HomeMy WebLinkAbout0418.093July 22. 1393
HONORABLE CIT'L COUNCIL
Palo A1to. california
': ;;"-d' .. ":
''''<,' '" .-! -.
651 Hamdlton. 536-576 ~ddlefield. 523-575 Byron Street:
Applicat~on For Planned Community Zone and Approval of
36-pnit Senigr Condominium Project
Members of the Council:
REPORT IN lIlUKF
'.,-:..
This report forwards to City Council recommendations by the Planning
Coanission and the Architectural Review Board tba,t the Council
approve, with cODditions~ the Planned Community Zone a~licatico for a
36-unit senior condominium project at 6S~ Hamilton Str~t.
on JUne 3D, 1993. the Planning Comacisaion unanimously approved the
proposed project. 6"-0. with Cocrmissioner Cullen abs~nt _ This staff
report discusses two changes which the Planning COcmtiSbi.on action macie
to the 1-ecoa:menQed C"Olld.itious of approval (regarding timing of the
Below Market Rate units aDd protecting neighbors from noise impacts),
an alternative garage pl.an being proposed by the applicant. and a
proposed letter from the City Council to the Senior Coordinating
Council regarding-the Hamilton Se-mer Project Bndowment fund_
The .ARB re ... -iewed the project Ol) June 3~ 19.93, and recommended approval
with conditions. 4-0, ~th Board Membe~ Hise not participati~g due to
conflict of interest,
please see the attached Planning CommiG&ion Report~ JUne 25, 1993. for
a complete hj,tory and description of the project. and the recommenda
tions of the Architectur~l Review Board.
ISSUES
!'b''laf'l to COndition '2 regarding tho BMB agreement
In a letter dated June 29. ~993. attached to thi& report; the
applicant requested that the se~~n BMR units be provided to the city
prior t~ occupancy of ~ project. rather than prior to is~ce of a
building permit as stated in Condition '2. Staff supported the
aG.:418 :93
. ,
•
'1Jti, ;, "
'~'
.~ '.
I applicant' s reque~t, noting that this ",""OUld be similar to the more
usual situation in which the BMR units are constructed as part of the
project and .eo are not available until time of occupancy ~ and the
Planning Commission modified Condition #2 to include this change.
rmoet Qf COnetrnction Noise On Neig~
Repres~tati~s of Mental Research Institute (MRI), located at 555
Middlefield Road across the street from the p~oject site. spoke to the
Planning commission ahout t~eir concern that noise during con&tru~tion
would interfere with the counseling and tra.ining se:::vices which they
conduct in their huilding. They asked the Planning Commissioa to
recommend that the applicant replsce the existing windows in their
building with sound proof windows. as mitigat.ion for the noise impact.
MRI presented a proposal from &n acoustical engineer. which suggested
poss~ble impacts of the construction on their operations and briefly
outlined how a study 'WOUld be condnct:.ed to determine projected noise
impacts and recommended modifications to the building to reduce noise
penetraticn. The proposa.l is attached to this report.
The applicant's acoustical consultant, Charles Salter~ ~s present at
the meeting and. discu6:5ed his opinion 'Of the noise impact. as outlined
in a February 2, 1993 letter attached to the Planning Commission
report. Mr. Salter is of the opinion that the. constr~ction noise
would not significantly impact the activities of MRI., since the
existing traffic noise would ~a6k most of the noise generated by ehe
construction activities. He explained that this did not. mean that
occupants of the MRI buildin~ waulC' not hear the construction noie:e,
but that the level of increase over existing noiDe generat.ed by
traffic would not be great enough to INllte a noticable difference in
haw Doise levels inside the ~ building affected their activities.
Re observed that the MR.I building currently has jalousie win.dow$ and
window a.ir couditionere ~ both of which greatly increase the
penetration of outside noise into the building +
Xn a letter dated January 20~ 1'93~ MRI suggested that the applicant
coorc1i.na.te their construction activities with MR..I's schedule for
training cl8.$se~ in order to reduce interference ~tb this activity.
In response to that suggestion, staff recommended in Condition #2 of
the Plauniog Commission report Chat the appliCADt be required to
coord.1nat8 with MRI'.s schedule:. Sowever, at t.he Planning Cc::m:uission
he5.rillg. MRI representatives indicated that coordinating schedules
would not be sufficient since they expect their counseling activities~
which are OIl~going. to be adversely affected by the construction
nol.e.
~ PlanniDg Commdssion modified Qondjtion #2 to requi~e the applicant
to ftlinimize construction !lOise to all neighbors, not just MR.I. and to
accomplish this by temporary sound walls or other construction
teChniques and also by construction timing and coordination ~tb
neighbor6~ scheduled activities if this proves helpful. The Planning
COI'IIlliBsion did not recommend that improvements be made to the MlU
buildiug or any other neighboring buildings.
OCR: 618: 93
p,\OGl\lIN'In.'IVII.OGl
7/22/93
Page 2
When City cauncil reviewed the project in ~anuary. ~9S1, they directed
the applicant to work with staff to explore the possibility of
providing additional parking. The applicant modified the plan to
provide an on-grade space for deliveries. one additional on-grade
visitor space and two additional spaces {total 71) in ehe garage.
During ~ ARB re~iew, the Board concluded that the dead-end aisles in
the parking layout made the garage difficult for some parkers to use.
and directed the applicant ~o modify the garage layout to replace the
dead-end aisl~s w1th a loop arrangement, if this could be done vtthout
dropping below the number of spa~es (69) shown when the project was
reviewed by City Council. They further requested t.hat this loop
scheme return tc.. the ARB for approval.
For Planning Commission revie~, the applicant presented botb the 71-
space dead-end aisle seheme and an alternative '9-space loop plan.
They also presented what they referred to as an ~eleventh hour
Bolution~, work~d out shortly before the me9ting. which was a revision
of the dead-end aisle scheme tJ:at attempted to answer the ARB concerns
by providing turn-around room at the ends of the aisles.
Julia Maser, ARB Chairperson, reviewed t~e loop plan and submitted a
memo to the Planning ComaUssion stating that she believed that while
it vas an improvement ove~ the dead-end aisle scheme, it posed
problems with storage roems opening onto the drive aisle and it
continued to include the bai:rpin turn a.t the ramp, which is t.he case
with all schemes propos-ed. The memo is attached to this report:. The
Planning commission approved the original staff condition requiring a
loop s~·stem. but noted that the applicant would be continuing to
develop the garage deSign.
The applicant has done further refinement of the "eleventh hour
solu.ti..on" dead-end aisle sch.e1'CJJe. They bave concluded that it is the
best alternative and are asking that Council approve this scheme.
raeher than the loop scheme. (See lettex: from the applicaut dated
July 20, 1993, explaining Wby they prefer this plan.)
The plans submitted iL your packet include two alternative garAge
layouts, the revised dead-end aisle plan (Sheet ASal), and the loop
plan (Sheet A6-2).
R,evinRd "ead-end AtJilt llycut. This plan bas t\lw"O dead-end
aisles, but turn-around space at the end of each .i£le is
provided by ~eoesBing the lest two parking spaces on each aisle
.12 feet eoward the center of the garage. It provid.es 11 p&rking
spaces. The disadvantage of this arrangement is that a driver
who goes to ~he end of the .isle ~thout finding 6 parking space
must turn around to leave the garage. However, this plan avoids
t.he problems of the loop layout described below.
rom layout This plan provides fo:: continuous circulation
t.brough the garage. It includes 69 parking spaces. The benefit
to this scheme is that there are no dead-end aisles, so no one
O!R,UB,n 7/22/93
',\DIR'\IL'IIUtT'llll.aG Page 3
•
1
!
would ever be required to turn around in the garage. The
disadvantages are: 1) the:e are two fewer parking spaces; 2) the
amount o£ personal storage space in thg garage for residents is
reduced by approximately 40 pe~cent; 3} some of the storage &reas
open into the drive aislei ') excavating is required under
approximately 40 perc~nt of the central courtyard. thu~ reducing
.oil velume for trees and requiring trees and shrubs to be in
planters rather than in the ground; 5) storage are •• are located
under the courtyud deck which is vulnerable to leaKs; "
aChieving the elevation change from the low south corner under
the swimming pool to the high north corner will require mora
excavation; 7) the change in elevation from the south to the
north corner ..... -ill result in an aw}"'Ward slope in. the garage floor.
After considering the relative merits of each plan. staff supports the
applieant~s choice of the revised dead-end aisle scheme. We believe
that since all res1deuts and all employees ~ll h3ve assigned parking
8~ace8~ and the ep&ces marked .nd reserved for guests are nearest the
foot of the ramp and spaces at the ends of aisle:s are reserved fo~
~loyees, there will be little occasion for anyone to get to the end
of the drive aisles ~thout finding a parking space. In the event
that this should happen. th1.5 echeme provides a turn-around. area at
ebe end of each drive aisle.
An unresolved issue ~th the garage design continues to be the hairpin
turn &t the bottom of the garage ramp. The tight turning-radius
requires a driver caning down the ramp to swing into the oncoming lane
in order to complete tbe turn into the front P5tt of the garage. The
applicant. working together with Chairperson Maser, bas identified
minor ehanges to the design which will resolve this prohlem~ and they
will present • sketch showing these propos~d changes at the council
aeeting. Tbe modified garage design incorporating theBe changes
should. if accept.able to the Council. ret.urn to ARB for incorporation
i.nto the final garage plans.
Letter FrOO! City cqunc;il R.e9AUiiuq The Kndoyment FUnd
A draft agreement bas been worked O\:.t hetvee!l the app11cant and the
city regarding the oblig&~1onE of the project to eontribute to the
~t fund being proposed as partial public bene£it tor the
project. (This dra~t agreement is AttaChment '9 in the Planning
commission report and. Exhibit "B" of the PC Ordinance.}
In response to the Council's earlier discussion of this item. the City
Attorney's Office. in consultation with staff from Planning. Finance
and BurD&Jl SeTVicee=. and with Council Member Simitian, has drafted !!I.
letter, addressed to che senior Coordinating Council, wbieh sets forth
guidelines for use and cii sbursement of the Fund. monies. The letter
has been reviewed by, and. is acceptable to, Kathleen GwyIm. Executive
Director of the Senior Coordinating Council. A copy of the draft
letter is attached to this report for Council's review and approval.
CMR.:.18:93
p, \aG\,IUiIoItLTOW.aa
7/22/93
Page •
COMPRXHENSIVlI PLAN COMPLtANCE
The uses and site development regulations of the Planned Community
zone must be found to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan. Following are Policies of the Housing Element which are
pertinent to the proposal.
The proposal app~ars to be consistent with the following Housing
~~ement policies and Objectives:
Poli~./ '7: Encourage and fos-ter the development of Ilew ilDd
exi8ti~g housing units afforaable to low· and moderate-income
households .
The BMR agreement being proposed by the applicant would convert a
minimum of seven existing market rate rental units into below
market rate units.
Policy 11 and Policy 1.3: Continue support for the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation in the provision of low-and moderate-income
housiog. and increase funding sourcet;: used to provide afforc1.able
hO'..u:ing .
These policies are suppozted by the applicant's stated intention
to work wi th the PARe to look f or ways to provi de more than the
required minimum. seven BMR un..ilts.
Policy ~t.. support the mixing of residP-ntial uses in c~rcial
and industrial areas.
Locating the units close to downtown near shops, trans~t and
other services !~s this policy.
Second of the th.ree Hajor ~usi.c9 objectives identiLied in the
Housing Element.. Maintain a div~rsity of housing
opportunitie!~and provide a variety of housing types and sizes. ~ .
mixture of ownership and rental housing. and a full range of
housing cost-s.
The p~8ed project furthers this housing goal by providing a
type of high-income houSing ~th on-si~e services for seniors
~Oh is not presently available in the community. and thus
provides the opportunity for residents in this housing market to
vacate family haDes and move to a senior living corrmunity within
Palo Alto.
The BOuSLn9 Blement ident-ifies persons over 60 as an increasing
population group with housing needs to be accOfM'Ioclated. In 1989,
this age group made up one-fifth of the population and included
12.811 people, an increase of 26' since 1980. The proposed
development viII serve this increi!Lsing segment of the popula.tion
of Palo Al to.
The projected Association of .Day Area Governments (ABAG) "fi!Lir
share-housing need for Palo Alto is 1597 units. to be provided
0IR.:418: 93 7/22/9)
Page 5
-.. '
between 19~O·19~S. Of this tot~l. '80 units are identified as
housing for households with above moderate income_ The proposed
development will provide 3& units of housing for above moderate
income households. thus helping to address this identified ·tair
Bhare~ housing need.
The proposed project appears less consistent with the following
Policies of the Housing Element:
Pol.icy 2: P;reserve older iliingle·family homes and small apartment
buildings.
The proposed project would result in the demolition of a four
unit rental apartment ~~ilding and three older single-family
homes ..,hich are rented. Removing the (-unit apartment building
."1I9I11S particularly contrary to this policy. However. Program 9
provides that mitigation for the removal of rental housing may be
made by increasing the nwnber of existing housing Wlits on site.
5lld providing 20 percent BKR. un.its, rather tha.n .10 percent. This
project is meeting both of these st&nOards.
Po~icy 6: Maintain at least the present number of multiple·
family rental units wbdle working to increase the overall supply
of -rental housing_
The proposed project will result .in a. net less of .four units in
the City's renta.l housing stock. Four apartments. and three
sill9le·fam.i.ly houses; which may be rented.. are being removed from
the site. The seven BMR. units 'Which ere being provided are
existing unit$ that are currently pa.rt of the City's rental
housing stock. so they do not represent an increase in the supply
of rental housing. program. 9 provides that OOubling the number
of housing units en toe site, and providing 20 percent BMR units
DdtigatE!s the re1IIOV&l of rental housing; and this project is
meeting both these conditions.
FINOINllS
1. Tbe site is so situat~d; ar.d the use proposed for the site is of
such 6 characteristic that the application of ge~eral di8trict~
or combining dietriets ~11 not provide sufficient flexihility to
allow the proposed development, in that the maximum floor area
ratio 'FAR) allowed in t.he highest density multiple fam:i1y zone
(RK-tO) is 1.0 while the FAR o:f the proposed project is 1, 70~ An
FAR ~f 1.0 does not allOW' .. aufficient building volume to
accon-Y"""!ate the activities and services of a semo::: living
community; as evidenced by senior residences eonsiatently having
an FAR exceeding 1 ~ 0 both in Palo Alto (Lytton I. FAR. 1. •• and
Webster HOuse~ ~ 2.43) and in other communities_
2. Development of the site under the provisicns of the Planned
CO'''",ni ty district. will result in y.wlic benefits not otherwise
attainable by application of the regulatioos of general districts
or .oorahiniIlg districts, in that an Bndowment Fund to be
DIR:tlB:93
,,\oe'JI.U;.TQJt.~
7/22/93
Page 6
•
, "";.:..--'"":r~-~_
,;-..
established by agreement between the City and the developer with
monies to be provided by a $500,000 contribution from the
&eveloper and a 2.S peroent resale fee will be used by the City
to Pl."ovi.de bene:fits for seniors and aenior services. In
addition. the senior living community will provide housing with
support ser.rices, for which there is an unmet need in the
community, thus enabling rc&ideDts in need of this type of
housing to remain in the communit~~.
3. The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations
applicable within the district are consistent wieb Policies 7,
11, 13. and 14 of the Housing Blement of the Comprehensive Plan,
as discussed in the Comprehensive Plan Compliance section above.
The perm1tted uses and site development regulati~ are
compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or
within the general · ... ·icinity. in that. the site is appropri.ate for
senior res~dences because of the close proximity to Lytton r and
Webster &ou$e. to Downtown, the Senior Center, medical ~~rvices
and public transportation. The location at the intersection of
t~ major streets and at an entrance ~~town is appropriate for
a bui.lding of this scale. providing balance for the Lytton I
cOiaplex on the other side of University Avenue. The architecture
and landscaping is designed to be visually compatible with nearby
residential areas; the building mass is set back from the
interior property line and the building height is lowered Wber~
it is opposite residential uses; the Middlefield Road ~acade is
~ated and detailed to minimize the size of the building; auto
access is off ByrOD $tre~t to ~inimize conflict with existing
heavy traffic on Middl.e.field :Road; all anticipated parking demand
i-& being provided for on the si.t.e.
CORDITIQNS
JII!odifieaeions to the conditions reconnendeQ to the Planning Commission
in the attached June 2S~ 1993 &luff report are shown in italics. The
only aeaff-recorII'QIended modification to the Planning Conni6Sion action
is Condition '1.
1. Tbe garage plan shall incorporate a loop system that
mdnimizes dead-end aisles, ~illtain& overall approved
parking numbers and maintains zoning regulations.
Al. t:e.rna te condi tion recoaaended by staIr: 7'~*Je llpproved
garage plan shall be the revised pla.r:. suboitted by the
applic40t. datl!d July 20, ~!H3, showing the s.i.x spaces at
the end oL the ramp r~served .for visitors and the six Bpliceli
neerest the el2d.s or the t'wO drive a.1s1es re.cerved Lor
employe,es, .and the four interior spaces a.djAcent eo the
stora.ge area recessed 12 :Eeet each to provide turn-4.rcnmd
space at the! ends or the aisles. In addition, the design
shall be rurt:her modified to increase tbe turning r,.dius at
the bottom of the rUlp to eliminate cODLlict with o.o-comi.og
cars, with this modiLication returning to ARB for approva.l
prior to issuance of a building penni t.
om:"1~:93
,,\a.~ILTOIt.a.
7/22/93
Page 7
.
2. Prior to issuance of a bui.lding permit, tM property owner
sball provide a written plan, to the satis£aetion of the
Planning D1viaion, ~pec1fying how Cbey will minimize noise
impaets to neighbors. by sound walls or other caostruction
techniques. and by cOIIstructioc timiJ:l9 and cc.>ordinat.:ion with
scheduled actjvities o~ the neighbors; to the extent that
t.:im.ing and' coordinat.ion are practicable.
3. Prior to issuance of • built1iIlg permit. the .followiog items
shall return tor ARB review:
&.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
9".
h.
0IR.:41B:93
Details of glass to exterior wall indicating de?th and
design.
Detail of garage vent exhaust.
Samples of exterior materials ~d. et:Ilore and
ad.ditional building details as required by the ARB.
Pinal landscape plan to inc! ude a planting and.
irrigation plan, si~es of plant materials and samples
of pav.ing materials. The tinal lan:1scape plan shall
show the location, size and species of all trees to be
retained. both on the site and in the adjacent public
right-of-way. The planting and irrigation plan shall
be approved by the Ut.ilities Resource CCnservation
Division.
Fiz::.al lighting plan sbowing location and design of all
exterior lighting fixture6 and II. photometric diagram
showing light pattern and intenaity~ both em and off
the property. of light cast by all exterior lights~
The design of the dri vew.y providing access to the
Scholts property adjacent to ehe project site. to be
developed in coorcUnation with the Transportation aDd.
Planning Divisiaos.
A parking plan showing the six surface parking spaces
and six parkiDg spacea in the garage marked and
reserved for guests; with II. minimum of six additional
parking spaCtl:ii in the garage to be marked. and reserved
for employeea.
A tree protection plan prepared by a licensed. Arbor-ist
specifying all measures to be t~ prior to. durLng
aud after construction to protect the trees to be
retained. both on the site and in the ac!jaceDt public
right-of-way. The tree protection paD sball .include a
site plan s~ the ~cies, size and location of
all 't:rees to be retained. both on the ,i.te and in the
adjacent public right-o£-way. In addition, the
Pl&ml.ing Division shall be provided \rith a letter from
a licensed ArboriBt verifying that he has been
re'".i.ned by the applicant to see that the tree
1/22/93
Pase B
.: __ ,f •
protection measures are carried out and that. periodic
field report a will be submitted ~o the Pl~ing
Divieion confirming compliance with the tree
protection mea~es,
4. Prior to i.suance of a damolition permit or a building
permit, the A=bcrist retained by the applicant. shall submit
a letter ver~fying that he has conducted a field inspection
and that the protective fencing required in the tree
protection p1~ is in place.
S. Prior t.o issuance of a demolition or building permit, the
applicant shall prepare. to the satisfaction of the
Transportation Division and the Public:: Works Department. il
Ccnstruction plan addressing location of construction
staging Areas. travel routes for construction "\"ehicles of
the construction erew~ fencing of the construction site. a
plan for keeping nearby street~ and sidewalks free of dirt
and other construction dehris as well as all other issues
deemed necessary by the City to provide for the public
safety and to reduce impacts of construction on the
surrounding neighborhood. The plan shall include a
proviSion t.hat construction fencing be installed in such a
way that the adjacent driveway from Byron Street to the
Schultz property is not impeded.
,. A planter strip and street trees shall be provided on all
three street frontP~e8. with 8 minimum width of 5 feet on
Middlefield Road and Hamilton Avenue and & minimum width of
2.5 feet on Byron Street, unl~s8 at least two feet of
perimeter planting is provided inJ!lide the property line
along the one-way driveway on Byron Street. in which case
the curbside planter serip shall be a miDdmum of 5 feet
wide. The planter st;rip shall be planted continuous1y with
low shrubs or dense ground cover and shall be autc:matieally
irrigated. The street trees shall be pl&"l1ted a aaximum. of
25 feet on eenteT. with the location and epecies to be
approved by t!le City Aroorist and the Planning Division.
All &tre-et t.re-ea shall be located in tree wells with a
minimum dimension of 5 x 5 feet. and shall be installed
according to the City Arborist~s ~pecifieatiODS. ~l street
tree wells shall be provided with autCJmatic irrigation.
7. SUbclivision approval to merge the existing six lots into one
parcel shall be obtained frCl!l the City prior to issuance of
a buildill!l' permit. If the units are to be individually
sold. a copd...,i niUJII suh4ivision map shall be approved by the
City prior to sale of any unit.
6. Prior to occupancy of the project. the owner shall provide Ii
minimum of seven BMR units in fulfillment of the owner's
obligations under Programs 9 and 13 of the Housing Element
of the Palo Alto Comp~bensive Plan,
CMR.:41B:93
,,\aa~ll.il ... _aa
7/22/93
Page 9'
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit l the owner shall
enter into fill agreement with the City for the purpose of
providing additional public benefits to the project in the
form of contributions to the fund to provide services to
aamore.
10. Construction activities are required to conform to tha Palo
Alto Noise Ordinance. which restricts hours of activity and
le~els of noise produced by individual pieces of equipment
as well as noiae produced generally. as specified in Section
9.10 of Lhe Palo Alto Municipal Code.
1.1. To reauce dust levels .during cODStruct.ion l l. t shall be
required that exposed earth surfaces be 'Wntered frequently.
during the late C'IOrning and. at the end of the daYI with
frequency of water~ng increa5ing on windy days. Spillage
resulting ~rcm hauling operations along or eerosa any public
or private property shall be removed inmediately and paid
for by the contractor. Oust nuisances originating from the
contra::tor's operations, either inside oz' outside the right·
of~way~ shall be controlled at the contr&ctor', expense.
If. in the opinion of the City Bngineer, the contractor
tails to comply ~th any of tbe items concerning spillage
and Oult control, and the contractor is either unwilling or
unable to remedy the deficiency. the City Engineer ahall
employ private or public work forces and equipment a8
required to correct the deficiency. The cost of employing
such foreea and equipme.c.t shall be doubled as a penalty. and
aueb cost shall be borDe by the contractor. Such action
taken by the City shall not relieve the oont~actor of the
reaponsibility eoneerning spillage and dust ogntrol.
Tb~ following conditions shall be implemented to the-satisfaction of
the PUblic works Department:
12. A performance bond must be posted prior to construction -of
public right-of-way improvementa.
13. Plans for landscaping in the public ri3'ht~of-'W&y must have
prior approval by Public works Departme.:lt_
14 . Any existing unused dri vewaya Ill'Ust be replaced wi th curb~
gutter and sidewalk (Where app1ic4ble).
1.5. A grading &nd dra.inage plan must be subnitted to Public
worb Engineering for the project. This report shall
include calculAtions on how the ai te runoff will itapaet the
City storm drain system.. stormwater from t.ha site shall be
designed t.o be divided intr: t.wo watershed areas. part of
the runoff from the site shall be directed to t.he public
storm drain at the corner of Middl~field and Hamilton and
the other part shall be directed to the publio storm drain
at the corner of Byron and Bamilton. It is recoamended that
an on-site detention system be considered to control the
om,U8,93
p,\OIa\IIMCn.'!'CIf._
7/22/93
Page 10
,,'
rate of dis.charge .from the site. The applicant must contact
Jim Barrington of the Public Works Engineering Division
prior to submitting formal drainage imprO'\"ement pla.o.s.
1,". Construct.ion is proposed to be constructed ..... ithin the City
right-at-way. A permit for Construction 1n PUblic Street
must be obtained !rom the Public Works Department.
17. A soils report will be :required to be submitted f~r the
p=oposed l.lIld!;rground garage. A dra.inage plan for this
underground struct!..lre will also be required.
lB. Due to the detrimental impact the construction activity will
ha'l1'e on B}"'Xon Street. the applicant shall be required to
skin. patch and slurry seal Byron Street betW'een university
and :Hamilton Avenues.
19. Construct.ion of approved handicapped ramps. is required: at
the corner of Byron Street and Hamilton Avenue.
20. The applica.nt shall install red curb areas on By:-cn Street
next to project driveways in order to aid turning ~nts
into and out of the driveways. In order to obtain the
maximum number of parking stalls on Byron and Bamiltoo~ the
applicant shall submit a plan for, and reBt~ipe. all parking
stalls on the applicant ~ s aide of Byron Street betweec
Hamilton and. Un:iversity~ and on Hamilton between Byron and
Middlefield. The above work shall be done to the
satisfacti~ of the Transportation Division and the Public
Works Deparement, and shall be completed before occupancy of
the project.
Based OIl the above f1ndingB~ staff recO!'t'lllell4s that the City council
adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the applie&tion for a PC
zone~ upon the above-listed findiDgs~ and subject to the above-listed
conditi~. Staff further re~nds that the City Council approve
the agreement between the City and the developer regarding 'the public
benefit Endowment ~ {Exhibit B of the attached ordinance), and the
attaChed letter to the senior Coordinating Council regarding use and
disbursement of the Fund monie8.
KRNNB'tk R. SCBRBrBER
Director of Planning and
community Environment
7/22/93
Page 11
AttacbmentB: 1. Ordina..noe
2. Draft Letter. dated July 16. 1993. from Mayor McCown
to xathleen Gwynn
3. Letter tram applicant. dated ~uly 20. 1993. regarding
garage layout
4. June 25, 1993. Planoing Commiasion Staff Report
5. Mental Research Institute. construction Noise AerOBS
Middlefield Road, June )O~ 1993
6. June 29~ 1993 letter fran applicant regarding BMR
agreelEM!nt
7. JUne 30~ 1~93 letter from Stephen Player
8. JUne 30. 1993 memo from Julia Maser. ARB Chair;
regarding garage design
:9. J'.me :IS. l.t:9l letter from Stephen and Debra Smith
10. JuDe 25. 199) letter from Dr. Arthur Bodin
11. June 23. 1993 letter from Lee weider
12. June 23, 1993 letter from homP.owners
13. June 22. 1993 letter from Charles SChults
14. Project Plans (Council Members only)
cc: Arclti tectural Review Board
James B. Hill, B&tr.ilton Aven-ole Properties. 555 Byron Street, Palo
Alto, "" 9C301
Backen Arrigoni&; RoBS. Inc .• 1660 Bush Street.. San Francisco, CA
94~09
Leland K. Wieder. 210 San Antonio Circle. Ste. 235. MOuntain
View. A., 94040
tJn1ver.1ty .Park Association
t71Uveraity and. Crescent Park .IIomeOWlterB Association
Ruth J. :Frapwe.ll. 571 'B&milton Avenue, Palo Alto. CA 94301
Bdward K. F.rapwell. 7.'0 Girard Avenue. La Jolla, CA '2037
~thea Prapwell Ander.en, 18" Venetian Point. Clearwater.
PI. 3'61.5
Mental Reaearch In8titute. SSS ~~ef~eld Road, Palo ~to.
"" 94301
Charles Schcltz. 511 Byron Street. Palo ~to. CA 94301
CXR:418 :93 7/22/93
page 12
·../
--_.--.,.",;.._ .. -----~-.-----
AITACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDLllANCB OF THE COUNCIL "O"'P-THE="--'C"'I""TY OF PALO ALTO
AMSNIlING SECTION lB. DB. 040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CI!A!'IGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 536·576
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, 535·575 BYRON STREET, AND 651
HAMILTON ~VENUB iTHE HAMILTON SENIOR LIVING
COI'MlNITY) PROM RJoI(15) TO PC
WB:BRBAS. the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing held June 30, 1993 I and che Architectural Review Board~
upon consideration at its meeting of June 3~ 1993, have recommended
that section 1B.08.040 [the Zoning Map] of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code be amended as hereinafter set forth; and
WHBRBAS, the City council, after due consideration of the
reccmmendat.ions, finds that the proposed. amendment is in the public
interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
OR!UL[N as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto MUniCipal
COde, t.be -ZOning Mapll, is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
certain property known as 536-576 Middlefield Road, 535-575 Byron
Streett aD!' 651 Hamilton Avenue (The Hamilton Senior Living
COIlIIIUIlity, the 'subject property') frcm 'RJoI115) Medium Density
Multiple Family Residence' to 'PC Planned Com:ounity·. The subject
property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit IA-, attached bereto
and incor,porated herein by reference4
SRCTIQN 2. The City Council hereby finds with respect to
the subject property that:
{a) The site is BO situated, and the use proposed for
t.be site is of such a characteristic that the applicatioc. of
general districts or cambLning districts will Dot provide
sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development, in that
the maximum Floor Area Ratio IFAR) allowed in the highest density
multiple family zone CRK-40) is 1.0 ",hih the FAR of the proposed
project is ~. 70. An PAR of 1.0 does not allow a sufficient
building volume to accommodate the activities and services of a
senior living caz'PIlD1ty, as evid.enced by senior residences
consistently having an FAR exceeding 1.0 both in palo Alto (Lytton
t. FAR 1.4 and Webster House, FAR 2.43) and in othe~ communities.
Cb} Development of t.he site under the provisions of the
PC Planned Comm1nity district will result in public benefits not
otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general
diatricts or combining districts, in that the senior living
cOllln\1D.!ty vill provide housing with support services, for which
there is an unmet need in t.he community, thus enabl ing residents in
need of this type of housing to remain in the cOltlDUD.ity. In
addition, a tUIld to be established from contributions by the
1
9307l1_cmm12
•
developer totaling $500,000 plus resale fees will he used hy the
city to provide benefits for seniors and senior services.
(el The use or uses permitted, and the site development
regulations applicable. within the district are consistent with
Policiee ? ~1, 13, and 14 of the Housing Element. of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. The permitt.ed uses and site developzr.ent
regulae ions are compat.ible with existing and potential uses on
adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. in that the site is
appropriate for senior residences because of the close proximity to
Lytton I and Webster House. to Downtown, chI! Senior Center. medical
services and public transportation. The location. at t.he
intersection of two major streets and at: an entrance to DowntOWIl is
appropriate for a building of this scale. p~iding balance for the
Lytton I complex on the other side of University Avenue. The
architecture and landscaping is designed eo be ~isually compatible
with nea~ residential areas; the building ~BB is set back from
the interior property line a.~ the building height is lowered where
it is opposite residential uses; the Middlefield Road ~acade is
modulated and de~ailed to mdnimize the size of the building; auto
access is off Byron Street to minimize conflict with existing heavy
tratfic on Middlefield Road; all anticipated parking demand is
being provided ~or on the site~
SReTTON 3 ~ Those certain plans prepared by sa clcen Arrigoni
~ ROBBs Inc.s dated April 8, 1993~ and approved by the
Architectural Review Board on June 3 6 1993, a copy ot which plans
is on file in the Planning Division office, and to which copy
reference is hereby made concerning the full particulars thereof,
are hereby approved as the collective Development Plan for the
subject property, pursuent to Section 1a.os ~20~ Said Development
Plan is approved for the following uses 6 and subject to the
following conditions:
(a) Permitted USM. The use shall be limited to 36
independent living units for seniors plus carmon dinfng facilities
and accessory uses typical of a senior living facilitY6 including.
but not limdted to, iDahome personal care; a library and living
room; bar/lounge; pool; exercise roam; jacuzzi p002; sauna and
shower facilities; mail room; two private guest roans; and
administrative facilities, including a clerical/reception area,
work area, two private offices, a meeting room/privat.e dining room,
aDd an employee lounge.
(hl
permitted.
(el
development
Development
the Special
Copditipnal Uaea. No conditional uses shall be
Site Pevelopment; Reg111i1tippB~ All improvements and
ahall be substantially in accordance with the approved
Plan, which shall be amended as required to comply with
Requirements set forth in subparagraph (el.
(d) Parking ang Lpadina RequiremeptR. The parking and
loading requirements governing the subj ect property shall be in
accordance with the Development Plan, which shall be amended as
•
required. to comply with the Special Require:nents set !orth in
subparagraph (e).
(e) Special RequirementB.
(i) '!'he approved garage plan shall be the
revised plan dated July 20, 199~, showing six spaces at the end of
the ramp reserved tor visitors and six spaces nearest the ende at
the two drive aisles reselVed for .employees, and f<Yllr inte.rior
spaces a~jacent:. to the storage area recessed 1.2 feet each to
p~avide turnaround space at the ends of the aisles. In addition,
the deSign shall be further modified to increase the turning radius
at the bottom of the ramp t.o eliminate conflict with on-coming
cars, and this modificatiOIl shall return to ARB for final approval
prior to issuance of a building per.mit.
~ii) prior to issuance of a building permit}
the property owner Shall provide a written plan, t~ the
satisfaction of t.he Planning Diviaian. specifying how they will
mdnimize noise impacts to the neighbors by sound walls~ or other
construction t.echniques, and by construction timing and
coordination with scheduled activities of tbe neighbors, to the
extent that ttmdng and coordination are practicable.
(iii) EXterior materials, colors and additional
building details shall be subject to final ARB approval prior to
issuance of a building permit.
(lv) ,prior to issuance of a building permit.
the ovner shall submit a fiDal landscape plan that shall include a
planting and irrigation plan, sizes of plant materials and samples
of paving material.". The final landscape plan shall show the
locaeion., &ize and species of all trees to be retained .. both on the
site and in t.he adjacent public right of way. The planting and
irrigation plan sbal.l :be approved by the Energy Services Division.
(v) prior to issuance of a t,uilding permit,
the owner shall submit a final lighting plan showing location and
design of all exterior lighting fixtures and a photometric diagram
shoWing light pattern and intensity, bOth OD and off the subject
property, of light cast by illl exterior lighCS.
{vi) The des ign 0 f the dri vevay providing
access to the Schultz property adjacent to the north of the subject
property shall be developed in coordination with the Transpol.-ta't:ion
and Planning Divisions, and approved by the Planning Division prior
to issuance of a building permit.
(vii) prior to isouance of a building permit,
the owner shall submit a parking plan Shoving the six surface
parking spaces and. six spaces in ehe garage marked and reserved. for
guests. with a minimum of six additional parking spaces in the
garage to be marked and reserved for employees.
(viii) Prior to issuance of a building permit.
the owner shall submit a tree protection plan p=epared by a
licensed arboriat specifying all measures ~o he taken prior to,
during and after construction to protect the trees to be retained~
both on the site and in the adjacent public ~ight of way. The tree
protection plan shall include a site plan showing the species; size
sud location of all trees to be retained, both on the site and in
the adjacent right of way. In addition, the owner shall provide
the Planning DivilElion with a letter from a licensed arborist
verifying that the arborist has been retaiced by t.he owner to
ensure tha~ the tree protection measures are followed and that the
arborist will submit periodic field reports to the Planning
Division confirming compliance with the tree protection meaSures.
(ix) Prior to issuance of a demolition permit
or e. buildiog permit, the owner shall provide a letter to the
Pla.nning Division from the retained arborist verifying that the
arborist has conducted a field inspection and that the protective
fencing required in the tree protection plan is in place~
(x) Prior to issuance of a demolition or
building per.mit, the owner shall prepare, to the satisfaction of
the Transportation Divi&lion and thl1 Public Works Department. a
construct.ion P~an addressing locat.ion of construction Staging
areas, travel routes for construction vehicles. parking for
construction vehicles and private vehicles of the const.ru.ction
crew, feneing of the construction site, a plan for keeping nearby
streets and sidewalks free of dirty and other construction debris.
and all other measures deemed necessary by the City ~o pr~~ide fer
the public safety and to reduce impacts of construction on the
surrounding neighborhood. The plan shall include a proviSion that
construction fencing be insea11ed in such a way that the driveway
adjacent to the .ite that provides access fram Byro~ Street to the
Schultz property is not impeded.
(xi! 1t. plant-er strip and street trees shall be
proviOed on all three, str~et frontages I with a ndn~ vidth of 5
feet on Middlefield Road and. Hamilton Avenue and a minimum width of
,~S feet ill Byron Str~et, unless at. least 2. feet of perilileter
planting i. provided inside the property line along the one-way
driveway on Byron Street, in which c&s.e the curbside planter strip
sha.11 be a minimun; of 5 feet wide. Tbe planter strip 8ba.l.l be
planted continuously with low shrubs or dense ground caver and.
shall be automatically irrigated_ The street trees shall be
planted to a maximum·of 25 feet on center~ with the location and
species to be approved by the City Arl>orise and the Planning
Division. All street trees shall be located in tree wells with a
m1n1a1m dimension of S x S feet, and shall be installed according
to the City ArboriElt's specificaticnB. All street tree wells shall
be provided with automatic irrigation.
(xii) Subdivision approval to merge the existing
six lots into one parcel shall be obtained fram the City prior to
issuance of the building permit. It the units are to be
4
•
--
indivic!ually sold, a. condominium subdivision map shall be approved
by the City prior to sale of any units~
(xiii) Prior to occupaucy of the project. t.he
owner shall enter into an agreement with the City under which the
owner shall agree to provide a min~ of seven (7) BMR units io
fulfillment of the OWDe~'s obligations under Programs 9 and 13 {the
Below Market Pate (IBMRI) provisions) of the Housing Element of the
Palo Alto Compre-.hensive Plan~ The BMR requirement shall l;e subject
to the followi~g conditions:
1. A minimum of seven (7) BMR units will
be acquired or constructed by owner and given to the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation, free and clear of all liens, prior to the
issuance of a building permit for the referenced project (-The
Bamilcon-). These unite constitute compliance with Programs 9. 11
and 13 of the Housing Blement of the City, and their location Is)
shall be subject to approval by the City Council.
2. owner will make good faith efforts to
secure seven. (7) or more BMR. units with no studio units a.!ld at
least three (3) two~bedroam units~ A mdx of studio, one-bedroom
and two-bedroom units will be permitted, however, with at least
three two-bedroom units and one additional two-bedroom unit for
each studio includ.ed~ For example, a mix of two studio units and
five two-bedroom units would be acceptable.
3. An BMR unite to be provided by owner
shall be in reasonably good condition_ They shall be structurally
sound with al.l plumbing. heating and appliances in good working
order. It is understood. that such unite vill not be required to
meet current Building CO<!es., but tbey shall be free of termite and
other peSt infe.tatioo and seismically BOund.
(xiv) Prior to issuance of a building permit,
the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City in a form
substantially similar to Exhibit -B" attached hereto and
incorporated herein "by reference~ for the purpose of providing
additional public benefits to the project.
If} Dayelgp;rent Schedule. The development schedule
shall be as follows:
~1_<m0'712
Ii) Site clearing and demolition: June to
July 1994;
(ii) Basement excavation: July 1994;
(iii) Basement construction: August to
September 1994;
(1v) Concrete structure; OCtober to December
1.994;
5
.. -,.
(v) :Roof structure and roofing: January to
February 19 9 S ;
(vi) Exterior skin: December 1993 to February
19$15 ;
(vii)
(viii)
Interior improvementB~ February to July
~99S;
Site work improvements and landscaping:
April to July 1995; and
(tx) Initial occupancy: August to September
1995.
gECTlQN 4. The Council find that thiB project will not
have a significant environmental effect~
SIc::.-rrQN S. This ordinance ahall be effective on the
thirty· first day after the d_to of its adoption.
III'1'ROIlUCBD :
PJlSSBD:
AYBS:
ROBS:
ABSTBNTIONS :
ABSBNT:
A'l"l'BS'l':
City Clerk
APPlIOVBD AS TO FORM:
Senior ABBt. City Attorney
6
APPROVBD:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Coamuni ty Environment
EXHIBIT "A"
-
This document is recorded for the
benefit of the City of Palo Alto
ancl is entitled to be recorded
free of charge in accordance with
Section 61Q3 of the Government Code
~ter Recordatjon, mail to~
OI'P'ICE OF TRB CITY ATTORl\IEY
250 Ramdlton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 9(30l
aGPBBMlInfr BB1HB&II IlAlU'LTOIi AVEHO'Z PROPBRTIBS, Die.
AIm Cln OF PALO ALTO
:uGlUlDDlG 1'tIIlLIC BBlIIBl'XT FOR PC ZOHB
651 ~ltou Avenua, S3'~576 ~~.~i.14 Road,
and 523~S'5 ByrOn Street, P.lo A1to~ California
"
TKIS AGRBBMRNT, made and executed this day of
__ ~~~~ ________ ~.' 1993, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO. a
municipal corporation of the State of California: hereinafter
referr.ed to as ·City· r and HAMILTON AVENUE P:R.OPERTIBS, INC., a
california corporation. hereinafter referred to as -Developer-;
• t T • ISS I T HI
~, Developer is the owner of that certain real
property situated in the City of Palo Alto, County of santa Clara,
State of california, generally known and described as 651 Hamilton
Avenue, 536·576 Middlefield Road and 523·575 Byron Street. Palo
Alto, california (the -Property-); and
~, Dev~loper has applied to City for approval of a
zone change en the Property from -RM 15 -Low Density Multiple
family Residential-to·pc Planned Community-, to allow
development of an approrlmatoely 9a~ 760~equare·foot senior
condominium project with 36 residential unit.s and associated coomon
areas (the -Project-); and
1fIIBRBAS. section 18.68.060 (b) of the Palo Alto MuniCipal
Code provides that a PC district must result in public benefits not
othel-nee attainable by application of the regulations of other
districts; and
1fIIBRBAS.. City has determined that.. t.he nature of the
Project, providing additional hOUSing for the elderly; i~cludiDg
provisions for life~long medical care; provides an on-site or
inherent public benefit; and
WHEREAS, Developer has proposed to contribute to a fund
tr.at would benefit seniors and senior services, for the purpose of
1
providing additional public benetit for approval of the PC zone;
and
WHER.EAS. City is willing to accept Developer's
contribution as a public benefit in support or the PC zone, and
desires to assure that the proposed fund will be established and
maintained in accordance with the agreement of both parties. and
that the obligations for cont.inued funding will be binding upon
Developer. its successors and assigns.
NOW. THEREFORE. for and in consideration of the approval
of the PC ~ Planned Community Zone change, and in order to ensure
satisfactory performance by Developer of Developer'S obligations
under Chapter 18.68 of the Palo ~to MUnicipal Code, the parties
hereto mutually covenant and agree as follows:
1. Creation of Fundi Yearly paymente.
UJ Developer shall contribute to City the £fum of
Five Hundred Thousand Dollars 1$500,0001 for the establishment of
a fund (-Fund-) to benefit seniors and senior services. Citv shall
establish and maintain the Fund~ Interest fram all monlea-in the
Fund shall accrue to tbe Fund,
{ii} The $500.000 contribution shall be payable in
ten (10) annual installments of Fifty Thousand Dollars 1$50,0001
each~ subj ect to the requirement for a final 1 wop sum payment as
described in subparagraph 1 (iiil, and subject to Developer's right
to terminate future obligations~ as described in paragraph 3. The
initial iruotallment shall be payable within thirty 1301 days after
adoption of U1e ordinance amending the zoning on the Property to PC
Planned CCI8IDWlity. Suboequent annual installments sball be
payable on or before June 1 of each succeeding year.
(iii) Upon the close of escrow for the sale of the
3200 unit in the Project~ Developet'" shall, within 30 days of such
cloBing. pay in one lump sum to City the remainder of the $500,000
unpaid as of that closing date, Thereafter, no further annual
payments shall be owing to City.
2, payment to "and Upon Subierment SalE': of Units,
(i) In addition to the Developer's annual
contribution described in paragraph 1, the seller, upon resale lall
sales subsequent to original sale or each unit) of each unit in t.he
Proj ect shal.l pay to City for the Fund an amou.o.t. equal to Two and
One-Half Percent (.-1ntl of the sales price of the unit. The
'sales price' shall be the price established by the Santa Clara
County Recorder's Office upon which the Cityis real property
transfer tax is calculat.ed.
(ii) Developer and subsequent owners shall insert in
any deed or other coaveyance of each unit the specific requirement
for payment upon resale set forth in subparagraph 2 I i). Any such
deed or otber conveyance of each unit shall be re corded in t.he
.:.
County Recorder's Office and a conformed copy shall be sent to
City.
J. Deyel?Q9r~6 Right tq Termirate. On or before May
1 of any year prior to the start of cons~ruction on the project,
Developer may terminate its obligation to contribute to the :Fund by
giving written notice dated on or before such date to City of its
irrevocable decision to abandon the Proj ect. Thereafter, no
further contributions shall be required from Developer. Any
contributions made to city by Developer prior to the giving of
notice shall remain the property of City_
4. Use of the Fund. The Fund shall be used by Cil-} ;.0
benefit seniors and senior services. MOnies in the Fund shall be
&~located to the Senior Coordinating Council to supplement their
delivery of senior services t.o the cOImIIunity i or to such other
service provider(s) as the city Council from time to time shall
designate, ~ on such t.erms as the City Council may establish.
Developer shall have DO obligation to City or any ot.her Agency
under this Agreement or any tern".B hereof wit.h regard to allocation
of the Fund. other than to make the paym~~s to City as provided
berein~
5 _ Hold RannJ.eBB. Developer hereby agrees to and shall
protect, indemnify and hold City~ its officer8~ agents, and
employees harmless from and against any an.d all liabilities~
obligations, damages, costs, injuries, ox claims thereof. includ
ing. but not limited to. claims for damage or personal injury,
including death, and claims tor property ~S.;;, arising in any
manner from the performance or failure to perform the provisions of
this agreement, except for any such claim arising as a result of an
act or omission of City, ite officers. agents or employees,
hereunder that constitutes an act of negligence, gross negligence
or willful misconduct. Developer agrees to~ and shall~ defend
City. its officers, agents. a.nd employees~ from any Buits or
actions at law or in equity for damages, liabilities. or obliga
tions caused by or ari9ing from. or alleged to be caused by or
arising from~ the perfor.mance of this agre~~nt, except for any
ruit or action at law or in equity arising as a reault ot an act or
omission of City. its officers, agents or employeeB~ hereunder that
constitutes an act of negligence, gross negligence or willf I.ll
miscanduct~ Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer's. performance
of this Agreement shall be deemed discharged as to each installment
payment owing. upon payment of such inst.allment as provided for
h.erein.
6 _ Assignment of Contract. Neither this agreement, nor
any part hereof, shall be aS8igna.b~e by Developer without the
written consent of City. which shall not. be unreasonably withheld.
Any attempted assignment without first obtaining such consent shall
be void and of no effect.
7. Binding on Succg!!i!flpre. The terms; covenants, and
conditions of this agreement shall apply to, and 8ha~1 bind the
3
beirs~ sueC":e •• ora~ executors, administrators, assigns, contractors~
and subcontractors of the parties.
8. Costs And Attorneya' Fees. The pre,"~ilin9 party in
any action brought. to enforce the terms of this agreement 0=
arising out of this agreement may recover fram the other party its
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with
such an action.
9. Notices. All notices hereunder shall be given in
writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed
as follows:
To City:
To Developer:
Office of the City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto. CA 94301
Ramdltoo Avenue properties, Inc.
555 Byron S~reet
Palo Alto. CA 94301
rN ~TNBSS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
agreement to be-executed in duplicate the day and year first above
written.
Cn'l' or P&I.O ALTO
City Manager
Senior Assistant City Attorney
&PPJlO'9BZ) AS TO COW XU t I
Director ot Planning and
COIIIIIWl1ty Environment
Director of Finance
Director of CommJDity Services
4
IlAlaLTOII AVlIIIIJII PIiOPIIllTDIS. DIe.
a California corporation
By:=-__ ~ _____________________ _
President
STAn OF CALIFORNIA
COU!ITY OF SANTA CLARA
SB.
oc • 1993; before me, • a
Nota.ry Public, personally appeared ~UNE FLEMING. personally known
to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within
iastrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same i.e. her
authorized capacity as City Manager of the City of Palo Alto, a
municipal corporation. and that by her signature on the instrument
"'he. ;;.ckn.owledged tha.t said municipal corporation executed t.he same.
IN WITNESS I set my hand and affix my official seal.
5
Notary Public in and for said
Coun~y and State
STATB OF CALIPORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
08.
On i 1993, before ~, • a
Notary Public. personally appeared • personally
known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within
instrument ami acknowledged to me that beiahe executed the same in
his/her authorized capacity as President of Hamilton Avenue
Properties, Inc::. , a california corporation~ and that by his/her
signature on the instrument he/she acknowledged that said
corporation executed the same.
IN WITNESS I set my hand and affix my official seal.
6
Notary Pl,.'blic in and for said
County and State
ATTACHMENT 2
July 16, 1993
xa tllleen Gwym1
Executive Director
Senior Coordinating Council
450 Bryant Street
Palo Alt.o, CA 9430~
R1!: Fund to be BstabUshed by Hamilton Avenue
properties. Inc .. for PC Zone PubliC Benefit
Dear MS. Gwynn:
As you know~ Hamilton Avenue Properties, Inc. '-HAPW) is
proposing to deve~op a senior housing proj ect. in the City ~ and bas
applied for a PC Planned CCOIIIIUllity zone to allow the proposed
developaent. The PC :zone regulations require a public benefit as
part of the project, and HAP has proposed to establish a Fund that
vould benefit seniors and senior services. paragraph 4 of the
agreement between the City and HAP ,the -agreement-) states~ in
part:
'Monies in the Fund shall be allocated to tile
Senior Coordinati.r;,g Council to supplement
their delivery Of senior services to the
CC""""'lDi ty. or to such other service
provider(s} as the City Council fram time to
time shall designate, and on such ter.ms as the
City Council may establish.'
1
, ,
onderst~ing that the allocation of moniee from the Fund will be
a budget process I t.his letter will Bet forth the guidelines by
which the Council expects to allocate the Fu~d monies.
1. Fund Ree i9! ent . The Senior Coordinating Council
(-SOC·) shall be the recipient of the Fund monies 90 long as the
sec is the City's primary provider of senior services, as specified
in the lease agreement between the City and SCC~ for lease of the
City's Senior center, and as ~videoced by the City~s continued
funding of the sec through the Human Services Resources Allocation
Process (. BSRAP·) •
2. Program Support.. Fund monies shall be used. to
support the continuance of the Retired Senior Volunteer Program
(-RSVP-). the Senior Home Repair 2rogram. and Senior Housing
Counseling Services Dr their successor programs. In accordance
with paragraph 3 of t.his 1etter, funda shall be allocated co t.he
sec or successor provider in lump sum amountSj and the sec may use
the funds for same or all cf the aboVe listed programs, as it deems
most appropriate; provided, that by its receipt of the funds, sec
voul.d agree to continue providing all of the above named programs,
unless otherwise stipulated by the City council.
3 ~ FUDding Procedure. The original $5.00.000 payable
from HAP will be allocated as follows:
(a) lbe original $50,000 annual payment will be
paid to the sec in a lump sum within 30 days after receipt of such
2
.. ;
.-.;
payment by the City, or by October 1, 1993, whichever is later.
Adoption of a budget amendment ordinance will be required prior to
the first $50,000 payment. Succ~eding yearly payments of $50,000,
payable to t.he City before June 1 of each succeeding calendar year,
will be paid to the sec or successor provider after City Council
approval of the annual budget. but DO later than August 1 of the
calendar year received.
(l:l) If a lump sum of more than $50, 000 ie owing to
the City pursuant to paragraph l(iiil of the agreement, the City
will establish the lump sum amount received as an endowment and
continue to make annual payments of $50,000 from the fund to the
sec or successor provider as if HAP were still making annual
payments to the City.
(e) Payments to the City fran resale of the units,
in accordance with paragraph 2 (i) of the agreement., 'Will be placed
into the endowment, if Olle has been est.ablished pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this letter. If no endowment has been
established. an endowmen~ will be established upon receipt of the
first resale payment.
(i) No monies received tram resale payments
shall be paid to the sec or successor during the years that annual
pa~t8 frCllll the original $500,000 are l:leing made by the City.
Any resale payments made to the City during that time will l:le
accumulated in the endowment fund.
3
(ii) When the last annual payment from the
original $50,000 is made by the City to t.he sec or successor
provider. the City will thereafter make quarterly payments to the
sec or successor provider. The amount of each quarterly payment
will vary and will be the amount of accumulat~ interest then in
the endowment fund as of the date of payment. It is the intent of
the City Council that after the final annual $50~OOO payment is
made. all payments made thereafter from the endowment fund will be
from accumulated interest only.
We hereby reiterate that the money payable ~er the
agreement i8 separate from and supplements the funds allocaten to
t..1Je sec or any other agency as part of the City's general fund
budget allocations.
Sincerely,
JEAN McCOWN, Mayor
JM: SIlC: lac
4
I
EJ7/>:;1/93 15: 19 JAI-£~' HILL ET .::J... PAGE: 0:.:'
H.'>MILTON AVENUE PROPERTIES. INc.
S55 BYRON STREET' PALO ALTO, CA 94301
July 20, 1"3
HOIIORAllLE CIfi COOHCIL
City of Palo Alto
250 Bamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: The Baailton Senior L1vin9 eo.munity
aa ... ent Garage Parkinq Plan
Ladie8 and GentlameD1
AITACUMENT 3
-HiE HAMILTON"
TEL. 1415) J2~46M
fAX. (115) )27.8197
We aDd our desiqner. have be~n .trugq11h9 with alternative plane
for oar basement 9arage for the pa_t sev.ral weeki .nd have eo.e
to the coDclu.ion ~hat •• od1fied -double aiele· 8cheme best
auit. our need.w ~bi. plan, 1~claded in ou. current submittal
d~awinq8 .a Sheet A6-1 r ia Buperior to th~ -loop· Bcheae ISheet
A6-2) 1n the followiDg reapeoto,
1. It provide. two mo~e parkiB9 .pa~eB than the loop sche.e.
24 It pre.~rve. a .ubBt.nt1al area of deep earth under tbe
courtyard for plantin9. r~e loop saerifices 4e, of the
courtyard area, dr ••• tically radae1nq our landacaping
pot_Ud.)
3. Zt pr091~e •• bout ~o-thirr.B more 8toraqe area without risk
of leakage froB abov •.
•. It reduce. the naaber of park1D9 spaces on • sloping f1oor.
2bf. 1. becaa •• the loop ache.. r~ires a slopinq ai81e in
order to reach the lower elevation beneath the pool.
s. It elL.inete. the d~.wbAek of atoraqe closet door. 6vinqing
into a drive aisle.
6. It calli tor two-way drive ai*les ... en advantaqe o.eT the
POSS.IBLE one-way .y.tell aU9geated tor the loop scheme.
7. ~e double aisle acheae f& MUch bet~er ~d.pted to our plana
for Btructural 8hear walla withIn the buildinq above qr~e~.
As .ust be apparent r we expended considerable tim. and thouqht in
our effort. to oo.e up with a aound loop plan. Thi. vas ~ worth
while exercise in that it foroad U8 and City ataff to look at
alternatives that would .i~iq.te the probl~ associated with e
·dead-end-layoutw ?be -turn-around notches· near the end. of
both drive ai8le. were BU9geated by etaft and refined by Our
design team to provide a relat1vely painless way for -lost
parkers to maneuver out of the dead end.. This reviSion to our
oriqinal double 4ial. plan a.ouDta to a decisive improve.ent.
CoupleC with the r.qul~nt ~t vi.itor spaces be close to the
entrance, the lnelasion gf -turn-.round notches· has convinced U8
th.t we should .by with the double aisle concept.
.el15 3~7 8197
CIn OF PALO ALTO
July 20. 1993
Page ~"
JAi'o£S H fLL £1 AI...
Me ~t recently with Julia Maaer of the Arebit~ctYral Review
DcAr~ to dl.cu •• way. in which tbe rath&r tight -hairpin turn-
at the bette-. of the raap could be i-.pro"e4 ~ !'here appear. to
be •• olution to thi. probl .. and we are prepared to .tu4y it
further vlth our arcbitect and .truo~ur.l enqineer. W. erpeet to
return to the ARB with our final revised plan for approval.
Given that all parkin9 apace. vill be ••• i9Ded to lpenific
r •• i4enta and .-ployee. of rbe a..ilton, &04 th4t eQploy~. apaces
will be located at the ~e~y aDd of the two drive aisle., we feel
confident that the propooed doable 8101e acheme will provide
convenient parkinq and clraalatice patterns for all concerned. w. hope that you will a9r" thet the .dvant~9~. of thil pIa"
will outwe19h ita dl •• dvant.&.,._ and that you will permit. tl. to
proceed with O~ pr.ferre4 aouble ai31e plan~
Sincerely,
~TOII Ar~ PROPIllt'1'lBS.
,J.... B. lIill
ident
ce: Virginia Warbe! t
I1IC.
ATIACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
~'TAFF REPORT
OATE: June Z5. 1993
TO: PALO ALTO P~ING C(Ho1[SSION
PREPARED BY: Virginia War~eit
REPORT IN BRIEF: 651 Haml1t?n Avenye. 536·576 Middlefield. 5Z3·5ZS Byron
~. This proposal is to rezone t~e project site from Low Oeh,;t1 Multiple
Family (RM·15) to Fl •• ned Community Zone (PC). and to construct a ~;gh·income
sen10r residential living community. The proposal is i four-story,
approxilHtely e7t6i50~squlre·foct structure, with 36 condom;"dwa linUs 'and
common facilities which include dining room and commercia' kitchen, living
room and two bar/lounge areas, eXerC1S! room, spa and enclosed pool, an
office, and two guest rooms. Sixty-n1r.e parking spaces are provided in an
underground garage and six spaces plus a loading area are provided at grade.
The PC zone change is being requested in order to allow a larger floor area
ratio (FAR) than ;s permitted i. multiple fl§ily lone districts, with.
proposed FAR of 1.70 cOl1lJ>ared to • lIOXi ..... 5 FAR under the existing RM·1S
zone designation and 1.0 FAR in R~-40. the highest density RUltiple family
zone.
To .atlsfy the 20% below market rate (BMR) housing requirement for t~is
project, the applicant Is propostft9 to purchase sevIn off-Site rent.l units
""d convert them to BMR rental units to be ooned and managed by the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation (PAHC).
To fulfill the public benefit requireoent for the project. the applicant is
proposing to contribute money to the City for a fund to benefit seniors and
sen10r services. The ~nies -nil be pruvided by a $500,OJO contribution from
the developer, and by a 2.5~ resale fee on the sales prfce when units are
resold .fter the initi.l sale.
Enyironmental AssesSPent: A negative declaration of no significant
environment.l i~.ct has been prepared and is attached to this report.
Zpng Distrjct: RH-1S, Low Density Hultip'e Family lane District
FiJo Nos.: 9Z-ZC·3; 92-ElA-ZA; 9l·/IRB-1Z
..,._, .... '" 6/25/93
P,\PC$R\t!II4llTc.I. PeS Page 1
..
AppLICATION JNFOBMATJQtt
IIpp llcant;
Type of Application;
Oat."
sur INEpRMATIPN
OWner:
Hamilton ~Ye"ue Propertie!1 1nc.
555 Byron Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Planned Com.unlty Zone Change
1Ip9'ic.tlon received April 3, 199Z;
Application dee.ed tompl.te June 3, 1993
Mandatort action de.dline; Hone
Ha.11tan Avenue Properties, Inc.
555 Byron Street
Pilo Alto, CA 9430)
Assessor's Parcel Number: APN IlO-Ol-047,04B,049,052,OS3,073
Compren.nsive Plan Designation: Multl;l. Fomlly R.slde.ce
Existing land Use: Th~ee sin9le-fam"y houses; 1 foyr·un1t
apartment building; J professional office
buildings containing 10,800 squa __ feet of
n oor arei.
Surrounding land Use; North; Single family house, parking lot,
Existing Zoning:
Parcel Size;
PROJECT JNfQBMATlPN
Pro'tet Hi stcrv:
prefesslonal office building
East: Two prof.ssional office buildings
South: Multiple-f .. lly reSidential
tond01llinlUnis
West: ChYfCh educlt~on buildin9 ind
parlr.ing lot
AM-IS low Density "ultiple Family
Rosidenthl Zone District
51,500 square feet
So.tembtr 30. 1992; At the first public review of the project before
the Planning C~lssion, Dine meobers of the public spoke to the item
and the public hearing .as closed. The item was continued to
October l~, subseque.tly ch"19ed at the applicOllt's request to
October 28, 1992_
WIA:"-1'taI.pc.5
p, \PCSIt\lWtll JOj.~
6/25/93
Page Z
...... --.......
"';'-
: ..
October 28, 1992: The Planning Commission discussed the project and
adopted, 7-0 t a motion by Commissioner Ojakian, seconded by
~omD;ss;oner Marsh, to forward the project to City Council with •
rec~ndltion for denial, but to indicate that some development greater
than the current RH-1S zone designation may be appropriate for this
site. Commissioner Carrasco stated, and Comm;ssioner Glazier agreed,
that they did not believe the project .hould be denied, but would
support the motion so that the project could be forwirded to City
Council ,
The Planning Commission referred the project to the City Counc;r in
order for the Council to resolve policy issues rais~ by the proposal,
inc1uding the appropriateness of increased density a~ the proposed
buildin9 mass at thi~ location, as well as the adeQuacy of the public
benefit being proposed,
NOVember 30. 1992: At the City Council1s initial review of t~e project,
22 aembers of the public spoke to the item and the publIc hearing was
closed. The item was continued to Janu.ry 11, 199). (See attached
minutes of the November 3D, 1992, City Council meeting,)
JAijyary )1, 1993: After discussing t~e projett, City Council adopted,
8-1, Council Member Rosenbaum opposed, a mot~on b, Council
Member Fazzino, seconded by Council Member Wheeler, to approve the
project in concept and forward it to tnt Architectural Reyiew Soard
(ARB) and the Planning Commission. The motion contained the following
conditions and ~ndment5~
1)
2)
3)
4)
'NIA:hM11tCIA.pcs
At CouftCll ~~r Simitian's suggestion, the conceptual appro~al
was made contingent on the project not requiring Iny Yariances;
The ARB and Planning Commission were directed to address the
appearance of the bulk of the project along Middlefield Road;
Staff was directed to inYestigate the feasibility of restricted
parking in the area of the project, and to work with the applicant
to identify additional on-site parking; ~nd
~ amendme"t by Council Member Simitian, seconded by Council
Member Huber, was adopted, 6-3, with Cauncil Members Anderson.
McCown and Rosenbaum opposed, to direct staff to work with the
applicant to provide services for seniors consistent with the memo
from Council Members Huber, ~niss, Simit1ar., and Wheeler dated
November 18, 1992, regarding a proposed Senior Coordin.tor Council
Endowment Fund, but with. 2.5% resale fee rather than 2%, (See
attached _inutes of the January II, )993, City Council meeting,)
p , \PCSIl\tW<ILTCII, pes
6/25/93
Page 3
:' ..
, ,.~
february 4. 1993; At t~e pre1imfnary arcnitectural review. one member
of the public, Mr. Schultz, spoke to the item, e.pressing concern about
parking impacts .od reQuesting that the ex;,ting ,outhernmost driveway
to his prop.rtj ~e allowed to remain. The ARB wa, generally very
supportive of the architectUre and gave the following direction to the
applicant:
1) Cont1nu~ to investigate ways to increase and improve t~e amount
and design of on-site parking and loadingJ inc1 uding stlJdy to
eli.1nate dead-end aisles in tne parking garage;
2) Speclfy exterior b~ilding and landscape details int;uding size of
plant lIater1als, exterior light; ng, garage 1i!)ht1ng~ l1YAC systees
and penthouses;
3) Consider gaining natural light in interior corridors;
4) Pro~ide comparison of open space being provided in the project
witn .u1ttple fa~iTy open spate requirements;
5) Try to reduce the height of the building by dropping f100r-to-
ceiling heights;
6) Show impact of s.ls.ie sJst .. ;
7} Provide conceptual landstlpe p1an. and
8J Continue refining the ~;.dl.fie1d elevation and consider ways to
reduce the appearance of height and bulk on the B,ron Street
frontage.
June 3. 1993-At the final architectural review, four aeobers of the
public spoke to the proro.a1, including Hr. Schultz and Or_ Bodin,
representing Mental Research Institute (MR1J, who expressed concern
about noise I~acts during and after construction. The ARB approved the
project, 4-0, with Mr. Hise not partiCipating due to conflict of
interest. In the conditions of a~proyal, the ARB addressed the concerns
of Hr. Schultz and Mr. Bodin by requiring that maintaining exi't;"~
access to the Schultz property be incorporated In the final landscape
plans, and that the applicant establish a dialog with MRI to mini.ize
the lop"ct. of noise during constructlon. The ARB also reQuired that
the garage elrcu1.tlon be .edified to eliminate dead-end al,l.s, ~t
"intain .t least the number of garage parking spaces (69) conceptually
approved by City Council. (See attached minutes of the June 3, 1993,
ARB ... tlng.)
WlA::'-1ltaqa
P; \l'CSI<\fWIIlllllL PCS
6/25/93
Page 4
This projtct received extensive revie ... during the conceptual reyiew
process. Mahrials from these previous revi~ws i'ii!' .. e not been provided
with this report, but ire ivailable upon reQuest by contact~n9
Virginia Warheit in the Plann1ng Division, Chic Center, 5th Floor, or
by c.lling 329-2364. The following type, of materi.,s .re .vaI1ab1e:
Planning Commi,s,on and City Council St.ff Reports
Architectural Review Board ]~format1on ~~orandums
• • • • •
Minutes of Planning Commission, Clty touncl1 and ARB ~~etings
Correspondence
Previously submitted project pl.ns
prgje&t Description:
This proposal is to rezone six parcels at the corn!r of Middlefieid Road and
Hamilton Avenue from RM-1S to Planned Commu~ity zent, and to construct I high-
1ncome condomi~ium project for se~ior community living. The architectural
style is traditional Sp8n;s~ Colo~ia1 with stucco exterior, four storfes ~;gh
ilonq Byron and Middlefield frantages, and three stor1es high along Ha.ilton
Avenue, with a one-story pool structure it the Hamilton/Byron corner. The
size of the structure 1 s 87,653 square feet, with a TDu1mum height of ~ feet.
The main entry 1s located on Byron Street, where si~ surface parking spaces
and a loading space ire provided .10ng the entry drive. Tne entrance to an
underground parking garage w1th 69 spaces is also 1.ocated Ort Byron s.treet.
The structure provides spacious priv~te units and cORIOn amenitles tc support
older residents and to accOimOdate t~e activities of a senior residential
community. The applicants expect t~e average '9~ of residents t. be between
75 and 80 years. The units range In size from 1,358 to 2,538 .quare feet.
All units have two or two-and-one-ha1f bedrooms and two or three full baths,
and are arrlnged to accOlROdate the issisted care of the resident if required.
All of the uroits hi.e fuil ~Itchens, and there I •• 1 so a common c .... rcl.l
kitchen and dining room where meols .i11 be available for residents. The
other ComMOn facilities include twa guest rooms~ I 11Y~n9 room and two
bar/lounge ireas, an exercIse roo., spa and indDor pool, an administrative
off1ce and sleeplng room for 1 security person. OUtdoor common a~eas incl~de
a central courtyard, two s~ller courtyards and i gardening area with raised
beds. The app1ic.nts .xpect the proje<t will require a staff of ten full time
employees with. &aXi..-of eight on the site at .ny one time.
lWIA: t.1lton.pcs
P:\PCSR\~LTON.PCS
6/25/93
Page 5
.'.
Jable 1. project Comparison With Current 0rdjnance Requirements
PROPOS~O ALLOWED ALLOIiED ALLOWED EXISTING
( amonded [Req"ired) [ReQ"ired) (Required)
ro osal 1114-15 1114-30 1114-40
Sl,SS3 25,750 30,900 51,500 26,200
J. 70 .5 .6 1.0 _ 51
MaxilnUlll 48 feet 30 feet 35 f .. t 40 feet ilr>prox. 25
Hei ht feet
Coverage 53.270 35"-40l1. 45"-2s?;
NIJIIIber c f 36 18 34 47 7
Units
Parki l.33/"nit 2_33 unit SO s aces
Use Planned low Medium High Low
Comunity Density Density Density Density
Residen-Residen-Resfden-Residen-
tiil ti~l thl ti.l;
Profes-
siona.l
Office
Dtyelopment Schedule; A tentative developoent schedule has been prepared by
the ~plicant and is attached to this report. The scbedule indicates
deeolition beginning in June 1994; excavati.n beginning in July 1994; exterior
construction occurring fro. August 1994, to February 1995j interior
construction and site work from February to July 1995; initial occupancy
anticipated in August }995.
ANALYSIS/ISsuES
Bu1lding B~lk and MISS
The City Co'..,.,;:;11 dIrected tile Planning '_iss ion and the AIU! to address the
bulk and mas~ issues of the prDposed building during their rev1ews t
particularly the Middlefield Road elevation. The •• erall size and the
building was somewhat reduced and setbacks were increased between the Planning
Coamiss1on review and the Clty Council rewiew. Further modifications and
reductions were made prior ta the final ARB reYiew~ These changes are
sumaarlzed .s follows:
WIA: "-11tm.p:.'I
P; IPCSRllWilL TCfj.ptS
......... ~.--------
6/Z5/93
Page 6
• .' "', ~
• Parts of the building were set back fro. the int.rio~ property
line and portions of the fourth floor wero eliminated so tn.t the
project now caaplies with the RM-IS daylight p1ane_
• On tne ~;dd1efleld Road e1.Yation, section. of the facade and
portions of the fourth floor were set back several f~et in order
to break up the continuQus plane of th~ wall and visually reduce
the size of this .ide of the building.
• The loading zone off Hiddlefltld Road was eliminated, and a
delivery space was add~ at the Byron Stre~t entri~ce.
* A sixth visitor parking space was added ilong the entry drive.
• Additional sinor refinements were made to further articulate the
building, provide scale and reduce the appearance of bulk.
These changes resulted in a reduction ~n square footige from 90,760 to
87,650; i reduction in FAR fro. 1.76 to 1.70; and a reduction fn
coyer.ge from 55% to 53.2%.
No Varjances
A condition of City Council concoptual approval was that the project not
require any variinces. 1he previous non~compliance with neight and dayl1ght
plane requirements has been eliminated, and the current proposal does not
require any variances.
Parkjng
City Council directed the applicant to work with staff to explore the
possibility of providing additlon.1 parking on the site. The applicant
modified the on-grade parkfng to add one viSitor parking space and to prQ~ide
an add1tfonal space for deliyeries. They also aodtfied the garage layout to
proyide two addition.l .paces (total 71) in the garage. Ho .. ,er, during the
ARB review, the Board concluded th.t the dead-end .isle. in the parking 1.YDut
lllade the g.·rage difficult for some pork." to use, and directed the applicant
to .edify the 1.yo"t to eliminat. the dead-end .ls1e., if this could be done
without dropping below the number cf spaces (69) shown when the project was
reviewed by City Co"ncil. A reyised garage lay-out with 69 sp.ces and no
dead end aisles, is included in the plans. I~ addition to no net gain in
p~rking spaces, this reVised lay-out requires excaYlting under approxi~tely
one-half of the central courtyard, thus red~cing soil volu.e for trees and
requiring some trees to be 1" planters ~1ch ot~erwise could have been planted
in the ground. This revised scheme also results in i1 somewhat reduced aJTIOUTlt
of storage in the garage.
City Council directed staff to ;nyestigate the f •• sibillty of restricted
parking In the area of the prcject. The result. of the investig.tion by
WIA: ... ltC11!.pc$
P,\PCSR\~LTON.PCS
6/25/93
fage 1
Transportation Division staff are discussed in tbe attached memo from
Clrl Steffel. dited February 17. 1993. Restricted parking is f~asib1e in
this block. It is contiguous with a two·hour parking zon, on University
Av.nue. It would be important to be sure that peop1. already living and
working on tne block understand that they .ou1d no longer be a~le to park on
the street for longer thar. two hcurs if the restriction were implemented, and
SOle are currently parking on t~e street for longer peri Dds Df time. Once the
decision is mad* to extend two-hour p<rking to this block. it could be
instituted within two to three .eeks. A resolution by City Council would be
required to approve the new parking zone.
Tne applicant is proposing to mark the six surface s~aces reserved for guest
parking, in the garage to mirk an additional six spaces reserved for guest
parking, and sfx marked reserved for employees. The hema1ning 57 spaces will
be asslg.ed to reSidents. if needed. One space .i11 be provided with the unit
and residents will be required tD pay an e.)(.tra cflarge for any additional
spaces. The following table compare. the nu.ber of parking sp.ces being
provided with the number required for multiple-family housing in the parking
ordinance. Stoff believes that tn. proposed on-site parking will be adequate
to leet the needs of the project. Attached to this report is a letter from
the applicant explaining why they belie,e the proposed parking is adequate.
QrjY~ly Accgss To Schyltz Property
The parcel directly nort~ of the project site, owned by Charles Schultz. has
for .any years been accessed by two driveways, one of which is a shlred
driveway located partially on the property of the proposed project. No
.as..ent exists and the project applicants do not want to continue the
driveway crossing their property. although they have indicated an interest in
aSSisting Mr. Schultz in continuing to use the drivoway if a suitable
configuration can be worked out. After visiting the site with Mr. Schultz and
taking ",suTOMentS. staff believes that there is sufficient distance
(approxl .. te1y 8.5 feet) between the edge of the sidewalk next to the Magnolia
street tree and t~e corner of the project parcel to permit hi. to continu" to
access his property in this location. At the curb, th!s dr;vew~ access would
be approxi .. tely 2 feet in front of the project property. angling toward
Hr. Schultz's lot. It does not aopear th.t this would cause a conflict with
the driveway of the proposed project. since It 1$ locatod 10 feet from the
side property line_ Staff recommends that Hr. Schultz ,ontl.ue to have access
to his lot from this location and that the design of the two adjacent
driveways be sublltted with the final 1andscope plan. (See attached letter
from Hr. Schultz dated Hay 12. 1993. with attached illustritlon.)
1IIIf1A.:a.1 ItDn.pc:s
p, \~HIIOLT(lII_ PCS
::,~, .
,{
........
6/25/93
Page 8
---------------------------;0';
•
~ ~ 0-'
==""-"'-_ ~J:_"_ ~-':"'-Y";':_~~' A,
Moise Impacts on property Across Middlefield Rgad
"
~ "-.
Dr_ Arthur Bodin and other representative. of The Ment.l Research Institute
(NRI), located at 5~5 Middlefield Road, have expressed concern tha~ nOise
resulting fron the proposed project will 1r.terf!re w'th training sessions that
ire In on-gG1Dg part of thefr activities. The training sessions occur in
specially equipped rooms that are located on the Middl<field Road side of
their building. NR[ is concer~ed bot~ about nOise during construction and
abcut traffic nOise reflected off the build ing after construction. (See
letter from NRI~ dated January 20, 1993, and letter re: aco~sticll
consultation from Charles M. Salter ASSOCiate., dated February 2, 1993.) The
appl~eant has submitted I letter (rom an acoustical expert, Charles M. Salter
AsSOCiates, stating that in other sim11ar cases the~ ~ave found p.oise level
increases due to ref1ectic~ off a buildtng tc be negligible. T~ey also state
that the aMbient nOise level on K,ddlefield Road Is probably $0 lou~ that it
wlll ~sk BDst construction noise. Dr. 80din states in his letter tnat he has
measured noIse on Kiddlefield Roa~ to be over 90 decibels.
Dr. Bodin requests in his letter that the applicant .ork together with NRI and
take into acco~t the MRJ training scnadule in order mlnimize the ~mpact$ of
construction noise on their activities. Tne ARB recommended that the
applicant partiCipate In thi s effort with MRI to reduce ; lOp acts , and stiff
belIeves that this is an appropriate .olution. Staff suggests that the City's
Medi.tion Task force could be helpful In working out. mutually agreeable
arrAngement ~ .
PubJi c BeD.f; t
In a aemo to the City Council dated November 18 t 1992. Council Members Huber,
Kniss, Sim!tia~ and Wheeler outlined i proposal for an endowment to be
provided by the applicant to benefit seniors and senior services to satisfy
the public benefit requl .... nt for the project. (See copy of the meeo
attached to this report.) The City Council's action on January 11. 1993, for
conceptual approval of the project directed the applicant to present a
proposal for such a Fund.
A draft ag"eeoent between the City and the applicant for estoblishoent of.
specl,l fund has been dra .. up and is attached to this ",pvrt as an eXhibit to
the proposed ordinance. Th. proposal is for establishment of • fund that will
be funded through. de.eloper contribution of $500,000 dollars, payable over
ten years, plus payment of a resale fee of 2.5' ~f the .el1ing price whenever
• unit is resold after the Initi.l sale. The monies gener.ted by the fund are
to be Illocated to the Senior Coordinating Council to suppleoent their
deliyery af senior services to the com.un1ty, or to such other service
providers as the City Council May designlte, and on to .. s to be established by
the City Council.
'lWlk'-iltO'1,JIC'
p, \l'CSII.\HNU LTCII. PCS
6/25/93
Page 9
.. ,
I
Below Harket Rate HOijsjng gequirement
Four rental units are prestntly located on the proposed project site and would
be displaced by the project. Since rent.l units are being disploced, the
Below Market Rote (BMR) requirement for the project is 20%, rather than the
stondard !O%. The applicant is proposing to fulfill the BMR requirement by
p~TCha$1ng saven existing off-slte rental units and converting the. tD BMR
rental units to be owned and .anaged by the Po'. Alto Housing Corporltion
(PAMe). (See attached letter from the applicant describing the BMR
proposal. )
COOREliEHSIVE PlAIt COMPlIAHCE
The uses and site development regulations of the Planned Community lone must
be found t. be consistent with the Polo Alto Coaprehensive Pl.n. Following
are Policies of the Housing Element which are pertinent to the proposal.
The proposal appears to be consistent with the following Housing Element
policies and objectiyes,
PorlCY 7: Encounge ilind foster Ute de¥elopment af new and i!xist1ng
housing units .ffordabl. to low· and ~erate-income households.
The 8MR '9re .... t being proposed by the applicant would convert •
minimum of S@Yen existing .arket r.te rental units into below market
rate units.
Policy 11 and Policy 13: Continue support for the P.1. Alto Houslr,g
Corpor~tion in the provision Df low-and BGderite·1ncome housing, and
increase funding sources used to provide iffardible housing.
The.e policies are supported by tne applicant's stated intention to -.rk
with the PANe to look for ways to provide .. re tnan the required minl.u.
seven BMR units.
Po7icy 14: Support the mixing of reSidential uses in commercial and
industrial areas.
Locating the units close to downtown near shcps, transit and other
services supports this policy.
Second of the three I1iJjor hOusing alJjectives identified jn the HouSing
Element: "olntoln. dlYersity of housing opportunities,and provide.
variety af housing types and sizes, I .ixture of ownership and rental
housing, and • full range of housing costs.
'lWIA:lIIB1l1:a1. pes
P: IJ'CSRIfW!lL TOIl. res
--------------------
6/25/93
PO!je 10
The proposed project furthers this housing geal by providing a type of
h1gh~inc~ housing with on-site services for seniors which is not
presently av,il.bl. 10 the community, and thus provides the opportunity
for residents 1n this fto'Jsing market to vacate fa:tHy homes and move to
•• enior living coomunlty .'thi" Palo ~lto.
The Housing Element identifies persons over 60 as an 1ncreasing
population group with housing needs to ~ accommodated. In 1989, this
age grcup made up one-fifth of the popul.tion and included 12,811
peDple, an increase of 26% since 1980. The proposed development wiTl
serve this increasing segment of tne popullti~" of Palo Alto.
The projected Association of 9ay ATea Go~ernments (ABAG) -fair share·
housing need for Palo Alto is 159] units, to be provided between 1990-
1995. Of this total, 680 units are identified as housing for households
with .bov. moderate income. Th. proposed development .ill provide 36
units of housing for abc~e ~erite-;ncome hoyseholds? thus ~elping to
address this identified ·fair $~aTe· nousing ne!d.
The proposed project appears 1ess consistent wltn the following Policies of
the Housing Element:
Policy 2: Prese"". older single-family homes and s ... l1 apartment
bUildings.
T~e proposed project would result in the demolition of • four-unit
rent. 1 apartment building .nd three older 'inglE·family homes which .re
rentod. Removing the 4-unit apartaent building seeas particularly
contrary to this policy_ However, Program 9 provides th.t ~iti9.tion
for the r .... v.1 of rental housing May be ,..de by inc ...... ,ng the number
of ex1,ting housing units on site, and providing 20l BMR units, r.ther
tha" lOS. This project is me.tlr~ both of these standards.
Policy 6: Maintain.t le .. t the present number of ... 1tiple-family
rental "~its while working to increa.e the overall supply of .... ntll
housing.
The proposed project will result in • net loss of four units in the
City's rental housing stack. Four aparbaents, and three single-family
houses, which •• y be r..,ted, are being I'eIIOved from the site. The 7 BIll.
.. Its whic~ ..... being provided are existing units th.t ..... currently
part of the City's rental housing stock, so they do not represent an
increase in the supply of .... nt.1 housing. Program 9 provides th.t
doubling the number of housing unit. on the Site, and providing 20S BMR
units mitigates t~e removal of rental hOUSing, and t~is project is
aeeting both these cond~tions.
*I_:Mn''tOn.JIC$
p : \PCSR\IWU LT[)I. pes
_.
6/25/93
P.ge II
·" --
F1N1lIi!GS
1. The site is :>0 situated, and tne use proposed for the site is of suen a
characteristic t~at t~~ application of general districts or combining
districts will not provide suffici.nt flexibility to allow the propo,eO
development, in that the maxim~~ floor area ratio (FAR) allowed in the
highest den,ity multiple family zone (RM·40) is 1.0 ~hil. the FAR of the
proposed project is 1.70. An FAR of 1.0 doe, not allow a sufficient
building volume to accommodate the activities and services of a senior
living cCHllllunity, as evidenced by senior residences conSistently hat,.·ing
an fAR exceeding 1.0 both in ra10 Alto (Lytton I. FAR 1.4 and Webster
House, FAR 2.43) and in other communities.
2. D&velopme~t of the site under t~e provisions ~f the Planned Community
district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by
applicatiDn of tne regulations ~f general districts or combining
distr1cts, in that an Endowaant Fund to be established by agreement
between the City and the developor with .onies to be provided by a
SSOO,DOO contribution from the de,eloper .nd a 2.5~ resa1. fee will be
used by the City to ~rov1de benefits for seniors and senlor services.
In addition, the senior living community will provide houslng with
support s~rvices, for which there is an unmet need in the community,
thus enebling residents in need of tnis type of hDusing to rev.ain in the
c_unlty.
3. The use cr uses permitted, and the sit! development reg~lations
Ipplicable .1t~in the district are consistent with Policies 7. II, 13,
and 14 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, a. discussed in
the CDlprehens1ye Plan ton;liance section above. Tne penaitted uses and
sIte developoent regulation, are compatible with exIsting and potentIal
uses on adjoining sites or withi. the gener.1 vicinity, in that the site
is appropr1ate for senior residences because of the close proxi.1ty to
Lytton I and Webster House, to Downtown, the Senior Center, oedic.l
services and public transportation. The location at the intersection of
two major streets and at an entrance Downtown is appropriate for a
building of this ,ca1e, providing balanc. for the lytton I coopl.x on
the other side of University Avenue. The architecture a~d landscaping
is ~esigned to be visually c~~tible with nearby residential areaSj tne
building BaSS Is set back from the Interior property line and the
building height fs lowered where it is QPpo~ite residential uses; the
Middlefield Road facade is modulated and detailed to minillize the size
of the building; auto access is off Byron Street to minimize conflict
with oxhtlng he.vy traffic on Middlefield Road; .11 antic;pate<i parki1\9
deMand is being provided for on the site.
"IA:~ltm .-:s
p, \Pr.SI(~lHJI. ~
--------------,,--------.
6/25/93
Pig<! 12
... -. -
•
C!l!!D lTIONS
1. The garage plan shall incorporate a loop system that minimizes
dead-end ai sles, lTIaintains overall Ippro~'ed park.~ng numbers and
maintains zoning regulations.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall
provide ill written plan, tD the satisfaction of the Planning
Oivision, specifying how they will minimize noise impacts to HRf
by construction timing and coordination with MRI's training
.e •• 10n schedule.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items s~al1
return for ARB review:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
_IA:~1t.".,pcs
p ,\PCSII.\IW1Il mL "'5
Details of glass to exterior wall indicating depth and
design.
Detail of garage vent exhaust.
SaMPles of exterior materials and~Glors and additional
building detail. is reQuired by the ARB.
Fina1 landscape plan to inciude a planting and irrigation
plan. sizes of plant matErials and sa.ples of paving
.. terials. The final l.ndscape plan shall show the
lotatlon, 5ize and species of all trees to be retained, both
on the .1te and in the adjacent public right-of-way. The
plantIng and irrigatIon plan shall be approved by the
Utilities R.source Conservation Division.
Final lighting plan showing location and design of .11
exterIor lightIng fixtures and a photOOEtric diagram showing
li9ht pattern and inte~sity, both on Ind off the property,
of light cast by all exterior l;g~ts.
The design of the driveway providing access to the Schultz
property adjacent to the project site, to be de.eloped in
coordination with the Transportation and Planning Divisions.
A parking pl,n showing the .ix surface parking .pace. and
sfx parking spaces in the garage marked and reserved for
guests, with a minimum of six add1tional parking spaces in
the garage to be marked and reserved fOT employees.
;".'.
6/25/93
Page 13
h. A tree protection plan prepared by a lice"sed Arborist
specifying all measyrts to be taken prior tOt during and
after construction to protect the trees to be retained) both
on the site and in the adjacent public right-of-way. The
tree protection pan shall include a site plan s~owin9 the
spe<ies. s1ze and location of all trees to be retained, both
on U,. sit. and in U.< .idjacent publ ie right-of-way. In
addition. the Planning Vivis: •• sh.l1 ~ proYided with.
letter from a licensed Arborist verif)ing that he hal beeh
retained by the applicant to se. that the tr •• protection
measures are carried out .nd that periodic field reports
will be submitted to the Planning Division confirming
compliance with the tree protection measur~S.
4. Prior to issuance of a ~emo'ition per.a1t or a building permit, the
Arborist ret.ined by the appliclnt shIll suboit I 1ett.r Yerifying
that he hIs conducted a field inspection and th.t the protective
fencing r~quired in the tree protection plw~ is in place.
S. Prior to issuanc. of • d .... lition or building p .... it. t~.
applicant shall prepare, to the satisfaction of the Transportltion
Division and the Public Works Dep.rtment •• Construction Pl ••
addreSSing location of construction staging areas. travel routes
fer construction yeh;cl~s of the construction crew, fencing of t~e
cDnstruction site , a plan for keep'ing nearby streets and sidewalks.
free of dirt and other construction debrls as well as all other
i ••• es deeoed nec •••• ry by the City to provide for the public
safety and to reduce impacts of construction on the surrounding
neighborhood. Th. p1.n shall includ •• provis!on that
construction fencing be Installed in such. way that the .djacent
driveway from Byron Street to the Schultz property is not impeded.
6. A planter strip .. d street trees shall be provided o. all three
street frontag.s. with a .iolmwm width of 5 feet on Klddlefi.1d
Road and Hamilton Avenue .nd •• ini>rum ~idth of 2.5 feet on Byron
Street. unless .t l •• st two feet of perimoter planting is provided
inside the propert~ line lloftg the one-wat driveway ~n Byron
Street, in which case the curbside planter strip shall be I
.inimuo of 5 feet wIde. Th. planter strip sholl be p1.nted
continuously with low shrubs or dense ground cover and shall be
lutoaatically irrigated. The street trees shall be planted a
.axi ... of 25 feet on center. with the location and speei.s to be
approved by the City Arborist and the P1anniog Diyision. All
street trees shall be locoted in tree wells with a minImum
diaension of 5 x 5 f.et. and shill be installed according to the
City Arborlst's specifications. All stre.t tree w.1ls shall be
provided with iutomltic irrigation.
"'IA:"-11ton.pes
P:\PCSR\tWOL~.PCS
6/Z~/93
P.lge 14
7. Subdivision approval to merge the existing Si( lots into one
parcel shall be obt.ined from the City prior to issuance of •
building permit. If the units are to be individually sold, a
condOMinium subdivision map shall be approved by the City prior to
sale of !ny·unit.
8. Prior to issuant! of • building permit, tho owner shall enter Into
an Igreement with the City under which the owner sh.ll agre. to
pra~ide i miniMUm Qf seven BKR units in fu1fillment of the owner's
obligations under Programs g and 13 of the Housing Element of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
9~ Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner shall enter into
an agreement with the City for the purpose of providing additiQn~l
public benefits to the project.
10. Construction activities ire required to conform to the Palo Alto
Noise Ordinance, which T!strtcts hours of activity and levels of
noise produced by indi~iaual pieces of equipment as we" as noise
produced g.nerally, as specified in Section 9.10 of the P.lo Alto
Municipal Code.
11. To reduce dust levels during construction, it shall be required
that exposed earth surfaces be watered frequently, during the l~te
morning ar><! it the end of the day, .nth frequency of ",tering
incr.asing on windy days. Spillage resulting from hauling
operations along or across any public or private prop~rty shall be
reoovod immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust
nuisances ar'ginat1ng from the contractor's operations, eit~er
inside or outside the right-of-way, shall be controlled at the
contractor's expense.
If, In the opinion of the City Engineer, the contractor falls to
confp 1y wi th any of the ttems concern i"9 sPl' lage and dust ('olltro 1 t
and the contr.ctor is either unwilling or unabl_ to reeedY the
deficiency, the City Englneer shall employ private or public work
forces and equipment as required to cGrrect tbe deficiency~ The
cost of employing s~~h forces and eqyjpNent shall be doubled as i
penalty. and such cost shaTl be borne by the contractor. Sucn
actlon taken by the City s~al1 net re1ieve the contractor of the
responsibility concerning spillage and dust cantrol.
The folluwing conditions shall bt implemented to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Department:
12. A performance bond BUst be posted prior to construction of public
right-of-way improvements.
13. Plans for l.ndscaping In the p"blic right-of-way must have prior
approval by Public Works Department.
'*I"':-'ltcn.pcs
P : \PCSR\IW4IlTCJI . PeS
6/25/93
Page 15
..
...
14. Any ex;s~ing unused driveways must be replaced with curb, gutter
and sidewalk (where applicable).
15. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted to Public Works
Engineering for tho projoct. This report shall include
calculations on ~ow the site runoff will !~paet the City storm
drain system. Starmwater from the site shall be designed tD be
divided into two watershed area.. Part of the runoff from the
site Shill be directed to the public sto .. drain at the eor.er of
Middlefield and Hamilton and the othor part shall be directed to
the public storo drain at the corner of Byron and Hamilton. It is
recommended tnat In on-site detention system be considered tG
control tbe rate of disc~arge from the site. T~e applicant must
contact Jim Harrington of the Public Works Engineering D'v;slon
prior to submitting formal drainage improvement plans,
16. Construction i. proposed to be constructed within the City right·
of·w~. A permit for Construction ;n Publi( Street must be
obtained fr~ the Public Works Oepart.ent.
17. A soils report will be required to be submitted for the proposed
underground garage. A drainage plan for this ~nd~rground
strueture will also be required.
lB. Due to the detrimental i~.et tho construction actiYity .ill ha.e
on Byron Street, the appiicant shall be required to skin patch and
slurry se.l Byron Str •• t between Uni.ersity and Hamilton Ayenues .
. 19. Construction of approved harn!!capped ro"",s is required at the
corner of Byron Street and H .. ilton Avenue.
RECOIIIENDAT 1011
Based Dn the above findings, staff recooaends th.t the Planning Commission
recooaend that tho tity Council adopt the Negative Declaration and appro.e
tho project with t~e above listed conditions.
WlA;'-Iltal.pcs
p, \PCSRIIWIIL Ta<. PCS
6/25/93
Page 16
"",,', .-.";-
Attachments :
I. Environmental Impact Assessment
2. Minutes of City Co~~c11 meeting, Hovemter 30, 1992
3. Minute. o~ City Council .eeting, January II, 1993
4. Letter from Cnarle. Schultz and attached drawing, Hay 12, 1993
S. Letter from Ment.l Re.earch Institute, January 20, 1993
6. P.~kjng Memo from Carl Stoffel, Febru,ry 17, 1993
7. Letter ke: Ac()ustical Consulting;, Charles ~. Salter Assoc.iates,
Inc., February 2, j993
8. Draft Planned Community Ordinanc.
9. Oraft Agre.ment aetwoen City and Applicant Regarding Public
Benefi t Fund
10. City Council ~ dated Noyember IB, 1992
Materials provided by the applicant:
11. Development Schedu'.
12. Project Stati.tic.
13. DeYelopoent Program Statement
14. Concept for H.a,th Care/Senior Wellness Program
15. Letter Re~ ProvisiDns For Parking
16. Letter Re: Draft BMR agreement
17. "inute. of ARB meeting, June 3, 1993
18. Plan. (Planning Commissioners only}
'lW1.t:'-'IItaI.pc::s
p: \f'tSR\HNULTClt PCS
6/25/93
Page 17
ce: Architectur.1 Review Board
James B. Hill. ~ .. i1ton AVenue Properties. 555 Byron Street. Palo Alto.
CA 9-4301
leland E. Wieder, 210 San Antonio Clrcl •• Ste. 235. Meuntlln View. CA.
94041)
UnlYer,ity Park Association
University and Crescent Park Homeowners Association
Ruth J. rapwel'. 571 Komi1ton Avenue. P.1. ~lto. CA 94301
Edward H. Frapwell. 7440 Girard Avenue. la Jolla. CA 92037
A1the. Frapwel1 Andersen. 1866 Venetian Point. Cl.arwater. FL
34615
Nent.l Research Institute. 555 ~idd1efield Road. P,10 Alto. CA 94301
Charles Schultz. 517 Byron Street. Palo Alta. CA 94301
Utilities Resource Conservition Division
Public Works Engineering Div1sio~
"IA:"-11t~.pcs
P: \PCSlt\IWULT1JI. PCS
6/25/93
Page 18
EnvlroNOent.l Doc.ments -City of Palo Alto
EHVIRQNKf~TAL ASSESSMENT
AnACH~IENT 1
Proj!ct Description; Zone Change tp "zgne prQP~rty from RM-.lS Low [)tnsjh
am on Pl an rrrnun1 tone n to constr 6~ -ar
Stn1pr condominium prQject ~ith 36 residential units and aS$Qcfatgd common
.reas including dining r09m. kitchen. public rooms. ex~rcise room and en~losed
Poo] and two guest t9Dil1S. Si!venty-~rre parking spaces are provided in an
underground garage Ind six spaces are provided at grade.
Looatlon/Ad4ress: 651 Hamilton. SlS·57§ Mjddefield. 523-575 Bvron
Sponsoring Agency/Appl1car.t: Hamilton Avenue Properties, Inc.
Addr~ss and Telephone of Applicant: 555 Byr~n StTe~t, PaiD Alto. CA 943Q1.
(415) .316-4616
Application for: Planned Community lone Change
(e~g" 20n1ng chang., subdivision of property, architectural r~view, US!
po.mit)
Zoning at Project location: RM-!5 Fee Receipt No.: 92-179
HOTICE Of DETERMINATION
Based upon review of t~e project files, the Qndersfgned ~r of the Planning
Departaent has concl~ded:
JXI Negatjve Declarat1on~ The pr~ject has no significant environmental
iaplct. Ko [nvi ronmental lapact R.eport is required. ihe reasons for a
Declarat10n are: in the attached Environment.l Impact Assess-ent (92-EIA-
15). A record af project action is ivailable for revfew at tne Paio Alto
Plannina Deparb!enL locate-d on the 5t" floor of City Hall, 250 Hamilton
Avenue. palo Alto. tA 94301
I_I T~e PrQject may ~aye a significant environmental impar.t. An Environmenta1
11II]>act Report wi 1] be prepared. ..
PI aTlni n9 Oepartment Off; ci a 1: :;r:;-:,..%,' ',-:;:~;-.:.;,::....-~ . .,·.:cr_,c..-',/.o:'". '_:'~'''''~.:;',,' "~~"~-'!C"-:i'-;:-''',::-==:-:-:;
Planning D;rector: ~ ·W?S·," .. lu;, Date: May n. 1993 (revised)
The project has been approved.
The project has been denjed.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUKE~T5 -PALO ALTO
':\Mta.ilton."OO
Oate:
o.t.: ~~~~~ __ Fi 1 e No. :92-1(-3
91-EI~.-7
93 -ABll,J.?
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS -PALO ALTO
INITIAL STUDY'
I. Project Title/Address: 651 Hamj!ton. 536-576 Mi<idlefi'ld. 523-575 Byron
11. Project Description: lon@ Cha~ge to reZo"e prOpErty from PM·1S LoW Density
Multir" family 2o~e to Planned COmmunity lone and to construct 87.653
sqUAre ~pet $tDjCt condominium prpigd wah 36 rtsident1 al units and
juod,ttd cOnmon areu including dining rOM!. kitchen. pu{)lic rOQm'<:.
eXfrcise room and enclosed pool ,nd two guest rooms. Seventy-on~ parking
spaces are provided jn an yndergroynd carage and six spac~s are provided
Jt grade.
Ill. Environlgentll Setting: The site i::;; bordered 91'\ the east and SQutb s;d~
.rter;al $treets. Middlefjeld Road and ~amilton Avenue. and 9n tbe west by
, local street. Byr<ln Street. Fxisting zoning and land uses acrgss these
streets from the croject siti &rt: ]) acrgss Middlpfifl~ R~jd property
zoned RM-3Q Medjum Density Houslng and eresent1 y occupied by one· and tWQ~
story office bu11ding$; Z) across Hamiltqn Avenue property zon~d RM-lS
low t>ensjh Housino and DreSfmtly Qcct,migd by two-story residential
cOndominjums; prqDerty .t the corner of Mlddlefield and Hamilton is ZQ~
B-2 Tl!Hl Family Resi4gnc;e District lild presently occlJ[!:ied bv jI one·stoq
private residence; 31 aCr<lSS Byron Street prpDerty zpned RK-40 ~igb
Dens i tv Res i dent i a 1 and presently Dccypi ed by a two-story church educat i on
bLlildjng. Tb!? jnteripr 1at line at tne nort" side of the site adjoins
property zoned AM-IS Low Densjh Housing and prtSf!:!'Itly occupied by a
parkiM lot. a single family bm and a two stOr"i Dffic.e buildlrtg.
IV. t"r1v1roMle~hl lmpatt Cn,eckl ist (Explanation of all "yes· answers are in
Section YJ:
I. kd,h. Will the pro~os.l result in:
a. Unstable earttl conditions Dr ch.an;es in
geologic subst~uctures?
b. Ci sruptions I displacements, coepaction
Dr overcovering of t~e soil?
c. Change in topognphy or groLSnd surface
relief features?
x
X
X
'Adlpttd frr. ~pt:ndiill: 1, t.a.Hfgrni/il GuiOr,li~~ for I"",l_n:.at,on of CEOA, Oec.r.o.r 1', 1976
~iled JIIfIII! 198.6
92-EIA-7
P,g. I
.... ' ..
d. The destruction. covering or
IICIdificltion of arty IJrlique geclogic or
physical feature?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, eit~er on or ~ff the site?
f. Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards sucn IS e.rthquak~s,
landslides, mudslides, ground failure
or similar kazards?
g. Changes in siltation, deposition. or
erosion wh;c~ may modify the chlnnel of
a ri~er or the bed of a bay or inlet?
Z. 61!. Will the propos. I result in:
l. Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation. Qf objectionable odQrs?
c. Alteration of lir mo~ement, moisture
temperature, or any change in climate,
either lGcal1y or regionally?
3. ~. Will the proposal result in:
I. Changes in absorption rat.es, drainage
patterns, Dr the rate and ~unt of
surfac.e water runoff?
b. Alterations to tne c.ourse or flow of
f1 GOd Wi teTS?
c. Discharge into stJrfic'2 waters, or any
~lteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity?
d. Altera.tion of the direction Dr rite of
f1 ow of ~round waters?
e. exposure of people or prDperty to water
related bazards such is flooding or
tidal wave?
p:\wu.,tlton.el/11
X
X
I
X
------.-.---.
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
92-EIA-7
Page 2
f. Change In the quantity of ground
waters. either through direct additions
or withdrawals. or through
interceptions of an aquifer by cuts or
excavation:;?
4. plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
l~ Cnange in the d1verstty of species, or
n~mber of 1ny species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatlc plants)?
b. Reduction of the nu~trs of any unique.
rare or endangered species of ~lants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an arei~ or in l barrier to the
nor..al replenishment of existing
species?
d. Reduction in ac.reage of any
agricultural c.rop?
S. A"1.al life. Wi" the proposal res~lt in:
a. Chinge in tl1e divers;t,. of sPPc:if!s. or
nuaber of any species of ani.als (bird.
land animals including reptiles, fish
a~d shellfish. benthic organisms,
\nsects or .icrofaunaJ?
b. Reduction of the nu.bers of any uniQue,
rare or endar.gered animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals
;nto an irel, or result in I barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
d. Deter\oration in existing fi~h or
wildlIfe habitats?
6. /!llu. wIn the proposal result in,
~~ Increases in ex~sting noise 1e~el$?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
level s?
7. light and 61are. Will the propos.l produce
new light glare?
,~ -,.
L I
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
92·EIA·7
Page l
8. land U,.. Will the propos.l result in a
sub$t~ntial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
9. Er,@rgy/nitvn1 Resour(es. Will ~he proposal
... sult in:
a. Use of 5ubstant1 a1 amounts CJf fuel or
energy?
be. Substantial increase ir'l demand upon
existing so~rces of energy. or requir~
tf'le developa=ellt of new sources of
energy?
C. Increue in the rate of use of any
nat~rll resource?
d. Substantlal dep1 et ion Qf any
nonrenewlble natura' resource?
]0. Risk Of Upset. Does the proposal involve a
rist cf In explosion or the release of
nazardoQs sub$tanc~s (including, but not
11.ited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accid~nt Dr
uput?
11. Pgpulation/Hgysjng.
I. Will th& p"'oposal .lter tne location.
distr1Dution, density or g~owth rite of
the hUMan population of an area?
b. Vill the propos. I effect existing
hDusing. or create. demand for
additional bousrrlg?
12~ Transport at jon/Circulation. Will the
~roposal result in:
i. G.neratlDn of substantial addltlon,l
vehicular ~vement?
b. Effects on uisting parKing heil itil!'s
OT demand for new parking?
c. Alterations to present patterns of
circulaticn Dr movement of people
and/or goods?
x
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I X'
X
X
,.\_V-il\.oIIIo.ei. 92-EIA-1
Page 4
d~ Increase in traffi c hazards to IIKItor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
13. PublIc Service. Will the propo.al have a"
effect upon, nr res~lt in a need for new Dr
altered governmental services i~ a~y of the
following areas?
il. fire protection?
b. Po 1; ce protect I on?
c. Schools?
d~ Plrks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance Df public facilities
including roads?
f. Other governcental services?
14. Utilltj.s. Will the propo.al result in a
need for new Iyste~s, or substantial
alterations to the follOWing utilities?
a~ POli€r or natural gills?
b. Coaaunicltlons systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e~ Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
15. H ... n H •• lth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Cre.tlon of any h.alth hazard or
potential) ,alard (excluding mental
health)?
b. txposur. of people t. pot.nthl ~ea1th
hazards?
16. Ag$tbetj~s. Wlll the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenfc vista or view open
to the public, or will the proposa1 r~sult in
the creation of an lesthetically offensive
stte open to public view?
p. ' .... \h.lltG!'l ... la
1
X
X
1
X
X
X
•
X
X
X'
X'
X
X
X
X
92·EIA·7
Page 5
17.
18.
19.
B.t:~[I!lthm4 Will the proposal result in an
t~act upo~ the Quality Dr quantity ~f
existing recre.tion.l opportunities?
Cyltural Resources.
a. Will the propos.l result in the
.lteration of/Dr the de.truction of •
prehistoric or historic archeol~9ical
site?
b. Will the prop, .. , result in ad,erso
physi&al Dr a!st~etic effects to a
prehistoric, historic bUilding,
structure or object?
c. Ooes the propos.' have the potential to
clu~e i physical change ~ich would
affect untqu! cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
rel~g1ous Dr sacred uses within the
potential impact orea?
Hindat~t~ fjDd1D9~ ~f ~jgnifj'in~e.
a. Does the project have the potentia1 to
degrlde the quality of the .n.iroryment,
substantially reduce the habitat of •
fish or wildlife species. cause i fish
or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining lo.el$, threaten to
eli.inate a plant or ant~' co.munity,
reduce the number Dr restrict the range
of I rare or endangered plant or an1.al
or eliminate impDrtant examples Df thE
_ajar perlods ~f California history or
preh'\story?
b. Do .. the project hly( the potenthl to
achieve shortaten., to the disadvantage
of long-term, envlrOnAentai goals? (A
short· term impact on the environment is
one which occ~rs in I relatively brief.
definltl.e period of time while leng·
ters impacts will endure well into the
.ture.)
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
p;\_\t ... nton .• ie 92-EIA-7
Pago 6
c. Ooes the project have impacts whicn are
indiy1dual1y limited, b~t cu~lati~ely
consIderable? (A project may Imp.ct on
two or .are separate re,o~rces where
the impact on eath resource is
relat1vely $ •• 11, but where tne effect
of the total of those Impacts on the
environment is significant.}
d. Ooes the project have environment.,
effects ~Iich will cause substantial
ad~erse effects on h~an beings. Eitner
directly or indirectly?
I
I
x
X
Y. Explanation of 'yes" answers and 'no' answers mark.ed with an asterisk. {*)
in envirDnmental chetklist.
1. Earth (b,U. In the construction of the underground 9iii1!"'age t approxiaately 12 ,000 cubic yards of s{li1 wi 11 be excavated ar..d
dispo5ed of off-site. As the site is locited~thin a built urban
anvi rOTIMnt, such i IIlIU.cts ire not con s i dered s ; gni fi cant. A
detailed grading and dTaina9~ plan s"a11 be required for revi~ and
approval of the Clty Engineer prier to i nuance of any grading
Indlor building permits.
The project s!te is located in a seismic area of moderate risk, and
win be subject to lIery strong ground shaking in tn! event of an
earthquake. All new construction on t~e site wi1l be subject to the
previsions of the current Uniform Building Code, portions of which
are directed It mini.izing seis.ic r~sk and preventing loss of life
and property in the event of an e.rtkquake.
~. Air {a}, Gonstru~tion of the four-story condominium project will
temporn11y result in an increase in dust enlissi(!.ns over e.)(isting
Ulbient air conditions. The following dust control mitigation sha.l1
be required to reduce the impact tn an acceptable level:
To reduce dust levels Quring construction, it shall be required that
exposed earth surfac.es be watered frequently, during the la.te
ItOrn;ng and it the end cf the day, with frequency of watering
increaSing on windy days. Spillage reslJ1ting frDm "aul ing
operations along or across any p'Ublic or private property shall be
removed i..edlately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances
orlginating from the c.ontractor's operations, either inside of
92-E1A-7
Page 7
:.: .-_ ,,:;r.
., K'~ '.,.
.... '
.-.. ,.."-
. "'!'"
o'Uts1de the rfght-of-way. shal-1 be controlle-d at the contractor's
e)(pense.
rf t in the opinion of th:e City Engineer. the contractor fails to
comply wit~ any of tne items concerning spillage and dust control,
and t~e contractor ;s eHh.er ur.willing or unable to remedy th:e
defi~iencYt the City Engine~r shall employ prfvit~ or public work
forees and equipgaent as requlred to correct the d~ficie,..cy. The
ccst of employing such force. and equipment 5h,11 b. doubled as a
penalty, lnd such cost shall be-borne by tne contractor. Such action
taken by the Cit~ Engineer shall not relieve the contractor of the
respo~sibi1ity concernlng spillage and dust control_
3. Water (,aL The proposed ne~ construction may re-sul t in an increase
in the rate and UKHmt of surface wAter runoff. In the proposed
development, the site is c:ontintJously covered by btJI1ding or paving.
except for porti.ons of a 16-25 feet wi!!e per!lI1eter setback, and
there is-an underground garagi under most of t~e-str~cture. rn the
existin; devel~pment, much of the site is covered by buildings or is
paved. However, there are currently nO ~nder9round structures and
de~elopment h more 5Cattered, with many small unpaved area.!. located
throughout the site. providing opp~rt~nities for some run-off to be
absorbed. See Section '14. Utilities for discussion of i~act on
the increase in stOrM drain run-off and the stormdrain system.
4. Plant ~ife 'a"
TIM: prcpo.sed project will resul t in a decrease in the n~r and
species of plants and the amount of tree canop~ on the site. There
are presently 23 canopy tree. of OBH iDiameter .t Bre.st Height) of
B inches or greater, and 3 palm trees on the site. The development
plan proposes to retain 11 of these tree-si tney are Magnolia. Ash
and Pin. trees located .10ng the Hamilton and Kiddlefield frontage.
of the site. Three palm trees May b~ rei~cated on the site or on a
different site. '
The plan proposes to remove 12 of the 23 larger trees on the site.
Five of these are not significaf1t or are' in poor condition. Seven
of the trees proposed to be remov~d are substantial ~anopy tre~s in
sound condition. They include 1 lOQuat tree 8.5 inch DBH. 1 tti11p
tree 10 inches DBH, 1 C,liforn', pepper tree Z4.S inches DBH and 4
Chines •• 1. trees 12·20 lnches OaH. The C.llforni, Pepper tree h,s
i canopy width of approximately 40 feet, and tne four Chinese [1m
tree~ are grDuped together and form a continuous canopy of
approximately 45 • 110 feet. !n addition to the 23 larger trees,
there are at least 12 ~maller trees on the site, with DBH of 4~S
tnches? including olives. birc~es. p;ttospo~m and fruit tre~s. all
of whlch .ill be removed.
The total ",umber of stree-t trees along both Hamil ton Avenue and
Byron Street would be increased bi a~proximatel~ 3 trees on each
" ,.'
92·El~· 7
P,ge B
street, due to a reduct10n in the number of curb cut5. How<tver. tne
proposed develo~nt pla~ WQuld require the removal of four existing
strut tnes on Byron street because :Jf tne 1 oeat ions of the
proposed new curb cuts on tn.at street. Then existing trees are
Chinese Pistacne trees. Ippr~x1aately 4.5 inches DBH ind 18-20 feet
tall. w,n. t,ey .re young trees, they are •• 11 established and
represent sevtral years growth. The locat~ons of curb cuts for tne
new project s~Duld be adjusted so thit these existing street trees
are ~ot required to be removed.
In the deyelopatent plan, areas which are not excillvated include
port i{ln.S of tne peori !Deter setbiadc.s and ttl e buil d ; ng courtyard.
S!nce these are~s will have adeq~ate soil volume to support
subshntial canopy trees, u many sllch treE-s as Ciln be reasonably
acco.aodated s~ould be planted in these areas is mitigation for the
tree canopy to be removed from the site. Trees removed should be
replaced at I ratio of 2:1, either on the site or in the immedlate
vicinity_
6. Noise ra),
construction. of the project will result in teDlJlorary increases in
ambient noise levels, CCU'lstruction attivities will be subject til
the PalD AltD Noise Ordinance, which requires constrllct1on equipment
to be muffl ed so is not to exceed a noise-em; 5S 1 on of 83 deci be 15
(dSA} at a di stance ef 2S feet, or a nelse leve1 exceeding 86 dBA
outside the site boundary, unless an !xceptio~ is granted.
Middlefield ~oad is I ~jor arterial street, and the traffic noise
~y be a disturbance to r~side"ts. The project will be required to
comply with California State la., Title 24, which requi.es that •
• Inl.um Interior 45 db CHEl (Coomunlty Nois. EQuiv,lent level) or
le5s be maintained for new multiple·family projects. The project
has been designed s. that the COOIlIOn patio area h located away from
Middlefield Road and is partially surrounded by building .alls .hich
will serve to protect the area from street nGise.
7 _ Ught ,"d Glare,
The proposed four story building will Increase the alDOunt of 1 ight
fixtures and the height of SOIle light sources on the site. These
increases, particularly outdoor l1qhting, may have an idverse impact
Gn adjacent residences. To mitigate tne potential for impacts on
adjacent land uses, outdoor lfghting s~ould be kept to & Binimum and
.11 outdoor 1lg~t fixtures s~ould be directional and shielded, with
no light sources directly visible and ne light sp~llage beyond the
property line. A detailed outdoor lighting plan sn~ing fixtures,
lig~t throw patterns and intensity shall be reviewed and approved by
the Architectural Review Board prior t{l iss~ance of a Building
PeTllit.
92-E1A-7
Page 9
8. Land US!.
The prop.csed project wll, change the present land use of the site
frooo a c..,ln.tion of office, stngle family resldenthl and low
density .,ltiple f .. lly residential to high density multiple family
residential use. The present uses include approximately ]O,6~'J
squ.re feet of office, three single f,mily residences and one 4-unit
apart .. nt building. The pl.nned use for t~e site, .s indicated by
the current zoning t h low density lIultiple fill!i1y residential.
Thus, the proposed project would be IIOro consi stent with the planned
use for ttl! site than the present uses. The new use would have a
.. ch l''ger building and twice the residenti.l density permitted by
current lon1ng, b~t is permis5ib~e _under the Planned Community Zo~e.
9. Risk of UDset+
Sa.e types of chemicals used ;~ the maintenance af po~ls and spas
iI'~e potf"nthlly hazardous and ha"e spechl req1.lirements fDr their
safe use and storage. A list ~f names t quantities and hazards of
,11 chemlclls shall be provldeo to tM Pa' 0 Alto Fire Department
(PAfD). The developer .hall meet shndard. for the use and storage
of the chemical., a. specified by tho PAfD.
10. papul.tjon/Housing <t,b).
The proposed development will increase the tot.l number of
residenti.l unlts presently on the slte and will also provide tW1ce
the n~r of units allowed by ~urrent loning. There are presently
7 dwelling units on the sito, 3 .ingle family homes .nd a 4-unit
apartMent building. The present zoning (RM·]5. low Oensit1 Multiple
family Residential) would permit 18 units on the site, while the
proposal I. for 36 units.
The dev.lopment would cause the loss of 4 rental units and 3 single
fa.i1y units all of Which are rented. Since the proposal does not
reph.ce t~ase rent.l units. it wi 11 be required to provide a 2~
Solow Rarket Rate (BMR) component or .even Bel .. Market Rat. (BMR)
units. The developer is proposing to purchase i lIinimum of 7
existing rental units off·s;te and transfer them to the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation for the BHR rental pr09r~.
Tna project would increase the supply of l1ark.et re.te housing
designed espec-hllly for senior citizens, a type Df housing for which
there "1 be at present .n.un .. t d ... nd in the c~nity. If the
proposed ne. units are sold to senior residents who presently l;~e
in the conmunity. the project llay result in an increase in. the
availability of aarlc.et rate hmily housing when tnese un.its are
vacated by residents of the new senior units.
p:\w\"-lltClft.eh 92-ElA· 7
Pag. 10
12. Tran$PQrtitj9n/CfrculatjJuLJl~
Traffic VplUJllt Reduct jOll A traffl c .tudy of potential impact. of
the proposed project was conducted by The Wilson Engineering
Company. The City of Palo Alto Transportation Division has reviewed
this study and found it to be .cceptable with rogard to the an,ly'is
of troffic yol ..... The traffiC study has shown that the project is
expected to resi.llt in .a net reduction in the "unber of trips
gerl.gr~ted by the site, 'Wit~ 97 fewer trips per day than are
g~nerlted by existing site use~. In arriying at this estimate, the
study IssUfied no reduction for senior residents. using l;lstead a
worst c~se scenario similar to a typical condomlnlum complex in a
subu-ban ~rea. Tne expected trip distribution will bE a decreas! in
traffic on Unlyersity Av!nue, Hamilton Avenue and Middlefield Road,
wit" an increase on Byron Street of 105 trips per day, with 11
additional trips in the am peak period and 5 additional trj~s i~ the
pc peak period. Thi $ ir.crease is cons.idered tn be mirtimal and to
pass unnoticed by existing motorists.
Begui red Parking Tne proposal provides fewer parking spaces f"r
residents tfl,an is required by ordinance. The Phnned CODY/Iunity Zone
Ordinance "requires projects to provide parking based on tnE
TeQuire.ents of t~e Farking Ordinance unless it is snown by traffic
engineering studies or other relevant data that less parking will
Beet the needs of the project. The following table shows the
number of pir~~~g spaces which are proposed by the project compared
with the number of sp,ces r.quired by the Parking Ordinance.
PARKING PROPOSED AND REQUIRED
Zone Ordinance
Proposed R!gufre.ent5
Resident Parking S9 spaces 72 spaces
(1.6 per unit) (2 per unit)
Employee 'arklng 6 s.paces 6 spaces
("timate)
Guest Parking 12 spaces ]2 spaces
TOTAL
(33:1; of unit!.) (33" of units)
77 spaces 90 spices
W~ile the need for parking is generally considered t~ be less for
senior residences than for standard fa.ily housing. this may not be
the case for luxury se~1or housing where residents are more likely
to own cars, to entertiin guests., and where the program includes a
higher levei of services to be prDvid~d by empl~y!es o~ the Site.
p: \ .... \to..i.ltOtl. e II 91-EIA-)
Page 11
T~e' project provides two guest quarters and spacious fa,11lties for
entertlinlng. No information bas been provided whtcn would supp~rt
a reduced need for visitor park.ing. In order to pro'Vide the
required guest parking, 6 spaces in the garage should be reserved
for guests and .5 well as 6 spaces in the surface parking area i~
front of the building.
Curre9t1y, there is no excess street parkins in the Y1cinit, of the
project site. If the parking needs of the project I~e not prDY1ded
Dn~site, t~e 1hcreased shortage of parking for existing residents
and uses could lead to rf_quuts fer residenthl parking zones or
other parking controls. To provide the required nueber of par~ing
spilces for elllployees and guests. 12 spaces should be res.erved for
guests and 6 spaces for employees. Tnt remain'ng 59 spaces should
be reserved for residents, providing a ratio of 1.6 spaces per unit
for residents. The guest and emp10yee spaces s~ould be marked and
reserved for that purpose.
turb$1de Parkjna The prnposed project would result in a net gain of
one curbside parklng space. The number of spaces along tne-Wami 1 ton
Avenue frontage will increase from 2 to 3, due to closing of
existtng curb c:yts. There wi1l co"tiJlue to be 1 curbside spaces
along Byron Street I tnough existing curb cuts will be closed and
three new driveways added, resulting in iI total of 10 curbs1de
parklng spaces at the project site.
Access to Adjacent Parcel Presently, one of the two drheways on
the adjilcent property to the north is iccessed across the west
corner of the project site, with the curb c.ut for ttlis drivewilY
being in front of t~e project site. The plant~r strip and curb in
front of the project sl'. should be constructed so that the adjacent
driveway continues to provide access to the neighboring site.
Sendce vehitles. Service vehic.le access is off Byron Stre-et, arid a
loading zone is proyided in the Byron Street setback area.
TUffic Control Pl an Prlor to any demolition or construction on thi!
site , the Qeveloper will be required to provide a Traffic Control
Plan for the construction period, to the satisfaction of the Public
Works DepartlDel\t and the Transportation Division. ltems to be
addressed in the plan will include, but "are not li.ited to, access
to the construct1on $ite, parking for personal cars of construction
"orkers, side"lalk iccessibillt,Y. lotatian of staging and delivery
areas, truck routes and access to neighboring propi!rties.
Construction fencing should be 10cated so that access to tne
neighboring prcperty is n~t impeded d~ring construction.
p:\-V-Ilton,ela 92-E1A-7
Page 12
14. UtilitIes Ic.d.!>
The sewer IIIllns at Middlefield Road .and HiUIIilton Avenue Ire neu
capacity. The Oe~elQper's engineers shall subm~t flow calculations
which _'11 show that tne off-site and on-site water and sewer mains
.,111 providf ttl! domestic water. fire flows and sewer capacity
needed tD service the development and adjacent properties dur,ng
&nt~ciplted peak loads. The applicant will be required to prove by
one week of' flow monitoring that the sewer ma~n has adequate
capacity to handle these puk flo.s. The Oeveloper will be held
responsible fGT installing and U?9rading on-site and off-sit! water
and sewer utilittes as neces51ry to handle anticipated peak load~.
including th~ cost af all assoCiated utility instalhtior.s and
upgrades.
An increase in rl.tnoff from the site may adversely i~pac:t the City"s
eXisting storw:ln:in systell. Both of the stormdnin s.ystems whic.h
serve t~is site are currentl~ over ~apatity. In ~rder to reduce the
impact on t~e stormdra1n system, and to comply with the reQuir!ments
II)f tne National Pollution. Dischiirg~ Elimination System a.nd ttie Santa
clara. Yal 1 ty Nonpo1nt Source Pol 1 IItion Control Program, steps should
be tak.en to reduce both the amount and the rate of rlmoff frOll the
site. The sto,..ater frOIn the site should be divided 1nto two
watershed arelS, 'tI;th part of the runoff directed to the pub' ic
itof1iidrillr'l it the corner of Middlefield Road a.~d Hamilton Avel"luE!",
and the other part directed to the p"blic stormdrain at the corner
of Byron Street and Hamilton .Avenue~ 1n order to :!l{lw thE!" fite of
dischal'ge lnd reeI"ce the level of pollutants entering the stol'llldraln
systea, on-site detention should be proYlded. The detenti~n may be
provided hI swales located witilir. setback ;'re;ls, Dr fn expanded
underground piping. or so.e ether fcnm of underground storage. The
'pplicant should aeet wlth the Public Works Department to discuss
the ston. dri~nage requirements for the site prior to submittal of
construction drawings.
15. Aesthet~
Tne IUssing of th!" proposed di!ve-loprnent was modified during the
conceptual review proce~s, reducing height ind increasing setbaCKS
in various loca.tions so that the proposal now complys with all
setbiek, height and daylight plane requireRents lnd ~ini.;zcs cast
shadows and aestnetic impilCt!; on nearby properties. £Xtensive
la.ndstaping is proposed. induding the addition of lIany trees in the
setback areas and new street trees along 01.11 t~ree street frontages,
providing screening and reducing the v1sual impact of the building.
The C1t,Y's Draft Urban Oe:;ign Plan calls for IlOre substantial
building mass at the Middlefield/Unt~ers'ty Avenue intersection tG
~rk th~ entrance to Downtown, but it does not esp~cially cill for
greater-b\J11ding mass at the Middlefield/Hamilton intersection whe-re
p ~ \ItIj\hlll i It on . e ia 9Z-E1A-7
Page 13
the project site I. located. lhere could be urban design benefIts
In locating a substlntl.l ind distinctive structure It this
\ntersectian of two .lj~r street!, though it wo~ld not necessarily
~qulre is tail nor as large I building IS Is being proposed. The
relative design aerits of t~e proposed Qtsign, including massing,
&rchltecture, relationsn1p to urban fDrm a~ impact on neighboring
prcperties should be evaluated by the Architectural Revi~ Soard and
the Planning C ... I,slon.
p:\w\,,-ilton.ei. 92·E1~-7
Page 14
ATIACHMEHT 2
651 ~ILTOM AVENUE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 30, 1992
7150, to ~ the salary and Benefits for the Position of
city Attorney"
XO'fIOlf PASSED fOl" Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, -4, 6, and 7, 9-0.
~OR PASSBD for Item No.5, e-O-l, Fazzino "not participatinq.·
QNFIHISHEp BUSiNESS
e. PUBLIC HEAR!NG: Pl",nning Commission recOlIlDe.nds to the city
Council denial ot tl"-.·, application to rez.one property from RM-
15, Lo'aI' Density Hu _ple Family Zone, to Planned Community
Zone, in oreer to Cc :truct a senior condominium project, for
property located at 651 Hamilton Avenue, 5]6-576 Middlefield
~oad~ and 523-575 Byron street, but indicated to the Council
't.hat some development qreater than the RM-15 zone might be
appropriate ~or tbe area (continued from 11/16}92)
council Member Kniss said the decision making on the item would
probably be postponed for another month ana queried whether there
~as any urqency on the part of the applicant~
Director of Planning and community Environment Ken Schreiber said
he bad spoken to the applicant and recommended that if the item
were continued, the date should be Janua~ 25, 199J~
Council Member Kniss said that seemed like a lonq time for the
applicant.
Mayor Fazzino elari~ied the public hearing would qc forward that
evening and the question was when would the council make its
decision~
city Attorney Ariel Calonne said it was appropriate to handle the
contin~tion after the public hearing.
Mayor Fazzino encouraged the~ CounciL.to -hold-off-on . ....substantive
questions regarding the proj ect until the issue returned to the
council for a decision.
Council Member Wheeler concurred 'With. the comments of Hayor Fazzino
but sl.Zqqested it might be appropria.te to ask quest.ions of substance
50 staff could research to those areas prior to the Council's
action.
Mayor Fazzino supported that sugqestion.
Mr~ Calonne said ~ollowing the Planning commission's initia.l
action, a Planned community (PCJ zone application would be
forwarded to the Architectural Review Board (ARE), then to the
Planning commission, and then return to the council with an
ordinance. He understood the application .... ould still need to qo to
the ARB, return to the Pl~nnin9 Commission. and then back to the
council with a zoning ordinance.
11/30/92 69-456
----------
.', -.... \; . ,
·-,
"', .
/
Hr. Schreiber said the proposed project "'as a senior citizen
projoect, and its mass size W4S beyond the existing Lolr{ Density
Multiple-Family (RH-1S) for the site and well beyond the allowed
size for RM-40 which .as the city's hi9hest density multiple-family
zoning~ The staff and the"Planning Commission had struqgled uith
the issues of the mass and bulk and the public benefit co=ponen~ of
th~ PC zone. The. City had approved in recent year,;. D n\l.!a.b@r of
housing proj8cts tor the elderly that had exceeded normal zor.in9
constrAints. In _ost of the recent cases those projects had served
low-and moderate-income seniors. The proposed project was
desiqned to serve individuals 'Wb.o had accumulated consider-able
wealth and who vantea to live in an environment that offered a
considerable range of ilW:enities~ The Comprehensive Plan spoke
directly about low-and ~oderate-income individuals and the high
priority placed on finding housinq for t.."l.ose individuals in the
community u~t did not speak directly aboct individuals who could
afford Vlii!ry expensive units. Palo Alto had indicated over the
years that it wanted 6 wide variety of people to be able to live in
the community and want~ opportunities for people to stay in the
community. There Yas no precedent for ~pproval of that type of
project.. but staff was sympathetic to the rdche ot the housing
'8Iar)cet that the proponents 'Were try ing to address ~ The city's
regulations did not set out specific detail standards for public
benefit which he believed vas appropriate since public benefit
needed to be vieved in the liqht of a particular project. Staff
had discussed extensively with the proponentlS of the proposed
project the issue of public benefit. He said the applicant
concurred with the staff's recommen~ation in its report
(CMR:514:92) that there would be a public benefit of seven
additional off-site Below Market Rate {BKR) in addition to the
seven required as part ot the project. He referred to the
alternate proposal in the .emor~ndum from council Members Huber.
Kniss, Simitian, and Wheeler dated Noveaber le, 1992, wh5 .. ch
involVed ~stablisbin9 funding tor a variety o~ senior programs in
the community.. Staff was not opposed to thll.t alternative.. The
Planning Commission haa forwarded the proposal to the Council with
a specific recommendation to deny the project but recommended a
higher de~sity zoning than the RM-15 on the site. Tne Planninq
Commission was divided in terms of its support ana denlal~ The
propose~ project was before. the Council for review ot the concept,
and as such the detailed design issues were not bein9 dealt with at
that time. He indicated tlle ARB haa not seen the project.
Planninq cummissioner Pat CUllen said the Planning Commission vas
unanimous in its support of the need f~r that kind of housinq in
the community~ It was also unanimous that the design as presented
oftered many qood qualities and vould enhance the City. There was
division in the Planning Commission, and t~o commissioners wanted
to iRove forward. with approval of the project as presented, two
commissioners were opposed l and t~ree commissioners were concerned
about the size of the development and other policy questions and
wanted to forward the proposal to the Council. There vas concern
about its adequacy and the connection of the public benefits with
t..'le project. There ... a's also concern about whether the present RM-
15 zoning on that site was appropriate. She emphasized that the
principal public benefit would not create new low-to moderate-
U/JO/92 69-451
""-----~ -.---
'. " ,
/
•
incc.e bousinq units but would convert units alre4dy in existence,
80 the City would lose some units to one segment of the market in
order to convert them to lov-or moderate-income units. In other
projects" new units 'Were created for the benefit of lov-to
.oderate-income seniors~
Kayar Fazzino declared the Public Hearing open.
Jim Hill, President, Hamilton Avenue Properties, Inc., 1010 Harriet
Street, said seven people bad been 'Working for over a year with
statf on _ l~~ of major i5sues~ He referred to a letter to the
Council dated November 25$ 1992 (on file in the Clerk's Office),
and said the discus5ion would focus on those points. A capable
te~ had been assembled which could deal with all the espects of a
very special project for seniors.
Sam Webster, Partner, Hamilton Avenue Properties, Inc., 335 Lowell
Avenue, said the project evolved after discussions a.bout how to
continue to live in Palo Alto~ He said he had been a resi~ent of
Palo Alto since 1941 and did not want to leave~ He said there was
a lO-year wait for a tvo-bedroo& unit at .both the Channing-and
Webst£r facilities. The public benefit was a consensus among many
people t.'"tat somethinq significant could be given back to the senior
citizens of Palo Alto, and a significant amount of money would be
put into an annuity proqraa that would provide .benefitlS to the
senior citizens in the City forever~
Mr. Hill said Mr ~ iiebster-was the developer of the Garden Court
Hotel and the Gatebo~se complex Which were significant projects and
representative of the kind of work that he had been invol vee! in the
past. He said the next speaker was Candace Hathaway ~ho had been
involved in additional aspects of Webster House and who had also
been a consultant on sillli~ar ownership projects throughout the
area.
candace Hathaway, Hathaway Associates, 445 East Charleston Road,
said if a person was an upper-incolle-senior-_in.Palo Alto,> the life-.
style choices were limited. The people who were in the 7S-year
plus category were look~nq for more than just housing and lIIere
lookinq for a life-style envirorm.ent that provided a network of
supportive services. Senior communities such as The Hamilton w.ou.ld
prClvide a network of services which included care in the unit, Jeeal
assistance, Ana help with shopping and medical services and would
contain both a social and eaotional support network. :It would
allow people to remain independent in their units as lonq as
possible. The facility would also handle personal assistance and
skilled Hursing services for the lifetime of the resident, so when
a person moved into that type of senior community, all his or her
needs were taken care of~ A recent survey showed that if a person
were low income and qualified for a subsidized apartment, a place
could be found in about two years, but for the uppe~-income seniors
the waiting list was eiqht to ten years. A community such as The
Hamilton not only benefitted the upper-income seniors but also
~nefitted the local economy.
11/30/92 69-458
... '
-:
Richard Beard, Backen Arriqoni • Ross. Inc., Architects, 1660 Bush
Street j San Francisco, said his firm had just finished the
Peninsula Reoent a:r.ld the Stratford in San Mateo. He said the
prospect of licrkinq on a smaller, very desiqned seniors' community
in a strong existing oI!rchitectural and civic context had become
very interesting. He considered the site appropriate for the
project beC".ause it was adjacent to the Downtolm core, medical
facilities, and trafl.!'portation, and Middlefield Road formed a
distinct boundary for the area of mixed and diverse uses. The
City's t)'rban Desiqn Plan encouraged the promotion of Hamilton
Avenue as an active mix use, the mair.tenance of Hamilton Avenue as
a tree-lined pedestrian environment, and the mediUlll-to high
density residential development in suppo~ of the Downtown core ..
He said the project proposed the buildinq of one-, three-, and
.four-story parts end would try to cO:':lcentrate. the bulk of the
project tOWlU'Q the center of t..'le site to mitigate the adverse
impacts of simple building mass. He said since the submittal there
bad been five major desiqn revisions to the .project, and most
significantly the bulk of the building had been chanqed to conform
to the RM-15 daylight plane so that the project required nn
variances under its PC zoning consideration~ He summarized that
his cbarge was to design a senior community in a fashion that would
function well tor the people wbo would occupy the facility but to
be extremely respectful of Palo Alto's architectural tradition.
Council Me~r Andersen queried what RM-40 constraints were
encountered by Mr. Beard.
Mr~ Beard said a 36-unit project was a marginal operation for a
senior housing project. The cost of underwriting the operations
and the insurance programs associatea with the services had to be
amortized over a much larger bas.~ to be economically feasible. The
number of unit~ had been reduced from 41 to 36, and he did not
believ~ it vas feasible to go ~uch lower than 36 unit£ which bad a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) figure ot L 74 and a height limit of 44
feet. The RM-40 F~A~R was 1.0.
Council MEmber Andersen queried 'Whether the RM-40 Wei,S not finan
cially feasible or architecturally appropriate and queried the
number of units that would need to be decreased.
Hr. Beard said the number of units vould probably be under 30 with
an JUi-40 zone~
Council Member Cobb said some of the objections raised about the
project had to do with the issue of bulk, and Hr. Beard indicated
a sub&tantial effort had been made to ~ork on the desiqn and deal
with those issues. He queried .... hether there might still be
opportunities available to deal with the bulk issue without dealing
with the number of units and square footage.~
Mr. Beard said the five design changes that were undertaken since
the initial submittal had maximized the kinds of changes that could
be ~ade to the building and still have it function. The setbacks
taken oft the fourth floor and the increase of the 3etbacks off the
sides had maximized the perimeter ~rea and had maximi~ed the number
11/30/92 69-459
,
· .. ~.
of different unit types and the vari.tions that would have to be
incorporated into the building to make it work. He kn .... from the
beginning that the bulk of. t!'J.e building would be a siqniticant
factor given the kind of developme.nt proqram it took to make a
functioning seniors' ct.lDmlunity. The bulk of the building needed to
be placed as close to the een~er of the project as possible. He
had looked ~t various alternative.s fer assembling that program on
the .ite and felt confider.t that ever)! device possible had been
taken advantage of and still had the buildi.ng function on the
property.
Council Member Cobb queried whether landscaping solutions had been
eonsidered that might soften the visual impact.
Mr. Beard said a landscape architect would be involved in the next
stage o~ desiqn, and that involvement "Wa.s paramount in that kind of
development. Th~ setbacka on the street sides along Middlefield
Road, H~ilton Avenue, and Byron Street were significant as well as
an interior court. Great effort had been taker'l~ to :keep the parkinq
confined to the bui1dinq footprint so the buildinqfs exterior could
be developed with full depth planting.
couneil Member Kniss said she and council Member Wheeler visited
the. stratford and Peninsula Regent sites, and at both sites people
were surprised that there were 31? units proposed. She asked if the
base could have been 72 units with a different F~A.R.
Mr. Beard said if the common areas were subtracted from the
building-, the F.A.R attributable to the 4esidential units was 1.24.
The area representec:J by the 0.5 F.A.R. was approximately 25,500
squa.re :teet which was the equivalent of 15 units,. and the total
number of units would be si9nificantly higher. The absolute limit
in terms of the development of the site was the heig}-i.t, and the
distribution of the mass of the building on the site was qoing to
be a critical issue.
council Member Kniss queried.the .financiaLprDblems_that~ould be
encountered. when the building was operated. Sbe observed from the
other sites that when the services we~e incorporated, the financial
picture changed..
Ms. Hathaway sa.id the type of"housinq that a targeted buyer would
desire was the first consideration, e.q., square rootaqe, ameni
ties. health plan. It was not ideal for a facility to have that
amount of units because it would be expensive, but the people had
a commi taent to contiJ"me to live in Pa 10 Al to and to make the
project work.
Douglas Norris, Senior Pastor, First united :Methodist Church,
707 Charleston Court, said many of his ~embers could not live in
Palo Alto because of the lack of housin9. He was concerned about
the housing, and he thought the project would be the ans:wer. The
project would be located across the stree.t from the church and
would enhance the neiqhborhood. People would be able to walk to
banks, stores, and churches. 'l'here would be less impact on parking
and traffic than what an office building would generate.
11/30/92 69-460
Bern Ann Abbaduska, Administrator of Webster House, a J7-unit
upscale residence tor seniors, 40~ Webster Street, said that kind
of boua1nq valli-needed in the area~ There were 24 couples on a
vaiting list at Webster House for larger units, but he had not had
an opening for a two-bedroom unit in four years. There vas at
least & 10-to 12-year t.ra_iting list. A new OOW'ntovn senior
t&eility would provide stability to the u-ea, and the kind ot
resid.ent that 'Would purchase a unit at The Hamilton 'Would be II. good
consu:aer for the Downtown area. He said there were 37 :J.nits at the
Webster House and it was more costly per person., but he hoped that
if the project were approved, the Webster House and The Hamilton
could combine activities and services. He asked the Council to
consider the positive benefits of· the project for t..'le seniors and
for the city.
council Member Wheeler querie.d if Mr .. Abbaduska bad comparable
statistics for the Cbanninq House in Palo Alto.
Mr. Abbaduska replied the Channing House offered a different
packaqe from the Webster House or The Hamilton.. He thought there
was probably a five-year waiting list at the Channing House. The
waitiJl9' list waS long at the Webster House because the people
wanted larger units ..
Council Member Wheeler said one of the concerns expressed by the
Planning Commission when the Webster House project VAS approvsl1 was
the adequacy of parkinq s~ces provided tor residents and employ
ees, ~r~ ahe queried th$ outcome of that concern.
Mr. Abbaduska replied the average age of the residents was 75 or 80
years old, so the time span for drivinq was less than originally
anticip.a.ted.. Seconde.ry parking behind Webster House was appro"..rec:!,
and not all of those parking spaces were presently used4 He said
there was adequate parking for employees.
Vice :Mayor McCown referred to AttacluDent 6 in the staff report
(CKR~514~92) which compared the Webster Bouse unit sizes and said
the r~nge was be~we~~ 650 to 1,200 square feet. She asked the size
of the two-bedrqom unit.
Kr. AJ:Ibaduska said some of the two-bedroom units were sm.aller than
SCDIe of the one-bedroom units. The largest unit we.s 1.110 square
feet~
Vice Mayor Jo1CCown queried the square footage ranqe o.f the two
bedroom units.
Mr. Abbaduska replied the range was ~35 to 1.100 square feet.
Yvonne Wellhausen t 628 Hamilton Avenue, had lived in Palo Alto for
12 years and opposed the zoning change fro~ RK-15 which would allow
the Hamilton project to huild 36 larqe units. A project of that
size was too big and too dense for the site. The proposed project
-..'las a special service community and would involve deliveries and
ancillary services. The streets would not accommodate the-already
overloaded traffic conditions and inadequate parking that no.
11/)0/92 69-461
--'
..
j , existe.da She asked wnat public good 'Would be done tor the
neig-hborhood 'With the rezoning. The mixed use in the Downtown ~rea
sho~ld not mean the aesthetic values or the area were expendable.
8ill Love, 650 M~r.nin~side. Los ~tos, had lived in Palo Alto until
1989 and had practiced law in the community for 30 years. lie moved
from Palo Alto because he could not find the kind of housing h~
wanted in palo Alto~ He hoped there would be an opportunity in
Palo Alto for ~~e kind of housing he could enjoy and hoped it would
be 1arge enou9h and have the a=enities that would be attractive to
people who had lived in lar-ger homes.
Mary Williams, 575 High street, worked close to the project and was
in favor of the project. She moved to Palo Ai to because she
belie.ved it was a nice community. She supported any improvement in
the eommunity# and the project ~as definitely an improvement over
wha~ was presently on the site. She wanted to see the n8eds of
people with higber incomes servec:'! as well as those with low
incomes. Tbe project 'Would also ccntinue the vitality in the
cOlllJllUnity.
Tim....:-thy Oesc8.mpst 536 Fulton street, said he supported. Benio!"
housing but was opposed to the rezoninq of the project to hiqh
density hou&inq. J:!e did not believe the citizens should grant
public A5sistance in the form of a variance to the zoninq to people
who had the resources. to fu.,nction in a conventional housing Ilarltet.
He thought the bulk of the project was excessive tor the neighbor
hood, would destroy the integrity of the neighborhood, and would
compound and a9'9%'avate an already serious traffic problem. He
suggested a traffic impact stUdy should be done before a decision
was made. The Comprehensive Plan state.d the chara.cter of
neighborhoods would be preserved 'Which was small density, two-stot'}'~
types of structures or le!;.s, and that neighborhood mix worked
Pecause the density was limited.
Art Hammer, ~Ol Walter Hays Drive, had been a resident of Pa.lo Alto
for over 25 years, served as the cbairperson...of .the... Administrative
Council of the First United Methodist Church, and said on May 26,
1992, the Administrative Council voted unanimously to express
support ~or the project. He believed the project would provide a
mix of housing and balance in the area and would be an attractive
addition to the city and the Downtown area. The Admini!'trat i ve
council urqed the COuncil to move the project forward. in a positive
direction.
%moqene Chancellor, 298 walter Hays Drive, said as a realtor she
had observed the difficulty seniors experienced \/hen tryin9 to make
a decision to move from the home in which they had lived most of
their adult life. Palo Alto had to address the needs of the entire
community, i.e., seniors in need of low-income housing as vell as
seniors for whom a high-income senior residential living community
such as The Hamilton would be appropriate. Many of the facilities
had a waiting list of over 10 years for units that would eCCODmQ
date a cQuple~ Many seniors could not and should not wait that
long to establish themselves in a residential envi~onment. The
present facilities had only begun to meet the housing needs_of the
11/30/92 69-462
-------_ ... _----
, '-
,'.-'
." ,/""
ever increasing senior cOlllllunity.
Hamilton project.
She urged approval of The
Ch~les Schultz, 3482 Kenneth n~ive, owned the building adjacent to
the propoaed project and said he was personally and professionally
aware ot the needs of seniors because his law practice had ~en
primarily devotee to working with seniors~ The city needed to be
car.tul as it planned. for the people who needed. the type of
services that would be rendered by &uch a project because there
were some very different needs ~nd expectations. He referred to
his letter dated september 25, 1992, that cited. his concErns
regarding the traffic impacts of the project. He said the project
was a massive building and vas over t.."1e height limit. He referred
to page 3 of his letter which referenced zoning_ The Council could
choose b4twean either an RK-30 or RH-40 zone which wo~ld provide
the zoning required tor the units requested. He was not totally
opposed to a zone change but could not think of a good reason for
the chanqe. He said several public ben~:fit..s had been discussed
besides the seven units.
Council.Member Simitian queried whether there were any other public
benefits that Mr. schultz wished to discuss.
Hr. Schultz referred to page 4 of his letter and said there was ~n
indication that endoWJII:ent funds could be provided. He wondered if
the money would come from -a tax from the unit each time it was sold
or if it would come from assessments by the condominium associa
tion. He had calculated a large profit and cOlIpilred to the cost of
the site, it was a good return on the money. However, the public
benefit money would CODe from the buyer's pocket. The discussion
should. be ab?ut community benefit in Palo Alto and who needed the
support of the project.
Timothy Lindhol., 623 Middlefield Road, opposed the proposed
project because of inappropriate mass density. He referred to an
article in the San Jose Mercury News that stated city officials had
presented an unusual proposal that t.~e developers create a l~s~ing
endowment for the Senior coordinating Council (sec) to provide the
public benefit required for PC z-oning. The. article cited developer
Jim Hill as saying the idea 'Was for more well-off seniors to
provide far less well-ott seniors. Althouqh the idea sounded good,
it .iased the actual point which was that tbe developers of The
Hamilton expected to make enouqh money on the development to fund
the endOWlllent. He had to assume the. en<iovment had to come out of
the developers' profit at the beginning. He was concerned that
althouqh pu.shing the moneys around benefitted th.e city and. nut
individuals, it read like 6 bribe to the City as a body to gran~
exceptions for projects that could not stand on their own .erits.
He argued. if the city d.id not require benefits of the development
to be inherent in the development and allowed payment in lieu of
more tangible benefits, it was irrelevant where the money went. If
that became standard practice, then Palo Alto might as well ask for
a check to be made out to whichever project it currently needed to
fund. The job of the Planning c.ommission and. the Council was to
enforce development appropriate to its setting and not· to use
siqnificant zoninq exceptions as a creative way tq raise ~unQs.
69-463
Roberta Yee, 470 Antone Court, worked with seniors and the Council
on A9inq for santa Clara County and said Palo Alto was a qreat town
for seniors because of tile aDlenities, health care, and the programs
available. The basic needs of all seniors should be addressed~
Bill Jason.. 610 Middlefield Road, said the long-term parking
currently available on Byron street would not be affected by the
Hamilton project as proposed~ The Hamilton project would not
create any 4ifferent parking impact. He said the church across the
street used on-street parking after 5:30 p.m. and did not use on
street parkinq during the day because church parking was available.
He said the webster street parking garage with seven levels was a
fine garage and coull:1 be utilized better. He thought it vas a
dynamic project, and it not only would enhance the aes~~etics of
Palo Alto but also would hopefully encourage homeowners and
businesses alike to continue to make Palo Alto the most desirable
place to live.
Faith Briqel J 518 Byron Street, said she initially supported the
project, but she real:i.zed there were a lot c,f problems intrinsic to
the construction. She hoped the Council liould consider the project
from the perspective of the people who lived and worked in the
area~ She understood the need for senior citizens but believed it
was the wrong location for the developlIlent. She thought the
construction-WOuld probably last two or thre.e years and would cause
a lot of problems. Byron street had the unique position of being
nestled amonq three very busy streets, and people already took
Byron street in order to avoid those streets. The main entrllnce of
the proposed project was on Byron street, and all the traffic to
and from that project would affect the SJIIall amount of peac:e-fulness
that remained on that street. Her tenants had expressed to her
that if the area became more crowded with parking and traffic
probleas, they might move. The project was 'Out of character with
the rest of the neiqhborhood.
council Member ¥~iss queried whether Ms. Briqel" was the owner of
the building.
Ms. Briqel replied yes.
Bruce Baker,.""' M.D. f 63 Middlefield Road, considered himself a
futurist, environmentalist, and preservationist and had tried to
approach the project objectively even though be lived close to the
project. He believed :most of the people would consider the
bodqepodqe of buildings and parking' lots as less than ideal for the
area~ He could not imaqine any land use less intrusive than
elderly housing. He questioned whether Lytton Gardens or Webster
Mouse caused any big problems~ He passed those buildings twice a
day and had never noticed any double parking, loud parties, huge
aaounts of delivery trucks, or D large amount of people entering or
leavinq those buildings. He thouqht four stories was a reasonable
density for portions of the property. He was pleased to see more
open space which would be aesthetically pleasing in ed~ition to the
building itself. He could not imagine a better eer-vice to the
elderly than to locate such units within walking distance of
Downtown Palo Alto. He asked why there should be prejudice
U/30/92 69-464
----------, . ...-:;-
aqainst the high capital citizens of Palo Alto who had been just as
important to the City as anyone else who loved Downtown Palo Alto.
Richard Fisch, 704 Sutter Avenue, opposed 'the proposed development.
The developers and the proponents had portrayed the developers of
The Haailton 4S an altruistic and charitable organization and that
the prospective customer's last hope of housing was in the area of
Middlefie14 Road l " Hamilton Avenue, and Byron street. All of that
obscured the fundamental issue that the developers were asking the
council to ratify .. precedent in which the quality of the City
Would be changed and that there WQ\J,ld be a development that cO'.lld
only 90 in the direction of urbanization of the City-change in the
neiqhborhood quality, the access of small professional services,
and the provision for people to live in modest hou5ing~ He hoped
the Coun~il would not ratify that kind of precedent.
Carol Christofferson Tapper, 604 Middlefield Road, was a homeowner
and President of the Palo Alto Fountains Homeo'mers' Association
which was comprised of 12 owner-awned homes directly across the
street from the proposed pl"Q;ect ~ She said the hcmeowners'
association at the annual meeting in Octo~r 1992 unanimously voted
to be: in favor of the project, A qraat deal of time had been .. perot
reviewing all the pres and cons of the project. and it was felt
that the project Would enhence the neighborhood.~ Many people were
afraid of change on that corner, but she thought it could only be
a positive chanqe. contrary to what had been said that evening,
she believed the site was selected by a very intelligent, far
reaching qroup of people who wanted to live on that corner.
Council Member simitian ~larified there was a unanimous vote of the
homeowners' association and asked how :many of the l2 units 'Were
represented at the ~eetin9~'
Ms. Christofferson Tapper said 11 units were representea ana one
was a proxy~
Leonard Ely, 2161 Bryant street, had lived in Palo Alto for almost
70 years and be1ieved it was an excellent lQCation because a
project like that could not be put in a residential neighborhood:.
He found it interesting that 50lH of the people who spa:ke had
residences and opera ted businesses in the area. He said the
property would have to be turned into residences. He said Webster
House was on the cutting edge 10 years ago, and he wanted to help
solve the senior housing and medical problems~ He said the project
was not started to make a profit~ The Council had to decide
whether the project was good for the community and if the project
was the best use for the property. The City was not being esked to
give the residents benefits but was trying to provide a place for
people to live and maxe some contribution to the pUblic bene.fit,
particularly the senior Center. He hoped the Council would approve
the. project,
council Member Kniss queried
available as to the interest
of unit in Palo Alto.
whether there were any .arket surveys
that miqht be generated for that type
•
. ,~-... ,
Mr~ Ely said a surv~y done hy Hathaway Associates of people 65 to
75 years old indicated it wa~ a place where they 'Wanted to live~
He said. the only reason Webster House was soun(j financially was
because ~.he averaqe age was 10 years older~ Many times the people
cou1~ not pass the physical and could not obtain residency. He was
not certainl based on the cost of the ur.its and the dmmsizing,
whether the project coyld be done, but he wanted the opportunity t~
try.
Steve Player, 1874 Guinda Street. supported what the project would
accomplish at that location. There were ar~uments in support of
Lytton IV which would provide housing in Palo Alto for people who
had low to moderate incomes, and a similar argument was being made
in support of The Hamilton project which provided a housing market
not available in the CitYa The city was being asked to provide
amonq the housing stuck a particular type of housing which could
adequately serve ,il certain niche-of tt-.e population that miqtt
otherwise be forced to leave palo Alto~ He was on the Board at
Channing House and verified that the bi9gest d~nd at Channing
House was for the larger two-bedroom units~ The de~and was now a
1Cj-year wait. He believed the develDpers had been very responsive,.
during the extensive preparation for the public hearing, not only
to what was heard from the staff and the Planning commission but
also tQ what was heard from the neighborhood as to the appropriate
use ot the site~ That type of density and F .A.R :had to be provided
for the project to work, ol!nd the PC wa.s being requested because the
RM-40. RM-30. and RM-l.~ zones would no"C work for that type of
development where common areas were necessary to provide the
services ~ There bad been ar9WDents from both sides on the
appropriateness or inappropriateness of public benefit at the
sites~ He clarified the proposal was not being suggested in lieu
of the seven BMR units that were required by the statute ~ He said
the memorandum fram ~our Council members dated November 18, l.992.
was initiated throu9h discussions and suggested a type of public
be.nefit that could be very creative and innovative and could make
a lasting, far-reaching impact on the community. He said the
statut-e for the PC stated tbat-& component-foJ:;.-tbe PC would be a
substantial public benefit that would not be available by any other
type of zoning~ It did not :mention on-site or off-site publi.t::
benefits. He thought the determination of what was an adequate
public benefit belonqea to the Council. The proposal was befo~e
the Council for conceptual approval, not for detailed analysis of
the project. The Council needed to determine whetbe:r the proposal
made by the developers for the puhlic benefit fUnction vas
leqitiaate, was appropriate under the zoning ordinance, would
provide an ongoing public/private partnership I and would serve a
large number of seniors in th£ community.
council Member Wheeler asked about the size and number of two
bedroom units at the Chann ing House.
l'.r~ Player said he did not have those figures available that
evening but would supply the information to the Council at a later
date~ He said the aevelopment proposed tor The Hamilton was
different from the Channing House which made the public benefit
l.1/30/92 69-466
.-
..
"" .
-._-_ ~.-.... : ______ IOfiiiiii~
offered possible. There v~s no other housing in Palo Alto like the
proposed project.
Arthur Bodin, M.D., 555 Middlefield Road, was a resident of Palo
Alto since 1965 and would speak on behalf of the Board of Directors
and staff of the Ment~l Research Institute~ The Mental Re&earch
Instltute had a history of interest in the problems of the elderly,
yet the Board and stat.! voted unanimously to oppose the project
~CBU5e it would impact their work significantly. He noted that
more of the residents seemed to favor the project and more of those
who worked in the area did not favor it a~d explained that was
because the residents would be away from the area during ~uch of
t.he time the activity would occur.. The people who worked in the
area would be considerably affected. He said Mr. Hill had visited
his :facilities and had not realized that both of the traininq
suites 'Were on the second floor. The noise was already bad on
Middletield Road, and building a four-story structure would qreatly
impact those traininq suites~ The parkinq was even aore critical
since. seven parking spaces were recently removed due to the
narrowing of the lane. on Hamil tOI) Avenue. The building would
create more demand for parking at peak hours which were also the
peak hours for family therapy. The concern was that the bulk of
the building was out of ch.e.racter for the neighborhooa. He was
alarmed whten a communication "from the City indicated the block:
would now be unbalanced and th~ city might start thinking about
building at the other end of the ~lock.
Lee Wieder, ~37 Middlefield Road, said be liveq and worked about a
half a block from the project an~ would be i~pacted most of the
time by the proposed project. He had considered the project
carefully as a resident, business owner~ and land use consultant.
He thought the proposed project would have a positive influence on
his home value or more likely no influence either way.. As a.
resident, he would love to be the recipient of the public benefit
since the project i~pacted his neighborhood, but he understood the
ordinance did not stipulate that public benefits needed to be
realized on the property itself or in the immediate neiqhborhood.
It ~ade sense that the public benefit be a logical cor~ection to
the type of project proposed.. An endowment :fund for the senior
population of the City ~as an excellent idea. esp£cially one that
would ensure the continuation of existing services for seniors in
perpetuity. He wanted to know the number of seniors in the City
who would be assured of L~cse direct services and for bow long as
a result of the endowment fund. As a business owner, he. 'Would also
be dramatically affected, but it was in a positive sense rather
than a negativE sense. As a land use consultant, Hamilton Avenue
bet~een Middlefield Road and Webster Street was a logical transi
tion between higher density building mass aj,d height. He said the
city had begun the process ror updating the comprehensive Plan, and
the proposal· conformed to most of those policies and qoals. After
reviewing the traffic studies~ there ~as no question the proposed
project would result in less traffic than uncler the existing
conditions. He said an open forum was planned tor December 10,
1992, to discuss the issues. He said one of the housing element
objectives was -to maintain a diversity of housing upportunities
11/30/92 69-467
-.-.----~
/-
and ;.~ovide a variety of housing types and sizes, a number of
ownership and rental houses, and full range of Lousinq c~sts.·
Bob 'Moss,. 4010 Orme Street, rem.inded the Council the proj~ct
required a land use decision and was a public policy issue, not a
debate on tbe merits of the individuals~ The question was whether
er not the project was the right size and confiquration and whether
the benefits were appropriate. He had ill problem with both the
project design and with the benefits. He had no obje~tion to a
project tor high-income seniors, but the project 'Wou ,1 replace
affordable housing units with housing for seniors. New fo~dable
construction should be provided for families if existing housing
were removed. Anything else would make the job/housing imbalance
worse. He found it remarkable that the City was beinq asked to
subsidi:r.e people 'Who had the means to obtain hO'J.sinq without
subsidies. Be referred to the memorandwa from four Council Me~rs
dated November 18, 1992, which proposed that since it 'Was senior
housing, contributions should be made to the sec and the Senior
Center. Be said there was no assurance that once td~e endowment vas
provided, a future Council would not use the fact that an endowment
existed to reduce future fun4ing for the sec. He questioned why
the endowment was for seniors since there 'Were othe.r worthy
orqanizations that coul~ be funaed and alsD questioned what
exaction would be held from the developers, where would it stop,
and where was it rational~ It was a dangerous precedant~ The City
should establish a clear nexus, and he urqed the Council to adopt
a policy that if existing units were beinq removed from a housing
project, L~e proper replacement would be additional new housing
uni t5 . Be thought the F. A. R. was 20 percent too hiqh and the
parking requira-ents were inadequate.
Herb Borock., 2731 Byron stree.t, agreed 'With Mr~ Player that a
conceptual approval of a PC zone was beinq requested, but the
Council did not have legislation that permittee! that approval" Two
years ago the Council rejected a request by staff to amend the PC
zone~ The PC ordinance provided that when the Planning commission
objected to a preliminary review of.a·PC,-that.was.the end of·it~
He said Mr~ Playe~ suggested that it was a fee-simple condominium
project. but in co~parison 65 percent of the entry fee at webster
House went to medical costlS~ The project·.s financial picture
needed to be. clear both in terms of tile buy-ir.. equity, and monthly
fees, and the costs for the project were important because a
comparability was needed to determine the BHR contribution. He
referred to his letter dated November 24, 1992 (on file in the
Clerk's Office), regarding implementation of the BKR pro9ra.~ He
referred to several possibilities for another location for the
project and said Program 9 of tbe Comprehensive Plan provided a way
to make those trade-offs.. He did not believe the project met those
trade-offs~ It had been suggested that~ instead of e PC zone, a
lower density in between the current RM-15 be proviaed.. If Council
did that, it would lose the ability to link the rezoning to the
particular type of project that was being proposed because neither
of the projects had public benefit component6~ He believed it
should still be a PC zone even if it were made a smaller density.
11/30/92 69-468
•
John ~Jald, 261 creekside Drive, said he believed the conceptyal
approval by the Council ~as based on one "issue-Palo Alto was one of
the greatest communities in the world. The residents of the City
were becoming older, and there was a need t? have residential
fillcilities which did not rp.quire as much l:Ilaintenance~ He sa.w
nothinq but overwhelminq public benefit from the project, and the
project would not impact a large re5idential area. It was !i
beautiful buildinq and would support the Comprehensive Plan's
housing element. He recommend&d the Council's approval.
Allen Brauer, 630 university Avenu~, said as 6 phjsician he was
familiar with and supported the special needs of seniors l but he
was concerned about the traffic since the.re vas already a great
deal of activity on the street and parking 'Was a significant
problem. He said the Webster street garage seemed reasonable since
it was only a block and a half way, b1Jt that d.istance seemed
unacceptable to a large n\lmber of his clients. He said disruptions
had been significant durin9 a small project of undergrounding the
cable, and be knav B project of that size would cause mor~ noise
and disruptions than the cable project and would create a signifi
cant hardship to his clients. He had made personal appe~rances
before the ARB and bsd dealt with the Building Division and zoning
ofticials regarding same minor construction to his buildinq. He
had had detailed arquments on the ac:c<eptable di!yliqht plane and
sign height for his project which seemed unfair co:opared to the
level of exceptions that was beinq requested ~y the devslopers fo:
such is :aassive project.. He &aid zoning existed tor a purpose, and
a zoninq change required a coapelling, overwhelming ne.ed as a
specific publio benefit. It was clear that none of the favorable
arguments Added up to an overwhelming public henefit. The public
benefit should be site spe:cifici otherwise, it represented the
specter of zoninq for &&1e. He ""-as outraged at the. unfair
discrimination aqa.inst individuals in the City that 'Were at a
disadvantage compared to wealthy consortiums.. He thought the
benefit of living within walking distance of the [)oTotmtOWT. was a.
luxury rather than ill need since very few basic necessities were
~vailable. He was in favor of chang~ when there ~as a benefit.
Loren Brown, 633 Kelloqq Avenue. one of the developers for the
project, said if the council reviewed the other senior projects
that had been developed over the years in Palo ~lto, none of them
wt)uld meet the current z.oning. He believed senio.r projects hael
special needs with respect to social, nutritional, and health
issues which required additional square footaqe. The City needed
to have senior projects, and if the mechanism to develop those
projects were not there in the future, those kinds of projects
would not De developed. He said several la~e bites haa already
been taken out of the project, and two additional lots had been
purchased to minimize the impact to the neighbors. The project had
been downsized several ti=es in both square footage and the number
ot units in an attempt to co~e as close as possible to the RM-40
zoning. Most of the objections ~ere related to parking and bulk,
and a traffic report that h~d been submitted to staff sho~ed that
the traffic would be ~e91iqible and would improve the sltuatio~.
He said his firm would be the construction finn involved in the
project" and the construction would probably take approximately one
69-469
\
·'"'~1
-' ",
-."
,
/"
year. Once the under9round parkinq structure was co~pleted~ it
would provide 70 parking spaces tor housing construction personnel
and would, Jl..inillize tr.e.f!ic durill9 the construction period.
Mr. Hill emphasized the concept was developed a lonq time a90~ and
the developers of Webster House had looked at the site. There was
a history to the site acquisition, and there was a lot of thinqs
that made the site special. He said the issue of streets on three
sides was really important and t.~e site was not acquired. to
inconvenience the ~mmercial neighbors. Most of the block had
prior existinq nonconfo~ing use which created some of the problems
that were already there. He said other parcels were considered and
there was no zone in Palo Alto that peraitted the development of
that type of project. The Webster Bouse had a F.A.R. of 2.4~ was
considered a model for the project~ and had an inherent public
benef it hecause it provided a place for the. kina of people who
would be living at The Ham.ilton~ He said at the neighborhooa
meetin~ on December 10, 1992, the people wbo were &ost affected
would have a chance to voice their concerns, and he hoped staff
would be available to answer some of those questions. He said the
results of that meeting would be co:mr~icated to the Council.
council Member Kniss asked about the schedule. for the project since
the item would probably not return to the Council until the end of
,january 1.993.
Mr. Hill bad hoped th8t the item would return to the council before
the January 25~ 1993, meeting~
Vice Mayor MeCoVn recalled that Webster House vas the fir6t
facility that involved ~ medical package as part of the purchase.
She queried whether eo medical pllck.aqe would be pa.rt of the proposed
project ..
. Hr .. Hill replied yes~ He understood Webster Houtoe was not a t'ee
sizple ownership, and it was a health care and residential packaqe.
It did not have the benefits of ·Tb~ Hamilton-which.W8s-a reinvest
Dent of the funds when the people'& homes sold~ The Hamilton was
like-the Stratford, the Peninsula Regent, the Forum, and the
Waterford whic..'l were poP\.I.lar tor income and property tax purposes.
The Palo Alto Medical Foundation's clinic was a prospect for the
health care component, but the specifics were not yet available~
Vice Mayor McCown queried whether the health care package would be
optional.
PI. Hi~l said no; it would be part of the package which raised a
lot of questions with respect to how DlUch o£ the investment a
person kept~ The other projects had situations in which some of
the .or~ey from the resales went back to the developer or ~ .as
proposed ~or The Hamilton, to senior programs as a public benefit.
Vice Mayor McCo~~ queried whether the description of Webster House
in the PC %one included wording that incorporated the health care
element and h~ the PC zone for the project would be set up.
11/30/92 69-470
-~------"---------'---___ "B ___ "'-~
Council Member Cobb said Mr. Schultz questioned 'Whether or not
moneys were available to provide the kind of endowment that had
been outlined. He van~ed to see some numbers that would confirm
the basis for the endowment bef ore the item returned to the
Council.
Mr. Hill said it was very difficult to prepare actuarial studies
due to tbQ death rates, and the numbers would have to be predicated
upon the average stay in the projeot which was around 12 years.
council Kember SiDitian clarified the applicant had responded to
two different elements that were proposed in the memorandum dated
November 18. 1992. In order to create an endowment, a period of
time needed to elapse for the units to turn over and for a percent
age trom the resale price to be placed in the endowment.
Mr. Schultz suggested that if the endowment were drawn 'down over
that S~ period of time, a large enough principal base would not
be created to keep the endowment going in perpetuity~ He rete.rred.
tD the .lament in the ~emorandum which spoke about a $45,000 cost
to the developer, and the developer had suqqested .a $50,000
contribution per year over 10 y6ars~ During that ~O-year period,
the a:::tual cos.t of those limited number of programs would bE!: borne
out of pocket, year after year by the applicant. During that same
lO-year period ana perpetuity thereafter, the endowment fund would
be building from the percentage of the sale proceeds. Those two
thinqs in tandem were designed to create the endowment.
Mayor Fazzino said Mr. Hill had raised so~ issues that were not
relevant to the council's dec-ision~ He thought eight weeks between
the public hea.ring and the Council's decision making was a very
long period of time and strongly recommended that the item return
to the Council on January 11, 1993.
Mayor Fazzino declared the Public Hearing closed~
RECESS 9:50 P.M~ to 10:Q5 p,~,
Mayor Fazzino understood there was .a neighborhood me.eting on
~ December 10, 1992, and that a representativ@ from the Planning
Department would be there to answer questions. He said the
neighborhood meeting bad been initiated by the applicants and some
of the neiqbbors~ He encouraqed those kind.s of meetings but
emphasized the formal city decision-making pr-ocess was separa.te
frem that meeting~
Council Member Simitian said additional .aterial on the item dated
November 25, 1992, had been delivered to the council prior to the
Council meeting, and he queried whether that information had been
officially received by the staff.
Mr. Schreiber said It copy had been obtained before the Council
:aeetinq that evening. He said copies would be reproduced and
provided to the public and the City Clerk's Office.
Council Member Simitian referred to a comment in the ~aterial dated
November 25, 1992, regarding variances and understood the applicant
•
.'
to represent that the project as presently designed no longer
required a variance. He queried ~bether that was correct.
Hr. S~breiber said the applicant stated in the November 25, 1992,
;.e:c"'i..e;-~t the ..,:.,ieet would be redesigned so there 'Would be no
variances, but stafi had not received .any dravinqs that had
accomplished that yet. staff had recommended in the original staff
report that if the proje~~ were approved, it should be vithout any
variances.
council Heaber Simitian 'Wan~"ed ate ~f' IS cC1lDltents on whether or not
the applicant had. successfully i. icated a :manner in which the
project could 90 forward without variances when the item returned
to the Council in January 1993. He said there was a number of
changes made to accoZllllodate the input troll the. cOlIDluni ty, the
Council, Planning Commission t and staff, and he q~eried whether the
.odel before the Council that eveninq accurately reflected. the last
best efforts of the applicant.
Mr. Hill responded yes.
Council Member simitian was concerned, based on the Planning
COIIlIlission's t~stimony and his own observation of the earlier
plans, about the bulky appearance of the p~oject along Middlefield
Road. It appeared two changes bad been made to the proj ect since
it went before the Planning Commission. He said th.ere was a
lengthy discussion in the staff report (CKR:514:92) about trees and
queried. the status of the mature stroet trees along Hamilton Avenue
and. Middlefield. Road.
Senior Planner Virqinia Warheit said the project would. not add any
curb cuts and would only close curb cuts on Hamilton Avenue; no
street trees would be lost on Hamilton Avenue. The six large trees
on the parking 1 at would tie reaoved.
·Council Member simitian asked for staff to comment on the proposed
project's ability. to retain. the ~street...trees_or_.provide. mature
6treet trees. He urrderstocd from the sta.ff report (CHR: 514: 92)
that there was an initial traffic stu~y and a request for-an
additional traffic study.. He asked whether the second traffic
study bad been submitted.
Ms. Warbeit said there was no request for-an additional traffic
studYt but the applicant vent back to the traffic analyst and asked
for a reeva1uation. She believed that information was attached to
the letter dated November 25, 1992.
Council Member Simitian asked whether staff believed the original
traffic study submitted was accurate.
Ms. Warbeit said yes. The difference between thlE: two traffic
stUdies was that the second study was based upon standard models
for senior projects and the original analysis was based on
standards for any multiple-family project. staff believed since it
was not a normal senior project, the first analysis was reasonable.
11/30/92 69-472
•
council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the~e had ever been an off
site public benefit for a housing project.
Mr ~ Schreiber said ye.s. He was not prepared that evening to offer
details on that project .
. Council Member Rosenbaum asked that infonaation be provided before
the next Council lIIeeting on the item. He said the PC zoning
ordinance stat~d that "Development of the site under the provisions
of the rlann2d Community district will result, in public benefits
not othervi.e obtainable by application of the regulations of
qeneral districts or combining districts. He asked whether there
were some oth~r public benefits.
Hr. CalonnE said the specific purposes of the Ordinance, Section
18.68.010, st~ted -the planned community district is particularly
intended for unified, compreh~sively planned developments which
are of substantial public benefit.-He also referred to Section
18.68.060(b) which called particular attention to the requirement
that -the Pla~"1in9' Commission and City Council cite the public
benefits expected to res.ult from use of the. planned community
district.1:I He sili4 those references reflected aTl interpretation of
public benefit.
Council Kember RosenbaUlll understood thllt to mean that a project
could go to a PC if a certain structure could not be done under the
existing zoning. He said the benefit of mor,ey cOllld not be
obtained if the existi:,q zoning were used.
Mr. calonne oaid an opinion could be prepared that 'Would "ttempt to
catalog the previous actions to flush out the interpretation that
bad been qiven to that section over the years. Kr .. Schreiber
pointed out correctly that that was an interpretative question for
the Council. He said the phrase expressed durinq the public
heariFl9 of a concept of inherent benefit 'Wal5 refle.cted in the
ordinance where it stated -the findings 8M!l specifically cite
publio benefits expected to result from" use" of the PC district~·
which seemed to be referring to something inherent about the site.
He did not believe the Ordinance precluded benefits off-site and
specifica.lly cited: the benefits from the use of that specific
citation did not prevent the finding of benefits elsewhere as well.
Council Member Rosenbaum said Mr. Borock raised an interest point
reqarding the BHll. He recalled that Council had decided that
5 percent of value should be provided 'for the 14. u..:;its from the
st. Mark's Episcopal Church project in lieu of providing 10 percent
BMR. The 'proposed project had both the 10 percent and the
20 percent BMR because rental housing 'Would be removed. The
proposal was 'for 7 units at approximately $100,000 each or
$700,000, whereas 5 percent of the value of the project might be
$1.5 million. He asked for an explanation o~ the establishment of
the BMR ~or the p~oject.
Mr. schreiber said for many years the City's policy had been to try
to obtain units rather than dollars. The in-lieu fee was deliber
ately set high to discourage the provi$ion of dollars and encourage
11/30/92 69-473
. -'~
the provision of units. He said in st. Mark's situation, it was
not feasible to provicle a unit. There was a 20 percent SMR
requirement for the proposed proiect which translated to the
7 units. At the beqinnin9 of the discussion, how to o:;et the units
WaS determined, and once that was figured out, the issue of trying
to get collars was not pursued.
Council Member Rosenbaum said the
purchase 7 units, whereas 5 percent of
for St. Mark's, could buy 15 units~
$700,000 would be used to
value, which was appropriate
Mr. Schreiber said there was a discrepancy, and the city's history
had been that oftentimes there had been substantial difficulty
translating doliars into units. The general policy over the ye~rD
had been to obtain units out of a d.evelopment rather than the
dollars.
Council Member Rosenbaum said staff suggested there was a service
being provided by the applicant that was not provided by
st. Mark's. He asked whether the applicant had the responsibility
to find the _even units.
Mr. Schreiber said yes.
Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the services of the Palo
Alto Housing corporation (PARC) would be used.
Jtr. Schreiber said it was the applicants' responsibility in
consultation with staff and the PAHC to find the units. The
applicants had to locate the units. acquire those units, complete
all the legal transactions, and once the units were under the
applicants" control, transfer them over. He said that whole
process took a lot of time and energy and oftentimes delayed
translating the dollars into units.
Council Ji!:e:mber Rosenbaum said two ciifferent forms of publio benefit
had been 8ug'qested, i.e." _the _sev:en_.units . aOO __ the .. alternative
proposed by the four council Members, and the common denominator
was money. He wanted staff to evaluate the present value of both
proposal&.. He said the applicant men'tioned that the F .. A. R. ·.,as
fairly strict and that at the time Webster House was developed, the
F~A.R. restriction did not exiEt~ He said during the past few
years, the staff, Pla~J1inq commission, and council had decided the
strict F .. A.R. served a purpose. He wanted a review of the
reasoning' behind those restrictions and lIo"bether it vas justifiable.
Council Member Huber asked whether there had been a situation in
which existing housing was purchased for BMRs as opposed to
accepting mon~y for building new units. He wanted to know the
current F.A.R. for the existing buildings on the property so a
ccmparison could be made between what was proposed and what was
already there ..
Council Member Wheeler said at the Council meetinq in January 1993,
she wanted the statf reoort to focus at the beginning on the kinds
of q~estions the councii should address in the discussion end what
l1IJO/92 69-474
,
•
should be avoided. She thought the Planning commission did fin
e~cellent job of brinqinq to the floor some Teal policy issuefi.
speeific poliey questions reqarding the rationale of the F.A.F. as
it related. to lIIultiple-family projects needed to be dealt with~
She wanted staff/s response to the evidence heard from people who
bad done 5i.i~ar &enior housing projects in other communities that
it would be impossible to build such housing within the confines of
t..'l~ City's T.A.R. standards. She reconfirmed that :Mr. Player
promised to provide the statistics on the \o;aiting list and unit
sizes for the Channing" House. she wanted to know if the trip
generation figures that appeare~ in the staff report (CMR:514:92l
took into account the service and quest trips to and from the site.
Couneil Member Cobb asked Mr. Calonne if there waS any 'Way to
clarify that the endowment would be locked into certain kinds of
activit.ies. He asked whetber there 'Was some way to cre.ate a
prererence mechanism fer the citizens in Palo Alto.· He vante~ to
be clear wbether or-not the public benefit had to be on the site.
Council Kember lCniss asked how housing could: be achieved if the
~ensity were not increased ana where that housinq would be located
if it was not put in the industrial areas. Sbe asked whether that
type o~ housing vas available in surrounding communities and what
had been the experience of those communi ties \w'ith that type or
housing.
Council Member Andersen was unclear as to ho'&!' the e.qui ty and the
health care issues would be addres~ed and how the amounts would be
derived for the public benefit proposed. He asked for staff's
response to the letter from the applicant dated November 25, 1992,
a.nd, in particular, to 'the details ciescribed 'With reqard to the
public benefit proposal and ~n an51ysis of any potential problems
that council should be aware of.
Hr. Schreiber said the applicant had a better understanding of the
relationEhip of the equity and bealth care components of the public
benefit and should respond to Council Member'Andersen's question
rather than staff.
Council Member Simitian asked that when staff provid~d the present
value of the public benefit proposals,. staff elso provide the
Council vi~n some information or assessment as to public benefit
that would be derived from those various proposals. There was a
distinction to be ~ade between the cost to the applicant and the
present value of the contribilcion, and it was the Council's
responsibility to assess whether or-not the public benefit was
sUfficient to meet the requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code. A qreater weight needed to he 9iven to hOW' much public
benefit was derived reqa~dless of What the cost was.
Council Member Kniss asked whether there was a way to protect the
endowment so that it did not become part of the expected amount to
be given to the Senior Center or the SCC. She asked whether the
exclusion of the F.1t.~R . .trOD. the common areas 'Was a reasonable
argument.
11/30/92 69-475
o.
council Member Andersen as~ed whether the applicant had explored
parking alternatives in the area Which miqht allow use of parkinq
by those people most adversely impacted.
Council Member Rosenbaum aaked whether there was consensus on the
part of the Council that Mr. Calonne would prepare II. brief opinion
on off-site public benefits.
Mayor Fazzino said t...'le Council 'Was:; supportive of that request, and
• formal aotion was not needed.
_orzOK: ~yor Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss~ to continue the
item to the Council meeting on Monday, 3anuary l~, ~993.
lfOTl:OIf P AaSEn 8 -0 t McCown a.bs ent.
9. puBLIC HU'BING: Planning commission and Architectural Review
Board Recommendation to introduce the revised ordinance
amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Municipal Fee
Schedule to establish II De!;iqn EnhanCe.D!ent Exception (DEE)
process (co~tinued fro2 11/16/92)
Hayor Fazzino declared the Public: Hear-inC) open.
requests frolll the public to speal-, he declared the
Closed.
Rece i ving no
Public Hearing
IlOTZOJf',I COWlcil Member HUber meved, secondea by Cobb, to approve
the Planning ccmaission, Architectural Review Board and staff
recommendations to adopt the Negative Declaration ana introduce the
revised ordinance amendin<] the Palo Alto Municipal Code and 't;be
Municipal Fee. Schedule to establish e. desiqn enhancement exception
(DEE) process for cOlIDDercilll, multiple-family or any other
development subject to architectural review under Chapter 16.48.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled -ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Add.inq Chapter 1.8.91 and Amendinq
Chapter 16.48 (Architectural_Review}_of the_Palo Alto Munici-_
pal Code and Amendin9 the Municip~l Fee Schedule Relating to
a Design Enhancement Exception Process·
.IIO't%OII' PASSEl) 8-0, MCCown absent.
10. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning commission Recommendation to
introduce the proposed ordinance bending Title 21 (continued
from 11/16/92)
Kayor Fazzin(:) declared the Public Hearing open ..
requests from the public to speak, he declared the
Closed.
Receivinq no
Public Hearing
KO'l%OB: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve
the Planninq .commission recomaenclation to adopt the categorical
exemption and the proposed ordinance amending Title 21.
Ordinance 1st Beading entitled ·Ordinance of the Council ot
the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 21 of the Palo Alto
11/30/92 69-476 .--.,-------_.----
..
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
:Regular Meeting
.January Ilt 1993
ORAL COMMUN!CAT!ONS 70-10
~NUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 16, 23, AND 30, 1992 70-10
~~ contract with Aratex Services, Inc. for Uniform P.ental
and Cleaning . . • • . • .. • .. ...... .. 70-10
2. wahler « Associates for COnE~~tant Agreement with
Baylanas Duck Pond CiP 19104 .• 70-10
3. contract with Systems for Public Safety for Backqrouna
Investigation of Police Officer-Candidates .. .. .. . . . 70-10
4. A9'l"eements 'With Adolescent Counselinq Services and
Co~unity Association fer Retarded, Inc. for Rehabilita
tion Projects Funded by the community Development Block
Grant program .......................... .... 70-l0
5. PUBLIC BWING: Planning commission rec::omDendation re
Application to rezone property from RM-15 t Low Density
Multiple Family Zone, to Planne.d Community Zone, to
construct a senior condominium project, for property
located at 651 Hamilton Avenue, 536-576 MiQd~efield Road,
and 523-575 Byron Street {continued from 11/30/92) • 70-11
6. policy and Services Committee recommendation re Approval
of the proposed lanquaqe in the City Attorney's report
and. also for staff to develop wordinq as we.ll as language
which could be used by way: __ of a preamble at public
hearings' whiCll'explained-rules' -and ·procedures-involvinci
Quasi-Judicial Matters .. . . . ~ . . . . oO· .. .. ...... 70-26
7. Finance Committee recommendation re Approval of the staff
recommendation to create a Utilities Billing System (UBS)
Renovation and Auqmentation project in the 1992-97
capital Improvement Program (elP) ana to approve a Budget
Amendment O~dinance to appropriate $320,000 to the 1992-
93 CIP of the Utilities Department' 5 operating budget
utilities Billing System • • • . . • • . . • . • • . . 70-32
01/11/93 70-8
8. The Financ~ Committee recommendation re Staff's analysis
of four possible adjustments to the Electric Fund Reserve
policy be forwarded to the Utilities Advisory Commis-
sion • • • • • . . . . • • • . . . , • . . • • • • . . 70-33
g~ Finance Committee recommendation re Support of the
expansion of cablecasting of Historic Resources Board and
Human Relations commissiol".t meeting's and include explora
tion of cablecastinq Palo Alto Unified School District
(PAUSD} Board meetings and Comprehensive Plan Citizens
Advisory Committee meetings . ~ • ~ . . ~ ~ ~ • • • • 70-34
10. Finance committee recommendation re Ap}XIintment of a
subccmmittee'of two members of the Finance Co~ittee to
work in conjunction with the. two members of City/School
Liaison committe.e to a?proach the Palo Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD) to address a series of issue.s:
related to the water rates . • ~ ~ . . ~ • • • . ~ ~ • 70-36
11. OrcUnance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1992-93
to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Tax Auditinq
services .. .... ~ ...... ~ • . . ~ • . 70-38
~OURNMENT: Tbe meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m .. 70-38
70-9
The City council of the City of palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 7:15 p.~.
Mayor McCown announced that the City Council held a Special Meeting
at IS: 00 p.m .. in the HWiI.en Resources/council Conference Roo;:n for th.e
pCrpoS8 of a Closed Session re personnel pursuant to Government
Code 554957; and re Instructions to Real Estate Negotiators
regarding ne90~iations with Mr. Ken Jones regarding KFS Baylands
Easement pursuant to Government Code 554956.8.
PRESENT: Andersen, Cobb, Fatzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown,
Rosenbaum, Simitian, Wheeler
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Naphtali Knox, 1025 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding The Cali:orni,
General Plan Glo§sery published by The California Planning
Roundtable being made available to the Comprehensive Plan citizens
Advisory Commit~ee (on file in the Clerk's Office).
Jill Kaleson l 280) Kipling, spoke regarding the Shoreline
Amphitheatre issue and requested a breakdown of the $l5,000 spent
on the subject.
Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street$ spoke regarding the Palo Alto
Harbor ..
APPROVAL 07 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9. 16. 23. AND 30, 1992
KO'l':ION: council Member Simitian moved,
approve the Minutes of November 9, .16,
submitted. -
KO"l'IOII PASSED 9 -0 •
CONS ENT CAI,ENQAR
seconded by Kniss, to
23, and JO, .1.992, as
KOTION! Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Cobb, to a.pprove
Consent calendar Item Nos. 1-4.
1. Contract with ArateJC Services, Inc. for Uniform Rental and
• _." ___ ~_C ~_e_an!nq ~ ~ __________________________ ~ ______ -"_ ~___ _ _ _ _________ _
2. Consultant Agreement with Wahler &: Associates for Bay lands
Duck Pond CIP 19104; Change Orders not to exceed $2,448
3. Contract with Systems for Public Safety for Background
Investigation of Police Officer Candidates
~. Aqreements with Adolescent Counseling Services an~ community
Association for Retarded, Inc. for Rehabilitation Projects
Funded by the Community Development BlOCK Grant Program
IIOTIOII PASSED 9-0.
01/11/93 70-10
tlNFlHISHEP eUSIN~S
S. pttBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re
Application to rezone p~operty from RM-15, Lov Density
Multiple Family Zone, to Plannec Community Zone, to ~onstruct
a senior condomini'l;Jll project, for proper-ty located. at 651
Hamilton Avenue. 536-576 Middlefield. Road, and 523-575 Byron
street (continued f~om 11/30/92) (Public Hearinq Closecl)
Mayor McCown noted the public hearing 'Was held on No .... ember 30,
1.992, and vaS now closed. The item 'Was before the council for
discussion and decision making. The staff report {CMR: 117: 93)
provided information in !esponse to questicns asked by the council.
council MelQber Cobb aske.c. if
flexibility was available
development's bulk.
the applicant hacl responded to vhether
'With respect to red~etion of the
Jim Rill, President, Bamilton Avenue Properties., Inc., 1010 Harriet
street, said there was no flexibility based on their analysis of
~.e warket that existed tor those kinds of units.
council Member Cobb asked whethe~ anything could be done ~itb the
architecture to pull some of the bulk away from the street.
Mr. Hill said ye~, along Middlefield ~oad.
cour~cil Member Si.m.itian !Said the.re was !Ii 9 percent discount rate
applied in establisbinq the present value of the public benefits,
and be asked the current rate of return on the City's investment
portfolio.
Assistant Finance Director Kevin Rip~r s:aid the current rate of
return on the City's investment portfolio was slightly under 7
percent.
cc;.-uncil Member Silli tian asked whether that was the average rate or
the marqinal rate and 'Wbat the rate would be if investments were
put in the portfolio today.
Mr. Riper responQed it vas the ;average rate, and the marqinal rate
would be substantially lower •
. council--Member-Simitian-asked.-whether 4" plus -percent"-would-' be:-a--
fair esti1aate.
Mr. Riper said 4 percent would be correct if the city went out for
one year on a Certificate of Deposit.
council M~r Simitian asked the approximate size of the City's
investment portfolio.
Hr. Riper said it was approximately $175 million~
council Heaber simitian referred to the endowment option on page 3
of the s~ff report {CHR:117:93) which stated the present value
01/11/93 70-11
/
".-:c;t?~-. r
,~.
-',:';" -
would be evaluated ~ased on a constant purchas~ price of $1 million
p6r unit~ While there was the const~nt purchase price, there v~s
the discount rate over time Which would be applied to the receipts.
He undustood the constant purchase price "'as dra..,.,. from the
submittal re.ceived from the applicant. rf a discount rate were
used to evaluate the proceeds., then appreciatic-n or inflation WO;Jld
have t? be added onto the million dollar sales price each year.
Mr. Riper said a project change up or down of purchase price could
be built into the analysis over a period of time.
r.ouncil Member Simitian said the discount rate projected tor'the
next 30 years reflected both the value of being able to use someone
else's money and the inflation factor during that 30-year period.
Hr. Riper said that was 'Correct.
Council Kember Simitian asked whether a rel!sonable approacb would
be to include a calculation fer the inflation factor in terms of
the impact of those purchase prices ~hich were held constant over
the same :3 0 years.
Mr. Riper said yes."
Mayor McCown referred to a letter from the Palo Alto Housinq
Corporation {PARe) dated January 6, 1993, that commented on its
evalulition of the Below Mar~et Rate (BHR) proposal of seven
additional units and how it measured up aqainst the way in-lieu
cor.tributlons had been handled on other projects. The PA}{C
suqgested the project was not comparable to what had been asked
from other in-lieu contributions.
Directo~ of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
the objective cf the BMR program was to obtain units rather than
dollars. The starting point of the discussion with the applicant
was units and the in-lieu payments as set out in the Coltlprehe.nsive
Plan were for situations in Which .a satisfactory method for
obtaining units could not be obtained. staff believed there was a
satisfactory way of obtaining units fo~ the proposed project _hich
was consistent with the City's policy.
council Member Wheeler questioned the parking situation and the
availability of on-street parking being jeopardized, and she asked
~hether-:'any" "·-of":':' tIle--:--S"treets-=-tnat-. bOrdered -:'-the -projecft"," " i"7e-;-; ".
Middlefield Road, Hamilton Avenue, Byron Street~ had hourly parking
restrictions.
Transportation Enqineer Carl Stoffel said those three blocks had
unrestricted parking4
council Member Wheeler " asked whether the City had the ability to
place restrictions on one or more of those streets.
Hr. Steffel said yes t but it "',as usually limited to the streets
that were all coamerci~l an1 contiguous to other blocks.
01/11/93 70-12
council Member Wheeler clarified there was restricted parking on
portions ot Hamilton Avenue which might be contiguous to an area
that was restricted.
Mr. stoffel balieved there was restricted parking on portions of
Hamilton Avenue that might not be contiguous to an area that ~as
restricted.
Council Member Huber clarified the current proposec p:r:'oject 'With
parking would not handle two cars per unit.
Mr. Stoffel said that was :erre~t.
Council Member Hube~ clarified the lower number ~as based on the
supposition that a5 a person aged, a secvnd car .as not needea in
a fu.ily.
Senior Planner Virginia Warbeit said as dete~ined by the
ordinance., the parking allocati,on a~commodated the 'required parking
for employees and quests first anc the remaining parkinq vas for
the :residents.. staff believed the project did not require two
parkinq spaces per resident, and the applicant had innicated the
project could 'Work with less than two spaces. The l." parking
space per residenti~l unit allocated Lor the site was a qenerous
parking requirement for quests and employees.
Vice Mayor Kniss asked 'Whether any of the other senior projects had
a special consi~eration that deviated from tha normal on zoning.
Mr. Schreiber said in the last twenty years every senior project
had tQo firlQ a way aroun~ the basic zoning requirements. Senio't'
projects did not tit into the basic frame.work of the Cityts zoning~
Vice Mayor Kniss asked Whether staff had considered looking at
senior housing differently from other projects~
Kt. Schreiber saie no because of the availability of the Pl~,ed
Community (PC] zone as the mechanism for s~~iors or other unusual
developments. Most of the senior projects had involved low-~nd
moderate-income qualifications which sa~isfied most of the public
benefit issues of the ordinance.
Vice -Mayor·· Kniss referred to· "page 8 of -the staff -report
{CMR: 117: 93J· -DoeS· the FAR -includ.e~ cOlllmon-areas?-'-and-asked--whetlier-
a ITno!'lll.al-project would have. a similar ratio between Frivate
living areas and access to units, e.g., stairs and hall~ays, or
whether a different ratio was applieQ to senior projects.
Hr. Schreiber said the breakdown betveen the private living areas
and the access was typical. The rule was l5 to 20 percent of the
total square footage 'Was involved in the access to the units~
Vice Mayor Kniss clarified the unusual part of the figures
presented was the common facilities 'Which were woven into the Floor
Area Ratio (FAR).
01/11/93 70-13
Hr. Schreiber said that was correct.
Vice Mayer Kniss recalled from the Stratford that the COmll!on
facilities usually took up approximately that ratio.
Ms. Warheit deferred to the applicant for further response.
Vice :Mayor Kniss said the congregate facilities had. to have a
particular ratio th~t allowed it to fit into the senior needs and
also fit in 'With the cost figure,s.
Council Kamber Andersen referred to a meeting at the First United
Methodist Church in December 1992 ana asked ~hether the statf vas
involved in that ~eetinq.
MS. Warhait.said she and Hr. Stoffel were present at the meeting.
council Member Andersen asked whether any new infcnetion 'Was
received during that me~ting ~hich had not been presented to the
Council.
MS. warheit said no.
Council Member Andersen had heard from a constituent that consider
ation wa~ being qiven for additional structures being built north
of the proposed project and asked whether there was any basis for
that speculation.
MS. Warbeit said no.
XO!IOll: Council Member Fazzino mcved, seconded by Wheeler, to
approve the project in concept and forwarcl it to the Architectural
Review Board and to the Planning commission for their review and
recomtendaticn.
Mayor McCown sU9'9'e5ted the Council organize :modifications or
amendments to the project issues, i.e., parking, site and design,
and then the pul::lic benefit issue associated with the PC. St.e
clarified the motion included the public benefit that vas discuss~d
at the Planning commission, and if there was a desire to have a
different public benefit consideration, that could be part of a
•
proposed Ul'2.ndment. r
-"---;-council"-Membe'i-s'fmit1.an"-sald-at --vari~us-=--t;.~tQ· in-tire -process the"
application required a variance or variances in order to obtain
approval, and staff indicated it did I believe ;a vari;anca or
variances were appropriate. He agreed with the staff and said the
applicant's recent commur~ication dated November 25, 1992, indicated
the project would be submitted without the necessity of a variance.
He suggested approval of the project be continqent upon no
variances.
MAXER AHD SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the
approval of the project in concept be contingent upon no variance
requests.
Ol/ll/S) 10-14
"/
•
<' .,
•
Council>Member Simitian said as he considered the project and heard
f~cm community members, he kelieved the greatest issue was the size
of the project on the site. The applicant made the argument th3t
th~ bulk or the project had been aQQres~ed in three specific ways:
1.) a.rchitectural design of the project; 2) the placement of the
project on 15 site 'Which was bordered or. three sides by streets
which provided a greater sense of ope~~ess than if the project were
situatea close to other structures on four sides; and J) landscape
architecture which staff responded to in its staff r6port
CCHR:117:9J). He agreed that the applicant. through those three
devices, had s~ccessfully addressed most of the bulk issues except
along the Middlefield Road corridor, which ~as vhere most of the
pedestrian and vehicle traffic would be ~nd there was an unbroken
vertical expanse that ran tt.e length of the project. That area of
the project was problematic in terms of the aesthetics and
preserving a sense of scale in the surrounding neiqhborhooQs~ Be
haa spoken wit..~ the applicant and neighbors and suggested. the
Architectura1 Review Board (ARB) and the Planni..~9 C'tjl!u!is5ion be
directed to work with the applicant to address the appearance of
bulk along Middlefield Road. H~ indicated several projects around
the City broke up that sort of expanse, and it did not mean the
number of units nor the size should be reduced.
IO.UP. 1o!ID IIZCOIimElt AGllZZD TO UlCORPORA'rE INTO 'l'RZ 1I0nOR that the
Architectural Review Soard and the Planning Commission be d.irec~ed
to address the appearance of the. bulk of the project along
Middlefield Road.
council Member R05e~um said the amendments avoided the FAR and
the real cause of the bulk. The City had a set of zoning regula
tions that told property owners ana developers what was elloved~
There WAS room for variances, and the PC zone allowed for excep
tions, The city in 1988 adopted a FAR of 1 which was the "",ximum
for a multiple-family zone, and he believed the proposed 1.75 FAR
resulted in a building that was too :big tor the site. The proje.ct
vas not 50 special, and it the Council approved that proposal, he
could nC't ~o!!~ !..Jly ra'(;.ional ba.sis for disapproval of other projects,
whether senior or family, which came in with a FAR of that
magnitude. It was pointed out that there were large waiting lists
at Webster and Channing Houses and there was ~ lot of interest in
l~er units. The larger units at both of those facilities were
under 1,200 square feet. The proposed proje.ct could have the sallie
--number-of-units with-an average lSiz:e-of-~1;200-square--feet,-e.nd a
"·provision could. be made "for '8 nwnbe:r of extra-"large-units:-The··
whole prcject could then come in with a FAR close to 1.25 which he
did not believe was unreasonable for a senior conqre;ate facility.
He opposed the project in its current fcrm~
CO~lcil Member Fazzino asked where the tYo-hour restricted parking
began and ended in that area.
~J. Stoffel believed it was between Co~r and Webster streets.
Council Member Fazzino clarified there 'Was no restricted parkinq on
Byron Street ..
01/11/93 70-15 -----------,
•
Mr. Stoffel said that was correct~
council M~r Fazzino was concerned about the parkinq issues on
Byron street. He suggested the staff present to the Planning
commission and then to the Council a report on the possibility of
restricted parking, e g~t t~o-hour parking limits on Byron Street
so there could be the assurance of an ongoing movement of automo
biles to meet the needs of the small businesses in that area as
well as the needs of the development. The developers indicateu
there was sUfficient parking' spaces to meet the needs of the
residents and guests, and he did not believe a two-hour parking
restriction dur:'nq the week would create any problems for the
..residents and would preserve options for the clientele of neighbor
ing businesses~
Council Kember Heber asked Whether the maker and se~cnder would be
willinq to consider as an amendme.nt that the developers and
planners investigate whether the.re might be some more parking
available on site. He did not necessarily disagree with ~hat was
currently proposed., but if there 'Were a way to achieve more p2.rking
space, it would solve a lot of problems.
council Kamber Fazzir,o said he would be 1rIillinq to a$k the
developex to work with staff to see about the possibility of
additional parking spaces on site..
Mr~ SChreiber said the staff and applicant had talked about that
issue before. The yay to accomplish more parking spaces would be
to make the undergrourid parkinq garage larger which went into the
setbacks and could substantially curtail the ability to have large
trees on the site. ~h. staff was sympathetic with the applicant's
de.slie to have large trees on the site, but it was an issue worthy
o~ additional investigation.
council Member Simitian was concerned further exploration miqht
limit the appropri.te solutions. There Were other parkinq
facilities in the area that were not used to capacity, and there
might be a way to build in a performance standard so if it turned
out the parking-was inadequate At a later date, some further
acquisition of·parking spaces off-site might be feasible. He was
conce.rned en-site meant to expand the project., and staff should ~
allowed to explore it mor~ broadly_
Council-MiimbiU---Faz-zino-"a·qreed there mIgh"¥ 'be -"anol:,"""tfOri" to use::"under-'
utilized sites a block or two away.
m.ltZR ~ SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE III'I'O TllE KOTIOH that 1)
staff be dire~ted to prepare a report for the Planning commission
on the feasibility of restricted parking in the a.rea of the
p~oposed project; and 2} staff and developer identify additional
on-site parking or other ways to solve the parking problem.
Vice Mayor Kniss understood the applicant approached the church to
the west, and there was no possibility of utilizing its space.
Ms. Warheit said that was correct~
01/11/93 70-16
.<
'-
Mayor HCCovn agreed \to'ith council Member Rosenbaum in terms of
'Wanting to try to attach ill number to 'wIhat \ro'C"ulcl be acceptable as
far as FAR and, therefore, bulk~ She concu~red with the motion of
tryill9' to set design goals to be i!lc.J.dressed as the project went
through the process rather than trying to decide what the number
vas. She questioned what the city accomplished when it addad FARs
to multi-family zones especially in senior projects. She referred
to the FARs fer Lytto~ r and II and Webster House. Lytton I ~as
1.4 FAR, Lytton II was 1.75 FAR, Webster House was 2.' FAR, and
Lytton IV. which was just approved, was 1.22 FAR. She did not know
where the number was between 1.25 FAR and 1.4 FAR. but the proposal
felt too big. She expected the response to the motion to address
that number. She wanted to gIve both the Planning Commission and
the ARB the opportunity to work with the applicant fro~ a design
point of view rather than deciding ahead of time what the numbe~
was. Ultimately, the project \/ould return to the Council for final
approva.l.. She agreed .. ith Council MelDber Rosenbaum that square
footage might have to be dealt with in reality to make the project
work.
council Member Andersen said the question of mass was significant.
The motion provide~ the applicant with the opportunity to try to
address some of the issues, and if that meant reducing some of ~~e
mass and F~~ ~y reducing the size of some of the units, that was an
appropriate direction and encour-aqement~ He could support the
:motion reoognizing that if those issues vere not addresseci, he
'WOuld not support the project when it returned to the CounciL
Council Member Fazzino said it was evident to him that under the
cu-~ent zoning, the PC tool bad to be used to achieve the senior
housing objectives. The property clearly addressed the specific
need for housing for higher income seniors in the community. With
the 26 percent growth in seniors since 1980 and coupled with the
fact that 20 percent of Palo Alto included seniors, the City had to
continue to make senior housinq for .all income groups a major
objective... He hoped the Comprehensive Plan Citizens Advisory
Committee (CPCAC) would grapple with the challenges of senior
housing projects during the update of the Comprehensive Plan.
The.re was no way the Council could turn down a project of the
proposed nature if it haa already approved a project on the order
of Lytton IV which had similar density and was placed right in the
middle of a residential ne.iqhborbood. He was concerned about some
-issues-of-FAR-and believed Council" Member Simitian's"recommenda-
" ... tions' addressed -it-;--· While the· FAR was-larqe, it·'was "comparable" to
other senior housing projects in the community. The location had
some. problems, a,nd he was sympathetic to the concerns raised by the
small :business owners and res idents in the area. Parking and
density were legitimate issues raised by residents and businesses,
and he hoped Council's actions \/ould resolve those conc~. EVen
though the location had problems, he asked. if anyone in the:
community could come up with a better location in Pa.lo Alto for
senior housing. It was close to Downtown, major services, health
care, the Senior Center, and a major transportation corridor. If
COuncil were going to folloW through ~ith its commitment to senior
housing, it was important to try to find a way to support the
proposed project. He had observed the traffic on Byron Street and
01/11/93 70-17
.---
;/ .'
did not believe the traffic was a significant issue. The residents
of a senior project would not create traffic similar to .... ·hat the
employees of an office developmer.t or a multi-family might create.
He supported the project and believed the city should work closely
with the developers to see whether those legitimate cor-cerns of
parking and density could be addressed an~ to make the project a
raality. He hoped that beyond that project the Council would take
into account all those issues during the development: of the new
Comprehensive Plan and come up with adequate zoning and procedures
to provide for units of that nature. He said other communities in
the Bay Area had done a much better job of providing senior housing
than Palo Alto.
•
Vice Hayor Kniss Clarified the zoning alloYed was .31:5 FAR but could -
go to a Dax~um of 1.0. Zoning was important ~nd allowed people to
buy in the community and have predictability and fairnes5¥ She did
not believe the council should chanq~ th~ zoninq on an impulse, but
the project was unusual, and Palo Alto did not have a project of
that type in the community. Sbe thought the project ~as exception
al and supported going outside the zoning envelope beca'J.se the
project had an unusual set o~ circUMStance~. The site was als~
unusual since it was located very close to other senior projects,
the Senior Canter, and within walking distance of the oowntcw
area ~ Those were three ·things that were '\~ery important to all
seniors in the community. Zoning that dealt with seniors did not
fit the usual pattern, and each of' the senior projects had required
5omethi~ exceptional for approval~ She thought the issue needed
to be dealt with durinq the update of the Comprebensive Plan~ The
council'a!:d the community supported increasing tbe ·housing stock in
the City, and the proposed project ~as in an area that was Downtown
enouqh, had enough of a feel of Palo Alto, was not in the heart of
the commercial area., and would add J6 housing units in the
community.
Council Member Cobb drew a parallel ",-ith the Lytton IV project
recently .before the council which both involved klulk t.hat the
neighborhood would prefer not to have~ The Co~ncil vas ~i11ing to
consider bulk because there was some benefit associated with havinq
that bulk. He found the similarities and differences to be
interestinq. The objections to the Lytton IV project came from
residents in the area, and the objections to The Hamilton project
came from businesses. The social klene.fit from Lytton IV was
housin9 for SO loti-income senIors_ on site, and the soc~_~l benefit
from The"":Hui"iton ~o\;ild -be-fOJ"r -: 3 6 -not -loW::income-Tllliii1:ies -wno' wouf"d
live there which was probably more than 50 people plus the Belov
Market Rate (SMR) units, pius the social benefit of saving some
programs that were very important to hundreds o.f seniors over a
lonq period of time. He pointed out that those proqrams were at
serious risk of beinq lost if funding 'Were not provided. There
were financing concerns regarding Lytton IV, but The Hamilton was
well financed and not a risk to the city~ He thought the pri:i.ci
ples 'Were the same and the only difference -was that the public:
benefit was not on-site as it was for Lytton IV. Tha difference
also 'Was that the city did not have any financial concerns
associated with the project~ He said the phrase ·zoning for
dollars. ""as A politically incorrect phrase, and every time the
01/11/93 70-18
· ...
council made a zoning decision, it v~s made fo~ some benefit for
the City. That was the purpose of the zoning la~s to henefit the
larger community. He though.t there were substantial benet its to be
obtained from the project ~hich argu~d in favor of the project.
council Member Wheeler appreciated the debate the ~lanning
commission had on the subject before it .... as sent to the Council 2: ~jd
appreciated the request for an early input .from the C01...: 1
regardinq important issues. She had found through her e~per :e
on the Planning COJM.ission that the staff from the Pla. :1q
Department ana the Transportation Division was very conserve .~ve
·"hen it came to suggesting how mAny parking spaces wouli:. be
required to se.rvice a multi-family prcjec:t~ If the staff ... ·as
confident that the ratio of parking space.s proposed for the project
was acceptable, she felt .fissured that the parking require.:.ents
would be satisfied for the project. The Council had a confidence
level because of its previous -expe.rience with other senior projects
in the City although each project was different f:,:-oll! the other~
There .. as enough backqround in histo:"y of senior projects of
varying types that staff could give the council some assurance on
the parking nwr.bers. She thought all 'Of the Council struggled with
the d:esiqn ot the project~ A leqitimate qu.estion was if the
Council allowed ~ project to go beyond the allowable FAR and dense
multi-fandly zones, then why vas there a FAR at all. When the
multi-family FAR ",as imposed, it was an attempt to deal with
designers and force a ~ore innovative ~nd a~tractive design. It
was possible to design outside of the allowable FAR and still have
an attractive project. She tbought the architect for the project
had, in essence, been able to do that :Cut c,oncurred that there 'Was
a considerable amour~ of work to be done along Middlefield Road.
staff, in response to ner question, said it vas ~ssible to builo
that kind of conqregate facility within any a110vable fAR in the
Ci ty. .It was not a matter of qoinq above the FAR b\.:.t bow far
abo'Ve the FAR.. She asked s;aff earlier that day whether a
re~uction in the size Of the units could be considered. If the
fourth floor el~ent 'Were elimir,ated which reduced the FAR, the
project would still exceed the allowAble FAR by almost 50 percent.
Nothing would be qained by mandating' an enforced reducti.on in the
size of the units and the heiqht of the project. A more attrac
tive, workable project could be obtaine~ if a strong message were
sent to the developers and the architect that a better solution was
needed along Middlefield Road. The neigh!>orhood had raised concern.
--about· both the noise durinq the construction phase-" and the ongoing
-"-noise "aft'er"·the"-project-was"· constructed:--" There--W-o-ula be-noise-
during the construction period, and the City would impose condi
tions that would lIlake tha.t as tolerable as possible. If the
proposed project were not constructed on the site, there vould be
another project proposed so there would be construction noise in
the area in the future. She thol.lght the tenants of the proposed
project would probably be very quiet neighbors.
Council Member Simitian said during his ca~paign he had expressed
concern aboUt the human scale of the co&munity. Most people valued
the charm of Palo Alto, and that ~as vhy he had struggled with some
of "'the bulk questions regarding the project. He felt his concerns
'Were being well addre:ssed on "three sides of the project and was
01/11/93 70-19
optim~6tic that the fourth Side ~ould be de31t vith~ He yas also
concerned during his campaiqn about an issue h~ called Mthe concept
of community An~ the balance and diversity of the population that
~as maintained~· He thought it would be difficult to find another
community where a person would want to place hisjher million dollar
)',OZle: a hal.! a block from a very low-income housing project, and
that was o~e of things that appealed to him about the project and
said a lot about th~ kind of co~unity and Downtovn that was being
created. He said a number of people pointed out at t}1~e public
hearinq that not everyone had the resources to choose that option
Which brought up the question of hov the city' could derive from
that project add.itional public benefit over and above what was
inherent in the project Which would speak on the issue of how to do
the qreatest qOOCS fer the greatest number~ In addition to the
seven BKR units that the applicant ~as obliged to provide~ there
W45 the question of pUblic benefit. The initial proposal that was
made by the applicant in consultation with staff was an additional
seven BMR units. He pointed out that was not seven new additional
units added to the housing stock but was the acquisition of seven
existing market rate units and conversion of those units to BMR
units. Under that propo$al, there would not have been an increase
in the housing stock but a conversion. That proposal prompted
several Council Members to discuss ways in which a greater good for
a greater number laiqht be achieved because there. wilre s.o many
seniors that did not have the ability to live in a place like The
Hamilton. He believed it was appropriate for The Hamilton to spin
off a public benefit that served seniors over a wide. range of
income levels not only in the Downtown bu~ throughout the entire
community. The vehicle in -place that could channel those funds in
an appropriate way was the Senior Coordinating Council (seC). He
r~ferred to the memorandum dated November lB~ 1992, from Council
Members Huber, Kniss~ Simitian~ and Wheeler that talked about how
such an endowment fund to provide tor senior services might be set
up. He referred to Exhibit A of the staff report (CMR:l17,93)
which was a proposed sec endowme~t fund outline.
~:: Council Member simitian moved, seconded. by Huber, 'With
respect to the public benefit component, that the statf be directed
to -work with the applicant to provide services for seniors
consistent with the memo from: Couf',cil Members Huber, Kniss~
Simitian, and Wheeler dated November 1B, 1992~ and the applicant's
proposal and response dated November 25, 1992, regarding a proposed
sec EndDlrlDlent_ Fund OUt]._i.!!~_ .. (on .. fJ~~ :.il!._t.h!!...t;j~y.~ ~l~:z:~~·.~ .. O_fJig~_-_.
att.actJed-to"CxR:117:931, 'With the exception that there be a 2.5
percent resale fee instead of a :2 percent resale fee.
Council Member Simitian said the concept was tb;'.t the project over
a period of ti~e aauld establish an endowment fund, the proceeos cf
Which 'Would go to funQ programs through the sec. The way to get
the endowment fund started was by e commitment of $50,000 per year
from the project developer for a lO-year period. If the project
~ere completed at an earlier date; the remaining funds that ~ould
total $500,~OO would be paid in a lump sum. In addition to those
payments of $50~OOO during that 10-~ear period of time, there would
be • 2.5 percent resale fee or approximately $25,000 ~hen a million
01/11/93 70-20
;
I !
( --'C-'
dollar unit was resold. He clarified the staff report seemed to
sU9gest there would be no resale fees during the period of time
vhen that $50,000 per year was being contributed to the sec, but in
tact, those resale fees started troll!. day one "that the project ""as
occupied. For example$ if after the first four y~ars the project
was complete and $200#000 had been contributed over four years, the
project developer would be responsible for producing another
$300,000 in a lump sum which would be the $500,000 total. But if
in the fifth or sixth year units started to turnover, that resale
~ee would be imposed on every unit that turned over in spite of the
fact that 10 years bad not elapsed and in spite of the fact that
the full $500,000 had already been contributed by the project
developer. He suggested that there were same partioJlarly
"important programs that related to seniors and to housing that
needed to be identitied as deserving attention and care. The
details of the process could be worke~ out as long as the Council
was clear that the general outline in Exhibit A of the letter from
~e appli~ant dated Nove~r 2~, ~992, and the memorandum from the
Council MQmbers aated November 18, 1992, were the basic outline.
The programs identified were the Senior Home Repair Program, the
Senior Housing counseling Program, and the Retired. Senior Volunteer
Program (RSVP] which wa.s a good example of a proqram that served
bundreds l but throuqh the volunteers who participated, served
thousands throughout the community. He had supported affordable
housing opportunities in the past but thou9ht when compared to the
opportunity to serve thousands as against the additional seven
households that might benefit from ~e conversion of housing units,
the project provided substantially greater benefit to the public.
Vice Hilyer Kniss said the amendment accomplished the 90&.1 of
spreading the amount over the greatest number of people. She
recalle~ that there had only been two recent budget situations in
Which the city had difficulty funding the programs at the Senior
Center. The state's recent buClget might affect the funding of
those current senior programs. She suggested the fiqures and facts
be well known throuqhout the c:ommun i ty so the. t there was no
perception that it was a windfall for the developer. She asked
whethe.r there would be any problem making those figures and facts
available.
City Manager June Fleming said there. would be none.
Vice --Mayor lCniss-clar if ie.d if the-maker --and -seconder -aqree.d,-that
-direction wou1d-be--imp.licit-in tbe-amendment-. -----------------
council Member Simitian conC'..1rred with the sU9'gestton~ He said the
most ilDportant thing was not what -would be extracting from the
developer but the amount of the benefit t.o the community. He
thought the present value was und.erstated.. He und.erstood. the
information 'Would be prepared and available in a way that 'Was
understanoab1e to the general public in terms of the public benefit
component.
Council Me:nber RosEmba~' did not believe off-site public benefit
should be allowed. He felt the project ha.d sufficient on-site
public :benefits not to make that unnecessary~ The project had been
Ol/1l/93 70-21
designed in anticipation of an off-site public benefit. He said
there was a letter from the FAHC dated January 6, 1993, .... hich
statad th~ City should have the ~oney and a memorandum from the
tour council Members in favor of the seniors. The Child Care Task
Force had missed an opportunity tc present to the Council a
proposal for an inter-generational reloationship that could be
developed if the public bena~it from the pr~ject went toward the
con!Otruction of a child care center. He urqad consideration of
some synerqy. The BKR require:n;ent 'Was , units, and the staff
proposed an increase to 14 units, but leverage was being forgotten.
It was not necessary in the creation of BKR units, t~ fund at 100
percent. He said a 50 percent mortgage wo~ld create BMR units and
then there woula be the potential to buy a 2B-unit project. He
thouqht there was a great advantaqe to that possibility. He
opposed the amendment, and the proper benefit vas the oriqinal one
recoDDended by staff.
ccuncil kemher Andersen asked whether the intent of the amendment
was to specifically fund certain programs coordinated by the sec.
Cou...,cil Hember Simitian said the answer ~as yes and no. There were
s~cific problems that presently existed with those specific
programs, i.E!., ~e Senior Home Repair Program and sentor Housing
Counseling Program, which had been previously funded. from the
community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. He recalled the
Council recently approved a policy statement that-indicated it
hoped projects fUnded from both CDSG .and the General Fund would not
continue.. That created a dilemma since the sec was .funded
primar.l1y froll! the General FuncL He understood staff nad some
alternative approaches as to how that miqht work. rt proposed
public benefit might help preserve two hO\ising related proje.cts
which.had a nexus to a housing development public benefit and miqht
alsD solve the CDBG problem for the City ~s vell~ The RSVP va.s not
funded. from CDBG but was a matter of particular concern to the
council and the se:r:..ior community and had been a deficit of about
$25,000 per year Which came from the SC::::'s reserves. As the
council's liaison to the sec, he had identified those three
proqrams and had sU9gested those prC)9'raDIs had SOlDe nexus in terms·
of senior !lousing and as progr~:ms that had some particular
financial problems. He was not suggesting the sec be locked into
using the procee.ds of the fund in perpetuity for those t.h.r$e
programs. He. looked to staff to work :with the sec to determine a
structure that 9U&:ralltee..d. that the funds vere ... lJ.se.c\ ...... ~n a ",ay
"" consiStent-with -the 'purposes-ideritii"ie;:!-butwould"-still =provide
some flexibility over time.
council Member Andersen wanted a response from see regarding that
approach.
Kathleen Gwynn~ President , Chief Executive Officer, Senior
coordinating council, clarified the question was whether the sec
agreed with the use of the proposed public benefit for those
specific three programs.
01/11/93 70-22
Council Member Ande~sen said that was correct, and he asked whether
there would be some element of direction to th~t funding and how
that coincided with the sec's decisions regarding its bUdget.
Ms. Gwynn said after Council Member Simitian spoke to the Boa~d
about the proposal, the sec's Board of Director's had ~ substantiC\l
discussion regarding the proposal.' There were t.o programs th~t
had been funded by CDBG vhich dealt ~ith both housing counseling
and heme repair. There wa.s cor-cern about having that funding
availahle for other projects within the community. It ~ould be a
way to relieve the city of responsihility of funding those
projects. The Board of Direct.crs felt that it could s.ay there
would be a public benefit to the community if those two projects
cculd continue."" to exist .. The Senior Home Repair program ""'as put on
hold lest year because it could not continue if additional ongoing
support w~s not received. T~e Council would have to determine in
terms of housing counseling how that shoUld be funded. RSVP was
also another program that was put on held last year~ The sec
currently ieceived no direct support for RSVP. Fundinq for that
project would. qive the sec the opportunity to cot'ltinue: that
program. Flexibility for the funds would be appreCiated after a
pEriod of time so that the funds could 90 into a g~~eral fund to
support operatin9" costs for senlor services. The. Board of
Directors wanted to make certain the moneys were going to the most
important senior services in the co~unity~
Council Meeer Andersen recalled the sec diC! not consider the funds
a replacement for the city's previous funding co~tment.
Ms~ Gwynn said the Board o~ Directors made that statement in its
letter of November 1992. The position was that if the public
benefit were a zero sum to the sec, it was uncertain 'Wh~th~r those
programs could :be ma.intained.. The sec needed additional net
funding because the d~ficit was increasing. If the money was a
direct trade-off from current support from the. City" sec 'Would lose
money. The $20,000 of the $50,000 would be an exchange for the
City, but $30.000 would be net new dolla~s.
Council Member Anderse.n asked to what exte.nt vould those funds be
\lsed for low-to moc\erate-incame. individuals.: :If the suggestion
vas that it would be part of the sec's general fund, then that waS
B different concept.
Ms. "Gwynn" said l!1ore than 50" percent-of the:'"Palo Alto" seniors had"
incomes less than $25,000 per year~
Council :~ember Andersen askad whether the proqrams specifically
reached low-income people~
)f...s. Gwynn said yes.
Council Member Fazzino said there was an inherent public benefit of
senior housing for the community with the provision of the seven
BMR units. He comme~ded :both the devel.opers and his fellow Council
Members tor recommending the additional public benefit of funds for
senior programs that benefited seniors of all income levels in the
01/11/93 70-23
community. He disagreed with ttle off-site public benefit issue and
had long s~pported a new approach to the development of mitigation
in the community. The efforts of the PAHC to address the needs for
low-income housing were very important. but the low-income
community needed %dditional services in the area of child care and
seniors. Many communities had a piecemeal approach to individual
services, and he wanted to address those low-income communjty needs
on e. comprehensive basis. There 'Was plenty of nexu.s betyeen the
proposed public benefit and the proposed project. He supported the
proposal and would argue against any effort to preclude the Council
from considering off-site benefits.
couneil Member Huber said planned communities requir-ed public
benefit that needed to be on-site and could possibly be oft-site.
The Webster House benefit was defined ~ith housing for the eldp;rly
which included medical care. The Palo Alto Commons benefit was
housing tor elderly and included residential care. The proposed
project 'Would provide senior housing with a medical/residential
component that would be sufficient for a finding of public benefit.
The COW'lcil had. qone off-site for public benefit on several
occaSions, e.g., the Downtown child care facility and Civic center
Plaza. He had argued while on the Planning commission that the
City could not always have on-site projects because thp.:re were
proposals being presented that were reasonable but did not meet the
zoning. The city Would have to look elsewhere for benefits. He
agreed with the proposal dated November 18, 1992, because it was an
absolutely connected and reasonable proposal under the circumst~nc
es and. would provide onqoinq benefits for tha seniors.
Mayor McCo'WTl agreed with Council Member RosenbaUll'!. She was
concerned about the issue of otf-site and preferred the original
housing concept proposed :by the sta.ff. She thought that 'Was a more
closely connected benefit with the leverage aspect referred to by
Council Member Rosenbaum. She preferred that to be the public
bene! i t if there were to be a related public benet it beyond the
inherent public benefit but did agree with the comments of council
Kember Huber regar~ing the inherent pUblic benefit.
~ PASSED 6-3, And.ersen, McCown, Rosenbaum "no.-
City Attorney Ariel Calonne clarified the outline in Exhibit A of
the. letter from the. applicant dated Novelrlber 25, 1992, was an
~ll~!...i!l!!J-o-_all~_th~.: qQ,.tJnc.t.L ~~d.,. n.ot".._!mpl;ed_ th~~'"_ tb.~ ._~t..!..f_~~c211l.od_l)ot
make suqgested changes.
Mayor McCown said that was correct.
Council Member simitian referred to paragraph 6 of the letter from
the applicant dateo November 25, 1992, that spoke about the ability
to terminate the commitment if the project had not been built after
a ce~~in number of years. He unaerstood the applicantts desire
not to make payments if there ~ere no prG~~ct, b~t he was uncertain
whether that particular ~anguage ~as appropriBte~
!lOTION AS AH£NDED PASSED 8-1, Rosenbaum. IIno.·
01/11/93 70-24
".
Mayor KcCown asked staff to explain the next step for the proposed
project.
Mr. Schreiber s< 'd the Council had indi~ated the referral fro~ the
Planning commis-_on .... as the first part of the PC tone. The
proposed projec would now proceed to the ARB for design review,
and after that it ~ould return to the Planning Commission. Atter
review by the Planning Commission, the project w~uld then return to
the Council for a public hearing and approval of an ordinance.
MOTIOll YO RUER: council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by
Andersen, to refer to the staff and ~he Planning Commission the
policy question of the appropriateness to satisfy In whole or in
part the-question' of off-site-public benefit.
Council Member Rosenbaum believed 1 t 'Was bad fontl for elected
officials to demand gifts from developers in r-eturn for zoning
changes. The public benefit proposed completely forgot that there
was a serious zoning change. The existence of the public benefit
and the need for the developer to take that into account tended to
exacerbate the problem that caused the need for the %one change.
Developers hAd to take into account the fact that they 'Would :be
required to come up 'Wi~~ a certain amohnt of money to provide the
public ben~fit which would add to the density problem. outside of
the context of the specific proposal, there should be 8 discussion
regarding the direction of the o.ff-site. public bene.fit. The
proposed project was the first residential project in which that
issue existed, and there were special circumstances in the
Downtown. He wanted a discussion before the Council continued 'With
the process.
Council Member simitian could not ~~derstand why seven BMR units
three miles away from the project was not an otf-site public
benefit, but the funding o£ services to serve people Who live~ in
the project as well as other seniors was an off-site public
benefit. Off-site. public benefit discussion should include not
only the question of :funding public services but also the BMR
project.. He said the discussion needed to inclune the existing
public benefit program in terms of the a~ program. He was not
certain he unQerstood what the distinction was between requiring
those kinds cf benefits for residential projects. When it was a
~-rcial project, those off-site public benefits vere considered
... ~g!,~_-:.!.£.£.ept~}._~~. _:_ EI_e _ w~~ a.1~~_ .¥.r.lce;:t;~i..~ _:Yhy:..therew~s -a-p):"pP£~~=
referral when there was a communication fro~ the City Attorney
dated January 5, 1s;o93, which answered that question. Tile City
Attorney said it was legal, and there needed to be some inherent
public benefit. If the council believed the project should
generate ~ore p~blic benefit than was inherent on-site, then that
could be indicated by the Council. He 'Was open to the pursuit of
a broaDer policy issue of whether or not that vas a sound public
policy, but it _as a misstatement of what bad just been approved to
suggest there was some legal question unresolved or to suqqest the
off-site nature o~ the benefits .... as ir~erently different from BMR
units. He did not think that inherent difference was there.
01/11/93 70-25
I
,-'
."
Council Member Rosenhaum said the BKR applied to every housing
project, end there was a similar provision for a commercial
project. He 'Was specifically referring to the pUblic benefit
re.quirement for the PC. He said there was real concern because
that had not been done before and should be explored.
KOT%ON TO REFER FAILED: 3-6, Andersen l McCown, Rosenbaum "yes.-
RECESS: 9!10 P.M. -9:25 P.M.
REPORTS OF COMHITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
6~ Policy and services Committee reco~endation re Approval of
the proposed language in the city Attorney's report and also
tor staff to develop wording as·~ell as language vhich could
be used by way gf a preamble at public hearings 'Which ex
plained rules and procedures involving Quasi-Ju~icial Matters
City Attorney Ariel calonne said staff had been previously
requested to find a mere streamlined way to disclose site visits~
He referre.d to his report dated Ju).y 1., 1992, which was the core of
the Policy and services (P&'S} committee's recommendation. He
directed attention to page 3 of that report which indicated the
proposed policy for quasi-judicial decision making. That document
was reviewed by the P'S Committee and was then recommended to the
council. During the course of the P&S committee meeting, there was
discussion about the value of having some statement which miqht be
read at the beginning of public hearings in ordar to inform the
public of the rules of those proce.edings. He referred to the
proposed preamble in his report dated January 7, 1993. The dratt
was intende.Q to stimulate dis~~ssion.
MOTZOR: Vice Mayor Kniss for Policy end Services committee movad
to appr"ove the proposed language in the Citr Attorney's report
dated July ~I 1992, with the additional recommendation that staff
develop wording fer staff reports as well as language which could
De used by way of a preamble at public hearings which explained
rulas and procedures involving ~uasi-Judicial Matters.
Vice Mayor Kniss asked for the city Attorney's assdstance with
portions of the preamble language .
. Mr "_..t..a.lonnA...iiaid_thEt_pr.eamble._.tried to_ identify_.issues .. that_".the .
Council might wish to consider. The P&S committee expressed
concern that members of the public often came to a council meeting
and did not realize the purpose of the public bearing, i.e., that
the public hearing was limited and the Council was t~yinq to get
evidence from the public and interested parties that bore on ~he
findings, required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAJ1C). He
understood the P,S Committee wanted a statement for the use of the
Cou:lcil, zoninq Administrator ~ and the Chair of the Planning
Commission that could be read wh~ch would explain to the ~embers of
the public the value of what would be heat-d by the Council and how
the Council would use that inform.ation~ He tried to identify
findings and in the third paragraph on page 2 of his report dated
Ja.nuary 7., 1993, hI!!. identified some basic:: procedural rules that
Ol/11/93 70-26
.-~:
aight apply to p~blic hearings. The draft preamble ~ent beyond the
Council's direction in that those procedural rules we~e his best
estimation of the 'Way thing:5-had been done, e.g., he could not
point to a policy that said the burden of proof ~ould rest on the
applicant. That .... as a correct statement of the law ~ but the
Council had not adopteQ that statement. Each of the sentences in
the third paragraph carried a procedural concept.
Council Member Wheeler referred to the third paragraph of the City
Attorney's report dated January 7, 1993, and said the language was
unclear to her after ftevidentiary objections .•. ~ She thought the
purpose of the preamble ,,~as to state very clearly both to members
of the Council and the community .... hat yould be accomplished at a
-public hearinq .. -She did not think that statement qave the Council
nor the p~lic the direction that ""as intended.
Mayor McCown said there ""as a difference :between the draft preal&ble
prepare.d by the City Attorney which had not had the benef i t of
revie"," by the P&:S committee and the proposed policy for quasi
judicial d.ecision making which ha~ been reviewed by the P&S
Committee. She had discussed with the City Attorney that there
miqht be some other Council operating procedures that were
practiCQd but were not always written do ... -n in a logical manner.
The City Attorney had pointed out that there were some procedures
in the PAMC that might be Dore U5aful if those procedures were put
in the form of a resolution of Council procedures which could be in
a handbook readily available for any member of the public. There
--was also discussion about the Mayor's creatinq an ad hoc cCllUllittee.
to assist with the city Attorney's preparation of procedural rules
of practice for the Council. She suggested action be deferred on
the preUlble until a review by an ad hoc committee. A 'Whole
package of procedura~ practices could then be brou9bt back to the
Council .as part of the communication for the public. The council's
consideration that evening should be confin~d to the policy which
had be~n reviewed by the PbS Committee.
~: council Member Fazzino moved, seconaed by Wheeler, to
defer to an 3d hoc committee of the Council r to be appointed by t."'le
Mayor, a review of the preamble for quasi-judicial hearing matters
as well_as an in-depth review of th~ counc~1.Rule5 ~nd Procedures,
specifically Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.04.
Hr. Calonne referred to his memorandum dated July 1, 1992, which
made the recommendation that the procedures should reflect the
fabric of the Council's decision making. He th~ught the Council
vas re~ctin91 asi.:ie from the cumbersome languaqe, to the idea that
the concepts were foreign and ove.rlain. That was not his ebjective
in the creation of those quasi-judicial rules, so the process with
the P&:S COllUllittee was very valuable in that it gave a sounding
board/reality cheCk to the proce5s~ Mayor McCown raised a broader
concern that he had been interested in for a~hile, i.e., to look at
Chapter 2.04 of the PAMC Which con"taincd a number of rules and
procedures, some of which the council followed with reqularity and
some of Which it did not follow with as much regularity.
01/11/9] 70-27
..
CHARLES G. ScHCLZ
317 l'Y1I~ 1aT_r:T
ro.-r o-'Ic-.-oX ~8lt
PALO ALTO, C.&.l..IP'OB.."'f"lA CH.aoa-12ge
P/Lll ,..,.111 oae-oe.H
May i2~ 1993
Architectural Review Board
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94101
AnACHHENT 4
FiECEI\,'EO
~~.'.\' '2 m3
[~A~·:::."";':'1~ :;:...:J":(!~G
A..'"~:' ~;:' .• :._";:::-':::-::::F;,::NT
Re: 651 Ha.ilton Ave., S3€-516 Middlefield l 523-575 Byron
st~, May 20, 1993, e a.m.: priveway Access to 517 Byron
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I own 517 Byron street, which is the property on th~ northern
boundary of the applicant's property. My parcel. 50' x 125'1 is
zoned RM-1S with a 9randfathere~ profes5i~nal U5&. I have
conducted &y law office on this property since 1969, and my
predecessor in title, Kenneth R. HcDouqall, conducted a law
office on the property for approximately 17 years before that.
There are six parking spaces in front of my office buildin9~
They are accessed by a driveway entirely on my property, at the
northern boundary (next to the Palo ~to Dental Clinic, 511 Byron
street), and a shared driveway at the southern end of my
property. The shared driveway serves both my property and 52~
Byron street, which is the northernmo&t parcel of the applicant's
property.
There are two large magnolia trees in the planting strip in front
of ~I property. One, about 7' north of ~j southern property
boundary, constricts the access to ~ parkinq lot trom the south.
OVer a period of 28 years, use of the driveway shared by 517 and
523 Byron has been arranged by me and my predecessor with the
owners of 523 Byron Street. Those owners have never been willing
to grant an easement, so the use has been by means of a license.
Because the front of both lots is 21 inside the sidewalk line,
there has beQn a very small angled portion of the actual prop~rty
at 523 Byron Street Which has been subject to the license.
Because that is at the far corner of the driveway to 523 Byron.
there has been no need to be more specific~
Under the applicant's plan, the 10' of 523 Byron adjacent to the
southernmost boundary of my property will become a buffer strip
with plantings. The appl;cant does not want to grant me any
Architectural Review Board
Re: 651 Hamilton etc.
Page two May 12, 1993
easement over eny portion. If I have no opportunity to use any
portion of the applicant's property at 523 Byron Street. I Jnust
at least be able to continue to use a portion of the city-owned
2' strip inside the sidewalk line for continued access to my
property.
virginia warheit of the Planning Department has examined the
access to the property. Together~ we determined that there i~
approximately 8 1 4" between the corner of,the sidewalk nearest the
magnolia tree and the southerly corner of my prQperty. Although
not ideal, this provides enough space fer a vehicle to enter and
exit the southern portion of my parking lot. so long as the
vehicle can continue to use part of the driveway apron in front
at 523 Byron and angle across a portion of the city-owned strip
between the sidewalk and 523 Byron Street. See the diagram
enclosed.
1. Wben the applicant's plans are approved, I request that
they not include planting all of the 2' portion owned by the City
inside the sidewalk line, at least to an extent which
accommodates tbe passaqe of ~ vehicle to the southernmost portion
of my property. I believe that a 45· engle ·wedqe", 21 x 2' X 3'
would be sufficient~ It should continue to be maintained with
the same materials in my parking lot, which is asphalt.
2. Further. anticipating that a construction fence will be
erected around the applicant's property, I re~lest that the
construction fence not be placed at the interior sidewalk line
for a distance of 2' from the applicant's property line so that
my utilization of a piace, 2' x 2' X 3', of the city-owned strip
~y continue durinq construction.
3. The shared driveway apron, on the street side of the
sidewalk, should be retained to a width of 11' (approximately
5 1 S" in front of 517 Eyron and 5 1 2" in front of 523 Byron).
The alternative to maintaining the eXisting driveway and southern
access to my property would be the removal of the southernmost
magnolia tree. Then, unimpeded access to the parking lot could
be achieved by widening the driveway apron in front of ~y
property.
My property has been in continuous use for many years and the
two-driveway access has been existing and functional for at least
28 years. Retention o£ full access to my parking lot is
essential. Parking is at a premium on Byron street. and the use
',-"
" .
Architectural Review Board
Re: 651 Hamilton etc.
Page three May 12, 1993
of my property requires a minimum of six spaces~ It is
impossible to access all ~he spaces on my property from the
northern driveway. Having access at both ends of the parking lot
allow~ traffic to move more freely and will enable vehicles to
enter and exit more smoothly then i~ all traffic must enter and
exit at the same driveway.
Thank you for your attention tc this request.
CGS:bh
Enclosure
Sincerely,
/ . /J-.. '-~
CHARLES G. SCHULZ
--~ ----------
_________ :?C~L) l:-'?
so_ 8y,eoiJ
HAt.li/...'OI,,.
eY120N
1---------------------,---------
I [-----. I \ I ------j ----------------------i --------------
------._------------...
f'<t~ I _ _ _ ___ _ ----1-1'"--,1-----: ----~~ ----
----; ~
____ .;; CD _ WJ\ ... ",
I
,
I 1 _
\ i \ I
"\! --:A--=--'-----_~ ______ --_H _
" ' \:J
4,k \
/-
---------_---1 -------+-\ -----------.-
11-----_-1:;o! ~ ·-_S:t'-'(_\ ___ 'f'_a'_~ __
---.----1---_~=--_ -Pt>.\,,~ wAY
-liI---------'==-=~--'~ ~ ~ C~rb o-A: -_.--\: ____ --".L-_
__________ __________ __ p'l_ _ ___ _
------1 -------------------------------
_____ 1_ --:...---,-----------~Yf< ON -S ere, e;:t= 'j -
_ -_ t
I
------I
.$c~L-I<_, ___ Y4._" =---_I~ ______________________ -____ _
_ S<')"'7HE"zllv D(t(V'!lId.'1 t4Cc.~ss
-z:;. ~!7 (3y{Cv IJ 'STI:fJ"ET
--------1----j) f2-1 \IE-w I't y __ s ~ I'>.I2-CI> '-J1 Tt-I
b.2-3 tB '{RON
MRI
Architectural Review Board
City of Palo Alto
Planning Department
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Member:
-,
Janua~y 20, 199)
I am .Titing as Interim Board Chair of the Mental
Research Institute, world renowned for its pioneering of
QQth family therapy AnQ brief therapy~ MRI has led in
conceptualizing and de'"elopinq t:.hese fields and in training
~ny of their leaders. We have a staff of about twenty-five
and about fifteen additional Board members. Psychothe~apists
from all parts of the United ~tates. Canada, and Mexico, as
well as from all' other continents attend training workshops
of various durations held at HRI. Even Bay Area trainees eat
lunch or dinner in Palo Alto and the others usually stay in
local hotels while partici~ting in our training. These
trainees are thus contributing to the economy of Palo Alto~
in 1992, our training registration was 488, of which only 47
were from Palo Alto. Thus, more than 90% came from ou~side
Palo Alto.
We have three main areas in our building dedicated to
training~ The only place in the building in which it is
possible for us to have our conference room is on the ground
floor, facing Middlefield Road. ~~at makes this location
possible is that the pa~ticular room is 't.wice the size of
any of our others~ o~ the second story level we have our two
training suites, each consisting of a therapy room and en
observation room separated by a one-way mirror. These
mirrors are actually two pieces of glass built into the wall
at a special an91~. permitting viewing in one direction but
not in the other. In one of these training suites the
Observation room is on the Middlefiela side of the building;
in the other training suite the therapy room is on the
Middlefield side of the buildinq. Audio and video recording
equipsent is located in each suite, and the electronic
wiring is built into the wall in each case. Specifically,
there are audio recording wires, video recordir~ wires,
special switching arrangements, and some remote control pan
and tilt capabilities for aiming the wall-mounted video
cameras. Thus I these suites are not mobile and--even if
•••• --< •
space were available--they could not practicably be moved to
any other location(s) in the building.
Our concerns about DThe Hamilton-are three: (1) n~ise
-the echoing of Middlefield's heavy traffic--as well as the
admittedly temporary sounds of construction, (2) parking.
and (3) the triple mass of this building compared to
anything on Middlefield south of University.
The noise problem vill be considerable during
construction unless we can coordinate it some way so that
the construction does not occur while we are operating our
sound systems and recording systems in our two training
suites. We can pro· ... ide the schedule we have published and
distributed to therapists across the country and abroad and
I hope the ARB will be receptive to some form of
coordination on this serious matter. Even after the
construction, however, we are convinced that a four-story
buildinq both facing and towering above ours, will
exacerbate the already extremely loud noises resulting from
the heavy traffic on Middlefield and from the fact that
there is a red light at each end of our bloc~, thus causing
cars and heavy trucks to make ~ven more noise as tqey
accelerate from these lights. I personally measured the
sound level at about 4:30 pm in front of our building as
reaching 91 decibels and, one block north, where the traffic
is a bit lighter, 96 decibels. I believe the reason for the
considerably higher reading one block north of our building
is that ~ block bas the Lytton Gardens four-story
Structure Which, t.~ouqh set back, apparently reflects
considerable sound~ Because of the loqarit~~ic scale of
decibel readings, 96 decibels is about three times as loud
as 91 decibels. Thus, our training is almost certain to be
disrupted--or at least the sound quality degraded--on a
permanent basis l ~~less the ARB helps prevent this
foreseeable and avoidable consequence.
Addressing our primary concern--Middlefield's heavy
traffic noise being reflected by such a tall building--would
also address our concern about this structure being three
tiaes as large as permitted ~y the zoning that the
developers were aware of when they purchased the property.
Two specific actions can be taken which, even together I will
only somewhat ameliorate the problea. This JDakes it all the
more vital that b2th aeasures be taken. First, the £al2 Alt2
Weekly reports that these apartments will have unusually
high ceilings--specifically ten feet hiqh. This is an
egregious excess in view of the already triple mass of t-~is
building compared to what the property vas zoned for.
FUrthermore it is not public-spirited in this age of
understanding the importance of conserving enerqyl to
intentionally bllild a structure which contains a permanent
gross energy-wasting feature: high ceilinqs. We all know
that heat rises and it will cons~e more energy to
r
adeq:uately he.et or cool a room t;"J.at is ten feet high than
one with noraal eight-foot ceilings. This measure would
shave two feet from each of the proposed four stories,
brinqing the heigbt down from fony-six fe ... t to thirtY"eight
feets though this still leaves this bu~lding as a monstrous
maJIUIIoth compared to thos e around it.
A second measure to ameliorate the imposing size of
this proposed building and bring it down toward human scale
and neighborhood standards would be to have a total rather
than a token elimination of the fourth story. According to
co~ents at the last city council meeting to consider the
re-zoning, such a reduction could be achieved by maKing ~
of the apartments smaller than the 1700 to 2200 square-teet
range currently contemplated. This would have the added
advantage ot showing greater reqard for the concept of
diversity so highly praised at the recent city Council
Ree~inq, and would probably make it easier for th~
developer~ to fill the building with tenants. Thus, this is
a win-vin 5i tuatio~"I. This could shave oft an additional
eight feet from the thirty-eight ~oot height which the first
measure could achieve, brinqinq the buildinq down to thirty
feet, a height ~ in keeping with the neighborhood, though
the structure would still tower over its neighbors.
This project is not the only economic benefit to Palo
Alto in the neighborhood. Our Institute has bro~qht income
to the City of Palo Alto for close to thirty-four year~, and
we would like to continue to be able to do so through
oonductinq training, research, and servjce activities at 555
Middlefield Road, Palo Alto.
'I1le Board of Directors and the professional and
administrative staff members of the Mental Research
Institute join me in urging most strongly that the
Architectural Review Board require the implementation of
both the suqgestions made in this letter, each o.f wtdch will
have an ameliorating effect on the height and aaSE of the
building and thus will go some of the way ~oward meeting the
primary purposes for which they were promulqated--and each
also is associated with additional advantages which make the
two modifications presented highly desirable both for the
conservation of enerqy and tor the good of the neighborhood
and the public.
consideration.
S I G NAT 0 R I E S
(All .re ~, of the HRI 80 •• d of Oirectors)
Arthur M. Bodin, Ph.D.
He~n Ohme. Ph.D.
~~rvey Pirofsky. K~D~
Lawren=e Harkowitz
ThDmas Nagy, PO.D.
Ju1es Riskin. M.D.
Mary Grace Bertsch
David Faigerbaum. Ph~O.
Clifford Levin. Ph.C.
Diana Everstein. Ph.D.
Paul Watzlawick. Ph.D.
Robert H. Hiller, J.D.
./ -'''' .
.......--A ,'fEN 0 \ X • Infi HtDyer Canyon i.sl S,UI Jos~, till' cOlild bt used arler
lM prtielll Iota! lile$ at~ clo~~. The P310 Aha ~yJands
b.."ldl"J.I will no! be lV.ail!.ble afl~r the ~uly 1990s.
Noise
2[ ~~~~~~~~~, ~~~~~,~,,~"~"~,~m~"~,,~,,~~~I~~II:::Ct ~
If thC'te e{fr..::t1 IJ'r ("Qrltinued. I1!t)l etr. ClllU' Vtty 5ttjot.:! ~
Thf. to aiM ProbllL!m
Neil«' is • plrt of modem loQ4ity-l'loise' (lom motorized
labor-savini dfflccS, tr&nlp<lrution vehickl, and lCl:reation
~s. hople CIlI lolt'r.lle or iPlort l ~.rWn amour::l of
!loUt: but advent c:ffed.s incJudicl Q·.ltrighl he-ariJlg jm..
pa.ir1'be:lt .and o'!.iu:, cWl~rs to health are f;rtJnll in many
cXpoiu.rH 10 noise.
~ot:onal and psyc:hc.JOjkaJ FtoblcmJ, The 1l.Oi~ en~i·
rorunenL is o(~en flOI bLa.-n.ed dl!ectly rOI tnt's:-rnctions if
The cb~tive Gf this ~on of 'Ok!: Pan llld p~o Allo's
con~1 Noise Control Program !s 10 redu::t cctu wltith
&!feas hwnuu adYerscly.
The-Effects of Noise 00 People
The problem of controlling no!se is diffICUlt beawc it ti·
fC'cu Heh lndMd~ in :I diffeunl W2y. Pco-pie do J:!('t bear
SC"lttIcU allU or react to them in the same qy. Ea.:h
pe-CSOlI'1 n.aclicm to nOise depeodt on cha.~teris1k3 of the
noise l:.sdf-W loudMu. chlt.tio. .... and frequency COtIu:nt,
(;:II c.xample. The effect of lloUe .or! people is aha "teor·
minte by the wlenu and the siluation.
The effe:;:t gf nffig mrs above SO dBA can !'&be fl"Ol1l a
IC'l'ZlPQrUY lou I)r abili:v to hn: quiet!r9W!ds Hp 19 ~
%Wt1t and ilrevt!rs:r:1;;le loss of normal. ~
Fortunately. I"' exposures to noise Incls ClusmJ
pe1ntl.!lent hPrlnf dan. Occur in Palo Alto. Rowenr.
-lome probkms may 0C:c.Ul lOf thOle wh-::. &ue:nd lood mU5l~
gJ rtt:-talJnual' nrots gr fot peU>OM wbose-join in\7'Olft
high noiR lndl.. (kc.up:LCioMl noiu: b n-gWaled by mte
and feder.ai Jeps1atl<XL
Noise may altq ifWJIp! ytjyjtig .nodt as JIup, ccnftr~
~OD, rhdipr Wenin! 10 N!C9n1a elf watching tdrrisioo.
IlUjar IKIl:rc!1 cr InfflOC J!aiH .an-Juec=:.J .;u. IIICh .-ol'll.mu, h;,h
~. I b.!tc-%tll!!lbei ar-tu,1Tx eonC"Clls elf IIIIIIY tnlW. ~""M!. Inli
othn laud midn. S':;IlltlMm Paei!ic thl-"~ 1:1: r.K::Itbu m.ajar ~ureJ:
01 .IIi)o~ Ou.illl 'PQk lnfTl.e pc:no4l. me IKlUoe ~'f!II:b In PUUlltl'tUI'I
an-~r ~ l" pt:I cc." or !he time I' 50 ("I fiOll! m'
tnlfrlC. NQUr IIr..a or 50 to 60 dBA Irt~:¢:aJ in M"Jchborl;O(lIj~
DOt 1lIbjc~ Ie bcaY)' L"'lIofl'k
Rdati,.,: Inttmity
of sound
J ,000,000.000,000
UIO,OOO,OOO.ooo
10.000,000,000
1.000,000,000
100,ll(,J,OOO
I O,OOO'(x)()
1,OOCl,COO
100,000
HI,OOO
1,000
100
lO
J
Sound Lc"el
4' dBA
Autohom(J'~ ...,..,.,,«100') ('11 as -ll \. Io\.~ 120 "\
.Rock mu~ insHie nigfltc:lub \ N. ........::....-~:\h ... l I. ,1 1lOj
Motor~de wjthOU! mumtr ,"clerl ting. JlIckh.a.mmcr (15·) ~.!:t ... .'::, J 100
Sl~ molOrcyclt acc~:r.ltifl& (2S') S, .... S """'-., ........ ...J...d-r 90
Power L1wn moW'u(20) M A"I:. ...... ~\.f!\ t-.... + ac
Ste-ady urb&n tralIic (25 ') "';1 70
Noma.! ~'mSation (3') ISO
Daytime !V~l., no nearby lroom, SO
Qu;eloffice. QlJiet neighbomcod 40
l;uide qwct home. 50f1 whisper (10') 30
MO\'it or J'ecO:dinl studio 20
Butly luw'ble W<Jnci' Ie
Thresh old of he~int: 0 j
A dKlltd Ida .... ) ~.:; ...... 0' mUlUrcmC1lI indi~.Ii", Il:e r.::1.a1""'t inlclUIly of .. _00 .. ," LI he~ by the hum~ c..:u l.uy ." ...... ..., Qr 10 dBA.
,,~blu II\c pua:~d fOU4nc:U alLbOll.£h !he nO .... ISo .aclU .. lly kn ~ mOn: inleAlll: Far e:umplc. I~' I .... n mo"'u rSO dB") l«n'IIWlCr
u loud ill ~y ultl:ln 1I'..mc PO dBA)
_ .. -
• ..
'* ~ .. •
CITY O~ PALO ALTO
INTEROFFICE MEHORANDUH
Febru~ry 11, 1993
'roo
FROM.:
Virginia Warheit/Planning Division
carl stotf~Transportation Division
SUBJE~: Parking tor ~The Hamiltqn tt
~nACH)1fN7 6
* • * • * • * * * * * * • • • • • * * * • * • • * • • • • * * • *
This is in response to the Council request t.o investigate the
feasibility of instituting two-hour parking, Monday through Friday,
in the block of Byron between University and Hamilton~ -
This is fe.asible. This block is contiguous 'wIith the two-hour
parking zone on University Avenue~ The Police Depar~ment would be
able to enforce this new area. usually, we institute time-limited
parking only on block faces which are commercial I and not residen
tial. Residential users normally want to be able to park all day
in front of their res.idences4 Once the Hamilton goes in, this
block would be predominately residential~ Ho~ever, because
residents of the Hamilton have their own dedicated parking, and we
are addressing a specific council concern, it would be acceptable
to have 2-hour parking installed in a predominately residential
block.
Presv~ably~ it is the people who currently live and have offices in
this block 'Who are worried about the Hamilton using up their
parking. Before anyone directs that two-hour parking be institut
ed, it would be important that these people understand that, if it
~ere, they would no lunger be able to park there all day as ~hey do
no .....
Once the decision 'Were made to extend two-hour parking to this
bleck, it could be j,nstituted within two to thre.e 'Wee.ks. The only
necessary actions are to notify the residences and businesses
locate.d on this blOCK, install proper signing, and allo~ time for
the Police Department to issue warning citations. If it is not
done at the time of approval of the Hamilton, a resolution would
have .to go to council at a later date. on consent calendar. t-?
approve the new parking zone.
cs
Cogoa.ull.lr'lll\ ... ~
&A<..-;Ii(j'Y_'
t:~.~1J"I
'Xl Sill ... Stret1
~"~'iI~Jm
(',;(II·~g.,l!lo4
~:d~:w;QotJl2
F'U-l1!!!:J'J"~
~"S-;.,I'f.
........ , ........ "t:
..... " .. --
'_5.~;>(
.... ':t>;.III'~1'!:
1'Im".ohti"o..·
_1IoCo ___
a...s;,K>...,..
......... Jlc-.,
ATTACHHE~T i
1\(-US 3"7 6197'= ,. ~ •. /:
~~.;<,:,,"':""
i.(,~':'·,,,::" .
Chilrl •• M Selt.r A ... oc .i·· •• Inc
• ~' 1;-.
2 Februruy 1993
Ric:bard Beard
Backen Arrigoni & Ros.<
166ll Bush SlIce I
Slln Francisco. CA 94109
Subject: The Hamihon -Acoustical Con,'ulting
CSA Project No. 93-024
Dear Ri cilllTd:
Thi5 kner i$ in respo",e to a letter prepared by the MRI Company to tbe
Architectural Review Board dated 20 Januruy 1993 regarding the subject project.
k we di""JSSed. my firm has conducted specific noise analyse' of the claim., which
arc rcrnlered in thi,letter regarding the effed of refleruoll.< off lb. future Hamilton
building as well., the short-term construction noise impact of the Hamillon on the
M Rl facility .
Dealing witb each oC thr", issues separately:
1.
2.
Reflectiom;;
When we have specifically studied the effect ofreflections off the facade of a
three-stQr), building, we ha •• measured about half. decibel increase in ooise
due to Ibe building. A> you know. a balf a decibel increase in noise woul~ be
indi"inguishable and have virtually no effect on people in thc hwlding aer",-,
tbe street
C.Qru.tOlct jon Noise Juwact:
Wt do not believe that the noise generated by construction of the subject
project wiU "impacl" Ihe people in tile MRI building in that the curren,
:acoustic-.tI environment al'lng Middlefield Road i:; relativel, loucl. Therefore,
th, noise generated by the construction "ill be ,-utlmlly indistingui,bable in
terms of "maximum noise"' and "average noise-as compared to the floiJ.e
gone rated by traffic on Middlefield Road.
'," .
Richard Beard
2 FebruaJj' 1993
Page 2
in conclusion, it is our 'oXpert opinion that Ihere ",iII.!!l11 be a noise impact on zhe
MRI activities due 10 reflcctio.,. of! the Ham"!on as well as lhe noise due to
ronstruction.
1 would be pleased to aD.<wer any specific concerns orzhe Arohitecrural Review
Board II:ld people wilh the MRI organization a., required to deal with this issue.
Please call if you have any questiom.
Sincerely yours,
CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC.
a~.k,,Laz
Cbarles M. Salter. PE A.(
Pre.'<ident
ATTACHMENT 8 S 9
ORD INANCE NO. =-;;;;=="" ORDINANCE OF TIlE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE ITHE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE
CI.l'.BSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 536·576
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, 535·575 BYRON STREET, AND 651
HlIMILTON AVENUE I THE HAlULTON SENIOR LrJING
COMMUNITY) FROM RM115) TO PC
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing held June 3'0. 1.993, and the Architectural Review Board,
upon consideration at its meeting of June 3. 1993. have recommended
that section 18.06.040 [the Zoning Map] of the Palo Alto MUnicipal
Code be amended as hereinaft~r set forth; and
WHEREAS, the City council, after due consideration of the
recommendations. finds that the proposed amendment is in the public
interest and will promote the public health~ safety and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Pale Alto does
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1, Section 1B.06.040 of the Palo ~to Municipal
Code ~ the • Zoning 'Map", is hereby amended by chaoging the zoniog of
certain property known as 536·576 Middlefield Road, 535-575 Byron
Street, and 651 Hamilton Avenue (The Hamilton 'Senior Living
Ccmmunity, the "sJ.,lbject property") frQ:Q:l "RM(l.S) Medium Density
Multiple Family Residence'" to 'PC Planned Ccmnunity· ~ The.. subject
property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit wAil, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds with respect to
the subject property that:
(a) The site is BO situated. and the use proposed for
the site is of such a characteristic that the application of
general di6trict~ or combining districts will oct provide
sufficient flexibility to allow the pr~sed development, in that
the ~ Floor Area Ratio (F~~) allowed in the highest density
mu~tiple famdly zon~ (RM-40) is 1.0 while the FAR of the proposed
project is 1.70. An FAR of 1.0 does not allow a sufficient
building volume to aC:COIIU!lociate the activities and services of a
senior living community, as evidenced by senior residences
consistently having an FAR exceeding 1.0 both in Palo Alto (Lytton
I. FAR 1.4 and Webster House, FAR 2.43) and in other communities.
(b) Development of the site under the provisions of the
PC Planned Community district will result i~ public benefits not
otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general
districts or combining districts~ in that the senior living
coumunity will provide housing with support services, for which
there is an unmet need in the community, thus enabling residents in
need of this type of housing t.o remain in the coamuni ty. In
addition, a fund to be established from contributione by the
1
~
/.
developer totaling $500,000 plus resale fees will be used by the
city to ~rovide benefits for seniors and senior services.
(c) Tne use or uses permitted, and the site development
regulations applicable within the district are consistent with
pOlicies 7, 11. 13. and 14 ot the Housing Element of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. The permitted uses and site development
regulations are compatible with existing and potential uses on
adjoining sites or within the general vicinity, in that the site is
appropriate for senior residencas because of ~he close proximity to
Lytton I and Webscer House~ to Downtown, the Senior Center, medical
services and public transportation. The location at the
intersection of two major streets and at an entrance to Downtown is
appropriate for a building of this scale, providing balance for the
LyttOD I complex on the other side of university Avenue. The
architecture and landscaping is designed to be visually compatible
with nearby residential areas; the building mass is set back from
the interior property line and the buildi~g height is lowered where
it is opposite residential usee; the ~~ddlefield Road facade is
modulated and detailed to minimize the size of the building; auto
access is off Byron Street to minimize conflict with existing heavy
traffic on Middlefield Road; all anticipated parking demand is
being provided for on the site.
SECTION 3. Those certain plans prepared by Backen Arrigoni
_ Ross. inc~1 dated April 8, 1993. and approved by the
Architectural Review Board on June 3. 1993~ a copy of which plans
is on file in the Planning Division office. and to which copy
reference is hereby made concerning the full particulars thereof~
are hereby approved as the collective Development Plan for the
subject property. pursuant to Section 18.68 1.20. Said Development
Plan is approved for the following U8e8~ and euhject 'Co the
following conditions:
(a) Permitted Uses ~ The use shall be limited to 36
independent living units for seniors plus common di~ing facilities
and accessory uses typical of a senior living facility, including,
but not limite.d to, in~hom.e ~rson.al care, a library and living
room; bar/lounge; pool; exercise roam; jacuzzi pool; sauna and
shower facilities; mail room; t.wo private g'.J.eat rooms: and
administrative facilities. including a clerical/reception area,
work area, two private offices, a meetiog room/private dining room,
and an employee lounge.
(bl
permitted.
(el
development
Development
the Special
CQndi t; iona 1 Uses. No t,;onditional uses shall be
Site PeVftlgpment Regulations. All improvements and
shall be substantially in accordance with the approved
Plan. which shall be amended as required to comply with
Requirements set forth in subparagraph (el ~
Cd) Parkina and Loading Requirements. The parking and
loading requirements governing the subject. property shall be in
accordance with the Development Plan~ which shall be amended as
2
•
required to comply with the Special Requirements set. forth in
subparagraph (e).
{e) Special Reguirgments.
{i) The garage plan shall incorporate a loop
system that minimizes dead end aisles, maintains overall approved
parking numbers and maintains zoning re~Jlations.
(ii) Prior to issuance of a building permit,
the property owner shall provide a written plan, to the
satisfaction of t...lJe Plamling Division, specifying how they will
minimize noise impacts to MRI (th2 occupants at 555 Middlefield
Road) by construction timiDg and coordination with MRI~8 training
session schedule.
building
issuance
(iii)
details shall
ot a building
Exterior II".a.terials~ colors a.nd additional
be subject to final ARB app~oval prior to
permit.
(iv) Prior to issuance of a building permdt~
the OWIler shall submit a final land~cape plan that shall incl'ude a
planting and irrigation plan, sizes of plant materials and samples
of paving ma.terials. The final landscape plan shall show the
location, size and species of all trees to be retained, both on the
site and in the adjacent public right of way.. The planting and
irrigation plaIl sha1.1 be approved by the Energy Services Division.
!v} Prior to issuance of a building permit,
the owner shall submdt a final lighting plan showing location and
design of all exterior lighting fixtures and a pbotometric diagram
showing ~ight pattern and intensity, both on and off the subject
property. of light cast by all exterior lights.
(vi) The design of the driveway providiDg
access to the Schultz property adjacent to the north of the subject
property shall be developed in coordination with the Transportation
and Planning Divisions, and approved by the Planning Division prior
to issuance of a building permit.
(vii) Prior to issuance ot a building permdt,
the owner shall submit a parking plan showing the six surface
parking spaces and six spaces in the garage marked and reserved for
guests, witb a minimum of six additional parking spac .... in the
garage to be marked and reserved for employees.
(viii) Prior to issuance of a building permit.
tlle owner shall submit a, tree protection plan prepared by a
licensed aroorist specitying all measures to be taken prior to,
during and after CODstruceion to protect the trees to be retained.
both on the sit~ and in the adjacent public right of way. The tree
protection plan shall include a site plan showing the species~ size
and location of all trees to be retained, both on the site and in
the adjacent right of way. In addition~ the owner shall provide
the Planning Division with a letter from. a licensed arborist
3
c ....
· ~:.
. ,.
: -:-r ,t-:"~
,;, ....... f_
, "
-'".'
-t-_
verifying that the arborist: has been retained by the owner-t.o
ensure that the tree protect.io~ measures are followed and that the
arboriet will submit periodic field reports to the Planning
Division confir.ming compliance with the tree protectior. measures.
(ix) Prior to issuance of a demolition permdt
or a building permit .. the owner shall provide a letter to ttuo.
Planning Division from the retained arborist. verifying t.hat I:he
arborist has conducted a field inspe~tion and that the protective
fencing required in the tree protection plan is in place.
(x) Prior to issuance of a demolition or
building pe~t. the owner shall prepare, to the satisfaction of
the Transportation tlivieion and the Public works D~partment, a
Construction Plan addressing location of const.ruction staging
areas, travel routes for construction vehicles, parking f~r
construction vehicles and private vehicles of the construction
crew, fencing of the construction site, a plan for keeping nearby
streets and sidewalks free of dirty and ~ther construction debris,
and all other measures deemed necessary by the City to provide for
the public safety and to reduce impactn of construction on the
surrounding neigbllorhood. The plan shall include a provision that
cc.ost=uction fencing be installed in such a way that the driveway
adjacent to the site that provides acce9B from Byron Street to the
Schult< property is not impeded.
(xi) A planter strip and street trees shall be
provided on all three street frontages, with a minimum width of 5
feet on Middaefield Road and Hamdlton Avenue and a minimum width of
2.5 feet in Byron Street. unl.ess at least 2 feet of perimeter
planting is provided inside the property line along the one·way
driveway OIl Byron Street, in which ease the curhside plaoter strip
shall be a minimum of 5 feet wide. The planter strip shall be
planted continuously with low shrube or dense ground cover and
shall be automatically irrigated. The street trees shall be
planted to a maxfm'm of 2S feet OD center, with the location and
species to .be apprO-Jed hy the City Arborist and the Planning
Division. All street trees shall be located in tree wells with a
min~ dimension of 5 x 5 feet, and shall be installed according
to the City Arborist's specifications. All street. tree wells shall
be provided with automatic irri~:jation.
{xii) Subdivision approval to merge the existing
six lots into one parcel sha11 be Obtained from the City prior to
issuance of the building permit~ If the units are to be
individually sold, a condominium subdivision map shall be approved
by the City prior to sale of any units.
(xiii) Prior to issuance of a building per.mit,
the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City under which
the o~ner shall agree to provide a mdn~ of spven (7) BMR units
in fulfillment of the owner's obligations under ~rograms 9 and 13
(th~ Below Market Rate (·BMR·) _ provisions) of the Housing Element
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan~ The BMR requirement shall be
subject to the following conditions:
4
..
1. A minimum of seven ,7) BMR unit.& will
~ acquired or constructed by owner and given to the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation, free and clear of all liens, prior "~o the
issuance of a building permit for the refere:lced project ("The
Hamilton-). These units constitute compliance with Programs 9, 11
and 1~ of the Housing Element of the City. and their location(s)
shall be subject to approval by the City Council.
2. OWner will make good faith efforts to
secure seven (7) or more BMR units with no studio units and at
least three (3) twc·bedroam units. A mix o~ studio, one-bedroom
and twa·bedroom units will be permdtted r however, with at least
three two-bedroom units and one additional two-bedroom unit for
each studio included. For example. a mcix of two studio units and
five two-bedroom units would be acceptable.
3. All BMR units to:t'le provided by owner
shall be in reasonably good condition. They shall be structurally
sound with all plumbing, heating and appliances in good "-"orking
order. rt is understood that such units yill not be re~_:ed to
meet current Building Codes, but they shall be free of termite and
other pest infestation and seismically sound.
(xiv) Prior to issuance of a building permit,
the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City in d form
subst4ntial1y similar to Exhibit -8-attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference~ tor the purpose of providing
additional public benefits to the project.
(f) PeY~lopment Scbed'lle. Tbe development schedule
shall be as follows:
(i) Site clearing and demolition: June to
July 1.554,
'ii) Basement excavation: J'uly 19!H;
(iii) Basement construction: August to
September 1994,
(iv) Concrete structure: October to December
1994;
(v) Roof structure and rooting: January to
February 1995;
(vi) Exterior skin: Dt:cember 1993 to February
1.995,
(vii)
(viii}
Interior improvements: February to July
1.995,
Site work improvements and landscaping:
April to July 1.995, and
5
·c
(ix) Initial occupancy, August to Septe1Mer
1995.
SECTION 4, The Council find that thi~ project will not
have a significant environmental effect.
SSCTION 5. This ordinance shal.l be effective on the
thirty· first day after the date of it~ adoption.
INTRODUCED,
PASSZD,
AYES:
NOllS,
ABSTl!NTIONS ,
ABSJ!lIlT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS ro FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
6
APPROVED:
Mayor
City ~ger
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
•
.. .
\
f ,
EXHIBIT "A"
.. , -I ~ "' ..... · rti -r~·.~ .:~_ :=..J ~ I v_, 1,,;:16
_ _ ""'-~1 I: ""ZP :; 1 d!3 &0
!. !IO ~ ~. fP' . ti.~ "" ·~~I~ I~ ;;;-. ~~ !~I~ ¥ ,
~~ll: ::::~, I~'rm H M1 • ~ !~; 11" ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ;~ .~ I; ~ rH ,YO"'"" ,,,s_1 ~ ITG. ~ I~ ,,<!.. .:. "1 H ~ ~ .. -r5r 1': {,~ ,~ [w '" ~~ 1$S1~ ;," 11<
F ~ ~ I~ . ~ !!. ~ ~ " ",I. .~7S :~: & ~ ~ f*1 r ~~ ~
~~Wl .. ',~'~; f I:~~i; ,
3:....
I~ I~ [~ ~~ ~ 'ft. l:i -"
F .
, :rc
P~649 '-I~'£ ~~ I~ ~1--~ I~ • .., . . .•.• j' ..•• ::;1 : .."
1""-
.... i~ . I;;. 1.; .,,""'-, OS! i: ~
. or-PC -I-"'"
R !"Si
10*> ..... 2968 I ,It ,:;." "':. f-' n '"'' ~~~J.f§ W !~Ii ~,! JI --NI}f~ . "Ef: . Ji . !J.~ l ~ fl "'-s
WEBS
IH; .~ Iii I:r SITE LOCATION H ~I~~: II E t~f _ r
HI-' i ~:.::, . " Iilr'l-r,~
~E; '!i~ $C:·lb1. ~t,o.n'~,'W -=-
S>n •• ~ "~: ~ '3499 ~ .h: Pg-S'!f1.·'5~
,)O-C~!' ~' 1-----
J;:;,( p ) 5-';... 1;;~~1 I""" ffi~ H; '5<>1 . Cit:-'" ~
~ • r-l'""r-r ,..
COWF
, il ~'J.lp $1 i:f ,,,,,I 1r¥1.~ I:>~ ~~I ! II 'I~,,~J'I IL tip i~ I~
~ GRAPHIC ATTACHMENT DATE: 0I1GI02 -.
TO STAFF REPORT . F J L E tio. -12-2C"~ .2-EIA .. 7
PROJECT: ZONE .CHANGE FROM RN-t5 TO PC
lOCATIOrI HAP:
'. ,
This document is recQrded fol.' the BDIBIT -B-
benefit of the Clty of Palo Alto
and is entitled to be recorded
free of charge in accordance with
Seetion 61Q3 of the ,~ernment Code
After Recordation, mail to:
OFFICE OF THE crrY A TTORNE'l
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
~ lUfrWBBh HAM.ILTOK AVENUE PROPD.TIES, me.
AI!lll CX'l'T OF FALO ALTO
JtBGARI)llilG PmlLIC BENEPXT FOR PC ZONE
'5~ Eaadlton Avenue, 536-576 Kid41efield Koad,
and 523-575 Byron Stre~t, PaiD Alto, California
THIS AGREBMBNT. made and executed this day of
=C~~~~~~~~~' 1593. by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a
m.micipal corporation of the State of california. hereinafter
referred to as "City". and F...AMILTON AVENUE PROPERTIES, INC., a
California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer";
• IT. B SSE T H:
WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of tr.at certain real
property situated in the City of Palo ~to, County of Santa Clara,
State of california, generally known and described as 651 Hamilton
Avenue, 536~576 Middlefield Road and 523-5'5 Byron Street, Palo
Alto, ~ifo~ia 'the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Developer t..as applied to City for app~oval of a
20ne change OD the Property fram -RM 1S -Low Density MUltiple
famdly Residential-to "PC Planned Community·, to allow
development of an approximately 90. 760-square· foot senior
condominium project with 36 residential unite and associated COJrmOO
areas (the "Project"); and
1IHER..BAS~ e:ectioD 18.68.060 (b) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code provides that a PC district must result in public benefits not
otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of other
district.Si and
1IHER..BAS, City ha.s determined that the nature of the
Project, pr~#iding additional housing for the elderly, including
provisions for life-long medical care, provides an on-site or
inherent public benefit; and
~S. Developer" has proposed to contribute to a fund
that would benefit seniors and senior G~rvices, for ~he purpose of
1
'""
. /
-, >/",
. ,.-:-~-~~:' "
0'f&£;,;: -'.
_.1.
providing additional public benefit for approval of the PC zone;
and
WHEREAS. Cit~i" is willing to accept Developer's
contribution as a public henefit in support of the PC zone; and
desires to assure that the proposed fund will be established and
maintained in accQrdance with the agreement of both parties~ and
that the obligations for continued funding will be binding upon
Developer. its successors and assigns.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the approval
of the PC -Planned Community Zone change~ and in order to ensu~e
satisfactory perfo~ce by Developer of Developer's obligations
under Chapter 18.68 of the Palo ~to MUniCipal Code, the parties
hereto mutually covenant ana agree as follows:
1~ Creation 9= Fund; Yearly Payments.
(i) Developer shall contribute to City the sum of
Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500~OOO) for the establishment of
a fund '-Fund!!) to benefit seniors and senior services. City'shall
establish and maint&in the Fund. Interest from all monies in the
Fund shall accrue to the Fund.
(i1) The $5(10,000 contribution shall be payable in
ten (~O) annual installments of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000)
each, subject to the requirement for a final lump sum payment as
described in subparagraph 1 [iii), and subject to Developer's right
to terminate future ohllg:!ltions, as described in paragraph 3. The:
initial instal1meDt shall be payable within thirty (30} days after
adoption of tbe ordinance amending the zoning on the Property to PC
• Planned CODI!DJnicy. Subsequent annual installments shall be
payable on or before JUDe 1 of each succeeding year.
(iii) Upon the close of escrow for the sale of the
32no1. unit in the Project, De'I"eloper shall, within 30 days of such
closing. pay in one lump sum to City the remainder of the $500,000
unpaid as cf t.hat closing date. Thereafter. no further annual
payments s~l be ~lin9 to City~
2 • Payment to Fund Qppp Subs egugDt Sale of llnit..s..
(il In addition to the Developer'S annual
contribution described in paragraph 1, the seller ~ upon resale (all
sales subsequent to original sale of each unit) of each unit in the
Project shall pay to City for the Fund an amount equal to Two and
OOe·Balf Percent (2-1/2t) of the sales: price of the unit. The
·sales price" shall be the price established by the Santa Clara
County Recorder's Office upon which the City's real property
transfer tax is calculated.
(ii) Developer and subsequent owners shall insert in
any deed or other conveyance of each unit the specific requirement
for payment upon resale set forth in subparagraph 2 (i) _ Any such
deed or other conveyance of each unit shall be recorded in the
2
•
I ,
~
· >'
"
~'+;';';" .• -./ :;:
~~ ....•. " <
County Recorder's Office and a conformed copy shall be sent to
City.
3. Develgper's Bight to Terminate4 on or before May
1 of any year prior to the start of construction on the Project,
Developer may terminate its obligation to contribute tD the Fund by
giving written notice dated on or before such date to City of its
irrevocable deciaion to abandon the Project. Thereafter. no
further c::o:ltributicns shall be required from Developer. Any
contributions made to City by :Developer prior to the giving of
notice shall remain tbe property of City.
". Uee of the Fund. The Fund shall be used by City to
benefit seniors and senior services. MOnies in the ~~d shall be
allocated to t.he Senior Coordinating council t.o supple:nent their
delivery of senior services t.o the comnunity ~ or to such ether
service provider (s) as the City Council from time to time shall
designate, and on such terms as the City Council may establish~
Developer ehall have no obligation to City or any other Agency
under this Agre~t or any terms hereof with regard tc allocati?n
of the Fimd. other than to make the payments to City as provided
herein.
5. 501d RarmleBs~ Developer hereby agrees to and shall
protect, indemnify and hold City~ its officers, agents. and
employees harmless frcxn and against any and all liabilities,
obligations, damages, cOSt8~ injuries, or claimB thereof, inciud
ing, but not limited to. claims for damage or personal injury,
including death, and claims for property damage, arising in any
manner fran the performance or failure to perform the provisions of
this a9reement~ except for any such claim arising as a resu!t of an
act or omission of City. itE; officers. Agents or employees,
hereunder that constitutes an act of negligence, gross negligence
or willful misconduct~ Developer agrees t.o, and ehall, defend
City. it-s officers, agents, and employees, from any suits o:!'
actions at law or in equity for damages, liabilities, or obliga
tions caused.. by or ..arising from, or alleged to be caused by or
ariaing from, the performance of this agreement, ~~cept for any
Buit or action at law or in equity arising as a result of an act_or
omission of City, its offic.ers, agents or employee8~ hereunder that
constitutes an act. of negligence, gross negligence or willfu.l
misconduct. Notwitl"o..standing the foregoing. Developer's performance
of this Agreement shall be deemed discharged as to each installment
payment owing. upon payment Of ,such installment as provided for
herein.
6. Assignment of Contract. Neither this agreement, nor
any part hereof, shall be assignable by Developer without the
written consent of City. which shall not be unreaso~ly withheld.
Any attempted assignment without first obtailling such consent shall
be void and of no effect.
?
conditions of
Binding gn Successors. The terms, covenants, and
this agreement shall apply to, and shall bind the
3
"
.'.
heirs, successors, executors, administrators., assigns, contractors.
and subcontractors of the parties.
8. Coot' and Attprneys' lees~ The prevailing party in
any act.ion brought to enforce the terms of this agreement or
arising out of this agreement may recover fran the other party its
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with
su.ch an act i OIl.
9. Notices. All notices hereunder shall be given in
writing and mailed. postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed
as follows:
To City:
To Developer:
Office of the City Clerk
250 Hamilton ~ve~ue
Palo ~to, CA 94301
Hamilton Avenue Properties, Inc.
555 Byron Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
:IN Wl:TNESS WriERBOF, the parties hereto have caused this
agreement to be executed in duplicate the day and year first above
written.
CrrY OP PALO AL'l'O
City Manager
APl'ItO'IBD AS TO PORI"
S!mior Assistant City Attorney
APPaovED .as '1'0 C(MIBRll
Director of Planning and
Ogmp,nity ~Iironment
Director of Pinance
Director of CoaDunity Services
BAIaL'l'OR' AVBIIllB noPEn"rKS. DIC.
a california corporation
~:n.=~~~------------president
4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUN'l'¥ OF SANTA Ct.'IRA
as.
On ; 1993, before me, , a
Notary Public, personally appeared JUNE I'LEMING, personally known
to me to be the person whC»Je name is subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that she ~ecuted the SaIPe in,her
authoriz.ed capacity as City Manager ot the City of Palo Alto, a
municipal corporation, and that by her signature on the inst~ent
she acknowledged t.hat said municipal corporation executed the. Bm-.e.
IN WITNESS I 8et my hand and affix my official seal.
5
Notary ~~blic in and for said
County and State
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8S.
COIlNTY OF SANTA CLARA
On • 1993. before me.. • a
Notary Public, personally appeared , personally
knOWD to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that be/she executed the same in
his/her authorized capacity as President of Hamilton Avenue
Properties,. :Inc~, a CAlifornia corporation, and that by hie/her
signature on the instrument he/she acknowledged that said
corporation executed the emne.
IN WITNESS I set my hand and affix ~ official seal.
Notary Public in and for said
COunty and State
ATTACHMENT 10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM, Joe Huber, liz Kniss;Joe Simitian & La!ue Wheeler
RE: 651 Hamilton· Public Benefit Component
DATE: November IB, 1992
We ",·ould like to suggest that the Council consider an alternative to the public
benefit component currently proposed in connection ~ith the 651 Hamilton
Avenue SerUor ConclomiItium project.
The public benefit currently proposed is the acqulsltion of seven market rate units
for ronversion to below-mArket-rate (BMR) status (over and above the seven units
which are requine<! as a matter of code). We propose a public benefit which would
benefit substantially larger numbers of residents, focus the benefit on seniors and
senior housing in particular, and create some sort of lasting endov."Inent to benefit
seniors in need in perpetuily.
Our initial proposal for consideration by the Council, the staff and the applicant
would require the applicant to fund a portio!"! of the cost for three imporr..nt senior
programs: The Retired SerUor Volunteer Program (RSVP), the Senior Home Repair
Program. and the SerUor Housing Counseling Program. :rhe Senior Coordinating
Council', current annual deficit for RSVP i. approxiIDately $25,000. Our CDBG
support for Home Repair subsidy and Housil\g Counseling currently totals $20,000
annually. Initial support from the applicant covering these three costs ($45,000
annually) would be a good start
Additionally, however, the applicant would be required to create, over time, a
Senior Services Endowment Fund to fund a broader, and costlier, range of senior
services. By coUecting some percentage of the proceeds on an ongoing basis from
recurring unit resales .. an ever increasing endowment could be created. .
For the record l our interest in improving the pubUc benefit component of the
project exists indepencient of the position(s) any of us may eventually wish to take
on the application. We are open as to the details and the mechanics of making such
a. proposal work. We !ook forward to pursuing this approach to public benefit with
you when the project application reaches the CounaL
(Note: 1t is the intent of the ;authors Hut Ihis memorandum lJ.!o.a public docu!'nC11! as of the above date.)
.. -'.
,: '
lLooLTON A VENUE PROPERTIES. INC.
5SS BYRON STREET· PALO AI.TO, CA 94301
PROPOSED sec ENtlOWIIENT FONO _. OuTLINE
"THE HAMILTON"
TEL 14 i51 )26-4626
FAX. (~15) 327·8191
EXHIBIT A.
To 11/25 Letter
11 We will contribute $500,000 to an endowment fund established
by and for the benefit of the sec. This contribution will he
made in annual installments of $50,000 on June 1 of each year
from 1993 throu9h 2eO', subject only to the conditions set
forth in 5) ~nd 6J below.
2) In addition to the $500,QOO initial contribution, ~e will
contribute an ~dditional amount equal to 2 , of the net sales
price of ea~n residential unit in The Hamilton when it is
RE-SOLD by the original or subsequent owners.
3) Opon closinq of the 6ale ¢f our 32nd unit (out of the 36
units proposed), W~ will promptly contribute all &nnual
inBtal~nt5 which r~in unpaid at' that timer e.q. if the
32nd unit sale closes in OCtober# 1997, we vill ~ediately
pay the remaining five instAllments.totaling $250,000 •
• ) The June lr1993 install~er.t fer FY 1993-9~ will be paid
promptly upon the City's approval of our rezoning application
reqardless of the date of such approval~
5) On April 1st of any year prior to the start of construction
we may terminate OUr obliqation to contribute to the endow
ment fund in the future by givinq written notice to the sec
of our irrevocable decieion to abandon the project. All
contributions made prior to any such notice will r~ein in
the sec endcwmect fund.
6) In the event that we fail to close the sale of at least 32
units in Tbe Hamilton within three years followinq the start
of construction, we may terminate by written notice to the
sec our obligation to contribute the 2 \ -re-&31e fees
de5C%ibed in 21 above.
All of the obligations and conditions outlined above ~re intended
to apply to any successor to our position as applicaht and/or
oeveloper~
..
ATTACHKrNT 11
'rhe Bami 1 t on
Development Schellule (All dates are approxi ... te \,'" 13 1~93
May 3. 1993
preparation of Working Drawings;
City of Palo Alto plan Check
Re,,·iew:
Site Clearing and Demolition:
Basement Excavetion:
Ba&~ent Construction:
Concrete Structure:
Roof Structure and Roofing!
EXterior Skin:
Interior Improvements:
Sitework ~rovements and
L!t.ndsC4pinCj:
Initial Occupancy;
': i
August 1993 -January 1994
Febru.8 ry -May 1 199-4
June -July, 1994
July 1994
~U9ust -Septerober l 1994
October -December, 1994
January -February, 1995
December l'S3 -Pebruary 1995
February -July, 1995
April -3uly. 1995
Auqust -September, 1995
:-'lJ#/r".
EXHIBIT Ii -'fa ~rogram Development Statem,..··t -
B:\CKEN ,\IU{]( ;0:-:1 K· ROSS. I Nt:. ~ •• t .. , •• , ",. 1"1.''''''''1:
.. I" •• ,,,,, n.,." ..
I,il ... I;:"'~t<~" ",'I
HAMILTON AVENUE PROPERTIES 41&'93 !>. ... ! , .. , .. '" , •• (,J\
~b "~1·1;;1
Palo, Ailo, California BAR #90062-3 ~,'. l~; 1~~ IJ', ~ iHI,,,... ...
I'LANNElJ CO~tJI1UN11Y ZONE CIIAN{;E -I'ROJECT ST 1\ nSTICS
·IJI ztluinies dr' pu/imiMFY
Unit UciIMa IlaIc..Aru· 10 FIr_
A 1,54! sf 70 sf
B 1,358 sf 78 sf
D 1,424 sf 61 sf
C 1,825 sf 58 sf
C-I 1,839 sf 84 sf
E 1.61l sf 14Ii sf
F 1,974 sf 90 sf
G 2,069 tf 154 sf
H 2,538 sf 84 sf
I 1,757 sf sf
K 2,356 sf 5f
TOTAL
.JU:onyIJTN6 ..... r)./N,. ~ in.kllD1l'Jg
GROSS BUIlDING AREA LEVEL 1
OROSS BUIlDING AREA LEVEL 2
GROSS BUILDING AREA LEVEL 3
GROSS BUIlDING ARE" LEVEL 4
BUILDING ARE"
GARAGE
TOTAL GROSS .uu:A
Total D.U.
Avo-Unit Size
Site A .....
F.AA
COVERAGE CALCULATION
RESlDENI1AL AREA
COMMONS
POOL
BALCONlES
COVERED EXTERIOR SPACE
TOTAL
COVERAGE
I
1
2
... imit>H. !w ..... ,~ Vi ... 1"r .... ic1 .. 'u,
150....~.dj ..... ~ ... , 'AI.~
"' ...... , \·A .. «, .. ,-AI~
1~_"'''''·hrII .• li'I.'
liC .. h .... <l1J ", ... 01. 1\ til
I_~. (J ... "' ... .,~
1 ... ,~(J, .... .l
r_lJ-nl .. -.
J Ie .. tu.d t~, .. I"", ..
2nd fir. 3rt! FIr.
2 2
I
I 1
1 I
2 2
2 2
II II
36 units
1759 sf
51,500 sf
4th FI;'.--.TOTAL
1 6
3
3
3
3
5
1 7
I 3
6
1
1
36
9,246 sf
4,074 sf
4,272 sf
S,475 sf
S,5n sr
8,055 sf
13,818 sf
6,207 sf
2,538 sf
1,757 sf
2,356 sf
63,315 sf
TOTAL
25,636 sf
22,706 sf
22,217 sf
_____ --;17,094 s!.
87.653 sf
33,381 sf
121,034 sf
1.70 "'11tC~s ilbow: g1'3lh ~f<KlfiJl~ 0IIIy
IS,367 sf
8,313 sf
1,956 sf
677 sf
1,060 sf
27,373 sf
53.2%
J .. l." \' r I .....
]· .... I'~ 1C .... ' .. IlooI,
Vicr t't ......... m'
~1"ri. '" It, ... " v .... n ...... , I' H"ll.orHI
U ... -..1I";oc'1
" .. , ....... 1, r. JU"I:
~'''Q\I;L.<''o
DEVELOP~ENT PROGRAM STATEMENT
Re: 'I'hld' Hil:Dlilton Senior Living Community
536-576 Middlefield, 535-575 Byron and
651 Hamilton (92-zC-3, 92-EIA-"
Applic~tion for Re-Zoning from RM-15 to PC
ATTACHMENT 13
.. ~ . ~ ' ....
. . .", " --._' ., -----.::--f
(aJ Statement 'of Necessity of Application for PC Oistrict:
The special characteristics of a senior living co~~unity are such
that an econOJnically viable project of this type cannot b~ built
within Palo Al~o's highest reside~tial Floor Area ~atio (FAR) of
1.0. Discussions with City staff led the applicant to the
conclusion that the application of gen~ral districts or'combining
districts w~uld not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the
proposed development. rt quickly became apparent that only a PC
district. could accomodate the relatively 11i9h FAR required by a
fe~6ible community development fer seniors.
Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned
.community djstrict will result in public benefits not otherwise
attainable by application of the regulations of general districts
or combining districts4 These public benefit& are as follows:
1) An inherent public benefit of t~e proposed development i5
that it will provide additional housing for the elderly,
inclodin9 provisions for life-long medical care4
2) The applicant will make arrangements to provide long-term
funding of programs sponsored and maintained by the Senior
Coordinating Council of The Palo ~lto ~rea. (The detail~ of
t~ese arranqements will be spelled oot in a document being
prepared by City staff for signature by the applicant4)
The proposed use of the site and the site development regulations
applicable within the proposed PC district appear to be qenerally
consistent with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan~ A detailed
anaJ.ysis of t.lle project as it relates to various Policies of the
Housing Element of the comprehensive plan is included on pages 13
and 14 of the 9/:25/92 stat! report to the City Council ..
Great care has been tak,en by the applicant and by City staff to
create a site plan and building plans which Bre compatible with
existing and potential uses on adjoining sites and within the
general vicinity. No variances are required wjth reqard to set
back5, daylight planes or any facets of the design that could
adversely affect neiqhboring parcels4 The ·Spanish Colonial~
architectural style is particularly appropriate within the
downtown area and has been well received by our neighbors and
other nearby residents and property ownerS4
.. -
The site of the proposed development presents uniquely favorable
conditions for accomodating the proposed FAR of 1.7:
1) Only one edgp of the property is adjacent to nei9~borin9
propertie~. The other three sides are adjacent to City
6treets~ This results in far less impact on nei9hbors than
'Would be ex;>erienced if there .... ere adjoir.ing parcels on three
sides~ ~lthou9h the proposed design meets all required
daylight plane and setback requirements at all four of its
boundaries, ~ny substantIve impact on neighboring properties
is diminished du~ to the streets which separate neiqhbors
from the site on three out of four sioes.
2) The site is bounded by major traffic corridors, Middlefield
Ito-ad and Ba~ilton Avenue, which helps to mitigate any
possible negative impact on neighboring properties due to
altered tr~ftic patter~s.
3) Th~ proposed developroent is less th~~ one block from ~he
Lytton Cardens complexes and Webster House, all of which are
very dense ~ousin9 for seniors. Such proximity to these
relatively bul~y structures and to the Fi~st ~ethodi6t Church
facilities oirectly across Byron Street would seem to make
the site particularly appropriate in an urban desiqn ser.se~
~n addition, this proximity will allow for shared access to
such facilities as the Lytton III s~illed nursinq center by
~bulatory residents.
(b) Liot1nq of All Use. Propooed,
1) ~esidential. A tote I of 36 independent living units plus
common dining facilities and o~her amenities typical of a
well proqrammed and desiqned senior livinq community~ A
complete description of these facilities and their nature is
included in section (c), followinq~ Addi.tional detail and
statistic6 are s~t forth in section Cd), fol1¢wi~9.
(el Description of the Nature of Propo£ed Uses:
Th~ Hamilton will provide comfortable and s~cure retirement
housinq with attendant provisions for life-long ~.dical care. It
will create an alternative to the relatively small residential
units at existing Palo Alto retirement communities, all of which
have Ions waiting lists at present. All units will be completely
self-contained and each includes an entryway, kitchen, dininq
aree, extensive closet space ano at least two full hathrooms.
It is &nticipated that twelve units will h~ve three bedrooms and
twenty-four units will h~ve two bedroorn~. In addition, there
will likely be twenty units with dens and some units will have a
half ~~throom for quest~. All units are arranged to accomodate
the assisted care of one spouse witholJt. qreatly imposinq on
the other. If the need arises, a person qualified to provide
2
,
i • ~ ,
-" .
in-home personal care could be evai]~ble around the clock~ All
unjts will be designed tc be handicapped accessible and will
be equipped with medical alert and security systems.
All units hav~ at least one accessible balcony or, in the case
of 9rou~d floor units, a private patio. The average unit Bize is
1,759 squa~e feet and the range i~ from 1,358 square feet to
2,069 square feet plus t~o larger units on the fourth floor~ The
attached Exhibit B4 presents details as to 5i~e and other
relevant information.
Common amenities i~clude a commercial kitchen and dining areas
{main dining room, ·solarium-and private dinili9 room) which will
seat up to a total of 72 persons~ ~ library a~d livin9 ro~ are
located on the ground floor ~nd a bar/lounge ~ith large balcony
is Situated on the top floor. A three-lane pool, exercise room~
j~cuzzi pool, S8un~ and bathroom with shower are on the ground
floor. Mail will he delivered to a conveniently located alcove
near the lobby. Men's and women's re5trooms with generous
faciliti~s are located quite near the dining rooms and living
room.
ether common amenities include two private quest rooms on the
fourth floor, a large sun-lit courtyard, two smaller landscaped
courtyards and e generous vegetable/flower garden with raised
planter bedsa
AdminiEtrative facilities include a clerical/reception area, work
area, two private offices and direct access to a roeetinq room
which do~bles as a private dining ~oom. An employee lounge and
bathroom are provided for Xitchen and housekeeping employees.
Detailed staffing plans have not yet been finalized but it i&
antiCipated that a total of 10 persons will be employed full
time~ The staff will be quite similar to that of Webster House,
a nearby 37-unit senior living community~ A manager and an
assistant lrlanaqer ",-ill be on site during regular daytill"le hours~
A combination ~aintenanee man/driver/part-time security person
will be available around the clock~ including the 'Weekends. (It
is clear that this job will be shared by at least two persons.)
There will be 3 housekeepers and 4 kitchen/serving personnel. In
addition there are apt to be 8 number of part-time ~or~ers. It is
expected that no more than B employees would be on the premises
at any qiven time.
In previous submittals the applicant has mentioned the need for a
"~edical director-and an -activities director-. The medical
director will be a physician with offices located els~where who
n',ey make occasional visits to the site. There will not be an
activities director per se, but it is expected that the assi$tant
manager and manaqer will be involved in arranqing the limited
social programs expected by owners of the 36 residences.
The provision of health care and the availability of appropriate
wellnese. progra"ms for the residents are as important to the
3
•
..
applicant a8 is the design of the physical improvereents. The
development will be licensed by the State of Californja as a
Senior Continuing Care Community in order that it may offer the
kinds of health related s~rvices and facilities that the owners
of its residences are entitled to. This a~pect of the project is
80 important and so often misunderstood that a separate document
entitled -THE HAMILTON: Concept for Health Care/Senior Welln~ss
Pro9ram-has been prepared by the applicant. This outline of
the programs planned and a brief definition of relevant terms is
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
~Q) Project Statistic. {floor areas, etc.):
The attached Exhibit B., ·Project Statistics·, indicat~s the
number of livinq units proposed and their floor areas as well as
ether relevant data. A precise count of bedrooms is not possible
since three of the fourth floor units have not been planned in
det~il and a number of other units may well be modified to suit
thE specific requirements of their o~~ers. A realisitic estimate
at this staqe. however, would be a total of 8~ bedrooms.
Projected sales prices for the eleven different unit plans have
not been finalized. Prices will vary according to each unit's
location within the building, but it is anticipate~ that prices
will range from about $675,000 to as hi9h as $1.200,000. The
average unit price 1s expected to be just under $900,000.
leI Additional Xnformation.
The attached Exhibit C., ·Prelimin~ry Zoning Analysis and
Comparison-, compares the present desiqn (6/10/93) with the design
presented to the City Council (11/10/92). Note that the FAR wes
reduced from 1.74 to 1.70, Useable Open Space was increased b1
about 20 " two surface parking spaces ~ere added (sub-surface
spaces rerr,ain at 6~) and the Site Coverage was sli9htly reduced.
Ccmp~riBonE of key planning criteria for RM-IS and RM-40 zones
with our design B:re also included in this table.
Below Market Rate (BMR) units must be provided by the applicant
in accord: with City ordinances. Since rental units are pre&ently
located on the project site, the number of B~ units required is
equal to 20 , of the 36 units proposed within the project. Thus
a total of 7 BMR units must be provided. The aetails involved in
the provision of these units by converting existin9 market rate
off-site rental· units to BMR units Cor constructing new units}
are contained in a letter dated E/22/93 from the applicant to
Kenneth Shreiber. Please be advised that the 6/22/93 letter
supercedes an earlier letter dated 9/23/92 which dealt witt.
the subject of 8HR units~
•
!
! I
HAMILTON A VENUE PROPERTIES
Palo Alto, Cali romi>
6121193
BAR #90062
I'Rt:J.IMINARY 7'()NING ANALYSIS ANI) COMPARISON
RM·I~ 11!lU/Y~ Design
IUOfISIty a· " UUlAL jJ • 4V UU/AL jIJ.) UU/AL
l')lte Area !~Sfmjn. B~s!m\n. 51~sf.
I,ide + Rear yard !~ smgle sJorr; !~ up to 2~' hL Yaries, 16'· j.l'
Selbacks 25' up 10 30' hI 25' up to 40' ht
MHk!leneJQ Road D' D' L)'
Selba<:k
Maximum Heighl " "ones, .V ..... 44' 10 """. or
mansard roof
Maximum e 3)".18.= sf. 4~ '10 •• 3.175 sf. 1:>4'10; 27,802 sf.
I (jroond FIr, Usable j,,,,. I •• u", st. "I .... JU,.!UIJ". 1-'4':'''; IJ;/OlS 51.
Open Space
110JaJ Unlls Allowed 17 DU 47DU j3<iDU
I
Parking !!DU (Somor lIDO. (5en;0< 174 opaces,
Hoosing) Housir.g) 1.44IDU(reserved)
TOIa! Building Mea N.A. IN.A. I~:~~: :';: =
122.657 sf. lOIal
F.A.R. O.5G l.w 1./4
t',,, .. ,; .• I. ... "" .. \'" ........ 10·.,'. , ... ~" ... 110 ... ,
\I~,' ,I.. ~ .. '
\,. I" ,1'1 "'''''',
/<0. I ,,,. " .• , ~ I, 'I':"
1,_.,,· 1.".1, ,,,,, , .. ",', ..... , .... , \
"Ii""
:1, III 1;71
I I ~ Ii, ~ tI ,.. I< ,.,
611 UI'J.l o.o.ign
i-'U'~ UvlAc
51~.f.
Vanes, 10' • 43..5'
I""
44'10 ~ko!
mansard roof
IB.2.".; 27;373 sf.
412,.; 21,IY"f.
13<i DU
75 spaces,
1.47IDU(reserved)
• :.~j~. anv. grade
33;381 sf. bill!. grade
12;,034 sf. lOla!
L70 .
.. I
lJ. .... "~lr.,,,',,,l\l\
I(.~ .. t' \ \" 'I:' .,., .. \1 \
I-~. \1 ... ', I' 10111.\
1 ... 10,( "''''' r .... 1 t "l~·,
...... " , I··
t~ .. , l ". " •.. ~,. ~ .. ,. ",., I~'" ,,~I
I'~ ~II ...... '
...",,,11, .. to"',
, •. "'.,,~ I.· ..
1:. .. 1 ..... • I. t ... ",1 ,,\ I 1t .. 1,~ .. 1 1., .. 1"",
EXHIBIT A -To Developmont Program Statement -May 10, 1993
ATTACHMENT 14
C~eembcr 23, 1992
•• ' 1" 1'10"'"1
THE. tt"kJLTON: Concept for Health Care/Senior Wellnes's '"p';.o9i~m
Our goal is to lI\a)i.imi ~e the-indepel"'odence and wel..l...":'".being of ':The. __ ,
Hemilton'& re&jder.t5~ This means designin9 and man8ging a life
style pro9ram with a &tronq focus on health and fitness.
This program will have a broad ran~e of ·continuing care
services. Continuinq care refers to an organizeo program of
~onitorin9 and supporting ~ellnes6. The monitoring can be very
active or relatively passlve, dependin9 on the health and needs
of the individual.
The Ha~ilton's over!ll lifestyle p~o9ram, encompassin9 both
preventive servieee fp), and c~!'"e-service:::; (e), ..... ill:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Create an eamily acees&ible support and social network
(p) -
Provide daily ~ •• 15 with good nutrition (pl.
Provide planned and 6upervised wellness activities (p)~
~rovide qualifie~ staff to assist with medications,
sp~ci~l diets, provide blood pressure checks or other
health care conc.rns that require attention (e).
Provide assistance in the home for chronic or
debilitBting conditions ec).
Assure pre-arranged Bccess to personal care, assisted
living, or skilled nursing (c}.
The Hamilton ~ill ~ licensed by the State as Q Senior Continuing
Care Community. ~uch licensed communities must offer long-term
contracts that provide a residence (in The Hamilton's ease
through condominium ownership) ana a range of services and
amenities which focus on maintaining an independent lifestyle.
This includes the reqoirement to make available to each resident
three meals per day. In ~ddition, there must be pre-arranged
provisions for a ·continu~ of health eare-(in-home personal
care, essisted living and skilled n~rsin9 •.. see definitions
below). We plan to provide assisted living ~ithin the individual
residences end. when appropriate, at a qualified nearby facility.
Sxilled nursing services will be provided as well at a nearby
facility ..
The licensing process for 8 Continuing Cere Community through the
California Department of Social Service& is arduous and costly.
It requires an approved business and manaqement plan bS well as
the pre-sale of apprcxi~ately 60 , of the living units prior to
the start of constructjon~
There is a very real need for the sort of lon~-term care plan to
be offered by The Haroilton. It is estimated that 2 out of every
~ people ~ill require one or ~ore forms of long-term care at
&~me time in their live&~ The average length of such cere i~ 3
years and the averaQe cost is about $90,0001 ~ost people assume
that P.ledic:are and/or Medi-9ap insurance policies cover long-term
assisted ljving and skilled nursing care. The reality is that
~edicar~ pays for less than 2 , of skilled nursing stays.
Neither )Iedica::-e nor private Meoi-gap insurance covers ttle cost
of assisted living services.
We plan to
Hamilton.
following!
create a lonq-term care plan for the residents of The
This pl.en will incorporate one or more of the
•
•
•
A long-term care group insurance policy designed to cover
expenses, such as those mentioned above, which are not
covered by Medicare or traditional ~edi-gap policies.
A pre-arranqed agxeement with long-te~ cere entities
that provide in-home personal care, assisteo living and
skilled nursing services.
Arrangements that take full ad~antaqe of ~nticipated new
national health programs.
Given that health care and health insurance programs are in a
hi9h 5t.ete ·of flux, it is impractical for us to precisely define
the long-term care plan for a community that has yet to be
approved for con&tr~ction. As necessary approvals are Obtained
and as national health caze policy is redefined, however, we will
refine and revise our long-term care pla~ to meet the anticipated
needs of the residents of The Hamilton.
!-1onthly costs for the longo-term care plan lind proposed wellness
~rograms will be included in the common charges for each unit.
The overall cost.s of operating and maintaini'Hl The Ratr.ilton are
presently being rOlJ'Jhly estimated on the basis of the operating cost
experience of Webster Bouse and other somewhat similar seniors'
communities4 However, firm figures will be cetermined durin9 the
St.te licensing ~rocess and in the course of obtaining approval
from the California Department of ReAl Estate to 6ell corldominium
units.
Brief aefinition of terms used above:
Home Care
There are a number of home care services that may be used
dependins on the residents' need~ and the appropriateness of
r~m8~nlng at home to receive care. These services range from
ho~ernaker activjties !cleaning, shopping, laundry, errands) to
home delivered meals ouring a recuperati on and olltpatierlt care
with wedical supervision.
Assiste:J Living
This refers to help with the -activities of daily living
including dressing, bathing, toileting, eating and administering
~edications. Assisted living provides 2~-hour# on-call staff.
~esidents must. he ambulatory, perhaps with the assistance of
wheel chairs, wal~ers or canes, and able to move around without
harming themselves or ot~ers~ All ~eal6 are supervised and
special diets are often required.
Intermediate Care and Skilled Nursinq
The.re are two levels of skilled care, depeodinq on the amount. and
xind of nursinq required~ ~ emphasizes personal
care, rehabilitation and wit.h regular but not
round-the-clock nursing care. It Is for people who are not
.c3pable of livinq on their awn but arc not ill eno~9h to require
24-ho~r attention from a nurse. Skilled nursins is the closest
to the lev~l of hospital car~. It includes 24-hour nursinq care
with medical supervision.
'" -'.':--' "","
HAM1LTON A VENUE PROPERTIES. INC,
~S5 BYRON STREET. PALO ALTO, CA 94301
June 23, 1993
Xen Schreiber
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY OF PALO l\LTO
,"50 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, california 94301
Ret The Hamilton Senior Living Community
Provisions for Parkin9
Dear Ken:
AnAC~M£Ni 15
"THE HAMil TON'
TEL IllS) 326·~l6
FAX. 1415) 327·8197
~ .. "'
<'"I • H93
, .. ":",
As you know, we have revised our plans once a9~in and, in the
process, have increased the number of par~in9 spaces from a total
of" 73 as of September, 1992 to a present total of 75~ This
amounts to an overall parkinq ratio of 2~08 spaces per unit.
Of the eleven senior residential projects in the Bay ~rea
which we have studied, far and away the highest parking ratios
were found at three owner-occupied developments such as ~e are
proposing. These are The Stratford in San y~teo C1~69), The
Forum in CUpertino tl.~8) and th~ proposed Park View Villages in
Los Altos (1.71). With nearly 2S , more total parking spaces
than are provided by the most heavily parked sites devoted to
seniors' housing in the Bay Area, The Hamilton can be expected to
take care of all of its parking needs ON SITE. (Please refer to
Exhibit A. submitted with our letter of 10/27/92 to the Planning
Commission for a det6iled comparison of parking provisions at a
number of B~y Area senior residential project •. )
The revised plans provide for parking spaces as follows:
A. Surface: 5 visitor spaces and 1 handicap space for a total
of~aces (pl~a loading space).
B. Lower Level: 7 visitor spaces, 3 handicap spaces,
6 employee-spaces, an1 53 unistall spaces to be assigned to
residents~ The qarage lev~l total is ~9 spaces~
Since we have reduced the number of residential units from 38 to
35,,' the totel of 12 visitor spaces appears to comply -with the
applicable ordinance. It is important to note that ~ost visitors
to The Hamilton will come during the evening and on weekends when
there ere neaEly always numerous parking spaces on nearby
streets. In addition, there is a large City parking structure
within a block and a halt of The Hamilton's site.
We feel that the 6 employee spaces are adequate since a number of
the 8-1Q employees who ~ay be on the premises at any given time
will use public transportation, ride-share or be dropped off and
picked up by "friends or relatives4 ~his is the case at Webster
House. every si=ilar operation to that which we propose.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
May 7. 1993
Page 'TWo
Re; The Hamilton Senior Living Community
Provisions for Parking
We continue to feel that the most significant issYe to be
addressea is that of reserved residents' spaces. We propose
53 spaces for 36 residence units or a ratio of 1.47 spaces per
unit. These spaces will be sofficient for 18 units whose owners
have two cars, 17 units with a single C&r$ and one unit without
a car. This should be adequate since the -typical-seniors
project is occupied by at least two-thirds sinqle persons. The
most comparable local project to The Hamilton in terms of quality
and price, The Stratford p has sold more than two-thirds of its
units to single persons.
Even though couples who choose to liv~ at The Hamilton will
ordinarily have two cars at the outset, they are apt to dispose
of one car for many reasons. These include: .
1. Proximity to downtown" convenient public tre.!lsport.ation and
numerous services within easy walkins distance.
2. The availability of a van or other suitable vehicle for
trips to doctors, Stanford Shopping Center" theatres, the
train 6tatio~. etc.
3. Illness or the reluctance to drive on the part of one or
both members of the family. (The Hamilton's health advisors
will enco~rage poor drivers to use ~lternative transport.)
4. The relatively high cost of a second parkinq space. (We
anticipate including only one space in the basic price of
a resiClence.)
Onc~ again we wish to state our view that enouqh parking spaces
must be provided to meet t~e requirements of the relatively
affluent persons who will be attracted to The Hamilton. At the
same time, we ~ust 8vQid any siqnificant negative impact on the
availability of nearby on-street parking~ With these goals in
mind we have r~viewed our parkinq program with our architects"
other know,ledgable consultants and developers of like projects.
OUr conclusion is that the proposed parking facilities are more
than adequate to meet the stated goals.
Sincerely"
ATTAC~MENT 16
IMILTON AVENUE PRoPERTIES,INC.
555 BYRON STREET. PAW ALTO. CA 94301
June 22, 1993
Ken Schreiber
Director of Planning and
Community Environm~nt
CI'l'Y OP P.>.LO ALTO
"TKE HAM lL TON"
TIL. 1415) 326-1626
FAX. (~15) 327.8L97
.JUi~ 22 1J£3
C?';:-;-:-.~::-7":: "::"~::::"!!JG 250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
;:':..J:':'':'':,: . -" _~ ._.~._.
Re1 The Hamilton Senior Living Community
BaKUlton Avenue Between Middlefield and Byron
Application for Rezoning f~om AM-15 to Planned
C01IlIIIuni ty (PC I
Assessor's Parcel Nos: 120-03-047, 048, 049,
052, 053 and 073
Dear J::en:
This letter sets forth the specific proposal of Hamilton Avenue
Properties I Inc. (~Applicant·) to provide the City of Palo Alto
(·City·) e ~inim~ of seven (1) BMR units in conjunction with
the above-referenced project. The BMP. units will be identified
and funded in accordance with the following conditions;
1. A minimum of seven (7) BMR units will be acquired or
oonstructed by Applicant and given to the Palo Alto Housing
Corporation. free and clear of all liens. prior to the issuance
of a. building permit for the referenced project ("The Hamilton-).
These units constitute compliance with programs 9, 11 and 13 of
the Bousing Element of the Palo A!to Comprehensive Plan and their
location(s) shall be subject to approval by the City Council.
2. Applicant will make good faith efforts to secure seven (7)
or more BMR units with no stUdio units and at least three (3)
two-bedroom units. A mix of studio? one-bedroom and two-bedroom
units will be permitted, however, with at least three 2-BR units
and one additional 2-BR unit for each studio incl~ded. For
example, a mix of two studio units and five 2-BR units would
be aeceptable.
3. All BHR units to be provided by Applicant shall he in
reasonably good condition. They shall be structurally sound
with all plumbing. heatins and appliances in qood werking
order. It is understood that such units will not be required
to meet current Builaing Codes, but they shall be free of
termite and other pest infestation and seismically sound.
4. In cooperation with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation and
the City. Applicant will explore other possibilities for
financing additional BKR units, using SecLion 8 money, CDBG
funding. conventional financing or other sources of fundin9~
Such an approach could well lead to the provision of more than
the seven (71 units offered herein at the ~ame cost basis to the
CITY OP PALO AL'I'O
June 22. 1993
Pa9'e 'l"wo
R.~ The Bamilt~n Senior Living COmMunity
Applicant. Applicant fully recognizes the need for aHR housinq
in Palo Al~o and ~ill ~ake every effort to explore all reasonable
alternatives with the Sou&inq Corporation and the City.
We feel that the foregoin9 represents an effective approach
toward add~essinq the need for low to moderate income housinq in
the comsunity. As ~et forth above s we wi!h to retair._ the
flexibility tQ look at <ern.tives that will increase the number
of SMR units that can be made a~ailable to the City and we will
we.lcome C'Q1'I'mtent& from s.taff tow",rd this end.
Sincerely,
a~ILTON AVENUE PROPERTIES, .INC.
" :--.> ~ W2f ~ B. Bill. President
co: Steve Player
ARCHl TEC'roRAL REV lEW BOARD HEARING
June 3. 1993
65J Hamiltgn Ayenue
53§w576 Middlefield Road
523-$75 Byron Street
Hamilton Avenue Properties: Inc.
93-ARB-12
92-ZC-3
92-EIA-7
Final review of design for senior condominium project not to exceed
94,000 square feet and 38 units.
Ma. Kaser: This is the final ARB review of the proposed project
and the environmental assessment and recommendation to the Planning
Commission and City Council. If there are members of the public
preee.."'1t who intend to speak to this item, please fill out a card.
Thomas aiae needs to Btep down, due to a conflict of interest.
Are there any additional comments by staff on this project7
MS· Weiss: Virginia warheit is prese~t to answer questions that
the board might have.
Ms· Wilson: I have a question. I look at the drawings and I read
the text. and I get confused about this parking strip issue, the
245 feet~ etc. When I look at this drawing. it looks like the
parking strip planting area is the same all the way around the
site. Yet when I read it~ it makes it souna like it is
substandard. Where do you think they can get the space from to
make it wider? And wby would it be wider if it is different? That
is confusing me.
Ms. Warheit: First the present situation with planting strips is
varied on all three sides. It is not as ever:. as it is shown on the
plans. Sometimes it is two-and-a-half feet ,: sometimes it is all
concrete. It i& real spotty. Hamilton is the most conGistent~ and
even here# it varies f~ three-and-a-half to five feet. So on all
three sides# it is just' 'ery irregular.
Ms. Wilson: What is going on at the Byron Street side? The
property line is ten feet from the curb,.
Ms. warhelt: Right:~ The planting strip is generally two·-and-a
half feet wide with a six-inch curb and a five-foot sidewalk l for
a total of eight feet. There is an additional two feet to the
property line. That is not the current standard. The current
standard is a five-foot planting strip and a five-foot sidewalk.
SO if you install the current standard, the sidewalk would be at
6/03/93
-1-
I the edge of the propert.y line. But that is not the current
situation. The current situation is that there are two feet
between the sidewalk and the property line.
The building is proposed 23 feet behind the property line. They
are showing a five-foot. sidewalk directly next to the face of the
building, an eight~foot parking space and a ten-foot driveway.
That is the 23 feet. That brings you to the property line, with no
room for planting between there and the sidewalk. But what the
applicant is proposing i~ that we ~aintain the two-and-a-half foot
planting strip and the five foo~ sidewalk. and that they use those
two feet of public right cf way to provide a hedge planting between
the sid~walk and the driveway.
Ms. Wilson: Staff thinks there should be no planting between the
driveway and the sidewalk?
MR. Warheit.: On the contrary, staff thinks there definitely must
be planting between the sidewalk and the parking. We think that
this proposal of using the two feet of public right-of-way ia
minimally acceptable; since it would provide a hedger and probably
one that is two or three feet high. That kind of thing can work.
It is just not ideal. It would be preferable to have a five-foot
planting strip, a five~foot sidewalk r and five feet of perimeter
planting of 3-5 provided inside the property line, as required in
the parking ordinance. But the distance betwc~n the proposed front
of the building and the property line does not allow for that.
HI Kaser: The dimensions of the drop-off parking area there are
pretty minimal. as set forth in this plan --eight feet for the car
and ten feet for the aisle. Are those acceptable with the Traffic
Department?
Ms Wa~heit: They are acceptable with the Traffic Department. We
also ran it by the Fire Department. a!ld they said it is okay;
because right bere wbere you have this space in front of the door;
it is fairly wide, about eight or ten feet; and of course; there is
no parking there, so loading and unloading, if done right in front
of the door, has more space. Both Transportation and the Fire
Departments found it acceptable, even though it is technically shy
of the current standards, which is 12 feet in width.
I would point out that Byron Street is 30 feet i curb to curb, so
half of Byron Street. provides 15 feet for one-way traffic and
parked cars. This is 18 feet, so compared to half of Byron Street,
this is wider.
Ms HaBer: Getting back to these trees~ if they are planted in a
narrow planting scrip like that, will the city have requirements
for watering mechanics for trees like that?
".,;"
6/03/93
-2-
Ms. Warbeit: Let me just say that the Public Works Department s
done a lot of patching of that sidewalk within the last yea ~
two. So they can live with it the ~ay it is~ but it is my feel
~ I have talked to them to get their response to this, witt
amount of changing of curbs that would cause, closing some, ope. ~
others I new driveways, that is going to go on at, the Byron Street
6ide~ the applicant will probably prefer to take out that sidewalk
~~d replace it. As I expect what is going to happen is that this
whole frontage will be redone, including the planting strip and the
Bidewalk~ In that case, the tree well could be madE larger. There
are ways to plant shrubs and tZ'ees so that they will have adequate
root space. We have places in town where the trees are planted in
sidewalks and the side~alks go all the ~ay to the curb~ and the
tree is in a large ~ell covered by a grate.
Me Maser:
width.
In this case, that would encroach on the sidewalk
Ms. Warheit: That is correct.
the grate. When we get down to
need to be specified~
Part of the sidewalk would be over
the final landscape plan, that will
Me ~ Maser: We will want the landscape archi teet' e comments on this
particular issue in the ~regentation. If there are no other
questions, we will have the presentation from the applicant. I met
with the applicant last nlght.
Mr-Hill: I am Jim Hill of Hamilton Avenue Properties, and we
our architect, Richa,rd Beard of Backon, Arrigoni and Ross,
Eldon Beck.. our landscape architect. They will handle
presentation .
have
and
tr..e
.Mr k ard : Since our last mee t ing when we had t he pre 1 i Tf'.inary
review, we were given a charge for some details and things YO'.J
wanted to see us work on. These plans before you are our best
efforts in that regard. 0 am going to try and touch on the major
ones. Then I am sure that if you have any questions, from my
experience last time, you will not hesitate to ask!
Ms Maser. We are not shy.
Mr. Beard: This time, we responded by incorporating structural
engineering data to make sure that the building was as realistic as
possible. We had several parking options; we reviewed mechanical
and electrical input to make sure that what we wer~ showing you
from an architectural design point of view was workable and would
not bring you any surprises when we came back for final review~
Also l there were all the architectural details of height and bulk
concerns. Then finally, what Eldon will discuss, landscape design,
which is critical to any project in Palo Alto, but especially in
this location. Compatibility of style here is vital. Eldon has
prepared an excellent design to show you today.
£/03/93
-3-
To deal with some of the more technical things to get them out of
the way first. for parking, we have submitted several alternative
parking schemes for you to review that addxess the issue of dead
~d parking aisl~s. The one that we are continuing to propose is
slightly modified from our previous s~,ittal: but it still
maintains the dead-end aisles. We found that we could not
incorporate the complete circulation system without a substantial
loss of st~rage or particularly~ a planting area for the courtyard,
which other members deemed as a very important part of the project.
We do feel that the staff recomrnend3tion that we place the staff
parking at the ends is an excellent one. We will take care of that
problem since it is a resident parking situation, not an itinerant
one, like an office building. The parking count, in total, is 77
spaces now, which incorporates 12 guests. The resident spaces are
now at 1.S3 spaces per resident. Jim checked just last week with
the Stratford, which is the most recent and~ he t-hir..ks, the lowest
age of any senior project in the area that is comparable. They
curr.ently have ~.26 cars per resident. That is as of last ~eek.
We have made our best efforts at getting mecha.'"1i.cal equipment
located on the roof as accura.tely as possible. Electrical rooms in
the basement reflect the electrical engineer's input on what they
need for switch gear. Transformer locations are shown on the
landscape plan~ and we will cover that4
In terms of a~chitectural issues, I think our greatest concern and
where. we focused fl'K)st of our effort was in development of details
at this stage and continuing the mitigationa of the sketches that
we showed you the last time, relative to height and bulk issues.
particularly on Middlefield~ but also on Byron. On the Middlefi.eld
side. we had shown a very rough sketch before that modified the
unit plans on the building perimeter in this area. It showed a
larger recess at the center of that elevation. and stepped back
toward "the edge, which we wanted to use to break the extent of the
unbroken horizontal plane along that side.
This elevation alters the unit plans and the building perimeter at
the center to provide this extra deep recess in the center of the
building so that the unbroken parts of the horizontal plane are not
this piece. this piece, and this piece, and the step back at the
corners. We had previously reduced the four stories to three at
the corners. We ma;..ntained the pieces stepping back at these
cornere and broke the eaves. In general we lowered eaves at the
edges in various different places around the building to bring th~
eave line down at the C01~er8.
Along the Byron Street side, there had been a piece of the building
at this part 'Which catne out to 16 feet from the property line.
That is now back to 23 feet from. the center pieces, with these
slightly recessed pieces on the side. That will decrease the
amount of building that was projecting against the adjacent
property line. It also helps to focus the facade of this building
on the centerpiece, where the entry facade is located.
6/03/93
-4-
"/<c'
J
" .•..
"
~.':.:'<--. ~ ;:
I also brought a material sample board to give you an idea of the
materials we are developing to use. We took the sections of the
details that are included in the drawings you have and have keyed
them. I think the important pieces are all here. The importan~e
of getting the roof tiles with the right kind of blend so that it
does not have a monochromatic appearancs where you get the kind of
richness in the tile glazing. The body field color of the building
~e these. The wi.ndow details, you may remember from the
preliminary presentation. in this kind of style as you are familiar
with in Palo Alto, this atyle depends on the really elegant
execution of just a. few details, rather than an exuberance of
detail in a Baroque kind of style. We want to get the kind of
window that has the narrow Btyle while still maintaining the energy
efficie~cy you W~lt to get for th~ building, in general. So we
have cbosen the clad wood window, double glazed, and it has a very
nice profile4 It is not too overscaled to get the little bit of
detail that will provide. Using a very thick exterior wall, we do
get some shadow detail around the opening of the ~indow itself.
At the entry, we do have a terra cotta base, with pre-cased
concrete columns. We are showing two colors in the terra cotta
base, because I think we w.i.ll use a two-color process. We have
some modelling on the base of the building, so we have to get a
final piece made of what we are going to actually come up with to
bring back here. There are some ornamental iron grills in several
different places in the building. using a ve~y dark green, almost
black paint on them. There are several places in the building,
here on the balcony and on the balcony at that recess on
Middlefield where we are doing some decorative tile work. This is
a glazed tile sample which is made in San Jose. We will use that
as accents.
The copper detail on the eave is important. because it weathers
nicely over time. It will provide a color that will start to pick
up on some of the other green accents that are involved. The
lighting was mentioned. The standards that are proposed in the
frent of the building, seven of them, are atypical of a residential
project in Palo Alto. We will come back and pick out some
alternative to that. I shall now turn this over to Eldon to talk
about the landscaping.
eldon Beck I Landscape Cgnsultant: The concept is pret ty lIIell
described on the plan. Our approach has been that the landscaping.
instead of being an institutional type and the same on all sides,
Bhould be more like private gardens and grow out of a sense of
older gardens outside. So the choice has been on the darker side,
the north edge, there will be darker foliage planting. clustera of
redwoods. and the bigger scale trees related to the bigger scale
street. and supported with darker plants below that. so that when
you go by, it is a type of landscaping that has evolved from its
environmental condition. At the corner, where there i8 better
sunlight. I thought it would be interesting to turn the corner with
more flowering plants. some hedges close to walls. so that the
character of the corner is different, being lighter and brighter.
T
6/03/93
-5-
, --.
wi~h more color. Coming on down this way~ this ends up having a
hotter exposure with some west sun. This would move into a range
of gray foliage plants with blue and purple flowers, so that each
of thes~ zon~s would have a quality that really relates to the way
the sun shines. Thie also breaks down in scale where the building
is lowest, so that it feels mOl.-e like a garden related to a
Mediterran~an corner.
There are some palm trees on this site, so we are proposing that
three of those that are a pretty good size be moved to this spot.
90 that they are a bit like a skyline tree against the lower sized
building, so that they are organized in that way.
Along the front at t:.he area where we are concerned about screening
and the visibility of cars, there are t:.wo kinds of myrtle plants
used. This is quite a good hedging material. It t~s red in the
sterne and is a more liv~ly plant that the boxwood and things like
this. It' B a more interesting plant.
This would be the larger growing type on either side to screen the
service area, and then we would use the dwarfed version of that
which ~ are able to keep better in the scale of the 2-3 foot hedge
on the narrower site there. So the foliage would have similarity,
but its growth habit will lend to the growing condition.
The condition you are talking about is -how do street trees grow in
strips-? There are two techniques that make those work in narrow
places. One is that when the plant is planted, under the "I-oat ball
we use a crossing pattern of perforated drain pipe, and drip
irrigation on the top of those to get water down fairly deep and
encourage the root growth_ The other is under the sidewalk, we lay
a layer of porous gravel. Within that we also put. perforated pipe,
so you are able to broaden the surface--getting air and wate= under
the pavement. Actually air is the most important part; to have air
available to the roots below. So I have no problem with that
planting space_ Technically it can work.
On this plan there are, I think, three major things to look at.
These are private patios that are behind the walls at the base of
the building. We are showing what would be intended as specific
trees to be planted. The rest of the landscape development would
be by the individuals. We thought it was important that these have
a relationship to what was on the other side.
This would be a garden growing area for the reSidents: vegetable
garden; flower garden. So it's their own private place to do that.
The sunlight is really quite good in that spot, so this is a use
area for them. It shows a small potting shed area that would go
with that. On this side, and then along that side, there is a ten
foot wide planting buffer strip that is a requirement by the City.
So these would be planted with both shrubs and small trees, so that
there would be a very sou...,.d and solid edge of planting, and on
those edges the inner terrace patio is a real important feature of
this.
6/03/93
-6-
When I knew at the beginning that this was all unexcavated through
here (the central courtyard), I was deligh~ed, because there is no
way I know of comfortably to make a garden feel like a garden on a
roof deck. The whole feeling is dramatically different, so if
parking underneath drove this to be something other than that. I
think you would lose something very strong to the project. The
attitude toward this is that it is a very formal pattern because
the building has your public spaces: living room; exercise room;
dining room on either side, 50 the design of the plaza is that
there is the ability to circulate through these spaces.
So, in effect, those public spaces are extended through the middle
through a long garden, ao as you move from place to place you are
able to wander through and you come to a resting spot or a stepping
spot, 80 it is a bit out of the traffic way. As people sit here
they are able to look through the long garden, through the dining
room. and tr~gh the terrace on the other end. So that tries to
give the maximum amount of dimension out of the terrace space.
The trees here are very importa.-,t. They put a canopy on the
garden, which helps keep the scale and brings the size down. There
would be a trellis at this back end with tables and chairs under
it. Older people. in particular, are comfortable on tables and
chairs rather than on other types of things. Instead of sitting on
seating wallsr it is better to have furniture. So this would be
almost 411 outdoor furnished room like that. Water against the wall
here. There is a wall here that separates this from the private
terrace--a small water feature here that is visible from the dining
area.
These are all deciduous trees~ The sunlight in the Winter is low
over the one story roof, yet can still come in so it has really
good sun year-round. The danger often~ of course, is heat so .l
think the overhead canopy would give some degree of shade and
really hE",lp the scale.
Thank you 1 and I'm sure we'll r~ve some questions for
are some cards that have been filled out here, public
YOU'll have five minutes to make cotranents.
MB Maser:
you. There
corrments.
Arthur Bodin.
or. Bodin: I'm the President of the Eoard ot Directore of the
Mental Research InBtitute~ and we continue to have a concern about
not only the noise during construction period which alarms us
because we ha.ve two training suites on the very side of the
building which faces it, and which can't be moved because they are
wired electroni~ally with all kinds of video and one-way mirrors
and so forth.
r don~t know what could be done about that, except if we were. given
the money to have double glazing there because training has to go
on, people have to be able to hear, therapy sessions will be going
on in the rooms which are on the inside but the class sits on the
6/03/93
-7-
, .•.
outside and you can't rever~e that because the one-way mirrors only
work in one direction. You have to be able to make decent audio
and video recordings and that presents another problem in that with
double glaz.ing you can't get ventilation, but we can live with
that. sound is the most important thing.
The other thing, about the 8ound~ is that I~ve been out there with
a decibel meter, and I think I've reported befora. in City Council
meeting, that it got up to eighty-six just from the normal traffic
in the street, Btanding in OUI doorway. That's pretty loud-~thElt'B
what we hear from the drums of Shoreline, as I~ve been out there
with a decibel meter for that too.
Now you put a four story structure right across from us that will
create an echo chamber. I actually took comparative measures where
there isn't a str",cture opposite us, and I went down to where
Lytton was and it was louder there even though there was lesa
traffic there. So, I don't understand the negative findings of the
environmental impact study. I've repeatedly raised this question
and it feels to me like they have ignored it.
The other thing is that on that side of the building {may! look at
the d~awing?) [goes to plane and uses pointer, points co
Middlefield]. From our point of view~ it would have been a lot
better if they had the tall part at tbe end l which wasn~t rtght
qpposite us. We're the middle building of the three buildings on
the block. And if they were going to lower it, that would have
been more helpful.
As for the parking, we cont inue to ~ very perturbed about tha t.,
because we have enough spaces in our lot for the tenants of the
building ~ but patients have to park. on Hami~ton or somewb~re
around. We~ve been told in the City council presentations by the
devefopers that this group is going t-o be younger and more affluent
than any other project l and more vigorous besides that. They have
shown t:heir awareness that this is not comparable to the very
figures we ar~ asked tc accept as comparable for parking standards.
And they don't even meet the parkin3 standards which exist, which
I say are inadequate~ because this is a younger group and more
likely to have two cars per unit.
The standard calls for 72 assigned parking spaces for residents.
They are proposing to have 65 assigned parking spaces for
residents. It doesn't even meet the existing standard which. by
their own admission, is inadequate for the kinds of people who are
going to be there. Sa, where are they going to go? They can't
prohibit them from having more than one car. They are going to
park on Hamilton. That is going to mess up everybody's schedule,
including the 17 therapists in the building and the training
people.
Hi, HaBer: Would you point out, on t.his site plan over here, where
your building is.
6/03/93
-8-
..
Dr. 891in: It isn't shown.
Ms. MaBer: On Middlefield up there. It' s the square right in the
middle. Right there, to the left of the text.
or. Bodin: It doesn't ehow the right aide of it. We~ve had, over
tha years, an increasingly difficult time getting ou~ of the one
way ·0" we hav~ for a parking lot. YCIU sometimes have to wait
several lights, and those are long lig'hts at Middlefield and
University. So, there~B no way these 39 families l with between one
and two cars each. and plenty of business (as these are people with
socia.l contacts), are going to have enough parking. I can't
imagine what.' s going to happen on holidays when they all have
visitors and not enough spacea, although during holiday time we're
probably not going to have much training going on.
In conclusion, we're concerned about the parking. and about having
some help overcoming the noise, not only during con9truction l but
afterwards ~
Me Maser: Steve Smith.
Mr. Smith: I've never been to one of these meetings before.
Mg.Maser: Welcome.
Mr Smith:
minutes~
Hi there. Let me just epee 1 on for a couple of
Me Maeer: Would you like to come up here and speak into the
~crophone so we can hear what you're saying?
Mr. Smith: My wife and I moved in just about 5 or 6 months aQ'o, in
December~ at 640 Middlefield which is half a block away from this
building.
MS'Maser: In which direction, Bouth or north?
Mr. Smlth: Between Hamilton and Forest. We're south by, I think
three doors. We didn' t know about the proj ect u.. .. t i 1 May 6 when the
notice came out that there was going to be a meeting. So, I had
gODe upstairs to get some information that you could look at and
sucb~ So I went up there just to read that over. I had never done
this before and I asked, what do you do? There was a packet of
stuff. and I read through some of it (there was a lot of it). The
initial reeotmnendation by their department was that this not
happen. I asked how it got from there to here where it's
happening, which is curious to ",ne. The sense I got was that this
is a very speCial kind of project for people who really wanted to
~4intain a residence close to downtown, that they could walk to.
People who. are elderly and ,,~an't maintain a heme, that kind of
thing.
6/03/93
-9-
But it sounded like a pretty upscale project to me. We had just
moved in, we had no idea that this was happening and we have two
kids. 4 and 2. We'd like to put a little fence up out front, and
we·~e between two bU8iness~s and zoning is such that my pla~e is
not a busine.ss. We're just trying to make it there. It was the
most we could afford. We wouldn't have been on Middlefield if we
had a. choice. Thf!o:''l, all of a sudden, we hear that this thing is
going to happen half a block away. How do they get to do that? I
don't think I could get away with very much+ So, my concern is:
1. I drive up and down Middlefield, (we've lived out here
for 15 years from Ohio). and have always lived in Menlo
Park. Co:mting down Middlefield. there~ s nothing this big,
and no~ we're going to live half a hlock away from it.
My concern is the size. It's just this huge thing. My
preference is chat nothing be built there, and that what
is there remain there. That, apparently. isn~t going to
happen~ but I'll voice that it's just very big. Yell
drive down Middlefield and there's nothing that si:ze~ and
now it's going to be next to us. I have parents who are
in their seventies and were just out here a few days ago,
so I understand why people would want this, but I don't
understand why it has to be so big. It seems to me that
people cO'..lld probably still build this and even make
money off it and not have such a big building.
Me Maaer: O.K., thank you very much. Charles Schultz.
:Mr. Schultz: Thank you. I'm Charles. Schultz: and I own the
property immediately to the north of this project at 517 Byron
Street. I have heard one very specific Bet of issues and some
general comments. Does everyone have a copy of my letter of
May 12?
Ms. Ma§er~ It's in cur packet.
Mr S¢hultz: That issue ian't really addressed in any of the
drawings that are around here today, and I JUBt dall that to your
attention. The real problem is being sure that I can retain access
to my property through an existing, commonly shared driveway. The
pra.posal closes part of that driveway but, according to the sketch,
it could still work. Yet that: doesn't appear on any of the
drawings.
It would also require u~ilizing a fragment~ a metered corner of the
City-owned property between parcel property line and the sidewalk
that will give me the necessary acceMS to get a car through the
area between the magnolia tree and the property line. Otherwise
the magnolia tree I I think, is at riak--which would be a tragedy.
So that'. a very specific concern. and it also affects the way the
property is landscaped and the way the construction goes up. I
don't know if any of the pictures you have there.~~
6/03/93
-~o-
Ms. Maser: Is this your property?
Mr· Schultz: Yes.
Here's another one
by Mr. Schultz.,
Here's a better picture that shows it head-on,
of the same. (Board looks at pictures provided
Ms. Mgser: Okay~ There were so~~ other issues?
"J. Schult z: Yes. My concern about parking is the number of
places allowed~ or assumed, for the trillions of people who will be
living in this unit. Twelve guest spaces a~d spaces for the
support people whom these people will utilize in their daily lives.
It seems to me to be inadequate. You've got 36 ~.its, and if theBe
people have cleaning personnel or people who come to assist them
during the day~ those people aren~t going to come by public
transportation far the most part. Some will get dropped off~ but
it is going to add a pignificant amount of street parking to the
area~
I don't think the project bas addressed that concern adequately.
Whether people can get in and out of the p~rking garage, I think
we'll only find out after its built and that~s a little bit hard
for me to ..... ait and see. I guess that the solution t.hat the
architect says will work. I still think it's a dead· end
arrangement and I feel uncomfortable that way, Byron Street is
narrow. There's no do~wt about it. It doesr.'t get any wider for
this project. I'd be glad to answer any questions.
fiB. Maser; We may have some for }"OU, eo st ick around. Thank you.
Are there any further COOllTJ.ents from membere of the public?
Dr, Bodin: May I ask a question?
Ms. Maser: If it's brief, sure, A-~hur.
Dr. Bpdin: I was thir~ing of a possible solution to something that
Mr. Schultz raised. And that is could they, and I don't know if
this is Constitutionally possible, forbid having outside maids and,
instead, provide a maid service. That way you wouldn't have,
maybe, 20 maids coming.
Ms. MaRr: I think, in fact, that is the case.
might want to clarify that.
The app 1 i c ant
Mr. Hill: That is the case. It's in our letter, I helieve, in our
program development schedule.
Ms. MaBer~ Would you like to make a statement about Dr. Bodin's
question?
Mr. Bill: We certainly don't anticipate each person having their
own maid. We' re patterning this project significantly after
Webster House. It's a good model for us~ it's been in place for
quite some time. There are certain things about Webster liouse that
"
.'
6/03/93
-11-
are not good, such as parking. They have far less parking than we
have. In our p!'esentat.ion we gave to you, in the development
progra.m statement we do mention the fact that we will have
housekeepers. There will be 3 housekeepers and 4 kitchen serving
personnel.
We patterned this after extensive conversations with Bcrnar~e. who
manages Webster House and who experiences the.t some of those
people, in their easej are dropped off at work+ We can't guarantee
that they will be dropped off or use public tr~~sportation. And
the staffing includes around the cleek. The details on that, I
could show you. I did study this to a degree and we pointed out
how many would be on site at any given time. It is certainly our
intention to have 3 housekeepers--if it's 4~ it wouldn't be that
far out of line for the number of units that we have .
.I2r.....-Bodin: Is there any way to require that pecp~e use those
rather tha~ to employ outside help of their own?
Mr Hill: I appreciate your comment. about Const itutionality in
that regard. I'm not sure what the answer is.
MS'Maser: sut. Jim. aren't people paying for that in their fees:
Why would they pay for it twice, This is part of the deal when you
take a unit there, you get housekeeping.
Mr-Hill: Yea, that is part of the service.
housekeeping service.
Mr. Jason: Can someone e1 se make a comment?
Linen service and
Ms. Maser: Yes. We haven't closed the public hearing. Would you
like to come forward and fill out a card + [He does so]. Okay,
Bill Jason. Do you want to sta.y up here?
Nt JaRgD! I live at 610 Middlefield Road. I've lived here for
the last 51 years. .Personally, I'm excited about this project.
11 ve heard the other sides to it. but I lbre right here on the very
corner {points to plan]. I look at everything that goes in on this
site and everything I've seen here that theY've done has been on
the positive side. I'm excited about this. I'm excited about what
they're doing by basically enhancing the neighborhood. gett.ing
everything pretty well the domino r and/or to be able to get a
project of this caliber into our neighborhood. I'm excited about
it. I live on the very corner, so I'd be the one it probably
effects more than anyone else in this whole room, and I'm excited
about it. No, 11m not planning on moving.
MB Maler: You live in a nice building, too.
Mr JaQQD! Thank you.
6/03/93
-12-
.. -._';'-
-...,'.
Ms. Maaer: With that we close the public hearing and come back to
the board for questions of the applicant or members of the public.
Does anybody have any questions?
Ms. Pa Rosa: I'd like the appli~ant to respond to the public with
several questions that were raised~ 1. If you could review your
parking rational and then talk about other projects. We talked
about it piecemeal. but if you could go through it just once. 2.
Also~ talk about Bound control. Someone raised an issue about
building mass creating more scund. 3. Discuss access to Mr.
Schultz~B property and what kind of cooperation would work there.
4. If you could briefl), mention in regard to the mass of the
buildiDg~ what you've done to scale down the appearance of the mass
of the building.
Mr. Hill: Richard and I have worked as a team pretty well in the
past so I'll grab a few of those. I think I probably, the simplest
o.""le is what we were doing a minu te ago when Mr. Schul t z wa s up
there. We talked to Virginia Warheit. She's been out there with
Carl Stoffel and the staff l and we think handling of the access BO
that he has 2 driveways is totally acceptable to us as long as it
works with the City. We think it'S appropriate. I'm sorry that it
wasn't included in these drawings. I t should have been. but I
thought it was basically accomplished after we talked to the staff
about it. So you have a eketch, I think, in your pack-et ..
MS. Maser: It wasn't very clear from the sketch what was going on,
but I think. if I understand all of you, you're working this out
together and you're OIl a course that is going to be acceptable for
everybcjy. Virginia does have to leave soon, maybe you could
comment 00 that, Virginia, before you leave.
NI Warbeit: one of the conditions being recommended by staff is
that the detail be worked out with the final landscape plans,
showing how this is going to work. In fact~ it won~t involve any
of the applicant's property within their property line. The only
thing that needs to be adjusted here is how the public right-of-way
is h9.ndled. The whole purpose of it is not to take out that
magnolia tree. and to continue to provide Mr. Schultz access.
Mr Hill: I think it's very important, also, that it originally
was thought it 'might requ.ire sort of a joint driveway. This
clearly segrega~es the 2 driveways I eo there's no confusion as to
whether you're going to start coming in or out of our parking area.
What's the distance between the two curb cuts?
Ms. Warbeit: Since their project has a 10 foot landscape strip
required on the property line l their driveway is over 10 feet from
the property line. And his driveway only needs to come a couple of
feet into that 10 feet~ so there will be a space of 6-8 feet of
parking strip to separate the two driveways.
Mr. Hill: The second thing I'd like to addrel!ls~ Which is
tremendously important, is this parking situation. In trying to
.. j.
6/03/93
-13-
/
compare this project with others I we think we' re closest to the
Stratford~ a project of Some 6~-67 units in San Mateo. We think
that whatever ·youngez" is. the average age at Webster House is
close to 80. We thought that 'We would probably have a younger
average age. The average at the Stratford is 74. I do know that
their parking ratio at about 2/3'8 occupancy (some of the units
haven't been occupied yet 1 is 1.26 parking spaces per unit.
Exactly 60\ of the people who have moved in are single ... 24 widows
and 5 widowers. There 19 cvuples_ Th~re are 4 people there who
have no cars. We 'Will be providing transportation as part of our
State licensing requirement.
The complete summary of our position on this is in the letter that
I wrote on May 7 to Ken Schl-eiber, which is in your packet. I
could reiterate some of the things in there, but I think that we're
a bit overparxed, and that there is going to be room for some more
visitor space and employ~e space than we actually show here, but
werre certainly not eager to label any more spaces than we've shown
as being visitor ot' employee parking. We ha~TE:~ as I've shown on an
earlier presentation to the Planning Commission, a table 30mewhere
in the packet that shows wa have more parking tr...a.n any project in
the Bay Area (of this typel. The ratio of employee parking per
uniti visiter parking per unit and resident parking per unit. On
every level we l"....ave more. I think that we're adequately covered.
We are very interested i from our standpoint i ~~d the City has been
curious about this, too. We don't want to h';.!rt our own marketing
efforts by not being able to provide enough parking. There have
been discussions in the past about charging for a second parking
space when you purchase. The idea here is that when one purchases
a unit, these are ownership units, that one parking space goes with
it and a second parking space can be secured. 'there was a
discussion with Mr. Schultz some time ago at the neighborhood
meeting about what the charge is going to be. We havenit defined
it yet, but as my letter indicates, we're going to make every
effort to discourage people from driving when. they shouldn~t be
driving, aE they age. And that's a place where they will stay
until they die, to be bl~nt about it, and I think the project can
haD,dle that. So I feeJ. very comfortable about it. In regard to
the other 2 questions regarding mass and acoustical, Richard is
going to take thoee.
Mr. Beard: Regarding the acoustical issue, I wanted to ask either
Lorraine or Virginia if you have a copy of the letter we filed from
our acoustical engineer~ Charles Salter. I didnit bring it with me.
While you look for it~ I'll go over some of the history of the size
of the project and what we~ve been working on.
The design of the building on the side was to maximi~e the amount
of bulk located at the center of the site and to put as little of
it out of the perimeter as we could. This haa been through a lot
of different processes and even I can't remember quite all of it.
but in the process of going through Planning CommisBion~ Council,
and then what we brought to the first ARB hearing. we Btepped the
6/03/93
-14-
•
bUilding down f~om 4 stories to 3 stories at the corners of those
2 sides on Middlefield and kept a one story piece of it at the
corner o! Hamilton and a}~on. And then kept a 3 story piece that
goes all che way around the front, all the way around the corner
into the courtyard along Hamilton.
When we came h~re from Council, the Council conceptually approved
the project and asked us t.o review the desigtl. of the project with
the Architectural Review Board and to address further the issue of
the setback along Hamilton and we brought in design sketches at
that time that said we would look at alterations of the building,
so that as you view the building from down t.t.e street you can see
the actual break in the lines and then, in addition to that, we
stepped the 4th floor back between tt/ 3rd and the 4th floor, 4.
feet back. so that a pedestrian on the ~~reet wouldn't be aware of
the 4th floor.
Ms. Da Rosa:
parking?
What is the paving at the entry. and the surface
Mr. Beard: We decided on a virtcally unbroken horizontal surface
for paving material. Eldon and ! talked about using a stone that
we used successfully on another residenti.al project which is a
sandstone but it is a honed and machine finish, like flagstone in
shape, but more informal than that. But it had the benefit of
having an almost smooth surface, and you can set it very level.
That's what we talked about using in the courtyard and outside the
little diamond courtyard, and I can see us using the same material
in the entry. In the driveway and the entrI path we may use the
same material, or a mortar-set tile that would also be smooth.
[discussion about the Stratford Senior residence in San Mateo while
waiting for letter to be brought in}
Mr. Lyzwa: While you"'t'e still h2re, V.i.rginia, if this project. were
an RM-40 development I ,,"~a: would be our maximum site coverage
allowed?
Ms Warhe it:
project.
Mr. Lyzwa;
drained?
RM-40 coverage is 45t~ compared to 53.2% for this
Drainage of gutters on balconies .. how are those
Mr. Beillrd: We wanted to take a small drainage leader back into the
wall and drain it down into the interior. It~s a more costly
solution. but people can be alarmed about the dripping.
Mr. Lyzwa: So your solution is going to bring gutters inside and
have down water leaders internally, in the wall itself?
6/03/93
-1.5-
Mr, Beard: That will occur at every balcony that you put a gutter
on, at the second, third and maybe the fourth l~vel.
Mr, Lyzwa: 'to landscape a.rchitect~ A question on the narrow
strip. yo~ mentioned that the nu~ber one issue is getting air to
the roots of the trees. How will you de this in a very narrow
strip:
Mr. Beck: Wnat you o:ic is uee the space under the sidewalk ?y
having a gravel drain field under the walk. Within that there 19
a bed of perforated d~ainpipe which then outlets air into the base
of the tree~ and often into a little catch basin-like grate whether
it's in the pavement or along the edge. What this d~es is let air
move thro~gh that bed under the pavement. The watering, then, is
by drip eystems right at the tree in two deeper perforated pipes~
so that gets the water down and leta it apread out. This is often
used as it is very attractive and allows air to circulate under the
surface.
Ms Wilson.: The character of the wood on the balconies, could you
r.on.ne.nt?
Mr· Be~rd: The balcony pieces shown here are stained wood beams~
re-SAW material, not rough; opaque, heavy-bodied pigmented stain.
We haven't selected the color. Most of the fencing is around the
individual, private gardens. There is actually access into the
ground floor through the ga.t~.
Mr. Hill: Can you tell me about the exhaust fans in the garage.
Mr Beard: They are shown on the Landscape Plan~ A SlIlall fan room
he"l."e (looking at plans) that ducks over to about a 2 1/2 x 2 1/2
piece there that is enclosed by the wall of that priv~~e garden.
And then there'S another one there inside of that corner. It is
4 1/2 feet tall r I think. There is a third exhaust that comes up
from the garage to the poolboUBe roof: shown as a chimney on the
elevation. We use a long RPM high-volume fan to cut down noise.
The transformer pad is located off Hamilton and ie screened off.
Virginia found the Acoustical Engineer' a letter. This is from
February .2~ in response to the MR.I company to the Architectural
Review dated :2 0 January. The points: In another case, wben -we
studied the effect of reflections off the aide of a three-story
building there was a half decibel increase in noise, which would be
indistinguishable.
We do not believe the noise caused by construction will impact the
people in the MRI building, as the cu.~ent acoustical environment
along Middlefield Road will mask the noise of the construction
project.
Ms. Maaer: Lorraine, could you make sure copies of chat letter go
to the interested parties. With that, I have aome further
questions. Would you clarify where the guests are going to park?
6/03/93
-16-
.. '
....
HI" Beard: There are a total of 12 designate:::) guest parking
spaces. There are 6 on surface and 6 in the garage at the bottom
of the ramp.
MI. Maser: Have you ~rked out the details through any of your
typical windows? Where will the outside face of the glass be in
relation to the outside face of the wall? Aloe .. the lighting-
could you t.alk about your concept visually and why you are
reconsidering your original idea?
Mr. B@ard: The glass will be about 3-4 inches from the face of the
wal14 These 2 decorative fixtures at the entrf are very important
to the entry. The 7 standards indicated are ~2 feet high.. and
might detract from the street lighting. Decorative fixtures on the
building might ~ more appropriat~ along with Ivw-level landscape
illumination that will illuminate the path more, as well as
avoiding a potential glare source for people walking out of the
building~ We agre~ with staff's concerns about the lighting~ and
will be coming back with different lighting.
fI'l.r. Beck: We thought lantern light~ used in the courtyard, is
appropriate, as well as safer as the visible light source minimizes
the glare.
Ms· Kaser: Is there going to be a sign?
Mr BeArd: We PAve considered a sign. but haven't ~orr~ up with a
design to propose to you. We will come back to you on that.
Dr. Bodin: I would like to comment on the Sound Engineers letter,
since we did not get an opportunity to see it in advance. I think
it was a clever use of semantics to cover over a very real problem.
The problem is that when I said it was 86 decibels, that is peak-
when cars are starting up from the light. That's an occasional
thing that definitely does noise out and is very annoying. You
know what a jackhammer and riveting sound like. If we have what is
peak~ go~ng on for minutes and minutes at a time. that's going to
totally erase of ability of people to hear in the training source.
T!lat~ s what people c~ to us for I from this Country and abroad.
I don't think a semantic trick on his part answers the question at
all. The double glazing and the fact that you gave them an
easement or variance to build there, imposes on us an expense.
We~re a small non-profit. We would like either to have them put in
double glazing or else to coordinate with us and not do that kind
of noise when we're in training. We don~t have training all the
time,
Ma MAser: Thank you. We~11 return to the board now. Michael,
would you like to start.
6/03/93
-17-
M;, LViwa: I have a lot of concerns about this proj ect, My
conce.rns are based on the following reasoning: 1, I' m very
concerned about the site coverage. The building is really very
large and has a very large site c~verage--almost 54\. Whereas the
maximum housing site coverage that we would allow in Palo Alto
under any ciz-cumstance would be under the RM-40 zone and that would
be 4St. So I do l'!.ave i'. great deal of conCern with t.he site
coverage, which leads me into another matter. 2. The ma:x:imum floor
area ratio allow~d in Pclo Alto is 1 to 1 for high density hcusing,
and here we have a 1.7 floor area ratio site coverage. My concern
all has to do with the size and bulk of the building. r am very.
very concerned about this. 3. I am concerned a great deal with
visitor parking. I think having 6 visitor parking spaces at grade
level is not enough. I do not believe, from my design experience,
that suhterr~,ean visitor parking spaces are really very effective:
or utilized. People prefer to park in the street and there will be
definitely more than 6 visitors .. ~not even during holidays,
Regular visitors to the building itself.
The difficulties I'm having with the whole project itself are:
site coverage; floor area ratio; massiveness; lack of visitor
parking, as well as parking in general. I believe there should be
2 parking spaces per unit. These [issues] give me a great deal of
concern in reference to this proposal at this particular loc~tion.
On the otber hand, I look at the floor plans, the elevaticns~ the
building mater,ials, sections that are being proposed and this is a
quality building; a. quality a.rchitectural solut.ion. The
landscaping works correctly with this proposal. So I am left in a
perplexing position as to why the,City Council is allowing this
type of a proj~ct with such an enormous density in a zone that has
been previously zoned for a much lesser use. It's obviously had
the COuncil's approval. I don't understand it in view of the fact
that. for the past decade. we've been very vehement about
develop~t in Palo Alto and really held a. very strong line on how
much development can occur per our zoning reg-... Ilations. Teis goes
off the Richter scale. if you will, on zoning regulations that arE
currently in our book. I have a lot of difficulty with the project
pe r the zoning ~
The architectural solution is a very safe solution, certainly
nothing novel or innovative, but very well detailed with :rela.tively
high quality materials used, and has a very well thought out
circulation_pattern. The courtyard wi~l be very effective--quiet
and serene. The fact that seniors have access to ground level
landscape areas .. as well as the above balconies and larger open-air
uses .. gives me a lot of comfort in this solution. 1 feel the
architect has done a very good job of addreeaing our issues and
concerns of detailing and how the parking .. structural system and
various components of the building solution come togetber~ 1 feel
very comfortable that this building can be a quality building in
Palo Alto~ The discomfort I have is with the whole philosophy with
the zoning, and making an exception here when we're not willing to
make exceptions in other areas~ I would feel much more comfortable
6/03/93
-18-
if we had an overview and re-evaluation of our housing regulations,
and if it doesn't pencil out to have ~-to-1 floor area ratio. and
regulations that don't make sense because no one is building them,
then let's cbange that. And it this leads to the final solution as
to how our ~oning will operata in the future, then let's go in that
direction and let's admit it. But I have a problem with the fact
that we have current regulations we go by, and then we make a
proposal and we make all these exceptions. I'm very perplexed by
the whole pattern and the politics involved and solutions reached,
that this is the final solution. Architecturally, I feel
comfortable with what is being proposed, but discomfort with the
zoning r\!gUlations and the planning direction that we currently
have in the City.
tIe. Wj lson: I certainly appreciate Mich..3el is ccmments and
understand what he says. This is a PC and I think the rules sort
of get thrown out ~ith a PC, and you save yourself by design and
mitigation BO, chat's what's happening here and that's easy for me
to understand~ I, too, am very comfortable with the architecture
and I appreciate che strides that have been made. I think this
issue of constructicn noise is one that can be dealt with in some
way, and I would want to make it a condition that there is dialogue
with this party in this effort. It may not be a totally positive
solution, but I think some strides can be made in dealing with
their needs during the construction p.ariod. I think demolition
will be a particularly noisy time. Some of this can be coordinated
with this party--an effort needs to be made.
This is a building in an urban setting. The people coming to live
here expect to live in an urban setting. 1 don't think they need
a huge amount of outdoor space or they wouldn't be choosing to live
in a place like this. I feel comfortable with the balance; the
good, usable space that is here. My experience in observing senior
residences in the last few years due to family situations, and in
various states$ even places where there are huge amounts of outdoor
space, ! see very few people outside. So. I think. the limi~ed.
well-studied outdoor apace is very viable to this kind of housing.
I'll be looking for the final rr.aterials in colors. I'm very
comfortable wi~h the direction of these colors. In fact, I like
them very much, there is a certain freshness to them; they are not
trite, like teal. The landscaping, the lighting issues: I, too,
am not too comfortable with the tall lantern fixtures by the
or~veway. I think it's too much like street lighting, too close to
the building and doesn't work very well. I am comfortable with the
arguments about parking. and feel they have been studied adequately
for this type of project. In the evenings, Byron Street will be
fairly clear for parking, and I'm comfortable with the study that's
been done. congratulations.
Ms. Da Rgsa: I think I'm probably a little more enthusiastic than
ny colleagues. The architects have done a very nice job of a large
project, of making it look like a home even though it's a large
building; of scaling down the mass, of using materials that will
age well and weather well. This building will be attractive when
.1'1.
6/03/93
-19-
it~s built and get better and better wjth age. I think that ~e
don't see a lot of these buildings in Palo Alto. A lot of them are
temporary buildings. I really like the materials we've chosen, as
well as the detailing.
In terms of the ELA I have a lot of respect for Charles Salter, but
there's nothing that will match the Bound of a jackhammer, no
matter how many cars start on Middlefield at a given time, a
jackhammer is a piercing sound and no matter what size project goes
O~ this site, there's still demolition and jackhammer work. What
makes this project different is that this is a PC. and so the City
is in a position to ask for mitigation that they might not ask for
in a regular project.. I think thet'e needs to be some dialogue with
the neighbors to see what types of mitigation would be reasonable
and appropriate.
The parking is an issue that ~e'v~ struggled with. This kind of
housing is kind of new. It's not straight multi-family housing~ so
to ~pply the multi-familY housing regulations to this project is
no"_ necessarily appropriate. I accept the applicant' Ei rational
r"Jgarding the parking. The area I'm u.~comfortable with is the
;~unt of guest parking. Parking on a grade is very comfortable.
Once you have to get down to an underground garage, I think people
tend to p.u."k on the street. I dOD' t kno..... wha t you can do to
encourage visitors~ especially visitors coming a second time who
know where the parking is, to park in the underground parking and
keep. them off the streets. I would like to see an elevation of the
sound wall with fencing where the exhaust from the parking garage
is not an eyesore.
The tree planting is interesting: bow the vegetation varies as it
goes around the building. My only concern is that on the north
side, which is already a dark side, that the ":.~~etation is going to
be very dark; what the experience will be for those whose --:.mits
face that area. When I look at Lytton Gardens~ it seems very dark.
You might reconsider that.
I share Shirley's comment on the lighting. I think that this is a
PC, the site coverage, the FAR. and all of those things are
appropriate to be reviewed by the City Council as it is a change in
zoning.
Ms. MAser: I share your enthusiasm. I think this is a smashing
design and .is going to be a beautiful additi.on to downtown Palo
~to. The improvements and efforts you've made in breaking down
the building facade and bre.a:king down the scale has been well worth
the effort, and I feel very comfortable ~ith the elevations ~e've
seen today_
As excited as I am with the elevations, I am really unhappy about
the garage and I think you have a very bad situation with the
garage. I just don't think this works, especially considering the
age of the people living here and the fact that many of them are
going to have fairly large cars. As you're coming dolt'll thifll ramp,
6/03/93
-20-
"' '-"':t: ''''. _.
you're on the right hand side and have to make literally a hairpin
turn to get around to this aisle. If you're a visitor coming down
here and these visitor spots are filled, then you're going to keep
going until you find an empty space. You end up either at this
dead end or this dead end where. as I uneerstand. you're planning
to have employees park.
Employees will have to ~aneuver out of these dead end pockets. You
are going to have the occasional visitor who is going to get stuck
in these dead end corridors~ What do they do if these places are
all filled with employee cars. They are going to have to back up;
back: around here and there--several rnatleuvers they are going to
have to make that are going to be uncomfortable. A hairpin turn at
this point couldn't be made in one move by most cars. You are
going to be tempted, because of that hairpin curve, t.o swerve to
the left. to get a decent turning radius to make this maneuver.
Itla just not working.
I'm not a traffic engineer, but would be willing to go along with
it if a reputable traffic engineer said it was fine and would work
perfectly. ! frankly t.hink you ha~}"e a dangerous garage design.
WitL architects who work on projects where we have underground
parking. we titart with this. This is what sets our scheme, because
this is the most difficult to design. This iE so importcu~t. If we
3howed this to one of our commercial clients, ~ wouldn't be in
business. I'm sorry that you didI~'t't study this. I think that the
ideal solution would be to come in here, then to have a simple
circular movement. then on out~
The fact is you' re coming over here where you have an immediate
maneuver you have to make that sets up a series of maneuvers that
are difficult. for even the moat adept dri ver ~ I car. see ways that
you can get around this, but I'm not designing this building .. If
you have to go down here to get under the pool. maybe you go down
under anc. create more parking under here. Maybe the storage comes
over in this area; maybe the ramp char.gea location so you have an
easier time of maneuvering in the garage. As much as I love this
project, and this really pains me, I cannot support it at this
point. If you go throulJh our standards of review, the 10th
standard that we have to review states:
-to review whether access to the p:~:operty and circulation
thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians. cyclists and
vehicles ...•
',.',
6/03/93
-21-
To me, this isn't safe or convenient. I think this is going to
come back to haunt you. If thia is approved the way you desi~~ed
this. I think you are going to have lots of trOuble with unhappy
occupants of your building and guests and visitors who are going to
be unhappy. also. I love this project, but I felt strongly about
this project last time and I feel even more strongly about it
today. I will not be able to support the project until either my
fears are proven to be totally unbiased by some traffic engineer
who can convince me otherwise, or you come back with a redesign on
this.
Mr· Beard: I think the points you make are very good ones~ and
they have me sufficiently concerned to offer that, in the
development of the plans we come up with, Bome solution be made to
the problems you mention. Either a new circulation system or
sometbing that addresses this. I feel comfortable that we can get
a solution.
Mo Maoer~ I really hope you can. I really just don't think this
is going to be acceptable.
Hr· Hill! Richard, Eldon Beck and I had a meeting this morning
regarding the depth we want under the courtyard~ and some other
items. including amount of storage space. We have more storage
space than is required but. from a marketing standpoint I we want to
have overly adequate storage space. We have to balance the
requirement for storage and work out a way to get rid of dead end
aisles. We will go back to the drawings; check with the Stratford
(in San Mateo) and see what their experience has been with parking.
Ms. Maler: I want to make it very clear that I can't go along with
you people . .I donlt know what kind of a motion is going to be made
up here .. and it's not because I don't think this is a wonderful
project. Whoever sees this in City Councilor Planning Commission
will have the minutes. I think the building is needed~ is
'Wonderful, is such an improvement over what'p there now, it·s going
to be well ma~ntained (we a:l know that because cf the people who
are building this building} and Palo Alto is fortunate to have this
kind of proposal. I can't go along with it until the garage is
working.
Mr Hill: Bow can we handle it administratively? To be very
honest about it~ we're working on a schedule that puts us now, we
hope, before the City Council the 26th of JulYI and before the
Planning Commission June 30th. Is there a way ~o deal with this to
allow that procedure to take place?
Mr, Gilliland: We can approve with conditions. But if the
conditions are such that a garage re-design causes a significant
change in the design in the building, which it could very well do,
you;re talking about getting rid of the turns at the beginning, I
don~t know how we could take it forward.
6/03/S3
-22·
Mr: Lyzwa: Also~ traffic implications. If you cha.~ge the location
of the drive it bas to be re-studied by the Transportation
Department.
MB Ma@er: Well, if I'm the only person on the Board who feels
strongly abo~t it, I don't know how it'S going to go. Practically
speaking, if this is a loop system~ then you would have to make
this hairpin turn to get to these Bpot~.
Mr icArd: The solution that seemed workable and still maintain
planting in the courtyard was what we submitted. It Btj 11
maintains the code re~~ired amounc of storage for the units: But
it does give that loop in there, and then you can make this turn
and have another solution if it turned out to be a problem. It
wouldn't impact the location of the driveway and we could~ I think~
keep the same number of stalls.
Ms. Maser: I would be ecstatic. I wonder if ~e could make it a
condition to check with the Structural Engineer if this would be
workable from his standpoint.
Mr Beard: It would take some changes to the system that is there
now, but it's not ...
Me MaBer; What this does is allow somebody to get to those spote
another way, preserves your courtyard and st.il1 gives yeu the
storage you're required to have. And these units have quite a bit
of storage, as I understand it.
MB Do Rpaa: What this does, is allow us to approve the conditions
and this is one solution. You may come up with something you like
better, but we know that it's poBsible~
Mr. ieard: You could certainly condit jon it on the parking scheme
that at least satisfies circulation to the extent of Scheme 3,
dated 2/12/93.
Nt LY2wa: Let me ask you, this scheme ... what is the parking
count; are we losi~g any parking?
Mr: Beard! rnis one has ?O. The current one has 71, but that~s
after we worked really hard on that one to gaiL!. every space ..,e
cculd. Our original approval from City Council was 69.
Mr. Lpwa: These storage spaces are the minimum required~ 250
cubic feet, that you're showing here?
Mr. Beard: These are actually 285, r think.
Mr Lyz:g: And are the parking stalls reduced because
storage all along this perimeter? They are not reduced?
standard 9 x 18 spaces.
you have
They are
6/03/93
-23-
Ms. MaBer: As long as they can make thi~ 'Work: and they don' t
reduce the cars below what was approved ....
Hr. Lyzwa: Do we word the condition that ~e base our approval on
a sketch that was presented to us, and that no parking spaces be
lost and that the standard sizes and tl'le standard driveway widths
be held to? I don't want a situation where under the PC we go back
and say the storage, and the standard aisles, and the standard
spaces have been reduced because W~ couldn't work it out,
Ms· Maser~ I think we can Bay that we would approve this project
on the condition that the dead aisles are eliminated, that the
parking i6 not reduced beyond the 69 cars which were approved
previously, and that the standard acceptable car dimension spots
and aisle widths are maintained as written in the code.
Mx'..a... Gilliland: I'm a little bit uncomfortable if you use the
language specifically that the dead end aisles are eliminated.
That's a sketch that we haven't reviewed or been able to look at to
compare to ~he zoning ordinance to see if it meets those
regulations I ~~d certainly to see if we have the same number of
parking spaces. To make it a flat.-out eliminate the dead end
aisles, I'm uncomfortable with saying that it would definitely go
fo:z:ward after you put that language in there. I would have to
check with the people in the Department. I think you've made your
point very clear that you want the dead end aisles eliminated and
that would be the objective here. They've stated that they very
much think that they can go try to do that, and that they can do
it. What 11 m concerned about is we may find that they cannot
eliminate those dead end aisles~ and still meet all the rules and
regulations.
Mr. INzwa: Julie raised the critical issue of the turning radius.
Bow do we eliminate that?
Ms· Mager: It's diffe~ent going at it from the other side. As
lor~ as you~ve eliminated the dead end aisles, that does not become
a huge iSS"..le, because you can approach it by going around. You
donI t have to maneuver your car around that hairpin t·.lIU. I
frankly don't think I can accept this project without the
eli~tioD of those dead end ai81es l Jim, and I don't see why we
can't include that condition.
Mr Gil1ilil1ld; Because you could end up with a dead end situation,
where you have. cars in a dead end aisle. If you're putting all
of the same requirements on it that they have, the number of spaces
that are there are not reduced l the number of spaces meet all the
current requirements, I don't have a drawing in front of me that
says we can do that. I could say that's a very good sketch~ but
'" "
!
6/03/93
-24-
,--
.t-· ,,:i-:
it~s not been plan·checked. ~ you well noted when you started
talking about it, you start with the garage. The garage dr~ves the
project. I'm very uncomfortable with taking it forward without
having plan 4 checked all those things to know that the garage is
going to work, if you're going to make it exact that they've got no
dead end aisles.
Mr Lyzwa: Also, Julie, t.hey've got a shear
columns throughout this whole thing and 'We' re
time reconsideration in the structural system.
matter of -let' B lJr,'ipe this out and put in a
talking about ~ ..
wall, theY've got
talking about big
This isn't just a
driveway". We're
Ms. MAser: I know, b'lt this is paper right now, and to build this
as a real project the way it's shown is absolutely wrong.
Mr. Lyzwa~ I agree with you completely that this has to change.
What concerns me is moving ahead on a sketch and a prayer that
we' re not going to lose anything.. and still hope that it' s not
going to affect the current facade and the current floor plan
layout and everything else.
Me. Maser: Does the applicant t.hink he can get back to us on
consent on this particular issue in 2 weeks? Then they could go
forward, couldn't they. on the schedule that they~re on? What if
they just dealt with this one issue between now and then.
"9 W1itiee: I dontt believe that we have time in our Transportation
Department to have this circulated, analyzed and st· _~ in time
for our next meeting. First of all .. you have to wait .,plans to
be submitted, then we have to give departments ample time to
review. Two weeks is quite short notice to have that done.
especially for a project of this size.
Mr Gilliland.: I'm just real concerned with saying that you
specifically have to eliminate the dead end aisles without having
a plan and still allowing it to go forward, but it could
significantly change the project.
MB' Haser: We're talking about a loop system and I could foresee
a loop system that would still have a very short dead end aisle.
Do you oot want to use the term dead end? Are we just arguing
about semantics? Are you suggesting (to Jim) that we just accept
what' e heret
Mr. Gilliland; No, I'm telling you that you have a conflict.
Their need and desire to go forward with the project, and your Deed
and desire to have the garage re-designed.
Mr Hill: I appreCiate this. There are ~ partners in this, and
time is money. I wish that there were not the 4 meetings to
consider. Some other things could go wrong.
MS. Do Rosa: How many projects that are PC's come to be aired ..
6/03/93
-25-
make recommendations with conditions, go back to City Council and
Planning Commission?
Mr, Gilliland: Absolutely. In fact. you're going to see things on
this one later, including the landscaping plan, lighting QIld
several other things. M)' concern is t.hat this project. has some
very specific requirements right oow--the number of parking spaces.
and the b.lsic zoning rules and regulations regarding the garage.
Prom my standpoint. the change you're asking for, part.icular1y with
the shear wall and those columns as possibly causing a lot of
change to the project its-elL Including those numbers, and we
don·t know traat they work right.
If the Board looks at it and says ~we think i~ can be done-and you
want us to direct us to go ahead and take it forward, w~ will do
that. But from a standpoint of having to check plans and look at
it. I'm uncomfortable with just flatly eliminating the dead end
aisles and saying the project can go forward and that they CL~ find
a re-design for it that won't atfect the project itself, or won't
affe.ct the exterior of the building upstairs, the ramp, the
courtyard or ~ I don' t know what all is invol ved, But what I'm
hearing from the Board is tr.at maybe you don't share that concern
and that's fine.
Ms. Da Rosa: I~m just trying
they ended up moving the ramp,
some ~hanges in the building.
City Council?
to understand th~ process. Suppose
or something major where there were
Would the project have to go back to
Mr Gilliland: It would depend. If you were moving the ramp, you
probably would have to re-do the environmental assessment and look
at traffic and all of that again. For a project this large with
this much interest. it probably would.
MB pa Rgsa: Suppose they don' t. move the ramp. but do end up
making changes to the building?
Mr. Gilliland: More than likely~ probably not. as we're not
affecting environmental documentation. Richard~ based on the
sketch you have there, do you think you can maintain the ""
Kr BCard: If you condition it with providing a loop circulation
in the garage that minimizes dead end aisles. I think we can get a
solution that meets that criteria.
MB. MaBer~ A loop system in the garage is going to eliminate the
dead end aislea~ but if it·s a question of wording, .... The loop
system would be completely acceptable to me, The loop system is
what I'm after. Then all your problems with the hairpin turn
become a mute point,
6/03/93
-26-
Mr· Lyzwa: But then you al~o are ending up in their 9ket~h with
storage units that are directly in front of the parking spaces, and
alBo~ some storage spaces that face the driveways directly. Now
you have the double problem o~ parked cars in front o! storage
spaces. If yO'l,l want to get in your storage space, you have to move
your cars. What if you don't have the same storage unit and
adjacent parking space. Even if that's worked o~t; how do we handle
the storage spaces that face the driveway.
Mn Wilngn: I think the problem here is semantics. We need to
state this in a way that isn't problematic. It's the applicant'S
choice to take this risk; we don't need to second guess them.
Ms Maa-r: With that, make a motion. I'll throw that to you,
Shirley.
Ms. W~lsQn: I'll try. I move for approval with staff conditions r
specifically that final materials and colors come back. final
landscaping. lighting, signage come back. That the issue of the
parking be addressed per this meeting, incorporating a loop system
in the garage to eliminate the difficult turn and much of the dead
end parking~ yet still maintain the standard space per the City
zoning r~~lation~ In addition, I would like to add a condition
that the applicant enter into dialogue with MR.I including an
initial meeting to set perimeters during the construction period.
that construction schedules be ahared on a regular basis with MRI.
as they will share training schedules with you, and t}l..at a
cooperative attitude to minimize the impact of construction noise
be developed between these two parties.
I think that requires some give and take on both sides. Both of
you should take the approach that you work with each others
echedules~
Ms Maser: I·d like to add one more thing: a drawing showing the
relationship of the glass to the exterior wall with a dimension. so
we know that that's been studied and you're going to hold to that
as a typical dimension.
Mr. Lyzwa~ I would also like to add that if the exhaust fans h~ve
to go beyond the 4 foot perimeter fence, that return to us a
detail.
Ms. Wilpgn: I have lingering concerns about exhaust in a place
like this where there are windows. Are these operable windows?
Then. is there any way to direct the exhaust so it doesn't go right
into a unit. with the wrong wind.
Mr. Lvzwa: Same thing on the other side. I just think that has to
be dealt with.
MR. Da Rosa: Shirley, are you accepting the landscape plan as it
is, or are you going to require the 5 foot parking strip, condition
number 4?
6/03/93
-27-
" ~.' ..
-... ~."
" .. '
Mar Wilson: I prefer this sol~tion they presented, wlth the hedge
between the driveway. It seemed to me that some of t.hem W'ere
really in accord with that. We'll JUBt accept it as presented.
Hr· Hill: Is there any condition about the parking?
Ms· Wilson: y~s~ that should be ~dded, also. Definitely. The
driveway issue with access to parking~ I don't know how you want
to dssignate that property. Are you the owner of the propez"ty or
the tenant, Mr. Schultz? Be resolved ....
Mr Gilliland: That's condition 1. O.
We're o-k there.
It r S already in there.
Mr LyzwA! I assume in your statement that the parking will be
maintained as currently proposed.
Ma Mager: That would be my intention. To give them 69 spaces
that were approved by the Council. Obviously. if we can get more,
so much the better for you.
Nr: Hill~ Can I ask a question about the motion?
Me. Da Rosa: I second that motion.
Mr. Rill:
timing of
this give
I have
it ....
us the
a question about clarification with regard to the
Realistically are we looking at a delay? Does
option to come back with something.
Mr· Gillilond: What I'm hearing is that the Architectural Review
Board believes there is a reasonable resolution out there that can
meet this and we would go forward to Planning Commission on June
3 0 ~ our regular schedul e .
MB Kgiao: If the applicant wishes to submit a revised parking
circulation plan, he can certainly do that~ and we make every
effort we can to re"riew and study it. I cCCl~ t promise you we will
have the answers you need by the Planning Commission date. It
would have to go to us, Public works and Transportation. A lot of
people are on va=ation now~ and having to work between different
schedules is difficult.
M9 Pm Rgsa: I~m curious about Public Works and Utilities ... the
garage is still undergr~~d~ the ramp is in the same place. What
kinds of issues could ~ up?
Mr Gilliland: They'll find something. They always do.
Mr. Lyln:
resolution.
they've got
Emergency access. But agaio. this is all
This resolution is not found to be made
to the Planning Commission ....
Ma. MAser: Then it's their problem.
based on this
to work, then
6/03/93
-28·
Mr· Lylwa: They're taking that risk.
Mr· Bill: Is there one other meeting, Jim? Would there be any
advantage if we appeared before the Council~ or is it possible to
appear before them on August 3~ rather than July 22? It~s not?
Mr. Gilliland:
agenda. it~s
ones are work
We would not be able to get a planning item on that
the one before they leave~ and normally the first
sessions for them and they're not going to have
one ....
Mr Hil': The reason I asked is because we just found out recently
that we were bumped off the 19th ... that's too bad.
Mr. Gilliland:
likely.
I won't tell you it's impossible, but it's not
Ms. Maser: May I ask if the revised design you~re proposing for
the garage, will that be presented at this Planning Commission?
Ms. Weiss: Only if we get it in time and~ by chance we are able to
review and analyze it.
Ma· Maser: And that is scheduled for June 30.
Mr. Ly%wa! Will we have ilL chance to comment on their design before
it goes to Planning commission?
Mr· Gilliland~ Not the way it stands right now, unless they want
to get it to us personally. That's it.
Ms. Maser: There is a reluctance on the part of many of the Board
members to handle a situation that way. But,! don~t know wby it.
couldn~t be included for informational reasons in the packet we
get~ even though we're not accepting it. Can that happen? It's
for our information if you want to give drawings to Lorraine to
include in our next packet.
Mr Hill: I, for one; feel that i this is not flatter)~, but, I
think this sort of thing is useful to us. So I welcome the chance:.
I think we should react to your comments, too. Because if this
was~ ~. ~ If we were strongly opposed to your comments, too, I think
we~d say so. But we could get some benefit out of this and,
therefore, lid like to have/come back with what we're thinking
about. Quickly.
We can discuss this since we've talked about
the fact that we~ve talked about it before.
discuss this matter with you, can I not?
it, we've disclosed
1 can continue to
MO weipl: This disadvantage is that the Planning Commission will
not get it in their minutes, so it's something that's happening
Bort of as an aside and that communication might not be transferred
to them.
6/03/93
-29-
Ms· Maner: Will the Planning Commissi~ be aware of this at all?
Ms· Weiss: They will have the minutes from today, but if you make
other commenl:s, unless you write a letter that gets sent to the
Planning Comml.ssion. the Board's comments may not get to the
Planning Commission.
Ms. Maser: I'll write a letter to the Planning Commissicn. Again,
that d~te--I didn't get it. June 30. Thank you. I'll just handl~
it with a letter to them~ Alright~ there'S been a motion and a
second. Ie there any more discussion. ~l those in favor {all
said "aye"). Opposed (none opposed) ~ Let's ta,ke a break.
r..s. Maser: We go on to the cancellacion of ARB mee.ting. Does
everybody know I~ve manipulated Jim, he was ve~y resistant, but I
was persistent and~ finally, we're having the 2 meetings in July on
the 8th and the 22od, inst~ad of the 1st and 15th. Is everybody
o-k on that'? Michael won' t be there and Aino is going to b~
missing 1 hour of that next meeting in June. and Shirley is going
to be missing another hour and BO I we're going to have musical
chairs at. the next meetir..g. Everybody can attend that next
':neet.ing?
! have a problem with the next item¥ and that is !'m goi~g to be in
Monterey on the 30th of June, so I c:an~ t be at the Planning
commission meeting, although I can be ,at the City Council meeting
on the 19th of July_That 19th of July will be changed to the
26th? I may Dot be able to be there. Is there anyone who ca...,
volunteer to be at the Planning Commission meeting on the Hamilton
project on June 30th, at 7:30.
MI. Da Rosa: I can go if I can be a teeny bit late~ Chances are,
it won't start at 7:30 because there is always oral communication.
Mr. Lyzwa: What are the two projects at 625 El Camino Real and
3401 Alma_
Mr. Gillilapd: 625 HI Camino Real is the Holiday Inn. It~s not
going to involve any architectural changes, so you may not have to
have a representative there. 3401 Alma is an addition to Alma
ShoppLng Center~ Where tbe gas station used to bel out in front,
they're going to put another building up there. You~ve seen it in
a preliminary meeting a long time ago. So we do have Aino on 651
Hamilton?
Ms. Kaser: I have to check my cal~r. I think I'll be out of
town on the 26th of July~ but I'll let you know. Leave me on
there. At the next meeting I would like to have 5 minutes to bring
everyone up to date on the CPAC meetings that I~ve been attending~
as' they are of interest to everyone here and I'd like to get
En1ggestions from all of you. Are there any other meetings that
anyone has attended?
6/03/93
-30-
IV. REPORTS OF BOARD MEMBERS
OR STAFF REGARDING MEETINGS
OF OTHER CITY BOARDS OR
PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES
Ma. Pa Rosa: Yes, I went to a tree task force meeting last night.
It was our first meeting. Weire going to review existing tree
plans of various kinds. and whether we should have a heritage tree
ordinance. It was really an introductory meeting.
Ms. Maser: Would you be willing, at some point, to come to one of
these sub-committee meetin9s on CPAC and talk about the Heritage
program.
Mp Pa Rosa: The first meeting was to introduce the players and
talk about what our charge is. Weire gOing to be meeting every 3
weeks. The next 9 weeks are taken care of. After that. we will
probably have some idea of where we're going.
Ms. Maser.. There i B no hurry. One of the i terns that I' ve brought
up for our sub-committee is tree preservat.ion and the possible
introduction of a heritage program.
Me Pi BpRa: That's my bias: tree preserva~ion in a positive way.
An awards program for the best heritage tree. or anything to make
people happy that they have trees on their property. Otherwise
you ~ re always contrclling by ordinance. Is there anything from
staff on the status of the secret garden in that thing? I forgot
to go by.
Mr-Gilliland: I asked Virginia to look into it because she was
the one who worked on the project.
MI:!.. Pa Rosa: It is a wishing well, poorly constructed~ a big lump
in the middle of a secret garden, not approved by anybody.
Mr, Hise: I have a code violation also.
Gang at 6600 block of Emerson. It's a 6i~.
a -God-awful-sign painted on the aWl'Iing+
we didn' t approve it.
It's called the Chain
ordinance issue. It's
It's terrible. I know
Ma MOser: I had a conversation yesterday with Carol Jansen and
she would like to have a representative from ARB meet with her and
with people from the Co-op Market on the deSign of the building.
This bas been before us twice and, I guess, members of the Board of
the Co-op are disturbed by the fact that they're meeting with such
opposition. I think she feels that they need a member of the ARB
to help guide their solution and lend eome advice to the situation
and help come up with something that is satisfactory to everybody.
I missed the last meeting. but I could go ahead and meet with them.
I suggested Michael would be a good person because he -thinks on
his feet" of design SOlutions. I don't know, Michael, if you're
willing to do that, but I mentioned your name to her as a
possibility and said I would bring it up today.
6/03/93
-31-
I
Hr· Lyzwa: This is Carol Jansen? And what would you like me to
do?
Ms. Miser: If you're willing to entertain the idea of attending a
meeting I maybe both of us could go, and sit down wi~h the Co-op
people. It's getting to be a tremendously difficult situation. I
tbink anything we ca~l do to help facilitate tt.at project 'Would be
of benefit to all of us.
Mr. Lyrwa: I'd be happy to do that as long as it's in June. and
not the late part of June.
Mr· Gill;l~~d: I would encourage both of you to look at the tapes
from the last meeti~g. which neither of you were able to attend.
There is an ongoing problem there with design. I'm uncomfortable
with those of you who were not here being the representatives to
go. I'm very uncomfortable with the fact that thi~ is coming from
another office and not our office. We were in the process of
starting to work with them, on thie and I would prefer that you let
us coordinate this, and get back to you.
Ms Mase&: Why don't you talk to Carol about it.
Mr· Gilliland: 1 would like it if she would talk to us.
Ma. Maser: I happen to be meeting with her on another subject, and
she~s mentioned this twice now. I think thF.! people from the Co-op
have approached her, for some reason. So I think she'S been
brought into it that way.
Mr. Gillilgpd: What! would like to ask is, who would like to
volunteer to do it. I would like it to be someone who was at the
las~ meeting, because a lot was discussed and we had ~pecifically
put it 00 the last agenda, even though it wasn't complete i there
weren't sufficient drawings and we know that. But i because it was
a fairly sensitive situation, we felt like we should pu~ it on the
Board's agenda. BO the Board could tell them at least. they were
going in the right direction. To go back, deveiop some better
drawings: ge~ some more complete information etc .• which is what
we~ve been trying to tell them at our staff level for some time~
and not been extremely successful. And I will tell you that at the
last Board meeting, the Board members did a very good job of
telling them tbilt. They still went away makir..g the same statements
that weire not being helpful, that we're being obstructionists etc.
I am extremely bothered by this.
~r HiAe~ That was my impression, also. When I left, I was so
concern~ about it~ that I wanted to say that if you don't want to
hire an architect to help YGU with this~ 'cause that's -...:hat you
need, at least hire one to interpret what we're saying, because
you're not getting it. Just someone to listen to the tape, and
tell you what we're saying. I would probably be the least popular
one to go. but I will go. '
6/03/93
-32-
Mr. GillilM.d: Lorraine and I were working witt t.hem so much they
weren't hearing us either. We thought what we should do is get
another staff member. We thought Virginia might be very good at
it. We were trying to work something into her schedule, so 9he
could sit down and work: with them. We don't have the time to
design the p~oj~ct.
Mfl Da Bosil: They~ re groping and it's human nature to do what
tbey~re told. If they keep getting the same answer from everybody,
maybe they will get it through their thick heads.
Mr Gilliland: We waneed to do it this way before it got to that
ki.nd of explosion. I'd have no problem if this went to the
Council. We'll set up a meeting. Thomas, we'll include you 't • .-ith
the people from the Co-~p and from our office. I'll be h~ppy to
get back to Carol.
M$ pa RQsa~ It's unbelievable--the quality of what's coming from
members of the Board. They should be embarrassed
Ms. Maser: We probably ehouldn't have been discuS'sing this project
like this. It does fall under "new and old business". You can't
a,lways follow the rules all the way and get something accomplished.
If there's no other business. then we adjourn.
i
6/03/93
-33-
ATrACHMENT 5
INDUSTRIAL NOISE ACOUSTICAL SERVICES
(1. N.A.S. ENGI NEERI NG)
NOl.. C~trol ~cial!.t.
P. O. BOX 3074
San Ia Clara, CA 95055
Voice: 408 241 090 1. FAX: 408 241 0270
Mental Research Institute
Construction Noise Across Middlefield Road
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Date:
Mental Research Institute
555 Mldd lefie Id Road
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attention: Dr. Arthur 80d in
James Sidney Mills, EngIneer
30 June 1993
Mental Researc~ Insf" 'Ie 30 June 1993 Dr. 4rthu r Boelln
Introduction
The pu~se of this proposal is to provide the The Mental Research Instilule with some
background infoornalion on Indu.trial Noise Acoustical Ser<ices whIch is a dba of James
S. Mills and associ~s in Santa Clara County, Califomia. The foilowing is range 01
servic~ provided by lIli. firm, and are fisted for your coovenienee.
Proposal
II is the purpose of this sec:lion of lIlis documenllo pr<>Yide a short descnption of both
lIle services 10 ba performed and the methods to be employed 10 obtarn Ill. ",.ults
requ'rad. First a statement of ttle problarn wili be given to make c9,1ain that this
engineering finn understands the problem;. to be solved.
Statement of Problem
There is a new b~ilding planned fo be constructed directly across Middlefield Road.
about eighty reet from the front of the Mental Research Institute (MRI), that will ~ave an
of the incumbent construction noise associated with new bu"ding construction. The
bu"ding in which MRI i.loeat&d is a brick bu"ding. with a flat roof. Wlth a parapet aroond
the roof, and the heatil)Jl ventilation and air ccnd,toning system is lceated beneath the
bunding near the rear, not on the roof. Therefore. this construction r.oise wjll penetrate
the windows. existing, which a'" single pane windows. Nominally a 1i8' l!1ick single
pane window wi~ have an A-weighted attanuaUO'l value (noise A!ducton ~veQ of from
16 to 23{ dBA].
The noise !evel from a jack hammer ranges from 95 to 125tdBAj. a nail gun may range
as high as 140!dBAJ at the source. a slapie gun (used to nao wooden stmctural
members together) will range up to l00[dBA], and cemeO[ delivery trucks will range
from 85 10 105[dBAj.
Since the therapy and training sessions which occur at ~,;1RI are either privale or scm~·
private consultations between patient ard skilled professionar, comrtlunicatioDs -I.S
aose1ut&ty necassar/. Typically. a private: offica or quier laboratory spac8 without
conVErsation has a background noise level of 45[dBAJ.
With a jack hammer. nail gun or other loud oper3hol1 in piogress across Middiefie:d
Road. l!1e noise level at MRI will be from 90 to 10<l(dBA]. Which will e!evale the noise
iElve:. inside ti1ese private offices and work spaces from 70 to 84[dBA]. lor di reot path
ncisa. Tnis!s from 1:5 to 29[dBA] louder than an average qui€-I conversation in eriE of
these training or pm..ate offices.
Likely Solution
!f ~ese WlndOWS are the -cnly paths for noise to enler the MRI b'Ji~ding. then II will be
nec6ssary to replace the sing!s pane Windows With raasonable double pane 'Nir,dows.
TypicaJly. when loud impulSe noise levels like the ones expoS-Cted hers. do~ble pane
INAS Engineering ·2-ConstrucUon Noise level Reduction
"
-..
M""tal Research Insr ~e 30 June 1993 Dr. Arth u r Bodi n
iaminated windows are recemmended.
Method of Approach
This finn will inspect the premisas to de!ermin.; any :!anking paIns measure the actual
·working~ distances involved. calculate the rnaflstic expected nais.e levets, arId make
recommendations. least expensive, but adequate window replacemel1t f·:)r adequat~
solutions of the proble"..
About the Owner: J ... "es S. Mills, Engineer.
Mr, Mills has been praetlcing acoustical .IIsineering sinc. 1971. He has owned
and op<IratGd Industrial Noise Acousti"al Services dba James S. MHis and
Associates, since 1978. He is a sraduate of the University 01 Calil",mia at
Berkeley. with a BS in physics (S June 1957). He studied graduate physics at
Stanford University and holds two prof.ssional engineering licenses in
California; one in Nuclear Engineering (#1066); the other in Electrical Engineering
(E9657). He reeendy retired from teaching Electrical Engineering at San Jose
State University. He is also licensed in Electrical Engineering in the state of
Orego!!. Mr, Mills· acoustical uperience includes: .rchitectural ~eoustical
design; product design noise reduction; aircraft noise abatement: industrial
noise reduction; community noise reduction from many different kinds of
. 9ourees; sports event noise reduction; vibration noise control and reduction;
room acoustics such as church •• , casinos. theaters and so on. This experienca
1ncJudes appearances, in court. as an expert witness, dealing with acoustical
legal problems, some included product liability. His acoustical d.sign experience
includes: churches; a jail; court rooms: country club: showroems: sea 90ing
ships; aulo repair body shops; manufacturing facilities; hot.ls; motels; multi
family housing units; single family housing units; restaurants; and so on. Many
of these projects included sound reinforeement; the design of audio amplification
systems. Community noise impact analysis has been involved in most of the
community noise relllt~ projects, and was developi!d if such information were
not available prior 10 accepting the design responsibility.
Mr. Mills is the a.ou"tical engineer of record lor the Santa Clara County Fair
Association. The Sunnyvale Rod and Gun Club, and Westfield Corporation
owners of Vallco Fashion Park in Cupertino. Cafitornia.
Acou"tical Engineering is not yet a category 01 Architectural Engineering in the
state 01 Carol","ia as is Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, or Electrical
Engineering_ Therefore. in order to be responsibre, fOT acoustical archi1ectural
design problems, one or these three engineering licenses must be held by the
acoustical practitioner. Mr. Mill. operating license is Electrica! Engineering
(E9657), California, its 'ee 1s payabJe every fOIJr years, and C:!Jr.~ntjy expires
9130194.
IN AS Engineering • 3 -Construction Noise Level Reduction
.. . ·,:'"~::t~~~~~:~:-~"~·~:, ~ . .. -, "'-
Menial Research Insti, • 30 June 1993 Dr. ArlI1ur Bodin
Acoustical Engineering Expertise
• Building f"'rmits, calculation and design. lor buildings planned for high
noise level zone, above CNEl-l oN"60[dBAj. Allows developers or a
contract""' to obtain a building permi~ in a high noise level zone by proper
acoustical structural design and specificationsi' .
• Noi .. l.~el Studl .. for undevele>ped or use modification real estale.
&len a study relates local ambient noi .. levels to sources so that future
noise level. may be accurately predicted;
• Extorior no i •• ,eduction by engineering methods 10 reduce the local
noi •• for nearby neighbors due to commercial or industrial op ...... tions;
• Office acoustical privacy, both from Interior and ext.".ior noi.e sources.
Interior acoustical privacy i. a iawful requirement tor attorney", evan in :he
same ftrm, alae psychologists or psychialrists who provide psychological
consultation services. Noise from exterior sources may interrupt
productive though! for people who do cor:cenlrative work in offices;
/10 Churches, auditoriums, restaurants, conferanee rooms, and looms where
room acoustics 1. impor1an~ may be daoigned for the mo"t efficient and
most economical cust",,, room acoustic performance;
• Industrial workplace noise level reduc'!ion by engineering <!Hign:
Product noise level rati ng and reduc~on;
Reinforced sound system design. Sound reinforeement systems usod in
dance halls, auditoriums, churches. clubs. gymnasiums, sperts arena •• and
so on~
• Unusual noise lever problems. This is for auto or motorcycle races, gun
clubs. dog kennels. play yards lor schools. security installations. and so
on:
• Expert witness. We provide .xpert testimony in cases involving product
"ability, neighbor noise level problems, use permit situations, and so on.
Resp&etlully submitted.
earifomia Electncal Engine-er
E9657 Expires 9/30;g..l
James Sidney Mills. En(;lneer
lNAS E~oineerfng -~ -Construction Noise Level Reduction
',"
i
. ;
I
\
Acoustics
for You
James H. Prout
Associate Prolessor
of Engineering Research
Penn State University
University Park.
Pennsylvania
by
Gordon R. Bienvenue
Associate Professor
of Audiology
State University of
New York
C",'ege at New Palll
~
AQbert E. Krieger Publishing Company
Malabar, Florida
1990
1-111 Muuud 'It"lIl1111ntlnCuu
Table 1.1.
Trpical Power J,.evftl. fur V.riou. Acoultl(! Sourul. ---
p...."
(Wa"'"
POIWriAlHll
(dB rt IO-It Waul ---------!6 lU 40 million IHtl
)00.000 170
10,OllO IfiO
1.0110 100
JUO 140
10 130
•. J
O.OOJ
0,0(101
0,00001
O,OC'tlOUl
0, OOOQ('.IO]
(t,I~.UI(lO,m
O,{II.IIJ.lJC.lO,OOI
1211
ll.
9U
..
70
'" 50
,(l
'0
s .....
&iturn RuckHt
RamJflt
TurboJet EnJin.
75-Piece Orclie.tra
lJipe Ol'(l:lh
'---
Small Airtraft EngShe
LaI1!:ft ChlJ1ping Hammer
Pilino
Hl.llrlng Rlltlio,
lAntrifujflll Ventilatina rail
Auto on Wghway
Vantflud .. ] Ventilating I"lIn
Vuil't'-Shol.ltin8'
V(,jre-QmvtrNItionIllLuvul
"~'i(',,-Verr &In WhiJ;jH'r
pit'l'e 'l .. ch~Hlnl ill Go dB MbMto' the It'vel o( c(jnvers~lionlJ.l Rfl~t!c:h,
Likl!wifle. it can ~ ub!\crved thal /I llhoullng voir€! iH at a le\rel (.If 2(J
dB .. bove con\'eraaliunai ie\'el and III whi&pcr is about 41.1 dB below
conren;ationalle-vel.
The IeI'm dt'cibei (uB) is commonly ufloed U5 the unit fol' level ntlhlJr
than tho? fundamental unit be-I t\o that. decimal notation iii unne(E'IiSa'1'
fO!' most apJllie",tiol'ls, Fot example, 195 decibel/i iii the SlUne Rs 111.;:;
bels, 'it\we\'er, in r:erta.in sit,uatiol18 retjuirillg extra-predai4)h mea"u~,
ments, it i~ a(hi~able and custvmal',Y to ex-press levels to oll<>-tcmtn Ijf
II decibel, -
Sound Intenslly and Souhd Intensity Level
, S~u"d iuJensitll at any llpecined location mtty be defined M thl'1
average aC'ou8tit' enerk,Y pel' uniL time p&8sirlg t1mJUgh Ii unit ar~1I. that
,-\<'U!.I,litl r!)f rOY UI
is honnal t..o the direrliOll of lII'Opugatiol1, &UhcJ inlf'IINt~' Ut. the~rore,
related to ~und )lOWer by;
\I' I .. --"'1; "lr ,'. (~.2)
where I is; the aVe!.·age l'Ound intensity ill watts llel' Ul,it area, IV ir. the
l'ound power in watt8. and r ~ !.he djlf.lance l'J'om the P-Ourt'@,
The quantity 4ttr:: jll the area of II sphere sUI'rDllllding tite Jout1."e
Qver ,,'hieh thE' ilJt~JJlllit,\' ill Hn~rllged, It is ob,'loul$ (1'O1ll equntiotl ~9,2'
thlll the Intenait), will df'(l'l'aflt' with the ~q\li\fe o,)f ~hl" di!'Lanl'f' from
!-he ~ouret!:; hellce. th'" well~kl,o~'n ilwei'se'IOquare law,
Sound inlell.lQty ullits, liJut N)!'.IIId power unils, ctwer a \\'idt' range,
,110 agai1l h~re it j, dt'!l'irabl(' to nllt" th .. dO notation to ('ompl'f'SS thf'
Illt'iIlt ui'ing ocale, The jnt.en~ity 1I;"\'c' i; de-hned It,.;
J
1() )(rK ~ dB l~, ' L/ '" (R3J
whel'(' J i~ Ow tllek(l.Un"<1 inll'lltlitr at soml;'" gl\'t'li dl~llInC't' from thl;"
r.ource, Mild III III a r('fer@Hl'e ilitentlll;., The refert'ncl' intel1t'iry ('ornmotily
ueed is ]0-":1 Wlm!,
Soul,d I'reSilUIT und Sound l'rtl8ure Lutl
Very ('ompJex )Jl'tl{'mh.ll't'll lUX! 11c.>l'1!1'I5AI·y Iv llIt'iI!'IlI'P' :<lIlIud power
;l1l.1 ~lInd illtenttit~,; Cllll~tluc.>lItl~', it j~ ('illlil'r to 1Il1.'aflUI'j:I s(.ultd prep(l.llre.
sim.·(, till' outvut of 1I10i:.t mh~I'uphont'fo i1\. lib-tid I,\' rfhlt~~II(l_tht' sound
preS!lIll'E' (;In the mirro/1hm"" dia"hr.~, ~ill~'E' the l'r{'!'$UI'(" \'ariell abl,wt
a.lld beluw the atlllu!!l'hf!l'it' •• I'l'~JI;Urt·, thip. nU,)-ing: l'llllllWllwnl erf the
prC!ll'lurt' l~ expl'('II:\(·t\ !\to. th<' Hlllm'c n~t of the IIWal1 fliluilre of lh("
ill!!oiRntane(I\l1t fJrt'I'!lurf!!l meRflUI't'rl ('I\'el' It rull (',\'l~It" o( ~resl\ul'£o \'llriatioI1,
T:li~ Htryi,ng cOmpOIlp.llt i" written llI..' th~ /"{KII IJ'~"II ~'1uore (nnSl)
pl'e5~ul'e, Whene\'{'r w{' jl('~ the eXllrt=sRion lUI/(II(1 /WfMUI'e. the l'lnll,
"wlup ill lWiumeu unleij(: flpeciliclI!iy ~Iat@(l othel'wi~,
JU!\t lUI with i!lIJUnd Jluwer and Mllind intem>it,L the I':lug'" o( BOund
PJ'CfI!'III'CI' if! "HI';" wide, SOIne cnmmlJnl,v en('Qunlt'rpd t'mmd l~rCf;ttUre:!
HI't: Hhown in Flgurt: 9, l, Sound Jlr{'~ure~ Ilur th(" " .. ill thl'E'.!=hold (about
20 N/ml!) are found In IllAny work aro9.~ audio)o .. -';""t);. l'ommollls work
with Round pre~uref. n~a.I· th(1 tbr('[lhold or hflQI'illll; (about Q,(1(1(1(n !'IiI
m;:"), 'fhe 1!o(1U1U1 pl'esst .... e I:OI'·c~IXllldjll}.: III 1 he thr.:tchilld or hUmall
bQlll'ing hilS been ,ht"~n lUI thtl l'ef@N!Il('tl PI'Ctlll-lIl'f! fOl' ('akuhlf,iun of
80QIlii pl'elC8url" 1r:'\''?I. Other P,UIllIIlf(1 rerUth{'~ qoantitiep; are listed in
Table 8.2.
.' . ',-,-0
'.~:: .
',';
. ,
,:~
,,,_In-~ .. ~: l II
I = = -:::. -.:: tor; "=' .. !;;/" .s -6 i: ;:..;' t t _'" t
~ ~ ~ _ a _ ~ ~ -~
.~ =:=-:==-= I
A Y ~ Y , ~ • ~ ~
~i .-- - - - -.--
.tl~~~~JI"!
"I~;.·; ;<""fL I ~ ~~~'~~~~~~I,! :>1 _______ _
.~~~I~.~
}>~~ ~ . 7§"~ I ~Z::::2~~=='3.."3. ~~=;::..:..::=--I~~~~~~~~~
I .. ~ ~
I H . '" 1j ~
o
<0 ~ ;:
IlP J,1t SSO"j Ilnl"";II~!>II'JlJ I
t::~3~!,:!£ .....
. . . . ~ . ..,
;;
r:
~
" ::l = ..,
t '" -, ." " .. <.; '-~ '. ;::
"'Z 3 .:!! = ~ ..
§ :;:
'" ..; z .., -'" " ..
i.: ~ :=.
~
, PRfluuci TIIICKtlESS ilISIDE. CDNSIR. SPACE O~TSIDE SIC VALUE
UlnInaIed GlasS' 114" (7.24 mm) us-0031r Safi ... liS' J~
318" 19.53 m m) 114' 0.030" Safltx 1 la-36
3IB' (10.5 mm) 114' O.ll6Ir Salle' II!" 37
112'(12.1 mm) 114' 0,030' SaIIex ,,4' 3lI
112' (12.9 mm) 114' 0.061T San .. "4' J~
5/8'{16,2 mm) 3/8' 0.030" sane, 1i4-40
3/4" (15.9 mm) 112' 0.060" Sano. 1/4-..
!.aminated-~1'(26.1 mm) 1/4'l8minal. 112', air 1/~' 39~
1nsull.litIg Glass' 15116"(24.6 mm) 114' laminale 112'". air 3/16' 39
H~(29.3mm) 3IB' laminali HZ'. air 1/~ 4U
H/16' (37,3 mm) 1/4' laminal. 1", a:r 3116' 4,
H/1. (62,7 mm) 114' laminate 2', air Ji16' 45
4,1i2' 11'3.5 mm) 1I4"1aminatl 4", aif 3i"6~ 4"
4-5/8' II 19.1 mm) 112' lam inal. 4", air 3116' .~
,'127.9 mm) 114' laminat. 112", aU , {4" laminale 42
4-3/4" 1120.7 mml tIT mmflTltl!! .4", iir , 14" IImmat£ .5~
"'''paad Giass' la (14,5 mm) II!" 114'. all II!" 26
" m.9 mm) 114" la. air 1/4' ,s
Ha 1"0.6 mm) 114" '., air 1/4-'7 ,.
MOI101ithic Glass' 1/4"" [:,;:: mmj "4' 3)
1i2"' (12.': mml 112' :.l8
Walls' .. 1/2" Gyosum board (bot' sides/ screweCl :0 :;~5ie· me.tal ~1Uds ,li
~. Face brick, mortared !og!'!thef ':
c" t.ightweight C"I,crele ::Jlcx:k, rNa coats of pJir.1 ear.;n side '6
4· HoP-ow. !I~htweigtlt masanrj bloct\ plastered 0:1 boln sides "e
g' Oelisa CGncffle !)t(;Ck waf! , two coats 'Of paint !aC!'1 ::irutl ., "-Doubl. layer gyl)'sum walilloard. betl) si005. 3516' metal SludS, 54
'3" sound; attenuation blanket
ItDrt1· IJ 1~S1tId IIIlMt ~S7'J,f i::O·SJ. ~~ c~ rtI,:.uc.1Wtr wcoo.n :RCIpS.,., ~'W II'I<ny
2; T~,..oUl1lW.:IS-;"M i<JC 13 .!.t1l""~".liI"iid~lw:&IG"""~oI ~ ','d.'Q,03C"" 54r.tt~· l'S":row: ',r/hfCi(J, 1.'-1' ;;;,:]JQ.~ •. !,~ rww 3'" ,'hi(ij. 1;';' . C. Q1O"'" S;JIIIf.l"· 1/"'" .le,QJ 1. Z-~I. ::v "oO"· (!, ~ ~ • 11]", ;'Ic,rOli ~";" rfll(;/r.J. ,;)<I"'" c:.3Vl/llI'd ,.1.il~ :n ~~ ...
/r.I"~"'" oa>OOC"..-l s:~ ,Jnd ~/,f';;J ;lJr1r :"11II.5 olII'III iC'S1 1I1dr! '0 ~~ ~ t.:ICTOf) , .. ~ ,./1 ,:!"!Itf'";r.tt -era ::::n5r"'~-c-!l!d·~ ~:l.
7EC'" 11.·sv..,.r.:.
HAMILTON AVENUE PROPERTIES, INc.
555 BYRON STREET. PALO ALTO. c.~ 94]01
June 29, 1993
A'ITACHMENT 6
"THe HAMIL TON"
TEL (415) 326-1626
fAX. 1415) 327-819)
Xen Schreiber JI.m Z 9 ,9S3
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY OF PALO AL'l'O
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: The Hamilton Senior Living Community
O!?:J'i7"':?J~'~'" '~:...'~: -~ :-'"t:
.r:::;c.(:.:~, ..:':,~ .. '-:-
Ha~ilton AVenue Between Middlefield and Byron
Application for Rezoning f~om RM-1S to Planned
Commun i ty (PC)
Assessor's Parcel Nos: 120-03-047, 048, 049,
052, 053 and 073
(Specifically, BMR Unitsl
Dear Ken:
In my letter of June 22, 1993 in ~ragraph 1. I etated that we
were to acquire or construct seven (7) BMR units prior to the
issuance of a building permit for the referenced project~ I would
appreciate it if yoo will accept a revision to this requirement
wbich calls for us to acquire or construct these units prior to
the granting by the-C',ty of an occupancy perm! t for the
referenced project. All ether conditions set forth in my earlier
letter are to remain unchanqed.
Please let us know if this revision is acceptable to staff and
can be incorporated into the required approvals and forthcoming
PC ordinance.
Sincerely,
RAKIL'l'ON AVENUE PROPERT!ES, INC.
~~H~l~ident
cc: Steve Player
-'.~ ~ . ---
VoW OFI'JC(S ATIACHMENT 7
~1I"'1TM
_r.1CMI'.i _.
~ ........
~,
....,... '" "",",,-T
CruST, GB.1.FPITHS, SCHULZ & :BIORN
June 30, 1993
H_·I ... ·,
Writer's Direct Line:
(US) 321-5005
Palo Al~o PlarJOinq comsiooion
250 Kaailton Avenue
Palo ~to, california 94301
Re: Baail ton Avenue Properties, Inc:.
651 Haailton Avenue, 536-576 Middlefield Road,
523-575 Byron street
File Nos: 92-ZC-3, 93-ARS-12, 92-EXA-7
Dear Keabera ot the Planninq comaission.
This letter b "ul:uu tte4 on behalf of an<S in support of
Baailton Avenue Properties, Inc. and its proposal to rezone the
above property fro. low <Sensity multiple raaily (RM-15) to
planned co_unity SOM-{PC) tor the purpcsu of constructing &
h1gh-incoae senior reol<sential livinq ca..unity on that cite.
As indicated in the staff roport prepared by Virqinia
Warheit, this project vas brought befDra you for the first time
on September 30, 1992, ancS since that time bas received
conceptual approval froa the City COuncil and the approval of the
ARB by unaniaoua vote at ita aeetinq beld on June 3. 1993. The
favorable report by the ARB end the conditions suqqested therein
~~fleet the effort wade by the applicant to comply with the
;eneral policy qui<Selines set forth by the City Council in
qrantlnq ita conceptual approval. As sot forth in the Staff
Report, the council required that the project C01l8 back without
tbe requ.ireaent of any variances, that an architectural solution
to tha appearance of bulk and maS8 of the project be addressed,
and that work be <Sone to i<Sentify a<Sditional on-site parking.
All of these issues have been addressed in the submittal before
you.
In addition, the Counoil instructed applicant to reach an
agreeaent with the City which will provide for an endowment 'fund
of at least $500,000, with additional contributions to such tund
coming fro. a 245' resale fee on future resales of units. The
Aqreeaent attached to the staff Report as Exhibit B is acceptable
eRln. OazrrttBS. 5CBULZ .. .81 .'i
Palo Alto Planninq comaission
June 30" 1993
Pa .. e 2
to the applicant and ~ill provide a fund for the benefit ot
8eniora and senior services in future years and will help to
inaure the delivery of hiqh quality services to our senior
comaunity. The agreeaent provides a Machani •• whereby the 2.5'
fro.. resale at future. u....,it. will be assurea by the inclusion of a
condition 1n all deeds or instruaent. of conveyance. The public
benafit contained therein provides a creative, innovative way to
allow a larger population ot aenicra to continue to· be Berved by
the proqrams provided by the Senior Coordlnating Council" or such
other organizations as aetermin.scJ by the City council.
In addition to the &bave public benetit, the applicant vill
provide aeven (7) BHR units to the City. As indicated in Ji.
Hillis letter. dated June 29 , 1993 to Ken SChreiber, the applicant
is requeating' that the proposed PC be modified to provide that
the aeven :BKR un! bJ not be requiretd to be d.el i vered untll the
qranting 0 f an occupancy permit for tha proj act. TIli. lU!Iendment
vill allow flexibility to the applicant to no~ only l~-ate the
&ppropriate unita" but turther to exp10re with the Bouainq
Corporation the opportunity to lev&raqe the aoney required for
the purchase ot the seven BXR units to acquire oil ~ter n1lJlber
ot units.
On behalf at aa..il ton Avenue Properties" Inc~" I vlsh to
thank the Planning' Coami.sion for cDnsideration of the request
and \lrge its a.,pport. I beJ.ieve that the project is a pollitive
add! tion to the bousing' stock of th .. City of Palo Alto and "ill
be an outstanding architectural omhancement to the downtown area.
The project that 1. ~fore you reflects the e.f.forts of -..any
people working' toqether to arrive at a Project and pUblic benetit
ot which the City ""y be proud.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Vert / lY)lourS/2
..,2t:i'$J;:/J-;;' ?tJ iP ~
STE w. PLAYF:R~~
SWP.dItt
ATIACHMENT 8
June 30. 1993
Palo Alto Plan ning Commission "ll . A r. ~ 10 . .£1 'z
Cily of Palo Alto ~'\.l :> (I
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto. CA 94301 Re: Hamfllon Avenue Properties
Palo Alto, California
Dear Commissioners.
Although the ARB approved this project at tts meeting of June 3.1993. we
requested tha! the garage plan be restudied to e~ minate the two dead end
aisles which WIlTS a part of the in~;al desiijn. As was discussed at that meeting.
we felt thallhe unresolved circulation coupled with the right, hairpin tum II! the
base 01 the entry ramp. constitute dlfficuft and dangerous situations,
M. our meeting of J una 17 we received the revised plan you have belore you
lonfght We have independentiy reviewed this new plan and feel ft is a decided
Improvement. However. there is stili some discomfort associated with the
placement of many of the storage unM along the two way drive aisle. There is a
poIential here k>f accidents to occur. We are aiso COl ocemed tI111! atthough the
spaces along the Sout_ wan can now be accessed without having to
negotiate the hairpin tum mentioned above, (by driving around the loop in a
clockwise direction), there w<1i be a great temptation to by the difficuH tum in
order to save time. Drivers coming down the ramp may swing into the tell lane
in preparatior. ior this manewer. conflicting with oncoming cars exiting the
garage.
We berleYe there may be a solution to help ease these situalions. and
respectfuHy suggest that you urge the applicant to further refine the plan to this
end.
Sincerely yours, .-/"
<:j,~~an
Palo Alto ArchHectural Review Board
SlCphen & Oem Smith
640 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto. CA
Jun< 25. 1993
RE: "THE HAMILTON"
Dear Members of the Planning: Commission.:
ATI'ACHMENT 9
I am writi.,g this lener on be~.alf of myself. my wife 3Ild ,",vera! of our neighbors.
Uofonunatcly. my wife and I will be away on Jun<: 30 w~Jch prohibits us from attending
!be PlJuming Commissioo meeting scheduled for that same date. Please find below a brief
summary of some of the thoughL' of several of the members of !be neighbor..ood
coocemiDg The Hamilton.
We purchased our home a!: 640 Middlefield 00 New Year's Eve.. 1992 and were not made
aware of lhis proposed project until a mailing from your office on May 6tk We are aware
that many good people have been involved with this issue since the summer of la.o:.t year.
On M0nd2y June 21 my daughter and I dropped invi .. tions in the mailboxes of some of our
neighbors inviting !bern to attend a gathering with the intention of bringing os all up to date
and 10 assess current neighborbood sentiment. This meeting was held in our home on the
evening of June 24th_
1bae are several members of the community who an: opposed to this project and there are
some: who approve of irs bemg buill You should know, however. that there was a clear
sense that without exception. ~ 'Would prefer a projec[ with less mas."i;. On tlili. \!,'C
were aIIagr=i 1bae are many teasOI1. for this, mO<t of .,hieh are ra!her seII~ident and
documented in the minuteS of previous meetings in the fonn of c:cncems prnc.nted for your
review or for ~iew by !be ARB and City Council We sttODgly urge you.o review !be
initial ~ of !be zoning department which stated that this project not be
allowed to go forwatd as proposed. There continue to be ""ideots (not employers or
employees or church staff) who have no fU'.ancial. personal or political gain to be realized
by the fruition or demise of the proposed project and whose principal opposition is base<l
upon their desire to maintain their Deighborbood atmosphere.
These neighbors include ourselves, Tim Lindholm, and Lucy Gaylord, all of whom are
homeowners and live in !be 600 block of Middlefield -In block from the proposed
prop We are people who can: about Palo Alto and have sentiments foe the elderly as
weD as others. We are residents who feellhaJ the building and its deoign. the landsc3ping
and materials, are all very beautiful and of high quality· these have no reiev",,' bearing.
however. on our submission that this location is a poor location for a project that is this
immense.. We each would love 10 see more dollars go towards senior programs in this city
bot do no! see thal!be monies that would be realized by the seniors or !be BMR bousing
interests to be ajuSJ: compensation forme mass of this facilicy. We are neighbors who
include Mrs Tinney who fives I block from th is proposed projecl She has beeo unable to
attend city meetings because she herself is a senior whose physical health prohibits her
doin@ so. She does not know any of us from Adam. She respcnded to .our invitation,
ho\IICVer, and]efl a phone message concerning her feelings. Mrs.. Tinney is flatly ovvoscd
to its being built on 1hc groonds thai: this cite is not the proper location. S he is probaoly
older than any senior who will likely occupy The Hamilron. She has an opini.Qn which
should be be given very sensiti"e consideration -certainly more thar. our own . as she has
owned. lived in, and paid lUes on her home for 60 years., most likely longer tf-.an YOll or I
have been alive and c:mainly longer than any of 1J.5 Mve been ""idents of this ci~'.
I mmt tell you Ihaa: we f~l pretty discouiaged. There is Il sentiment that 1be Hamilton is a
"done deal" as they lay. Despite this sense:, we do IKlt believe that mere are any "bad
guys~ in this scenario. w. ~ convinced that !here = goo<! people involved with this
project, oowever .... " also r..,l that the city SI3ff woo have viewed the proposed plaM Mve
done so with ·...nous degn:es of bias based upon a histnry of relationships between
themselves, project pri~ipa1s. those who stand to gain increased revenues from additional
pa";shoncrs. and olber persons who have been long time residc:nts ami respected citizens of
Palo Alto.
Unlike Mrs. TUU1eY. !here are thme of us who are not 100% opposed to this project We
are very simply in1>lcring you to .... jew the volume of this structtn proportionate to the
land parceL Although !here are tilose woo are pleased with this project. we are asking you
to eor.sid", the wishes of SOIT'<: of those who will ~ in its midst We fel that this project
can be greBliy improved upon by deaeasing its size and we mainlain that it would be an
unfonunate misclIlculatioo on our pan not to have full faith in you.-ability and williogoess
10 re.pond 10 our plea 10 pr=:rve 0Ul' neighbomood and 10 adhere to plorming standards
that pl'OmoIe 1 •• po/lSible groWlh and development in OUI colllnumity.
'," .
ATIACHMENTIO MRI '" RES-EARCH AND rRAJNI"-tG INHITUTl FOP THE INTlRACTION.I4,t
STUDY OF THl' INDIVIDUAL. rHE MMj('( AND THI COMMUNITY
June 25. 1993
TO: Planninq Commission
FROM: Dr. Arthur M. Bodin
Chairman, Board of Directors
Mental Research Institute
RE -; The Hami 1 ton
'" . l:' _ ,
The Mental Research Institute Board and staff are
unani.ous in their concern about disruptive noise from
jac~rs~ riveting} hammers, etc., during about 18 months
of construction of the Hamilton.
The HRI, founded in 1959 and located at 555 Middlefield
Road since 1967, conducts psychotherapy all day every
weekday and conducts tr~inin9 at various times throughout
the week.. In both cases, video and audiotape recordings are
often essential, as is the ability for patients I therapists
and trainees to hear--even if some have reached the age at
which it is difficult to screen out t~y loud background
noise.
Our two training suites face Middlefield Road. In
addition, the main conference room for staff l Board, and
training meetings faces Middlefield Road. Last and at least
equally important, there are 28 psychotherapists in our
buildinq conducting individual, couple, fa.ilYI and group
psycho~~erapy starting about 8~OO am and sometimes going as
late as 9:00 pm~ SOme of this therapy is through HRI's
Brief Therapy Center, some is through the Mal Clinic} and
some is independent practice by staff and other tenants.
The bettOR line: it is essential for our therapy,
traininq, and research that we are able to bear well and
make hiqh quality video and audiotape recordings. There is
no way to schedule around the therapy, since it is
continuous. Thus we need two things from the Planning
COBDission and city oouncil~
11 A requiresent that the HaJ!I.ilton developer pay tor
double-paned glass to be installed throughout our
building to l2Y~ the jackhammer noises And
2) a requirement that all loud construction
procedures be scheduled so as to avoid our
training tilles.
OVer the past 34 years, MRI has drawn many thousands of
people to Palo Alto from a~ound the state; the nation, and
the world--for training in family therapy and (fer 26 years)
for training in MRI Brief Therapy. Th2se people stay in
local hotels, e&t in local restaurants, and buy in Palo Alto
stores. This training continues. Let's make it possible
for this training to continue and thus function BS a
business asset in Palo Alto.
Arthur M. Bodin, PtL. D.
Chair, Board of Directors
Mental Research Institute
---".-
I,
111M 23, 1993
PIaunin, Commlosion
City of Pal<> Alto
2SO Hamilton Avenue
Paro Alto, CA 94301
ATrACHMENT 11
i
RE: 6S1 Hamilion Avenue, 536-576 Middlefield Road, 523-515 Byron Street
I
Dear P1aonillj COOunissIooetJ:
I wish to ~ my otr"", support ..,cl the wpport of • n~· of Illy imm<dia'" oc:iaI>bon fOT
Ihe propooed 36-Wllt .... 10< 1ivm& community. My reoidenao aDd ~ are witllin ODe bIocl:
of Ihe propcoed project. I will penona!ly be imJ'OCled as .. ucla if man: than any of my nsidMtial
neighbors. From my third-1Ioor oIIi<e window at Ihe c:omer ~"toD aJId Webstu, J will ........
bee tops where Ihe project rises 10 okIorics. Rcpr_ of an io, J have 10 .., Ihlll this project
for a!lluent reuion, with itt semitMo deoilJ> throusJ! its '. ure, Jan<I&capiDg am! oet.-,
makes .sense. in this location. 'l'
It is within Ihe "",,1m! of aome of Ihe IUrtWDdiDg ~ t propooc<l Urban Desi&n PI""
that I find thai the heicb~ bulk aDd ...... of the project appro . o· in this location. The .... 1fug
<OJJcIominiums at the comer of Middlefield aDd H.omiIton on: 2 12 aoricI high compared with the
project" proposed :w.o.y elements at tho.ame corner. Mo,...,.." oI<mg Hamilton A..,..= between
MiddlcfickI and WobI1er, the Fin! United Methodisl Churoh', 6DetUlllY riIeI to an cic>atioD of 4
rtories pl.,. on Hzrw1tcn ODd extcnIivelJ-along Webs"',. There ~ exists substantial bulk, mass
and height betweec Middlefield and WobI1er. j
I firmly believe this project ...ru DOt let pr=:dcnt fu, futun: ~r """tit of Hamilton along
M'or\dIefield, but if there were 10 be any futute ,edevdopotent r4tth of Hamilion aIooJ Middldicld
it would retain its _ty reskIootia! c:bataeter. In abort, l...!Ha.nntcn Avenue and MiddIcIicId
Road as the 'zoning alp" in this port of our city that provide .lramition from d,"""""", mix,uses
to tho residential Dci&bborhoodl ooulh of HanultoD mel east of~. The propooed Urban
l>esiin Pimt 011 pa", 29 _ the Middlefield edge and en'1 ccmc, to ou' City at Middlefield
Road and Univcmty A .... uo as follows; l
Eoooaroge __ '" bip deasiIy rajdeptjal uses i Mjddlcjjcld Road and W_ Sba:~ with the tro.iIdiI!I .......... IIw ...-~~ pIaoed _ Univcm1y
A_ ... tnmiIioo. to ___ ..... "'&Ie~t:-~ lqinon tbeDOdhDle
ofM' ....... 6e!dRood. 1
i
M.aIDtain an open cPI1y_ lit M"orkIcCodd Road and ~ Avenue 10 <n:a'" om ""lI)'
__ priaaorily Ibrou&It r.-..., ~!
~
06/:5/93 lO: SC 415 327 81'97
P\annina Commiuioft
Joot 2.1.1993
Pa", 2
JArES K!:"L E1' ..u. p~. ·D:;
The adoption of the propoocd p.e Zonin& will allow £or 18 IIIOre residential uoi .. than does t!>e
pt<SC!lI~. and even with this iI is difficult for m.= to ia"IiaC how !he additi<>nal can fro", lbe<e
18 r .. ~b, tlIelr ...... and ""'" the few deIMlfy ~ ttucli!< will ~ the ..-_
for __ dal will be derived at I lime Iba' _ ICllim IeI\'I<a will be eIiminIted from oW' al)'
budget. MorO<JYel. the ~I of approximately 11.000 "I.ft.; of oxistiD, commtreW UICII and ill
rclaLe<! traffic lurtheroflicu the addltiDnaJ a"'_"'";' Iripo..,..,,"'" by tbeoc 18 =Iden .. 0!Id!heir
J\IICIts. :l .. my urwkntandbl, tha'. in a4diticm to meet:iDlme City's requirement of providing 20%
affordable bousins (7 rclidentioJ rcoW units). the appti<anl will;crcate.., ""dowment iuD<! dat will
provide for servicet to oen.iors wbo ocberwiIe oould not _ ....., ~
It is fur th= """"'" plus additional reosom from 01)' DOi&/l .... lb., "" "'I" )'Ou to IUjlpOr1 this
project.
Very truly you,,-
r-WICder
631 Middlefield Road (_)
ODd
SSO HamillOD Avenue, SIC 307 (oIlice)
RFSIDENIS SUPPORTING TInS:l6:UNIf ~OR PROJECT
(Name) (Address)
June 23, 1993
Planninq Commission
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
A'ITACHMENT 12 . --' -.. ,.
JIJh 3 ~ 1993
:
::-=-__ .~_~ J
Re; 651 ~ilton, 536-576 Middlefield and 523-575 Byron
Dear Planninq C~i89ioner&:
The undersigned are homeowners in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed sftniors' cOlllll\unity known as The Hamilton. We are .
familiar with the plans and other relevant details of this
project and have followed its progress thr~cqh the City approvals
process.
Several of us have attended public hearings and spoken in favor
of The Bamdlton and/or written letters in support of the proposed
re-zoning in the past. Although a number of us plan to attend
the public bearinq before your Commission on June 30, we want ~o
take this opportunity to once again express to you in writinq our
support for this fine project.
We urqe e~ch of yo~ to vote in favor of a motion to recommend to
the City Council that they approv~ the re-zoning required for The
Hamilton ..
very truly yours,
b7XJ :J ... dw" .JJ::t<J.f, (fIV:(1 ait.,
,JJ f,,-/.. I'd?:,
(li·~,
f{2--tVI "
I (2'b G'C"f(r
hi), 1~'~ }ill, ,~ ~h;-
>1 . ff· fk7=-; v /L
t-!-d. .... /v( 17;
CHARLES G. ScHm.:z
e!'17 IIYIlON .e"nla1l'T
f'OtI'1' OPPICII BO--X ~
PALO ALTO. CAUPO.R.N'1A &4302'.te99
'I".I!ILBP-RO.'QI 1411:1' .3l1&-.aoeo
.P.t.l£ 1411!) ::lllIe-o.2e.
June 22, 1993
Palo Alto Planning commission
250 Hamilton Avenue
palo Alto, CA 94301
ATIACHMENT 13
Re: 651 Hamilton AV4inue, 536-5'76 Middlefield RO'., 523-575
Byron Street, Hamilton Avenue Properties, Inc.
92-ZC-3, 93-ARB-12, 92-EIA-7 (revised)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
~ own the property at 517 Byron Street~ r continue to oppose The
HaKilton, 36 luxury condominium units for seniors, because of its
size and impact on parkinq and traffic in the neighborhood.
1. The Arcbitectural Review Board ~as concerned about the
circulatio~ of traffic in the underground garage, referring
specifically to dead-end aisles. At The Stratford, 601 Laurel,
San Mateo, CA, a project with 67 condominium units, there are two
floors of underground qaraqe. According to the staff person
there, there is a full loop on both floors and there are no dead
ena aisles. The Hamilton should haVp. a full loop for traffic in
its qaraqe s no dead-ends, and a less-constricted turn trom the
ramp to enter the loop4
24 At ~e stratford, the person in charge informed ~e that
there are 45 employees to serve the 67 units. There is a kitchen
which prepares, on site, one evening meal each day and one
luncheon on Thursday. The Hamilton proposes staffing 36 units
with 8-10 employees, providing the residents with at least one
meal a day, and allocating 6 parkinq spaces for its 8 -10
employees. The H~ilton, more than half as big as The Stratford,
proposes staffing with less than one-quarter the staff. It seems
obvious that there will be more ~ployees at The Hamilton and
that insufficient parkinq spaces have been provided for them.
The extra employees, as well as persons hired by the residents
for their own needs, will have to park in the neighborhood, thus
addinq to congestion~
palo Alto Planning commission
Re: The Hamilton
Paqe two June 22, 1993
3. Each unit at The Stratford, I was info~ed, is assi9~ed
two parking ~paces. Many couples there have tw~ cars: some of
the people are still working. The Hamilton proposes 59 spaces
for the residents and 12 spaces for guests. Developers of The
Hamilton have indicated that one space will be assigned for each
unit for parking and that additional spaces can he purchased by
the residents. The residents of The Hamilton are described as
active seniors~ with a minimum age either 62 or 65. If only one
space is provided, residents yill tend to parK extra vehicles
elsewhere. If residents do acquire more underground spaces,
there will be fewer parking spaces available for guests and
employees. In short, there is not enough parking provided on
site for the realistic needs of residents, staff, employees, and
quests.
". All service trucks and moving vans for The Hamilton
ei~er will have to double pa~k on Byron street or use the space
in front of the entrance. Compare this narrow $treet, 30' wide,
with what is available at Peninsula Reqent an~ The Stratford,
projects in San Mateo which are stated to be cOMparable to The
Hamilton. Both Peninsula Reqent and The Stratford front on
streets wider than Byron street, and, in each case, the access
parking for drop-off and visitors is larger than what is provided
at The Hamilton. Byron Street is already congested from time to
time with delivery trucks and other vehicles qoinq to and from
the Palo Alto Dental Clinic, Brauer Pain Control Center~ First
United Methodist Church, and two professional buil~ings.
5. The .floor area ratio of this project is 1.7. The
maximum regular zone, RM-40# would allow 1.0 FAR. All problems
related to The Hamilton?s parking , traffic circulation, and
congestion flow from its size. The neighborhood and the City
5hould not be asked to make sacrifices because the applicant
desires to maximi~e its developmant investment.
Sincerely,
. '/7. -CX ' ~ 'UM. Le-'
CHARLES G. S HULZ ~
CGS:bh
P.S. I request that any approval he conditioned on ~y property's
continued driveway access via the driveway immediately to the
north of the applicantls Byron street property. See the ARB1s
minutes and action, June 3, 1993, in this regard.