HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-18 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Architectural Review Board
Regular Meeting Agenda: January 18, 2018
Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
Call to Order / Roll Call
Oral Communications
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
City Official Reports
1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative
Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals
Action Items
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All
others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00257]:
Consideration of Draft Environmental Impact Report and Review and
Recommendation to Council of an Architectural Review Application for Construction
of a New Four-Story, 49' Tall Parking Structure, and Photo-Voltaic Rooftop Panel
Structure, With Two Below Grade Parking Levels to Provide 636 Public Parking Spaces
on an Existing Public Parking Lot Within the California Avenue Business District.
Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report was published
January 8, 2018 for Public Comments Through February 22, 2018. Zone District: PF;
Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org.
Study Session
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Subcommittee Items
3. SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW: 1451 Middlefield Junior Museum and Zoo (File 17PLN-
00147): ARB Subcommittee Review of Resolution of the Gable End at Main Entry Per
Approval Condition #9
4. 2120 Staunton Court [16PLN-00419]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved
Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to a Second
Story Bay Window. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section
15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: RMD(NP). For More Information Contact
the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
Adjournment
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Palo Alto Architectural Review Board
Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers
are:
Chair Wynne Furth
Vice Chair Peter Baltay
Boardmember Robert Gooyer
Boardmember Alex Lew
Boardmember Osma Thompson
Get Informed and Be Engaged!
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel
26.
Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card
located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board
Secretary prior to discussion of the item.
Write to us. Email the ARB at: arb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning
& Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
94301. Comments received by Noon two Wednesdays preceding the meeting date will be
included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before
the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais.
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the
agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above.
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a
manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an
appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs,
or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing
ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least
24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 8858)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 1/18/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: City Official Report
Title: Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance
Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review
Approvals
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate.
Background
The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and
comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a
future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item.
The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year.
Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which rotate throughout the year.
The second attachment transmits administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals
since the Board’s last meeting. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the
ARB on the proposed director's decision by filing a written request with the planning division.
There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing.
However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets
containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to
Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter
12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the
applicant.
No action is required by the ARB for this item.
Attachments:
1
Packet Pg. 4
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
Attachment A: Staff Approvals (DOCX)
Attachment B: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX)
1
Packet Pg. 5
Architectural Review Board
Staff Approvals
Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow the removal of four locust trees and
replace with Red Maples.
Applicant: Sara McMahon
Address: 325 Channing Avenue, 17PLN-00371
Approval Date: December 13, 2017
Request for hearing deadline: December 27, 2017
Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow the refurbishing of one illuminated
monument sign.
Applicant: Tom Square
Address: 730 Welch Road, 17PLN-00392
Approval Date: December 13, 2017
Request for hearing deadline: December 27, 2017
Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow the removal and replacement of
one dead Weeping Willow Tree.
Applicant: Tim Fitzgreald
Address: 1001 Page Mill Road, 17PLN-00429
Approval Date: January 11, 2018
Request for hearing deadline: January 25, 2017
Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow modifications to an existing
café/storage building.
Applicant: Todd Bevis
Address: 1899 Page Mill Road, 17PLN-00315
Approval Date: January 11, 2018
Request for hearing deadline: January 25, 2018
1.a
Packet Pg. 6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
S
t
a
f
f
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
(
8
8
5
8
:
C
i
t
y
O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
)
Architectural Review Board
Staff Approvals
Project Description: Director approval with conditions of a Tier 3 Wireless
Communications Facility Permit.
Applicant: Bob Gunderman, Crown Castle for Verizon
Address: 4085 Transport Street, 17PLN-00143
Approval Date: January 11, 2018
Request for hearing deadline: January 25, 2018
1.a
Packet Pg. 7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
S
t
a
f
f
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
(
8
8
5
8
:
C
i
t
y
O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
)
2018 Schedule
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Schedule & Assignments
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/5/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
1/18/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
2/1/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
2/15/2018
/17
8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
3/1/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
3/15/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
4/5/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
4/19/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
5/3/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
5/17/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
6/7/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
6/21/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
7/5/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
7/19/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
8/2/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
8/16/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
9/6/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
9/20/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
10/4/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
10/18/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
11/1/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
11/15/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
12/6/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
12/20/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
2018 Subcommittee Assignments
January February March April May June
July August September October November December
1.b
Packet Pg. 8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
A
R
B
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
A
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
(
8
8
5
8
:
C
i
t
y
O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
)
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 8560)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/18/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 350 Sherman: Public Parking Garage (2nd Hearing)
Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 350 Sherman Avenue
[17PLN-00257]: Consideration of Draft Environmental Impact
Report and Review and Recommendation to Council of an
Architectural Review Application for Construction of a New
Four-Story, 49' Tall Parking Structure, and Photo-Voltaic
Rooftop Panel Structure, With Two Below Grade Parking Levels
to Provide 636 Public Parking Spaces on an Existing Public
Parking Lot Within the California Avenue Business District.
Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact
Report was published January 8, 2018 for Public Comments
Through February 22, 2018. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities.
For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy
French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org.
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and.
2. Recommend approval of the proposed public parking garage to the City Council based
on draft findings and subject to draft conditions of approval set forth in the Draft Record
of Land Use Action, Attachment A.
Report Summary
The formal plans for the new public parking garage proposed for 350 Sherman were previously
reviewed by the ARB on October 19, 2017. An earlier staff report includes extensive
background information, project analysis and evaluation of the proposed public parking garage
and Public Safety Building (PSB) to city codes and policies; that report is available online:
2
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59863. A copy of the report without
prior attachments is available in Attachment G.
In addition to serving as the first staff report connected with the recently published DEIR for the
PSB project, the purpose of this report is to restate the ARB comments and describe the
applicant’s response to those comments, with respect to the public parking garage component
of the project. The PSB project component is undergoing a redesign following the October
2017 ARB meeting, and a resubmittal is anticipated in early 2018. The analysis section in this
report builds upon the information contained in the earlier report, and reflects recent project
changes, as described in the applicant’s project description letter (Attachment F).
The Draft Environmental Impact Report is viewable (as of January 8, 2018) on the Public Works
project webpage at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3339&TargetID=145; it was
distributed to interested parties and the State Clearinghouse as of January 8, 2018. The Notice
of Availability and Completion (Attachment E) appeared in the Palo Alto Weekly on January 5,
2018. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) is scheduled to conduct a public
meeting on January 31, 2018, to receive testimony regarding the DEIR and to discuss and
provide a recommendation regarding the proposed ordinance amending the Public Facilities
zone development standards and parking and loading requirements for public parking garages
and essential service facilities within the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts.
The ARB’s recommendation for approval of the proposed parking garage allows the next phase
of design for the parking garage to commence according to the City’s schedule (see below),
which calls for construction to begin in October 2018. Because the PSB construction cannot
begin until the parking garage is completed, proceeding to the design development phase for
the parking garage is the critical path for the overall project.
Background
The first formal staff report for this project addressed both blocks of the PSB project, and cited
relevant policies from the Comprehensive Plan in effect on October 19, 2017. The Council has
since adopted a new Comprehensive Plan; the analysis in this report uses the new and revised
policies.
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
On October 19, 2017, the ARB reviewed the two components of the project. A video recording
of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-
72/. Excerpt meeting minutes of the October 19th meeting are provided as Attachment D to this
report and viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62441).
The DEIR provides a full description of the PSB project. The applicant’s project description
letter (Attachment F) for the public parking garage describes changes made to the project
following the October 2017 ARB meeting. The ARB’s comments and the applicant’s response
are summarized in the following table:
ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response
Leave enough space for generous sidewalk,
attractive landscaping on Ash Street (after
deleting arcade)
Ash street parking was relocated to
Sherman to provide wider ROW along Ash
Reconsider cut out along the side of the alley Jacaranda arcade leading to paseo made
more accessible/open by relocating garage
elevator core, and vine plantings on
Jacaranda façade help soften façade
Arcade on Ash side; disturbing proportions,
maybe decrease the depth or remove arcade
to move building out
Arcade on Ash side eliminated
Imposing concrete wall on Birch side needs
adjustment – scale of wall would be daunting
for staircase users (too harsh/severe); concern
about sleeping under stair. Needs softer
detailing, more care at doors, more care
below stairs, more openings in the wall.
Stair on Birch side still the focal point, now
with basket-weave textured terra cotta
screening material
Soften the garage appearance Understory plantings now around garage
Bring columns of solar panel support structure
inward to reduce element of bulkiness and
mass so building looks a little less tall
Garage volume scaled down by interruption
of horizontal expanses with ‘syncopated’
material changes
Garage does not need to look like PSB;
different entity, less ‘civic’; don’t use split-face
block
Garage ‘skin’ has visual variety and interest
independent of the green screening (M4 on
plan sheet ARB 03.02 shows vines over M1
cast in place concrete).
Need larger floor plans, surrounding site on
the floor plans and correct labeling
The illustrative site plan (sheet ARB 02.01)
and the site characteristics plan (sheet ARB
04.01) are now shown at a larger scale
Seeking different palette (other than black and
white) to go with the terra cotta (supported);
new palette below will be further described in
board for presentation to the ARB:
There are no black or white materials
reflected in the revised plans. Plan sheet
ARB 03.02 shows:
Terra Cotta for vertically oriented
ceramic sunshades,
Gray ‘Sahara 7000’ for M3
2
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
(cementitious paneling),
Gray cast-in-place concrete for M1,
acrylic modified Portland Cement
plaster for M2,
Wood veneer under the PV panels
that are to be affixed to painted
steel structure,
Painted steel PV structure, and
Vines over the M4 wall facing
Jacaranda.
Changes to PF Zone Standards
The prior ARB report included a zoning compliance table for both the PSB and public parking
garage. The zoning compliance table attached to this report (Attachment C) is specific to the
public parking garage. The PTC is scheduled to hear public testimony on the DEIR and review
amendments proposed to the Public Facilities (PF) zone development standards for height, FAR,
lot coverage, and setbacks, and parking and loading regulations. The PF zone amendments are
directed to public parking garages and essential services facilities located on PF zoned sites
within the Downtown and California Avenue business districts. Development of other PF-zoned
sites in the Downtown and California Avenue business districts for public parking garages or
essential services facilities would be subject to separate environmental reviews.
The City Council had provided direction in April 2017 to establish a new public parking garage
on Sherman Avenue in the California Business District. To maximize the number of garage
parking spaces and other program objectives, as directed by Council, code amendments are
required. The proposed code changes have limited applicability to city projects, located within
the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts on PF zoned lots and the proposed
code language gives City Council the authority to grant modifications to development standards
for qualifying projects. The Sherman Avenue Public Parking Garage goals are to:
provide more parking in the California Avenue Business area of Palo Alto (therefore
maximizing parking spaces on the 350 Sherman site) and
construct the garage prior to the PSB in a manner that would minimize disruption of
existing parking facilities for current users of the surface parking lots on the project site.
Analysis1
1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public
hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony
may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action
from the recommendation in this report.
2
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
The changes to the project plans for the public parking garage have been responsive to
comments of the ARB, Urban Forestry and Transportation staff, and allow for a staff
recommendation for approval. The applicant provided a revised narrative and plans on January
3, 2018 to reflect the changes (a few changes are noted below):
Trees
Tree selection prioritizes the use of ‘regionally indigenous’ species, which have been
increased by 25%; street trees were selected to thrive in an urban environment, provide
architectural emphasis and scale, and have low maintenance and water requirements.
Art
Final locations for the public art have not yet been selected, but the two ‘reentrant’
corners of the building (faced with cementitious paneling) have been identified as
“offering high visibility from California Avenue as well as a correspondence with the
high-use pedestrian areas”.
Parking Spaces and Pedestrian Access
Sherman Avenue has additional pedestrian access points into the ground floor garage;
Parking spaces added back within the garage along Ash and Jacaranda;
Sidewalk at Ash is wider and staircase near Ash is provided opposite the elevator;
The on-street parking along Ash Street has been relocated to the Sherman Avenue side
in order to provide a wider pedestrian right-of-way along Ash; and
The Jacaranda Arcade leading to the paseo has been made more accessible/open by
relocating the garage elevator core next to grand staircase.
The images below are intended to assist the ARB and members of the public in reviewing the
changes made following the ARB review in October 2017.
2
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Site plan October 2017 ARB (“before”): Site plan in January 3, 2018 submittal (“after”):
Following images allow comparison of the previous elevations with the revised elevations:
Below: “Before” Sherman Avenue Elevation October 2017
Below: “After” Sherman Avenue Elevation January 2018
New renderings of Sherman January 2018 below
Above: Sherman entrance near corner of Birch Above: Sherman and Ash corner
Above: Color and Material Study View
2
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
Below: “Before” Jacaranda Elevation October 2017
Below: “After” Jacaranda Elevation January 2018
Below: “Before” Ash Elevation October 2017
Below: “After” Ash Rendering and Streetscape January 2018
Birch Street elevation comparison images and new renderings are shown in below images:
October 2017 Birch Elevation (before) January 3, 2018 Birch Elevation (after)
2
Packet Pg. 15
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
Above image includes median planter Above image is without median planter
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
The new Comprehensive Plan policies and programs relevant to the proposed public parking
garage project are noted in the attached Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment A). The
key goal of the new Comprehensive Plan relevant to the proposed parking garage is Goal T-5,
“Encourage attractive, convenient, efficient and innovative parking solutions for all users.”
Environmental Review
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed ordinance
modification and PSB project (comprised of the public parking garage and PSB) have been
evaluated in a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The Draft EIR was published January
8, 2018 for a 45-day public comment period ending February 22, 2018. The DEIR is provided in
hard copy to ARB members and the libraries, and is viewable online at this link
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3339&TargetID=145
Throughout the EIR, the Public Safety Building (PSB) and parking garage are collectively referred
to as the “PSB project” because (1) they are being proposed and designed together as one
integrated project, and (2) CEQA Guidelines section 15378 (Project) defines a “project” as “the
whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the
environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment[.]” The
project description in the DEIR includes: (a) the location and boundaries of the project site; (b)
the background leading up to the proposed project; (c) the overall objectives sought by the
project; (d) the various project design and operational characteristics; (e) the potential project
construction timing; and (f) the jurisdictional approvals required to implement the project.
The DEIR notes there are no significant unavoidable impacts requiring Council to make a
statement of overriding considerations. Potential impacts from the project, and mitigation
measures to reduce the impacts to a “less than significant” level are identified in these topic
areas: Air Quality (related to construction emissions), Biological Resources (related to nesting
birds and protected and street tree removals), Cultural Resources (potential disturbance of
archeological, paleontological and tribal resources), Geology and Soils (geotech hazards related
to excavation and grading), Hazards and Hazardous materials (potential exposure to existing
groundwater and soil contamination), and Noise (project construction noise, ground borne
2
Packet Pg. 16
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
vibration from construction, project operational noise). The mitigation measures are included
in the draft record of land use action.
Next Steps
The PTC will conduct a meeting to receive public testimony on the DEIR and will have the
opportunity to review and recommend the ordinance amendments related to this project and
to the Downtown parking garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue on January 31, 2018. The ARB will
have the opportunity to review revised PSB plans in March 2018. Council review of the DEIR
and Final EIR, ordinance, and project plans is targeted for April 2018.
Staff is still working with other city departments to refine the conditions of approval. The draft
conditions included in this report may be modified between the ARB review and presentation
to the City Council.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper
and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least
ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto
Weekly on January 5, 2018, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing
occurred on January 5, 2018, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received (since the
October 19, 2017 ARB meeting). Comments regarding the DEIR and the project received
through February 22, 2018 will be compiled and the Final EIR will include responses to these
comments.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may:
1. Suggest modified findings or approval conditions;
2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or
3. Recommend Council denial of the project based on revised findings.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575
Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: RLUA for 350 Sherman only for January 18 2018 (DOC)
2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 17
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
Attachment B: Project Plans and DEIR to ARB Members and Libraries Only (available
online) (DOCX)
Attachment C: Zoning Compliance Table 350 Sherman (DOCX)
Attachment D: Excerpt Minutes ARB October 19th 2017 (DOCX)
Attachment E: NOA-NOC (DOCX)
Attachment F: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)
Attachment G: October 19, 2017 ARB Staff Report (DOC)
Attachment H: Location Map (DOCX)
2
Packet Pg. 18
1
DRAFT
ACTION NO. 2018-0X
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 350 SHERMAN
AVENUE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 17PLN-00257
On April x, 2018, the Council _____ the _______making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”)
finds, determines, and declares as follows:
A. On April x, 2018, in a public hearing following Architectural Review of the Public
Parking Garage and Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation of an
Ordinance to amend Public Facilities development standards and parking and loading
requirements, and following public review of and comments on a Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) published January 8, 2018, and the preparation of a Final EIR responding to
comments received by February 22, 2018, and
B. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the DEIR, project and architectural
review findings and recommended ________ of the proposed public parking garage at 350
Sherman Avenue on January 18, 2018, and
C. The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the DEIR and draft
ordinance and recommended ________of the DEIR and Ordinance modifying development
standards and parking and loading standards within the PF zone in the Downtown and California
Avenue business districts for essential services facilities ___ on January 31, 2018, and
D. The ARB reviewed the Public Safety Building on ____, 2018 and continued the
public hearing to _____ for review/recommendation.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City, as the lead agency prepared a Draft
Environmental Impact Report subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The public notice period for the DEIR began on January 8, 2018 and concluded on February
22, 2018. Responses to comments received prior to the end of the public comment period have
been prepared and included in a Final EIR dated ________ for Council adoption.
1. The environmental effects of the Project have been analyzed in an Environmental
Impact Report prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA).
2. The DEIR identified one or more potentially significant effects of the Project on the
environment as well as mitigation measures that would reduce the significant effects to
a less than significant level. The Project applicant, before public release of the Draft
EIR, has made or agreed to make revisions to the Project that clearly mitigate the
Attachment A
2.a
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
2
effects to a less than significant level as demonstrated through the adoption of the
related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
3. The Director has independently reviewed and considered the DEIR, together with any
public comments received during the public review process and other information in
the record, prior to forwarding the ARB’s recommendation and Final EIR to the City
Council.
4. The EIR reflects and represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City of
Palo Alto as lead agency.
5. Based on the whole record of proceedings, the Director hereby finds that there is no
substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment,
and does hereby recommend Council adopt the EIR and related Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program prepared for the Project.
6. The Director of Planning and Community Environment at the Director’s Office at 250
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301 is the custodian of records and documents
of proceedings on which this decision is based.
SECTION 3. PF Zone Code Amendments. (See Council ordinance________) The
Planning and Transportation Commission recommended modifications to Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC) Chapter 18.28 development and parking and loading standards for city parking structures
and essential services facilities within Public Facilities zoned sites within the Downtown and
California Avenue business districts.
SECTION 4. Architectural Review Findings. The design and architecture of the proposed
project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC
Chapter 18.76. The design and architecture of the proposed public parking garage complies with
the Six Findings for Architectural Review set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76
Section 18.76.020.
AR Findings for Parking Garage:
(1) The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant
design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:
With Council adoption of amendments to the Public Facilities development standards for
city parking garage, the project will comply with the land use and development standards
of the PF zone.
The following policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are relevant to the
project:
o Policy T-5.6, strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking, and
explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all
2.a
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
3
types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping
where feasible,
o Policy T-5.7, require new or redesigned parking lots to optimize pedestrian and
bicycle safety,
o Policy T-5.8, promote vehicle parking areas designed to reduce storm water runoff,
increase compatibility with street trees and add visual interest to streets and other
public locations. Encourage the use of photovoltaic panel or tree canopies in
parking lots or on top of parking structures to provide cover, consistent with the
Urban Forest Master Plan,
o Policy T-5.9, promote safety for pedestrians in City-owned parking lots by adopting
standards for landscaping, signage, walkways and lighting that reduce crime and
ensure a safe and orderly flow of traffic,
o Policy T-5.10, encourage the use of adaptive design strategies in new parking
facilities in order to facilitate reuse in the future if and when conditions warrant,
o Policy N-2.3, enhance the ecological resilience of the urban forest by increasing and
diversifying native species in the public right-of-way, protecting the health of soils
and understory vegetation, encouraging property owners to do the same and
discouraging the planting of invasive species,
o Policy N-2.10, preserve and protect Regulated Trees on public and private
property…and related program N2.10.1 continue to require replacement of trees
including street trees lost to new development,
o Policy N-4.12, encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to limit the
amount of pavement and impervious surface in new development and increase the
retention, treatment and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff. Include LID
measures in major remodels, public projects and recreation projects where
practical.
o Policy L-1.10, hold new development to the highest development standards in
order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development
with the least impacts,
o Policy L-4.2, encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all
Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or
that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping,
o Policy L-4.3, ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide
centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage
economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees,
kiosks, restrooms and public art,
o Policy L-4.8, maintain the existing scale, character and function of the California
Avenue business district as a shopping, service and office center intermediate in
function and scale between the Downtown and the smaller neighborhood business
areas,
o Policy L-5.2, provide landscaping, trees, sidewalks, pedestrian path and connections
to the citywide bikeway system within Employment Districts,
2.a
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
4
o Policy L-5.3, design paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and
consistent with the character of the area where they are located,
o Policy L-6.1, promote high quality design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces,
o Policy L-6.3, encourage bird-friendly design,
o Policy L-6.6, design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote
personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of
community safety,
o Policy L-6.10, encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy efficient, and
appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. (no
signage proposed with this application),
o Policy L-8.2, provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art,
o Policy L-70, enhance the appearance of streets by expanding and maintaining street
trees,
o Policy L-8.4, create facilities for civic and intellectual life, such as better urban
spaces for civic programs and speakers, cultural, musical and artistic events,
o Policy L-8.5, recognize public art … as a community benefit; encourage the
development of new public and private art and ensure such projects are compatible
with the character and identity of the neighborhood,
o Policy L-8.6, seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces,
open space and community gardens,
o Policy L-9.2, encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the
project, including locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or
by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to
surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still
maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking
to meet demand,
o Policy L-9.6, create…publicly accessible, shared outdoor gathering spaces within
walking and biking distance of residential neighborhoods,
o Policy L-9.7 strengthen the identity of important community-wide gateways,
including…entries to commercial districts,
o Policy L-9.8 Incorporate the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan into the
Comprehensive Plan by reference in order to assure that new land uses recognize
the many benefits of trees in the urban context and foster a healthy and robust
tree canopy throughout the city,
Related Program L-9.8.1, establish incentives to encourage native trees and
low water use plantings in new development throughout the city,
o Policy L-9.9, involve the Urban Forester, or appropriate City staff, in development
review,
o Policy L-9.11, design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures,
parking garages and parking lots, to meet high-quality urban design standards and
2.a
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
5
embrace technological advances. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in
design of public infrastructure.
Related Program L9.11.2 Encourage the use of compact and well-designed
utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, backflow
preventers and telecommunications infrastructure. Place these elements in
locations that will minimize their visual intrusion.
(2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
(2a) creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and
the general community; The project is consistent with Finding 2(a), given:
The right-of-way improvements will improve circulation; automobile ingress from/egress
onto Sherman Avenue are compatible with the design concept and functions, and the
location of bicycle racks near Jacaranda, closest to the walkable California Avenue, is
desirable.
The new facilities and amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles are an
improvement from the existing facilities as to safety and convenience.
Due to its lower pedestrian volumes, Sherman Avenue is the proposed location of the
vehicular entry, established through detailed study of traffic movement
(2b) preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to
the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant; The
project is consistent with Finding 2(b), given:
Trees #26 through #39 are located on Lot C-7 and trees #23, 24, and 25 are located on the
Birch Street median. There is only one Protected Tree on Lot C-7 (tree #35, a coast live
oak); there are two Street Trees within the planter cutouts along Sherman Avenue adjacent
to Lot C-7 (trees #36 and #37).
Although all existing on-site and street trees will be removed to allow for construction of
the garage, 18 new street trees in 24” to 36” box sizes (with post pavement support system
and necessary soil volume for long-term health and separation for utilities) are proposed
around the perimeter of the building on Sherman, Ash and Birch.
On Birch Street, four Chinese Elm trees are proposed to meet the priority attributes of
larger deciduous or semi-deciduous shade trees of less than 40 feet height and width to
create a gateway to California Avenue;
On Sherman Avenue, London Plane and California Sycamore trees are proposed in
alternation (total of nine trees) having a height of less than 50 feet and more open canopy;
On Ash Street, the narrower form of trees represented by potential species Silver Linden,
Cork Oak and Primrose Tree are proposed to address the south-facing orientation of the
façade (final selection of species by City’s Urban Forester);
(2c) is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district; Finding
2c is not applicable since the PF zone does not impose context based design criteria.
(2d) provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and
2.a
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
6
land use designations; The project is consistent with Finding 2(d), given:
The materials and architectural forms are intended to be compatible with the mid-century
architecture of the area which includes:
o A four story building on the opposite corner (the County courthouse and jail
building), a mixed use (office-residential) building across Sherman, one- and two-
story commercial buildings fronting California Avenue, and multi-story residential
building(s) across Sherman.
(2e) enhances living conditions on the site and in adjacent residential areas; The project is
consistent with Finding 2(e), given:
(3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and
appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that
are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area; the project is consistent with Finding 3,
given:
The materials were selected for durability
the new structure’s materials and construction techniques are appropriate for the use;
Colors and textures will be compatible with nearby civic buildings and park landscaping;
A syncopated, compositional rhythm is achieved via three primary materials: terra
cotta, smooth integral color fiber-cement panel, and cast-in-place concrete. The
alternating flow of materials will diffuse the sense of an overall volume, favoring a
subtle shifting and overlap of surfaces.
(4) The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and
providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient
vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space
and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.); the project is consistent with Finding 4, given:
Ease of wayfinding is one of the garage’s key features:
o the primary pedestrian entry on the Birch Street side, a dramatic exterior
staircase, will animate the plaza side of the garage with pedestrian movement to
reinforce the plaza zone. As it opens towards California Avenue, the staircase
acknowledges the garage’s civic role in support of the retail environment.
o The secondary pedestrian entrance for the garage is appropriately at Ash Street.
The garage arcade along Jacaranda at the northern end connects to the adjacent mid-
block pedestrian paseo with pedestrian pavers that would help calm traffic and
enhance this connection.
The landscaped setback on the west side of Birch in front of the parking structure
accommodates seating and shade for individual passive activities
Ash St. pedestrian through-way has City-standard sidewalk width and raised planters.
Sherman Avenue, which does not experience as much pedestrian activity, has
appropriately been designed for quiet, passive shaded seating.
Jacaranda Lane, with low pedestrian-use, has been designed to support and reinforce
2.a
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
7
the mid-block paseos that connect the alley to California Avenue, with an arcade and
deeper setback area to facilitate access to these pathways.
Low-level, focused pedestrian lighting will reinforce the intimate and small-scale
aspects of the plazas/streets, avoid light-pollution, and reinforce the civic character of
the facilities.
(5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings,
is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous
drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be
appropriately maintained; the project is consistent with Finding 5, given:
Each of the four frontages are unique with streetscape improvements tailored to each
street frontage to enhance the experience of coming to and from the garage.
Selected tree species will thrive in an urban environment, provide appropriate
architectural emphasis and scale on each of the three frontages, and have relatively low
maintenance and water requirements.
Birch Street receives raised planters with integral seating, an area of rain garden
planting, and additional native and shade-tolerant planting below the exterior stair.
Sherman Avenue receives a wider sidewalk allowing for street trees, rain garden
planters, and benches at the back of walk against the façade of the garage.
Vine plantings along the Jacaranda façade help green and soften this façade.
Pole lights and planter mounted landscape lights along Birch Street, Sherman Avenue
and Ash Street frontages, in addition to building mounted lighting, to provide safe and
attractive passage around the perimeter of the parking structure. The pedestrian pole
lights are coordinated with the standard light used on California Avenue.
(6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to
energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning; the
project is consistent with Finding #6 given:
Photovoltaic panels are proposed to provide shading, energy efficiency as a key
sustainable feature of the project.
Suitable street tree planting environments and storm water design features are key
features of the project.
AR Findings for Public Safety Building
TBD
SECTION 5. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval
is hereby granted for the Project by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
2.a
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
8
SECTION 6. Plan Approval.
Public Parking Garage.
The plans for the Public Parking Garage submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by RussDrulisCusenbery, consisting of 30
pages, received January 3, 2018 (and dated December 13, 2017), except as modified to incorporate
the conditions of approval in Section 7. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of
Planning and Community Development.
Public Safety Building.
TBD (ARB to review revised plans scheduled for submittal January 18, 2018 or thereafter).
SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval.
Impact Mitigation Measures Required for Both Project Components (250 and 350 Sherman)
Air Quality Mitigation 5-1. To reduce potential short-term adverse health risks associated
with PM2.5 emissions, including emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), generated
during project construction activities, the City and/or it’s designated contractors,
contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
1. Implement BAAQMD-recommended “Additional Construction Measures”. The City shall implement the following
BAAQMD recommended additional construction mitigation measures during construction activities: (1) All exposed
surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent, to be verified by
lab samples or moisture probe, (2) All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when
average winds speeds exceed 20 miles per hour, (3) Temporary wind breaks (e.g., fences) shall be installed on the
windward (generally the north / northwest) of actively disturbed areas of construction. The wind breaks should have at
maximum 50 percent air porosity, (4) Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast germinating native grass seed) shall be planted
in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established, (5) Simultaneous
occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities in the same area at any one time shall
be limited and/or phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time, (6) All trucks and equipment,
including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site, (7) Site access to a distance of 100 feet from the paved
road, or as much as feasible, shall be treated with a compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, gravel, or other cover as
feasible to reduce track-out, (8) Minimize the idling time for diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes
provided such idling restrictions are consistent with manufacturer’s equipment specifications.
2. Apply construction equipment restrictions. The City shall apply the following construction equipment restrictions to
the proposed project: (1) Electric-powered and liquefied or compressed natural gas equipment shall be employed
instead of diesel powered equipment to the maximum extent feasible. (2) All construction equipment with a rated
power-output of 25 horsepower or greater shall meet U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV Final Emission Standards for
particulate matter. This may be achieved via the use of equipment with engines that have been certified to meet Tier IV
emission standards, or through the use of equipment that has been retrofitted with a CARB verified diesel emission
control strategy (e.g., oxidation catalyst, particulate filter) capable of reducing exhaust PM emissions to levels that
meet Tier IV standards.
3. Prepare Construction Risk Reduction Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City and/or its contractor
shall prepare a Construction Risk Reduction Plan for the project which: (1) Identifies the final planned construction
2.a
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
9
phasing schedule and anticipated equipment operations. (2) Estimates the proposed project’s construction emissions
based on the final phasing and equipment plan. Any emission update shall be performed using the latest recommended
emissions estimator model recommended by the BAAQMD or other standard, acceptable methodology (e.g.,
contractor-specific fleet emission factors and estimates of equipment operating hours). (3) Models the potential diesel
particulate matter and total PM2.5 concentrations resulting from refined emissions estimates. Any modeling shall be
performed using an accepted screening or refined dispersion model recommended for use by the BAAQMD. The
modeling shall focus on discrete, residential receptors located at and near the proposed project site. (4) Estimates
potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to DPM. Risk estimates shall follow the latest
recommendations of the BAAQMD. The goal of the risk estimation shall be to identify the receptor(s) or areas of
receptors where carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk thresholds may be exceeded. If risks are exceeded, the plan
shall identify feasible on- and off-site measures to reduce risks to levels below BAAQMD thresholds. On-site measures
may include the BAAQMD “Additional Construction Measures” and construction equipment restrictions included in
Mitigation Measure 5-1, as well as phasing / activity restrictions. Off-site measures may include coordinating with all
impacted receptors to replace and upgrade existing HVAC systems to provide high performance panel filters capable of
reducing potential modeled outdoor PM2.5 concentrations / risks to levels that are below BAAQMD thresholds.
4. Implement Off-Site Mitigation. In-lieu of preparing the Construction Risk Reduction Plan identified above, the City
may, prior to the start of construction activities, coordinate directly with impacted residential receptors to replace and
upgrade existing residential HVAC systems with a high-performance panel filter with a rated minimum efficiency
reporting value (MERV) for particles in the range of 0.3 to 1.0 µm of 70% (presumed to be a minimum MERV14), or
equivalent system upgrade. This level of control would reduce risks to levels below current BAAQMD thresholds. Based
on the results of the modeling conducted for the EIR, the City shall coordinate with residential receptors located in the
area bound by Park Boulevard to the north, Ash Street to the south Sheridan Avenue to the east, and Sherman Avenue
to the west.
Nesting Birds Mitigation 6-1. To avoid impacts to nesting birds and violation of State and
federal laws pertaining to birds, all construction-related activities (including but not limited
to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation,
demolition, and grading) should occur outside the avian nesting season (that is, prior to
February 1 or after August 31).
If construction and construction noise occurs within the avian nesting season (from February 1 to August 31), all
suitable habitats located within the project’s area of disturbance, including staging and storage areas plus a 150-foot
buffer around these areas, shall be thoroughly surveyed, as feasible, for the presence of active nests by a qualified
biologist no more than five days before commencement of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization.
If project activities are delayed by more than five days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. Active
nesting is present if a bird is sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the
nest. The results of the surveys shall be documented. If it is determined that birds are actively nesting within the survey
area, the additional procedures below shall apply. Conversely, if the survey area is found to be absent of nesting birds,
the additional procedures shall not be required.
Additional Procedures. If pre-construction nesting bird surveys result in the location of active nests, no site disturbance
and mobilization of heavy equipment (including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing,
grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading) shall take place within 150 feet of nests, or as
determined by a qualified biologist, until the chicks have fledged. Monitoring shall be required to insure compliance
with the MBTA and relevant California Fish and Game Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be
documented.
Removal of Trees Mitigation 6-2. Prior to removal of the protected trees and street trees,
the applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit issued by the City of Palo Alto Urban
Forestry Division for the removal of any and all protected, designated, or street trees
2.a
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
10
(referred to collectively as “Regulated Trees”). In all cases, replacement trees would be
required as a condition of the tree removal permit, and the project applicant must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that there is no alternative that could preserve
the tree(s) on-site.
The project applicant must provide an evaluation and summary for any Regulated Tree (the collective term for any
protected, designated, or street tree) proposed to be removed. The applicant shall be required, in accordance with the
Tree Protection and Management Regulations (PAMC 8.10) and Tree Technical Manual (PAMC 8.10.130), to replace the
tree canopy for the six (6) protected trees, in accordance with the tree canopy formula identified in the Tree Technical
Manual (TTM, 3.20). If the tree canopy cannot be replaced on-site, the canopy shall be replaced off-site as close to the
project site as feasible. If trees are being replaced off-site, the applicant must submit a Tree Planting Plan to the Urban
Forestry Division and obtain the Urban Forestry Division’s approval of the plan prior to issuance of a building permit.
The Tree Planting Plan must include:
(a) The canopy calculation for trees removed and the number of trees planned to replace them, consistent with the
formula identified in the Tree Technical Manual.
(b) The specific location where the new trees would be planted with specific baseline information about that proposed
site (e.g., surrounding vegetation or development).
(c) The species of trees to be planted.
(d) Specific planting details (e.g., size of sapling, size of containers, irrigation plan).
(e) Success criteria,
(f) Monitoring and maintenance schedule
(g) Replacement tree planting will be monitored by a qualified arborist.
2.a
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
11
To verify the success of replacement trees, monitoring shall occur for two years after initial planting. After the two year
period, the arborist will determine if the trees are capable of surviving without further maintenance.
Archeo-Paleo Mitigation 7-1. In the event of the unanticipated discovery of subsurface
archaeological or paleontological resources during earth-moving operations, the following
measures are recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts on these resources to
a less-than- significant level:
1. Conduct Archaeological/Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The City shall retain a
qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and
Standards, and a professionally qualified paleontologist, to conduct an Archaeological/Paleontological Sensitivity
Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session will include a
written handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological and paleontological resources that may be
encountered during earth-moving activities, including the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of
archaeological and paleontological monitors, and the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist or
paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary.
2. Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In
the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the ground-disturbing
activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of
at least 50 feet shall be established around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until a
qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. Work shall
be allowed to continue outside the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction
activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric,
Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and consulted, and Native American construction monitoring
should be initiated. The City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the
resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of
the resources, along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.
3. Conduct Periodic Archaeological Resources Spot Checks During Grading and Earth-Moving Activities in All Sediments.
The City shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards, to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below two (2) feet to
determine if construction excavations have exposed, or have a high probability of exposing, archaeological resources.
After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks shall be conducted at the discretion of the qualified
archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed, or have a high
probability of exposing, archaeological artifacts, construction monitoring for archaeological resources will be required.
The City shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, who will work under the guidance and direction of a
professional archaeologist. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g.,
grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may
require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and
grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial
fill soils), the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-
time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist.
If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt in the vicinity of the resources and a
qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and its stratigraphic context. The monitor shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources.
During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected
and processed by the qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and
collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed
from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage. Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall
2.a
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
12
be provided to a museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this work, along with the
itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage.
A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the significance of the fossils, if any, shall
be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the lead agency, shall signify the completion of the program
to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.
Tribal Mitigation 7-2. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin
are identified during construction, all earth-disturbing work within the vicinity of the find
must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the
nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative,
based on the nature of the find, is consulted.
If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan
shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native American
groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would
outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archaeologist and the appropriate Native
American tribal representative.
Geotech Mitigation 8-1. As recommended by the project's preliminary geotechnical
investigation, prior to City issuance of grading permits for individual project construction
components, the City shall be required to retain a registered engineering geologist or
geotechnical engineer to prepare detailed, construction-level geotechnical investigations to
guide the construction of all project grading and excavation activities.
The detailed, construction-level geotechnical investigations shall be performed for each of the structures proposed for
the development site. Subsurface conditions shall be explored and laboratory tests conducted on selected soil samples
to establish parameters for the design of excavations, foundations, shoring, and waterproofing. Recommendations
from the investigations shall be incorporated into all plans for project grading, excavation, soil support (both temporary
and long-term), and utility construction, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The detailed, construction-level
investigations, relevant recommendations, and all associated project grading, excavation and foundation plans, shall be
subject to review and approval by an independent engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer retained by the City
Engineer. In addition, the project civil engineer shall certify to the City Engineer (e.g., through plan submittal for City
review) that all relevant provisions of the investigations have been incorporated into the grading, excavation and
construction plans, and all earthwork and site preparation shall be performed under the direct supervision of a
registered engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer.
Contamination Mitigation 10-1. Recommendations included in the Phase II ESA
(Stantec, June 8, 2017) shall be implemented, based on construction level project plans
when more specific and precise design and construction activities are formulated. The
Phase II ESA recommends additional assessment of local and regional groundwater
conditions in advance of dewatering activities, combined with, as necessary, evaluation of
pertinent and cost effective water management strategies, including preparation of Site
Management Plans. Likewise, the project must comply with the City’s standard dewatering
requirements. This assessment and mitigation process shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.
Noise Mitigation 13-1. To reduce potential noise levels associated construction of the
proposed project, the City and/or it’s designated contractors, contractor’s representatives,
or other appropriate personnel shall:
2.a
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
13
Restrict work hours/equipment noise. All work shall be subject to the construction noise and time limits contained in
City Municipal Code Chapter 9.10. Construction activities (including deliveries) shall only occur during the following
time periods: – 8 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday; and – 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday. Construction activities shall be
prohibited on Sundays and holidays. The City and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction
site informing contractors, subcontractors, construction workers, etc. of these requirements in accordance with Section
9.10.060(c). The sign shall also provide a name (or title) and phone number for an appropriate on-site and City
representative to contact to submit a noise complaint.
Construction equipment care, siting, and design measures. The following construction equipment care, siting, and
design measures shall apply during construction activities: – Heavy equipment engines shall be covered and exhaust
pipes shall include a muffler in good working condition. Pneumatic tools shall include a noise suppression device on the
compressed air exhaust. – All stationary noise-generating equipment such as pumps, compressors, and welding
machines shall be shielded and located as far from sensitive receptor locations as practical. At a minimum, such
shielding shall consist of a three-sided sound enclosure (with a full or partial roof) that provides for proper ventilation,
equipment operation, and effective noise control. The enclosure should be designed to achieve a 10 to 15 dB reduction
in stationary equipment noise levels. The design of the enclosure shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant
prior to installation to ensure the enclosure will achieve a minimum 10 dB reduction in stationary equipment noise
levels. – The City shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use of stationary, diesel- or other
alternatively-fueled power generators. – No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the
property line of the construction site.
Construction traffic. Construction truck traffic, including soil hauling, equipment deliveries, potential concrete
deliveries, and other vendor deliveries shall follow designated delivery routes prepared for the project, which are
anticipated to include travel on Oregon Expressway and Birch Road.
Construct/Install Temporary Noise Barrier: The City shall install and maintain throughout the duration of all site
preparation, excavation, foundation construction, and building construction activities, one or more physical noise
barriers capable of achieving a minimum reduction in predicted construction noise levels of 15.5 dB. Potential barrier
options would include: – A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at-
grade, such as KRail) along the project property line. Such a wall/barrier shall consist of material that have a minimum
rated transmission loss value of 25.5 dB (or equivalent rating), and shall contain no gaps in the structure through which
noise may pass. – Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets installed
along the project property line, building envelope or, if feasible and necessary, at or near sensitive residential receptor
areas. – Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving a 15.5 dB reduction in
construction noise levels at sensitive receptor locations. – Prior to the start of the project, the City may prepare an
acoustical analysis that reflects the final site plan, construction activities, equipment use and duration, and refines
potential construction noise reductions required for the project. The final type, placement, and design of the project’s
temporary noise barrier(s) shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to installation to ensure proper
function and a minimum attenuation of 15.5 dBs in construction noise levels.
Prepare Project Construction Noise Control Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City or its contractor shall
prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan for the project which: – Identifies the name and/or title and contact
information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing
construction-noise related issues. Contains a detailed construction schedule and predicted noise levels associated with
construction activities. – Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will receive, respond, and
resolve to construction noise complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the Contractor and/or City
representative described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the noise source generating the complaint,
determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint.
Prepare Construction Noise Monitoring Plan. Prior to the start of construction, the City or its contractor shall prepare a
Construction Noise Monitoring Plan which identifies: – Construction activities, hours of operation, and predicted
construction noise levels; and – Construction noise monitoring locations, duration, and frequency. The intent of the
2.a
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
14
Construction Noise Monitoring Plan is to document updated ambient noise levels, monitor construction noise levels,
and verify compliance with the noise reduction requirements in mitigation measure 13-1. If monitoring indicates
temporary noise barriers are not achieving a minimum 15.5 dB reduction in construction noise levels or otherwise
indicates construction noise is resulting a 10 dB increase in noise levels above ambient conditions, the City shall
increase the height, size (length or width), density, and/or amount of noise barriers installed such that attenuation
requirements are achieved. The Construction Noise Monitoring Plan may be combined with and/or incorporated into
the Construction Noise Complaint Plan described above.
Vibrations Mitigation 13-2. To reduce potential groundborne vibration levels
associated with construction of the proposed project, the City and/or it’s designated
contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
Prohibit Vibratory Equipment. The City shall prohibit the use of large vibratory rollers (small plate compactors are
acceptable) and vibratory pile driving equipment during construction. Any deep foundation piers or caissons shall be
auger drilled.
Provide Notice to Adjacent Property Owners / Occupants. Five (5) days advanced written notice shall be provided to
adjacent property owners and building occupants before commencing all drilling and significant earthmoving activities
within 65 feet of adjacent buildings. The notice shall provide the name (or title) and contact information (including
phone number and email) of the Contractor and City representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration-
related concerns.
Prepare Vibration Mitigation Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City or its contractor shall prepare a
Construction Vibration Response Plan for the project which: – Identifies the name and/or title and contact information
(including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing construction
vibration-related issues. – Contains a detailed schedule of drilling and substantial earth moving activities expected to
occur within 65 feet of adjacent buildings. – Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will
receive, respond, and resolve to construction vibration complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a vibration
complaint, the Contractor and/or City representative described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the vibration
source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint by
reducing groundborne vibration levels to less than 75 VdB and 0.04 in/sec PPV. Such measures may include the use of
nonimpact drivers, use of rubber-tired equipment instead of track equipment, or other measures that limit annoyance
from groundborne vibration levels.
Operational Noise Mitigation 13-3. To reduce potential stationary source noise levels
associated with the operation of the proposed project, the City and/or its designated
contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
Site equipment away from residential areas. Garage ventilation fans and public safety building generators, fire pumps,
and heating and air conditioning equipment shall be located outside of setbacks and screened from view from
residential areas.
Enclose and/or Shield Stationary Noise Generating Equipment. The City shall enclose, shield, baffle, or otherwise
attenuate noise generated from garage ventilation fans and public safety building generators, fire pumps, and heating
and air conditioning equipment. The attenuation achieved through such enclosure, shielding, and/or baffling shall be
sufficient to comply with Section 9.10.050(a) of the Municipal Code, which is estimated to be 78.2 dBA.
Prepare Acoustical Study. In accordance with Chapters 9.10 and 18.23 of the Municipal Code, the City shall have an
acoustical analysis prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer that demonstrates: – The proposed parking garage’s
generator would comply with the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted). – The
proposed parking garages ventilation fans would not result in a calculated Ldn of 63.0 at sensitive residential receptor
locations. – The proposed public safety building fire pump, back-up generator, and heating and air conditioning
equipment would comply with the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted) and
would not result in a calculated increase of more than 3.0 dB Ldn at sensitive receptor locations. The acoustical analysis
shall be based on the final project design, reflect the actual equipment type and location at the project site, and the
actual noise enclosure, shielding, or other attenuation measures included in the final project design. If the acoustical
2.a
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
15
study demonstrates the noise levels from these sources would be at or within 5 dB less than the Noise Ordinance limits,
the City shall demonstrate through monitoring that the equipment complies with the anticipated noise levels.
Approval Conditions for Parking Garage at 350 Sherman Avenue
Planning
1. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans and related
documents received January 3, 2018, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of
approval.
2. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building
permits related to this project.
3. All future signage for this site shall be submitted for Architectural Review.
4. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval.
In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time
limit specified above, the AR approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect.
Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration.
5. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who desires to protest the
fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must
initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved
or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are
imposed on the project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these
development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code
Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR TO
FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU
WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES,
DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS.
6. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the time by
which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
Transportation
tbd
Building
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such
as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit,
Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be
addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval:
2.a
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
16
1. The building with two or more stories above grade plane are required to be equipped
throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with CBC Section 903.3.1.1.
2. For new Non-Residential construction of any size, CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 requirements
are required per PAMC 16.14.080. A completed Green Building Checklist “GB-1 Non-Residential
Mandatory Plus Tier 2” sheet is required for the building permit submittal package.
3. City of Palo Alto has adopted CALGreen Mandatory +Tier 2 for new construction and requires
that 12% to the total parking spaces shall be low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles.
(CALGreen A5.106.1.2)
4. The Palo Alto Municipal Code, PAMC section 16.14.130 requires new non-residential structures
to provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among
which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. In addition, where EV spaces have
been provided, the EV charging spaces shall comply with CBC 11B-228.3.2 and Table 11B-228.3.2.1 for
the minimum number of accessible EV spaces. The accessible EV charging spaces shall comply with the
technical requirements of CBC 11B-812.
5. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other
than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents
under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the
written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and
have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed.
Public Works Engineering
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such
as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit,
Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be
addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval:
1. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in
provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11).
These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more
of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered
parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to
address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall
incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment
controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works
Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution
prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and
permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the
runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal
storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified
third-party reviewer during the Building permit process to certify that the proposed permanent storm
water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a
description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party
reviewer prior to Building or Grading permit issuance. Within 45 days of the installation of the required
storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building,
2.a
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
17
third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s
permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings.
2. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works
prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the
exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is,
however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This
system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a
dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped
area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not
allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that
exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to
minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant
be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement.
3. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto
adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission
from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works.
4. DEWATERING: Proposed basement/underground garage excavation may require dewatering during
construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater
dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate
capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated
groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all
required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance.
Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development
Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp
5. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of
impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed
impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land
Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website.
6. PAVEMENT: Sherman and Birch were recently resurfaced -- these streets are under a moratorium. Any
cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the
Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Sherman, Birch and/or
Park based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a
minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be
required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan.
7. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the
control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with
the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance
measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to Building or Grading permit issuance.
The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly.
2.a
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
18
8. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit must be
submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit. The application and guidelines are
available at the Development Center and on our website.
9. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the
Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732
Fire Department
1. Install a NFPA 13 Fire Sprinkler, NFPA 14 Standpipe, NFPA 20 Fire Pump, NFPA 24
Underground Fire Service and NFPA 72 Fire Alarm System. Fire pump is required to be
located in a 1 hour fire rated room.
2. PV panel layout shall comply with the 2016 CBC section 503.2.1 # 2 & # 3.2-3.3.
3. The building is required to have an Emergency Responder Radio System installed per the 2016
CA Fire Code section 510 unless the property owner submits an evaluation report stating the
system is not required.
4. The elevator must be sized to accommodate a gurney and two medical personnel.
Public Works Recycling
Allow space for the collection and storage of trash, recycling, and compost in the garage.
Utilities WGW
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit
application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of
Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided
as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement
approval:
1. Update plans per WGW site plan red-lines and resubmit to other departments for
review; no resubmittal to WGW required unless utilities are impacted.
2. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection
application - loadsheet per unit for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide
all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m.,
gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new
total loads
3. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must
show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the
public right of way.
2.a
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
19
4. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must
show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the
public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements,
sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans
for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing
existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and
communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to
the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting
lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles
showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas.
5. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or
services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all
costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the
utility mains and/or services.
6. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and
requirements
7. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is
required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply
with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through
7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind
the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be
lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans.
8. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water
connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative
code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector
assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line,
within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector
assembly on the plans.
9. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new
utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of
services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the
person/entity requesting the relocation.
2.a
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
20
10. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the
plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral
connection shown on the plans.
11. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at
the main per WGW utilities procedures.
12. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot
be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal
clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in
the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be
relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be
planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters.
New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or
existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater
services/mains/meters.
13. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility
standards for water, gas & wastewater.
Utilities Electrical
The following comments are for both the Safety Building and the Garage:
1. Main electric panel shall be at grade and outdoor. The proposed design shall have the
location of the main electric panel.
2. PSB building shall require a dedicated transformer which requires its own pad with
clearance of 3’ all around and 8’ in front, out door and at grade.
3. The proposed buildings are two stories deep which might require long tie-back to
reinforce the shoring walls. Applicant shall work with Electric Utility prior to driving
these tie-back onto Jacaranda and part of Sherman and Birch to avoid hitting the high
voltage electric conduits. Applicant shall pot hole where close to these conduits and
electric equipment.
4. If the PSB is requiring a dedicated back up electric service from a true independent
source, applicant shall have to pay to install dedicated electric equipment from El
Camino Real and Sherman. A detail plan shall have to be studied if the applicant is
willing to pay for it.
5. No tree drip-line near electric equipment (including conduits).
6. The new PSB building will require connection to the fiber optic communication system
which is access from Jacaranda lane. Applicant shall install a 4” conduit from the
communication room to the communication box on Jacaranda.
7. Point of electric power connection to feed the new building is as follow:
2.a
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
21
i. For 250 Sherman, it’s load break 3403
ii. For 350 Sherman, it’s one of the following: MH 1610 (manhole 1610), Vault 1609,
LB3470 or SW 3469
8. Point of connection for fiber is a communication box near transformer 5264.
Public Works Urban Forestry
tbd
Public Works Water Quality (Stormwater Management)
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to Planning entitlement approval:
1. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities - New buildings and residential
developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex
residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste
streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water run-on and runoff from the area.
[if trash area is shown, indicate that the shown area must meet these requirements as well as the Zero
Waste sizing requirements]
• Include Construction best management practices (BMP) sheet in plans.
Specific comments must be followed before building permit approval:
1. Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed).
2. Use rain capture device at the demonstration garden and include description in interpretative signage.
3. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping.
4. Highly consider using rain chains or similar along vines and other walls/building corners.
5. Storm drain/drop inlets
o Ensure all drainage from inside parking garage AND at all other parking areas at both 250 and 350
Sherman Ave. are filtered through oil/grease separators. Note that the parking garage must drain to the
sanitary sewer (per the City’s Muni Code). Other parking areas may discharge to the City’s stormwater
system.
o All storm drain/drop inlets should include a trash capture device. Inlets should also be labeled with a
‘flows to Bay’ message.
o Install a trash capture device in open parking lots. Ensure a maintenance agreement exists.
6. Stormwater treatment measures
o Consider using low-maintenance permeable pavers in the plaza to be part of the demonstration area.
Appropriate specs must be followed.
o Installation vendor specs should be followed, though vendor specs should be reviewed by Parks
Maintenance Staff before installation.
o Clear, detailed maintenance agreement must be drafted and agreed upon by all City staff in pertinent
Departments (Public Works, Parks) before occupancy approval.
o Set up meeting with parties before project is approved by City Council.
o Funding for maintenance needs to be discussed before occupancy approval.
o Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements.
o Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download
here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details
o Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) or other representative must be
present during installation of stormwater treatment measures. Staff must also be allowed to inspect
these measures before occupancy sign-off.
2.a
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
22
o Install an interpretive at both 250 and 350 Sherman Ave. regarding stormwater treatment and
pollution prevention.
7. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org)
o Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic
Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape
Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines-
sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance.
o Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved.
8. Stormwater quality protection
o At a minimum, follow the construction BMP sheet that must be submitted with plans for entitlement.
o Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter
the containers. Have clear maintenance plan for trash and recycling containers to not allow overflow.
o Establish a street sweeping maintenance plan in open parking lots.
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such
as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit,
Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be
addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval:
1. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from
construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and
filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge.
Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to
navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer,
provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) are not
exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is
2.a
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
23
obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such
discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule.
2. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water
Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer
system. And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be
connected to the sanitary sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or
protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment
approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional information regarding loading docks, see
section 16.09.175(k)
3. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts,
and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential,
commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under
tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing,
gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall
be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be
limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo
Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
4. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks
(i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or
equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock
operation.
(ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the
loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer
system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during
the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is
located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate
wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the
loading dock site.
5. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system.
6. PAMC 16.09.205 Cooling Towers
No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system, or add to a cooling
system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger, any substance that contains any of the following:
(1) Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter;
(2) Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter;
(3) Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
(4) Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or
(5) Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
2.a
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
24
The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to dilution with the cooling
system, pool, spa or fountain water. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blowdown
water from the new cooling tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are
required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter.
7. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors,
or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of
associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that
copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing.
8. PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains
Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in areas where hazardous
materials, hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluids
or vehicle equipment cleaning wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided
for all such materials and equipment
9. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(1) and 16.09.105 Segregated Plumbing and Sampling Locations
The owner of every new commercial and industrial building or portion thereof shall cause the building to
be constructed so that industrial waste is segregated, by means of separate plumbing, from domestic
waste prior to converging with other waste streams in the sanitary sewer system. For the purposes of
this section only, the term "new" shall also include change to a use that requires plumbing for industrial
waste Establishments from which industrial wastes are discharged to the sanitary sewer system shall
provide and maintain one or more sampling locations or metering devices or volume and flow measuring
methodologies or other sampling and measuring points approved by the Superintendent which will allow
the separate measuring and sampling of industrial and domestic wastes. Unless otherwise approved by
the Superintendent, domestic and industrial waste shall be kept completely separated upstream of such
sampling locations and/or measuring points. Establishments that are billed for sewer service on the basis
of sewage effluent constituents shall provide a suitable means for sampling and/or measurement of flow
to determine billing constituents in accordance with the utilities rules and requirements. Sampling
locations shall be so located that they are safe and accessible to the Superintendent at any reasonable
time during which discharge is occurring.
10. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps.
11. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers
It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat
exchangers to the storm drain system.
Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue
TBD (ARB to review revised plans scheduled for submittal January 18, 2018 or thereafter)
SECTION 8. Indemnity.
2.a
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
25
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City,
its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any
claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the
applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its own choice.
SECTION 9. Term of Approval. Architectural Review Approval. The approval shall
be valid for one year from the original date of approval, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.77.090.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Public Parking Garage at 350 Sherman Avenue
Those plans prepared by RossDrulisCusenbery entitled ARB Submittal City of Palo Alto California
Ave Parking Garage 350 Sherman Ave, consisting of 30 pages, and received January 3, 2018.
Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue
TBD Plans for PSB are anticipated to be submitted January 18, 2018 or thereafter for City review
and ARB review tentatively scheduled for March 2018
2.a
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
L
U
A
f
o
r
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
8
2
0
1
8
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
ATTACHMENT B
Hardcopy plans and DEIR to ARB Members and Libraries only
Project plans and the Draft Environmental Impact Report can be reviewed at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3339&TargetID=
145
and plans are viewable on Palo Alto Building Eye at this location:
https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning
2.b
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
D
E
I
R
t
o
A
R
B
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
i
e
s
O
n
l
y
(
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
o
n
l
i
n
e
)
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
ATTACHMENT C
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
350 Sherman Avenue
Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (PUBLIC FACILITIES (PF) DISTRICT)
Regulation Required by PF Zone –
Code to be Revised
Existing Proposed
Minimum Site Area, width and
depth 250 Sherman
None
55,164 sf No change proposed
Minimum Site Area, width and
depth 350 Sherman
None 41,843 sf No change proposed
PF Zone Setbacks - Minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF zone shall be equal to the respective front,
side, and rear yards of the most restrictive abutting district, provided no yard adjoining a street shall be less
than 20 feet, and no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet – this provision is proposed to be modified
Parking Garage Front/Rear
and Street Side Yard Setbacks
Birch
Ash
Sherman
20 feet NA Building encroaches above &
below, all frontages
Birch: SB 11’2” above grade, 36’
below grade;
Ash: SB 0’ above grade, likely
same SB below grade (section
not provided in set)
Sherman: 0’ SB above grade, 0’
SB below grade.
Parking Garage Interior Side
Yard
Jacaranda Lane
10 feet minimum NA SB is 2’3” over 2/3 of the wall
length; where property line jogs
into Jacaranda Lane, SB is met.
Garage Site Coverage -
(or equal to adjacent most
restrictive district, or PF)
30% NA Site Coverage 89.3% (compare to
CC(2) which allows 100% site
coverage and RM-40 which
allows 45% site coverage)
Garage - Max. Floor Area
Ratio (FAR); note: 18.04.030
(B)(i) only exempts parking
facilities that are accessory to
a permitted or conditional use
on the same site; the parking
garage is not accessory use
1:1 (the most
restrictive adjacent
district)
NA FAR 3.57:1
Parking Garage Max Height;
SE corner is within 150’ of
residential RM=40 zone
35’ SE corner of Garage
site within 150’ of
residential zone
NA 40’7” to top of parking structure
and approximately 49 feet to the
top of PV structure; height
exceeds 35 feet within 150’
radius of RM-40
Daylight Plane for site lines
abutting one or more
residential zone districts other
than an RM-40 or PC Zone
10’ up and 1:2 slope NA NA
350 Sherman Parking
Structure number of spaces
NA 143 public
spaces
636 public spaces (replaces the
existing spaces on both blocks
(143 + 155) and adds 338 spaces
2.c
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
:
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
T
a
b
l
e
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Member Wynne Furth, Peter Baltay,
Robert Gooyer
AGENDA ITEM 3.
PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00256]:
Consideration of a Major Architectural Review of (1) a New Three-Story Public Safety Building
With Attached Emergency Telecommunications Facility at 255 Sherman Avenue, and (2) a New
Four-Story Parking Structure to Provide 636 Public Parking Spaces above and below grade.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Council Action Requested for Modification
to Public Facilities Development Standards. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact
Report is Being Prepared and Publications is Anticipated in Mid-October. Zone District: PF; Public
Facilities. For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French
amy.french@cityofpaloalo.org
A public speaker spoke to Item 3 prior to Item 3:
Ms. Jessica Roth: I just need a few seconds. I am a long-time merchant on California Avenue.
Chair Lew: Could you state your name for the record, please?
Ms. Roth: My name is Jessica Roth...
Chair Lew: Thank you.
Ms. Roth: …and thank you for your time this morning. I am here because I’m getting very, very excited
about this project. It’s been a long time coming and I’m happy that the Public Safety building is going to
be in its new location. I feel like it’s a very good choice. The parking garage, very happy with the size and
space that the City has directed. I just want to make sure that today there are few things covered. One is
that the Ash Street side of the parking garage is designed and as much thought put into as the new
Public Safety side of the parking garage. I just don’t them to look at this as one big project and they
think oh, well we’ll make this one really nice area where the Public Safety building and the garage will be
together. I would like consideration for both sides of the parking lot and the other is that has been some
express from some of the other merchants and community that we just really want to make that that
arcade covered pathway is well thought out. We don’t want to make it an overly desirable location for
long-term residents. So, those are just my two thoughts today, thank you very much for your time.
Chair Lew: Ready for item number three which is a public hearing for a quasi-judicial item, 250 and 350
Sherman Avenue. Consideration of a Major Architectural Review of (1) a new three-story Public Safety
Building with attached Emergency Telecommunications Facility at 255 Sherman Avenue, and (2) a new
four-story parking structure to provide 636 public parking spaces above and below grade. The Planning
and Transportation Commission review and Council action are requested for modification to Public
Facilities Development Standards. The environmental assessment is an Environmental Impact Report is
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
EXCERPT MINUTES: October 19, 2017
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
2.d
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
being prepared and publications is anticipated in mid-October. I think that’s coming later and the zone
district public facilities. We have our Chief Planning Official Ms. Amy French who is here. Welcome, Amy.
Ms. French: Thanks for the introduction. The last the Architectural Review Board saw this project was as
a preliminary review on June 1st of this year. We have on the screen the site context. The order of
processing on this is a little complex and that is because it involves a change to the regulations in the
Public Facilities Zone District to enable these important projects to go forward. The Staff report noted
that we would request a continuance to enable the publication of the Environment Impact Report.
There’s been a delay in the publication and that will not be published until November. As it terms out we
are reviewing the administrative draft currently so when you do continue this, which we are asking you to
do, it can be to a date uncertain. That will enable us to re-advertise once we are ready. The Planning and
Transportation – likewise, the Planning and Transportation Commission – this is for the public, we did
advertise that we were going to have a meeting next Wednesday, October 25th to talk about the Public
Facilities Zone regulation changes. That is – that meeting is not going to take place and again, related to
the delay in the release of the Environmental Impact Report. The architect provided a summary of the
June 1st ARB comments on the preliminary design. The dynamic massing concept was brought forward
and now has much more articulation to a level of a Formal Application which we received. Excuse me,
just to note that the HRB did have a look at this as a prelim. in a study session format. They will not be
reviewing it in the formal capacity because there are no historic resources on the site. The sites are
surface parking lots. On the screen, we have what was seen for the public parking structure on the upper
left and the now modified lower right formal site plan. Some of the changes include relocation of the
elevator -- trying to make this – yeah, the elevator bank is nowhere which allowed the opening of this
arcade – this public passageway from the parking garage to the of muse area that gets pedestrians to
California Avenue retail. The Public Safety Building site plan changed similarly from the June 1st
presentation to today’s site plan. Some of the changes that are – to take place in the next set include a
reintroduction of another driveway and this is to accommodate large vehicles that were having a difficult
time through the alley coming and going. There are some large vehicles for police operations that need
access to this opertations yard so you’ll see that in the next set, a driveway in this location. Oh, and the
other item is in the current set this wall is shown in this placement and in the next set, the wall will be
shown coming towards Jacaranda Lane for reasons that our applicant will explain. We received this
yesterday from our Utilities Department telling us that there are some issues here with existing sewer
and water mains along Birch Street. These trees that are shown here may be deleted from the next set
and we will work out some of these issues in the coming month. There’s an issue also with a prevision of
root barriers to make that the trees will not conflict with water mains in these areas. There is a deletion
of another tree here, again due to proposed water main locations so to (inaudible) say these landscape
plans might be altered prior to next reviewing of this project. With the garage, we have the prior design
that was the dynamic massing approach and now we have this articulated drawing for the Sherman
Avenue elevation. As you see here, there are now photovoltaic rooftop shade structures so those parking
spaces will be shaded and will provide green infrastructure. Here’s the Public Safety Building facing
Sherman Avenue. This is what you saw back on June 1st as a concept and here is it flushed out with
windows and quality materials etc. There’s been a ramp cover added here and this is the ramp that leads
to the employee parking for the police Public Safety Building. Here they’ve added a canopy over the plaza
as civic gesture and here show the alley elevations before and after. So, we’ve had some progress there
with – sorry, I think – yes, this is the parking garage and this is the Public Safety Building. My apologies,
this upper image is the current proposal for the parking garage and this is the current proposal for the
Public Safety Building. We have before and after here for the Birch elevation of the Public Safety Building
and you can see it’s come along way as well with articulation. Then here are the end elevations of the
Public Safety Building and the garage. We have this grand gesture that the architect will explain here on
the parking garage. One item that is to be noted is that we have a proposed tower for emergency
communications and there will be attachments to that tower. It will not be a slim mono-pole with
anything on it. These are images of one on top of a building here in San Mateo and another, I think this
might be Sunny Vale, showing the types of attachments that would go onto an emergency
communications pole. The ARB is charged with reviewing projects for the ARB findings – Architectural
Review findings and just to note, the one about preserving landscaping, those trees in those parking lots
2.d
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
are to be removed and that’s addressed in the Environmental Impact Report. So, that finding will not be
made for this project. Ok, I am going to load the applicant’s presentation and if you have questions.
Mr. Matt Raschke, Senior Engineer for Public Works: Thank you, Amy. I’m Matt Raschke and I’m Senior
Engineer with Public Works and I’m the overall project manager for these two structures and I’m very
excited. This is not only my biggest project to date but it’s the – I think it’s the biggest project for the
City since the building we’re sitting in; City Hall. In terms of timing, this is looked at one project and
we’re looking to build the garage first and get that fully operational so that the parking impact to the Cal.
Ave. Business District is minimized. Just to give you a little update on the public art process, a panel of –
a panel has selected Ball-Nogues Studio to be the public artist for the parking garage and that’s
scheduled to be approved by the Public Art Commission tonight. There’s currently a call for an artist in
progress for the Public Safety Building and those are due November 8th and then a panel will be
convened and they’ll select a finalist to present to the Public Art Commission for that building. Today
we’re really looking for guidance on any necessary changes so that we can get your recommendation of
approval at our next formal meeting. Escalation – construction escalation is a big concern for us but the
overall project cost is significant and it’s growing every day with the escalation that we’re seeing in the
construction field. So, I’d like to introduce Patty Lum, Acting Assistant Police Chief, to give you a little
overview of the need and uniqueness of this building.
Ms. Patty Lum: Good morning Chair Lew and Members of the Board. My name is Patty Lum, I am
obviously a police officer if you haven’t guessed. I’m not an architect and I’m not a planner. I wanted to
share with you a police perspective if I may just for a few moments. I’ve been a police officer with the
City of Palo Alto for 25-years. I’m currently as Matt mentioned, the Acting Assistant Police Chief and I’ve
been doing that since December. I’ve been involved in this project throughout a few different Chiefs,
dating back to 1998 when we completed the third needs assessment for a building. I’ve been actively
involved in this project ever since. In 2011, I had the opportunity to work with a gentleman named Ray
Bacchetti and what a wonderful man who gave so freely of his time as the Co-Chair of IBRC Committee.
Ray sent me the following email, Patty, using my detective skills, I’ve been on the trail of a person who is
2010 said was very intelligent things to [John Northway] and his colleagues who were studying the
option to rebuild a PSB on the current site. That trail lead today to you. If was a police administrator who
recalled that you had framed a concept of a PSB as different from an inert structure that people actually
use. Rather he reported your ideas that the building and the people who use it have a working
relationship with each other and that the building serves and not just houses police officers and therefore
the community at large. As we know, we lost our dear friend Ray in 2015 but not before he and Co-Chair
Leland Levy authored the final IBRC report which urged us to build a Public Safety Building as soon as
possible on a new site. With these thoughts in mind, I am asking that you review this project not only
through your normal criteria but also through a slightly different lens. The City has not built a police
facility in over five decades. This is our greatest project and infrastructure need. It is not a typical project
as you’ve already read and you’ve seen terms such as monopole, operational yard, two ramps on two
different streets, ballistic glazing, hardening, setbacks and so many more unusual but absolutely
necessary public safety criteria. There’s an absolute flow to a PSB and I for one consider the building a
partner in providing exceptional public safety services to the community. The operational aspects of
everything we do has a distinct flow and are already built into these plans. As my colleague [Charles
Cullin] pointed out yesterday, a PSB without a monopole is simply a $75 million warehouse. There is no
operational survivability to the core functions. The PSB must be constructed to function alone, not
dependent on other sources, and imagine if you will a PSB post-natural disaster that does not have the
ability to dispatch fire, police and utility personnel to local sites. Our community expects more from us
and will look to us to pick up the pieces when times are tough. The monopole is not only a critical
element of modern-day PSB, it is also a lifeline to continued operations. You may also question why there
are two vehicle ramps leading underground, one on Sherman and one on Birch. While the primary ramp
exists on Sherman, it is absolutely necessary to have a backup ramp on Birch. In the event that the first
ramp becomes blocked, unusable or impassable, we need those fire, police and [OES] vehicles to be able
to exit on an alternate ramp. Lastly, you may wonder what in the world is an operational yard? I can tell
you this is a critical component of the PSB. Not only do we intend to house back up power in this area
but it’s also a critical secured component of common public safety functions. We’ve never had secured
2.d
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
storage for large-sized vehicles and the yard will provide that. This yard is not a highly populated hub of
activity but rather it allows flexibility to make operational work possible. Lastly, you will hear terms such
as setbacks, security, high ground, glazing, hardening and other unique characteristics to this building. Of
course, we certainly would have enjoyed the luxury of owning a very large piece of property which would
have allowed for the federal standard of 50 to 100-foot building setbacks. We simply don’t have the land
and as a tradeoff, we will be asking for other considerations such as possibly limiting traffic on Jacaranda,
allowing us to build the Jacaranda security wall to the property line, eliminating the Jacaranda sidewalk
improvement in order to keep pedestrian traffic away from the perimeter, and other alternatives. There
really is a method to our madness and our goal is to create a building that is inviting and attractive to the
community yet resilient and secure. I would like to finish with an introduction of our core Public Safety
Staff who have been working diligently on this project; Deputy Fire Chief G.O Blackshire, Office of
Emergency Services Director Ken Dueker, Police Deputy Director of Technical Services Charles Koen, and
Police Senior Management Analyst Mike Dority. We are available to you today to answer any operational
questions you may have that would impact the building. The entire purpose of the PSB is to plan, design,
construct and occupy a secure essential services facility designed to support and protect the critical
operations that occur inside. The PSB includes facility resilience, redundancy, and hardening strategies
which enable it to remain operational both during and after a major disaster. No one knows this better
than our Sonoma based architectural firm Ross Druilis Cusenbery, who for the last week and a half have
undergone the evacuations and serious threats in Northern California. We would all like to think that it
could never happen here but any of these recent disasters, whether they be Las Vegas or Santa Rosa,
certainly could happen in Palo Alto. I urge all of us not to delay. I would like to thank you for your time
and unless you have questions for Staff, I would like to introduce Mallory Cusenbery of RDC Architecture.
Mr. Mallory Cusenbery: Thank you so much. Thank you to the Board, City Staff, thank you to the Police
Department and the Fire Department to the public – members of the public who have come out here for
this. As you recall when we last spoke to you back in June, we had presented three schemes that we
called conversation starters and it really worked. We have wonderful conversations with the community,
with stakeholders, and with you. We processed those comments and have distilled them down –
synthesized them down into the current single design concept that we’re presenting to you now; around
fifty percent schematic design. As we were going through those conversations, there were two quotes
that came from this Board that really rose to the top in our thinking and one of those was having to do
with the civic – the importance of the civic presences and the quote was to create memorable forms that
communicate public function. The second quote was – has to do with context and the quote was, create
the most wonderful expression of this area we can achieve.’ Those definitely have become some guiding
principles as we move forward and I’ll elaborate on that shortly. However, it’s not always that simple as
the Police Department as wonderfully expressed, there are unique things to this kind of a Public Safety
Building that are non-negotiable items. The security, the standoff distances, the ballistic resistance, the
multiple vehicle access and these are unique to the project and they have to be part of it. At the same as
we enter in and talk about civic community pride, scale, massing, contextual response and things like
that, do so in balance. So, this – a lot of our conversation, a lot of design process is a back and forth
process to understand the operational imperatives and being respectful and a visionary toward the
community goals. Then there’s a lot of – then there are some of the observations that we bring to it as
well. Just very briefly, as we’ve had these conversations, the role of the landscape within the community
is – we found it to be a very profound element both physically in the canopy of this area and you can see
the site in orange down below but also in the perception of how this community should feel. The second
component is when we looked at civic presidents, the role of terracotta is profoundly continuous as a
civic element all the way from Leland Stanford through Edward Durell Stone up till the lower right have a
building which is a building that was built I think within the last year in town. Then the third for this area
is this idea of the diversity of scale. This area is not one scale, it’s not one identity. The California Avenue
area is very rich and diverse and can be addressed as such. Briefly, in summary, the project you’re
looking at is on the right. The – again, north is up on the eastern lot C6, the Public Safety Building is
48,000-square feet plus or minus, three-stories above grade and four-stories below grade and the below
grade is parking. There’s one-story outbuildings to the east with the operation courtyard in between and
significant setbacks all the way around for security and pedestrian amenity reasons. The garage on the
left on the west side is approximately 150,000-square feet, four-stories above grade, three-stories below
2.d
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 5
grade, and photovoltaic panels on the top. It does not have significant setbacks because the goal was to
maximize the quantity of parking but it does have a few pedestrian amenities that mitigate that scale that
we will talk about shortly and it has the photovoltaics on the top. Technically there are a few things that
we – how we approached this site. The first was to kind of organize the two properties with this grid –
this structure and this framework, which in this case is the structure of the cast in place concrete frame
for the building. It’s also the organizational structure that we use integrate – architecturally integrate the
monopole tower. Then onto that framework, we hung what we call our civic points of contact. These are
the memorable forms that we see as the opportunity to communicate public function and they are
archetypal. They are grand entry portal, large protective canopy, they are pedestrian arcades, grand
staircase, and other pedestrian amenities. Very archetypal civic components that are easy to understand
and are very legible in the scheme. Then we overlaid that with the influence of the sun, all sorts of
variations; absorbing the sunlight, diffusing the sunlight, generating power from it, screening it, blocking
it in various forms, and elaborate the material development. Then enveloping that in this oasis of
greening and utilizing the security setbacks as a pedestrian amenity and creating a real environment
here, at least to a scheme that from an urban design standpoint physically fits into the fabric of the
California Avenue neighborhood. Nested within this green structure but then also at a very intricate level
at the pedestrian scale. It’s stress mitigating, it offers a variety of uses, shade, seating, you can come
have lunch here, it’s a generous and kind introduction to those who have to come under stressful
conditions to this project. Then you can see in color the points of contact – civic points of contact with
this idea of bringing the large scale of the project down to these more intimate signposts that help direct
you through the project. I might remind you just on that previous slide that a lot of those pedestrian
amenities are in fact vehicles barriers so again we have that duality between civic opportunity and
operational imperative. That expands to the material as well. We’ve chosen pre-cast concrete and cast in
place concrete because of its ballistic resistance. We have a lot of the screens on the windows because it
helps restrict views, however we don’t stop there. The idea is that there’s a whole pallet of ways of
dealing with the sun, specularity, translucent, shading and those are on the upper left. We’ve introduced
the terracotta as a key civic element that is the point of contact and then the concrete, we’re leveraging
that with these very stone-like and organic textures so that it weaves into this idea of greeny and organic
and landscape presence on the site so again, the duality, operational imperative but vision. Then from a
– briefly and I know you’ve seen this multiple time so this will go quickly. The parking garage on the left,
the main pedestrian arcade is here on the left on Ash and it was addressed from the public opinion at the
beginning to importance of treating Ash as part of the urban design vision and then there’s an arcade
that connects to a paseo here. There’s the grand staircase here and the vehicle entry is on the Sherman
Street here. From the Public Safety side, the entrance to the Public Safety Building is off a plaza, the
plaza is here – the public plaza. Patrol garage entry is here, the operational yard is here and then Staff
entry and exit to the parking structure and backup patrol entry/exit is in this location here. So, let’s dive
into that for a moment, the Police Department very eloquently said – explained the need for the two
ramps and I want to expand on that. It’s actually more than just having two ramps, it’s actually exiting
on two independent streets because if one street is disabled like if it’s flooded, the building has collapsed,
there’s civil unrest; if you cannot use that street, you want the vehicles to be able to exit to a different
street. We assumed Park Boulevard would not be a good idea because it’s your bicycle infrastructure and
Jacaranda was just not physically possible because of spacing so the compromise in this case is to take it
on Birch but mitigate the comments that you had. It included the roof that Amy referred too, it also – we
actually segue into the flow of Jacaranda so when you actually leave the block, you’re leaving in line with
the alignment of the existing Jacaranda so there’s no new curb cut, no cut to the center island. Again,
just to reiterate, patrol vehicles day to day will be leaving here. This is a right in, right out Staff vehicle
ramp that has backup possibilities for patrol vehicles. The secure outdoor area is here for the larger
vehicles and as Amy mentioned, in conversations with the Police Department we determined that it's
going to be very important that this will be subsequent submittal to you to have a large vehicle exit onto
Sherman Street. However, because it’s only intermittently used, we can actually treat that exit with
cobblestones and treat it like a pedestrian environment in that it will actually signal when a vehicle is
coming out; it’s not going to be coming up frequently. Looking then at the site plan for the parking
structure, we have the arcade on Ash Street and again, these ideas – we have a lot of cars, 636 cars
right so 150,000-square feet of bulky garage. We find that the few pedestrian gestures that we make are
going to be very important to mitigate that scale and presence. We observe in this area at lunchtime that
2.d
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 6
people are coming from the office areas toward California Avenue in groups of – lunch – maybe three,
four, five across. So, providing some width that’s not even currently there so people don’t have to walk
single file as they go through this area. This inspired these ideas of these arcades here and clearing there
is a connection to the existing paseo respecting the existing fabric and then the grand staircase that runs
down the side here. Those are key amenities within a very large building. Then there’s the part of the
plaza and there was a lot of discussion and we received comments from you about the plaza. Our goal in
this go around is to increase the perceived size of the plaza by putting it on both sides of Birch Street and
architecturally reinforcing that presences. The plaza has different characters on the east side of Birch. It
has many qualities to it, sitting, table areas, it does have the vehicle barriers but they are integrated
materially, landscaping and there’s a variety of active and passive uses here. The west side of Birch
Street is primarily passive uses but the architectural reinforcement you can see through this section here.
The idea is to have canopies overhead that jester and create and I think there was a lot of discussion last
time about the gateway quality of Birch and there’s a great opportunity for that. This reinforces that with
the park on both sides of the street. These are few views, this is looking from the Nut House back toward
the entrance to the PSB on the left. You can see the grand staircase and this grand staircase we see as a
huge amenity to the California Avenue merchants in that you can actually walk directly towards Cal.
Avenue. This is looking from the opposite side and a view of the entrance of the building from the
parking structure. Then the scale and fabric of the neighborhood is critical for us as well. You can see the
Public Safety Building on the left, parking garage on the right, the scale comparison to the existing
buildings in the context and that informed a lot of our elevations. So, when you look at the elevation –
the Birch Street elevation of the Public Safety Building, the portal – the terracotta piece is the same
height as the neighboring building here. The top of the building is shorter than the Court House and the
one-story element on Sherman scales down as we go towards the residential areas. This is the
foreground on the top elevation. This is the foreground -- the rest of the building in the background you
can see the foreground building are the same scale as the adjacent there. This is the Jacaranda view
here and that was all elevations of the Public Safety Building and I’ll just show a few close-ups just for
your reference. As we move around the site this is the Sherman side. We do have recessed areas for the
outdoor deck and things like that and providing recesses where we can. Again, focusing our effort on –
and our emphasis on the smaller scale civic components throughout. Sherman Street side and there was
a lot of discussion about the view to the operational courtyard and how that might be? This is a rendering
taken from what we would think is probably the most sensitive condominium across the street that would
look out onto it. It would have the best view possible and we have added a canopy structure here to
screen the vehicles and some landscaping with the idea – I think this rendering shows that you won’t
have direct view of that big paved area. Similarly, for the garage elevations, a lot of it was about civic
presence so this is the grand staircase on Birch Street that heads towards California Avenue on the right.
This is the Sherman Street side with the arcade down here that leads to the paseo but we (inaudible)
integrated the photovoltaics. Part of the idea on the photovoltaics was to actually make them
architectural and then turn them into an architectural element. So, when you see from Birch Street –
again, looking – this is looking toward the southeast – southwest, these are the photovoltaic panels. They
actually create a language that then becomes the canopy over the garage which is over the public
staircase in this location too. So, it is not just – as one of our critics of a lot of photovoltaics installations,
they just look like an add-on and this integral architectural. Sherman Street side breaking down and
again, relative to some of the comments. Even the arcade, the idea is to create an immersive landscaped
oriented environment and in this case with the possibility for glass tile mosaics evoking an immersive
landscape environment. Breeze through because my time is limited. In closing I just want to say that a
lot of the site plans and a lot of these jesters are about connection. So, you can see the entrance here
toward the – it picks up the angle of the Court House. The Court House helps form this plaza and then
the pedestrian entrance and the walkway toward Cal. Avenue. In closing, again, a lot of this project is
about this balance between civic identity, community identity, civic presence but also creating a resilient
and secure Public Safety Building. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you for your presentation. I have two speaker cards, one from Jack Morton and
another one from – I’m not sure if I can read it. Is it Phillip or Phillis? You will have 5-minutes each.
2.d
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Mr. Jack Morton: I’m going to ask that the second slide that was shown – oh, thank you. My name is Jack
Morton, former Vice Mayor and current Chair of the California Avenue Business Association. You know as
professionals we have an expertise that those we serve expect us to share with them. Sometimes that
expertise prevents us from hearing the reaction of those that depend on that expertise and that’s the
case here with one element of this plan. What’s called an arcade in the architectural delivery, to be frank
in the local language if you want, the vernacular is called a covered pee-pee area. So, let me tell you why
the merchants unanimously voted against having that covered setback. When you see the – first of all, it
takes away parking and our first measure – when you see the revised thing, it takes away about six
parking spaces. We want every possible space to go to parking, particularly when -- the way the
presentation is – if you go back one. Go – right there. So, if you look along the left there’s parking all
along the Sherman side and then there’s this insert that doesn’t – for what sounds like a walkway into
what the boulevard – a boulevard in Paris. It’s a short street and that arcade goes to a blank wall and if
you have ever been there at noon, there is nothing but parked cars on either side and there are cars
traveling around and traveling around looking for parking. When you talk about people walking, they
don’t walk down Ash because it’s just a half a block. They walk down Birch and then go down California
Avenue so all the justifications that architecturally have been given for that covered parkway don’t really
exist. What we want is parking there and we don’t want an area that will be – we think will be used for
desperate housing and desperate sheltering. Apparently when we had our – this meeting, I think we had
it in the middle of tax season but I can’t remember, and apparently, Brad sent me an email saying that
we had to get a written response from the merchants but we went to the public hearing. The public
hearing almost unanimously rejected such an inset so what’s the point of a public hearing if once all of
the merchants who at that point, gave up their business time to come to talk and don’t get heard. I have
to be real frank with you in the language of the street and that we’re looking for your help in redesigning
that area for the six or eight parking places that will be used instead of a covered area that’s not going to
be used by any of the residents, any of the businesses, and we don’t think any of the customers that
come to that area. So, it’s an element that can -- without a lot of design changes can be more functional
than the covered area will be. Thank you very much.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you Mr. Morton and next speaker is Phillip. I can’t read your last name, is it
[phonetics][Lahog]?
[Mr. Phillip Lahog:] Good morning, my name is Phillip [Lahog], you don’t pronounce the ‘g’ and I’m an
(inaudible), not an idiot; French spelling. Well, I’m here to represent three coffee restaurants at the
corner of – well, Jonny’s Café, [La Boyum], [Spalty]. I also represent a bunch of residents who live at the
corner there and I’m one of them. Also, a bunch of small business offices in the basement and I’ve
known the area for well over 30-years. I represent them and to tell you that just like you already heard,
we need parking and we don’t think much of this arcade or whatever you want to call it. We need more
parking and this is very expensive and that thing, as far as we are concerned, would attract homeless
maybe. If you know the area, you know that you find homeless by the Bank of the West. You know there
is a nice protection there and you find homeless on the bench by the corner of Ash Street and California
Avenue. So, our general feeling – we—I don’t have one of us that I represent who is in favor of that
arcade thing. You heard Jack Morton and I thank him for being eloquent. My knowledge of English is not
his – not as good as his. That said, try to maximize the parking. It’s expensive and we need it very badly.
Thirty years ago, we had a crowd at lunch and we’d refuse people. Today there’s no parking, our
customers tell us they can’t afford to wait for 20-minutes to try to find a parking spot so I don’t need to
tell you that the Café and restaurants are hurting badly for lunch. For dinner it’s another story, it’s
working fine but that’s it. Thanks a lot for your attention.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Are there any Board Member questions? Wynne.
Board Member Furth: Could Staff just show us on one of the appropriate slides where the nearest
residences are on all frontages or all sides of this project? We have a number of letters and comments
from residents, I didn’t follow all of them. I followed the comments but not always the letters.
2.d
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Ms. French: Yes, Amy French here. We have this housing – multi-residential housing here. Similarly, this
is now a mixed-use building and I’m not sure what the date of this Google Docs – Google Earth, sorry.
It’s – Visa is the occupant but there are also housing units in this building.
Board Member Furth: So those are adjacent to the parking structure?
Ms. French: The parking structure is here on this parking lot. Yes, and so that is the proximity, right here,
to those homes.
Board Member Furth: Is there then also housing across Park?
Ms. French: There’s housing back here as well and there’s a little park down below this here; a little
pocket park.
Board Member Furth: But at the top of the slide, adjacent to the Public Safety Building, is that housing as
well?
Ms. French: This is the County Court House and then over back behind off of Park and Grant here, this is
housing back here.
Board Member Furth: About how many feet is it from the nearest point of the parking structure to the
residences at the corner right there, Sherman and whatever? I keep forgetting.
Ms. French: Well, the width of the roadway here so 60 or so feet because of – that is why there’s 150-
foot line that’s drawn with the zoning code for height restriction within that area. So, the Public Safety
Building here is back far enough away from that, 150-feet, but the parking garage here will be within that
150-foot radius of this piece here.
Board Member Furth: Thanks, and then are we maintaining that 150-foot radius or are we eliminating it?
Ms. French: The radius doesn’t disappear but the height within that radius is asked to be exceeded.
Board Member Furth: So, we would eliminate that protection? That usual protection in order to construct
the building?
Ms. French: As far as height limitation, yes.
Board Member Furth: Yes, you would, thanks. Then there was a discussion of reducing or illuminating
traffic on Jacaranda next to the Public Safety Building. Could you tell us more about that? Also, somehow,
I missed that and didn’t focus on what backs up on Jacaranda from the California Side.
Ms. French: Here’s Jacaranda Lane for the Public Safety Building and – so there are commercial buildings.
There is an office building right here and they have their only access from Jacaranda so they currently
walk –park here and walk to their office space. There’s a little garden kind of entry for those and so
originally Staff was looking at having them provide a sidewalk with this project so that those – Staff had a
conversation with those office employees or the owner of that building and suggested that a sidewalk be
included. With the security requirements for the operational yard, the applicant team is seeking to not
have a sidewalk adjacent to the opertations yard.
Board Member Furth: So, you’d have people walking in the street?
Ms. French: In the alley, Jacaranda Alley as they do now.
Board Member Furth: Right.
2.d
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Ms. French: The alley – the elevation of the alley is the same as the sidewalk so coming from Park, they
would walk on the alley to their business; that’s how they go today.
Board Member Furth: So, do we propose to – does the City propose to cut off pedestrian and vehicular
traffic in portions of Jacaranda or none of it? What’s the thinking here?
Ms. French: I don’t – I know that pedestrian access would not be cut off. I think there’s an exploration of
having those bollards that disappear and reappear perhaps but we clearly have an exploration there
because there is parking space back here. So, the folks that have businesses on this street will need to
get to those parking spaces and so there would become kind of access system for those – for the
employees/business owners of those businesses.
Board Member Furth: Thank you.
Chair Lew: Wynne, just to clarify. On the Visa building, the mix-use component, the residential
component faces the park so there isn’t – it’s all commercial facing…
Board Member Furth: So, it’s all – right, on the Visa building.
Chair Lew: … Sherman Avenue.
Board Member Furth: But the Visa building is not the corner building right or it is the corner building?
Chair Lew: It’s on the corner.
Ms. French: It’s this corner where the cursor is, this is the Visa building.
Board Member Furth: Right, I was looking at the other corner nearest to the Court House.
Ms. French: Yeah, this is…
Chair Lew: No, that’s part of the…
Ms. French: …all residential.
Board Member Furth: That’s all residential.
Chair Lew: Right and that’s part – that one little building is part of the larger complex of the housing.
Board Member Furth: I was just trying to figure out where people actually live with respect to these
buildings. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Any other questions? Peter.
Board Member Baltay: Yes, two questions, one for Staff or the applicant. What is the height of the
parking garage as proposed right now? I just couldn’t figure it out from the drawings so (inaudible).
Mr. Cusenbery: It will be – right now it is 44-feet to the top of the guardrail and then the additional
height to the top of the photovoltaic panels for clearance so probably under 50-feet.
Board Member Baltay: That was my question really was to the top of the panels? That’s what I see as the
height of the building.
Mr. Cusenbery: To the top of the panels and so it would be under 50-feet.
2.d
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Board Member Baltay: The intention is to keep that within 50-feet, the height limit it?
Mr. Cusenbery: Yes, it is.
Board Member Baltay: I guess to Staff, I just want to be clear that the panels are considered part of the
height of the building, is that right?
Ms. French: That’s correct because they are not just panels, they are the structure that supports the
panels. If they were just panels on a roof, we would not count that as height; the solar panels
themselves. The height limit on that corner is actually 35-feet, not 50, within that 150-foot radius, just to
be clear.
Board Member Baltay: What I am trying to do is just be clear when City Council looks at this, what the
actual limit is and what they are supposed to be approving? I don’t think this can be done without going
to 50-feet and that’s not necessarily a design problem but I want it to be clear for the record that we’re
approving something that’s considerably bigger.
Ms. French: Yeah and technically again, the Council is going to be asked to approve the zoning code
changes for Public Safety Building and for public parking garages within the PF zone.
Board Member Baltay: The second question is for the Deputy Police Commissioner which is regarding the
outdoor service yard and perhaps just enlighten me a little bit more what the function is there and why
that’s necessary? I’m just consistently finding that I have a problem with such a large outdoor functional
space on this valuable land and why can’t it be down in the garage?
Ms. Lum: Sure, Patty Lum again, so the operational yard is kind of like our catch-all. We have these large
vehicles; we have a CSI vehicle which is rather large and it doesn’t fit underground. We have a SWAT
vehicle and it doesn’t fit underground. We have other equipment and so and deliveries that need to come
in hopefully at ground level so it’s dropped in those areas there. We have an evidence processing area in
there for vehicles which is a tow truck pulling in, dropping a vehicle and doing CSI work in one of those
buildings there. So, there’s – it’s basically a storage, kind of operational component where we need street
access and doesn’t fit underground.
Board Member Baltay: Are you aware of any other Public Safety Facilities in the area that do have that
sort of facility underground or some of it underground?
Ms. Lum: I have not seen those large vehicles go underground. Mallory?
Mr. Cusenbery: What I would say is the other factor to this plays the limitations of the site because if you
can have an extensive ramp that gets you down with a slow slope over like say on a suburban site with
lots of lands and an open ramp, it facilitates getting down a little bit easier. The headroom on some of
these vehicles is almost 13-feet high and so the headroom issue, the ramping issue, the bottoming our
issue several impacts the subterranean parking. In urban areas where it’s tighter, it's more common for
those to be at grade.
Board Member Baltay: Thank you.
Chair Lew: Any other questions? None? Kyu.
Vice Chair Kim: I just have a very quick question. Is there a location for the flagpole?
Mr. Cusenbery: I’m getting shot a look. Yes, there is and that is our oversight and the location for the
pole – if you could switch back to the – to our screen. The location for the flagpole which is not currently
in the rendering is right here.
2.d
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Vice Chair Kim: At that corner?
Mr. Cusenbery: At that corner so that it signals it as a public building and it has the – the flag poles will
be spaced – several flag poles and there will be a significant flag presents.
Vice Chair Kim: Thank you.
Board Member Baltay: To be clear, that’s the flagpole for the American flag, not the monopole, is that
right?
Mr. Cusenbery: Correct, that’s the flagpole, not the monopole. The monopole appears – it’s the back of
the site and you can see it – I’m trying to find the appropriate view, momentarily. So, you can see it –
that wispy shape in the distance because we’re not – we haven’t rendered it with things on it but right
there is the monopole. The height, I’m going to put the dot at the height and that’s the height. That’s
135-feet above the ground and yes, there will be things on it.
Vice Chair Kim: There was mention that they’re going to – there’s going to be a crowns nest or some
other attachment to this monopole. Can that monopole really come to a needle end like that or will it
have to be substantially thicker?
Mr. Cusenbery: Well, part of that is just the deception of the rendering. The monopole will have this kind
of diameter and it will probably – it can taper. We have done them when they taper but a needle would
not be the description. It still has a structural radius at the top.
Vice Chair Kim: Ok.
Chair Lew: I have a question for you.
Mr. Cusenbery: Yes.
Chair Lew: On the materials, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the materials – a little bit
more about the materials so I think there’s concrete. I think the Staff report mentioned that you’re going
to color the concrete and also, I was curious about the textures that you’re proposing. I think you are
showing different colors in the renderings; like the darker color…
Mr. Cusenbery: Correct.
Chair Lew: … on the – I think it was like on the alley and I was curious also about graffiti and that kind of
thing on the building.
Mr. Cusenbery: The – as with any solid surface it can be vulnerable to graffiti. There is the opportunity to
seal the concert with a graffiti resistant and we have done that. It changes the tonality of the concrete a
bit but the intent on the ground level concrete is actually to have that darker. So, what it does it you’re
looking for that perfect museum smooth grey, that’s what gets darkened but we would actually be
starting with a rougher texture and a dark concrete, to begin with. To be clear, the board form is what’s
at the ground level on the left and then the deeper texture, which also comes in two tones, would be up
high. Sorry, I’m not sure if I’m answering your question.
Chair Lew: No, I think that helps and the color (crosstalk) you are showing…
Mr. Cusenbery: So, you can see it there.
Chair Lew: Sure. In the drawing your showing mostly grey and then I think in the Staff report it mentions
that it was going to be more earth – maybe like an earth tone color or where you thinking about a
pigmented color?
2.d
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Mr. Cusenbery: Yes, we can and I would say that’s definitely an avenue of further design exploration. If
we were consistent within the design concept, which is that it’s kind of organic and earthy and rocky.
There’s a range of earth colors and tones that would be appropriate so absolutely.
Board Member Furth: I would note that it has a composition roof.
Chair Lew: Then the – on the canopy on your cornice.
Mr. Cusenbery: Yes, that is a polycarbonate.
Chair Lew: It’s polycarbonate, ok, excellent.
Mr. Cusenbery: Translucent polycarbonate and that’s – it is an essential facility so we can’t put glass up
there and we don’t want to put anything solid up there yet we want the translucent so that’s why we
chose that.
Chair Lew: Ok and then… (crosstalk)
Mr. Cusenbery: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Ok, thank you for that. Then on the – I think I do like the terracotta screens and I think you
are showing a second screen which is…
Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah, there’s a lighter color and so…
Chair Lew: A lighter color and is that metal (crosstalk) and is that what’s on the windows?
Mr. Cusenbery: No, they are both – they are two shades of terracotta.
Chair Lew: Two shades of terracotta.
Mr. Cusenbery: So, again that’s the terracotta – color terracotta material that’s on the left and is more
prevalent on the parking structure and the terra – the beige colored terracotta material that’s on the
right, fourth from the left, that would be on the Public Safety Building.
Chair Lew: Got it, ok, thank you. Any other questions? No. Who wants to start? Peter?
Board Member Baltay: Ok, thank you very much. Thank you for the very eloquent presentation and all
the Staff work from City Council Members, from police and Council Members and stuff. I’d like to start
with the parking garage building. I think it’s coming along nicely and it will be a large building that will
look quite nice. I think the elevations along Ash and Sherman Street are interesting, there’s a nice mix of
open and solidness. I think it will be a handsome parking garage. I like – I think that the broad staircase
coming up along Birch Street is a great idea. It’s going to make it very nice for people as far as flowing in
and out to California Avenue. It’s great to have that on a parking garage. I’m concerned that the way it’s
rendered now or the way it’s designed is it’s just not quite there; it’s too severe. If I reference the
drawing on page 1.06 the concrete wall to the right of the stairs as you go up, it just feels too harsh.
Mr. Cusenbery: Is that the one you’re talking about?
Board Member Baltay: Yes, that one there. As I understand it that’s some sort of formed textured
concrete and you’re trying to say that that’s got a textured friendly powerful presence. To me, it’s just a
30-foot tall wall of concrete and it kind of goes against the idea of it being a warm welcoming area. The
openings through it are just sort of big (inaudible) holes that you go through. I’m also concerned that the
space underneath the stairs, as it’s shown here, is really a great sleeping refuge for people and I think it
2.d
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 13
needs to be just more thought through. The concept I’m finding very nice but the execution is not quite
there. I think you’re going to find out that a constant theme in my comments here. Your talk is great,
you’re saying the right words but I’m not seeing it in the design here so that staircase is one of those
cases. So, softer detailing, more care at the doors, more care below the stairs, perhaps just more
openings in the wall somehow so you can see where you’re going in and out of it. In the same vein, the
cut out along the side of the alley that the merchants seem to speak about, I guess I agree with their
comments that you already have the alley for people to walk through so I don’t see a need to cut the
building out. I’m not sure the renderings are quite accurate to the plans but it seems to me you could
reconsider that and it wouldn’t be a big loss to the overall concept of what you’re doing. If there’s that
much support from within the community not to have that, you ought to be listening to that. I had
expressed concern earlier about the height of the parking garage and I just wanted to be clear to the City
Council mostly that this is a large, massive building. It’s to the height limit, it’s to the setbacks and that’s
because they’ve asked to have 600 and something cars in this building. There’s no way around it, you
can’t mince words on that. That’s what the community wants and the Council needs to understand that
crystal clear when they vote for it that’s what they are doing and that’s our job to tell them that. So, 50-
feet, for example, is the height limit that goes to the top of the panels. It’s not some mechanical feature
and things like that. I had made an earlier comment about a second entry into the garage and I just
wanted to clarify. I think your circulation works fine but many garages I’ve been in and out of having two
ways to drive in and out and it just makes it a lot easier for vehicular circulation. I can see where you’re
not wanting to pursue that here given all the other constraints you have but that was the gist of that
comment. Overall, the parking building I think is really – it’s almost there in my opinion. The Public Safety
Building I’m afraid I have serious reservations about. I’m not even sure where to start but all the words
sound great. This is the least civic building I can imagine and it’s just not attractive. If I could get you to
pull up on the screen, there’s a rendering you have from California Avenue. Let’s see, it’s shown on page
1.04 in the upper left corner.
Ms. Cusenbery: Is that the one?
Board Member Baltay: There’s a close-up view of that same corner; a little bit further along in your
presentation. That’s it, right there. I think that word – the vision just speaks volumes for the problems
here. This is not a civic building, it’s not a friendly building, it’s not attractive, it’s downright scary. This
mouth coming out with police cars shooting out from underneath is something out of Star Wars. I mean
it’s just not appropriate and it really isn’t working. That large canopy hanging over the public plaza scares
people. I just – I know that you have serious constraints about security, safety, ballistics, and setbacks.
The Police Commissioner started her beautiful presentation with the words about wanting to welcome the
public and make it everybody come together. Look at that image? Do you see that? I don’t. We’re
building a building for the next generations to come. Our grandkids will be walking by this and looking at
it. We want them to look like they did at the old police station Birge Clark built for us. I just don’t see it.
I’m really sorry to be so strong about it but it’s not there. That said, the parking entrance coming out on
Birch, I think is just a non-starter. There must be some other way to do that. This image to me shows
crystal clear how that just takes away from any chance of making this a public plaza. It’s really a secret
entrance for police vehicles, especially with the special barriers and the car coming out with lights
flashing. I mean it couldn’t do more to turn the community away. You just can’t have it there. Anybody
who works and lives and commutes in that area knows how important that stretch of Birch Street is and
more so as time goes on with all the development there. We need to do everything we can to make this
plaza more welcome, more open to people and not ugly and off-putting and scaring pedestrians away.
My second issue had to do with my question about the open yard in the back and I fully appreciate the
difficulties of finding ways to fit all these important functions in here. However, that open yard is what
pushes the building to the front and makes the plaza so small and I think there it really is a tradeoff of
how much we have to get the police functions really met versus how much we want to have a bigger
plaza in the front. I’d like to be clear with my colleagues, with City Council and with everybody else who’s
a decision maker on this that by having that secure outdoor parking meeting the standards that the
police have put forward, it makes the public plaza half the size it could be and half as nice as it could be.
California Avenue doesn’t have a big public plaza the way we have several downtowns. This is our chance
to make that and we do that by planning and by compromising. In my opinion, we should be finding a
2.d
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 14
way to minimize the outdoor parking yard for the police through other technical design means to make
the plaza bigger. We only have on chance to make a real public plaza and that’s at this stage of the
design process. It’s just the land is too valuable to not figure a way to make that work, it’s just too small
of the plaza. The elevation of the building, if you can go back to that rendering again. I’d like to leave
that rendering up there as long as possible. That one, please; anyone of these. I mean it’s just a big
concrete box, it really is. I’m so sorry to be aggressive about it but I find it so unpleasant to look at. The
thought of the textured concrete is nice, the terracotta is nice, all the words are good, all the pieces and
the images of other projects have a potential but the concrete doesn’t cut it. The roof cornice, that very
large overhang like that but that’s also 30-feet above the ground or something and I’m scared looking at
that. I’m afraid it’s going to topple over in an earthquake and I’m sure I won’t be the only one who would
say that to you. It’s out of scale, it’s not integrated, and if feels like an afterthought that some
Architecture Board said put something on the box. Lastly, I’m concerned about the monopole. Initially, I
thought this elegant spiral was going to look very nice but when you see imagines of what it looks like
elsewhere and it becomes really a crow’s nest of equipment and that changes all the time. We see that
on the current issue with cell phone towers on how quickly engineers add and change and the next thing
you know you have wires and antennas of every shape and color and size and mounted in every
conceivable fashion. I suppose that’s not so much an Architectural Board issue anymore but I’d like to be
clear with the Council at least that they see what they are approving here. It’s a very tall, very ugly
looking pole and I’d love it if you could find some way to shroud it. Put it inside a different kind of tower,
do something that other architects and generations of communities would do when you (inaudible). If
you needed a clock tower, you made a real tower with a clock in it that looks attractive. We seem to be
just governed by an engineering requirement here. We all agree we need this tower, we all agree – the
police are telling us it has to be on this site. Granted, what do we generally do then when architects
where proposed with a challenge like that? We just sort of say ok well, whatever, I guess we have to
have it or can we go back and do what was done in Renaissance Italy? You made a tower that was an
eloquent jester to the community. You do something else to make it work because right now – I mean
this is again California Avenue. It’s an important civic part of our town and we’re putting this 135-foot
tower draped with wires with every shape of antenna just because that’s what Technical Security
Engineering needs and we’re not going to do anything else for it? I don’t want to keep going on but we’re
missing something here. This is a building for our future generations and we’re not connecting. Thank
you.
Mr. Cusenbery: Thank you for your comments.
Chair Lew: Let’s see, who next? Kyu.
Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, thank you for your presentation. I, unfortunately, wasn’t at the preliminary hearing
for this project but there’s a lot to look at and I agree the presentation was quite nice. The words and
descriptions that you put forth are very eloquent and elegant but I also have a problem with some of the
actualities of the architecture. I guess I’ll take it in a similar fashion and start with the parking garage. I
agree that the parking garage is probably a little bit more there and closer to something that I could
recommend for approval and recommend to Council but I do also completely understand the concerns
brought forth by the neighboring people there and talking about that pedestrian arcade. While it is a
great idea and it’s something that was presented as something that could be a real feature to the parking
garage. I just don’t think that it’s going to work the way that it’s envisioned and perhaps there’s a way to
maybe make it a little bit less rectangular of an arcade but I think the overall use of that is – I can so
easily imagine just vending machines being through up against that wall in the arcade and it being not
very well maintained. The – I also agree that while the circulation inside the garage itself looks to
function quite well, I am concerned of that the fact that there is only one in and out of the parking
garage. Another thing that I noticed with these great stairs and I – you have that great stair on the Birch
Street side. You also have a fairly nice stair coming down the arcade on the Ash Street side but my
concern with both of those stairs is that if you’re somebody that’s parked on an upper story when you’re
coming back to the garage and you – I just don’t see anybody taking those stairs. Especially when the
stairs and the elevator entrances don’t face one another. You’re not really given an option and I think
everybody is going to want to take the elevator and those stairs are going to be rarely used by anybody
2.d
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 15
actually traveling up. I agree with the comment on the stairs on the Birch Street side but it’s just too
massive of a wall on the parking garage as you’re going up or down and I realize that you’re trying to
make that a little bit more of a relief with any kind of an art installation. I still think just the scale of that
wall is going to be quite daunting to anybody traversing the stairs. I think that’s it for the parking – oh,
one more thing for the parking garage is for the solar panels. While I really appreciate the fact that
you’re presenting these solar panels to us early as opposed to some of these other retrofit projects that
we’ve seen. I think the vertical support structures of the solar panels themselves, because they are
located at the very exterior of the parking garage, they add an element of extra bulkiness and mass that
could perhaps be relieved if you’re able to bring those columns inwards so that the building looks a little
bit less tall than it actually is. Moving onto the Public Safety Building…
Mr. Cusenbery: I – just a brief question? There are a few items that I could add to this. Should I add it at
the end?
Vice Chair Kim: I think at the end would probably be a little bit more appropriate.
Vice Chair Kim: For the Public Safety Building, I’m actually not so concerned about the monopole. That
term really bothers me because if it’s a pole, it’s a single pole. Why do we have to call it a monopole? I’ve
dealt with other pole related projects and I think while it is something that we need to look at and it
shouldn’t be overlooked. I think eventually it will kind of disappear and I’m not so concerned about the
height or any kind of attachments made to it as long as the attachments are matching the color of the
pole. The building itself, I think Board Member Baltay really hits those points that it just doesn’t look like
a very welcoming building to me. I was looking at that front plaza façade and just something about it is
really not right in my mind quite yet. I appreciate the fact that you’re trying to break out the mass and
introduce the elements that are smaller and of different proportions but I don’t know if it’s the depth of
the plaza versus the height of the building or what it is exactly. Maybe it’s the entry portal that you’re
showing there being 2 ½ or maybe even 3-stories; I guess it’s 2-stories. Just something there doesn’t
feel quite warm enough yet and I also think that the materials that you’re proposing are just much to
grey and too much of a cool grey. I think the only thing that you’re doing to really warm up the building
and the site is the use of landscaping and the terracotta and that similar redder shade but I don’t know if
it’s just the combination of those two materials but there seems to be a very difficult balance of the
warms versus the cools. Overall, I think it’s just too blocky. Everything I see about the building is a
rectangle. Each façade is – each elevation is a rectangle, the portal is a rectangle, and the only angle or
diagonal I see is really out of that plaza which is kind of a nice jester relating to the true north orientation
–northwest – cardinal axis orientation of the Court House and also that housing project also has that alley
cut. That’s a true north, south cut but I’m just wondering if maybe that portal could be rotated. Another
thing about that portal is that it makes it appear as if once you walk into the portal, you’re walking into
the building but the fact that you have to make a 90 degree turn to get into the building itself is also
something that I don’t see – feeling quite right. I said everything is a rectangle, everything is a block and
even the canopies that you are proposing at the opertations yard. Do they have to be so flat and so
rectangular? Is there any way we can introduce some angles or even curves or something a little bit
more organic that will make the building and sit feel a little bit more welcoming? I completely agree with
Board Member Baltay’s comments about the operations yard. While I definitely understand the need for it
so if there is anything that can be done to maybe even make the operations yard a two-story structure so
that we can begin to increase the plaza? It seems like such a large amount of space that we’re dedicating
to an on-grade facility that doesn’t have anything above it, isn’t really giving much to the community, and
because of what’s going on there, I can imagine that everything on even the Park Boulevard side as your
passing the building, is going to be so guarded and so kind of turning its back on the rest of the
neighborhood. Something that was said in the earlier presentation with memorable forms and trying to
create something that is going to make Palo Alton’s proud of this building but also people that visit
California Avenue to have something to remember and I just don’t think it’s quite there yet. Having said
that, I really applaud your presentation, the packet, and the renderings. Everything you’ve said, I think
we’re on the same page as far as trying to accomplish the right things but as far as getting there, I don’t
think we’re quite there yet, especially with the Public Safety Building. Thank you.
2.d
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Mr. Cusenbery: Thank you. A couple comments that I would just point out for…
Mr. Lait: I’m sorry, just for one second. Chair, I don’t know if you want to continue to go through Board
Member comments and then get comments from the applicant at the end or if you want to have the
dialog or how you want to approach that?
Chair Lew: If it’s quick. If you have just a quick thing.
Mr. Cusenbery: Two just quick points that I think will just elaborate the comments. One relative to the
arcade and the openness and the concern that it would be someplace that would provide shelter and also
might be a target of public urination. I just want to remind everybody that the entire garage is open 24-
hours a day so the entire ground level of the garage provides shelter and provides opportunity if public
urination. So, if there is that concern, the concern might be larger than just the arcade so that was one
point. The second point that I was going to mention is that a lot of this you’ve heard there’s push-pull
between operational imperatives and the civic presence and civic identity. I’m trying to find a rendering
as I speak here. The issue with the parking garage is that there is a vulnerability for the Public Safety
Building from people being able to be on the parking structure and have sightlines to the Public Safety
Building. So, it is a very specific security design intent to actually create as much as a wall as possible
and that is an operational driver. So, in fact, sneaking in a couple openings are the compromises from
that standpoint. So, that is – then the concrete that you are seeing is actually a concrete shear wall so its
double use of the functionality of the concrete but expanded with the intent of minimizing the threat of
an active shooter.
Chair Lew: Thank you.
Board Member Furth: Good morning. Thank you for the presentation and it gave us an enormous amount
of information. Thank you all for that, it was very helpful and overwhelming. I mean I first worked as a
layperson and not architect on a police station project in 1978 so before a number of you were born. We
failed, we had big lead pollution problems on the firing range which we had to abandon. So, I know these
are difficult projects but I also know that they can be better than we might think. I’ve been looking at our
former police and fire Public Safety Building that’s now Avenidas and when you look at that and its scale
and it’s landscaping and its design elements and its materials and you look at this, there is no evidence of
civic progress in the last 100-years. In fact, it would seem we’ve gone considerably backward. I
understand the reality of more high explosives, more vicious weapons, more elaborate
telecommunications and I understand that we’re building something that has many elements of a
fortress. In the last few months, I’ve been spending a lot of time around fortresses in the Mediterranean
and they can be engaging as well while still keeping their essential secured aspect. I’m sorry to be so
emotional about this but I thought it was just me but when I looked at that first cover illustration, I
thought it looked like (inaudible) the entry, I thought that’s how you get into the Death Star. That big,
dark looming presence, very rectangular and that’s what you fly your jet into and that’s not what we
want to do I don’t think. Then I looked at the very high entryway, which as somebody points out doesn’t
really enter you into the building and I’ve spent so many hours listening to the Planning Commission and
Staff of this City and the citizens talk about how they don’t like double height entries and I’m thinking
what are we doing? What civic jester are we making here? I want a civic jester that does not make me
feel small, that makes it clear to me where I’m going, that invites me in, and I mean I’m happy if you put
up – I guess they’ve got the – I mean I guess you’re going to put the blindfolded justice across the
street. I’m happy with big civic sculptures, I’m happy big landscaping, I’m happy with big useful plazas,
I’m happy with clearly marked entries, I’m happy with lot so flags but this – I mean this is what we
learned when I was in college was an element of something a little more authoritarian than I think we
want here. We were taught that this was an element – a classic element of fascist architecture using the
technical term, not the overall emotional one. Ok so having exposed my insecurities about the project.
The garage, first of all, I think that the solar panels are the most important civic statement in the whole
thing because to me they signal that the government is paying attention and trying to do something
because none of this will matter if we don’t get a handle on greenhouse gases. So, I like them, I like
them being visible and I’m so happy you’re showing them to us now. I like what I think the staircase is. I
2.d
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 17
like the concept but I don’t think that a 50-foot wall has to be awful but I know that depends on how
wide the staircase is and how substantial the railings are. They look radically under designed here and I
keep thinking of the beautiful railings I see in the Mission in San Francisco. I know that’s completely
different scale and I think about the railings in the San Francisco Civic Center. This is, as you point out,
not a suburban building. It’s not a suburban – you know we’ve built a lot suburban fire stations around
here and they masquerade as slightly larger houses. In no way is this suburban, this is massively urban
so that means it needs suitably urban levels of – what do we call these things? Railings, doorways,
entries because we can’t plan it out. I like the proposed landscaping. I am so happy – I mean I like the
concept of the proposed landscaping. I’m not going to say that it’s always there. I am so happy that
we’re hearing from utilities now because we have had the very sad experience of looking at the
Charleston/Arastradero plan with fifty or six percent of the trees removed when we get down to actual
construction drawings. So, I am looking forward to hearing how we’re going to have the landscaping
insignificant size anyway, which I do know is possible in most cases. I am going to – I guess the standard
I’d like to meet is you get cert – we get certified by the Auto Bond Society’s excellent backyard habitat. I
mean not just messing around with semi-helpful landscaping for wildlife but serious support for the birds
to hang out here. The Birch Street – not the Birch Street side, the Ash Street side, I think the
neighborhood is right in saying that we haven’t gotten there yet. I think we need a very generous
sidewalk. I think you could make that attractive with properly – it going to be very dark but properly
scaled landscaping. I tend to – as you may know I tend to favor the kind that sort of – plants are at head
height so the planters are at elbow height. You can do that in a way that makes it welcoming for short-
term stays or walking by but not as a habitat. We’ve certainly dealt with peeing, intoxicated affluent
persons in the downtown garage so it’s a good point that the whole garage is an issue. So, my question
is, where’s the nearest accessible public restroom? I mean if you don’t want people peeing in the – some
people you’re never going to have any success but the other people, it would be nice to have one of the
alternatives. What resources are we providing with people? These are people – we have bodies so how
are we accommodating them? On the monopole I agree that we probably ought to call it a
communication tower; its big. It saddens me, not that we can communicate that’s going to be wonderful
but that it’s kind of a marker of a surveilled society and so I don’t think it’s going to disappear into the
background. I think it’s going to loom and I don’t know what we can do. I mean there may be certain
colors that make it recede into the clouds in certain weather conditions; I’ll be interested in that. On the
public plaza I agree that it’s too small. It’s needs to be bigger. One of my questions for you all -- I mean I
was deeply influenced by White Studies in New York when I was young person so I want to know where
do people sit? Where do they chat? Where do people who need backs on their seats sit? Where do
people who need arms on their seats sit so that they can lean on them to get up? How are we
accommodating a wide range of people here? We need to – I don’t think we – having spent a lot of time
enjoying other people’s plazas recently and realizing we don’t have the social structure to support them
here necessarily. I would love to see a plaza that really works. I understand in some Cities further south
on the peninsula they are actually is a plaza life that some of our local communities do come out at
sunset with grandparents and small children and circulate and eat and drink. We’re not going to do that
here and I understand that but we can get started and maybe we have coffee. I’ve certainly walked
through very successful public plaza in Oakland by the Public Library next to the police station. That is
not a particularly buffered area, there’s lots of traffic, there’s lots of people facing hard times but that
plaza works. It takes a lot of landscape maintenance I am sure and it also takes good coffee. I have
pages and pages of notes here but I think much of what I had in mind has been said by my colleagues.
Chair Lew: For everybody on the Board, I think we’re trying – we’re going to try to get this approved in
two hearings so if you have a comment and you think it’s important, let’s just do it now and get it all
addressed. Don’t put it off thinking that we’re going to do another…
Board Member Furth: I don’t think the two-entry works, I don’t think the – and by work, I mean it’s not
inviting and I agree, at least as it’s drawn, that this building is scary which is not what I think the City
wants or the department wants. I think the plaza is too shallow and I hope we can move it back further.
I don’t think that the proposal on Ash Street works and I think it probably needs to be rethought with the
idea of having that perhaps be a showcase for plants, perhaps for tile art but not a lot of ground-level
recess beyond the width of the sidewalk. I hope that we have short-term parking on the ground level of
2.d
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 18
the garage because people – the first thing I was wondering when I looked at this police building was
where do you park and then of course, across the street and eventually – you’re going to build the
parking lot first. So, I hope we have short-term parking for people coming in and out. That was a
problem in the original design over on Hamilton as well. I want to know more about how Jacaranda is
going to work and that it will work in a way that accommodates the Police Department’s needs. I want to
know about actual furniture and function on the plaza and I want it to function as a place where people
can sit, whatever their state of physical health. I want that great big entry changed to something that
invites me to feel an empowered citizen and not a small person with a big government use of force in
front of me. To Staff, the comments from Pat Beatty about air quality and sunlight for their building at
2516 Birch Street. I want to know if you feel that we have addressed their concerns adequately to make
the findings that this building isn’t going to damage them and the way they live. I will be thrilled – I to
have been following this Public Safety Building project since I got here in 1998 and I to will be thrilled
when the police have – and the community has adequate facilities and I will be thrilled when California
Avenue has the parking they want. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Thank you, Wynne. I think I’m in agreement with all – almost all of the comments…
Board Member Gooyer: Can I say a few things?
Chair Lew: Oh, sorry.
Board Member Gooyer: That’s ok.
Chair Lew: We’ve been going on for so long. Robert.
Board Member Gooyer: I know this is getting long winded but it – and I have the same thing. I had a
truckload of things but I’ll just trim it down to a few initial comments and just some – an overview
basically. I think one of the problems with this is that because they were both or they are both being
built at the same time, it seems like there was some thought that needed – that these two needed to
relate to each other quite a bit and actually look like one entity. I don’t think that’s really necessary. I
mean we’re talking about a civic building, not a civic garage. I don’t really care if the garage is civic
looking. It’s right across from residences and I don’t really think – I think it’s going very well and it’s
coming along nicely but it could be softened up a little bit. One of those things, as you said was the big
wall and then I see here on some of the sample board you have where it looks like you have a split face
block and it’s like that’s – split-face block is sort of the most severe I’ve ever used. That’s the kind of
thing you use when you don’t want people to stay near it or if you rub your hand across and you end up
with hamburger meat. So, that’s not really a very inviting type situation so I really don’t think we ought
to use that all. Having said that, the whole idea about the plaza is that I keep hearing that the plaza
needs to be larger. I think – let’s face it, the reality of it is, is it is a police station. The police need to do
what they need to do and with the design of these two structures, you could make that plaza the size of
a football field and I would feel uncomfortable sitting in it with those buildings looking down on me. I
mean there’s -- when the concept of civic means severe and large and overpowering, that is not really
my idea. I was involved about 4 or 5-years ago with a police station in another City in the peninsula
larger than Palo Alto and one of the comments that were made there – I was on the Planning
Commission at the time and one of the things that were made there, which I thought was absolutely spot
on, is that if there’s a little – if there is child running up to the police station because they are lost and
they need some help from somebody. If they look at this building, they are going to turn around and run
the other way. There is nothing inviting – I mean the Death Star is probably a bit much but there’s
nothing inviting about that building. Just because – it does look like – somebody made the comment if
you look at our old police building versus this new one, society hasn’t gone in the right direction. Its more
severe and you would expect some machine guns to pop up from the turrets on the corners or something
the way this thing is built. It’s a massive concrete bunker with what I thought was rather strange for the
comments – some of the written stuff was that it’s a cast in place concrete building and the painted and
steel overhangs reflect the civic elements. I mean to me civic elements aren’t steel – painted steel
elements that are added on to it and it’s just – it doesn’t work for me. When I first started reading this, I
2.d
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 19
like – again, your presentation and the concept and the things that you – the Police Department need are
all spot on and when I started reading the whole idea about Palo Alto presidencies of terracotta and the
off-white, it gives you a softer feel of what you think. Now again, there’s a difference between terracotta
being the color or terracotta being the material but it still has a connotation of something softer. It can
still be civic but it could be more user-friendly, more human scale, and that’s the thing that missing with
this. The first thing you see is those massive concrete walls. I’ll let it go at that and I’m pretty much – I
think most of us are in agreement that this is not – at least the building is not going in the right direction
to make it -- for this group. I’ll let it go at that.
Chair Lew: Thank you, Robert.
Mr. Cusenbery: Thank you.
Chair Lew: Thank you for your excellent presentation. I am generally in agreement with the Board
although I think I disagree with the Board on the operations yard and also, I may be – I may disagree on
the size of the plaza. I sort of am a little undecided on that. I was wondering if you could – instead of
just repeating everything that’s already been said, I was wondering if maybe we could talk a little bit
about – in more detail about some of the design elements and see if there are opportunities. One is the
arcade and just the dimensions of the arcade. Second was the public – I guess it’s like a community room
facing the plaza and it’s like a double height space but the second-floor equivalent face doesn’t have
windows. I was just wondering what the…
Mr. Cusenbery: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: I was just wondering what the constraints were on that – on the conference room? On the
Public Safety Building, on the – Jacaranda, on the alley you have – there’s a courtyard garden and there’s
a wall and you’ve got integrated benches and I was wondering if we could talk about the constraints
happening there? Then I don’t think we’ve talked about it in detail and that was the Park Boulevard
façade and you have a setback and landscaping. I was just curious as to what happened there because
we do have large groups of employees coming down Park and I think you’ve got a double row of trees
and planters but I was just curious as to what else was happening along that wall? If there are maybe
opportunities to get a social place so anyway.
Mr. Cusenbery: I’ll tell you what, I’ll take those one at a time and I’ll do it cynically and if I miss
something I can happily elaborate. The arcade first, the dimensions of the arcade is we have pushed it up
as far as we can within the structural frame of the parking structure. I believe it’s an 11-feet, I hope I am
accurate on that but I think it’s very close to 11-feet. We don’t have – need a beam or I mean a column
– sorry beam in that location so it’s actually the underside of the decking so we can go all the way up
there. Then what we’ve done is within that, we’ve nested – again, using the codification of the civic
elements, the arcade, and the color coding. The idea there would be a possible terracotta frame within
that and then we also identified that as a potential public art site. So, in – of the public artists that we
recently – the opportunities that we have with the various public artists, one of the artists that were – the
one that was selected actually has a president for work within that kind of circulation arcade and is quite
rich. So, the thought is that we would leave that arcade open-ended for further elaboration with the work
of the public artist and see what kind of opportunities come out of that process. The short answer is 11-
feet tall, the width of parking space so around 20-feet wide and the rationale for not having parking
space in that area is that if you picture the City’s sidewalk. The width which is relatively narrow in that
location and directly to your right would be a series of parked cars, which is one experience verses to
your right is a 20-foot arcade that has a staircase going straight up to the garage underneath it and a
public art installation that elaborates it. Just from a professional standpoint, our experience is that areas
that are invested in publicly have less likelihood of vandalism and/or nesting people. Those that are
disinvested or afterthoughts or behind the scenes are the ones that are more likely to have people –
attract people. So, when you compare the arcade, this is just from our approach, you compare the
arcade which people use daily and will be visible versus just on the other side of it, which is the parking
2.d
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 20
structure where’s this whole ample place for things that – that hope was the arcade would actually
reverse the concerns. So, that’s the one…
Chair Lew: Can I…
Mr. Cusenbery: Sorry.
Chair Lew: Can I ask a question? Is the – so the wall between the arcade and the parking spaces or the
parking isle?
Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah?
Chair Lew: Is that a solid shear wall or can that be semi-permeable or semi-open – partially open or it
could be screen – yeah, it could be a screen wall.
Mr. Cusenbery: I apologize that I can’t go over there, I – my – I had a failure on my laptop so I’m doing
my back up the system but anyway, this is a view. The answer to your question is on that wall, I do not
believe there’s – certainly not the whole thing does not have to be shear wall. I mean that would be the
safe answer but portions of it maybe or maybe not but certainly not the whole thing. What we’re showing
– there’s a lot of flexibility on what this can become. This visualization is based on the idea of glass
mosaic with some kind of photorealistic immersive environment. It does not necessarily become that –
should this be selected as one of the public art sites, we put it out there as an opportunity but no, there’s
a flexibility on how that can have developed and how that can be elaborated and the openness or
closedness of it can vary.
Chair Lew: Thank you. Ok and then on the community room?
Mr. Cusenbery: The community room, the thought on that – on the windows, the way that the – I’m
going to – position yourself in the community room looking towards – like you just walked into the lobby
and what you have in the community room is to your left, which is the plaza side, there’s a header that
where the windows only go up to, I think it’s 10-feet. Basically, the idea is that it’s playing up the retail
datum of storefronts. Then in that same community room, in front of you, that lower area is opaque but
above it is a high window and that high window is on both – you can see it there in the picture of the
lobby on the right. The high window is on the entrance side and on the far end so that you have light
coming in from various sides in that space but that’s not a constraint. That is fixed, that is a design
decision that has flexibility. I think this view shows it a little bit better. You can see the high windows to
the left above the canopy over the entries to the parking structure. Those are high windows into that
same public – that same multi-purpose room actually – multi-purpose room. There you can see the kind
of retail datum of those windows.
Chair Lew: Right and then does the – the access to the multi-purpose room has to be…
Mr. Cusenbery: Is through the lobby.
Chair Lew: … through the lobby. (crosstalk) for security wise, does…
Mr. Cusenbery: Correct.
Chair Lew: … it does not make sense to have it – is it not possible to have doors to the plaza?
Mr. Cusenbery: The way that it’s – we actually entertaining doors to the plaza so yes, that’s actually a
hope but we have to make sure that it’s acceptable for all parties. So, we put that out there as a
possibility and we’re going to discuss that further. The idea those is that the access to that multi-purpose
room can happen after hours and the way security works is you have access to the bathroom, access to
2.d
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 21
the lobby and access to that room so you could have community meetings there that don’t need special
escorts to use it.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you.
Mr. Cusenbery: That was the second one and then the third one was the…
Chair Lew: The alley – the Jacaranda Alley frontage with the wall and the courtyard and the benches?
Mr. Cusenbery: In that case, the wall is positioned to – for a couple of drivers. One of the drivers is
providing the vehicles security distance so that you can’t approach the vehicles – approach the building in
a vehicle within a certain dimension. So, in that case, on the plaza side it’s all done with furnishings – site
furnishings but on the Jacaranda side, it doesn't with a wall. The wall is in part – it serves several
functions, one is that garden area is intended to be a visual amenity for the offices that are on the
inboard side. Customarily if you look at police stations, you’ll see that the window heads on the ground
floor are usually very high and it always feels very off-putting at street level; if you look at urban police
stations in particular. The idea here is that you actually – for the insides you actually have generous
windows onto this yard and then the wall is outboard so that there’s still visual security. Then on the
operations yard, the intent is to try to push the wall too as close to the property line as possible. Again,
distance (inaudible) to pedestrians walking on that side from the police standpoint and also maximizing
the space available on the operations yard. So, we looked at various configurations but in operational
reality is you don’t want to incentive people to hang out right at the edge there where it’s difficult to
monitor.
Chair Lew: Then you do have benches.
Mr. Cusenbery: We’re trying to – it’s about – we’re trying to be responsive to the multiple comments
(inaudible) (crosstalk)…
Chair Lew: You’re trying to break up the long wall.
Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah, we do appreciate the comments that we received from the Board here as well but
there are people who work in those areas and providing some amenities.
Chair Lew: Then my last question was just on the Park Boulevard and that front – in that setback.
Mr. Cusenbery: That is preserved primarily as a passive zone – passive seating zone. There’s raised –
again, there’s a parking structure under it so all the planters are raised, there are benches integrated
with it and in terms of the width – yeah, it does have the double – there’s flexibility on the width. So,
should it be determined that it’s not providing enough side by side walking area, we can certainly adjust
that. Those – that – those planting areas can become narrower and there’s no constraint that requires it
to be that way. The operational constraint doesn’t start till white area where we actually have a program.
Chair Lew: Thank you so I think I am in agreement with the – generally with the Board’s comments and I
guess I would say – well, we’ll see what happens we get to the next hearing but I guess the question
could be is – yeah, Wynne?
Board Member Furth: Kyu, does –I understand that these projects are coming to us together. The
phasing of construction is parking lot – parking structure first and then the next one, right? So, that we
don’t basically touch that parking – that second parking lot until new parking available. So, that makes
me feel a slightly different sense of urgency about the two buildings. I’m – not that everybody wouldn’t
have like them 10-years ago. If we’re closer to thinking that we understand what garage we could
approve would look like, is it helpful to focus our comments on that and see if we can give any clear
direction? I mean do we have consensus on what should happen or enough to give direction as to what
should happen on Ash Street and what – do we have consensus?
2.d
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Chair Lew: Why don’t we – ok, well why don’t we work on that and so why don’t we work on the garage
first and I think there have been a number of comments about the arcade, as well as the wall. So, why
don’t we try to come to a consensus on the recommendation for those two areas? Could we – well on
the wall, I think you were proposing etched concrete, which I’ve never seen before. I’ve seen architects
propose it before but I’ve never seen it in person. I was wondering if there are examples.
Mr. Cusenbery: There are examples and in fact, we have some examples which may not be in your
packet but we do have an example with a photo-realistic etching and that you – at some angles you
actually don’t see it and then from other angles, it really telegraphs. I will put a disclaimer in, we’ve
shown a graphic and we have identified it as a potential public art site. So, I think what I have to say is
that what happens to that wall is in part assuming that it maybe be selected as a public art site and then
will be in the realm of the artist. We would want to leave that – some of that flexibility for that so I’m
answering you only provisionally because some of the discussion was that well, the wall could be the art
site but then there’s the reentry corner. Maybe the reentry corner has something within and that
becomes an art site so this is the first stake in the ground but I think what evolves with the public art
component could inform it significantly. If we chose – sorry, just a -- we chose this end of the site as a
public art site because it’s visibility from the plaza and because there were concerns voice previously
about the narrow Sherman side.
Chair Lew: Ok, let’s bring it back the Board. On the wall, I think there have been a number of comments.
What do you think is the best recommendation?
Board Member Gooyer: I was going to say that I guess maybe that’s – I have a different opinion about
some of this and that is that I don’t want to sit there and design it. That’s not our job here and we’ve
given it some thought that it needs to be softened or whatever but – I know that – see I guess it’s one of
these things that the applicant wants us to give him as specific comments and everything else. Then if it
turns out that they do it slightly different to what we want, they come back and say yeah, but you guys
told me to do it this way. That’s one of the things I don’t like about that and now we’re being told we’re
going to tell them exactly how it needs to be designed.
Chair Lew: No, it’s a – just on the – the Board’s recommendation.
Board Member Gooyer: I think most of us have already done that. We’ve said that the thing needs to be
softer and all the other things. Now we’re talking – like going into specific individual items and telling him
how it needs to be done.
Chair Lew: No, I’m not saying that.
Board Member Gooyer: Ok.
Chair Lew: If the Board is in agreement that it should be softer, I think that’s fine.
Mr. Cusenbery: One the comments, just if I might, that I did hear that will be helpful to elaborate on is
the request for more openness and that is one of those items that it’s a direct contradiction to the
operational imperative of maximum…
Board Member Gooyer: That’s fine, we understand that. I mean there are certain criteria that you need
and that’s very logical and I understand that. I don’t think any of us have mentioned that. I think you
were the one that mentioned about the openness but it – more than the rest of us. It’s just that that’s a
very severe looking element. It – something could be a whole lot softer and still be closed…
Mr. Lait: Chair?
Board Member Gooyer: … of solid.
2.d
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Mr. Cusenbery: Then I misheard, I though openness was…
Mr. Lait: I’m wondering if it might be appropriate to take a 5-minute break just to give the applicant team
an opportunity to sort of regroup after hearing the comments and think about asking the Board for areas
of specific clarification or area – I mean clearly there is going to be some work that needs to be done but
it’s going to be hard to do in on the fly right now. So, you can just take a little break and give people just
a chance to regroup, I think that might be helpful.
Chair Lew: Ok, how long? Ten minutes or fifteen minutes?
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)
Mr. Lait: Ten minutes.
Chair Lew: So, it is – I have 10:53 so we’ll say 11 after – five after 11 or so. Ok, we’ll take a break.
[Board took a short break]
Chair Lew: Reconvene and how do we want to start? Did you guys – do you have something…
Mr. Cusenbery: There’s a couple thought and we’re formulating on the fly so I’ll do my best here. I
thought it would be helpful for us to make a couple clarifications or just elaborate on a couple of minor
points for – whether it’s useful or not. Then I want to – we would like to ask a couple of fundamental
questions as to what level these comments exist at so let me just start with the clarifications. Forgive me,
we’re working on the fly but there’s been a lot of discussion about the – enlarging the size of the plaza
and right now, I just to reinforce that this is a very, very small site for the scale of a Public Safety
Building. That is, it’s approximately 1 ½-acre site and if you go any communities in this area on the
peninsula or anywhere and they usually start at least an acre or larger. They do all have operational
yards outside them and so the building, in a way, barely fits. The building has been reduced in size over
the periods of years from 56,000-square feet to about 48,000-square feet but at this point, if we were,
for instance, shift the building, we’d eliminate the operational yard. That is a program and scope
reduction and operational impact so I just want to say that as a clarification. Another clarification is the
plaza itself, we just paced it off so it’s not extremely accurate but basically the plaza is roughly the width
of this room. So, from curb to building, this is the size of the plaza so that’s a second clarification. The –
another clarification I want to reiterate that though we rendered it with the police vehicle, that Birch
Street ramp is, in fact, Staff parking so out bad. That was purely for dramatic effect but not to good
result. I guess what I would do then is we’re going to ask for – if we could reach closer on a couple
things on the garage but I think what would also be helpful is – I completely agree with Board Member
Gooyer’s opinion that it’s not your job to give us design ideas and opinions. We’re – I wanted to clarify
that we’re not looking for that at all but there – the comments tended to fall – can be maybe simplified
into two categories of comments. One category of comment are ones that have a significant impact on
the operations to configurations of the building, such as moving the building back and getting rid of the
operational yard. Now we have a series of vehicles – fleet of vehicles that have nowhere to put them or
for instance, there was a discussion of breaking it up and making it curvier or changing the massing in
significant ways. Well, the volume of the building is the derivative of a lot of complex operational
interaction. So, those types of changes, what I would call – let’s call it for lack of a better term, kind of
structural changes, definitely have operational – significant operational impacts so that would be one
category of change. Another category of change though is one of treatment, again for lack of a better
word, where I think I put softer in that category or friendlier or different scale. Where it’s not attacking or
dismantling the core organizational structure but it’s looking at the resulting feel. For instance, this
extruded box shape is really – and the treatment of it is derivative of operations but for instance,
treatment might be, for instance, I think part of what is – I’m speculating that part of what might be –
people may be experiencing is that this is a truly fortressed building. It is ballistic resistant and it is
screening views by design, by intent and that in and of itself has some connotations with it. However,
treatment – if the material isn’t concrete but it’s unit bricks, right and it’s a friendlier unit material or if it
2.d
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 24
is more glass, which is tricky because of ballistics but none the less if there was more glass. Things like
that would-be treatment that aren’t structural. So, I guess what I’m – sorry, that was a little bit long
winded but the idea is that it would be helpful to know if your comments are specifically saying yes, we
have to structurally change this or it’s just a matter of softening and treating it differently. Oh yeah, so
then – thank you. Then there are just a few things if we could receive specific feedback on relative to the
garage because that appears to be the easier one. It’s arcades, do we provide them as a pedestrian
amenity and a mitigation of the scale and mass and volume with a garage, yes or no, we see them as a
hazard and would like them removed? So, that would be the arcade question. The wall question I’ll leave
that in your category but with some direction – not design direction but attitudinal direction on the large
wall. Again, in the context of vulnerability for the Public Safety Building and feedback on that. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you. I think that was well said. Let’s bring it back to the Board and I think I will
ask Board Member Baltay if you want to make a recommendation overall for the project?
Board Member Baltay: Let me address my fellow Board Members here. What’s been going through my
head over this break is that we ought to just say no to the design of the police station right now and
send this back so that everybody, Staff and Council and police really hear that it’s both items, the
structural and the finishes are not close. They are not going in the right direction. We feel we gave you
similar feedback at the first hearing. What we get back is a design that goes grossly in the wrong
direction. We get a lot of words from you, from the Staff, from the police that camouflage and twist what
our intent was and I have no confidence that this is going to do anything but the same thing next time
around. You’ll spend another $30,000 bucks on design work, another beautiful package, another huge
public hearing to hear the same thing again. I think the design is in the wrong direction and you heard
that from every one of us. I don’t know how to be more clear and what’s worked for us in the past is just
to say no. So, the question to Staff is can we separate this into two things and continue the garage. We
can figure that out and next time around we can get it through and just say no to the fire – to the police
building as it’s designed.
Mr. Lait: I think at this point we’re not a decision-making mode either in favor or against. We haven’t
agendize it in that manner and it’s been I think clear that there is going to become kind of continuation. I
think your comments can certainly be expressed and when it returns to the Board the next time, we can
probably agendize it for an action, if that where the Board interest.
Board Member Baltay: Can the project be split into two?
Mr. Lait: They are two different projects and they are two different addresses. We’re processing them
concurrently because of their relationship to each other and the neighborhood and also, for the purposes
of the environmental analysis.
Board Member Gooyer: Let me get – piggyback a little bit of what Peter said, is that I understand your
comment about there’s no action to be taken here but I agree that if we go along the same line or even
slightly along the same line for the police station as we’re doing now, I agree completely it’s going in the
wrong direction. So, even though we’re not taking an action, I think we could be very blunt and say this
is not the direction you’re going and it needs to change. Now that’s not a yes or no type situation but I
think we need to be very bluntly – I don’t know about the rest of the – but at least the two of us agree
that this is not the right direction. If it comes back like this – I’ve been on Boards long enough that if
you’re not very firm about saying we do not like this, architects having been on both sides of the podium
so to speak will say oh, well it wasn’t too bad. Let me just tweak it a little bit and we’ll keep going. I want
to get that, at least in my opinion, that’s not the right direction and I want to be very blunt about that
like Peter was. That even though you say we’re not doing any decision making here but I can guarantee
if it keeps going in this direction, I’ll vote against it. So, why waste the time and effort?
Chair Lew: I have a question for both of you, is that do you think the site is appropriate for a Public
Safety Building? Given all the constraints that you’ve heard about like the two driveways and…
2.d
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Board Member Baltay: Well, sure, what I see, and I’m very glad the Police Department is here, is that
there needs to be a little more compromise. What happens – I’m an architect, practicing, and what
happens is between the architect and the client, the architect wants to meet the client’s requirements.
What I think, with all respect, the police are missing is that this is a dense urban environment and you’re
putting some new beautiful, expensive police building in a very important downtown, urban retail area. I
think there needs to be more compromise on the side of the police as to what really is a realistic
accomplishment. For example, this concrete wall, what I heard the architect say is that it needs to be
solid concrete to prevent an active shooter situation from somebody up there shooting at the police
building and I say to you that that’s not a realistic target to give the architect and the design team. When
you do that, you set the standard – you set the bar so high that in the end, it’s not going to happen.
You’re going to go through this Palo Alto process and you’re not going to get the building built, which is
what we’ve been going through for years. Really there needs to be more of a sense of understanding of
what we mean by civic, understanding what we mean by a plaza and understanding what we mean by
making it not scary. All while trying to do your responsibilities of being civic stewards of our security,
which we all want as well but in this location, it’s going to be taken a little more compromise and I don’t
think I’m hearing that from you quite the way it needs to be -- to succeed. So, yes, to answer Alex’s
question, I think it can be done but it’s going to be a painful process unless you start to really listen. Not
just the architect, the architect is getting dragged through all of this to a large degree because they are
trying to meet the program.
Board Member Gooyer: Let me ask something then and this is probably going to go against everything
that everybody is saying, at least from what I’m hearing. What if we reduce the size of the plaza? I mean
the criteria of this is to build a police station, not a plaza. I know it would be nice to have a plaza there
but if the Police Department needs additional square footage for some reason to make the building a lot
more amenable and attractive for the next 50-years, I’m willing to give up part of the plaza so they can
get some ins and outs in the building, rather than a big concrete block. Your comment about I need
certain square footage and we both know a shoe box is the easiest thing to design to put as much
functional square footage in it as possible.
Mr. Cusenbery: I might if I could just elaborate on that in relative to Board Member Baltay’s comment
about compromise? The plaza as it is right now actually represents a compromise on the part of the
Police Department because from a security and safety standpoint, the preference is that you don’t want
invite mingling but I think it’s been clear, double lay along, that there’s a possibility of providing an
amenity. So, that was an early compromise of the Police Department and they said ok, well let’s be
careful about how we stage it because we don’t want people lingering around the building but we end up
with a nice civic amenity. So, to your point yes, eliminating the plaza would be consistent with
operational desires and wouldn’t require a compromise on the Police Department (inaudible) and
acknowledge the fact that it is urban and in fact…
Board Member Gooyer: I agree and the reality of it is, it – a plaza would be nice but we’re building a
police station, not a plaza that also happens to have a police station next to it.
Vice Chair Kim: If I could clarify my previous comments about the plaza size. I just meant that the other
all size could change. Maybe it does grow, maybe it does shrink but right now, I think the plaza is trying
to be forced with all these complicated angles but the reality of it is, is it’s just a rectangular plaza with a
rectangular three-story concrete building front. I think something there has to change.
Board Member Gooyer: So, the idea being if it was a nicer, smaller plaza you’d be just as happy with it
than a larger, sort of mundane one.
Vice Chair Kim: As long as the relationship with – from the plaza to the building is much more amenable
than it is right now and I understand that there’s a program to the building but I just don’t understand
why the building has to be so flat. I mean is there a way to cantilever the second or third floor? Is there
2.d
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 26
any other ins and outs that can be accomplished rather than -- I mean the only thing on the front of this
building is this portal and it doesn’t really even lead into the building, you have to turn.
Board Member Baltay: The Park Avenue side is only one-story and I mean that could be bigger to take
some of the pressure off as well. There are other things you can do.
Board Member Furth: If part of the program is to repel Palo Alton’s so that they don’t linger around the
building, I don’t think I’m ever going to be approving that aspect of the design. That doesn’t seem to me
to be consistent with our Police Department’s notion of their job and they're having fit into our
community or our understanding of what they do? I mean they need to be safe, they need secure
spaces, they need to be able to cope during fire and flood and famine and rising sea levels. I hope the
sea level is good guys. They need to be able to deal with a lot of things but there must be a way to
design a building that engages and encourages people to come it to it who do not have malevolent
intent, while at the same time providing security against those who do.
Board Member Gooyer: I think that’s one of the reasons that we’ve talked about. That’s why you hire an
architect as someone who has the training to be able to put a lot of maybe mundane functions in an
attractive or at least inviting envelope.
Board Member Furth: Exactly and when you all talk about moving the – actually moving the building in
and out. I mean there was this – I had a bunch of – a bunch of my notes are what does this mean, like
dynamic massing? I kept looking for the dynamic massing and I could not figure out where the dynamic
massing was or what it meant. Yes, buildings that go in and out are more engaging. Yes, a lot of our
most successful building – you know we were looking at our parking structure across from our Birge Clark
Post Office and one of the things that really struck me is that those – that building and the Wells Fargo
building across the street both managed to – in the case of the Wells Fargo building in particular, be
quite secure and yet have limited spaces that really invite you in with cuts in the building and second
floor archways or whatever they are – trellises. Perhaps we should – perhaps it’s helpful not to think of
this as a plaza. Perhaps it’s the front yard but it needs to be a front yard where I can sit down and chat
with somebody if I run into them; in my view. I think your point about would a child be afraid of this
building or to walk into it, that’s an important test. I’m confident that you can design an entry that will
satisfy the department’s needs and also engage small children. I really don’t think that’s impossible and
I’ve been in such places. I also imagine that it can be done on this site and I don’t think now is the time
to talk about materials and what not but I was not kidding about where does the public find a restroom
and I think the answer is in this building, right? Twenty-four hours a day, right? So, signage is going to
matter so that people know that. Anyway, that’s enough for me.
Board Member Baltay: My comment earlier about just saying no to this is re-inflected in me by Robert’s
questioning of one of the basic programming aspects of this plaza. That’s for us at the Architectural
Board to decide if there’s a plaza in front of the new police station. That needs to come from the powers
that are really driving this project and yet, it’s a very good question. Maybe we’re being too ambitious
asking for a plaza and for a modern Public Security Building on a 1 ½- acre site but again, that speaks to
the Board Members on needing to send this back to the drawing board.
Mr. Cusenbery: If I could?
Board Member Baltay: It’s just not – the piece is not there perhaps.
Board Member Furth: I’m not prepared to send it back to the drawing board until we put together
findings of why it doesn’t – negative findings, essentially why it doesn’t make a finding. I’m not prepared
to do it today.
Board Member Gooyer: Well yeah, but we’re not at that situation of an up or down so do we need to
have findings? We’re giving guidance right now. Maybe the guidance goes back to the drawing board
2.d
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 27
because it’s not going in the right direction. We’re not looking for an up or down, we were just told that
so we don’t need findings to make a judgment call.
Board Member Furth: You don’t need findings to make a recommendation but if we propose to turn it
down, then I think we do.
Board Member Gooyer: Ok, but I think what we’re telling them that if they keep going the way they are
now, then there will probably be findings that turn it down so let’s not go there. That’s not doing any
favor to anybody.
Ms. Lum: Chair Lew?
Chair Lew: Yes?
Ms. Lum: May I make a quick comment?
Chair Lew: Yes, please.
Ms. Lum: Patty Lum again. So, I appreciate all of your comments and we certainly take them to heart. I
just wanted to address the issue of compromise. I think we have compromise throughout this program
and what happens all along is that this is the site we were left with and our goal is to make it work.
Several of you have said that you think it can work, which is great but along this process with the huge
need in the community for parking. For better or for worse, the two projects where married and I think
we have to remember that the number one infrastructure project here is the Public Safety Building. I
think it’s probably -- the parking structure, we can get there and are almost there from the comments I
hear. I believe that in June I didn’t hear as strong of comments from all of you and maybe that’s our fault
that we didn’t take it the right direction but we certainly are hearing that now. So, I would encourage you
not to just kill the project but perhaps we can focus on the garage and then come back to you with a
different direction. Just one comment real quickly and Mallory is probably going to get mad me but when
I first saw the rendering of the Staff underground, I – I’m a police officer and I said oh, we need to
soften that. So, we are with you but we just didn’t have all of the time – we’re on a tight timeline here
and we want to keep it moving and it’s time and money and everything else for the City and the need for
this building. So, I encourage you to please, please, just – we are asking for guidance and we are
definitely hearing you but thank you.
Board Member Gooyer: The other way to look at it -- I understand and that’s not unrealistic to say we
need that but we also are realistic to know that this is a civic building and it’s going to be there for 50-
years or 75-years. So, you also want to get it pretty close to right the first time, even if it takes a little
longer so 5-years from now, people won’t go oh, geez they gave it a shot but it didn’t really work out.
That’s why I said -- let’s go back then, are you the ones that wanted – requested the plaza? By you
meaning the Police Department.
Ms. Lum: Sure, I don’t know that it was a specific request. We probably thought it was expected of us to
have a building – a civic building with this amount of money in it without a plaza would be – we could go
the Berkeley style. There really is…
Board Member Gooyer: Well so what you’re thinking – so, I don’t mean to put words in your mouth but
what you were thinking as a Police Department saying the powers that be at City Hall would like
something like that. Then maybe the compromise is that City Hall has to also compromise and say look,
we need a fully functioning Police Department that’s going to be there for 75-years and we can’t have as
big of plaza we have. We need an extra, I don’t know, 1,000-square feet to dedicated it too. You made
the comment that you’ve been compromising and I get the feeling that you think all the compromising
has been on your end, yours meaning the Police Department end. That may be the case, I don’t know. I
wasn’t involved in all of that but you know compromise means everybody gets some and loses some. So,
it’s like I understand you wanting to do the right thing for the community but I – to me, doing the right
2.d
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 28
thing for the community is having a well-functioning Police Department, not the size of the plaza up
front.
Ms. Lum: I think the only component – there is a component of the plaza that we like, for sure. We want
to entertain the community, we want to have a community multi-purpose room open up onto a plaza,
there are good parts of that so I think we need to reevaluate and I completely understand where you’re
coming from. We certainly are not the only ones that have compromised, everyone in this process has
compromised.
Board Member Gooyer: I mean that – but I’m just saying that maybe there are something that you
haven’t looked at or that you felt we couldn’t compromise on, whether that’s plus or minus. That the
multipurpose room becomes literally multipurpose where it serves your functions eighty-five percent of
the time and is a communal room for fifteen percent of the time; that sort of thing. Whereas other than
leaving it as a big empty Boardroom that almost never gets used or occasionally at night when a
community group comes in, you know that sort of thing.
Chair Lew: So…
Ms. Cusenbery: I have a couple – Chairmen?
Chair Lew: Sure.
Ms. Cusenbery: I have a couple of follow up questions that are just hyper-specific for the (inaudible) to
try to focus the conversation a little bit. At the last presentation, we presented the background on the
massing of the building. We show a number of perspectives and during the predesign phase we had
creates a two-story building that was spread out over the site or a three-story building that was more
compact. The reason we said was purely operational and also partly because we felt – in fact, the
massing of the three-story piece would be less conspicuous and it was my understanding that there was
agreement from this Board that in fact the three-story massing and the tucked back and setbacks and
the general configuration of the massing was approvable. Now, I’m not talking about the treatment, I’m
talking about the massing. That’s the dialog that I recall from the last one and so if that is a mistake in
understanding, that would be good to address specifically.
Board Member Gooyer: I don’t think so. I don’t think anybody has a problem with a three-story aspect of
it.
Ms. Cusenbery: Ok, thank you.
Board Member Gooyer: I mean am I – that’s not – let’s face it, some of the preliminary sketches you –
was – you said we’re just throwing some ideas out just so that – we also didn’t want to get to specific
about I like this, I don’t like this, when it was very early on. I think the massing part of it we agree that it
makes more sense. I mean I’ve always been a fan of you make the building smaller and higher and
you’ve got more of a footprint around to do things with.
Ms. Cusenbery: Correct.
Chair Lew: Ok, any other – Wynne.
Board Member Furth: I agree with Robert. I don’t think that anybody thinks that a two-story solution is
better than a three-story. We keep talking about how expensive this land is and that means we want
underground parking and a three-story building that can move in and out and invite people in and
provide light and air and private spaces for the people working in them. It does seem to me – I don’t
think we indicated that this particular building would be acceptable to us in this particular kind of volume.
It also seems to me that the work that we think needs to be done isn’t simply a matter of changing the
color of the plaster or growing ivy over it. That it involves more rethinking than that and I think probably
2.d
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 29
not that far away that there is some space to move back and forth when you think about the design
facing Birch. The fact that there’s a community room that would be accessible from a plaza to me seems
to be an enormous upside. We have a huge shortage of space for people to meet and for non-profits to
meet. I’m not worried about it not being used, particularly now that it will have parking, and that it’s in
the south part of town which is not an enough more serious deficit than other parts of town. It still does
seem to me that the critical path is to get the EIR completed, we haven’t even read it and we don’t know
what it says so that’s working in the dark to a certain extent, and to try to get the design for the garage
in a place where we can make the appropriate findings. That does not need to delay the beginning or
completion of construction for the Public Safety Building. That there is time to do what we think is
needed to be done without delaying occupancy.
Chair Lew: Yes, Jonathan?
Mr. Lait: I was going to try to get us to the next part which I think your heading too.
Chair Lew: Yes, and I just wanted to add one thing, just in general principles of design. I mean the way
that I’ve been taught is that the first say like 5 to 10-feet is the architecture of the building. You have
been putting some of that in the project so like you have the portal and the staircase on the corner and
you have some recesses. I think what I am hearing from the Board is that those aren’t working so I
would say work on that first 10-feet of what you see. It may very well be that everything else in the
(inaudible) is fine. It may be that you need more of those spaces and maybe the plaza gets smaller to do
that. Then I would also say that in the back of my mind I was at – I’ve been actually wondering is this all
just proportions? You know is the cornice to high on the building and would it be better at 30-feet instead
of 50-feet? I haven’t really come to a conclusion if that or if there’s something wrong with the
organization internally of the building but I think generally we’re trying to downscale the buildings and so
elements that are closer to what’s already – closer to the existing buildings on California Avenue I thin
would help. I think that shows in the some of the perspectives where you have the two big 50-foot
things, they sort of match the Court House but they are – I think they are overwhelming the buildings
and you’ve been trying to do things like putting the photovoltaics on the garage. You’re trying to break
the scale down and I do want to encourage you to do that kind of move. I think that is working in the
right direction. So, let’s move on and I think our – the recommendation was just to continue it and we’ll
let them debate it and we’ll see it again. As again, I just remind you that the recommendation was to
continue it next month but we’re putting it off beyond that because of the environmental review is taking
longer. Yes?
Board Member Furth: I’m sorry, (inaudible) your earlier comment that now is the time to speak and not
later. I do agree with those of you who have commented on – I think Robert in particular, on the colors.
If I’m looking at terracotta, I expect terracotta as in creams and soft – things that look good with vines
and that neighborhood is full of those colors. This, to me, seems much to black, white and international
orange. I mean I realize that is not international orange but black, white and terracotta.
Chair Lew: Ok.
Mr. Lait: Chair?
Board Member Furth: So, I’d be looking for a different…
Chair Lew: Yes?
Board Member Furth: … pallet.
Mr. Lait: I understand the applicant team would also just want to get some clarifying guidance on the
arcade alongside the garage.
Chair Lew: Aw, yes, ok.
2.d
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Board Member Baltay: I think you should get rid of the arcade.
Board Member Gooyer: I think if they want more parking, yeah, I do too; emphasize the parking. It’s a
parking garage.
Chair Lew: Any other comments on the arcade?
Board Member Furth: I think its space 11-feet high and 20-feet deep, is that what it is? Not attractive for
anybody. I would like to see the building moved out, leaving enough space for a generous sidewalk with
some attractive landscaping to my…
Mr. Cusenbery: Sorry, I just…
Board Member Furth: …(inaudible).
Mr. Cusenbery: …want to say that I – just from our experience that those are mutually exclusive
currently. That the – removing the arcade will just give us the City sidewalk because the…
Board Member Furth: How many feet in that particular place?
Mr. Cusenbery: I believe it’s 8-feet and that includes where the trees are planted. I…
Board Member Furth: No, it’s on the street.
Mr. Cusenbery: …hope I have that right but they – that includes where the street tree so the walkway is
about 5-feet clear.
Board Member Furth: What do you all think?
Chair Lew: Well, so on the arcade – you know like the famous arcades in Europe, the arcade is the
sidewalk. There isn’t a sidewalk beyond the arcade and they are often 20-feet wide and maybe even 20-
feet high or more; like things like [phonetics] [Roota vel lee] or [Belonia] or [Burn] and there are
countless examples of that. I was recently at the small scale one in Santa Fe and it was all – I think it’s
all lined with Native American selling jewelry and it’s great. I guess the – my question here is what -- I
mean say you have art and all of that but actually happens there? If it’s only a passageway then I think
it’s too big and I think Wynne was sort of hinting that maybe it’s planting there in part of it and I think
that could work. I would say Ash Street is narrow right, the sidewalk is narrow and the street is narrow
as well or maybe not this particular block. I think it’s some of the other blocks further down. On adding
parking there, I actually have reservations about parking on the first floor of garages. There have been
problems in – like Santana Row and also there’s a garage in downtown San Jose near the library where
they actually ended up removing parking spaces because it was causing too much backup. I think there
have been a couple Board Members who were asking for maybe consideration of a second garage
entrance so maybe that plays into those as well. Then I think I do want to acknowledge that we do have
in recessed areas – even here in downtown we do have homeless people who will use those at night so
that is a concern as well. I think it’s still better to have – I don’t know, my take on it would be it would be
better to have it than to have parking there. That’s my take so Kyu?
Vice Chair Kim: I mean is there a possibility to do like two or three parallels spots and maybe decrease
the depth of the arcade? I think it’s really the proportions of it that disturb me more than anything else.
Board Member Gooyer: Maybe we just leave it at this, it can be redesigned and if that means a couple
parking spaces and some modification like a wider sidewalk and that sort of thing.
2.d
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Page 31
Chair Lew: Then the other – I mean then consider if it’s something more open – if it can be more open
than the solid concrete wall. Again, that’s going to depend on the artwork as well and that – I mean a
great piece of artwork would go a long way in that space. Where there any other design issues that you
wanted the Board to comment on?
Mr. Cusenbery: I believe we have what we can work with right now. I’ll look to my team, anybody – ok,
we’re good. Thank you.
Vice Chair Kim: Can I say a closing comment? While this was a beautiful package, I think we really need
to be able to see the floor plans and more of the surrounding site on some of these floor plans and a
little bit larger, especially when we are given the half size. I know that one of the Board Members
received the full size and also some of the labeling on the floor plans was reversed on the top and
bottom so just keep an eye on that.
Mr. Cusenbery: Noted.
Chair Lew: Well, this was quite an item. We are at 11:40 and I think we were…
MOTION
Board Member Baltay: Alex, can I make a motion that we continue this project…
Chair Lew: Oh, yes.
Board Member Baltay: … to a date uncertain.
Chair Lew: Do we have a second?
Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second.
Chair Lew: All in favor? Opposed? None.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0
2.d
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
E
x
c
e
r
p
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
R
B
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
t
h
2
0
1
7
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND COMPLETION
Of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
Pursuant to Sections 15086 and 15087, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, this Notice is
given to advise interested parties and public agencies that the City of Palo Alto has completed a
Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the proposed project described below and
that the Draft EIR is available for public review. The project description, location, and the
potential environmental effects are discussed below. The project is not listed as a hazardous
materials site under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code; however, the project site is
included in the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) designated groundwater study area because
groundwater containing volatile organic compounds from the Hewlett-Packard/Varian
groundwater contaminant plume extends onto the project site.
PROJECT TITLE City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building and California Avenue
Parking Garage
PROJECT APPLICANT City of Palo Alto
PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Palo Alto (City/project applicant) proposes to
relocate its Police Department, Fire Administration, Emergency Communications
Center (911), Office of Emergency Services, Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and
associated parking and other support spaces from its current downtown location at the
Palo Alto Civic Center at 275 Forest Avenue to a new, approximately 45,000 to 50,000
square-foot Public Safety Building (PSB) at 250 Sherman Avenue, designed to meet the
operational and essential facility standards for police and emergency service providers.
The City also proposes to construct a new, adjacent 636-space public parking garage at
350 Sherman Avenue (California Avenue Parking Garage), to provide approximately
326 net new public parking spaces for the California Avenue commercial area. The
construction of the PSB and adjacent parking garage, along with text amendments to
the Public Facilities Zone District Site Development Standards and Parking and Loading
requirements, comprise the Project. (It is assumed that that space vacated in the civic
center will be backfilled with other, existing City employees, and no substantive change
in use will occur at that location.)
PROJECT LOCATION Approximately 2.23 acres at 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue; two
City blocks fronting Sherman Avenue on the southeast and
bounded by Jacaranda Lane to the northwest, Ash Street to the
southwest, and Park Boulevard to the northeast, and bisected by
Birch Street, within the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County,
California.
2.e
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
N
O
A
-
N
O
C
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto Notice of Availability P a g e | 2
PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Draft EIR identifies potentially significant environmental impacts in the following issue area
topics:
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Noise
REVIEW PERIOD
Consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15105), the Draft EIR will be available for
public comment for a 45-day review period, at minimum. The Draft EIR is available for viewing
during normal business hours in the Planning and Community Environment (PCE) Department
office (fifth floor) at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, at the Downtown library and
the College Terrace library during library hours, and via the project webpage. The Draft EIR is
viewable here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3339&TargetID=145. The
public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report will begin on January 8, 2018
and end on February 22, 2018. Comments may be submitted, in writing, by 5:00 PM on
February 22, 2018 and addressed to:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Planning & Community Environmental Department
City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Email: Amy.French@cityofpaloalto.org
PUBLIC MEETING
The City of Palo Alto will hold a public hearing with the Planning and Transportation
Commission at 6 PM on January 31, 2018 to consider the proposed text changes to Chapter
18.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and hear public testimony regarding the Draft EIR for the
Project. The Architectural Review Board meeting at 8:30 AM on January 18, 2018, held to
review and recommend the design of the public parking garage component of the Project, is
another opportunity for the public to make comments on the DEIR. Both public meetings will be
held in the Council Chambers at the address above.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, listening assistive
devices are available in the Council Chambers and Council Conference Room. Sign
language interpreters will be provided upon request with 72 hours advance notice.
Signature (Public Agency) Title Date
2.e
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
N
O
A
-
N
O
C
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. 1
California Avenue Parking Garage, Palo Alto CA December 13, 2017
Project Narrative
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The California Avenue Garage project occupies one city block on Sherman Avenue,
between Birch and Ash Streets and Jacaranda Lane. During the ARB formal review
session in October 2017, the ARB reviewed an initial draft design for this structure as
part of a review of the two-block development including the Public Safety Building
(PSB). The ARB had an opportunity to offer input about the garage design, and provided
generally favorable feedback. “A potentially handsome building,” and “almost there”
were some of the high-level comments provided. There were also statements
delineating areas requiring further design development, such as the “imposing”
concrete wall on Birch and the arcade along Ash Street. The arcade has been removed
as a result of the ARB direction. This submittal addresses the other areas identified as
needing further development.
00 OVERVIEW
The California Avenue Garage (Garage) at 350 Sherman Ave, is located on the City’s
existing surface Parking Lot C7. The parking garage is a four-story above grade and two-
story below grade, with roughly 636 stalls serving the California Avenue Business
District. The parking garage provides approximately 326 new parking spaces and
replaces existing parking on Parking Lot C6 for the PSB. The parking structure fills its
site to nearly the property lines. The height of the California Avenue Garage will be
approximately 49'-0" above sidewalk level to top of roof-mounted photovoltaic panels.
The design utilizes strategies such as a cascading exterior grand staircase and
landscaped setback (on Birch Street), and a partial-block pedestrian arcade leading to a
mid-block paseo (on Jacaranda) to some scale-mitigating site amenities.
As a public-serving amenity, the garage’s key design imperatives include ease of
wayfinding, pedestrian amenities, and a perimeter skin that offers an engaging visual
character when viewed by its neighbors.
The California Avenue Garage is part of the City’s infrastructure plan which includes the
new Public Safety Building (PSB) at 250 Sherman Ave., on the City’s existing surface
Parking Lot C6. The PSB is approximately a 46,000 square-foot, three-story police
station and fire/police administration building. The PSB includes two full-block
subterranean floors of police parking and operations, and shares its parcel with smaller
operational accessory buildings, a secure operational yard, and a public plaza. During
2.f
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
'
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. 2
California Avenue Parking Garage, Palo Alto CA December 13, 2017
Project Narrative
previous ARB presentations, these two buildings were discussed together. The current
submittal focuses on the Parking Garage only, with the PSB design presentation to follow
at a subsequent design presentation.
01 GENERAL CONCEPT
This parking structure’s exterior is animated through its engagement with the sun. This
relationship has many facets: daylight-enhanced visual textures, overlapping dynamic
shadow compositions, solar energy generation, and lush landscaping zones. The formal
and temporal character of the garage is brought to life through this relationship with the
opportunities of sunlight.
This is achieved through several formal techniques. A simulated basket weave of terra
cotta "baguettes" (i.e. a masonry cylinder-based sun screening system) wrap the building
and invite a constantly changing play of shadows; as the sun moves throughout the day,
the building surfaces become a dynamic and shifting visual texture. Photovoltaics at the
roof level absorb and convert the sun's radiant energy, the steady module of solar panels
offering a contrast to the syncopated facade below. Occasional solid walls play the role of
"canvas" to shadows, including the concrete shear wall on Sherman that hosts the
dappled shadows from street trees to the south of it. Climbing vines reach toward the
light. Translucent roof panels on the canopy diffuse and bounce daylight down upon the
grand exterior staircase. The slow-motion daily shift of sunlight and shadow is reinforced
and amplified through these design strategies.
The strong role of light is echoed after sunset through a strategic use of artificial lighting.
The terra cotta panels are uplit to create a nighttime equivalent of the daylight visual
texture. Interior garage lighting is diffused through the basket weave pattern, glowing in
an inverse of the daytime patterns. Trees have uplighting to project shadows onto quiet
walls.
This building is also a framework for movement of multiple modes. Programmatically,
vehicles will traverse the parking floors day and night. The syncopated elevation--a
varying play of opaque and transparent materials--both reveals and obscures this
movement, creating visual variety. Pedestrian movement is featured as well, highlighted
at the dramatic civic staircase cascading down the east elevation of the garage.
Descending to the direction of the California Avenue, the staircase becomes an extension
of the movement flowing toward the business district, linking parking garage to
neighborhood. Coupled with the dynamic shadows on the building, the combined
2.f
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
'
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. 3
California Avenue Parking Garage, Palo Alto CA December 13, 2017
Project Narrative
movements make for a dynamic presence for what could otherwise be a visually static
building.
02 SITE DEVELOPMENT
The landscaped setback on the west side of Birch in front of the parking structure
accommodates seating and shade for individual passive activities. The Ash Street
frontage is a pedestrian through-way with the City-standard sidewalk width and raised
planters. Sherman Avenue does not experience as much pedestrian activity, and has
been designed for quiet, passive shaded seating. Jacaranda Lane is a low pedestrian-use
area as well, and has been designed to support and reinforce the mid-block paseos that
connect the alley to California Avenue, with an arcade and deeper setback area to
facilitate access to these pathways. From a street lighting standpoint, all the pedestrian
areas will be lit with a low-level, focused pedestrian lighting that reinforce the intimate
and small-scale aspects of the plazas/streets, avoid light-pollution, and reinforce the civic
character of the facilities.
Vehicular movement is a key consideration in the site development of this block. Due to
its lower pedestrian volumes, Sherman Avenue will be the location of the vehicular
entry. The vehicular entry location for the garage has been established through detailed
study of traffic movement. The 2017 Traffic Impact Analysis report, prepared by Fehr &
Peers, recommends: “The Public Parking Structure’s driveway be located on Sherman
Avenue, near the Birch Street intersection. This location provides adequate queuing
storage on Sherman Avenue for inbound vehicles.”
The primary garage pedestrian entry is on the Birch Street side. This takes the form of a
dramatic exterior staircase that animates the plaza side of the garage with pedestrian
movement. These building entrance orientations reinforce the plaza zone with
pedestrian access and movement. The Garage staircase opens towards California Ave.,
acknowledging the civic role it plays in support of the retail environment. The secondary
pedestrian entrance for the Garage is off of Ash Street.
The site design has been influenced by input from City departments as part of the DRC
(Design Review Committee) process. Meetings with DRC, design revisions based on
input from various City departments (Planning, Transportation, etc.) including:
The Sherman Ave frontage has been revised to increase sidewalk width, add on-
street parking and provide pedestrian bulb-outs
Pedestrian access points have been added from the garage ground level to Sherman
2.f
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
'
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. 4
California Avenue Parking Garage, Palo Alto CA December 13, 2017
Project Narrative
Avenue. The on-street parking along Ash Street has been relocated to the
Sherman Avenue side in order to provide a wider pedestrian right-of-way along
Ash
The Jacaranda Arcade leading to the paseo has been made more
accessible/open by relocating the garage elevator core
The provision for native trees has been increased to 25% overall per City
Arborist.
03 MATERIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND ARCHITECTURE
The overall building volumes are de-emphasized, receding in deference to a syncopated
rhythm of a composition of three primary materials: terra cotta, smooth integral color
fiber-cement panel, and cast-in-place concrete. The alternating flow of materials
diffuses the sense of an overall volume, favoring a subtle shifting and overlap of
surfaces.
Formally, the Garage and subsequent PSB exterior designs combine to create a
resonance between the two-block development. They will share material qualities and
textures, but the two buildings will retain independent aesthetic identities, not
dependent upon each other for overall design integrity.
The parking garage massing is simple and unassuming. The focal points are the
outboard grand exterior stair that opens toward California Avenue and the basket
weave texture of terra cotta screening material. The singular garage volume is scaled
down by interrupting long horizontal expanses with a syncopation of material changes.
Large expanses of the exterior of the garage feature the slats that will support the
growth of a “green screen” vine planting. The skin of the garage is designed in such a
way as to ensure visual variety and interest independent of the green screening, so in
the event that the plant growth is not as anticipated, the garage still looks
good/complete.
The Garage is a cast-in-place concrete primary structure. The horizontal slat assemblies
will be of a high- quality terra cotta screening. The top level of the garage will have a
continuous canopy of photovoltaic panels supported on a painted steel structure,
providing shade as well as a perceptual “roof” to the structure.
2.f
Packet Pg. 82
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
'
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. 5
California Avenue Parking Garage, Palo Alto CA December 13, 2017
Project Narrative
There are several opportunities for major public art installations on the garage. The final
art locations have not yet been selected (this will be part of the public art process),
however, several potential locations have been identified. The reentrant corners of the
building are two such sites, offering high visibility from California Avenue, as well as a
correspondence with the high-use pedestrian areas.
04 LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT
The site development of the public Parking Garage works in tandem with the PSB site to
privilege the public pedestrian realm. Each of the four frontages are somewhat unique.
At each frontage improvements to the streetscape enhance the experience of coming to
and from the garage. The east side of the garage site “bookends” Birch Street working
to visually expand the perceived public plaza and landscape area across Birch to the PSB
entry plaza. The Birch Street frontage is composed of a series of raised planters with
integral seating and an area of rain garden planting at the northeast corner of the
project and additional native and shade-tolerant planting below the exterior stair. The
seating areas are distributed in three locations along the length of the Birch sidewalk.
Along Sherman the sidewalk has been widened (curb shifted to align with curb
northeast of Birch) to allow for street trees and rain garden planters and benches at the
back of walk against the façade of the garage. Along Ash Street there is a widened
sidewalk and planting amenities at the face of the building. At Ash Street the sidewalk
has been widened to allow for more generous circulation to and from California Avenue
and for healthier tree planting. The garage arcade along Jacaranda at the northern end
connects to the adjacent mid-block pedestrian paseo with pedestrian pavers that would
help calm traffic and enhance this connection. Vine plantings along the Jacaranda
façade help green and soften this face of the building as one travels along Jacaranda or
approaches by way of the Paseo from California Avenue. Birch Street, Sherman Avenue
and Ash Street frontages shall have pedestrian pole lights and planter mounted
landscape lights, in addition to building mounted lighting, to provide safe and attractive
passage around the perimeter of the parking structure. The pedestrian pole lights are
coordinated with the standard light used on California Avenue.
The general street tree planting strategy around the Garage frontages is to select
species that will thrive in an urban environment, provide appropriate architectural
emphasis and scale on each of the three frontages, and have relatively low maintenance
and water requirements. The tree selection also prioritizes the use of native species
2.f
Packet Pg. 83
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
'
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. 6
California Avenue Parking Garage, Palo Alto CA December 13, 2017
Project Narrative
where appropriate. On Birch Street the priority attributes include a larger deciduous or
semi-deciduous shade tree (> 40 ft. height and similar width) that will frame Birch Street
on east and west sides creating a gateway to California Avenue. The tree should
generally have a spreading, vase-shaped canopy, relatively fine to medium textured
foliage, and providing bright green foliage coupled with dense shade in summer and
more open branches in winter. The preferred species is a cultivar of Chinese Elm (Ulmus
parvifolia) likely ‘Dynasty’ or ‘Alle’ (Elmer II).
On Sherman Avenue the attributes include a south-east exposure, with larger (>50’ ht)
shade trees to provide summer shade and a more open canopy in winter. Ideally we
would consider matching the species planted across Sherman Avenue that are London
Plane trees. The preferred trees are therefore London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia),
alternating with California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) to provide diversity and a
native species choice.
On Ash Street the trees should complement narrower sidewalks at the face of the
building, and provide a broad shade canopy for this south-facing street. The scale of
these trees should be medium to large with evergreen or deciduous foliage and a
narrower form that will not conflict with the building facade. Potential species include
Silver Linden (Tilia tomentosa, Deciduous), Cork Oak (Quercus suber, Evergreen) and
Primrose Treet (Lagunaria patersonii: Evergreen).
All trees shall be planted at 24” to 36” box sizes and utilize a deck and post pavement
support system to provide soil volume (for example: Silva Cell system) installed under
sidewalk areas and over structure to expand tree root volume and ensure long-term
health of trees. The average extent of Silva Cell system components shall be from back
of curb to full width of sidewalk and connecting all tree plantings using Silva Cell 2 for
Streetscapes. Separation from adjacent water and sewer utilities will be provided by a
barrier.
The understory plantings around the Garage include the following typologies: Rain
Garden palette, Rain Garden Woodland palette, raised planter plantings and vertical
palette of vine plantings. On Birch Street the raised planters will have a woodland
palette due to the northeast exposure and overhang of the stair above, species will
potentially include dogwood, coffeeberry, ferns – Western Sword Fern and Chain Fern,
woodland strawberry, asparagus fern, and native Douglas iris, with additional attention
paid to woody plants to deter occupation beneath the garage stair. On Sherman the
raised Rain Garden plantings have a southern exposure and may include species such as
Sedges, Rushes, Salvias, Mimulus, Geraniums, and Iris. The plantings at the Ash Street
2.f
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
'
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. 7
California Avenue Parking Garage, Palo Alto CA December 13, 2017
Project Narrative
frontage will include flowering, trailing shrubs, upright shrubs against the garage wall,
and vine plantings at the columns. The Vine planting palette along Jacaranda will
primarily be Creeping Fig due to the northern exposure and limited growing space.
The irrigation strategy throughout is to provide a fully automated irrigation system that
is weather controlled and uses water conserving low flow irrigation heads and drip
irrigation where appropriate. Controllers and backflow preventers are intended to be
located at interior locations when possible or in vandal-proof enclosures screened by
landscaping.
2.f
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
'
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 8400)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/19/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue: Public Safety Building and
Parking Garage
Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 250 and 350 Sherman
Avenue [17PLN-00256]: Consideration of a Major Architectural
Review of (1) a New Three-Story Public Safety Building With
Attached Emergency Telecommunications Facility at 250
Sherman Avenue, and (2) a New Four-Story Parking Structure
to Provide 636 Public Parking Spaces above and below grade.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Council
Action Requested for Modification to Public Facilities
Development Standards. Environmental Assessment: An
Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared and
Publication is Anticipated in Mid-October. Zone District: PF;
Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Chief Planning
Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org.
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Provide initial comments on the formal submittal and draft findings, and continue the
hearing to a date certain of November 16, 2017.
Report Summary
This is the first ARB review of the formal application for the Palo Alto Public Safety Building
(PSB) at 250 Sherman Avenue and ‘California Avenue’ garage project at 350 Sherman Avenue.
The project will occupy two city blocks on Sherman Avenue, currently in use as public parking
lots. Environmental review of the project, in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), is underway. Publication of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is
2.g
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
anticipated mid-October. Continuance of the hearing to a second formal ARB review will allow
for public comments on the DEIR.
During its April 3, 2017 meeting, City Council determined the number of parking spaces for the
public garage and established the direction for a Public Facilities (PF) zoning code text
amendment. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) provided initial comments
during an EIR scoping session and is scheduled to review proposed modifications to PF
development standards on October 25, 2017. The PTC’s role is to forward its recommendation
on both the PF code modifications and DEIR to Council.
This report is intended to assist the ARB and the public to learn about the project so they may
provide comments the applicant can consider prior to a second ARB hearing, targeted for
November 16, 2017. Project approval by the City Council would be based upon Architectural
Review findings following action on a Final EIR and on the PF zoning code changes. There are
no context-based design criteria within the PF zone regulations. The ARB is encouraged to
provide specific direction at this hearing, so the applicant can quickly refine the designs; in
particular, for the public parking garage, which would be constructed first.
Background
Project Information
Owner: City of Palo Alto
Architect: Ross Drulis Cusenbery Architecture, Inc.
Representative: Matt Raschke, Public Works Senior Engineer, Project Manager
Legal Counsel: City Attorney
Property Information
Address: 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue (see location map Attachment A)
Neighborhood: California Avenue Business District
Lot Dimensions & Area: 140’ x 371’ (250 Sherman) and 130’ x 312’ (350 Sherman)
Housing Inventory Site: No
Located w/in a Plume: Yes, California-Olive-Emerson (COE) area (from 640 Page Mill Road)
Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes
Historic Resource(s): No resources on the two sites; adjacent to 350 Sherman (parking
garage site) is a National Register eligible resource, 321 California
Avenue, on file with the State Office of Historic Preservation
Existing Improvement(s): The two blocks of the site are improved with asphalt and trees in
planters in use as surface parking lots available to the public
Existing Land Use(s): Public Facilities - Surface parking lots
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
Northwest: CC(2)(R)(P) Zoning (commercial land uses)
Southwest: CC(2) Zoning (commercial land uses)
Northeast: CC(2)(R) Zoning (commercial land uses)
Southeast: PF and RM-40 Zoning (public facilities, and multiple family
residential land uses)
2.g
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Special Setbacks: None
Aerial View of Property: Aerial View of Property:
Source: Google
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines
Zoning Designation: Public Facilities (PF)
Comp. Plan Designation: 250 Sherman: Public Facilities; 350 Sherman: Community Commercial
Context-Based Design: Context Based Criteria are not contained in PF regulations
Downtown Urban Design: NA
SOFA II CAP: NA
Baylands Master Plan: NA
ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): NA
Proximity to Residential
Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, within 150 feet of multiple family residential land use
Located w/in AIA
(Airport Influence Area): NA
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: December 2015: Council directed cost/ impacts analysis and design
and environmental review of a 3-story Public Safety Building (PSB).
250 Sherman
350 Sherman
2.g
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
Staff Report #6069
April 3, 2017: Council provided direction on legislative approach and
garage uses/# of spaces. Report viewable here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56666.
Staff Report #7738 . Video of Council meeting viewable here:
http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-122/
June 5, 2017: Informational report regarding preliminary review
PTC: April 12, 2017: Scoping meeting. Report viewable here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56874
Video viewable here:
http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-46/
Excerpt PTC minutes were in the Preliminary ARB report (link below)
HRB: May 25, 2017: HRB Study Session conducted. Staff report link:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57906
Video link: http://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-37/
Excerpt minutes are attached to this report (Attachment C).
ARB: June 1, 2017: ARB Preliminary Review conducted. Staff report link:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58034
Video link: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-63/
Excerpt minutes are attached to this report (Attachment B). Three
different approaches were presented. Attachment H to this report is
the architect’s description of the ARB comments at the preliminary
review and applicant responses thereto.
General Project Description – Both Sites
This section provides a general overview that is applicable to both projects and follows with a
more specific discussion with respect to each individual project.
The architect’s project description (Attachment D) provides an overview, concept statements,
and descriptions of materials, site development and landscape design intent for both project
sites. Application information is available through the “Building Eye” website at
https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. For more project information, see the Public Works
Department webpage, entitled ‘New Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking
Garage’: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3339&TargetID=145.
In summary, the existing pavement, curbs, planters and utility items on the existing public
parking lots would be demolished, all parking lot trees would be removed, and new structures
and landscaping would be constructed and installed. The public parking garage at 350 Sherman
Avenue would be constructed first, to replace and increase surface parking facilities. The PSB
would then be constructed at 250 Sherman Avenue, once the parking structure is operational.
2.g
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
Design
Previously characterized as a ‘dynamic massing’ approach, the formal project concept is ‘a
series of civic points of contact’, designs that provides ‘visual variety and interest’, simplified
massing, with deeper recesses and textural variation. ‘Civic language’ is used through the
project to tie two sites together. The selected materials have a long-term lifespan, and green
screen use is limited. The applicant has provided an Opportunities and Constraints map that
provides information requested by the ARB at the preliminary review. The landscape design’s
functionality and intent are described in Attachment D. Landscaping includes street trees and
planter landscaping, wider sidewalk widths, lighting, and seating. Both of the city blocks will
receive new street trees, intended to signal that this as a “gateway” to California Avenue
Commercial District.
Signage
The plan set does not define where signage would be placed on the buildings or on the site.
Staff has encouraged the applicant to submit concepts for signage placement, to allow for ARB
input. It is anticipated that subtle signage will be used rather than large emblems over the
entry, as pictured in plans, to signify that three City service departments are represented inside
the building.
Requested Entitlements
The following discretionary applications have been filed:
Architectural Review – Major (AR). The process for evaluating this type of application is
set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and
recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director
for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the
Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR
projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the
affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project
redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in
Attachment F.
Zoning Amendment. The development standards for the Public Facilities Zone District
for parking garages in the Public Facility zone districts in Downtown and California
Avenue Business Districts would be amended to allow the parking garage above and
below grade encroachments into street yard and interior (alley) setbacks, and greater
height, floor area and site coverage than otherwise allowed by PF zone development
standards. The Public Safety Building would meet PF development standards except for
setback to a below grade parking facility and height overage for the emergency
telecommunications tower. The Planning and Transportation Commission will review
the proposed amendment and forward a recommendation to the City Council.
2.g
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Zoning Issues
The zoning compliance table (Attachment E) provides a summary of requested exceptions to
the PF zone development standards. The proposed legislative changes to the PF zone
development standards are intended to address these exceptions.
Public Parking Garage Description
The proposed garage would have 636 parking spaces within four levels of above-ground parking
and two levels of basement parking. The City Council directed that the garage should not
contain retail space, and asked that the project include design enhancements to the Birch
Street frontage as an appealing interface between the garage and the pedestrian sidewalk.
Council also directed staff to:
Revise the Public Facility (PF) development standards to specifically accommodate city
parking garages,
Include photo-voltaic (PV) panels on the top of the public garage, as shown in the plans,
and
Construct the public parking garage project component first.
Architecture
The selected architectural style is intended to reflect the eclectic mix of scales, materials, uses
and styles in the California Avenue area. The ‘civic points of contact’ concept is for material
finishes to be provided at key points. The color and material palette (for both buildings) would
include:
terra cotta (tiles or steel with terra cotta finish),
cast-in-place concrete panels with different textures, tinted to a “more earthy” off-
white color, and
terra cotta louvers and horizontal window fins in a neutral color.
A painted-metal plate panel is proposed for upper walls at all but the Ash Street elevation, and
a steel painted terra cotta color is proposed for the PV support structure. Placement of these
colors and materials is as indicated on color renderings in the ARB plan sets. Below images of
the proposed materials show two concrete textures (a photo-engraved texture for use only at
the Birch Street side and a wood-texture on the other elevations). Green images show a mosaic
tile wall proposed to face Ash Street, and vines on painted metal fins proposed at the central
portion of the parking garage facing Sherman Avenue.
2.g
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
Renderings of Garage
Above Image: Garage South Elevation Facing Sherman Avenue
Above Image: Garage North Elevation Facing Jacaranda Lane
2.g
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
Garage East Elevation Facing Birch Street Garage West Elevation Facing Ash Street
Site Plan and Encroachments
Above image is the Public Parking Garage Site Plan as of August 30, 2017
The garage would encroach entirely into the 20-foot setbacks on Sherman Avenue and
Ash Street, but will be set back a ‘to be determined’ distance (shown in plans as 36 feet)
from Birch Street.
The subterranean (and above-grade) structure would encroach entirely into the 10-foot
alley setback (Jacaranda Lane) for approximately 2/3rd the alley frontage length.
These encroachments will comply with the proposed legislative changes to the PF zone
development standards.
Public Garage Pedestrian Wayfinding
Pedestrian access to the public parking garage would be provided at all three street
frontages and also at the alley frontage, to connect with the mid-block paseo to
California Avenue from the arcade to special paving on the alley.
One elevator would be located at the corner of Ash Street and Jacaranda Lane. The
other elevator would be at the corner of Jacaranda Lane and Birch Street.
A grand, exterior staircase would scale the building end that faces Birch Street.
Two additional staircases would be provided; one at the corner of Birch Street and
Sherman Avenue, another near Jacaranda Lane near Ash Street.
The pedestrian arcade would connect the northeast garage entry to the mid-block paseo
across Jacaranda. Recesses included at garage corners allow additional landscaping.
2.g
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
Wayfinding signage proposals will be provided in a future submittal.
Vehicular Access to Public Parking Garage
The public parking garage vehicular access will be two-way, at-grade access at Sherman Avenue
near Birch Street. The vehicular access point anticipates gates and garage parking meters.
Ramps in the public parking garage will be aligned parallel to the long facades.
Civic Design
The garage features include:
An arcade at the alley side of the garage, designed to connect visually (with pavers) to
the adjacent mid-block paseo leading to California Avenue.
Raingardens proposed along frontages to provide storm water treatment.
A grand staircase and pedestrian arcades, for which the design intent is to give the PSB
greater prominence.
Public Art
A Los Angeles artist team has been identified for public art on the garage. Here is the webpage
for the artist recommended by the panel: http://www.ball-nogues.com/ The selection is
scheduled to be confirmed by the Public Art Commission on October 19, 2017 at 7pm. The
potential locations for art include:
The front façade facing Birch Street,
The unresolved corner at Birch near the alley,
The underside of the arcade at the alley, and
The underside of the Ash Street arcade.
Photo Voltaic (PV) Installation
The plans cover sheet and plans sheet ARB 01.02 provide renderings of the rooftop PV shade
structures. Plans sheet ARB 06.05 shows the proposed garage in a section. The project lead is
working through the PV procurement and usage strategy, and a public-private partnership
similar to the PV systems being installed on other City garages may be used, and
Public Safety Building Description
The existing 25,000 sf public safety building at 275 Forest Avenue on the City Hall site is
inadequate to meet current requirements of the Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act,
a 1986 California law resulting from the Legislature’s determination that buildings providing
essential services should be capable of providing those services to the public after a disaster.
This Act includes requirements that such buildings shall be designed and constructed to
minimize fire hazards and to resist…the forces generated by earthquakes, gravity, and winds.
The functions of the existing PSB would be relocated to the new, larger facility at 250 Sherman
Avenue. The new, three-story PSB would range from 45,400 sf to 48,000 sf in area and have a
2.g
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
height of 49 feet, with the exception of the emergency communications tower, proposed to be
135 feet tall. The building’s floor-to-floor height keeps the building under 50’. The microwave
tower would be placed at the Park Boulevard side of the new building. The height of the
proposed tower is requested to allow Palo Alto to participate in the Santa Clara County ECOMM
Network for PSAP’s (Public-Safety Answering Points).
An employee courtyard, with trees and seating, is proposed abutting Jacaranda Lane (alley) and
separated from the alley by a concrete wall. The design includes an overhead canopy to cover
50% of the vehicle parking spaces, trees to provide screening, and a perimeter wall to
contribute to the desired ‘courtyard’ feeling. Above-grade, the PSB structure will observe the
PF zone’s required street setbacks. The building would be set back 24’7” from the Sherman
Avenue property line.
Architecture
The PSB’s cast-in-place concrete panels will have a rough, stone-like texture. Below images of
the proposed materials show two concrete textures; a chiseled-texture to be used at first floor
level facing Sherman, and a wood-texture used on the other elevations.
Above Image: PSB Materials
PSB Renderings
(Next page)
Above Image: PSB South Elevation Facing Sherman Avenue
2.g
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11
Above Image: PSB North Elevation Facing Jacaranda Lane
Above Image: PSB West Elevation Facing Birch Street
Above Image: PSB East Elevation Facing Park Boulevard
Landscaping and Lighting
Above image is the Public Safety Building Plan as of August 30, 2017
2.g
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12
The plans reflect one Sherman Avenue driveway, vehicular access from Jacaranda Lane curb
cuts, planting and pedestrian/streetscape improvements, and pathway to a staff entrance door
on Sherman Avenue. Plaza lighting details and cut-sheets have been submitted for ARB review.
The submitted plans addressed the Transportation Division staff request for a narrow driveway
width for the Sherman Avenue driveway, in consideration of the pedestrian experience. The
below image is provided to illustrate the users preference for an additional narrow driveway
providing a vehicular exit from the operational yard onto Sherman Avenue. The narrow
Sherman Avenue driveway would be separated from the main driveway by landscaping.
Proposed Sherman Avenue driveway to operational yard
Below-Grade Encroachments
The subterranean garage will encroach almost entirely into the 20 foot street setback on
Sherman Avenue.
On the Park frontage, the subterranean garage will encroach entirely into the 20-foot
setback.
On the Birch frontage, the subterranean garage will encroach approximately two feet
into the 20-foot setback.
On the alley side, the property line location varies, so that near Park Boulevard, the
encroachment into the ten-foot setback is nearly seven feet, whereas near Birch Street
to a point approximately halfway of the length of the building, there is no subterranean
garage encroachment.
These encroachments will comply with the proposed legislative changes to the PF zone
development standards.
PSB Access
Patrol and emergency services vehicles will have egress to the subterranean parking lot
via a driveway at Sherman Avenue, with a ramp system parallel to Park Boulevard.
City employees in personal vehicles will arrive from Birch Street via Jacaranda Lane. A
ramp system would be covered by a ‘chacon’ and have a key-coded gate system. The
basement air intake is integrated into the high wall of the covered ramp.
2.g
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13
Secured police vehicle surface parking on site, near Park Boulevard, will be accessible
from Jacaranda Lane.
Pedestrians and bicyclists will have access to the entrance plaza via Birch Street and
Sherman Avenue. Staff will also be able to use a staff entrance on Sherman Avenue.
The Birch driveway ramp is not for patrol vehicles, only personal employee vehicles.
Civic and Pedestrian Amenities
The PSB includes an approximately 5,000 square foot public plaza with a variety of seating
types, as featured civic amenities. Raised planters would provide seating opportunities and
moveable seating is also proposed. Paving in the plaza will assist with pedestrian scale and
flow to the PSB lobby, and lighting is designed with a ‘tree-like’ motif. The plaza planters will
provide demonstration gardens highlighting water conserving, native plants.
Public Art
At this point in time, a request for proposal is going out to solicit artists, with the possible art
locations identified as follows:
The front stairwell,
The visitor area inside the front entrance, and
The Sherman Avenue frontage.
Analysis – Both Sites
Applicant’s Response to Preliminary Architectural Review Feedback
The applicant’s submittal includes a table (Attachment H) that summarizes the ARB feedback on
June 1, 2017 and responses thereto, organized by individual board members. The responses
are described for each project component.
Public Facilities Zoning Development Standards and Amendment
The PF zone development standards are more restrictive than the CC (2) and RM-40
development standards, where zero setbacks and greater site coverage and floor area ratios
are allowed. As noted, Council has decision-authority on this project and the proposed text
changes to PF Development Standards. The Planning and Transportation Commission is
scheduled to discuss the proposed text amendments on October 25, 2017. The Zoning
Compliance Table (Attachment E) notes the requested exceptions to PF standards. The PF text
changes would allow Council approval of this project for encroachments into (1) minimum
setbacks, (2) floor area and lot coverage, and (3) maximum height.
1. Street and Alley Minimum Setbacks
In the PF district, the minimum front, side, and rear yards:
“shall be equal to the respective front, side, and rear yards required in the most
restrictive abutting district; provided, that no yard adjoining a street shall be less than
20 feet and that no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet.”
2.g
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14
Encroachments, both above and below grade, vary for both project components as
indicated on Attachment E.
2. Floor Area Ratio and Site Coverage
For parking facilities in the PF district, the maximum floor area ratio and site coverage:
“shall be equal to the floor area ratio and site coverage established by the most
restrictive adjacent district”; in this case, a 1:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and a 30% lot
coverage.
The proposed FAR and site coverage of the public parking garage is 3.57:1 and 89.3%,
respectively.
The proposed FAR and site coverage for the Public Safety building is .74:1 and 29.2%,
respectively.
3. Maximum Height
Within 150 feet of the RM-40 zone, the height limit is 35 feet. Elsewhere on these sites, the
height limit is 50 feet.
The height of the emergency communications tower for the PSB would exceed the 50
foot maximum height, extending to a height of 135 feet.
The height of the public garage, at 40’7” to the top of the railing, would exceed the 35
foot height limit within 150 feet of the RM-40 zone district.
With the anticipated modification to the Public Facilities Development Standards, the proposed
project will comply with all applicable codes.
Multi-Modal Access & Parking
Park Boulevard is a bike boulevard and a school route for Escondido Elementary School and JLS.
Ash Street is also a school route for Escondido Elementary School. Sherman Avenue is not a
school safety route. Bicycle parking is proposed in the project to meet the demand. The DEIR
will reference a traffic study for the project.
Public Parking Garage Site Analysis
As noted, the Council directed staff to move forward with a garage that maximizes the number
of parking spaces, rather than providing additional ground floor retail space. The design
achieves the number of spaces as directed by Council. This is the first public parking garage to
be built in the California Avenue Business District for many decades. The business community is
eager to have additional parking spaces for district workers and customers. The site is within
Palo Alto’s only PDA (Priority Development Area), within the PTOD (Pedestrian Transit Oriented
Development) optional overlay area, and within walking distance to the Caltrain station.
Comprehensive Plan Policies
The following goals, policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are relevant to the
project:
2.g
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15
Goal T-8: (provide) Attractive, Convenient Public and Private Parking Facilities
Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and
California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs.
Program T-50: Continue working with merchants, the Chamber of Commerce,
neighbors, and a parking consultant to explore optinos for constructing new parking
facilities or using existing parking more efficiently.
Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business
districts.
Program T-52: Evaluate options to ensure maximum use of the City parking structures in
the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue areas.
Neighborhood Setting and Character
The project site, within an active commercial district, is across the street from a new mixed use
building on the corner of Ash Street and Sherman Avenue, and across from a multiple
residential structure on the opposite corner of Sherman Avenue and Birch Street. Across the
alley are commercial/retail buildings including 321 California Avenue, a structure that is eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places and has been long occupied by Antonio’s Nut House;
the building was the first “supermarket” in Palo Alto.
PF Zone Code Changes
The PF code changes are intended to address the exceptions from the code. The provision of
the Council-requested number of parking spaces depends upon these text changes.
Alley Dumpsters
While there has been discussion regarding how alley dumpsters used by the California Avenue
businesses might be addressed with this project, the provision of trash enclosures within the
building would mean the loss of parking spaces; therefore, they are not proposed with the
project.
PSB Site Analysis
Project’s Significance
The need for a larger PSB arose from the growth of public safety services and changes in
regulations. The new PSB and adjacent public parking garage were envisioned in the 2014
Council Infrastructure Plan. The decision to place the PSB on this site was the culmination of
many years of discussion with community participation. Earlier efforts to place the PSB on Park
Boulevard sites were unsuccessful.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines1
The following policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are relevant to the
project:
1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp
2.g
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16
o Policy C-62, design and construct new community facilities to have flexible
functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community,
o Policy L-48, high quality design and site planning, compatible with surrounding
development and public spaces,
o Program L-49, maintain and support historic or consistent design character,
o Policy L-50, high quality signage (no signage proposed with this application),
o Policy L-62, provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public
art,
o Policy L-70, enhance the appearance of streets by expanding and maintaining
street trees,
o Policy L-72, promote and maintain public art compatible with the character and
identity of the neighborhood,
o Policy L-74, use the work of artists, landscape architects, etc. in the design and
improvement of public spaces,
o Program L-73, locate parking lots behind buildings,
o Policy L-76, require trees and other landscaping within parking lots,
o Program L-75, 50% shade program (zoning ordinance update implemented).
Neighborhood Setting and Character
The project site, within an active commercial district, is across from public facilities (the
courthouse) and a high density residential structure on the opposite street corner, across
Sherman Avenue. The project plans include streetscape images and bird’s eye views to provide
information about the site context.
Plaza Size/Program
The PSB plaza, proposed at 5,250 square feet, is smaller than (one-sixth of) the plaza examples
cited during the preliminary review. The program for the PSB does not allow a larger plaza, but
the public lobby is designed as an extension of the plaza, and visual openness and four seating
types and plantings are intended to create a lively and useful space.
Emergency Communications Monopole
The pole, proposed at a height of 135 feet, would have attachments (not shown in project
plans) necessary to carry out the functions of this essential facility. It is possible that the
reconfiguration of the administrative wing floor plans will result in the provision of a parapet
providing roof screening for equipment related to the tower, and thereby reduce the extent of
pole attachments.
A Santa Clara County study indicates the required height of the monopole. The study may be
viewed at this link:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/911/Documents/ECOMM%20Digital%20Microwave%20Project,%
20Phase%20III.pdf). Many nearby cities’ emergency communications monopoles are also taller
than 50 feet. For example, Menlo Park’s monopole is 120 feet. Sample images below include a
monopole with "stacked" antenna and microwave mounts (left), a monopole with microwave
2.g
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 17
and some cross-members in a "crows nest" configuration at pole-top (middle) and Sunnyvale’s
PSB monopole (right) that is similar to what would be proposed for Palo Alto’s PSB.
Stacked mounts ‘Crow’s Nest’ configuration Sunnyvale’s PSB
PF Zone Code Changes
The PF code changes are intended to address the exceptions from the code. The provision of a
functional and safe PSB on this site depends upon these text changes.
Refinements to PSB Design
The current design will be subject to additional modifications to ensure project features meet
objectives.
Though the plans show the operational yard security fence meeting the ten foot alley
setback, there are concerns about the loss of critical space in the operations yard,
meeting the required ‘stand-off’ distance, and about the provision of a sidewalk along
the alley near the yard wall. The plans will be modified to show:
o the operations yard and employee courtyard wall abutting Jacaranda Lane,
rather than meeting the ten foot setback, and
o deletion of the sidewalk along the new wall for security reasons. The alley is at
sidewalk grade and is used today by the tenants to access an office building that
has its entrance on the alley.
Pop-up bollards may be added to allow emergency temporary closures of Jacaranda
Lane. Pop-up bollards will also be considered for emergency closure of Sherman
Avenue.
The next version of the plans will also show the additional driveway at Sherman Avenue,
separated from the main driveway, large vehicle to access the operations yard, since
access from the alley poses maneuverability issues for larger vehicles.
2.g
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 18
Color and appearance of the covered entryway to the garage ramp may be modified and
the cover may be lengthened to allow the proper placement of a full height gate to
prevent any unauthorized access.
Additional items to be refined include the floor plans for the administrative wing (that
will likely result in exterior adjustments), and possibly, the building overhang.
Consistency with Architectural Review Findings
Attachment F is provided for the ARB to consider the ‘generic’ AR findings required for the ARB
to recommend Council approval of the project. AR findings specific to this project will be
prepared for the second formal hearing. Findings will note that the project is subject to council
approval of zoning code text amendment.
Environmental Review
The public parking garage will replace the approximately 310 public parking spaces that
currently exist on both sites. Therefore, the formal project applications are considered as a
single ‘project’ under CEQA. The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the
authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State
CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The Draft EIR is proposed to be
published for circulation beginning mid-October, 2017, for a 30-day public comment period.
The DEIR will be viewable on the City’s webpages.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper
and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least
ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto
Weekly on October 6th, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred
on October 6th, 12 in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments and Outreach
Any public comments received during the scoping period for the EIR were forwarded to the
consultant. Public comments on the DEIR receive before close of the comment period will be
addressed in the Final EIR. In March 2017, community meetings were held to review the
designs for this project. The purpose of the meetings was to hear public input before the
garage alternatives were presented to the City Council in April 2017.
Attachment G is an email chain from several Birch Court condominium residents:
(1) asking if the parking garage entrance could be placed toward Ash street rather than
as proposed near Birch Street, citing competing traffic and safety hazards and noting
“the garage entrance/exit would be almost directly across from two other entries (to
the VISA building and to the Birch Court condo”, and
(2) seconding this and voicing additional concerns regarding air quality, noise and
sunlight have been forwarded to the consultant for response.
2.g
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 19
Next Steps
Timely comments on the Draft EIR would be addressed in a Final EIR for Council adoption. The
Draft EIR and project are tentatively scheduled for City Council review in December 2017.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may:
1. Continue the PSB component of the project to a hearing date uncertain.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575
Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Location Map (DOCX)
Attachment B: ARB June 1st Meeting Excerpt Minutes (DOCX)
Attachment C: HRB May 25th 2017 meeting Excerpt Minutes (DOCX)
Attachment D: Applicant Narrative (PDF)
Attachment E: Zoning Compliance Table (DOCX)
Attachment F: Architectural Review Findings (DOCX)
Attachment G: Pat Beatty (PDF)
Attachment H: Architect Response (PDF)
Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX)
2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
2.g
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
A
R
B
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
2.h
Packet Pg. 105
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
H
:
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
p
(
8
5
6
0
:
3
5
0
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
(
2
n
d
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
)
)
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 8860)
Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 1/18/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Junior Museum and Zoo Gable End Resolution Review Per
Approval Condition
Title: SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW: 1451 Middlefield Junior Museum
and Zoo (File 17PLN-00147): ARB Subcommittee Review of
Resolution of the Gable End at Main Entry Per Approval
Condition #9
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) subcommittee take the following
action(s):
1. Discuss and confirm the adequacy of the design for the gable end above the main entry
to the new JMZ approved by Council December 4, 2017.
Background
On December 4, 2017, City Council approved the subject project. At the Board’s
recommendation, a condition was imposed that required the gable end resolution to return
related to the final proposal for public art placement. The Record of Land Use Action approval
condition #9 is provided below; the ARB recommendation included this condition requiring the
applicant to return to the subcommittee with the final design for the gable end prior to
construction, because the public art placement was unresolved as of September 21, 2017.
Architecture Review Condition #9:
ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
return to the ARB sub-committee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction
of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. Resolution of the design for
the gable end above the main entry to the JMZ, if the public art piece is not placed on
that gable end, or b. If public art does get placed on the gable end, sub-committee
review of details for mounting of the public art on the gable end.
Applicant’s Response:
3
Packet Pg. 106
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
The gable end was previously illustrated with a proposed wind façade. Upon further research,
the site does not have adequate wind to support an active wind façade thus the wind façade
has been removed. Images of the resolved gable are below, followed by a preliminary concept
for the art installation provided by artist Charles Sowers.
The elevation view above view shows a place holder for the art concept from a distance
(reference tag J). Below are close up views of gable end without the art concept and followed
by a preliminary rendering of the artist’s art concept below that.
3
Packet Pg. 107
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
The artist’s concept is to insert child and wind activated pendulums through an opening in the
entry portico roof creating an interactive exhibit and featured at the main entrance to the JMZ.
The artist is in-progress on the design and development of this concept.
A video recording of the ARB’s last meeting on this project (September 21, 2017) is available
online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-70/. The City Council report of
December 4 2017 is available online at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62293. The September 21, 2017
ARB report is available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61805
And ARB meeting minutes are viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61851.
The subcommittee is requested to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether
the gable end design is sufficient or requires further refinement.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575
Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
3
Packet Pg. 108
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 8770)
Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 1/18/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 2120 Staunton Court: Subcommittee Review of Second Story
Bay Window
Title: 2120 Staunton Court [16PLN-00419]: Subcommittee Review of
a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return
With Project Changes Related to a Second Story Bay Window.
Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance
With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning
District: RMD(NP). For More Information Contact the Project
Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Subcommittee take the following
action(s):
1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions.
Background
On November 7, 2017, the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the
subject project consisting of the removal of the existing homes and construction of a new 3,124
square foot (sf) duplex. At the Board’s direction, the project has returned to the ARB
subcommittee for review and evaluation of the project related to condition of approval number
four. Condition number states the following:
Architecture Review Condition:
4. i. The second floor bay window facing Staunton Court shall be revised to reflect a similar and
appropriate scale with the French door entry below it.
Applicant’s Response:
4
Packet Pg. 109
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 8770)
Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 1/18/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 2120 Staunton Court: Subcommittee Review of Second Story
Bay Window
Title: 2120 Staunton Court [16PLN-00419]: Subcommittee Review of
a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return
With Project Changes Related to a Second Story Bay Window.
Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance
With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning
District: RMD(NP). For More Information Contact the Project
Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Subcommittee take the following
action(s):
1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions.
Background
On November 7, 2017, the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the
subject project consisting of the removal of the existing homes and construction of a new 3,124
square foot (sf) duplex. At the Board’s direction, the project has returned to the ARB
subcommittee for review and evaluation of the project related to condition of approval number
four. Condition number states the following:
Architecture Review Condition:
4. i. The second floor bay window facing Staunton Court shall be revised to reflect a similar and
appropriate scale with the French door entry below it.
Applicant’s Response:
4
Packet Pg. 109
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
The applicant has removed the second story bay window but has projected the French doors on
the first floor. The applicant has also added a small window to the right hand side of the French
doors on the first floor. The images below show the project plans that the ARB evaluated in the
October hearing, followed by the proposed revision.
Figure 1 – Original Proposal
Figure 2 – Revised Plans
4
Packet Pg. 110
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Staff’s Analysis/Feedback:
The extended French doors add three more square feet (3 sf) to the floor area than what was
previously approved, but the overall floor area remains less than the maximum allowed by the
zone district. The projection is also consistent with setback standards by maintaining a 20 ft.
minimum setback from the property line. Additionally, the projected front doors include a
pitched roof that is similar to the mid-level roof separating the first and second levels and
would be required to have the same composition style material. The proposed window on the
first floor would be aluminum clad, which is the same as the windows proposed for the rest of
the house.
Architecture Review Condition:
4. ii. The applicant shall recess the electrical panel for the project.
Applicant’s Response:
The applicant noted that the electrical panel will be recessed in the construction documents.
Staff’s Analysis/Feedback:
The recessed electrical panel will occur along Oxford. Given the condition of approval, staff will
ensure the electrical panel is recessed during the plan check process.
4
Packet Pg. 111
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online:
http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-72/
Meeting minutes from the October 19, 2017 meeting are available online at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62441
The Board is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the
proposed changes are sufficient or requires further refinement.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information
Adam Petersen, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(408) 340-5642 (650) 329-2575
apetersen@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Project Plans (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
4
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment A
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the
public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of
City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning
2. Search for “2120 Staunton Court” and open the record by clicking on the green
dot
3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option
4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments”
5. Open the attachment named “2120 Staunton ARB SubCommittee.pdf”
4.a
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
l
a
n
s
(
8
7
7
0
:
2
1
2
0
S
t
a
u
n
t
o
n
C
o
u
r
t
:
S
u
b
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
S
e
c
o
n
d
S
t
o
r
y
B
a
y
W
i
n
d
o
w
)