HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4155
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4155)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/9/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 240 Hamilton Avenue Appeal
Title: Public Hearing: Council Review of an Appealed Architectural Review
Approval of a Four Story, 15,000 s.f. Mixed Use Building Replacing a Two
Story, 7,000 s.f. Commercial Building at 240 Hamilton, a CD-C(GF)(P) Zoned
Parcel; Council Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval
of a Record of Land Use Action for the Project. (A related Variance for
encroachment into special setbacks on Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street
was not appealed.) (Continued from November 12, 2013)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council take the following actions;
1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment G) and Mitigation and
Monitoring Report (Attachment K) for the project and
2. Deny the appeal of the Director’s Decision and adopt the attached Record of Land Use
Action (RLUA, Attachment A) approving the Architectural Review of the project with
revised approval conditions to reflect Council’s adoption of an interim ordinance
eliminating certain parking exemptions.
Executive Summary
The Council is requested to review the appeal of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment’s architectural review approval for a proposed 4-story building at 240 Hamilton
Avenue with a net square footage increase of 8,000 sq. ft.. The Architectural Review Board
(ARB) recommended project approval and the Planning Director approved this project in July.
The application was then appealed to the Council on August 5th. The reasons for the appeal are
described in the appellant’s correspondence (Attachment B). This item was scheduled on the
consent calendar on September 9. At that time, it was pulled off consent by the Council and
scheduled for a public hearing. Although this is a “de novo” hearing where the Council can
City of Palo Alto Page 2
consider all information provided, the scope of the Council review is limited to the architectural
components of the project and the related findings adopted by the Planning Director and ARB.
Background
Project Description & Council Purview
The project is a new four-story, 50 foot, mixed-use building comprised of 15,000 square feet
(sq. ft.) of floor area. The building would replace a 7,000 sq. ft. one-story building located at 240
Hamilton Avenue. Please note the 7,000 sq. ft. includes a 2,000 square-foot mezzanine that
was part of the original construction but removed several years ago. Further description is
provided in the attached ARB reports. 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. Following a positive ARB recommendation (3-
0-1), on July 23, 2013 the Planning Director approved the Architectural Review and Variance
requests. A Downtown Palo Alto resident then appealed the AR approval, and not the Variance
approval. Therefore, the AR approval and associated environmental review is the subject of the
Council review.
Appeal
On August 5, 2013, Douglas Smith (Appellant) submitted a letter of appeal which included 23
co-signers. The appellant’s objection is 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. The appellant had previously submitted a letter to the ARB
outlining his objections to the project. Additional details regarding the appellant’s concerns are
discussed below.
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). The June 6, 2013 staff report and
verbatim meeting minutes are attached (Attachment F). At the June 6, 2013 ARB hearing, the
ARB received the staff report, took in public comment and recommended 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
City of Palo Alto Page 3
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. The ARB had also received letters via email prior to
the hearing (these are attached to this report along with other public correspondence, as
Attachment H). Verbatim meeting minutes and the ARB report of July 18th are provided as
Attachment E. 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 included modification to staff’s initial findings (findings #4, 13,
and 14.)
Finding #4 specifically states:
“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 is attached 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. Additional analysis related to the architectural findings can be found in the
discussion section below. Project plans can be found here:
htttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/planningprojects
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Environmental Review
The Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which were circulated for 20
days for public review and comment prior to ARB recommendation and Director action, is
provided as Attachment G. The MND has not yet been filed in the County offices but will be
filed following Council action on the project. Public correspondence from interested parties
(other than the appellant) received since the September 9, 2013 Council meeting is provided in
Attachment H.
Parking
Although not the subject of the Council review, it is important to clarify the parking
requirements that apply to this project. An interim ordinance was adopted by the Council on
October 21, 2013, and the second reading occurred November 4, 2013. The ordinance became
effective 30-days thereafter. This interim ordinance eliminated two parking exemptions that
would have previously applied to this project. Since this ordinance is now law, the application
must comply with the new ordinance and can no longer take advantage of the parking
exemptions. Thus, the project will provide four (4) parking spaces onsite (for the residential
units) and be responsible for 11 additional spaces. Nine (9) of these spaces are due to the
parking code revisions, and two (2) spaces are due to installation of a curb cut and removal of
on-street parking. The applicant has stated they will pay in-lieu fees and use existing TDR
credits to satisfy this requirement.
Discussion
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
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Design Criteria. Development in commerical districts are responsible for establishing context
and showing compatibility 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 C) 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.
Appeal Letter
The following section gives an overview of the appellant’s concerns and details how the above
mentioned guidleines and standards relate to the positive ARB recommendation and the
Director approval.
ARB Findings, Standards and Guidelines
As described in the Municipal Code and noted on the appellant’s letter, 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 and concluded that the project is consistent with the ARB
findings, the Context-Based Design Criteria, and the Downtown Urban Design Guide. In
addition, the ARB determined that 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 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. The ARB further determined that the ARB approval findings, which include findings
addressing aesthetic concerns, could be met. The project is conditioned with approval
conditions incorporated into the attachment to the approval letter. The draft RLUA contains
ARB findings presented to and then modified by the ARB on July 18, 2013. 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, see Attachment J). An excerpt of the first ARB staff
report (included in Attachment F) discussing the project in reference to the Context Based
Design Criteria and Downtown Urban Design Guide is provided below (in italics). These have
City of Palo Alto Page 6
been placed in the RLUA to support the 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
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
City of Palo Alto Page 7
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.
Historic Compatibility
In the appeal letter, the appellant concludes 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. 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 (second letter in Attachment B), 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. Thus, the project would replace one historic building with another.
The adjacent Reposado Restaurant building is not considered a historic building; it was
considered potentially eligible for listing in 1998 but was not placed on the City’s local list.
Subsequent remodeling to establish the current restaurant tenant resulted in further
modifications to the storefront and mezzanine of that building and it is still not listed on the
city’s inventory. Additional discussion is provided in responses to Councilmember Holman
questions (Attachment L). As for compatibility with the adjacent Ramona Avenue historic
district, in general, the Secretary of Interior’s Standards prescribe a visual distinction between
new and historic features. No historic impact to the historic districts or other historic resources
would occur as long as the project does not alter the character defining features of the district
City of Palo Alto Page 8
resource. By replacing one non-historic building with another in a visually diverse area, ARB
and staff judged that no character defining features were affected and compatibility was not an
issue. Additional discussion is provided in the CEQA section of this report.
Additional Issues
Parking
As noted, the project must now comply with recently adopted ordinances regarding parking
exemptions. The applicant is now subject to the new parking ordinance for an additional 2,200
square feet (sf) of floor area (2,000 s.f. of previously un-assessed floor area and 200 s.f. of
bonus floor area), equal to nine parking spaces not provided on site. The applicant is currently
proposing to meet the new parking requirements through payment of in-lieu fees and use of
additional TDRs (equaling exemption for 2.6 of the nine parking spaces). There are four
enclosed spaces currently provided via the use of lifts, and it was determined through the ARB
process that only three are required for the two residential units. However, the fourth lift space
cannot be utilized for commercial parking because above grade, non-residential, enclosed
parking area counts toward floor area, and the project floor area is already at the maximum 3:1
floor area ratio. A table illustrating parking provisions is provided as Attachment I.
Development and Design Standards and Guidelines
Development on the 5,000 square foot (s.f.) project site is subject to Mixed Use Development
Standards for CD-C zoned properties, per PAMC 18.18.060 Table 3. These standards allow a
floor area ratio (FAR) of 15,000 s.f. or 3.0:1 FAR (since 2.0:1 FAR is allowed for a
residential/commercial building, and up to 3.0:1 FAR is allowed with the transfer of
development rights (5,000 s.f. transfer to this site). The standards allow a 50-foot tall building,
zero setbacks on all sides with the exception of a 10-foot required rear setback for the
residential component and observance of Special Setbacks on both Hamilton Avenue and
Bryant Street; a Variance was approved for encroachment into these special setbacks, and the
approval was not appealed.
Timeline
The orignal application was sumbitted on January 1, 2013. The application was heard twice by
the ARB in July and forwarded to the Planning Director with a positive recommendation on July
18, 2013. The Director approved the application on July 23, 203. An appeal was submitted on
August 5, 2013, and placed on Council consent calendar in August and continued to the consent
calendar of September 9, 2013. The item was pulled off consent, and continued to a public
hearing. The date of this hearing was set for December 9, 2013. There are no next steps
following the public hearing and Council action on the project.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Resource Impact
The project that was approved by Director included payment of in lieu parking fees in the
amount of $121,500 for the loss of two on-street spaces. In addition, the applicant will be
required to pay up to $546,750 in lieu parking fees for the nine spaces not provided for the
2,000 square feet of floor area not previously assessed and the 200 square foot bonus floor
area. The total amount of in lieu parking fees, at the current rate of $60,750 per space, would
be $668,250 for 11 spaces. However, the applicant may reduce this amount by use of TDRs or
provision of onsite parking for the commericial uses.
Policy Implications
This is the first project that falls under the new parking code provisions, which became effective
on December 5, 2013.
This project had also raised questions about the appropriateness of contemporary architecture
in an area of downtown that contains historic resources. The Council has the discretion to
interpret compatibility standards differently than the ARB and the Director. If the Council
agrees with the appellant, or believes the project should be revised in some manner, the
Council could approve the project with additional conditions, continue the project with specific
direction or deny the project outright with specific findings.
Environmental Review
The Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project was provided in the
packet for the September 9, 2013 Council meeting, and is attached to this report (Attachment
G). The environmental document has not been modified since the close of the public review
period. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is provided as Attachment K.
Regarding the aesthetics and cultural resources analysis, given the questions raised by the
appellant as to compatibility with historic buildings in the vicinity, the City has the discretion to
interpret compatibilty broadly. A significant impact under CEQA would only occur if the project
would alter character defining features of an historic resource. Since the proposed project
would replace one historic building with another and lies outside of the historic district, we can
conclude that it will not affect the district in any material way. Since the building is not located
next to an historic building, that conclusion applies to the adjacent building as well.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Regarding cumulative traffic impacts, the Initial Study/MND transportation section noted that
the project represents an additional 4,527 square feet of non-residential floor area added to
the site and contributing to the Downtown Cap area (350,000 s.f.). The Environmental Impact
Report associated with the existing Comprehensive Plan included cumulative traffic analysis
and anticipated build-out of the downtown to 350,000 square feet. Also noted in the MND, 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). The MND noted that based on the relatively low traffic generation estimates the project
is not anticipated to result in significant peak hour or daily traffic impacts.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Record Of Land Use Action (DOC)
Attachment B: All Appellant's correspondence (PDF)
Attachment C: Director's Approval Letter (PDF)
Attachment D: Council 10 21 13 Action Minutes on Parking Code Item (PDF)
Attachment E: July 18, 2013 ARB staff report (without attachments) and verbatim
minutes (PDF)
Attachment F: June 6, 2013 ARB staff report (without attachments) and verbatim
minutes (PDF)
Attachment G: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (PDF)
Attachment H: Public Correspondence (PDF)
Attachment I: Parking Table (DOCX)
Attachment J: context based design criteria (PDF)
Attachment K: Mitigation Monitoring Program (DOC)
Attachment L: Council Member Holman Q and A (DOCX)
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 December 9, 2013, the Council conducted a public hearing
and 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, with
modifications to approval conditions herein, 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.
E. On September 2, 2013 the Council continued the consent
agenda item to September 9, 2013 and on that date, pulled the item
off consent to request that a public hearing be scheduled for
review and action by Council.
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 generic findings are provided for Council consideration;
the June 6, 2013 ARB report included the context based criteria
provided below in italics.
(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;
however, the bonus area is subject to the provision of in-lieu
parking fees for one space not provided for this amount of floor
area.
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 project reviewed by the ARB included 4,327 square feet of
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), coming from a seismic and
historic rehabilitation project at 230-232 Homer Avenue. The
applicant now proposes to transfer the remaining 673 square feet
of floor area such that 5,000 square feet of transferred area
(corresponding to 20 parking spaces) does not need to be parked
on site. 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. Additionally, payment of fees is required in lieu of the
provision of the six of the eight parking spaces not provided
associated with the 2,000 square feet of floor area not
previously assessed during the parking assessment district
240 Hamilton Ave Page 11
process. The TDR floor area noted in Condition of Approval 7
(floor area in the amount of 673 s.f. not previously proposed to
be transferred) would reduce the number of in-lieu parking fees
from eight spaces to six spaces. In-lieu fees for six parking
spaces are required in addition to the fees for one in lieu
space noted in Condition of Approval #5 (totaling in-lieu fees
for seven parking spaces not provided on site).
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.
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
240 Hamilton Ave Page 12
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
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)
240 Hamilton Ave Page 13
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
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. STREET 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
240 Hamilton Ave Page 14
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
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
240 Hamilton Ave Page 15
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
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.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 16
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
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,
240 Hamilton Ave Page 17
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
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
240 Hamilton Ave Page 18
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 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.
1 In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 2
240 Hamilton Ave Page 19
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)
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
240 Hamilton Ave Page 20
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
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
240 Hamilton Ave Page 21
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
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
240 Hamilton Ave Page 22
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
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
240 Hamilton Ave Page 23
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.
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
24
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,
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.
25
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
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
26
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
"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
27
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.
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
28
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.
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
29
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)
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
30
(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
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
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
revised project drawings indicating blending of the tile to
relate better to the wood siding pattern.
SECTION 9. Indemnity.
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify
and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers,
employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against
any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against
the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or
void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual
attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation.
The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such
action with attorneys of its own choice.
SECTION 10. Term of Approval. Architectural Review
Approval. The approval shall be valid for one year from the
original date of approval, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.77.090.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by Hayes Group Architects entitled 240
Hamilton Avenue, consisting of 21 pages, and received June 27,
2013.
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.”
~ 'Ul
CI T Y OF
PALO
LTO
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-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 .. 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
Staffrecommends 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
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 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;
3. Consider incorpor~ting more cedar siding at another location on the building.
Additional background information is provided in the June 6, 2013 staff report, provided as
Attachment C. A revised zoning code compliance table is provided as Attachment D.
I •
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 hdp 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 Califonlia 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. Project Plans *
* Submitted by applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Sal Giovanotto, Owner
Ken Hayes, Architect! Applicant
Prepared By: Jason N ortz, Senior Planner
Reviewed By: Amy French, Chief Planning
13PLN-00006 Page 2
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 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 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 GrolUld 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: grolUld 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 residentiallUlits. Four on-site parking spaces would
be provided for the two residential lUlits. 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 con1lllercial uses on the first, second and third floors and 3,473 sq. ft. within two residential
lUlits on the fourth 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 134 sf
Fourth 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 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
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.
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 2 of 8
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 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 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 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 corners in all of Downtown where
both a seven foot and six foot special setback are applied; 1) at the northeastenl comer of
Hamilton Avenue 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 Hamilton Avenues. 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 Ramona and
Emerson 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 A venue, 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 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 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 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 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 ,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 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.
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 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
dowiltown 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 Hanlilton Avenue District is a nlixed office/commercial/retail district with sonle 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.
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 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
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, Architect! Applicant ___ h
Prepared By: Jason M. Nortz, Senior Planntr I
Manager Review: Amy French, Chief Planning OffiCi~
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 8 of 8
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
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 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 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 tloor 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
I) 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) may to program or CEQA process, an
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier state
~ ~ ~
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state "', .. , ....... "' ...
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For than Measures Incorporated,"
.,......, .. n-,,, .• ,..,, ... measures were or document
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6)
· ....... "'OI"'1"c (e.g. to a or ""'""1-C1I"1.o. -"" ........... J ..
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is sut,stantiated.
7) sources or individuals
8) The explanation
a) or if any, to
b) the .. u'Ur; ...... A'-" .. measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
rtOlio a~~ ee._ r~(y--"": QI~v...,
240-248 Hamilton Avenue
Menlo P,]f'1(
•
.R @
8 1 Eas! PotoAllo
n..WliY,1I$.
u
Palo Alto
'\ ~~
lO$AJlos
H)hj
P ')jlo
~O'54n'~
CliraCOUI!'tY ..
T~EI
LosA/tO$
Figure One: Regional Map
Page 6 Negative Declaration
....
"
j Ff
~.-
~
~OO"; I' ./
" .•. f
,/ -(Mo ll ""'"" m .j ,
~,-.... 1":'!:ri!I
, .. ..., --.-c_
240·248 Hamilton Avenue
\
•
. " ! • "'>"
H t::;=-~
..... 1:
• L)1!Cfl PIJ,~
S
" '" " ,,-0.
e--~
,(
, Y'''' ,..
13
/-_ .. -,,' ...-..-n , "-B ~ •• J
" J .'
Figure Two: Vicinity Map
Page 7
,.-' ... ,. ••
13
,
.'
.'
/ -.. ~·-e -
."
Negative Declaration
0/" /
, " ... '"
.'
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and
a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
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 RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
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 I Monitoring Program of the California X Resources Agency, 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 Farmlano, to non-agricultural use?
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 Fannland 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 Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the 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
quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and/or indirect operational 1 X
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 9 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
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 requirements 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 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 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? MapL8
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique 1,2 X
geologic feature? MapL8
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2
interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapL8 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 form 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 Potentially 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
M@NS
iv) Landslides? 2 X
MapNS
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 MapNS
collapse?
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building X
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to MapNS
life or property?
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 development 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 emissions·and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions 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 emissions 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
Incorp_orated
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 impacts 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-a§icultural 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 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. 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 Avenue
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 ofthe 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 HV AC 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 (PAMC
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
IncorI>orated
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 I 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 govermhental
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 payment 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 (Le., 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 commercial 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
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources PotentiaJly Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major 1,2
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a X
project are considerable when viewed in
connection 'with the effects of past projects, 1,2 . r'-
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects X
on human beings, either directly or 1,2
indirectly?
DISCUSSION:
The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal. The proposed project would not eliminate and important example of
CalifoTI1ia history.
The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable nor does
it have substantial environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings
either directly or indirectly. The project is located within the City's commercial downtown area where
there are other projects that are under review and planned for the future. These projects are
redevelopment proj ects where existing buildings are either rehabilitated or demolished and replaced.
This infill development does not result in considerable effects to the environment.
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 29 Negative Declaration
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 adequately
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 I: Parking Table
Original Proposal
1. The existing 7,000 square feet of commercial floor area is grandfathered in the Downtown
Assessment District (5,000 s.f. assessed previously for 20 parking spaces, remainder area of 2,000 s.f.
exempt from providing parking as existing but previously un-assessed) and as such is not required to
provide parking spaces on site for the existing amount of floor area (per 18.52.070(a)(3));
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 = 11,527sf)
is exempt from parking due to a one time allowable 200 square foot bonus, per PAMC 18.18.070.
Existing Proposed
Existing floor area 7,000 sf
Assessed Parking 20 spaces (5,000 sf)
Existing on-site parking 0 spaces
Replace existing floor area 0 spaces
Added commercial floor area
200 sf 1x exception
4,327 sf TDRs
250 sf ADA area
0 spaces
0 spaces
0 spaces
Residential 2 spaces/unit = 4 spaces
TOTAL PARKING 20 Assessed Spaces 4 spaces
Revised Proposal
1. 5,000 square feet of existing commercial floor area is grandfathered in the Downtown
Assessment District (assessed previously for 20 parking spaces) and as such is not required to
provide parking spaces on site;
2. 2,000 square foot mezzanine space subject to provide 8 parking spaces, given Interim
Ordinance deletion of 18.52.070(a)(3) applicable to vacant un-assessed area at the time of
assessment. Applicant subject to payment of in-lieu fees for area not reduced by additional
TDR area (reduction below for 2.6 spaces via TDR results in need for in-lieu fees for six spaces.)
3. 200 square feet of commercial floor area that was currently exempt from parking due to a one
time allowable 200 square foot bonus, per PAMC 18.18.070.200 is now subject to provide
payment of in-lieu fees for one space. Lift space cannot be used for commercial since above
grade covered commercial parking counts toward floor area in the CD-C zone and maximum
3.0:1 FAR is already proposed.
4. 5,000 square feet of commercial floor area transferred to the site, via a TDR from a valid sender
site. Original proposal applied 4,327 square feet of TDR’s (Difference of 673 sf or 2 additional
spaces).
Existing Proposed
Existing floor area 7,000 sf
Assessed parking 20 spaces (5,000sf)
Existing on-site parking 0 spaces
Replace existing 2,000 sf
mezzanine floor area
In lieu fees for 8 spaces
(reduced to 6 spaces via TDR)
Added commercial floor area
200 sf 1x exception
5,000 sf TDRs
250 ADA area
in-lieu fee for 1 space
0 spaces
0 spaces
Residential
2 spaces/unit = 4spaces
TOTAL PARKING 20 Assessed Spaces 4 residential spaces*
In-lieu fees for 7 spaces
*The applicant may not utilize one of the residential lift spaces for commercial use. Though it
was determined through the ARB process that only three of the four lift spaces are required for
the two residential units (development being treated as two-unit and not multi-family
development which requires 1.5 spaces/unit per PAMC 18.52.040), covered commercial parking
above grade counts toward FAR.
1 of 1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Project Name: 240 Hamilton Application No.: 13PLN-00006
Approved by: Date: 7/23/2013
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Responsibility
for
Compliance
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
Biological resources
Conflict with
local policies or
ordinances
protecting
biological
resources
Mitigation Measure 1: 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 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 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.
Applicant Prior to issuance
of building permit
Director of Public
Works-
Arborist/Urban
Forester
Attachment K
Attachment L
Attachment L: Staff Responses to 9/9/13 Questions from Councilmember Holman
Design
Q1: What did the original proposal look like? Did it include cedar banding? Can staff
please provide a visual of the original submission?
A1: The original plan set included limited use of cedar siding. The ARB requested use
of cedar siding at another location on the building; the applicant did not modify the
plans with respect to use of cedar siding. The ARB requested more articulation on the
wall facing the building at 200 Hamilton; the applicant responded with the use of
recessed metal panel at second and third floors. The original, superseded plan set will
be presented (clearly indicated as such) on the wall of the Chambers, beside the ARB
approved plan set. The original set has also been uploaded to the City’s website at the
following location: URL
Q2: Do I understand correctly that the project eliminates existing retail at the ground
floor in favor of parking? The retail area is indicated to be 2337 sq ft on a 5000 sq ft lot.
What is the possibility of below grade parking?
A2: Correct. The ground floor retail area is reduced to make way for four enclosed
parking spaces on the site via parking lifts. The site is only 5,000 square feet such that
it would be infeasible provide a ramp to access underground parking spaces as well as
the spaces. Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52.070 cites a “site area less than 10,000
square feet” as when feasibility of providing on-site parking becomes a challenge and
one criteria for eligibility to pay in-lieu parking fees.
Variance
Q3: Variance question: the findings indicate that this property is one of two that has the
5 foot and 7 foot setbacks. Is this referencing these specific setback dimensions or
special setbacks in general in the downtown district as I recall there are other special
setbacks downtown. What are the current sidewalk widths? I'm looking for the actual
sidewalk dimension rather than the "effective" sidewalk width in each case above.
A3: There is 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 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 corners in all of Downtown where
both a seven foot and six foot special setback are applied; 1) at the northeastern corner
of Hamilton Avenue and Bryant Street (Washington Mutual building), and 2) at the
northwestern corner of Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street (project site).
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 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 approved and non-appealed Variance allows the project to provide a sidewalk width
of approximately 11 feet 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.
Also please note that the variance request has not been appealed.
Historic
Q4. The (9/9/13) staff report on Page 151 speaks to the historic Ramona District. Did
staff consider the sphere of influence (area of potential effect) as a tool in determining
compatibility and context, which context could also include the Birge Clark two doors
away that used to house Blue Chalk, Reposado building that is Potentially eligible for CA
Register, etc? Q5. One clarification seeking comment: I believe that the differentiation
referenced in the Secretary of Interior's Standards asks for differentiation, but does not
require modern buildings, for example, and is within the context of compatibility. An
environmental review (as guidance in application of the Sec Stds) would require
compatibility with adjacent historic buildings and those within the area of potential
effect. Q6. Was the Historic Planner consulted in determining compatibility with the
National Register Ramona District and other historic buildings in the immediate area?
Staff Answers on Historic Questions
Adjacency and Area of Potential Effect
The project site is not abutting any historic site. The use of “area of potential effect
(APE)” is language found in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.
Sphere of Influence is not the proper term in this context. The lead agency has
discretion to determine the appropriate APE and this will vary project by project.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1) states, “Substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation,
or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of
an historical resource would be materially impaired.” The process for determining
whether the significance of an historical resource is materially impaired is addressed in
the subsequent provisions of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, Section 15064.5(b)(2)
sets forth criteria for determining when the significance of an historical resource is
materially impaired. In addition, Section 15064.5(b)(3) states, “Generally, a project
that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing
Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be
considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical
resource.”
Although it is in close proximity, 240 Hamilton is not within the Ramona National
Historic District located across Hamilton; the historic Cardinal Hotel and the University
Arts building are within the Ramona Historic District. The project site is also located
across from a non-historic site (City Hall), which also provides context.
Staff determined demolition and new construction at 240 Hamilton Avenue would not
“materially impair the significance” of historic buildings located across Hamilton Avenue,
nor those historic resources located farther down Ramona street.
Reposado
The adjacent Reposado restaurant building, circa 1921, is not a historic building. It was
not deemed “historic” on the City’s list of historic resources, though in 1998 it was
considered “potentially eligible” and needing further study should an application be
submitted for demolition and replacement. A renovation was studied by Historic staff in
conjunction with Architectural Review approval issued in 2008 for replacement of the
window system below the existing transom with wood painted operable windows and
wood entry vestibule, as well as an overhead canopy, exterior lighting, signage, exterior
paint, and interior renovation. The City has not altered the status of “potentially eligible
for the California Register” as a result of the modifications in 2008. The building owner
has not requested a historic inventory designation of the site, and the City will not
initiate a change to the historic status for a building without the consent of the owner.
The new building at 240 Hamilton will not alter or change the Reposado building. The
240 Hamilton building will be architecturally differentiated from the Reposado building.
The south side of Hamilton Street, including Reposado is not currently a historic district
nor is it proposed to become a Historic District. The building adjacent to Reposado at
200 Hamilton is a modern-designed building constructed in 2001.
Blue Chalk
The historic Blue Chalk building (at 630 Ramona) is two buildings away. The demolition
of the 240 Hamilton building would not significantly affect 630 Ramona; the new
building at 240 Hamilton would be seen on the block face with the other buildings on
Ramona.
Historic Buildings on Remainder of Block
The block within which this project is located extends from Hamilton Avenue to Forest
Avenue and Emerson Street to Ramona Street. There are historic buildings within the
same block as the building, many of them along Emerson Street and two of them on
Ramona Street located farther down toward Forest Avenue, namely 630 Ramona and
668 Ramona (Pacific Art League – more on this property described later).
Tool Used to Determine Compatibility
The tool used to determine compatibility and context was the Council-adopted Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.18.110, Context-Based Design Criteria. Goals of this
section are expressed as development that is responsible to its context, compatible with
adjacent development and promotes pedestrian oriented design. While PAMC does not
define “adjacent” it does define “abutting” as having property or district lines in
common. PAMC 18.18.110 defines context and compatibility. Context indicates
relationships to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby
natural features, and seeks effective transitions to adjacent uses and natural features.
Further:
Context “should not be construed as a desire to replicate existing surroundings,
but rather to provide appropriate transitions to those surroundings. Context is
also not specific to architectural style or design, though in some instances,
relationships may be reinforced by an architectural response.”
Compatibility “is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is
consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian-oriented design, and when
new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages
with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unit of the street is
maintained.”
Consultation with City’s Historic Planner regarding 240 Hamilton Site
The project planner examined the status of the site’s building, which was not listed on
our local historic inventory nor considered potentially eligible for listing. The City’s
Historic Planner was consulted regarding the historic status. He informed the project
planner that, “though the building used to be a Mission Revival structure ca. 1920 that
housed the Palo Alto Times newspaper office, it was radically altered into the modern
building of today around the 1970s. It has totally lost integrity and is no longer a
historic building in any way.” Because the project site was not historic, and was not
located within the nationally registered Ramona District, the City’s Historic Planner was
not requested to determine compatibility of the new building with the district located
across Hamilton Avenue prior to ARB staff reports and hearings. See earlier response.
Corner Buildings
Q7: Should the Pacific Art Center be included in determining appropriate design for the
site? Reason for question: I am looking at the anchor corner buildings in area for
guidance.
A7: Corner Buildings
1. PAL
The Pacific Art League (PAL) building can be compared to the 240 Hamilton site with
respect to an alternative “anchor corner treatment”. The PAL site is 5,610 sf in area,
similar in parcel size. Like 200 Hamilton, that project does not include residential use,
only one land use; the 240 Hamilton Avenue project includes commercial and residential
and is therefore allowed greater floor area.
The three-story 1926 PAL building was 7,858 sf and no legal on-site parking was
provided (again comparable to 240 Hamilton and 200 Hamilton as to lack of existing on-
site parking). A 4,940 square foot three-story addition was approved as bonus area
(free from parking requirement) for use on site for the Pacific Art League building via
HRB and ARB, as the addition was determined to be compliant with Secretary of
Interior Standards for that site. Total floor area for Pacific Art League upon completion
will be 12,798 square feet and the addition, under construction, results in the
appearance of a four story building.
The difference on 240 Hamilton is that the bonus area of 5,000 sf is being transferred
to the site via the TDR program, and added to the existing 7,000 s.f. of commercial
area, allows for 12,000 sf of commercial area, comparable in size. The additional 3,000
square feet is proposed for the residential floor area, which makes the building larger
than the PAL building.
2. 200 Hamilton
The 200 Hamilton Avenue building (26,638 sf on a 9,375 sf parcel), constructed in
2001, is three stories on a corner lot on the other end of the Hamilton block face. It
also extends to a height of approximately 50 feet and 62 feet for the clock tower (via
Design Enhancement Exception). It also included use of transferred development rights
(TDRs; 7,500 s.f. from two different nearby and adjacent historic sites) to supplement
the allowable 19,138 s.f. reach an FAR of 2.8:1), though that building was approved for
commercial use only (retail and office) and abuts a listed historic property (where the
transferred bonus area was derived).
Parking and Floor Area
Q7: (Before September 2013 council meeting) I sent in a question seeking resolution of
the square footage inconsistencies (5000 vs 7000 existing) and look forward to that
response. I received confirmation from staff that the Parking District Assessment is
based on 5000 sq ft. I look forward to identification of the additional 2000 sq ft. Can
staff please provide a copy of the Building Permit that allows the 2000 sq ft mezzanine
as this remains an area of confusion. Was the 2000 sq ft mezzanine built? Does it exist?
A7: There is no building permit on record citing the floor area of the building, other
than a 1949 record noting 5,000 square feet. We have record of there being a 2,000 sf
mezzanine that was confirmed by the City’s Building division in July of 2012. It may
have been previously used for storage or incidental office to the primary retail use. The
mezzanine may have been vacant and therefore not assessed as floor area for the
parking assessment when originally constructed. The mezzanine area measured by the
Building staff included the mezzanine area at the “Waze” tenant space plus the
mezzanine at “Inhabiture”. There have been other instances where this has also been
the case (270 University). A Building Permit was issued for tenant improvements at 240
Hamilton Avenue in October 2005 (copy provided). In September 2012 an AR approval
was issued for signage and façade improvements for the current tenant and the
mezzanine space was viewable at that time.
The zoning table in the July 18, 2013 ARB staff report referred to the 2,000 square feet
of mezzanine floor area not previously assessed for parking spaces as being exempt
under PAMC section 18.52.070 (a)(3) – this section has been deleted in the Interim
Ordinance adopted by Council and now in effect (31 days from second reading
November 4, 2013).
Q8: Is staff considering bringing to the Council the 200 sq ft parking exception that is
indicated a part of this application?
A8: This is answered in the staff report prepared post adoption of the Interim ordinance
that eliminates the 200 s.f. parking exemption.
Q9: What is the breakdown of the sq footage for the building and related parking
requirements? The (9/9/13) staff report on page 153 indicates 7000 sq ft (5000 +
2000) + 4327 TDR + 200. This equates to an 11,527 sq ft building. The Zoning
compliance table on page 268 refers to 5000 sq ft of TDR plus seismic bonus. For a
building in the district to reach a 3:1 ratio (15,000 sq ft) it has to use TDR or seismic or
historic bonuses. Please describe how the project qualifies for a 15,000 sq ft project.
A9: The project viewed by the ARB had a total of 15,000 s.f. of floor area. This
included the 200 s.f. one-time bonus (still included) plus ‘replacement area’ (7,000 s.f.
commercial) plus 3,473 residential area plus TDR area (4,327 s.f.). The Applicant
proposes to use 5,000 s.f. of TDR parking exemption to reduce the amount of
‘replacement area’ by 673 s.f.