estimated impact on
• Evergreen
"~' l >' . ~ .,., 'l. ; ~ . r:, ~
ft".. r~!, " ~
+53 VEHICLES?**
-11
+42
42 vehicles
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto,org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources .
31
2016" "Q3?? 395 Page Mill/3045 Park Blvd Office/Retail 355,OOOsf
. This project consists of two structures ..... 3 and 4 stories tall ......
Impact on Residential Streets
20%) Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
Estimated impact on
• Evergreen
Status: Unknown
Completion Date:
For fu rther information contact
+?? VEHICLES?**
.:.??
+??
?? vehicles
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679,Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Planner, Jodie Gerhardt, 329-2575 jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
Developer Ray Paul xxxx@sss.com, 32x~xxx
Evergreen Resident: Paul Machado
#3 3159 EI Camino Real/440 Portage Office/Retail 75,042sf 2015Q4?
32
This 5 story project provides 216 parking space. Mechanical lifts will be used for 196 ofthe216
parking spaces. Parking impact on Evergreen neighborhood streets is estimated at a minimum of 25
parked vehicles
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
+31 VEHICLES?**
:..Q
+25
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Estimated impact on
• Evergreen
For further information contact
-•• 'It\.
25 vehicles
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@citvofpaloalto.org
City Planner, Russ Reich, 617-3137 russ.reich@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nanc .she herd of aloalo.or , 32x-xxxx
Developer John Tarlton xxxx@sss:com, 32x-xxx
#4 Future Projects
33
A request has been submitted to Acting Planning Director to compile and maintain a list of pending
pipeline projects in the California Avenue commercial area. See Appendix A for parking deficit
information city staff provided to City Council. Impact of California Avenue project cannot be evaluate
adequately with a baseline and projections for parking space deficits.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
'SECTION 4
THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS
LONG DEFERRED, BUT NECESSARY ACTIONS·
aka "Kicking the Can Successfully Down the, Road"
The following issues are well-known among the insider leaders in Palo Alto. The
question of the day is who will step up and lead Palo Alto out of these
Gordian Knots.
20134Q Stop Digging the Hole Deeper
34
In July 2013 there are signs that Palo Alto's neighborhoods are beginning to organize and unify their
responses to traffic, parking and safety threats to their neighborhoods. Only time will tell if these
responses are sustained. The City Council can make itsintention more visible by addressing the
following questions not later than December 2013:
../ Can Palo Alto's traditional "project centric planning" adequately address escalating traffic and
pedestrian/bike safety issues at key intersections throughout Palo Alto and neighboring cities?
A better approach would be a comprehensive study of traffic at key intersections, major
arteries, bike lanes and neighborhoods streets now feeling the spill over traffic at rush hours?
../ Will Phase 1 of the study for new Downtown Capacity actually address the full extent of parked
vehicles into neighborhoods adjacent to University Avenue, California and other commercial
areas of Palo Alto? What is the plan to address these problems if Phase 1 is re-designed to
document the intrusions by January 2014?
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
35
./ In the interest of balancing quality of neighborhoods with the current economic boom
opportunities,isn't it appropriate to immediately irrlplement the development moratoriumfor
downtown Palo Alto and stop any exceptions to the moratorium? Which other neighborhoods
warrant development moratoriums to protect them from the development boom? For example,
could downtown Palo Alto be approaching a tippifl9 point where traffic and lack of parking
become counterproductive to economic success for property and' business owners?
./ A city of Palo Alto's size and irrlportance eventually must address the high cost of free parking.
Mayor Gregg Scharff and Vice-Mayor Nancy Shepherd should work with staff so that this Issue
can be brought into full public discussion not later than early 2014 .
./ Parking intrusion into downtown neighborhoods was the initial issue arousing for Downtown
North and University South residents; however, it is now obvious that traffic and safety are '
closely interwoven with parking problems and solutions throughout Palo Alto. Furthermore,
leaders in other neighborhoods, such as Crescent Park, Evergreen, College Park, Midtown
and Barron Park are stepping forward with very similar issues negatively impacted their
neighborhoods.
,/ Is this parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods like the weather? City Council
reluctantly talks about it but nothing can be done?
./ In the case of Mayor Scharf will he take responsibility to establish a clear action plan in
2013?
,/ Will Nancy Shepherd set a high priority setting objective standards to measure quality
of life in all of Palo Alto's neighborhood? For example, commercial parking should not
exceed 50% is Downtown North in 2013 and should be reduced to 30% by 2017.
Status: Pending Response from City Council
Completion Date:
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
Neighborhood Advocate: Neilson Buchanan cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
2013 4Q Redistribution of Parked Vehicles in Downtown
Residential Neighbo'rhoods (aka Parking Restrictions and/or
Permits for Residential Streets 2014 Q2)
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
The parking restrictions and permits proposed by City Staff June 18 and 19 2013 do not reduce or
contain the number of downtown workers parking on residential streets ... not now nor in, the future.
Palo Alto's Planning Department has proposed a redistribution scheme for the residential
areas between Embarcadero, Alma, Palo Alto Avenue and Middlefield 'by September 2003. The
impacton Crescent Park neighborhood has not been clarified. The City Council may take action by
,late fall 2013 but whatever parking restrictions and/or permits that might be implemented may have
no material impact on reducing the demand for parking spaces for downtown workers.
Based on. the public presentations on June 18 and 19, a preliminary analysis of residential parking
restrictions and/or permits anticipates the following impacts:
36
1. All options merely redistribute the current number of parked vehicles in different ways into Crescent
Park, Downtown North and University South neighborhoods.
2. There',iS no reduction in the number of people who will park in the residential neighborhoods
because current corrlmercial parking capacity in near capacity and traffic demand management
solutions are far behind schedule.
3. City staff has not presented the additional number of downtown 'workers, hotel guests, restaurant
patrons, retail customers and other visitors who will seek parking spaces in. residential neighborhoods
due to the lack of parking capacity in the commercial zones. The demand for parking spaces is not
static and is certain to increase substantially from June 2013 for the next 3 years.
4. None of the options for parking restrictions and/or perrriits will substantially stop hundreds of
additional downtown parked vehicles into the 3 neighborhoods.
5.This redistribution scheme is vitally important to any resident living adjacent to commercial areas,
including those near California Avenue.
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityo'fpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org ,
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
Neighborhood Advocate: Eric Filseth
20142Q South Of Forest Avenue: SOFA
This area could be developed for larger, more efficient parking structures than conversion of the 5
small surface parking lots located throughout downtown. A large efficient SOFA parking lot could
avoid the visual bulking up of open space now provided by existing surface parking lots. Additional
parking lots in SOFA (or near Highways 101 or 280 are not necessarily the best solutions for
downtown parking and traffic concerns but combined with shuttle service, these lots deserve greater
attention.
Several areas outside of the downtown CD districiimpact the parking intrusion into the neighborhood.
The boundary of any study must be defined by any and all commercial (corporate, governmental and
private offices, retail, hotels, all service uses, warehouse, medical, clinics etc.) uses, running between
Alma and Middlefield, Palo Alto Avenue to Embarcadero including all areas zoned CD, PC, PF, RT-
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
not just the areas covered in the previous CAP evaluation. And any uses approved with parking
exceptions such as the below market rate housing projects ..
37
The tlSOFA Area", basically all of the commercially used properties generally along Alma, High,
Emerson and Ramona, between Lincoln and Forest has been a major contributor to the employee
parking intrusion into the Professorville area. The area is approximately 1/3 the size of downtown, but
generally with older smaller buildings on small lots. Most of the buildings are older, nonconforming
structures, built before parking was required or needed. Most were dedicated to relatively low
intensity uses including warehousing, auto repair, repair shops etc. In the past five years many have
been converted to much higher intensity office uses especially high-tech startups that have
occupancies' 3 to 4 times the normal 4/1,000 used as a measure of conventional office use.
Nonconforming provisions of the zoning code are designed to prevent the intensification of uses
without providing the requisite parking. However, for some reason the City has failed to require
parking and has approved intensification without consideration of the parking need. The result is
hundreds of new employees working in small spaces, lined up around a line of computers on
conference tables with few if any parking for these errlployees. The problem is further complicated by
the fact that these properties, like many others at the edge of downtown, are not part of the existing
parking district and may not even be considered for parking permits in the AD.
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@citvofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
Neighborhood Advocate: Ken Alsman
2013 Q3 Adoption of best practices
The March 27 Dear Colleagues Memo from two Planning and Transportation Commissioners
established the fact that Palo Alto planning processes are below the best practices in similar cities.
Hopefully the Council and Commission will exercise overdue stewardship and convene a joint
study session soon.
Stanford University has set a high standard for traffic demand management which has resulted in
outstanding reductions of campus parking and traffic. Other 8ayArea cities are implementing sirrlilar
measures to meet their traffic, safety, environmental and parking objectives. See Appendix? for
further information.
Access to hourly rental cars and vans is pending for downtown. Zip Car program could have small
positive effect during the next 3 years. However, ZipCars requir~ parking spaces which cannot be
easily utilized when ZipCars are rented out.
The current city garages do not use any technology devices to increase utilization of unoccupied
spaces. Such technology is used throughout the world.
For further information, see www.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not City sources.
For further information contact
. Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
Neighborhood Advocate: Mac Beasley .
www.
2013 Q1 Street Reconfiguration
City staff may be working on issues that affect both residential and commercial parking capacity.
Closure--of University Avenue to vehicular traffic has been discussed off and on over the past 10
years. There are many advantages and disadvantages ranging from improved retail/restaurant
businesses to spillover traffic into traditional residential neighborhood streets.
38
Lytton, Forest, Everett and Hawthorne will also be profoundly impacted by development of
500,000+'sf of new office space on EI Camino Real in Palo Alto and Menlo Park. This creates safety
pedestrian/bike-safety issues. Studies may become available with the development of office towers
at 27 University. However, it is not clear that cumulative impact from the new medical center and
Menlo Park EI Camino Real office developments will be factored in.
Striping of all-day residential area parking spaces in Downtown North and/or University could
red uce available parking by 2-30/0.
Issuance of parking permits in Downtown North and University South residential has unknown
impact on C-rescent Park neighborhoods~ Downtown North is so saturated with all-day commercial
parking that it is difficult to create greater impact beyond 2014 .. The current study of residential
parking restriction and/or permits could reduce the current DTN saturaton but at the expense of other
neighborhoods.
Increasing the red "no parking" curbs at key intersections can improve bike/pedestrian/vehicle
safety at least 10 intersections in residential neighborhoods. This will make minor reductions in
available parking spaces for office tenants and residents; however, it will push the number of all day
parked vehicles further out into Crescent Park and University South. Since Downtown North is
approaching 100% saturation, additional red curbs will impact only a few streets such as 100 Blocks
of Tasso, Cowper, Webster and Byron.
Intrusion of parking restriction and permit street signs will change the visual appearance of
neighborhood and the permit par.king studies should show how neighborhood streetscape will appear
to d rivers and residents.
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
*Source of,vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
39
Neighborhood Advocate: ?? Pending Acceptance
2013 Q1 Night Parking
There are reports of Friday/Saturday night time parking saturation in the west section of the
commerCial areas, especially unavailability of parking in High Street garage. It is clear that the
Caltrain parking lots are underutilized and contributing to the lack of night time parking in the western
section of the University Avenue commercial areas.
There is plenty of night time packing capacity in the Bryant and Cowper garages; however, visitors
and valet parking attendants often prefer more easily accessed residential neighborhoods, espeCially
on weekend nights.
For further information
Jaime Rodriquez james.rodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
Neighborhood Advocate: Marion Odell
2013 Q1 CalTrain Capacity
There is considerable concern that expansion of Caltrain capacity will be severely limited during the
next 5 years. Electrification and all new rolling stock are at least 7-10 years away and the key street
intersections over rail tracks would be significantly impeded by the more frequent train schedules at
rush hour. Palo Alto outbound and inbound passengers are competing heavily with seated and
standing passengers bound for other peninsula cities, espeCially Mt. View with greatly expanded
Google employee traffic. Residents and Planning Departments from all Peninsula cities need a clear
understanding about the ability of Caltrain ridership to reduce traffic and park~d cars during 2013-
2017. .
For further information
Jaime Rodriquez james.rodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
Neighborhood Advocate: ElaineUang? And/or GPA?
2013 Q1 Higher Development Standards and Best Practices
New standards and requirements by the Planning Department and City Council may develop during
the next 3 years. Those opportunities are discussed in Section 5 New Commitment for Action. This
section also describes exciting opportunities for developers, business owners, tenants and merchants
to voluntarily recognize common issues and implement solutions without government requirements.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
40
Strict requirements for on-site parking spaces for all future projects is an example of higher standards
needed now and not in the distant future.
Two Planning and Transportation Corrlmissioners have already noted deficiencies in how Palo Alto
uses Planned Conlmunity and Public Benefits. A joint meeting with Planning Commission and City·
Council was suggested as follow up but no action has been taken to date.
Several councilpersons have requested that staff and the Architectural Review Board re-examine
architural standards such as building faces extending out to the edges of sidewalks. A joint study
session has?/has not? been scheduled. .
These actions reflect higher levels of leadership exerted by the Councilpersons and Commissioners.
However, citizen requests for definitive standards for neighborhood parking, traffic and safety have
not beed acknowledged in any way.
For further information contact.
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
DTN Neighborhood Advocate: Neilson Buchanan
Evergreen Advoacte:
University South Advocate: Ken Alsman/Michael Hodos
Barron Park Advocate·
Crescent Park Advocate: Norman Beamer .
2014 Q1 Retail Trends I·mpacting Neighborhoods
Most cities,even the most successful cities like Palo Alto, struggle to define their downtowns as small
retail business which struggle to corrlpete with the almost irreversible competition from large box
retailers and the internet. It is quite possible that a significant minority of Palo Alto's small businesses
will change during the next 5 years. This is particularly true in the high rent areas such University
Avenue. Problematic traffic and parking are already cited by residents as reasons to avoid California
and University Avenue businesses .. If this trend should develop, then there will be unavoidable
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
41
transition from ground level retail to office. There are several examples of this type of adjustment
already in 2013. Without additional parking capacity or significant new traffic demand management
programs, the all~day worker parked vehicle impact into neighborhoors will reach higher levels. No
conversion of retail spaces to office space should be permitted with provision of new parking spaces
within the commercial areas.
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron .aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
DTN Neighborhood Advocate: Eric Filseth
Evergreen Advocate: Paul Machado
University South Advocate
Midtown Advocate:
Crescent Park Advocate:
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates 'from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
SECTION FIVE
A NEW COMMITMENT FOR
INTER-NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION
#1 Guiding Values
Neighborhoods are passionate about the future of Palo Alto as a place of commerce and a
place to live.
42
University Avenue and California Avenue commercial areas have been and will be a dynamic,
vibrant area always adapting to needs of the city and region. The Comprehensive Plan points ,
the way toward to increased vibrancy, activity and success.
At least 4 residential neighborhoods are contiguous to the commercial districts and fate of
quality neighborhood residential life depends upon the City Council to adhere to the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan contain many references to protect residential
neighborhoods from commercial intrusions. See Attachment D?
It is difficult, but very feasible to set stronger., new standards for these four neighborhoods, so
that the City Council can objectively serve as stewards for neighborhoods.
#2 Op~n Communications
Parking problems around the University Avenue Commercial Area will persist for another 50 years, if
stakeholders cannot study and agree upon the actual supply and demand for parking spaces.
Downtown North can serve as consolidator of information and keep the following groups and
organizations informed as the Planning Department develops its plans for parking restrictions and/or
permits: Other neighborhoods have established modes of communication and could link together on
key issues. .
1. Downtown North residents wi Ii utilize a dedicated website open to everyone. Nextdoor Downtown
North, email lists, hand delivered flyer newspapers articles and letters to editors.
2. University South(Downtown South) .
3. Crescent Park Neighborhood
4. Evergreen Neighborhood
5. Barron Park Neighborhood
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankJdocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
43
6. College Terrace Neighborhood
7 ~ Palo Alto Neighborhoods representing all neighborhoods in Palo Alto
8. City Manager James Keene, Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, Tom Ferhenbach Economic
Development. The goal is to reconcile this planning model with methodologies used by advance
planners in the Planning Department.
9. Key Developers ( Assuming their acceptance to meet and confer)
10. Downtown Business Associations such as Chamber of Commerce, University Avenue Merchants
Association, California Avenue businesses?
11. Other forward looking groups concerned with smart growth, environment, shared rides, etc
12. Citizens groups in Menlo Park who share development concerns
13. Keep the local newspaper informed throughout this process to study the impact of development
upon residential neighborhoods.
2013 Q3 City Council Leadership
Neighborhoods rely on the City Council to listen and remedy the negative impacts now obvious in
many of Palo Alto's residential neighborhoods. Neighborhoods realize that parking, traffic and safety
compromises over the past 10 years are deeply embedded into the almost irreversible Palo Alto
Process. The following type of actions will be considered seriously by neighborhoods with severe
commercial parking intrusion and other deteriorating quality issues .
./ Active opposition/appeal of any project which adds to the tidal wave of parked-vehicles onto
residential neighborhood. Opposition will occur at every leveL.Planning Department staff,
Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council.
./ Strategic, unified guidance to residents from private legal counsel
./ Citizen evaluation of proposed Council structural changes (elimination of term limits, reduced
council seats, etc)
./ In last resort, legal action, recall, referendum and more sympathetic city councilpersons may
be necessary.
For further information contact
City" Manager, James Keene, city.manag~r@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
DTN Neighborhood Advocate: Neilson Buchanan, Eric Filseth, x, y
Evergreen Advocate: Paul Machado
University South Advocate
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Midtown Advocate:
Crescent Park Advocate:
Barron Park Advocate: Bob Moss
Other 'Neighborhoods?
Menlo Park Citizen Liaison: TBA
2013 Q1 CalTrain Capacity
44
There is considerable concern that expansion of Caltrain capacity will be severely limited during the
next 5 years. Electrification and all new rolling stock are at least 7-10 years away and the key street
intersections over rail tracks would be significantly impeded by the more frequent train schedules' at
rush hour. Palo Alto outbound and inbound passengers are competing heavily With seated and
standing passengers bound for other peninsula cities, especially Mt. View with greatly expanded
Google errlployee traffic. Residents and Planning Departments from all Peninsula cities need a clear
understanding ,about the ability of Caltrain ridership to reduce traffic and parked cars, during 2013-
2017.
For further information
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityo'fpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
2013 Q3 'Downtown Development Cap Study
The Palo Alto Planning Department does not have a method to forecast. City staff has indicated a
willingness to expand the scope of Phase 1 so that the consultant and staff can address the demand
and supply factors outlined in this report. The goal should be to reconcile this report's forecasts with
professionally data developed by Planning Department staff and their consultant by January 2014.
#4 Citizen Catalysts
Neighborhoods adjacent to University and ,California Avenues will encourage individuals, other
neighborhoods and groups to accelerate a more comprehensive studies of historically unresolved
development issues associated with Palo Alto's growth and development. Hierarchical government's
inability to respond effectively in the Post-Prop 13 era has been well-documented. [Reference: More
recently Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley presented new concepts and solutions in their book The
Metropolitan Revolution.]
Locally there have been demonstrated successes in ____________ . See
Appendix_.
#5 Mayor Gregg Schraff Leadership
Short-term Solutions (2013 2Q -2014 1Q)
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
45
v' City staff continues to evaluate a new parking garage at Lot P. If the private/public partnership
should build the Keenan garage option, then permit parking would be increased only from 51
spaces to 77 spaces. This is negligible gain in parking capacity and has minimal impact of
parked worker vehicles in residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, it presents minimal public
benefit to citizens 'of Palo Alto. On the other hand, city staff should be looking systematically
about optimizing city garages, surface lots and underutilized privately held parking spaces.
v' Attendant or valet permit parking in one city garage has been authorized by the City Council
and this experiment should begin by August 2013 with results known in 3-4 months.
v' Transportation Demand Management (TDM) alternatives can implemented to reduce city
employee parking perrriit demand with a goal of reducing employee parking by 50-100 spaces
in the City Hall parking garage. The Planning Department has not started work on this
solution. due to low staffing levels. City council can authorized consultants to put this project
on a fast track.
v' There has been no public discussion or programming for restrictions of Transferable
Development Right (TDRs) in commercial areas adjacent to University or California Avenues.
Since TDRs have profound negative impact on the rationalizing parking space supply and
demand. This concept should be a top priority for City Council and staff so that City Council
could act by 2014 Q1.
v' City Council should direct city staff to immediately respond to ways of restricting and
eliminating use of several Zoning Code parking exerrlptions.
v' Neighborhoods and larger employers such as PAMF, Survey Monkey, AOL, COPA and
Palantir could develop an organization to implement TDM practices at Stanford
v' At the end of Phase 1 Downtown Development Cap study, there should re-examination of the
viability of free parking.
#6 Vice-Mayor Shepherd Leadership
Mid-Term Solutions (2014 3Q-2015 2Q)
City staff continues to evaluate a new parking garage at Lot P. If the private/public partnership should
build the Keenan garage option, then permit parking would be increased only from 51 spaces to 77
spaces. This is negligible gain in parking capacity and has minimal impact of parked worker vehicles
in residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, it presents minimal public benefit to citizens of Palo Alto.
On the other hand, city staff should be looking systematically about optimizing city garages, surface
lots and underutilized privately held parking spaces. Options be bold and include elimination of free
parking, building height limits, ground floor retail and expansion of current surface lot footprints,
preservation of open space and SOFA master planning.
City Council declares its intent to regularly collect information of the workforce characteristics
throughout Palo Alto. Issues such as parking, traffic, safety, housing.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
46
#7 Develo,per Leadership
It is possible some developers will recognize that it is in their best interest and the best interest of
tenants to provide adequate on-site parking. When this is evident, then maximum credit and publicity
should be provided by residential neighborhoods. It is also possible more and more developers and
tenants will provide factual information about worker density in existing office, spaces and survey
worker commute patterns. Palantir has shown this level of cooperation. The developer Boyd Smith
and tenant Survey Monkey have an opportunity to make public their impact on parking and
commute/traffic patterns as the 101 Lytton gateway project nears completion. A small number of
developers are expressing initial intent to provide adequate on-site parking and to voluntarily provide
transparency of their tenant's work density.
#8 Address the Toughest Issues ,
It is common for any built-out city to " suddenly discover" that development problems outpace
solutions~ In the case of Palo Alto, the current economic boom and competition with neighboring
cities requires exceptional leadership from citizens, commissioners, councilpersons and developers.
Here is a partial list of issues which warrant discussion and action in 2013 and 2014 before the next
council election. .
A. Lack of Planning Data This data can be vastly improved with a low cost businesses fee program
to document numbers, types, hours of work, commute patterns, etc. The Planning Department
cannot possibly manage park,ing, traffic, safety and neighborhood deterioration without basic
employment data.
B. Improved Planning Department Expertise During the recent economic downtown, all of the city
departments have been pared back. Now is the time to reassess each department, especially the
Planning Department's capacity, to fulfill its stewardship during the next 24-36 months of
development boom.
c. Objective Standards for Neighborhood Quality The City Manager and staff must assert their
professional responsibilities and make Palo Alto a leader not only in the development of21 st Century
economy but also in neighborhood livability. The City Council should assume leadership and
empower the City Manager and new Planning Director to rebalance economic development with
neighborhood livability. Downtown North and University South neighborhoods have become 1000+
car parking lots for downtown commercial area and could increase to 2000+ car parking lot by 2017.
D. Informed, Involved Citiz~ns Sanford Forte (Evergreen neighborhood) will be advocating a
simple communication bridge so that city staff, can keep citizens involved throughout the complex
process that developers use to get their projects approved. The communication gap is now obvious
with the Maybell controversy and everyone should strive to prevent this type of miscommunication
and enduring hard feelings. For more information, cont~ct Sanford Forte
./ The planning, zoning and exceptions to zoning process in Palo Alto allows developers and
staff to work out extremely complex terms for development with little public involvement at the
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
very beginning stage of all developments. On a practical level it is almost impossible for
citizens to be informed and plan in advance for their support or opposition.
47
v' The City Council can easily to set policy that would trigger an *immediate* email notice to
everyone directly impacted (census tracks or zip codes) for any development. No commercial
or residential development would be exempt from this requirement, no matter how small.
Creating and maintaining a neighborhood "opt-in" email base that citizens is a trivial thing,
especially since the city manager and staff pride themselves has being one of the "most
connected" cities in the US.
v' With a simple click of a mouse -even without formal papers or permit apps being made,
planning department staff would simply broadcast a few lines about what development was
discussed, and where, along with who *initiated* the discussion, with appropriate contact
information for the developer initiating contact with staff staff.
v' This open communication which is not privileged, would keep interested neighborhood
interests informed from the very beginning, even regarding hypothetical inquiries about
commercial or residential development made by any commercial interest.
v' The primary reason for this suggestion is that permits are often issued -or developments are
far along into the design phase -before ordinary concerned citizen notices what has
happened. Implementing this via policy decision would bring neighborhoods into the process
at the very start of a development -i.e. when it is being proposed even in the most hypothetical
way bya developer to city staff planners. Again, the purpose is transparency; early
involvement at the beginning, to prevent surprise; and creating more of a pre-dialogue about
development before things get too far along. Everyone wins. .
v' The alternative to more open communication will be growing amount of citizen backlash,
shock, anger, frustration on all sides, damaged social capital and wasted time and money.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebank/documents/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Section Six
Success Stories
(small steps forward, but not too late)
48
#1 101 Lytton, aka Gateway Project, being developed by Boyd Smith will include bin~ing provisions
on the developer: and tenant to implement various traffic and parking demand management concepts.
These commitments plus funding for parking spaces are important public policy issues to be
recognized since this project developer set irTlproved, but not perfect standards for future
development in Palo Alto.
#2 Another developer has stepp·ed forward on a voluntary basis to provide more parking spaces
than the city "requires" and to collaborate with residents on TDM opportunities with his tenants.
Residents should monitor and support this developer as his project becomes better defined. This
project as currently proposed will have all required parking on-site and demonstrates the developer's
respect for adjacent residential neighborhoods. .
#3 The Planning Department will dedicate a new position to full-time management of parking issues .
effective early fall 2013.
#4 After a very rocky start the City Council has redirected the development process for 27 University
Project, aka Stanford/Arrillaga Office Towers, Transportation Hub and Theater. The Santa Monica
"float up" process is a best practice that Palo Alto should adopt. See Appendix _
#5 The City Manager will involve various stakeholders during the selection process for a new
Planning Director.
#6 One of downtown's largest employers, Palantir, and the City's Economic Development Director
Tom Fehrenbach voluntarily revealed the density of workers in 2012. However, this employer's
worker density has not been .updated. There is no systematic review of employment in the downtown
area.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Appendix D
Methodology
49
1. This forecast model is not intended to be precise. Whenever possible, official city data have been
used. When city data are not available, reasonable assumptions have been made. The goal is an
ongoing study of supply and demand from known 2013 baselines in order to stimulate City Council
and staff to develop a professionally driven supply/demand model for parked vehicles in the
cornmercial and residential areas adjacent to University and California Avenues.
2. The forecast period is June 2013 through December 2016.
3. Every attempt will be made to test these assumptions with the professional staff of Palo Alto's
Planning Department. Reconciliation of city and residents' data may be possible early 2014.
4. The forecast assumes 20% of all workers, tenants and visitors in these two commercial areas will
arrive by public transportation. There is no hard data to substantiate this generous assumption.
Actual use of public transportation is probably much lower than 20%.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Inlpact on individual neighborhoods .are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
so
5. The forecast addresses 10am-2pm parking demand Monday-Friday, although many residential
neighborhoods are saturated from 10am to 4pm. Parking demand for weekend nights is developing
into a problem in search of a solution.
6. The forecast does not include every factor creating supply and demand for commercial parking
spaces. A list of excluded factors is in Section Four.
7. The forecast assumes there are less than 200 "empty" mid-day permit parking spaces in High,
Bryant and Cowper Street garages in summer 2013. This forecast assumes that this capacity will be
filled by2014 Q1. See Appendix B. Three new garages are added serially during 2014-2016.
8. Appendix B lists demand and supply impacts by their specific timelines. For example, if a parking
garage opens in 2015 02 with 50·additional parking spaces, then the forecast model makes that
adjustment. If a new office building opens 2014 01 with a deficiency of 35 parking spaces, then the
model creates a new demand of 35 spaces in 2014 Q1.
9. The forecast assumes midday 2~ and 3-hour restricted parking places are fixed and near capacity
at noon each working day from 2013 to 2016.
10. Forecast model utilizes 28 factors that create demand from 2013 to 2016 for unrestricted all day
parking places (prinlarily permit parking and residential streets).
11. The city planning department is working on at least 7 factors that increase the supply of all day
parking places during the same time period. The 7 factors are included in the forecast.
12. Demand and supply factors are presented in Section One arid Two in rank order of their intensity.
13. City staff, downtown stakeholders and the general public are invited to participate throughout the
refinement of this report. ;
14. This report will be updated not less than once a month by downtown residents and be posted on
www.paloaltoresidentsfirst.com.
15. Traffic throughout Palo Alto is not addressed in this report and warrants immediate study.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources'
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Omissions from the March 18 City Manager Report
to. Council (Attachment D)
Project
1. 203 Forest (Former Dry Cleaners, Now Offices
4,626 sf
2. 342 University
3.355 Alma
4.801-842 Alma
5. 450 University
6. 501 University
7.380 Hamilton
Impact
20
THE FLOODED ZONE: DOWNTOWN NORTH
Cumulative Deficit
20
51
The following blocks are considered to be fully saturated by both city planning staff and downtown
resident leaders. The saturation peaks between 10am/noon and begins to ebb around 4pm. Streets
and avenues are listed in order of saturation ... starting at 7am through 2pm.
Streets
High
Emerson
Ramona
Avenues
Palo Alto Ave 100-200Block
Everett 1 00-500 Block
Hawthorne 100-400 Block
*Source of vehicle impact: www~cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Kipling
Bryant
Waverley
Cowper 200-300 Block
Webster 200-300 Block
Byron 300 Block
Ruthven 400 Block
Palo Alto Ave 100-200 Block
THE TIDAL BASIN: DOWNTOWN NORTH SUMMER 2013
During the 2013-2016 the following streets will be subjected to total saturation midday during the
week. The infilling of the tidal basin will be driven by downtown workers not DTN residents.
Streets
Cowper.100 Block
Webster 100 Block
Byron 100 Block
Tasso 100-200 Block
Avenues
Everett 600 Block
Ruth Ven 500 Block
Hawthorne 500-600 Block
Palo Alto Avenue 300-600 Block
52
1. Transportation Demand Management {TDM} alternatives to reduce city employee parking permit demand with a goal
of reducing employee parki~g by 50-100 spaces in the City Hall parking garage.
2. Attendant parking trial at one or more downtown garages
3. Evaluating development of a private-sector proposal to build a new parking garage at Lot P
4. Potential restrictions to use of Transferable Development Right (TDRs) in Downtown
5. Consideration of restricting and eliminating use of several Zoning Code parking exemptions
6. Development of parking restrictions and/or permit parking in residential neighborhoods adjacent to Downtown·
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
A B c IQ E F G H I J K
Rough Estimates: Cumulative Parking Space Deficit Downtown Palo Alto I California
1 Avenue and Downtown Neighborhoods ATTACHMENT A
2 draft July 7 2013 (20% use of public transportation) draft 7/7/13
UNIVERSITY CUMULATIVE DTN
SOUTH/ COMMERCIAL CUMULATIVE
DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN CRESCENT PARKING SPACE PARKED
3 YEAR TYPE OF IMPACT IMPACT NORTH SOUTH PARK TOTAL DEFICIT VEHICLES
March 18 Baseline
Established by City
4 2013 Q2 Staff and Council 901 1200
5 2013 Q3 Parking Garage Valet Parking Trial -15 -25 -2 -42 859 1185
6 2013 Q3 Parking Garage More Parking Permits Issued -20 -20 -20 -60 799 1165
7 2013 Q3 Office/Retail . 278 University 20 30 9 59 858 1185
8 2013 Q3 Housing Alma Housing 0 0 0 0 858 1185
9 2013 Q4 Parking Garage Incentives To City Employees -10 -10 -5 -25 833 1175
10 2013 Q4 Office/Retail 101 Lytton 9 7 2 18 851 1184 .........
11 2013 Q4 Office/Retail 668 Ramona 15 15 10 40 891 li99 .......
12 2013 Q4 Office Worker Density Increases 20 25 15 60 951 1219
13 2013 Q4 Retail/Restaurant Employment Growth 7 7 5 19 9701 1226
14 2013 Q4 Retail/Restaurant Customer Growth 4: 4 2 10 980 1230
15 2013 Q4 CalTrain Outbound Passengers 4 4 2 .0 990 1234
16 2014 Q1 Nursing Home Channing House 15 15 101 40 1030 1249
-------
17 2014 Q1 Retail 451 University 8 8 4 20 1050 1257
18 2014 Q1 Hotel/Restaurant 'Epiphany Hotel 20 50 3 73 1123 1277
19 2014 Q1 Office/Reta i I 564 University 6 10 10 26 1149 1283
20 2014 Q1 Retail Full Lease of Vacant Space 0 0 0 0 1149 1283
Neighborhood
21 2014 Q2 Parking Parking Restrictions/Permits 0 0 0 0 1149 1283
22 2014 Q2 Retail 456 University 15 25 6 46 1195 1 1298
23 2014 Q2 Office 456 Uni\lersity 30 35 15 80 1275 1328
24 2014 Q2 Proposed Lot #1 {P} Construction Period for Lot P 25 25 10 60 1335 13531
A B C I[ E F G H I J K
DNT
effectively
saturated @
25 2014 Q4 Office Worker Density Increases 40 50 30 120 1455 1393 95% parked
26 2014 Q4 Reta i I/Resta u ra nt Employment Growth 30 10 40 ,1495 1393
27 2014 Q4 CalTrain Outbound Passengers 16 4 20 1515 1393
28 2014 Q4 Retail/Restaurant Customer Growth 16 4 20 1535 1393
29 2015 Q2 Office/Reta i I 135 Hamilton 0 0 0 1535 1393
30 2015 Q2 Office/Retail 240-248 Hamilton 35 2 37 1572 1393
31 2015 Q2 Office/Reta i I 261 Hamilton 20 6 26 1598 1393
32 2015 Q2 Retail/Ofice 500 University 50 16 66 1664 1393
33 2015 Q3 Office/Retail Menlo Park Construction 10 0 10 1674 1393
34 2015 Q3 Office Hamilton Post Office 8 6 14 1E~88 1393
35 2015 Q3 Office/Retail 611-651 Cowper 24 24 48 1736 1393
36 2015 Q4 Parking Garage Keenan Garage Lot(P) #1 -35 -35 -7 -77 1659 1358
37 2015 Q4 CalTrain Outbound Passengers 15 5 20 1679 1358
38 2015 Q4 Office/Retail 537 Hamilton 8 8 16 1695 1358
39 2015 Q4 Retail/Housing 636 Waverley 0 0 0 1695 1358
40 2015 Q4 Office Worker Density Increases 70 50 120 1815 1358
41 2015 Q4 Retail/Restaurant #11 Employment Growth 20 20 40 1855 1358
42 2015 Q4 CalTrain #19 Customer Growth' 10 10 20 1875 1358
43 2016 Q1 Proposed Lot #2 Construction Period for Lot 2 70 30 100 1975 1358
44 2016 Q2 Museum History Musuem/Roth 6 6 12 1987 1358
NEW Dev Capacity per 100,000
45 2016 Q4 Retail/Office sf 200 120 320 2307 1358
46 2016 Q4 CalTrain Outbound Passengers 10 10 20 2327 1358
Office Towers/Theater (27
47 2016 Q4 Office/Retail University) 10 10 20 2347 1358
48 2016 Q4 Office Worker Density Increases 70 50 120 2467 1358
49 2016.Q4 Retail/Restaurant Employment Growth 20 20 40 2507 1358
50 2016 Q4 CalTrain Customer Growth 10 10 20 2527 1358
51 2018 Q4 Parking Garage New Garage Lot #3 -75 -75 -150 2377 1358
52 2017 Q2 Parking Garage New Garage Lot #2 -100 -200 -300 2077 1358
53 2017 Q2 Proposed Lot #3 Construction Period for Lot 3 20 20 10 50 2127 1378
54 178 793 255 1226
55
A B C I( E F G H I J K
UNIVERSITY CUMULATIVE DTN
SOUTH/ COMMERCIAL . CUMULATIVE
DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN CRESCENT PARKING SPACE PARKED
56 YEAR TYPE OF IMPACT IMPACT NORTH SOUTH PARK TOTAL DEFICIT VEHICLES
L M
1
2
CALIF AVE
CUMULATIVE
PARKED
3 VEHICLES
4
5
6
7 ....
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 -
L M
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
'42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
w
w > V') ~ ~ c w W .....I
:E u.. ~ !::d ::::> a:: ....J « J:
6 ~ 0.. W
::::> > u
....J
U)
L/')
1
Spotwood, Alicia
Subject:FW: 240 Hamilton Project
Attachments:Development Impacts draft July 8 2013 20%.docx; Parking Space Deficit Cumulative
Summary July 8 DTN Max Out.xlsx; Bar Chart Vehicle Forecast July 12 2013.png
From: Neilson Buchanan [mailto:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 12:09 PM
To: Architectural Review Board
Cc: Aknin, Aaron; Keene, James; norman.beamer@ropesgray.com; Ken Alsman; Michael Hodos; beasley@stanford.edu;
Sally-Ann Rudd; Mike Griffin; Michael Griffin; Paul Karol; Eric Filseth; Jeff Levinsky; Glanckopf, Annette;
kallen@kilpatricktownsend.com; Bob Moss; Fred Balin; Paul Machado; Richard Brand; Marion Odell; Elaine Meyer; Susan
Brian Anuskewski; kwhite.karenl@gmail.com; Doug Smith; John Guislin
Subject: 240 Hamilton Project
Unfortunately I will be on vacation on July 18. Also other key leaders
from Crescent Park and University South are unavailable this week. Due to
time pressures I just cannot organize other less informed citizens to
attend your ARB meeting this week. By copy of this email, I encourage
leader/citizens copied to this email to oppose the 240 Hamilton project.
I realize that members of the ARB prefer short succinct citizen comments
to simplify your already heavy workload. However, expecting citizens to
address issues piecemeal assures that Palo Alto's growing traffic, parking
and safety issues will be resolved far into the future. So here is
another long email. It is obvious to be that the PA process is failing
badly during this economic boom of built-out Peninsula cities and the ARB
is a very important cog in the planning process. It is totally impossible
for well-informed, fact-checking citizens to respond to these complex,
embedded planning issues in 3 minute presentations at ARB meetings.
I urge you to stop or slow down the approval process for 240
Hamilton. There is a growing understanding now within many neighborhoods
that "under-parked" developments have negatively impacted neighborhoods
throughout Palo Alto. The city staff, your Commission and Council simply
are not exercising due diligence. Avoiding data collection, refusing to
address repeated citizen pleas and compounding problems with approvals
such as 240 Hamilton are guaranteed to create more and more "Maybell"
citizen pushbacks...probably in 2014. In fact, I will be so bold as
predicting that when residents of unimpacted University South residential
street eventually comprehend the tidal wave of parked vehicles coming
their way, the current Maybell situation will pale in comparison.
FACT ONE:
2
ON MARCH 18 THE CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGE DOWNTOWN PARKING DEFICIT 901
PARKING SPACE ACCUMULATED SINCE THE MID 1980S. THERE WAS AN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT A MINIMUM FURTHER NEAR TERM FUTURE OF AN ADDITIONAL
665 PARKING SPACE. 240 HAMILTON IS PART OF THAT 665 PIPELINE YET TO HIT
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS. 240 HAMILTON REPRESENT 46 PARKING SPACE
DEFICIT. TO PUT 46 SPACES IN PERSPECTIVE. BYRANT STREET FROM LYTTON TO
POE HAS 82 PARKING SPACE FULLY USED MONDAY THRU FRIDAY.
FACT TWO:
THE METHODOLOY USED BY CITY STAFF FOR THE MARCH 18 REPORT SERIOUSLY
UNDERESTIMATES THE IMBALANCE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACE SUPPLY AND
DEMAND OVER THE NEXT 3 YEARS.
240 HAMILTON IS ANOTHER SERIOUSLY FLAWED PROJECT AND THE CITY STAFF AND
COUNCIL READILY ADMIT THAT THIS PROJECT WHEN COMPLETED WILL PUSH 46 MORE
PARKED CARS ONTO RESIDENTIAL STREETS. BECAUSE DOWNTOWN NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD
IS OVER 83% SATURATED EACH WORKING DAY, THEN MOST OF THE PARKING WILL
IMPACT UNIVERSITY SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD. AS A COMMON COURTESY, THE ARB DOES
HAVE THE AUTHORITY AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE AND
NOTIFY RESIDENTS ON THIS ISSUE.
FACT THREE:
CITIZENS IN PALO ALTO ARE RESORTING TO THEIR OWN CITY PLANNING MEASURES
SINCE CITY STAFF IS SO LIMITED BOTH IN THEIR RESOURCES AND THEIR
RELATIVELY NARROW MISSION TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS. IN MY PERSONAL
OPINION THE PA PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY HISTORY (NOT PREFERENCE) IS TOO
PROJECT CENTRIC. IF THE ARB TAKES A BROADER VIEW OF ACCUMULATING TRAFFIC
AND PARKING IMPACTS, THEN THE CITY STAFF ALSO CAN BETTER STEWARDS.
ATTACHED ARE THREE CITIZEN-GENERATED DOCUMENTS. EVERY ATTEMPT IS BEING
MADE TO USE CITY DATA AND TO COORDINATE WITH THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT. OUTREACH TO DEVELOPERS AND THE CHAMBER HAS COMMENCED TO MAKE
THIS A SHARED PROBLEM AND SOLUTION. PLEASE STEP UP AND AT LEAST READ THE
DRAFTS. SEVERAL RESIDENTS AND I ARE AVAILABLE TO MEET INDIVIDUALLY WITH
YOU.
In previous ARB meetings I have observed your internal conversation that
the purview of the ARB is very limited in scope. You dont take
responsiblity for the visual impact of parked cars on residential
streets!!! Certainly the staff, PTC and Council have almost unlimited
responsibilities. However, you are charged with a most important
responsibility, ie "how our city presents itself visually in terms of
commercial and residential construction". If the ARB can address the
color of our backyard (not visible from street) HOA pool fence, then
cannot you look out and see the parked cars in front of residences?
I am not in favor of willy-tilly rush to build parking garages, but at
least could not you be viewing the architecture of the next, most viable
parking garage and its impact on downtown? Palo Alto residents need a new
level of leadership from the ARB and I hope you will re-examine how your
3
define your role as the impact of the current economic boom compounds the
accumulated parking, traffic and safety deficits in Palo Alto and our
neighboring cities.
BTw Please dont underestimate the amount of citizen concern for the
parking impact you are creating by failure to recognize the scope of
impact.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Spotwood, Alicia
Subject: FW: 240 Hamilton Project
From: Paul Machado [mailto:plmachado@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:33 PM
. To: Ken Alsman
Cc: Neilson Buchanan; Architectural Review Board; Aknin, Aaron; Keene, James; norman.beamer@ropesgray.com;
MiGhael Hodos; beasley@stanford.edu; Sally-Ann Rudd; Mike Griffin; Michael Griffin; Paul Karol; Eric Filseth; Jeff
Levinsky; Glanckopf, Annette; kallen@kilpatricktownsend.com; Bob Moss; Fred Balin; Richard Brand; Marion Odell; Elaine
Meyer; Susan Brian Anuskewski; kwhite.karenl@gmail.com; Doug Smith; John Guislin
Subject: Re: 240 Hamilton Project
I concur with Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Alsman, but I am not sure anyone at city hall is concerned
enough to act on the growing chorus of citizen complaints. Are developers ever required to
park their own projects? Do the neighborhood streets of this city merely exist for the planned over
flow parking of developers? Will residents be taxed to pay for under parked developments?
On Mon, lul15, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Ken Alsman <kenalsman@aol.com> wrote:
Like many others i will not be retunling until after the .18th. However ,I want to add my concerns to those of
Neilson. Unlike him, 1 believe the charter of the ARB requires you to take a much broader view of the projects
you review, a need to look at the problems these projects and your actions are causing to nearby neighborhoods.
It is time for the ARB to stand up for the community, not just the development community.
Sent from my iPhone
On lul15, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote:
Unfortunately I will be on vacation on July 18. Also other key
leaders from Crescent Park and University South are unavailable
this week. Due to t pressures I just cannot organize other
less informed citizens to attend your ARB meeting this week. By
copy of this email, I encourage leader/cit~zens copied to this
email to oppose the 240 Hamilton project. .
I realize that members the ARB prefer short succinct citizen,
comments to simplify your already heavy workload. However,
expecting citizens to address issues piecemeal assures that Palo
Alto's growing traffic, parking and safety issues will be
resolved far into the future. So here is another long
email. It is obvious to be that the PA process is failing
badly during this economic boom of built-ou~ cities
and the ARB is a very important cog in the planning process. It
totally impossible well-informed, fact-checking citizens
1
to respond to these complex, embe,dded planning issues in 3
minute presentations at ARB meetings.
I urge you to stop or slow down the approval process for 240
Hamilton. There a growing understanding now within many
neighborhoods that "under-parked" developments have negatively
impacted neighborhoods throughout Palo Alto. The city staff,
your Commission and Council simply are not exercising due
diligence. Avoiding data collection, refusing to address
repeated citizen pleas and compounding problems with approvals
such as 240 Hamilton are guaranteed to create more and more
"Maybell'~ citizen pushbacks ... probably 2014. In ,I will
be so bold as predicting that when residents of unimpacted
University South residential street eventually comprehend the
tidal wave of parked vehicles coming their way, current
Maybell situation will pale in comparison.
FACT ONE:
ON MARCH 18 THE CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGE DOWNTOWN PARKING
DEFICIT 901 PARKING SPACE ACCUMULATED SINCE THE MID
1980S. THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT A MINIMUM FURTHER NEAR
TERM FUTURE OF AN ADDITIONAL 665 PARKING SPACE. 240 HAMILTON IS
PART OF THAT 665 PIPELINE YET TO HIT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
STREETS. 240 HAMILTON REPRESENT 46 PARKING SPACE DEFICIT. TO
PUT 46 SPACES IN PERSPECTIVE. BYRANT STREET FROM LYTTON TO POE
HAS 82 PARKING SPACE FULLY USED MONDAY THRU FRIDAY.
FACT TWO:
THE METHODOLOY USED BY CITY STAFF FOR THE MARCH 18 REPORT
SERIOUSLY UNDERESTIMATES THE IMBALANCE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL
PARKING SPACE SUPPLY AND DEMAND OVER THE NEXT 3 YEARS.
240 HAMILTON IS ANOTHER SERIOUSLY FLAWED PROJECT AND THE CITY
STAFF AND COUNCIL READILY ADMIT THAT THIS PROJECT WHEN 'COMPLETED
WILL PUSH 46 MORE PARKED CARS ONTO RESIDENTIAL S'TREETS. BECAUSE
DOWNTOWN NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD IS OVER 83% SATURATED EACH WORKING
DAY, THEN MOST OF THE PARKING WILL IMPACT .UNIVERSITY SOUTH
NEIGHBORHOOD. AS A COMMON COURTESY, THE ARB DOES HAVE THE
AUTHORITY AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE AND
NOTIFY RESIDENTS ON THIS ISSUE.
FACT THREE:
CITIZENS IN PALO ALTO ARE RESORTING TO THEIR OWN CITY PLANNING,
MEASURES SINCE CITY STAFF IS SO LIMITED BOTH IN THEIR RESOURCES
AND THEIR RELATIVELY NARROW MISSION TO PROTECT
NEIGHBORHOODS. IN MY PERSONAL OPINION THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT BY HISTORY (NOT PREFERENCE) IS TOO PROJECT CENTRIC.
IF THE ARB TAKES A BROADER VIEW OF ACCUMULATING TRAFFIC AND
PARKING IMPACTS, THEN THE CITY STAFF ALSO CAN BETTER STEWARDS.
ATTACHED ARE THREE CITIZEN-GENERATED DOCUMENTS. EVERY ATTEMPT
IS BEING MADE TO USE CITY DATA AND TO COORDINATE WITH THE
2
PLANNING DEPARTMENT. OUTREACH TO DEVELOPERS AND THE CHAMBER HAS
COMMENCED TO MAKE THIS A SHARED PROBLEM AND SOLUTION. PLEASE
STEP UP AND AT LEAST READ THE DRAFTS. SEVERAL RESIDENTS AND I
ARE AVAILABLE TO MEET INDIVIDUALLY WITH YOU.
In previous ARB meetings I have observed you+ internal
conversation that the purview of the ARB is very limited in
scope. You dont take responsiblity for the visual impact of
parked cars on residential streets!!! Certainly the , PTC
and Council have almost unlimited responsibilities. However, you
are charged with a most important responsibility, "how our
city presents itself visually terms of commercial and
residenti construction". If ARB can address the color of
our backyard (not visible from street) HOA pool fence, then
cannot you look out and see the parked cars in front of
residences?
I am not in f~vor of willy-tilly to build parking garages,
but at could not you be viewing the architecture the
next, most viable parking garage and its impact on
downtown? Alto residents need a new level of leadership
from the ARB and I hope you will re-examine how your define your
role as the impact of the current economic boom compounds the
accumulated parking, traffic and s deficits in Palo Alto
and our neighboring cities.
BTw Please Gont underestimate
the parking impact you are creating by
scope of impact.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@ .com
<Development Impacts draft July 8 2013 20%.docx>
citizen concern for
to recognize the
<Parking Space Deficit Cumulative Summary July 8 DTN Max Out.xlsx>
<Bar Chart Vehicle Forecast July 12 2013.png> '
3
Spotwood, Alicia
Subject: FW: 240 Hamilton Project
From: Ken Aisman [mailto:kenalsman@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:14 PM
To: Neilson Buchanan
Cc: Architectural Review Board; Aknin, Aaron; Keene, James; norman.beamer@ropesgray.com; Michael Hodos;
beasley@stanford.edu; Sally-Ann Rudd; Mike Griffin; Michael Griffin; Paul Karol; Eric Filseth; Jeff Levinsky; Glanckopf,
Annette; kallen@kilpatricktownsend.com; Bob Moss; Fred Balin; Paul Machado; Richard Brand; Marion Odell; Elaine
Meyer; Susan Brian Anuskewski; kwhite.karenl@gmail.com; Doug Smith; John Guislin
Subject: Re: 240 Hamilton Project
Like many others i will not be returning until after the 18th. However,I want to add my concerns to those of
Neilson. Unlike him, I believe the charter of the ARB requires you to take a much broader view of the projects
you review, a need to look at the problems these projects and your actions are causing to nearby neighborhoods.
It is time for the ARB to stand up for the community, not just the development community.
Sent from my iPhone
On Ju115, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Unfortunately I will be on vacation on July 18. Also other key
from Crescent Park and University South are unavailable
this week. Due to time pressures I just cannot organize other
informed citizens to attend your ARB meeting this week. By
copy this email, I encourage leader/citizens copied to this
email to oppose the 240 Hamilton project.
I ize that members of the ARB prefer short succinct citizen
comments to simplify your already heavy workload. However,
expecting citizens to address issues piecemeal assures that Palo
Alto's growing traffic, parking and safety sues will be
resolved into the future. So here is another long
email. It is obvious to be that the PA process is failing
badly during this economic boom of built-out Peninsula cities
and the ARB is a very important cog in the planning process. It
is total impossible for well-informed, fact-checking citizens
to respond to these complex, embedded planning issues in 3
minute presentations at ARB meetings.
I urge you to stop or slow down the approval process for 240
Hamilton. There is a growing understanding now within many
neighborhoods that "under-parked" de~elopments have negatively
impacted neighborhoods throughout Palo Alto. The y staff,
1
Commission and Council simply are not exercising due
ligence. Avoiding data collection, refusing to address
repeated citizen pleas and compounding problems with approvals
such as 240 Hamilton are guaranteed to create more and more
"Maybell" citizen pushbacks ... probably in 2014. In fact, I will
be so bold as predicting that when residents of unimpacted
ity South residential street eventually comprehend the
wave of parked vehicles coming their way, the current
Maybell situation will pale in comparison.
FACT ONE:
ON MARCH 18 THE CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGE DOWNTOWN PARKING
DEFICIT 901 PARKING SPACE ACCUMULATED SINCE THE MID
1980S. THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT A MINIMUM FURTHER NEAR
TERM FUTURE OF AN ADDITIONAL 665 PARKING SPACE. 240 HAMILTON IS
PART OF THAT 665 PIPELINE YET TO HIT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
STREETS. 240 HAMILTON REPRESENT 46 PARKING SPACE DEFICIT. TO
PUT 46 SPACES IN PERSPECTIVE. BYRANT STREET FROM LYTTON TO POE
HAS 82 PARKING SPACE FULLY USED MONDAY THRU FRIDAY.
FACT TWO:
THE METHODOLOY USED BY CITY STAFF FOR THE MARCH 18 REPORT
SERIOUSLY UNDERESTIMATES THE IMBALANCE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL
PARKI.NG SPACE SUPPLY AND DEMAND OVER THE NEXT 3 YEARS.
240 HAMILTON IS ANOTHER SERIOUSLY FLAWED PROJECT AND THE CITY
STAFF AND COUNCIL READILY ADMIT THAT THIS PROJECT WHEN COMPLETED
WILL PUSH 46 MORE PARKED CARS ONTO RESIDENTIAL STREETS. BECAUSE
DOWNTOWN NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD IS OVER 83% SATURATED EACH WORKING
DAY, THEN MOST OF THE PARKING WILL IMPACT UNIVERSITY SOUTH
NEIGHBORHOOD. AS A COMMON COURTESY, THE ARB DOES HAVE THE
AUTHORITY AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE AND
NOTIFY RESIDENTS ON THIS ISSUE.
FACT THREE:
CITIZENS IN PALO ALTO ARE RESORTING TO THEIR OWN CITY PLANNING
MEASURES SINCE CITY STAFF IS SO LIMITED BOTH IN THEIR RESOURCES.
AND THEIR RELATIVELY NARROW MISSION TO PROTECT
NEIGHBORHOODS. IN MY PERSONAL OPINION THE PA PLANNING
DEPARTMENT BY HISTORY (NOT PREFERENCE) IS TOO PROJECT CENTRIC.
IF THE ARB TAKES A BROADER VIEW OF ACCUMULATING TRAFFIC AND
PARKING IMPACTS, THEN THE CITY STAFF ALSO CAN BETTER STEWARDS.
ATTACHED ARE THREE CITIZEN-GENERATED DOCUMENTS. EVERY ATTEMPT
IS BEING MADE TO USE CITY DATA AND TO COORDINATE WITH THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT. OUTREACH TO DEVELOPERS AND THE CHAMBER HAS
COMMENCED TO MAKE THIS A SHARED PROBLEM AND SOLUTION. PLEASE
STEP UP AND AT LEAST READ THE DRAFTS. SEVERAL RESIDENTS AND I
ARE AVAILABLE TO MEET INDIVIDUALLY WITH YOU.
2
In previous ARB meetings I have observed your internal
conversation that the purview of the ARB is very limited in
scope. You dont take responsiblity for the visual impact
parked cars on residential streets!!! Ceriainly the , PTe
and Council have almost unlimited responsibilities. However, you
are charged with a most important responsibility, "how our
city presents itself sually in terms of commercial and
residential construction". If the ARB can address the color of
our backyard (not visible fro~ street) HOA pool f~nce, then
cannot you look out and see the parked cars in front
residences?
I am not in favor willy-tilly rush to build parking garages,
but at least could not you be viewing the architecture of the
next, most viable parking garage and its impact on
downtown? Palo Alto residents need a new level of leadership
from the ARB and I hope you will re-examine how your define your
role as the impact of the current economic boom compounds the
accumulated parking, traffic and safety deficits in Palo Alto
and our neighboring cities.
BTw se dont underestimate the amount of citizen concern for
the parking impact you are creating by failure to recognize the
scope of impact.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611
cnsbuchanan@ .com
<Development Impacts draft July 8 2013 20%.docx>
<Parking Space Deficit Cumulative Summary July 8 DIN Max Out.xlsx>
<Bar Chart Vehicle Forecast July 12 2013.png>
3
8754.txt
NOTE ONLY
Page 1